Delhi District Court
Prabhu Singh vs Hukam Singh And Ors on 4 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPANKER MOHAN
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No.2679/2016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Sh. Prabhu Singh
(Now deceased represented through LRs)
a) Narender Singh
S/o late Sh. Prabhu Singh
R/o Flat No.M-302, Plot No.33, Aruna Apartment,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092
b) Ved Prakash
S/o late Sh. Prabhu Singh
R/o Flat No.H-301, Plot No.33, Aruna Apartment,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092
c) Sh. Kadam Singh
S/o late Sh. Prabhu Singh
R/o H.No.C-390, Gali No.16, C-Block,
Bhajanpura Market, Delhi-110053
d) Sh. Hemant Singh Raghav
S/o late Sh. Vijay Singh
R/o Flat No.H-301, Plot No.33, Aruna Apartment,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092
e) Sh. Bhanu Raghav
S/o late Sh. Vijay Singh
R/o Flat No.H-301, Plot No.33, Aruna Apartment,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092
f) Archana Rathour
D/o late Sh. Vijay Singh
R/o Flat No.H-301, Plot No.33, Aruna Apartment,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092
Digitally signed
by DEEPANKER
CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 1 of 41
MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04
18:51:12 +0530
g) Rachna Raghav Rastogi
D/o late Sh. Vijay Singh
R/o Flat No.H-301, Plot No.33, Aruna Apartment,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi-110092 ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Hukum Singh
S/o Late Sh. Dhungar Singh
R/o H.No.503, Gali Bahar Wali,
Chata Lal Mian, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002
2. Sh. Prem Singh
(Now deceased represented through)
a) Smt. Satto (Now deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Prem Singh
R/o H.No.WZ-10, Bhagat Singh Gali,
Badarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-110032
b) Smt. Maya
W/o Late Sh. Om Parkash
R/o H.No.791/17, Gali No.10,
D-Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093
c) Smt. Saroj
W/o Sh. Vijay
R/o H.No.791/17, Gali No.10,
D-Block, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093
d) Sh. Raje
S/o Late Sh. Prem Singh
e) Smt. Bala
D/o Late Sh. Prem Singh
f) Sh. Suraj
S/o Late Sh. Prem Singh
All R/o H.No.WZ-10, Bhagat Singh Gali,
Digitally signed
by DEEPANKER
CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 2 of 41
MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04
18:51:17 +0530
Badarpur, Shahdara, Delhi-110032
g) Smt. Daya
W/o Sh. Gian Singh
R/o B-89, Gali No.1,
Village Jhandapur, Sahibabad
Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005. .... Defendants
1. CS No. : 2679/2016
2. Under Section : Suit for partition,
possession, damages/
mesne profits and
permanent injunction.
3. Date of Institution : 29/05/2012
4. Reserved for judgment : 14/03/2026
5. Judgment : 04/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the suit for partition, possession, damages/mesne profits and permanent injunction filed by plaintiff against defendants.
AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT
2. Plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are real brothers and sons of Late Sh. Dhungar Singh.
3. On 22/09/1969 Sh. Ram Sarup had executed a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and defendants in respect to suit property i.e. plot of land bearing no.4, area 300 sq. Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 3 of 41 MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04 18:51:23 +0530 yards (41' X 65') part of khasra no.329, situated at Village Babarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi and by virtue of the afore-said sale deed, plaintiff and defendants become co-owners of 1/3rd share each in the suit property. At present, the suit property is in possession of the defendant no.1 who is running factory from it.
4. The suit property was purchased out of the joint family funds in 1969 as the status of the family was joint and defendant no.1 was the youngest son and depend upon the plaintiff. At that time, plaintiff was running his shop at Daryaganj, Delhi and also doing work of Jali making on contract basis and out the said work/job, he used to earn Rs.500/- per month approx. which was sufficient to support his own family along-with defendants who were living jointly with him at that time.
5. On several occasions, plaintiff has asked defendant no.1 that as he is using the suit property by running factory, therefore, he is liable to pay user charges of 1/3rd of the suit property. In the month of March, 2009 defendant no.1 agreed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as user charges to the plaintiff but later on, he refused to pay even a single penny.
