IN THE COURT OF DISTT.

AND SESSION JUDGE EAST

DISTT. KKD COURTS DELHI
C.S.No. __________ / 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.MADHU GUPTA __PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ASHISH AGGARWAL & ORS __DEFENDANTS
MEMO OF PARTIES
SMT.MADHU GUPTA
W/O SH.KAMAL GUPTA
D/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
R/O H.NO.A-78-79, GURUNANAKPURA
LAXMI NAGAR,
DELHI 110092 ___PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. ASHISH AGGARWAL
S/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
2. NEERAJ AGGARWAL
S/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
3. SHIKHA GUPTA
D/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
4. MAMTA AGGARWAL
W/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
ALL R/O H.NO.A-78-79,
GURUNANAKPURA
LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI 110092
5.M/S A.U.SMALL FINANCE LTD.
19-A,DHULESHWAR GARDEN
AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
302001
6.M/S PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING
FINANCE LTD. UNIT NO.400
PLOT NO.A-9, GD-ITL NORTH EX.
TOWER, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE’
DELHI 110062 __DEFENDANTS

DELHI
DATED 23.01.2023 PLAINTIFF

THROUGH
Rajendra Tripathi
Advocate
9818032276
IN THE COURT OF DISTT. AND SESSION JUDGE EAST
DISTT. KKD COURTS DELHI
C.S.No. __________ / 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.MADHU GUPTA __PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ASHISH AGGARWAL & ORS __DEFENDANTS
INDEX
Srl.No. Particulars Page
No.
1 MEMO OF PARTIES
1. SUIT FOR PARTITION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION ALONG
WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT.
2. APPLICATION U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2
OF CPC ALOING WITH SUPPORTING
AFFIDAVIT
3 LIST OF DOUCMENTS WITH
DOUCMENTS
4 VAKALATNAMA

Delhi
Date: 23.01.23
Plaintiff
Through
RAJENDRA TRIPATHI
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
MOB.NO.9818032276
 IN THE COURT OF DISTT. AND SESSION JUDGE EAST
DISTT. KKD COURTS DELHI

C.S.No. __________ / 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.MADHU GUPTA
W/O SH.KAMAL GUPTA
D/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
R/O H.NO.A-78-79, GURUNANAKPURA
LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI 110092 ___PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. ASHISH AGGARWAL
S/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
2. NEERAJ AGGARWAL
S/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
3. SHIKHA GUPTA
D/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
4. MAMTA AGGARWAL
W/O LATE SH.ASHOK AGGARWAL
ALL R/O H.NO.A-78-79,
GURUNANAKPURA
LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI 110092
5.M/S A.U.SMALL FINANCE LTD.
19-A,DHULESHWAR GARDEN
AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN
302001
6.M/S PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING
FINANCE LTD. UNIT NO.400
PLOT NO.A-9, GD-ITL NORTH EX.
TOWER, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE’
DELHI 110062 __DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR PARTITION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Plaintiff and defendant no.1-4 are joint family
members and Plaintiff and Defendant no 1-3 are real
sisters and brothers with each other and Defendant no. 4
is mother of Plaintiff Defendant no 1-3 and residing at
property bearing No. A-78-79 Guru nanak pura, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi-110092 along with their family members
being lawful co-owner and in physical possession since
long. And Defendant 5 &6 are non banking financial
institute.
2. That during the life time, the deceased Grand father
namely Ram Bhagat of the plaintiff and defendant no.1-3
and father in Law of Defendant no. 4 had purchased
property bearing No. A-78-79 Guru nanak pura, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi-110092 in the area of Villege Mandawali
Fazalpur Ilaqa Shahdra Delhi vide its regd. Sale deed no.
5410 in book no. 1 vol. no. 3114 page no. 87-90 on dated
03.04.1959 with Sub Registrar Delhi property of land
measuring are 400 Sq.Yds but later on time to time
widening of Main Road Laxmi Nagar Vikas Marg now
comes 110 sq yards while portion occupied and physical
possession of the Plaintiff at second floor specifically
shown in Green color (hereinafter called the suit
property specifically shown in red colour and Green color
respectively in site plan) and said property was purchased
 by the collective Funds of the family i.e. great grant
father Late sh. Bhairo Prasad on the name of his son
namely Sh.RAM BHAGAT and said suit property entire
constructions by the collective Funds of the family funds
and have not been sub divided or partition and plaintiff
and other legal heirs i.e. defendant no.1-4 are joint
possession of the same.

