9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lalit Sood died and had been substituted by his wife and two daughters namely (i) Geeta Sood; (ii) Sanya Sood; and, (iii) Anika Sood. The plaint was permitted to be amended during the pendency of the suit, according to the plaintiffs, to enable the plaintiffs to also claim the reliefs with respect to the gift deeds with respect to the immoveable property subject matter of the suit executed by the defendant No.1, as disclosed in the written statement, advance copy of which was furnished to the counsel for the plaintiffs. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, as per the amended plaint dated 28th January, 2012, is (i) that dwelling house No.E-2, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi belongs to the members of undivided family originally headed by Kishori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned property, HUF also had Account No.10732271872 with State Bank of India, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi Branch and Account No.493702010004912 with Union Bank of India, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi; (xii) that in October, 2006, the parties, to avoid any dispute in respect of assets of HUF, discussed the modalities to distribute the assets owned by the HUF and it was agreed that the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants No.2 to 4 shall share 30% each of the assets of HUF and remaining 10% shall be shared by the defendant No.5; (xiii) that the understanding arrived amongst the parties was reduced in writing in the form of an agreement which was retained by the defendant No.1; (xiv) that sometime in November/December, 2007, in pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the monies in the bank accounts aforesaid, have sought the relief of declaration of the Gift Deeds aforesaid as null and void and for cancellation thereof. 5. The counsel for the plaintiffs has informed that though the defendants had served advance copy of the written statement to the original plaint on the counsel for the plaintiffs and claimed to have filed the written statement but the same never came on record and the right of the defendants to file written statement was closed vide order dated 30th January, 2013. Attention is also drawn to the order dated 1st May, 2013 on the applications of the defendants being IAs No.7022/2013 and 7023/2013 stated to have been filed for recall of the order dated 30th January, 2013 closing the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant No.1 has been privy to assessment of Property No.E-2, South Extension Part-I as property of the HUF. 8. The counsel for the plaintiffs has lastly contended that though the plaintiffs did not have the originals of the agreements executed by the family members from time to time but the counsel for the defendants in crossexamination of the witness of the plaintiffs has put the photocopy of the Agreement dated 25th October, 2006 executed by the family members to the witness of the plaintiffs and the said agreement was proved as Ex.PW1/D1. 9. It is deemed appropriate to set out herein below the said agreement in its entirety: "AGREEMENT This Agreement is made with the consent and desire and understand of Sh. H.L. Sud, D.C. Sud, S.P. Sud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Sd. 25.10.2006 25.10.2006 25.10.2006 True Copy" 10. The counsel for the defendants, who though was interrupting the counsel for the plaintiffs and on enquiry stated that she was ready to address the final arguments in the suit but upon being called upon to argue, seeks adjournment stating that she needs to obtain some clarifications. 11. Once the suit is listed for final hearing after closure of evidence and after hearing the counsel for the plaintiffs, the question of granting adjournment at this stage, does not arise. However, the counsel for the defendants repeatedly states that the defendants have filed an affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the respective parties in the said property would be as under: (I) Defendant No.1 H.L. Sud : 1 share (II) Defendants No.2&3 Swatantra Prakash Sud and Ashish Sud together : 1 share (III) Plaintiff No.1 Dev Chander Sood along with plaintiffs No.2&3 Pradeep Sood and Pramod Sood together : 1 share (IV) Legal Heirs of defendant No.4 Lalit Sood together : 1 share (V) Defendant No.5 Neelam Gajri : 1 share 18. A preliminary decree for partition be drawn up. 19. On enquiry, it is informed that the property is constructed over land admeasuring 200 sq. yds. and comprises of ground, first and ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
