LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-75

NATHI LAL Vs. PREM & ORS

Decided On December 10, 2018
NATHI LAL Appellant
V/S
Prem And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant nos. 1 and 7 in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 30.10.2006 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff/sister for partition etc. of the property being H. No. 4, Krishan Nagar, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, and this property belonged to the father of the parties being respondent no. 1/plaintiff, appellant no.1/defendant no. 1 and the husband of the appellant no.2/defendant no. 7. The suit has been decreed by holding that the father, Sh. Chiranji Lal, had died intestate and that the Relinquishment Deed dated 04.06.1975/Ex.DW1/1, said to have been executed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in favour of her two brothers being appellant no. 1/defendant no. 1 and husband of appellant no. 2/defendant no. 7, is not executed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff.

(2.) The facts are in narrow compass and I need not narrate the facts in detail. The suit property is the property being H. No. 4, Krishan Nagar, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This suit property was admittedly owned by the father of the parties late Sh. Chiranji Lal. Sh. Chiranji Lal as per the case of the respondent no.1/plaintiff expired intestate, and therefore, the legal heirs of late Sh. Chiranji Lal being the two sons: appellant no.1/defendant no. 1 and the husband of the appellant no.2/defendant no. 7 and one daughter being the respondent no.1/plaintiff, will become equal one third owners of the suit property.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant nos. 1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 7, the suit was contested by pleading that after the death of the father Sh. Chiranji Lal, the respondent no.1/plaintiff had executed in favour of the two brothers being the appellant no. 1/defendant no. 1 and the husband of the appellant no. 2/defendant no. 7 a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 04.06.1975, and therefore, the respondent no.1/plaintiff was left with no ownership rights in the suit property on execution of the said Relinquishment Deed dated 04.06.1975.