Gurmit Singh & Ors vs Jagjit Singh on 14 May, 2019
Delhi High Court - Orders
Gurmit Singh & Ors vs Jagjit Singh on 14 May, 2019
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(OS) 40/2019
GURMIT SINGH & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.K.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Rajiv Bakshi & Mr. Ram Pravesh Rai,
Advocates with appellant no.1 in person.
versus
JAGJIT SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate with
respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER
% 14.05.2019
C.M. No.18404/2019 (for delay)
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. The same is not
seriously opposed by the respondents.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 10 days in filing the
appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.
R.F.A. (OS) No.40/2019 & C.M. No.18405/2019 (for stay)
3. Appearance is entered by Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate on behalf of the respondent along with his
client. He states on instructions that he has not received a complete set of the paper book as notice
has yet to be served formally on the respondent. A complete set of the paper book shall be furnished
to the learned counsel for the respondent within two days.
4. The appellants are aggrieved by a final decree of partition dated 29.01.2019 passed by the learned
Single Judge in respect of two immovable properties, premises no.T-2342, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 and premises no.90, Engineers Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 owned by the
predecessor in interest of the parties namely, Sh.Satnam Singh. The appellant no.1, appellant no.3
and the respondent are the children of late Sh.Satnam Singh and the appellant no.2, presently aged
88 years, is his widow.
5. We are informed that the property at Karol Bagh is vacant and the keys of the said property are
with the appellant no. 1. As far as the second property at Pitampura is concerned, the same is a
residential premises comprising only of a ground floor where the mother of the parties has been
presently residing along with the appellant no.1 and his family.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/114463638/ 1
Gurmit Singh & Ors vs Jagjit Singh on 14 May, 2019
6. Mr.K.K. Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants states that there is no
quarrel with the preliminary decree dated 03.05.2013 passed by the Ld. Single Judge where under,
each of the parties have been held entitled to 1/4th undivided share in both the immovable
properties. However, before passing a decree of partition in respect of both the properties, the
learned Single Judge had taken into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner wherein, it
was stated that the said properties cannot be divided by metes and bounds. As a result, a final decree
of partition was passed directing that both the properties be sold and the sale proceeds distributed
equally amongst the parties, in terms of the preliminary decree of partition. Further, directions were
issued that the parties would be at liberty to conduct inter se bidding failing which they shall be free
to seek execution of the decree for the sale of the suit properties and distribute the sale proceeds in
accordance with their shares.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants states that on 22.03.2016, the Ld. Single Judge
had opined that having regard to the fact that the mother of the parties is of an advanced age, if the
Pritampura property is sold, it will disturb her. Therefore, the solution offered by the appellants that
the Karol Bagh property be sold first so that the respondent/plaintiff can be given his 1/4th share
from out of the total valuation of the two properties, was considered a reasonable offer, more so
when there was no dispute as to the extent of the share of each of the parties in the suit properties.
8. By a subsequent order passed on 27.07.2016, as both the parties had expressed their readiness for
an immediate sale of the Karol Bagh property, it was directed that the issue regarding partition of
the Pitampura property will be considered after conclusion of the sale of the Karol Bagh property. It
is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the above orders were overlooked by the learned Single
Judge while passing the final decree.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent does not deny passing of the order dated 22.03.2016 and the
subsequent consent order dated 27.07.2016, but seeks to urge that his client proposes that the
Pitampura property be demolished and rebuilt up to four floors so that one floor comes to the share
of each party and till the construction is complete, his client is willing to bear the expenses for
housing the mother elsewhere.
10. If the suggestion made above is acceptable to the appellants, it is for the parties to work out a
settlement with each other and approach the court. However, counsel for the appellants states that
his clients are not agreeable to such a suggestion. As the matter stands today, having regard to the
fact that by now appellant no.2 is a super senior citizen aged 88 years, we do not see any reason to
displace her from the Pitampura property.
11. In view of the fact that neither side has raised any dispute regarding their entitlement to 1/4th
undivided share each in the Karol Bagh property and the Pitampura property and the respondent
has not challenged the orders dated 22.03.2016 and 27.07.2016, in the first instance it is deemed
appropriate to direct sale of the Karol Bagh property, for which purpose, Mr. Gaurang Kanth,
Advocate (Mob. No. 9810810005) is appointed as a Local Commissioner for conducting inter se
bidding and if necessary, hold a public auction in respect of the said property, after fixing a
minimum price. For the said purpose, the parties shall appear before the Local Commissioner on
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/114463638/ 2
Gurmit Singh & Ors vs Jagjit Singh on 14 May, 2019
29.05.2019, at 4.30 pm along with a valuation report in respect of the said property. The highest bid
shall be accepted subject to the final orders of the Court. The successful bidder shall deposit in
Court, a draft of not less than 25% of the bid amount within two working days under intimation to
the Local Commissioner, who shall submit his report within two weeks. The fee of the Local
Commissioner is tentatively fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-, to be borne by the parties in equal share, apart
from the out of pocket expenses.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent points out that the Karol Bagh property does
not have a marketable title as the same has yet to be transferred in the name of all the legal heirs of
late Sh. Satnam Singh, in the records of the DDA.
13. Mr.K.K. Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the appellants states on instructions that steps have
already been taken by the appellants to approach the DDA for executing a Conveyance Deed in
respect of the aforesaid property in favour of all the legal heirs and the appellant no.1 has already
deposited the entire amount as demanded by the DDA.
14. Only after the Conveyance Deed is executed in favour of all the legal heirs of late Sh.Satnam
Singh for which necessary cooperation shall be rendered by all the parties, will the Local
Commissioner conduct the inter se bidding. In the meantime, he shall monitor completion of all
requisite formalities by the parties before the DDA and ensure that there are no impediments
created by any of them.
15. List on 17.09.2019, to await the report of the Local Commissioner.
16. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Local Commissioner for perusal and compliance.
HIMA KOHLI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
MAY 14, 2019 'AA/SKC'
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/114463638/ 3