6. Plaintiff has also asked defendant no.1 to partition/divide the suit property and give the separate share of 1/3 rd Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 4 of 41 MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 18:51:29 +0530 portion of the suit property to plaintiff but defendant no.1 flatly refused to divide/ partition the suit property.
7. Defendant no.1 is illegally and unlawfully occupying the plaintiff's 1/3rd share of the suit property and he is liable to partition the suit property and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of 1/3rd portion of the suit property forthwith. Defendant no.1 is also liable to pay user charges since March, 2009 to March, 2012 @ Rs.4,000/- per month totaling to Rs.1,44,000/-, to plaintiff.
8. On 27/03/2012 plaintiff through his counsel has sent a legal notice dated 26/03/2012 whereby plaintiff asked defendants to partition the suit property. The said notice had been duly served upon defendant no.1 but instead of dividing the suit property, defendant no.1 through his Counsel sent a false and frivolous reply dated 11/04/2012. Thereafter, on 23/04/2012 plaintiff through his Counsel has sent a rejoinder dated 20/04/2012 of the reply dated 11/04/2012 to the defendant no.1. Thereafter, defendant no.1 through his Counsel has sent a surrejoinder/ reply dated 14/05/2012.
9. On 01/05/2012 defendant no.2 has also sent a reply-cum-
notice to plaintiff wherein he supported the stand taken by defendant no.1. Thereafter on 15/05/2012, plaintiff has sent a reply to the defendant no.2. Plaintiff has Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 5 of 41 MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04 18:51:34 +0530 denied the execution and existence of family settlement dated 11/05/1999.
10. On 16/05/2012 defendants in collusion with each other and along-with their associates, had threatened the plaintiff that they will sell the suit property without his consent and permission.
11. The acts of the defendants are illegal and unlawful and defendants have no right to sell the suit property to third person/any other person without the consent of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has apprehension that defendants will transfer, alienate, sell or part with the possession of the suit property at any point of time. Thus, the present suit.
SERVICE OF SUMMONS
12. Summons of the present suit was issued to defendants vide order dated 29.05.2012. Defendant No.1 was duly served on 13.08.2012 and report qua defendant No.2 had not been received. Defendants put their appearance through their counsel on 24.08.2012 and subsequently, on 05.09.2012 written statement was filed.
AVERMENTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS.
13. Defendants in their written statement have specifically denied the averments of plaint and claim of the plaintiff.
Digitally signedCS No.2679/2016 Page no. 6 of 41
DEEPANKER by DEEPANKER
MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04
18:51:40 +0530
14. Defendant No.1 had purchased the suit property from his own income, funds and contribution. The suit property is the self-acquired property of the defendant no.1. Out of love and affection, he added the names of plaintiff and defendant No.2 in the sale deed. The parties to the suit had executed a family arrangement/ settlement/Memorandum dated 11/05/1999 to preserve and maintain the family peace, harmony and security in establishing or ensuring amity and goodwill amongst the members of the family. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 have acknowledged this fact in the family settlement that the sale consideration of Rs.3,000/- was paid by defendant No.1 from his own income, funds and contributions. Defendant No.2 has admitted that execution of family arrangement/settlement dated 11.05.1999.
15. Plaintiff has suppressed the fact that the family settlement/arrangement/memorandum was executed in respect of all the properties including ancestral properties inherited by the parties to the suit including H.No.503, Gali Bahar Wali Chhatta Lal Mian, Daryaganj, Delhi- 110002 and two flats in Aruna Cooperative Housing Society, Patparganj, Delhi-92 which were purchased by the income and funds of defendant No.1.
