FAQUIRA Vs. RAJ RANI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-8-22
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on August 09,1983

FAQUIRA Appellant
VERSUS
RAJ RANI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RITA WADHWA VS. SANJEEV SARIN [LAWS(DLH)-2022-8-104] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SINGH VS. AMRIT PAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANI VS. V UDAY KUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2007-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ JAIN VS. KRISHNA JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-639] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKAR GANPATRAO WANKHEDE VS. LILABAI MANOHARRAO WANKHEDE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-166] [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL KRISHNA KHANNA VS. KAMAL NAIN KHANNA [LAWS(DLH)-1999-7-51] [REFERRED]
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE BAN BHAURA VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(P&H)-2004-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
JAGMOHAN NATH KAPOOR VS. MANMOHAN NATH KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-181] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.K. Kapur, J. - (1.)Two applications under the Partition Act, 1893, have led to this Regular First Appeal which has been filed under Section 8 of the Partition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the two applications can first be shortly stated. Shrimati Radha Rani was the plaintiff in a suit for partition in which she claimed half share in the property in question being No. 6-7 ward No. XI, Matia Mahal, Delhi. The defendants were Shri Faquira andShri Amrit Lal. By a preliminary decree dated 28th August, 1982, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a half share in the property and the defendants were entitled to a one-fourth share each. A Local Commissioner was appointed who found that several persons were in occupation of the property including the plaintiff Shrimati Radha Rani and Shri Amrit Lal. The report was to the e:fect that the property cannot be conveniently partitioned.
(3.)Before dealing with the two applications which form the subject- matter of the order under appeal, it is convenient to note an order passed on 28th August, 1981, by the trial court. It is noted therein that a portion of the property is occupied by defendant No. I and lftkhar Ahmed appears to be in possession of a mezzanine. The Court ordered that the property should be sold by an auction amongst the co-owners only and parties were directed to appear on 4th September, 1981, for giving their bids. This order appears to have been passed without any application or request by the parties.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.