Rekha Pujji vs Mahinder Pal Singh Pujji

1.This is a suit for partition filed by an estranged wife against her husband. The plaintiff claims to have been ousted from her matrimonial home by her

husband â€" the defendant herein.

2.Both of them were married on 30.11.1989. The plaintiff and the defendant claim to be the joint owners of the suit properties viz

a) C-4F/283 (Commercial shop + flat on Main Road) , Janakpuri, New Delhi; b) shop bearing No.17/2864, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi; c)

Flat bearing No.C-3, Amit Apartments, Mall Road, Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred as the ‘Janakpuri’, ‘Karol Bagh’ and

‘Solan’ properties respectively). The plaintiff is alleged to be in constructive possession of the above said three properties, being the wife of the

defendant. She filed a petition No.3107/4/2012 against the defendant for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code

which is pending in the Court of learned Mahila Court-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. She has also filed a Civil Suit No.224/2012 for

permanent injunction which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The defendant in both the

proceedings, in his reply had admitted the three properties are jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant.

3.The plaintiff has been calling upon the defendant time and again to partition the above said suit properties, but he had not come forward to partition

the same, hence this suit.

4.It is alleged the defendant is in the process of selling the suit properties and the plaintiff being a joint owner of ½ undivided share in all these

properties is entitled for lawful partition of the same by metes and bounds and in the alternative for ½ share in the sale proceeds of the suit

properties.

5.It is pertinent to mention when the defendant was proceeded ex parte a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 13.10.2014. However, the

order qua passing of the preliminary decree was set aside on 18.01.2017 and the plaintiff was directed to lead evidence.

Undisputedly, the defendant is ex parte. The plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and had tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/A and

relied upon the documents as

Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5. The document Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2, and

Ex.PW1/3 are the certified copies of the sale deed (s) of the Jankapuri, Karol Bagh and Solan properties respectively.

7.As per the observation of this Court, the document Ex.PW1/4 is the certified copy of the petition under Section 125 Cr PC filed

by plaintiff and Ex.PW1/4A is the certified copy of reply filed by the defendant; Ex.PW1/5 is the certified copy of the Civil Suit No.224/2012 filed by

plaintiff and Ex.PW1/5A is the certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendant.

8.The plaintiff had examined PW2 Shri Vivek Yadav, LDC, Office of Sub Registrar-II, Delhi, who produced the summoned record of sale deed dated

20.09.2005 vide registration No.26174, additional book No.1, Volume No.13226 at pages 157-160 pertaining to Janakpuri property.

9.PW3 Shri Daulat Ram Kashyap, UDC, Office of Sub Registrar-III, Delhi, produced the summoned record i.e. sale deed dated 06.05.2008 vide

registration No.3501, additional book No.1, Volume No.12757 at pages 24-32 pertaining to Karol Bagh - Ex.PW2/A.

10.PW4 Captain Mahinder Pal Singh Pujii is the defendant/ husband of plaintiff, who was summoned and was examined as a witness. He deposed the

original sale deed Ex.PW1/A was executed by Shri N.K. Anand in favour of plaintiff is in her possession as also the original sale deed Ex.PW1/2

pertaining to Karol Bagh property. The witness deposed the original sale deed Ex.PW1/3 executed by Shri Om Prakash Sahni in favour of both the

plaintiff and defendant pertains to Solan property is in possession of Punjab National Bank, Solan Branch as a security against the loan taken by them.

11.The defendant is though ex parte in the matter but has appeared as a witness on behalf of plaintiff and had deposed the original title deeds of all

three properties are in possession of the plaintiff alongwith the keys of the properties and the said properties are lying vacant and it is for the plaintiff

to deal with the said properties as he has never entered into any lease deed in respect of any of such properties nor had ever entered into the said

properties. The plaintiff then closed her ex parte evidence.

12.After going through the entire material on record and evidence adduced by the plaintiff and in particular the deposition of the PW4, I hereby pass a

preliminary decree of partition of above said three properties namely a)C-4F/283 (Commercial shop + flat on Main Road), Janakpuri, New Delhi; b)

shop bearing No.17/2864, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi; c) Flat bearing No.C-3, Amit Apartments, Mall Road, Solan, Himachal Pradesh

declaring the shares of the plaintiff and the defendant in the ratio of 50:50 share.

13.Hence Ms.Shikha Thakur, Advocate (M.No.8800984489) is appointed as a Local Commissioner to suggest ways to divide the above three

properties by metes and bounds or otherwise. The Local Commissioner shall give notice to both the parties prior to the execution of the commission

and visiting the properties. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at `1.00 Lac besides all out of pocket expenses. The fees of the local

commissioner shall be borne by both the parties in equal share.

List on 26.07.2018 to await the report of the Local Commissioner.