3. That Grand father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1-3

and father in Law of Defendant no. 4 namely Ram
Bhagat has expired intestate on 02.06.1978 leaving
behind his sole legal heir Ashok Aggarwal i.e.father of
plaintiff and defendant no.1-3 and husband of defendant
no 4.

4. That after the death of Grand Father of plaintiff and

defendant no.1-3 and father in Law of Defendant no. 4
i.e. Ram Bhagat (since deceased) and Ashok Aggarwal
i.e father of plaintiff and defendant no.1-3 and Husband
of Defendant no. 4 become Owner of said ancestral
Property thereafter it was got entirely in one foundation
and raised its super structure and re-construction i.e.
Shops in Ground floor and first floor, and second floor
for residential respectively in total construction in the
property measuring area 110 Sq yds. and entire family
member occupied their respective portions.
5. That unfortunately father of Plaintiff and the defendant
no.1-3 and husband of Defendant no 4 namely Ashok
Aggarwal intestate expired on 30.12.2021 leaving behind
his following legal heirs
i.Mamta Aggarwal (wife)
ii.Neeraj Aggarwal(Son)
iii.Shikha Gupta (Married Daughter)
iv.Madhu Gupta (Married Daughter)
v.Ashish Aggarwal(Son)

6. That after the death of father of of plaintiff and

defendant no.1-3 and Husband of Defendant no. 4
namely Ashok Aggarwal , and plaintiff and Defendant
no. 1-4 become co-owner and co-sharer 1/5 each of said
undivided ancestral property besides other valuable
moveable property and rental income thereof in share 1/5
each other.

7. That it relevant to point out Ashok Aggarwal since

deceased desired his wishes the property should be
partitioned in 1/5 equal share between his sons and
daughters hence Plaintiff become 1/5 equal share in the
both the property by the operation of law.

8. That a fraud was discovered when defendant no.5 and 6

and Defendant no.1 i.e. Sh. Ashish Aggarwal each other
involved in conspiracy and in order to grab suit properties
by hook and crook mortgaged properties while the
property never partitioned after the death of since
 deceased Ashok Aggarwal i.e. father of the Plaintiff of
the ancestral property jointly in occupation of entire
family members never demarcated and cannot be
identified active shares 1/5 each of the co-owner / co-
sharer and attempted to take physical possession on spot
of the property by Respondent/FI on 2/01/2023.

9. That the respondents/FI had sanctioned a loan to the

Defendant no.1 on mortgage of the undivided ancestral
property and Original documents pertaining to the suit
property lying with Defendant no.1 despite repeated
request not handing over the Plaintiff. unless it is suit
partitioned the defendant no.5 cannot take physical
possession it could be possible after getting the
partitioned by metes and bounds it is well settled law that
undivided share of coparcener can be matter of sale or
transfer but possession cannot be handed over unless the
property is partitioned by metes and bounds. However,
Plaintiff has filed application for implead and injunction
in TSA no. 520/2022 DRT I New Delhi.

10. That since the plaintiff constantly requesting to the

defendant no.1 to 4 with folded hands to provide the
equal 1/5th share in the suit property but the defendant
no.1 to 4 always make lame excuses on pretext to another
as well as rental income along with valuable articles
belongings of her father since deceased who flatly
refused to provide any share in the said property and
 rendition of account for rental income and further
extended threats for dire consequences including ruined
her life and certainly implicate in false cases and
litigation in case come in his way and asked for further
for share in the suit property and rental income and forget
about the same having no share in the ancestral property
of her grand father.

11. That the plaintiff has no efficacious remedy except to file

the present suit before this Hon'ble court.