16. Sh. Dungar Singh and Late Sh. Chhuara Singh were the coparcener of joint Hindu Family property situated at Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 7 of 41 MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 18:51:46 +0530 H.No.503, Gali Bahar Wali Chhatta Lal Mian, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002 ad-measuring 280 sq. yards and House No.444 Chatta Lal Mian, Daryaganj, Delhi- 110002. In H.No.503, Gali Bahar Wali Chhatta Lal Mian, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002, plaintiff and defendants have possession of undivided share of 80 sq. Yards and rest of about 200 sq. yards is in possession of family of Late Sh. Hira Singh S/o Late Sh. Chhuara Singh. The House No.444 Chatta Lal Mian, Daryaganj, Delhi- 110002 is in possession of the family of Late Sh. Munshi Ram and Late Sh. Gopal Singh except for 40 sq. yards which is undivided share of the plaintiff and defendants in their possession. A Civil Suit No.825/1975 (Old Suit No.415/70) titled as 'Prem Singh & Ors. versus Gopal Singh & Ors.' is pending between parties to the present suit and Munshi Ram, Gopal Singh and Hira Singh before Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
17. The plaintiff is barred from challenging the family arrangement/settlement/memorandum by the application and operation of Doctrine of Estoppel preventing the parties, after having taken advantage under the arrangement and acted upon it, from resiling the same or trying to revoke it.
18. Defendant in an alternative plea has pleaded that defendant no.1 has become the absolute owner of the suit property by prescription and adverse possession being in Digitally signed by CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 8 of 41 MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 18:51:52 +0530 long, continuous, uninterrupted, open and hostile possession since 1969. The suit is barred by limitation.
19. After the death of father of the parties, plaintiff and defendants had severed/separated themselves from the joint family and were living separately with their wife and children having separate kitchen, business and occupation. The parties were living separately with their family and children on a small space of only 80 sq. yards in H.No.503, Gali Bahar Wali Chhatta Lal Mian, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002.
20. The site plan filed by the plaintiff is false. In fact, defendant no.1 had purchased another property ad- measuring about 125 sq. yards with passage of 6 ft X 30 ft. from Mrs. Shanti, Smt. Saroopi, Smt. Murti and Ms. Bhule vide registered sale deed dated 15/01/1969. The said property is adjacent to the suit property. The construction of the afore-said two properties were raised by the defendant no.1 from his own personal income, funds and contribution in the year 1975 to 1980. The defendant no.1 is running the business of Wire Netting under the name and style of M/s Raghav Wire Netting since 1969 in the same premises. The said firm was registered with the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 vide Registration no.7A/5522/II dated 20/04/1976 issued by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishment, Delhi. The defendant no.1 is paying Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 9 of 41 MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 18:51:58 +0530 House Tax and other statutory bills like electricity etc. to the respective statutory authorities regularly till date. The plaintiff was selling cigarettes on a space of 4ft X 4ft outside the building/house no.503, Gali Bahar Wali Chhatta Lal Mian, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002.
21. Plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit property and the present suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy exemplary cost.
AVERMENTS OF THE REPLICATION
22. Replication to the written statement of defendants was filed on 17.01.2013 wherein plaintiff has specifically denied the averments of written statement and re- affirmed the averments of the plaint. The family settlement is a forged and fabricated document and the same has never been executed by the plaintiff. The signatures on the said document are forged by the defendant no.1 in collusion with defendant no.2. The suit property is only property to be partitioned which is not come under Joint Hindu Family property. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff ans defendants jointly.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
23. Upon completion of pleadings, following issues were framed in the present case on 06.09.2013 which are as under:-
Digitally signed by DEEPANKERDEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Page no. 10 of 41 Date:
2026.04.04 18:52:03 +0530
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of partition in respect of the suit property i.e. plot of land bearing No.4, area 300 sq. yards, measuring 41' x 65' part of Khasra No.329, situated at Village Babarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi and if so, what is the share of the parties?
OPP
2. Whether the parties to the suit entered into a Family Settlement/Memorandum dated 11.05.1999 and if so, its effect? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages and mesne profits and if so, at what rate? OPP
4. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred under Article 65 of Schedule 1 read with Section 27 of the Limitation Act? OPD
5. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF
24. Plaintiff to prove his case examined five witnesses i.e. (1) Sh. Prabhu Singh as PW-1, (2) Sh. Narender Singh as PW-2 Sh. Narender Singh, (3) Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Attendant, Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Delhi Archives, 18-A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Spl. Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 as PW- 3, (4) Sh. Ved Prakash as PW-4 & (5) Mr. Syed Faizal Huda (Forensic Expert) as PW-5.
