2019 (2) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in favour of the plaintiff and the four defendants. 2. The suit was entertained and summons thereof ordered to be issued and pleadings have been completed. 3. None has been appearing for the defendant no.2. The order dated 24th July, 2018 records that all the four defendants had been served on 19th May, 2018. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 is proceeded against ex parte. 4. The plaintiff has filed IA No.15807/2018 under Order XII rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for decree on admissions. 5. The counsel for the defendants no.3&4 states that the said defendants are supporting the plaintiff. 6. The counsel for the defendant no.1, who on the last date of hearing i.e.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....where it is pleaded that the plaintiff, on the date of sale deed i.e. 12th May, 1988, was only 2½ years of age and had made no monetary contribution towards the purchase. It is argued that the defendant no.1 and the said Anil Baruta, who is not a party to the suit, in the circumstances are the exclusive owners in the property and the plaintiff and the defendants no.2 to 4 have no share in the property. 12. The pleas aforesaid of the defendant no.1 are not sustainable in law and are barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 since renamed Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act,1988. The plea, of the sale consideration having been contributed by the defendant no.1 and Anil Baruta, does not in law constitute the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....et, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027 is passed, declaring the plaintiff Ekant Baruta @ Vikas Baruta and the four defendant namely (i) Rakesh Baruta; (ii) Sunil Baruta; (iii) Veenita Baruta; and, (iv) Vaibhav Baruta to be having 1/5th undivided share each in the property. 17. Decree sheet be drawn up. 18. It is not in dispute that the property comprises of land ad measuring 159 sq. yds. and a ground floor, first floor and a barsati above the first floor. 19. Considering the size of the property and the number of shares therein, the property is found to be not capable of division by metes and bounds. No purpose will thus be served in issuing a commission for exploring the possibility of division by metes and bounds. 20. Once it is so, t....