Delhi District Court
Neetu Sondhwani vs Naveen Sondhwani on 6 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE - 04
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ : 572/2023
CNR: DLSW01-005913-2023
Mrs. Neetu Sondhwani
D/o Late Thakur Das Sondhwani
W/o Sh. Raghav Sharma
R/o: B-7, Uttam Nagar,
Vishwas Park, New Delhi
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Mr. Naveen Sondhwani
S/o Late Thakur Das Sondhwani
R/o: H.No. G-56A, Block G,
Kiran Garden Colony, Uttam Nagar,
D.K.Mohan Garden, New Delhi - 110059.
....DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR PARTITION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.06.2023
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 15.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 06.03.2025
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Sh. Sachin Kumar Tokas
JUDGMENT
1. This suit is brought by Ms. Nitu Sondhwani, the Plaintiff, against her brother, Mr. Naveen Sondhwani, the CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 1 of 11 Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks a decree of partition concerning the entire third floor (with roof rights) of freehold property No. 56-A, G Block, Matiala, Kiran Garden Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 (the "Suit Property"), claiming a 50% share as a Class I legal heir of her deceased parents, who died intestate. The Plaintiff also prays for a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from alienating or encumbering the Suit Property, alleging that he has denied her rightful share and is attempting to dispose of the property. The Defendant, despite being duly served, failed to appear and was proceeded ex-parte.
FACTS STATED IN THE PLAINT
2. The facts, as set out in the plaint, are summed up in brief hereinbelow:
a. The Plaintiff, Smt. Neetu Sondhwani, and the Defendant, Shri. Naveen Sondhwani, are real siblings and the only legal heirs of their deceased parents, Late Shri Thakur Das Sondhwani and Late Smt. Rajni Sondhwani, who passed away intestate. The Plaintiff is married and resides at her matrimonial home, while the Defendant resides in the suit property.
b. The suit property, being the entire third floor (with roof rights) of freehold built-up property bearing No. 56-A, G Block, Village Matiala, Kiran Garden Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059, was purchased jointly by their parents CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 2 of 11 vide Sale Deed dated 07.05.2018. As per the sale deed, both parents held an equal share (50% each) in the suit property.
c. The Plaintiff alleges that their father, Late Shri Thakur Das Sondhwani, was engaged in running a snacks corner at Shop No. 5, Krishna Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Post COVID-19, the Defendant allegedly misbehaved with him and forced him out of the suit property. As a result, their father had to either stay at his shop or with the Plaintiff until his demise.
d. The Plaintiff contends that due to the hostile behavior of the Defendant, their father last resided with her before passing away on 08.02.2023. Their mother had predeceased him, having passed away on 03.07.2022.
e. The Plaintiff asserts that since both parents died intestate, the suit property devolves equally upon the Plaintiff and the Defendant as Class-I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and both are entitled to an equal 50% share in the property.
f. The Plaintiff states that the title deed and other property documents are in exclusive possession of the Defendant, and that he had deliberately denied access to their father to the suit property during his lifetime and now refuses to acknowledge the Plaintiff's rightful share.CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 3 of 11
g. The Plaintiff came to know in March 2023 that the Defendant was actively seeking buyers for the suit property through local property dealers, despite having no authority to sell the property unilaterally.
h. The Plaintiff, upon learning of these attempts, issued a legal notice dated 29.03.2023 to the Defendant, calling upon him to cooperate in the mutation of the property in both their names in accordance with their legal inheritance rights.
i. The Defendant, in his reply dated 19.04.2023, categorically denied the Plaintiff's claim and instead relied on an alleged letter purportedly issued by their father, which supposedly declared the Defendant as the sole legal heir. However, the Plaintiff asserts that:
- No such letter has been disclosed by the Defendant.
- No authenticated or probative evidence of such a letter exists.
- No testamentary instrument (such as a Will) was ever executed by their father.
j. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is currently in exclusive possession of the suit property, while she remains in constructive possession through her co-ownership rights.
k. The Plaintiff apprehends that the Defendant is on the verge of alienating the suit property by creating third-party rights, CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 4 of 11 selling, or transferring ownership, which would cause irreparable loss to her rightful share.
l. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:
1. Partition of the suit property by metes and bounds, declaring the Plaintiff as a co-owner of 50% share.
2. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from selling, alienating, mortgaging, or otherwise encumbering the suit property in any manner.
3. Costs of the suit and any other relief deemed just and appropriate by this Hon'ble Court.
FACTS STATED IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:
3. The Defendant was duly served with the summons of the suit on 20.07.2023. Thereafter none has appeared on behalf of the defendant and plaintiff was granted ex-parte ad-interim protection and directed to comply with proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. On 14.10.2023, the plaintiff has complied with the requirement of proviso to Order 39 Rule (3) CPC, wherein defendant was deemed to be served of this matter again on 25.09.2023 through speed post and on 04.10.2023, through process server. On 23.12.2023, despite waiting till 2:32pm, none appeared on behalf of the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte and his right to file WS was also closed. Consequently, the case was fixed for recording of ex-parte plaintiff's evidence.
CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 5 of 11THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
4. The Plaintiff has led its evidence and has examined two (2) witness in support of her case. The details of the Plaintiff's witnesses are as follows:
a. PW-1 Ms. Neetu Sondhwani (plaintiff herself) b. PW-2 Sh. Sandeep, Sr. Asst. Office of Sub Registrar - IIB, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
5. The Plaintiff herself appeared as PW-1 and deposed in line with the plaint of the suit and tendered her evidence affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Exhibit/Mark Description
1. Ex. PW1/1 (colly) Photocopy of Aadhar Card
(OSR) and Election ID Card.
2. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) Photocopy of death certificate
of her deceased father.
