2018 (4) TMI 732 - HC - Companies Law

Grant of a preliminary decree for partition of property - defendants has argued that the plaintiff No.1 was thrown out from the HUF since he had sold some other properties of the HUF - Held that - A preliminary decree for partition be drawn up. On enquiry, it is informed that the property is constructed over land admeasuring 200 sq. yds. and comprises of ground, first and half second floors and is not divisible by metes and bounds. No purpose will thus be served in deferring the passing of the final decree for partition. A final decree for partition of property No.E-2, South Extension PartI, New Delhi is also passed, of sale of the property and distribution of sale proceeds amongst the parties as per their shares declared in the preliminary decree for partition. The parties shall however, before putting the property to sale to an outsider, be entitled to make inter se bids amongst themselves, with the highest bidder paying the value of the share/s of other/s. The Gift Deeds aforesaid are also declared to be null and void to the extent inconsistent with the shares declared in the preliminary decree for partition.

Issues: Suit for partition and injunction, Amendment of plaint, Ownership of property, Family agreement, Gift deeds, Written statement filing, Evidence examination, Property assessment, Agreement authenticity, Final arguments, Preliminary decree for partition, Final decree for partition, Sale of property, Gift deeds validity

1. Suit for partition and injunction:
The three plaintiffs filed a suit against five defendants for partition and injunction. The suit involved claims related to ownership of a property in New Delhi, purchased for the benefit of the family. The plaintiffs alleged contributions towards the property's construction and challenged the defendants' right to gift portions of the property.

2. Amendment of plaint:
The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint during the suit to include claims regarding gift deeds related to the property. The defendants had served an advance copy of the written statement disclosing the gift deeds, prompting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to challenge the validity of these deeds.

3. Ownership of property:
The plaintiffs claimed that the property belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and was assessed as such with the Income Tax Authorities. They detailed the family structure, contributions, and agreements regarding the division of assets. The defendants' actions, including gifting portions of the property, were contested by the plaintiffs.

4. Family agreement:
An agreement among family members dated October 25, 2006, was presented as evidence. The agreement outlined the distribution of assets among family members after the demise of the head of the family, specifying the shares each member would inherit. The authenticity and implications of this agreement were discussed during the proceedings.

5. Gift deeds:
The defendants had executed gift deeds gifting portions of the property to specific family members. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of these gift deeds as null and void, alleging that the defendant had no right to gift the property. The validity and impact of these gift deeds on the partition suit were crucial issues in the case.

6. Written statement filing:
The defendants' right to file a written statement was closed by a court order, leading to disputes regarding the filing and misplacement of the written statement. The closure of this right affected the defenses available to the defendants during the proceedings.

7. Evidence examination:
The plaintiffs presented evidence, including assessment orders and agreements, to support their claims regarding the property's ownership and the family agreements. The examination of witnesses and documents played a significant role in establishing the facts and contentions of the parties.

8. Property assessment:
Assessment orders by the Income Tax Department were cited to establish the property's status as belonging to the HUF. These orders provided insights into the history of ownership and the family's financial dealings related to the property.

9. Agreement authenticity:
The authenticity and relevance of the family agreement dated October 25, 2006, were crucial in determining the distribution of assets and the rights of family members. The terms of the agreement and its implications on the partition suit were subject to scrutiny and interpretation.

10. Final arguments:
The defendants sought adjournment during the final arguments, citing the need for clarifications. However, the court emphasized the closure of certain procedural rights and the finality of previous orders, impacting the admissibility of new arguments at later stages of the proceedings.

11. Preliminary and Final decree for partition:
Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the court granted a preliminary decree for the partition of the property among the parties involved. The shares of each party were delineated, leading to the passing of a final decree for the partition and sale of the property.

12. Sale of property and Gift deeds validity:
The final decree allowed for the sale of the property and the distribution of sale proceeds among the parties as per their declared shares. The court also declared the gift deeds null and void to the extent that they conflicted with the shares determined in the partition decree, ensuring a fair distribution of assets.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues, arguments, and outcomes of the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court in the mentioned case.

← Previous Next →