Master Janak Raj Chaudhary v. Shri Rajender Prakash Chaudhary & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. APRIL 25, 2017 'pp'.. (Corrected and released on 27th May, 2017).

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 25th April,2017 + JANAK RAJ CHOUDHARY .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Swastik Singh and Mr. Himanshu Dagar, Advs. Versus RAJENDER PRAKASH CHOUDHARY & ORS. .....Defendants Through: None. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff, a minor acting through his mother, instituted this suit pleading (i) that the defendant no.1 father of the plaintiff has abandoned the plaintiff, the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff's sister, and is in illegitimate relationship with defendant no.7 Nitasha; (ii) that the defendant no.2 Prashant Choudhary is the brother of the plaintiff; (iii) Daya Ram Chaudhary, late paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and the father of the defendants no.1, owned various moveable and immoveable properties mostly consisting of land and farmhouses in Delhi, Rajasthan and Haryana; (iv) Daya Ram Chaudhary, paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, besides the defendant no.1 had three other sons; (v) Daya Ram Chaudhary, paternal grandfather of the plaintiff died intestate on 23rd September, 1999 and as such properties left by him were inherited by defendant no.1, his two brothers and legal heirs of another brother; the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff was also alive at that time, though died on 7th October, 2004; (vi) that the estate of Daya Ram Chaudhary paternal grandfather of the plaintiff was divided amongst his three sons and the legal heirs of the fourth son; (vii) that the plaintiff and his brother defendant no.2 being the sons of the defendant no.1 also had right over the 1/4th share of ancestral / Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property inherited by the defendant no.1, being co-parceners under the law; (viii) all the properties purchased / acquired by Daya Ram Chaudhary paternal grandfather of the plaintiff were HUF properties and were purchased in the names of various family members who were to be in HUF; (ix) that in the 1/4th share in the estate of Daya Ram Chaudhary inherited by defendant no.1, the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 and defendant no.1 have 1/3rd share each; (x) that the plaintiff is thus entitled to lawful partition of his 1/12th share in the whole estate left by Daya Ram Chaudhary, paternal grandfather of the plaintiff; (xi) that as many as 12 immoveable properties listed in para 9 of the plaint were inherited by defendant no.1 from Daya Ram Chaudhary, paternal grandfather of the plaintiff; (xii) however defendant no.1 started selling, transferring, alienating and disposing of the properties so inherited by him; (xiii) that the defendant no.1 has so sold the properties to defendant no.3 Ved Parkash, defendant no.4 Ramesh Bhatia, defendant no.5 Rajender Singh, defendant no.6 Karnail Singh and defendant no.7 Nitasha as per particulars given in para 16 of the plaint; (xiv) that the properties being joint, the defendant no.1 had no right to sell the same; (xv) that Daya Ram Chaudhary paternal grandfather of the plaintiff was also the Managing Director of Qutab Properties Limited which company also owned several properties but particulars whereof are not in the knowledge of the plaintiff; (xvi) that the plaintiff demanded partition which was denied; (xvii) that the plaintiff previously instituted CS(OS) No.155/2006 for partition of the properties and to restrain the defendant no.1 from dealing with the properties but due to family influence and on the oral undertaking given by the defendant no.1 that he will sever all relationships with other women in his life and take care of the plaintiff and would not dispose of the properties, the suit was withdrawn to save the family pride; (xviii) however the defendant no.1 broke his promise and continues to live with defendant no.7 Nitasha; and, (xix) the plaintiff is in possession of two properties and is apprehensive that the defendant no.1 will sell the same also. 2. Hence this suit (i) for a direction to the defendant no.1 to provide to the plaintiff the details of the est