25. PW-1/plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit and tendered it as exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A on 13.10.2014 and relied upon the documents i.e. Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/5, Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04 Page no. 11 of 41 18:52:08 +0530 Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/15 to Ex.PW1/19, Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2, Ex.P-4, Ex.P-8, Ex.P-9, Ex.P-14, Ex.P- 15 and Ex.P-19. On the same day, he was cross examined by Ld. counsel for defendant.
26. PW-2 Sh. Narender Singh filed his evidence affidavit and tendered it as exhibited as Ex.PW-2/X on 16.10.2015 and relied upon the documents which were already exhibited in the chief examination of PW-1. He also relied upon the document i.e. (1) Ex.PW2/A- Special Power of Attorney dated 17.05.2012. On the same day, he was cross examined by Ld. counsel for defendant.
27. On 30.01.2024 PW-3 Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Attendant, Government of NCT of Delhi, Department of Delhi Archives, 18-A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Spl. Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 brought the summon records i.e. sale deed register, Vol. No.110, Additional Book-1, Sub-Registrar-IV, pertaining to the sale deed dated 23.09.1969, registration No.6145, Vol. No.110, Book No.1 on pages 168 and 169. Attested copy of the same was exhibited as Ex.PW3/A(OSR). He was not cross examined by defendants.
28. PW-4 Sh. Ved Prakash filed his evidence affidavit and tendered it as exhibited as Ex.PW4/A on 12.03.2024 and relied upon the documents which were already on records i.e. Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3, Mark A and Mark B Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
CS No.2679/2016 Page no. 12 of 41
2026.04.04
18:52:13 +0530
respectively. On 12.03.2024 and 18.04.2024, he was cross examined by Ld. counsel for defendant No.1.
29. PW-5 Mr. Syed Faizal Huda (Forensic Expert) filed his evidence affidavit and tendered it as exhibited as Ex.PW5/A on 18.10.2024 and relied upon the document i.e. (1) Ex.PW5/1(Colly.)- Forensic report along with including photographs with annexure of the documents. On 18.10.2024 and 09.12.2024, he was cross examined by Ld. counsel for defendant No.1.
30. PE was closed on 09.12.2024.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT NO.1
31. Defendant No.1 has examined three witnesses i.e. (1) Sh.
Hukum Singh as DW-1, (2) Sh. Anil Kumar as DW-2 & (3) Sh. Babu Lal as DW-3.
32. DW-1 Sh. Hukum Singh filed his evidence affidavit and tendered it as exhibited as Ex.DW1/A on 07.04.2025 and relied upon the following documents i.e. (1) Ex.DW1/1- Memorandum of family settlement, (2) Ex.DW1/2- House Tax Bill for the assessment year 1985-86, (3) Ex.DW1/3- Property Tax Bill for 1998-99, (4) Ex.DW1/4- Registration certificate of M/s Raghav Wire Netting Works issued under Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954, (5) Ex.DW1/6- Electricity Bills/Notice, (6) Ex.DW1/7- Property/House Tax Bill for Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 13 of 41 2026.04.04 18:52:18 +0530 Assessment year 2001-2002, (7) Ex.DW1/8- Renewal of Factory License of M/s Raghav Wire Netting Works, (8) Ex.DW1/9- Site plan of the suit property, (9) Ex.DW1/10- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (10) Ex.DW1/11- Electricity Bill, (11) Ex.DW1/12- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (12) Ex.DW1/13- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (13) Ex.DW1/14- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (14) Ex.DW1/15- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (15) Ex.DW1/16- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (16) Ex.DW1/17- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (17) Ex.DW1/18- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (18) Ex.DW1/19- Electricity Bill of the suit property is Ex.DW1/19, (19) Ex.DW1/20- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (20) Ex.DW1/21- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (21) Ex.DW1/22- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (22) Ex.DW1/23- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (23) Ex.DW1/24- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (24) Ex.DW1/25- Electricity Bill of the suit property, (25) Ex.DW1/26(OSR)- Sale Deed dated 17.01.1969 for land measuring 125 Sq. Yards in Khasra No.440 and 441 situated at Village Maujpur (Babarpur) Shahdara, Delhi. On 09.05.2025, 09.07.2025 and 12.07.2025, he was cross examined by Ld. counsel for LRs of plaintiff.
