Shabnam Sikand v. Geeta Sikand & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 06, 2019 "bs/gsr".. (corrected & released on 17th May, 2019)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 6th May, 2019 + CS(OS) 242/2019 SHABNAM SIKAND ..... Plaintiff Through: Dr. Surat Singh and Ms. Vandana Kumari, Advs. Versus GEETA SIKAND & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.6552/2019 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) 242/2019 & IAs No.6550/2019 (u/O XI R-1 CPC) & 6551/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) 3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for (i) partition of property No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, claiming 1/4th share therein; (ii) declaration as null and void of the Relinquishment Deed dated 6th October, 2015 executed by Vikram Sikand, husband of the plaintiff, of his share in the property; (iii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party right or parting with physical possession of the property; and, (iv) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the possession of the plaintiff of her share in the property. 4. The suit is listed subject to office objection as to valuation and court fees. 5. Be that as it may, the plaintiff on the averments in the plaint, is not found to be entitled to the reliefs claimed and it has been enquired so from the counsel for the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff has instituted this suit, pleading that (a) Rai Bahadur Durgadas Sikand owned properties No.96 & 98, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, property No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and property No.7, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi; (b) an informal family arrangement was reached between the four branches of legal heirs of Rai Bahadur Durgadas Sikand, with one branch of the legal heirs choosing property bearing No.98, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi, second branch choosing property bearing No.96, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, third branch choosing property bearing No.7, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the fourth branch headed by Anil Sikand choosing property bearing No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi; (c) Anil Sikand was the owner of one half of property No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi; (d) Anil Sikand died intestate in the year 26th August, 2013 leaving behind defendant no.1 as his widow, a son Vikram Sikand, a granddaughter Rhea Sikand and a daughter i.e. the defendant no.2 Indira Sikand; (e) Vikram Sikand son of Anil Sikand died on 19th January, 2016 leaving behind the plaintiff as his wife and a daughter Rhea Sikand; (f) thus the plaintiff, with her daughter Rhea Sikand and the defendants no.1 and 2 have equal 1/4th share each in half of property bearing No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi owned by Anil Sikand; (g) the plaintiff was having access to the said property along with her husband Vikram Sikand and her daughter Rhea Sikand till the demise of her husband Vikram Sikand who was also keeping a room locked in the property; (h) the Voter ID Card of the plaintiff is also at the address of the suit property; (i) the water and electricity bills of the said property are being paid by Sikand & Company, a partnership firm in which the plaintiff is a 50% shareholder; (j) the plaintiff along with her husband Vikram Sikand resided in property bearing No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi for two years after marriage on 14th November, 1996; (k) now the defendants no.1 and 2 are residing in the half portion, admeasuring one acre, of the property bearing No.8, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi owned by Anil Sikand; (l) "the plaintiff and her daughter Rhea Sikand are entitled to 1/4th share each in the part A of the undivided 8, KG Marg property i.e. 1/8th of one acre of undivided 8, KG Marg, New Delhi as per the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2009 and hence, has filed the present suit for declaration of their title in the said property."; (m) the plaintiff wanted to amicably settle with the defendants and filed for pre-litigation mediation; in pre-litigation mediation hearing on 11th July, 2017, the defendant no.2 told the plainti