High Court of DelhiFAO(OS)/6/2017

Varinder Kashyap v. Vinod Kashyap & ORS

2018-10-16Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A. K. Chawla2 pages

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 6/2017 VARINDER KASHYAP ..... Appellant Through :

Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Mr. Venkita Subramaniam, Mr.

Amit and Mr. Rahat Bansal, Advs.

versus VINOD KASHYAP & ORS ..... Respondents Through :

Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan and Ms. Anubha Goel, Advs. for R2.

Mr. Anuj Malhotra, Adv. for R-5 to 9.

Mr. Saurabh Seth, Adv. for R10 & 11.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 16.10.2018 The ld. Single Judge in the impugned order was of the opinion that although several preliminary decrees could be issued in the petition - essentially in the partition suit, nevertheless it was more expedient to decide all issues pertaining to the nature of the properties and the respective shares of the parties.

The appellant had moved an application for decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC contending that the five immovable properties were concededly undivided and that in the circumstances, the preliminary decree with respect to the shares had to be granted. Further division of the movables - listed in para 11 of the

application (for decree on admissions) was also claimed. This court was of the opinion that as to whether the properties which are disputed or not may be a matter of trial but with respect what are concededly undivided assets, there was really no impediment in the drawing of the preliminary decree declaring the shares. Ld. counsel for the parties agree that the contents of paras 10 and 11 of the application (I.A.No.14702/2016) for decree on admissions are admitted. In view of the conceded position, the plaintiff, defendant nos.1 to 3 and 10 and 11 (the children of Late Shri Bihari Lal Kashyap) are held entitled equally to 1/6th shares in the properties listed in paras 10 and 11 of I.A.No.14702/2016. A preliminary decree in this regard shall be drawn.

It is further clarified that the property described in para 10(c) - it is agreed that it is the title to the entire property and not merely a share in it.

It is open to the parties to seek further suitable directions, in accordance with law, from the Single Judge in the pending proceedings.

This appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J A. K. CHAWLA, J OCTOBER 16, 2018 aj