Uma Sharma vs Yashpal Bhanot and Others

V.K. Jain, J.—This is a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No. 1 and sister of defendants 2 and 3. In the plaint, she had sought partition of property bearing Municipal No. M-63, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018, admeasuring 153.40 sq/mt. and ancestral property at village Dhihana, PO Baddon, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab, measuring 2 kila, 12 kanal, 16 marlas. It has been alleged in para 2 of the plaint that the properties set out above are either ancestral property or the properties purchased from the sale proceeds of ancestral properties. In para 9 of the plaint, it has been alleged that late Shri Walaiti Ram Bhanot, grandfather of the plaintiff, owned property No. A-4, Lajpat Nagar-III, which he has purchased at the time he was working with LIC. It has also been alleged that Shri Walaiti Ram Bhanot also owned ancestral properties mentioned in this paragraph. In para 10, it is alleged that the defendants, in order to deprive the plaintiffs of her share, sold the property No. A-4, Lajpat Nagar-III and property No. M-63, Vikaspuri, New Delhi was purchased in the name of Shri Walaiti Ram Bhanot and defendant No. 1. IA No. 20698/2011 has been filed by the defendants, seeking rejection of the plaint primarily on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. Another plea taken in the application is that this Court has no jurisdiction qua the properties situated in Punjab.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he has already filed an application in the Registry, seeking deletion of the relief with respect to properties situated in Punjab and, therefore, he is not pressing the suit to the extent it pertains to partition of the properties situated in Punjab. According to him, another suit has already been filed by the plaintiff in Hoshiarpur for partition of those properties.

The Court while considering an application for rejection of the plaint can look into only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. The defence taken by the defendant is not to be considered while examining such an application and validity of the documents filed by the plaintiff also cannot be examined at this stage.

As regards property No. M-63, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the case of the plaintiff is that this property was purchased from the funds generated by sale of property No. A-4, Lajpat Nagar-III, which in turn was purchased from the sale of ancestral property in Punjab.

However, a perusal of the plaint would show that there is not an iota of allegation that property No. A-4, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi was purchased by late Shri Walaiti Ram Bhanot, grandfather of the plaintiff, from sale of some ancestral properties in Punjab. The averment in para 9 of the plaint, on the other hand, is that he purchased the said property when he was working with LIC. It is not in dispute that the property was purchased by Shri Walaiti Ram Bhanot in his own name. In the absence of any averment to this effect, I cannot take note of the contention that property No. A-4, Lajpat Nagar-III was purchased by sale of some ancestral property is in Punjab.

As far as sale proceeds of property No. A-4 Lajpat Nagar-III are concerned, the same, according to the plaintiff herself, were used for purchase of property No. M-63, Vikas Puri, in joint name of defendant No. 1 and late Shri Walaiti Ram Bhanot. The plaintiff had absolutely no right in the sale proceeds of property No. A-4, Lajpat Nagar, since it was not an ancestral property and was the self-acquired property of Shri Walaiti Ram Bhanot. Consequently, she has no right or share in property No. M-3, Vikas Puri, New Delhi which stood in the joint name of defendant No. 1 and late Shri Walaiti Ram and under the law of succession, the share of late Shri Walaiti Ram devolved on his class-I legal heirs. She has no right in the property of his father in his life time. The plaintiff being granddaughter and her father being alive, is not one of the class-I legal heirs of late Shri Walaiti Ram. Therefore, she has no right, title or interest in property No. M-63, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. Since the plaintiff, taking averments made in the plaint to be correct, has no right, title or interest in Property No. M-63, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, the plaint discloses no cause of action for granting partition of the aforesaid property and giving a share in that property to the plaintiff. The plaint is accordingly rejected. All interim orders stand vacated and all pending applications stand disposed of.