Tutorial Submission

Civil Case Report

Submitted by

Name of the candidate -Rishabh Singh

Division – ‘D’,
PRN – 17010324116,

Class – 10th Semester of BBA LLB

“Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad”

“Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, PUNE”

In

February 2022

Under the guidance of

Dr. Anita Sable

Faculty-in-charge
 BEFORE LD. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NEW DELHI DISTRICT COURT, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. 1120 OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

RADHA KRISHNA BANSIWALA

S/O LATE SH. LAL BANSIWALA

R/O 16/985-E, RAPTINAGAR,

TANK ROAD, SHAM BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005

PLAINTIF
F

VERSUS

MOHAN DWAPARA

S/O SH. RAM DWAPARA,

R/O 16/909-E, RAPTINAGAR,

TANK ROAD, SHAM BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005

DEFENDANT

Facts In Brief
1. That the Radha Krishna Bansiwala is 40 year old businessman by profession residing at
16/985-E Raptinagar, Tank Road, Sham Bagh, New Delhi-5 and the defendant is 35 year
old Advocate by profession residing at 16/909- E, Raptinagar, Tank Road, Sham Bagh,
New Delhi-5.

2. That both the plaintiff and the defendant had mutually decided to give builder namely Sh.
Jagdish Kumar s/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal r/o 5547/74, Regar Pura, Karol Bagh, New
Delhi-5 for constructing the floors over their property.

3. That accordingly, the said builder had constructed the basement, ground floor, first floor,
second floor and third floor over the aforesaid properties. Since, the aforesaid property
was adjacent to each other, it was agreed that the builder would construct combined
basement and ground floor over both the properties. It was further agreed that the builder
would take the entire ground floor constructed over the aforesaid combined properties
against cost of his construction of all the floors built over the aforesaid properties and it
was further agreed that the plaintiff and defendant will be owner of the combined
basement in equal shares along with all ownership rights and enjoyment thereof and the
remaining floors excluding basement have also been divided between the plaintiff and
defendant.

4. That the plaintiff and the defendant had also entered into agreement of Declaration vide
dt. 10th Jan-2017. As per the said agreement, both the plaintiff and defendant had decided
to combine their basement having 22 sq. yds. approximately each subject to the condition
that upto seven years from the date of this Declaration, they shall not sell/transfer the said
combined basement to anyone and during the said period of seven years, the said
basement (with combined area of 44 sy. Yds. approximately.) will be let out on rent and
they will divide its rent in equal proportionate i.e. 50:50.

5. That it was further agreed in the aforesaid declaration agreement that if after the expiry of
seven years the said property is sold out, then its sale consideration amount will also be
divided by the parties in equal proportionate i.e. 50:50.

6. That the after executing of the aforesaid agreement, the defendant had not acted upon the
terms and conditions of the same as he did not let out the property on rent despite of the
fact that the said basement is located in the busy market of Tank Road, and the basement
 could have been easily let out to the tenants. The plaintiff had made numerous requests as
to let out the basement on rent and divide the same into equal ratio i.e. 50:50 as agreed
between them by virtue of the aforesaid agreement. But the defendant instead of
conceding to the requests of the plaintiff, pressurized him to sell the entire basement at
much lower than the market price, otherwise, he would not give his consent as to let out
the basement. The plaintiff was not agreed at all to sale his half share of his basement as
demanded and pressurized by the defendant. However, he made further request, if the
defendant does not want to let out, the basement be partitioned as agreed between them
into two equal shares of 22 sq. yds. each i.e. having area of 6 ½ x 28 ft. each having two
separate front entrances/gates/shutters having equal measurement. But the defendant had
also refused to do so.

7. That the basement in question could have fetch a rent of Rs 6,000/- p.m if it would been
let out on rent. However, the plaintiff is claiming his share of Rs. 3,000/- p.m for only
three years due to prescribed limit of Limitation Act as the plaintiff had suffered the loss
of the said rent total amounting to Rs. 1,08,000/- for 3 years upto Jan. 2021 only on
account of non-performance and inaction by the defendant on his part. The defendant
intentionally and malafidely is not letting basement in question to the tenants and the
defendant is further liable to pay the further rent @ Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the plaintiff as
such, he violated the terms of the declaration agreement as mentioned above.

8. Due to that since the defendant has not complied the terms of the aforesaid agreement
vide dt. 10.1.2017, the aforesaid property i.e. basement is lying locked having locks of
both the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff wants to have the suit property be
partitioned only.

9. That since the defendant is neither ready to act upon the declaration agreement nor ready
to partition the suit property i.e. basement by metes and bound, hence, the present suit is
being filed.
DATE STAGES COURTS OBSERVATIONS/ORDERS 

 
01/04/2021 Legal Notice A notice was sent to Mr. Mohan Dwapara (Defendant)
and 30 day time period was given to him for
settlement otherwise legal action will taken against
him.

01/05/2021 Presentation of the Plaintiff presented the plaint before Ld. Junior Civil
plaint Judge, New Delhi District Court, Delhi. Court
accepted the plaintiff’s plaint.

