POONAM KAPUR vs SAROJ CHOPRA AND ORS.

$~6

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision:22nd March, 2024
+ CS(OS) 590/2018, I.A. 10236/2019, I.A. 10237/2019
POONAM KAPUR
….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Mr. Sumeet Kaur, Ms. Ragini Vinaik, Ms. Kanishka Sharma, Ms. Thanglunkim and Mr. Gaikhuanlung, Advocates.
versus
SAROJ CHOPRA AND ORS.
….. Defendants
Through: Ms. Sumeet Kaur, Advocate for D-1 and D-2 with D-2 in person.
Mr. Nitin Mittal Advocate for the D-3

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. A suit for Partition and Permanent Injunction has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. The facts in brief are that Late Shri I.K. Chopra and his wife, Smt. Saroj Chopra were the joint owners of the suit property bearing No.8, Sehgal Colony, Court Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, which had been jointly purchased by them from their self-acquired funds, vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.06.1981. The property was built up as a residential house having Basement, Ground and First Floor with a Terrace in the main building and Ground, First and Second floor in the Annex. on the plot of 700 sq. yds.
3. On the demise of Shri I.K. Chopra on 07.08.2006, his share came to be equally divided amongst his wife defendant No.1 Smt. Saroj Chopra and three children i.e. the plaintiff Poonam Kapur who is the daughter, while defendant No. 2 Manju Oberoi and defendant No. 3 Umesh Chopra are the other daughter and son of Late Shri I.K. Chopra. It is submitted that defendant No.1 has therefore, become the owner of 62.5% undivided share while plaintiff, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 have become entitled to 12.5% each in the suit property.
4. Differences arose inter se the family members and with the intervention of Dr. B.D. Chopra, younger brother of Late Shri I.K. Chopra, the parties arrived at an Oral Family Settlement in the second week of April, 2014 which was reduced to writing on 19.11.2014 as Memorandum of Oral Family Settlement (MoFS).
5. In the said MoFS, it was agreed that the property would be mutated in the Municipal records in the joint names of the parties and sold on or before 31.12.2015 to the highest bidder brought in by plaintiff or defendants and the sale consideration would be distributed in the ratio as already mentioned. The plaintiff and defendants were in constructive/joint possession and it was agreed that each would be free to access all or any portion of the suit property for the purpose of exhibiting it to the subsequent purchasers.
6. In November, 2016 the property bearing No.741-745, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi was sold and the parties received their respective shares in terms of the Family Settlement dated 19.11.2014. However, the parties somehow were not able to reconcile their differences in respect of the present suit property.
7. The plaintiff had also stated that she was legally entitled to 25% of share in property No.619-620, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Fatehpuri, Delhi being the legal heir of Late Shri I.K. Chopra, but has forgone her share in the said property. She, therefore, filed the present suit seeking a decree of Partition in respect of the suit property i.e. 8, Sehgal Colony, Court Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi to the extent of 12.5% of her share and from restraining defendant No.3 from interfering in her possession of the suit property.
8. The defendants in their respective Written Statements have admitted the execution of the MoU dated 19.11.2014 and have no objection to the sale of the property and distribution of the sale proceeds in accordance with their determined shares. However, defendant No.1, the mother while admitting these facts, has asserted that she has been coerced by defendant No.3 in agreeing to give her 37.5% of the share to her son Shri Umesh Chopra/defendant No.3, to which she had not voluntarily agreed.
9. The defendant No.3 has questioned the maintainability of the suit for the simple reason that since the parties had voluntarily entered into the MoU, the shares which each party would receive, would have to be further invested as agreed under the MoU.
10. Submissions heard.
11. It is an admitted fact that the suit property was jointly owned by Late Shri I.K. Chopra and his wife Smt. Saroj Chopra/defendant No.1 and they both were owners of 50% each in the suit property.
12. It is further not challenged that Shri I.K. Chopra died on 07.08.2006 and on his demise his 50% share devolved equally amongst his four legal heirs i.e. wife, two daughters and son, who are the parties to the present suit in the ratio of 12.5% each. It is further agreed that the share of mother/defendant No.1 now comes to 62.5%, while plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and 3 get 12.5% share each in the suit property.
13. The parties also admit that they had executed MoU dated 19.11.2014 which bears their signatures. These facts as mentioned above, are also incorporated in this MoFS. All the parties agree that defendant No.1 gets 62.5% while plaintiff, defendant No.2 and 3 each gets 12.5% in the suit property.
14. The only defense which is set up by defendant No.3 is that the MoFS further contemplates that 37.5% of the share of the mother, would be Willed to him and he would be entitled to the additional share of 37.5% as stipulated in the MoU. It is further asserted that even the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and 3 on receipt of their money, are supposed to invest it jointly with their mother in purchase of immovable property in the joint name of each of the party with their mother.
15. The objection taken by defendant No.3 would arise subsequent to the sale of the suit property in which the shares of each party are admitted. The present suit is only for partition of the suit property. Therefore, in view of the undisputed facts it is held that plaintiff and defendant No.1, 2, 3 are the joint owners of the suit property which is liable to be partitioned in the ratio as under :
Plaintiff – 12.5%
Defendant No.1 – 62.5%
Defendant No.2 & 3 – 12.5% each
16. In so far as the concerns of defendant No.3, Shri Umesh Chopra is concerned, he is at liberty to pursue his further remedies in terms of MoU after the Final Decree is executed and the Sale proceeds come in the hands of the respective parties.
17. A Preliminary Decree is accordingly made in the aforesaid terms.
Final Decree:
18. All the parties agree that this property is required to be sold and the sale amount to be distributed in the ratios as defined above.
19. In view of the submissions and consensus of all the parties, it is directed that suit property be sold to the highest bidder who may be brought by any of the parties or by filing an Execution Petition and the sale proceeds be divided in the ratio as mentioned above.
20. A Final Decree be drawn accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 22, 2024
va

CS(OS) 590/2018 Page 5 of 5