Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH MATHUR
DISTRICT JUDGE (NORTH-01): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CS DJ No. 308/21
1. Hema Chauhan
D/o Late Sh. Yogendra Pratap Singh Chauhan
R/o 69, Vasundhsra, Etah,
Utter Pradesh – 207001
Adhar card 2129 1431 0786
Phone 7895175509
2. Jolly Chauhan
W/o Sh. Yashpal
D/o Late Sh. Yogendra Pratap Singh Chauhan
R/o H. No. 552, Near Bisht School,
Parvatiya Colony, Sector-22,
Faridabad, Haryana 121005
Adhar card 5155 8111 7453. …. Plaintiffs
Versus
Hridhan Chauhan (Minor)
S/o Late Vikram Pratap Singh Chauhan
Aged about 13 years
Through Natural guardian/mother
Smt. Renu Chauhan
C/o Thakur Bhagwan Singh
R/o 1332/89, Shanti Nagar,
Tri Nagar, New Delhi. ….Defendant
Date of Institution : 17.07.2021
Date of arguments : 25.02.2026
Date of order
: 25.02.2026
SUIT FOR PARTITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiffs are the Bua’s /Aunty’s of the defen-
dant. As per them, the suit property i.e. B-7/75, Sector-17,
Rohini, Delhi was owned by their deceased father Y.P.S.
_________________________________________________________________________
CS DJ No. 308/21 Hema Chauhan & Anr. Vs. Hridhan Chauhan Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
Chauhan. The conveyance deed PW1/B was executed in
his favour on 16.04.2010 by DDA. He had three daughters
and one son namely Vikram Pratap Singh Chauhan. His
son passed away on 08.06.2010 as per death certificate
Mark B and was survived by his wife Renu Chauhan and
the defendant. The father of the plaintiffs alongwith his
wife Rekha Chauhan and another daughter Karishma
Chauhan was then murdered on 21.09.2012, as per their
death certificates Mark A, E and F. He was then survived
by the parties herein. The plaintiffs are now claiming that
they have 1/3rd share each in the suit property alongwith
the defendant and hence this suit for partition was filed.
2. The defendant was served through next friend via
newspaper publication dated 30.01.2023. His right to file
the Written statement was then closed on 24.05.2023.
3. The plaintiffs then examined themselves as PW1
and PW2 vide their respective affidavits wherein they
reiterated the contents of the plaint. Nil opportunity was
given to the defendant to cross-examine them because his
defence was already struck off on 24.05.2023. The matter
was then listed for final arguments. But thereafter, the
counsel for the defendant appeared on 06.03.2025 and
sought time to file some application. But he never
appeared thereafter.
4. The suit was earlier dismissed on 13.08.2025 after
observing that the father of the plaintiffs was merely act-
ing as an attorney of the erstwhile owner. The plaintiffs
applied for the review of this judgement vide Misc. DJ
1457/25. This application was allowed on the ground of
_________________________________________________________________________
CS DJ No. 308/21 Hema Chauhan & Anr. Vs. Hridhan Chauhan Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
the error on the face of the record vide separate order
passed on 25.02.2026 wherein it was observed that the
conveyance deed recorded the father of the plaintiffs in
two capacities i.e. the vendee as well as the attorney of the
vendor. After the review was allowed, final arguments
were re-heard on 25.02.2026.
5. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the suit property
was owned by their father. For this purpose, they had re-
lied upon the conveyance deed Ex. PW1/B executed by the
DDA. The perusal of the conveyance deed shows that the
suit property was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs
from erstwhile owner Rama Devi. He in that conveyance
deed acted both as the vendee as well as the attorney of the
vendor. Be that as it may, this duly registered conveyance
deed issued by the DDA makes Sh. Yogender Pratap
Singh as the owner of the suit property. He had passed
away on 21.09.2012. He was survived by his daughters i.e.
the plaintiffs and the grandson i.e. the defendant. The
aforesaid unrebutted circumstances shows that the plaintiff
as well as the defendant are the sole surviving legal heirs
of Sh. Yogender Pratap Singh and thus are entitled to
1/3rd equal share in the suit property. The suit is within
Limitation.
6. In view of the reasons as noted above, a preliminary
decree of partition is passed in favour of all the parties
whereby all the parties are declared to be entitled to 1/3rd
equal share in the suit property comprising of four storeys
from ground to third floor at H. No. B-7/75, Sector-17,
Rohini, Delhi measuring 26 sq. mtrs. as shown red in the
_________________________________________________________________________
CS DJ No. 308/21 Hema Chauhan & Anr. Vs. Hridhan Chauhan Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
site plan Ex. PW1/A.
The parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary
compliance.
Announced in the Open Court
on 25th day of February 2026
(Sidharth Mathur)
District Judge-01/North
Rohini Courts/Delhi
_________________________________________________________________________
CS DJ No. 308/21 Hema Chauhan & Anr. Vs. Hridhan Chauhan Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --