Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS DJ No. 1074/2026
SHAMA PARVEEN vs. SYED RASHID ALI
CNR NO. DLCT01-018929-2026
08.10.2026
Present: Sh. Faiz Ahmed and Ms. Kamal Kumari, Ld. Counsels for the
plaintiff.
I have perused the plaint carefully. It is seen that para no. 1, two
numbers of a property have been given without Khasra number specified and
it is not clarified whether the property is one or there are two separate
properties. It is further seen that in para no. 2, the singular word ‘property’ is
mentioned. On clarification, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that
property is one but with two municipal numbers. It is seen that admeasurement
of the property is also not given in the description of the suit property in para
no. 2. It is further seen that plaintiffs have claimed that after death of father of
defendant no. 1, his four children were left behind but one of the daughters and
her husband expired issue-less while other daughter shifted to Pakistan and
hence, defendant no. 1 and father of plaintiff no. 2 became sole co-owners of
the property. However, it is not specified in the entire plaint in what manner
they became the owners in the proportion claimed and the date of death of the
daughters of the claimed original owner Turab Ali is also not specified. The
date of shifting of one of them to Pakistan is also missing in the suit and is a
necessary fact for the Court to see ex facie the aspect of joinder of necessary
parties at this stage, as one of the reliefs claimed is partition of the suit property.
In order to better understand the facts of the plaint, Sh. Tamjid Ali, s/o Late
Saiyed Intekhab Ali is examined under order 10 CPC r/w section 168 of BSA
-- 1 of 2 --
by the Court today. It is clear that site plan of the entire suit property along
with the specific admeasurement is not filed on record and plaint omits to
mention the complete admeasurement. Plaintiffs are directed to file on record
a complete comprehensive site plan of the suit property qua which reliefs have
been sought in the plaint. Further, plaintiffs are also directed to file on record
the copy of the plaint and other relevant documents of the suit as mentioned in
paragraph no. 6 of the plaint. Further, clarification has been sought also with
respect to the nature of ownership of Late Sh. Syed Turab Ali as it is further
seen that while it is mentioned that father of defendant no. 1 was owner of the
suit property, it is not specified in what manner he had become owner of the
suit property. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the property is
mutated in the name of great grandfather of plaintiff and it devolved on him.
There is no clarity in the plaint in this regard and hence, in case the property
was devolved completely upon Syed Turab Ali, let details of the same be
furnished before the court along with the name of the original owner and his
successor. Further, plaintiffs have claimed to be owners of the half portion of
the suit property after death of father of plaintiff no. 2 but failed to disclose
clearly how many class I legal heirs were left by late Syed Intekhab Ali and in
case Late Sh. Intekhab Ali was survived by any other child apart from plaintiff
no. 2, the same may also be clarified to the court. In case wife of Late Syed
Turab Ali has expired, the date and factum of her death may also be specified.
On request, be put up for compliance and further proceedings on 10.10.2026.
(Mayuri Singh)
DJ-10/Central/THC/Delhi.
08.10.2026
-- 2 of 2 --