3. Ex. PW1/3 (colly) Copy of legal notice dated 29.03.2023
4. Ex. PW1/4 (colly) Copy of the reply dated 19.04.2023 to the legal notice.
6. No cross examination of this witness was done as the defendant had already proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, on the statement of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 08.05.2024.
7. Plaintiff moved an application for re-opening of ex- parte plaintiff's evidence and the same was allowed and thereafter CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 6 of 11 PW-2 Sh. Sandeep, Sr. Assistant, from the office of Sub Registrar - IIB, Janakpuri, has proved the certified copies of the sale deed bearing registration number 11300 in Book No. 1, Vol. 3194, on pages 40 to 50 dated 07.05.2018, as Ex. PW2/1. This witness was also not cross examined by or on behalf of the defendant, as he was already proceeded ex-parte.
8. Thereafter again on the statement of plaintiff recorded on 15.01.2025, the ex-parte PE was closed.
ARGUMENTS
9. In order to adjudicate upon this suit, this Court had heard Sh. Sachin Kumar Tokas, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff.. During the hearing, the Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff had submitted that the case of the plaintiff stands duly proved by virtue of the unchallenged testimonies of PW1 and PW-2 and the documents relied on in his evidence affidavit. Therefore, the plaintiff should be granted the decree, as prayed for.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
10. Firstly, this Court will check whether the Plaintiff has proved that the Plaintiff and Defendant are the Class I legal heirs of the late Mr. Thakur Das Sondhwani and the late Mrs. Rajni Sondhwani.
11. The unchallenged testimony of PW-1, supported by the family tree provided in her evidence affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) and CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 7 of 11 the death certificate of Mr. Thakur Das Sondhwani (Ex. PW1/2), establishes that the Plaintiff and Defendant are the daughter and son, respectively, of the deceased parents. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, sons and daughters are Class I legal heirs.
12. Now, the Court will ascertain whether the Suit Property was jointly owned by the late Mr. Thakur Das Sondhwani and the late Mrs. Rajni Sondhwani. The certified copy of the Sale Deed (Ex. PW2/1), proved by PW-2, unequivocally establishes that the Suit Property was purchased on 07.05.2018 in the joint names of Mr. Thakur Das Sondhwani and Mrs. Rajni Sondhwani, with each having a 50% undivided share.
13. Now, coming to the entitlement of the Plaintiff to a 50% share in the Suit Property by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is proved by the unchallenged testimony of the Plaintiff by way of her evidence affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that both Mr. Thakur Das Sondhwani and Mrs. Rajni Sondhwani died intestate. Therefore, the devolution of their property is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
14. Upon the death of Mrs. Rajni Sondhwani on 03.07.2022, her 50% share in the Suit Property devolved equally upon her Class I heirs i.e. her husband (Mr. Thakur Das Sondhwani) and her two children (the Plaintiff and the Defendant). This is according to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, each of them inherited 1/3rd of her 50% share (i.e., 16.67% each).
CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 8 of 1115. Mr. Thakur Das Sondhwani originally held a 50% share. He inherited an additional 16.67% from his wife, bringing his total share to 66.67%. Upon his death on 08.02.2023, his 66.67% share devolved equally upon his Class I heirs: the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act). Therefore, each inherited 1/2 of his 66.67% share (i.e., 33.33% each).
16. Therefore, the Plaintiff inherited 16.67% from her mother and 33.33% from her father, totaling 50%. The Defendant inherited 16.67% from his mother and 33.33% from his father, totaling 50%. The Defendant's claim of sole ownership based on an alleged letter is legally untenable. A letter cannot override the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. To disinherit a Class I heir, a validly executed and registered Will would be required. No such Will has been presented or even claimed to exist.
17. Therefore, it is established that the Plaintiff is a co- owner of the Suit Property, holding a 50% undivided share. As a co-owner, she has a legal right to seek partition of the property by metes and bounds to have her share separated and to receive possession thereof. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition of the Suit Property
18. Now, coming to the prayer of the decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from dealing with the Suit Property. Given the Defendant's attempt to claim sole ownership and the Plaintiff's apprehension of the Defendant selling the CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 9 of 11 property (as evidenced by the legal notice and reply - Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4), a permanent injunction is necessary to protect the Plaintiff's rights and prevent irreparable harm. Allowing the Defendant to deal with the property or create third-party rights would prejudice the Plaintiff's ability to realize her share in the partition.
19. As far as territorial jurisdiction and limitation is concerned, the suit property is situated in Matiala, Kiran Garden Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, and the suit is also filed within the limitation period. There is no evidence or argument to suggest otherwise.
20. Thus, resultantly, the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
ORDER
21. In view of the foregoing findings and reasoning, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed as follows:
a. A preliminary decree of partition is passed in respect of the entire third floor (with roof rights) of the freehold built-up property bearing No. 56-A, G Block, Matiala, Kiran Garden Colony, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 (the Suit Property). The Plaintiff, Ms. Nitu Sondhwani is entitled to her 50% share in the suit property.CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 10 of 11
b. A decree of permanent injunction is passed restraining the Defendant, Mr. Naveen Sondhwani, and/or his respective assignees, successors, nominees, executors, etc., from in any manner dealing with the Suit Property or creating any third- party rights/interests/encumbrances thereon, or from transferring/alienating the same, or in any manner either directly or indirectly diminishing/exhausting/depleting the same or the value thereof.
c. The Defendant shall bear the costs of the suit.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. List for submissions on requirement of appointment of Local Commissioner to physically inspect the property and to propose a plan for dividing it fairly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED : 06.03.2025 Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.03.06 16:47:31 +0530 (SUMIT DALAL) DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 SOUTH WEST DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI CS DJ ADJ 572/2023 Page 11 of 11