-Report by Sejal Jethva
In the matter of BHUSHAN KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. vs. RAJINDER KUMAR GUPTA, Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, the drawl of a preliminary decree of partition with regard to property is requested.
FACTS
The late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta unquestionably bought the suit property on September 12, 1976. The following information about Sh. Hem Chander Gupta’s wife and five boys who he is said to have left behind after his intestate death on December 31, 1999: –
i. Smt. Premwati Gupta
ii. Shri Mange Ram Gupta
iii. Shri Rajinder Kumar Gupta
iv. Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta
v. Shri Satish Chander Gupta
vi. Mr. Bhushan Kumar Gupta
On July 12, 2018, the mother, Premwati Gupta, also passed away intestate. Her 1/6th undivided portion in the suit property, therefore, passed to her five surviving sons, and the plaintiffs claim that as a result, each of the five surviving sons acquired a 1/5th undivided stake in the suit property.
According to reports, Sh. Mange Ram Gupta, the oldest son of the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta and Smt. Premwati Gupta gave his daughter-in-law Smt. Shalini Gupta his 1/5th undivided share. It is important to highlight that the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit are Sh. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Sh. Satish Chander Gupta, Sh. Bhushan Kumar Gupta, and Smt. Shalini Gupta. Only Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta, the other son of the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta and Smt. Premwati Gupta, and Smt. Premwati Gupta, are opposed to the relief for division.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION
The plaintiffs addressed the defendant to request a mutually agreeable division of the subject property, with each party having a right to a 1/5th portion. It is claimed that the plaintiffs approached the defendants regarding a partition that would be impacted by metes and bounds. The current lawsuit was filed on April 18, 2022, as a result of the aforementioned request not being granted.
Learned lawyers appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs argued that, given the accepted position in the parties’ briefs that the property was itself acquired, the plea of ​​oral division could be clearly rejected. Furthermore, since the property was acquired by the father of the parties himself and he remained the owner during his lifetime, there could have been no division, at least until his death, according to which the property could have been divided between his legal heirs. It was also claimed that if the father wished at all, the property could have been transferred either by gift or by transfer. It was argued that neither the plea of ​​oral division nor the plea of ​​such division raised by the father while he was alive could possibly stand.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
In these proceedings, the defendant has submitted a written statement. It is important to note that the written declaration does not contest the fact that the suit property was bought by the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta. The property would unquestionably be seen as having been bought by the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta on his own. The sole argument put out is that the late Sh. Hem Chander Gupta, who was the Class-1 legal heir, requested all of his sons during his lifetime to divide the suit property on or around March 1999. According to the defendant, parties agreed to an equitable split of the suit property and that an oral partition came about at that time.
JUDGEMENT
1. The Court is adamant that the presented defence is completely unworthy of consideration after giving it full attention. The defendant has not provided any evidence to support how an oral partition could have been created or established during the father’s lifetime. It was also uncontested that the fathers of the parties were the only ones to obtain the land.
2. As a result, a preliminary partition decree for the property at 14/1 Shakti Nagar, Delhi, is issued, designating plaintiffs Bhushan Kumar Gupta, Satish Chander Gupta, Santosh Kumar Gupta, Shalini Gupta, and defendant Rajinder Kumar Gupta as each owning a fifth undivided portion of the property.
3. The creation of a preliminary decision for division.
4. It is regarded as necessary to give the parties some time to decide if they can divide the property by metes and bounds. If not, a definitive decree of partition and/or sale of the property, including through the parties placing inter se bids, shall be made on the next hearing date.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3K7WYXO
