Tue. Jan 19th, 2021

Sanjeet Taneja vs Ravinder Kumar Taneja & Anr. on 18 January, 2016

1 min read

1. The prolix plaint spanning 34 pages is full of verbosity and irrelevant
pleadings. The concentrate of the decoction of the pleadings would simply
be that the appellant/plaintiff is the son of respondent No.1 (defendant No.1)
born to him from his first wife, whom respondent No.1 had divorced. That
respondent No.1 inherited a property No.A/14 -16, Jangpura Extension, New
Delhi, from his father and sold the same to purchase the suit properties
being flat No.B-7/54/1 DDA Flats, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, and I-9,
Dattaguru Co-operative Housing Society, Deonar, Mumbai-400088. As per
the appellant, since the funds to acquire the suit properties were generated
by selling an ancestral property, it partakes the character of an ancestral
property, liable to be partitioned. As per the appellant his grand-mother was
living in the flat at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi and she had permitted
him to reside in a room. As per the appellant, his father took his grand-
mother to Mumbai for treatment where she died during the pendency of the

FAO (OS) No.269/2015 Page 1 of 5
suit.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply