TIKKA SHATRUJIT SINGH Vs. BRIG SUKHJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of defendant No. 1 under Order 7 Rule II, Order 32 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint and/or dismissing the same. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, (defendant No. 1) is the father and Maharani Gita Devi (plaintiff No. 3) is his wife, plaintiffs I and 2 are their minor sons while plaintiff No. 4 and defendant No. 2 are their daughters.. The plaintiffs filed this suit for partition on 1st December, 1977 alleging that the plaintiffs and defendants are the members of the Mitakshara Hindu un-divided Family, that plaintiffs Nos. I and 2 and defendant No. 1 are the co-parceners and the properties in suit are co-parcenary properties governed by the law of Mitakshara, and are partible, that plaintiffs I and 2 as co-parceners are entitled to sue for partition. The minor sons have sued through their mother as next friend. It is also alleged that the two daughters plaintiff No. 4 and defendant No. 2 are entitled to maintenance and marriage expenses on partition out of suit properties. The mother has pleaded that her interests are not in any manner adverse to the interests of her minor children i.e. plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4. The partition has been claimed on the ground that towards the close of 1975 defendant No. 1 dveloped relations with a certain lady residing in Delhi and started neglecting the entire family, that in August, 1976 defendant No. 1 deserted the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 on account of strong objection by plaintiff No. 3 to the intimate involvement of defendant No. 1 with that lady which has caused extreme sufferings and humiliation to the entire family, that the sister of defendant No. 1 reprimanded him for his said relationship and thereafter he shifted from the house to Qutab Hotel and subsequently he left Delhi as he was posted out to N.E.F.A. The plaintiffs I and 2 claim l/4th share each in the properties in suit after deducting amounts for maintenance and marriage expenses of the two daughters. It is further pleaded that upon severance of Hindu Undivided Family status and partition, the plaintiff No. 3, the wife. is also entitled to l/4th share in the properties in suit less the Stridhana received by her from defendant No. 1. It is admitted that the defendant No. 1, is entitled to l/4th share Defendant No. 1 is the Karta and manager of the Hindu Undivided Family and is in receipt of the entire income of the poperties in suit. The properties in suit mentioned in paras 8 of the plaint consist of (1) double-storeyed residential house at Plot No. B-90A Greater Kailash-l, New Delhi, (2) commercial flat No. 101 on the 1st Floor of the property known as Surya Kiran, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, (3) residential house known as Villa Bouna-Vista and cottage Villa Chalat, situated in village Chuharwal, District Kapurthala, (4) residential house in Mussorie known as Chateen besides other movables such as furnitures, shares, carpets, jewellery etc. The shares in Joint Stock Companies are detailed in para 22 of the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiffs allege that on 13th January, 1977 defendant No. 1 filed a suit against his wife, (plaintiff No. 3) claiming the jewellery and the properties at Kapurthala and Mussorie with all movables lying therein as his personal and exclusive properties, that he also claimed exclusive rights with respect to the property at B-90A Greater Kailash, New Delhi excepting l/7th share in the said property belonging to plaintiff No. 3. This claim of the defendant No. 1 is emphatically denied by the plaintiffs, and according to them the said claim of the defendant No. 1 has given cause for institution of the present suit for partition of the family properties by the minor sons who are the coparceners, and the suit is to protect their rights in the suit properties. The plaintiffs thus claim a preliminary decree for partition, and thereafter a final decree separating the shares and possession of the parties.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 in this application has claimed that the interests of plaintiff No. 3 arc adverse to the interests of minor children, that the suit has been instituted by plaintiff No. 3 purely out of self interest in order to claim a share for herself equal to that of the minor sons, that plaintiff No. 3 is being advised by her friend Shri Anoop Singh at present resident of B-98 Greater Kailash, that since plaintiff No. 3 cannot, under her own right, institute partition proceedings, she has choosen to use plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, her minor sons, as a cover to press her own claim and achieve her selfish end. The defendant No. I also claims rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.