Court issued service of summon against Mr. Mohan

01/05/2021 Service of summons on
Dwapara (Defendant) for remaining present before
defendant
court on 20/05/2021

 
20/05/2021 Appearance of parties Both Parties were present before Court, Court ordered
Mr. Mohan Dwapara (Defendant) for submitting of
Written Statement before Court and also provide a
copy to Plaintiff on next hearing date of 10/06/2021

   
10/06/2021 Filing of written Mr. Mohan Dwapara (Defendant) submitted Written
statement by the Statement before Court and also provided a copy to
defendant Plaintiff. Court ordered plaintiff for submitting reply
to written statement before court and also provide a
 copy to defendant on next hearing date of 20/06/2021

   
20/06/2021 Production of Mr. Radha Krishna Bansiwala (Plaintiff) submitted
documents by parties  Written Statement before Court and also provided a
copy to defendant. Court ordered both parties to
produce all supporting document before court and
provide a copy of each document to one other on next
hearing date of 10/07/2021

 
10/07/2021 Examination of parties In the Examination, both parties accept the agreement
made on 01/01/2017. Further it is submitted that as
stated in plaint para no.6, the defendant has tried to
rent out the property but no one was ready to give rent
of rupees 6000 for a basement property, The defendant
intentionally in favour of letting basement property to
the tenants than how can defendant is liable to pay the
further rent @ Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to the plaintiff as such,
defendant has not violated the terms of the declaration
agreement. At end Both parties accept basement is
lying locked having locks of both the plaintiff and the
defendant. Court ordered for framing of issues in next
hearing on 20/07/2021

   
20/07/2021 Framing of issues by the Following issues were framed:-
Court 1. Whether to pass a preliminary decree for partition
on separating the respective shares of the parties in
respect of the suit property of the combined
 basement of property bearing no.16/909-E &
16/985-E, Khalsa Nagar, Tank Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-5 having area 22 sq. yds. appx. each.
specifically shown in the site plan annexed hereto,
by metes and bounds by giving 1/2 share
measuring 61/2 X 28 feet approximately as shown
dotted in the site plan to the plaintiff, by
appointing a local commissioner or otherwise as
deem fit for ascertaining the mode of partition of
the suit property;
2. Whether to pass a final decree after the report of
local Commissioner or otherwise by allotting or
partitioning or separating the specific shares of the
parties to the suit accordingly to their respective
rights in the said property as stated above.
3. Whether to pass a decree of permanent injunction
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant,
restraining the defendant and his agents,
representatives, legal heirs etc., from creating any
third-party interest in the suit property.

Court ordered for next hearing on 10/08/2021.

Court issued service of summon against Mr. Jagdish

10/08/2021 Summoning and
Kumar for remaining present before court on
Attendance of Witnesses
20/08/2021

   
20/08/2021 Hearing of suits and It is confessed by the builder that he had constructed
examination of the basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor
witnesses and third floor over the aforesaid properties. Since, the
 aforesaid property was adjacent to each other, it was
agreed that the builder would construct combined
basement and ground floor over both the properties. It
was further agreed that the builder would take the
entire ground floor constructed over the aforesaid
combined properties against cost of his construction of
all the floors built over the aforesaid properties and it
was further agreed that the plaintiff and defendant will
be owner of the combined basement in equal shares
along with all ownership rights and enjoyment thereof
and the remaining floors excluding basement have
also been divided between the plaintiff and defendant.

Court ordered for next hearing on 10/09/2021.

   
10/09/2021 Argument Once the evidence has been submitted and cross-
examination is conducted by both parties, then both
sides were allowed to present a summary of the case
and evidence to the judge in this final session. Hence
both parties presented their argument before Court.

Court reserved its judgment for next hearing of

20/09/2021.

 
20/09/2021 Judgment The court gave judgment in favour of Radha Krishna
Bansiwala (Plaintiff) and accepted his Issues framed
for separation of said property. Court gave next
hearing date for preparation of Decree on 20/10/2021
 20/10/2021Preparation of Decree Court prepared the Decree through help of judicial
clerk and passed decree on following:-
i. Passing a decree of permanent injunction in
favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant, restraining the defendant and his
agents, representatives, legal heirs etc., from
creating any third-party interest in the suit
property.
ii. Local Commissioner was appointed for
separating the specific shares of the parties to
the suit accordingly to their respective rights in
the said property.

MY OBSERVATION IN THIS CASE:-

A] Number of Issues framed (observation of the court only in decided cases)
1. Whether to pass a preliminary decree for partition on separating the respective shares of
the parties in respect of the suit property of the combined basement of property bearing
no.16/909-E & 16/985-E, Khalsa Nagar, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 having
area 22 sq. yds. appx. each. specifically shown in the site plan annexed hereto, by metes
and bounds by giving 1/2 share measuring 61/2 X 28 feet approximately as shown dotted
in the site plan to the plaintiff, by appointing a local commissioner or otherwise as deem
fit for ascertaining the mode of partition of the suit property;
2. Whether to pass a final decree after the report of local Commissioner or otherwise by
allotting or partitioning or separating the specific shares of the parties to the suit
accordingly to their respective rights in the said property as stated above.
3. Whether to pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant, restraining the defendant and his agents, representatives, legal heirs etc., from
creating any third-party interest in the suit property.

B] Applicable Statutes in the Case and the respective provisions .

1. Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C
During the pendency of the said suit, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 read with Section 151 CPC numbered as I.A. IV for grant of temporary injunction
against the defendant and restraining him from creating any third-party interest in the suit
property.  

2. Section 21 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963.

In Suit of Specific performance, Specific performance is a remedy developed by principle of

equity. A party to a contract who is damaged because the contract is breached by another
party has the option to file a suit for specific performance compelling to perform his part of
contract.

I undertake that the matter and the stages in the matter has been observed by me carefully and
I have understood the procedure in the mentioned case. 

Date of Submission - 01/02/2022. Name of the Student – Rishabh

Singh Sem – 10 th , Division –
“D”
Place - Delhi PRN – 17010324116