12. That the cause of action arose firstly arose on dated

03.04.1959 when grand father of the plaintiff was
purchased the suit property, and secondly arose the cause
of action when Grand father of the Plaintiff namely Ram
Bhagat has expired intestate on 2.06.1978 leaving behind
his sole legal heir Ashok Aggarwal, and after death of
grand father of the plaintiff and father of the plaintiff i.e
Ashok Aggarwal became owner of the ancestral
undivided property, thirdly cause of action arose
unfortunately father of plaintiff and defendant no.1-4
Ashok Aggarwal intestate expired on 30.12.2021 leaving
behind his legal heirs, after the death of father of plaintiff
namely Ashok Aggarwal, plaintiff and defendant no.1-4
became co-owner and co-sharer of the suit property
besides other valuable moveable property and rental
income thereof in share 1/5 each other, fourthly the cause
of action arose on 02.01.2022 plaintiff came to notice that
one brother of the defendant no.1 Namely Ashish
 Aggarwal eldest brother has mortgaged one Shop farming
part of property in Ground floor in advancing the loan of
Rs. 60 Lacs approx. from defendant no.5 /FI and
mortgage while the property never partitioned after the
death Ashok Aggarwal i.e. father of the plaintiff and
defendant no.1-3 and Husband of Defendant no. 4 of the
property jointly in occupation of the entire family
members never demarcated and cannot be identified
active shares of the Co-owner unless partition is done
from the competent court, lastly the cause of action arose
when the plaintiff requested to the defendant no.1 to 4 to
provide her share with undivided suit property and rental
income along with valuable articles belonging of her
father who flatly refused to provide any share in the said
property and rendition of account for rental income and
the cause of action still continuously threatening the
Plaintiff to disposed off the ancestral said Property.

13. That the valuation of the suit property under partitioning

value at Rs.85,00,000/- for the purpose pecuniary
jurisdiction and purpose of court fees fixed Rs.200/- as
plaintiff joint physical possession in respect of the suit
property being co-owner and co-sharer equal share of
1/5th share in the suit property and court fee fixed at
Rs.130/- for the relief of permanent injunction for which
appropriate court fee affixed on the plaint and the
plaintiff undertakes to furnish the court fees at the time of
its final decree under law.
14. That the suit property is situated in the Jurisdiction of
East Distt. Delhi, which is the local jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble court and hence this Hon'ble court has
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.

PRAYER:-
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble
court that may kindly be pleased to :-

a. Pass a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff and

against the defendant no.1-4 thereby passing a preliminary
decree for partition and its equal share of 1/5th in the suit
property bearing No. A-78-79 Guru nanak pura, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi-110092 which is shown in red colour in the
site plan of the suit property measuring area approx.110
Sq. yards thereafter drawn its final decree regarding in
respect of the suit property metes and bounds, in the
interest of justice.

b. Pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1-4 thereby
restraining from defendant no. 1-4 , and their associates,
friends, successors, relatives, agents etc.from third party
interest create, selling, aliening, dispossess, parting with
possession, etc. in respect of the suit property, in the
interest of justice.
 IN THE COURT OF DISTT. AND SESSION JUDGE EAST
DISTT. KKD COURTS DELHI
C.S.No. __________ / 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT.MADHU GUPTA _ _PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ASHISH AGGARWAL & ORS DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ

WITH SECTION 151 OF C.P.C.FOR AN EX-PARTE AD
INTERIM INJUNCTION
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1. That the plaintiff has filed an accompanying suit for partition
and permanent injunction before this Hon'ble Court the
contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of
this application as the same are not herein repeated for the
sake of brevity.
2. That the plaintiff has a good prima-facie case in his favour and
against the defendants and has full hope that he will succeed.
3. That the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.
4. That if the ex-parte ad interim injunction is not passed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants then the
plaintiff shall suffer with an irreparable loss and injury which
can not be compensated in terms of money.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that an ex-parte ad-

interim injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1-4 thereby restraining
the defendant No. 1-4 and their agents, servants, legal heirs,
attorneys, successors, representatives from third party interest
create, selling, aliening, dispossess, parting with possession,
etc. in respect of the suit property, till final disposal of the
case, in the interest of justice.