Saurabh Sharma vs Om Wati & Ors on 25 May, 2018

2. The suit was entertained, though no ex-parte injunction sought,

3. The defendants no.1 to 4 have defended by the suit filing a written
statement pleading (i) that the suit property was the self acquired property

CS(OS) 430/2016 Page 3 of 19
of Sunder Lal Sharma and the plaintiff, who is the grandson of Sunder Lal
Sharma, has no right over the same being not a Class 1 heir of Sunder Lal
Sharma; (ii) there was no family business in the name and style of M/s.
Shakti Chuna Bhandar or any earlier business as alleged; (iii) that as per the
documents filed by the plaintiff also, the business was started by the
defendant no.3 Gopal Sharma and is the proprietorship of defendant no.3
Gopal Sharma; (iv) property No.500/5, Pandav Road, Vishwas Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi has already been sold by the defendant no.1 and there is no
business of any type in the said property; (v) Musaddi Lal was not engaged
in the business of lime stone and thus the question of Sunder Lal Sharma
continuing the said business as Karta of the HUF or otherwise did not arise;

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply