Court dismisses partition suit, deems claim time-barred, orders plaintiff to pay costs to defendants.

The court dismissed the suit, finding no cause of action for partition or declaration and holding the claim as time-barred. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to defendants no.1 to 3.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Cause of action for partition.
2. Cause of action for declaration of decree as null and void.
3. Timeliness of the claim for declaration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cause of Action for Partition:
The plaintiff sought a decree for the partition of property no. A-132, Defence Colony, New Delhi, claiming it belonged to late Shri Diwan Chand Sharma who died intestate. The court examined whether the plaintiff had any cause of action for partition given the decree dated 21st August 1969, which declared Col. Ram Prakash Sharma as the real owner and Shri Diwan Chand Sharma as the benami owner. The court noted that since the decree, the property had been owned by Col. Ram Prakash Sharma and his widow for 38 years until 2007, when the plaintiff first challenged it. The court concluded that until the plaintiff obtained a decree for declaration, there was no cause of action for partition.

2. Cause of Action for Declaration of Decree as Null and Void:
The plaintiff sought to set aside the 1969 decree, claiming it was obtained by misrepresentation and undue influence. The court reviewed the grounds for this claim, including allegations that the property was acquired with Shri Diwan Chand Sharma's funds and that the decree defrauded the Land & Development Office (L&DO). The court found no evidence to support these claims and noted that benami transactions were legal in 1969. The court also emphasized that the right to challenge the decree on such grounds belonged to the L&DO, which had not objected. The court held that the plaintiff had no cause of action to challenge the decree, especially given the presumption that the court had verified the legality of the compromise before passing the decree.

3. Timeliness of the Claim for Declaration:
The court examined whether the plaintiff's claim for declaration was within the limitation period. The right to challenge the decree initially belonged to Shri Diwan Chand Sharma and later to his heir, Shri Keshwa Nand Sharma, neither of whom took any action. The plaintiff claimed the right accrued in 2007, but the suit was filed in 2016. The court noted that the plaintiff had not shown due diligence or good faith in prosecuting the earlier suit, which was withdrawn in 2016 after objections were raised in 2007. The court held that the suit was barred by time, as the plaintiff had not promptly acted upon the defects pointed out.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit, finding no cause of action for partition or declaration and holding the claim as time-barred. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to defendants no.1 to 3.

---