Shri Megh Shyam Sharma & Ors v. Vinod Kumar Sharma

* IN THE HIGH COURl OF DELHI AI NEW DELHI + TR.P.(C) 14/2016 % Judgmentdated25"' October,2016 STIRIMl-'GIISIIYAM SIIARMA&ORS Petitioners 'llirough; Ms.Sonal Jain and Ms.IleenaSharma, Advs. versus VINODKUMAR SIIARMA Respondent 't Through: Mr.SiddharthAggarwal,Adv. CORAM: RON'BLEMR. JUSTICEG.S.SISTANl G.S.SISTANL J {ORAL) 1 By the presentpetitionfiled under Section24(1Xb)(i)ot Code ofCivd Procedure,the pclkionerseeks transferof CS(OS) 709/2014titled as Vinod Kumar Sharma v. Megk Shyam Sharma &Ors.. filed by the defendantherein for possessionand mesne profits, from the court of Districtand SessionsJudge, Saket DistrictCourts,New Delhi, to the High CourtofDelhi.

¶2Learned counsel for the' petitionerssubmitsthat the petitionersherein have filed asuit, being CS(OS) 1822/2015, for declaration,partition and permanentinjunctionin the High CourtofDelhiwiththe Ibllownr. prayers; Pass adecrceofdcclaraiioninfavourof the Plaintiffsand o^minst the Defendantsiherehydeclaringthat the alleged Will dated 14.02.1987ofLaieSh. B.P. Sharmais a bogus, forged, fabricateddocumentand ofno consequencebeing null, void and non-est: I. Page I of 4 1R.P.(() 14/2016 fc. a. Hi. iv. V. Passadecreeofdeclarationinfavourofthe Plaintiffsand aoainstthe Defendantstherebydeclaringthat the alleged mil dated 14.02.199] of late Smt. Premwati is of no consequence,beingforgedandfabricated. Passadecreeofdeclarationinfavourofthe Plaintiffsand against the Defendants,therebydeclaringthe oralfamily settlemententeredinto between the parties and Late Sh. B.P Sharina in April 1984 by virtue ofwhich the second floor of the suit property bearing no.X-ll, Green Park

(Main),New Delhiwas givento Smt. Vimleshas the owner in possession,as beingvalidand.binding. A decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants directing the Defendants to disclose the details of the various oth^ moveable and immovable properties of Late Sh. B.t. Sharma: PassapreliminarydecreeofpariUiontherebydefiningthe respectiveshares of one-sixth each of the plaintiffsand defendants in the properties of Late Sh. B.P. Sharma includingthe suitpropertybeit^gpropertybeanngNo^ X-JI. Ground arid first floor, Green Park (Mam). New Delhi; .Appointa local commissionerwith the directionto visit thesuitpropertiesandsuggestthe modeofpartitionof the suit property; Pass a decree ofpermanent injunction in favour of the plaintifls and against the defendant no.I thereby ^straining the defendant No.I. his agents, servants, representatives,assigns, friends, associates, etc., from selling transferring, alienating or paring witi t e possessionor creatingany thirdparty interestin the smt properly: Pass a consequentialdecree ofrecoveiyofpossessionin favour of Plaintiffsfor the partitionedshare of the suit VI. VII. VIII. TR.P.(C)14/2016 premisesexceptsecondfloorfallinginto the share ofthe Plaintiffs; ix Pass a final decree ofpartitionpartitioningthe entire estate of Ixite Sh. B.P. Sharma including the property hearing no. X-ll, Green Park (Main), groundfloor and firstfloor, New Delhi; X. Cost of the suit may also he award in favour of the Plaintiffsandagainstthe Defendants.

¶3Learnedcounselfor the petitionersfurthersubmitsthat in case the suit filed by the respondentherein is not transferred,it would only lead to conflictingordersand multiplicityofproceedings.

¶4Learnedcounselfor the respondenthas opposedthe presentpetitionon the ground that he had filed the suit [CS(OS) 709/2014]prior to the filingofthe suit by the petitionersherein|CS(OS) 1822/2015]and the respondenthereinhave raisedadefencein CS(OS) 1822/2015and, m case,the said defencefinds favour witli the Court,the case filed by the petitionerhereinwouldbe dismissed.

¶5Ihave heard learnedcounselfor the partiesand consideredtheir rival submissions.Havingregardto the submissionsmade,Ifind force in the submissionmade by counsel for the petitionersthat in the suit, bemg CS(OS)1822/2015filed by the petitionersherein,they have soughtthe declarationthat the Will, sought to be relied upon by the respondent heroin,are bogus, forged, fabricatedand ofno consequencebeingnull, void and non e.st and in case the suit filed by the defendantis not transferredin the DelhiHighCourt,the same would lead to conflicting ordersand multiplicityof proceedings. To enablethe petitionerherein to succeedin CS(OS)1822/2015,the petitionermust prove the same as in CS(OS) 709/2014. Accordingly, the present transfer petition is allowed. The suit, being CS(OS) 709/2014 titled as Vimd Kumar TR.P.(C) 14/2016 Sharmav. Megh ShyainSharma&Ors., filed by the respondentherein before the Court of Districtand SessionsJudge, Saket DistrictCourts, New Delhi, is transferredfrom the said Court to the High Court of Delhi. CS(OS)709/2014will be listedwith CS(OS)1822/2015.

¶6Petitionstandsdisposedof inview of above.

¶7DASTI to the parties. -X. G.S.SISTANI, J OCTOBER 25, 2016 msr TR.P.(C)14/2016 ^