33. On 28.11.2025, DW-2 Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta deposed that after vising the site, he had prepared the site plan of Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04 Page no. 14 of 41 18:52:23 +0530 the property bearing No.W-3 and 4, Tagore Gali, Babarpur, Delhi-92. Same was already exhibited as Ex.DW1/9. On the same day, he was cross examined by Ld. counsel for LRs of plaintiff.
34. DW-3 Sh. Babu Lal Sharma filed his evidence affidavit and tendered it as exhibited as Ex.DW3/A on 28.11.2025. On the same day, he was cross examined by Ld. counsel for LRs of plaintiff.
35. On 28.11.2025, DE qua defendant No.1 was closed and rights of LRs of defendant No2 to lead DE was also closed.
36. On 27.01.2026, 09.02.2026 and 14.03.2026, final arguments were heard. Case laws was filed on behalf of defendant No.1 on 14.03.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LRS OF PLAINTIFF.
37. Ld. counsel for LRs of plaintiff has argued that defendant No.1 has failed to prove source of funds of Rs.3,000/- allegedly paid as sale consideration by him at the time of execution of sale deed dated 22.09.1969. He further argued that defendants have further failed to prove that he has paid the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.3,000/- to the seller at the time of execution of sale deed dated 22.09.1969. He further Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 15 of 41 MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 18:52:29 +0530 argued that the stamp papers of the sale deed had been purchased by plaintiff and his name has been inscribed on the back of the stamp paper. He further argued that defendants have failed to prove the execution of family settlement dated 11.05.1999. He further argued that there are material contradiction in the testimony of DW-1 and DW-3. He further argued that DW-3 has not relied upon the family settlement and the same has not been exhibited during his testimony. He further argued that the family settlement is a forged document and the same does not bear the signature of plaintiff. He further argued that plaintiff is one of the registered owner of the suit property, therefore, he is entitled for partition with separate possession of the suit property and mesne profit against defendants. He further argued that the present suit be decreed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS.
38. Ld. counsel for defendants admits the existence and execution of sale deed dated 22.09.1969, however, he argued that the suit property had been purchased by defendant No.1 out of his own funds and out of love and affection, he has also inserted the name of plaintiff and defendant No.2 in the sale deed dated 22.09.1969. He further argued that defendants have proved that the suit property is a self-acquired property of defendant No.1. He further argued that family arrangement/settlement Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 16 of 41 2026.04.04 18:52:34 +0530 dated 11.05.1999 had been executed between plaintiff and defendants and the same had been duly signed by the parties of the suit in the presence of the witnesses. He further argued that plaintiff has also admitted in the said family arrangement/settlement dated 11.05.1999 that the suit property had been purchased by defendant No.1 out of his own funds and he and defendant No.2 have not contributed a single penny towards the sale consideration amount paid to the seller. He further argued that defendants have proved the family settlement/arrangement dated 11.05.1999 and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief from this Court. He further argued that during cross examination, plaintiff/PW-1 has denied his signatures on the plaint and evidence affidavit. He further argued that as per the testimony of PW-1, there is no plaint. He further argued that if there is no plaint, then other things are meaningless. He further argued that when roots goes then other things collapsed. He further argued that vide order dated 15.04.2014, PW-1 was dropped and his son namely Sh. Narender Singh has examined himself as PW-2 to prove the averments of the plaint. He further argued that PW-2 is not conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, his evidence has no value. He further argued that the date of SPA executed by plaintiff in favour of his son namely Sh. Narender Singh is of dated 17.05.2012 and the present suit had been filed Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 17 of 41 MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04 18:52:39 +0530 on 28.05.2012. He further argued that pursuant to the execution of POA dated 17.05.2012, Sh. Narender Singh has done nothing, therefore, his testimony is meaningless and also hearsay. He further argued that defendant No.1 is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property since 1969 and defendant No.1 has also become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession and doctrine of prescription. He further argued that plaintiff in para No.9 of the plaint has pleaded that the family settlement dated 11.05.1999 is a forged document, however, he has failed to seek relief for cancellation for cancelling the family settlement dated 11.05.1999 as null and void and non-est. He further argued that plaintiff has taken contrary stand in the plaint and replication. He further argued that plaintiff in his plaint has pleaded that the suit property had been purchased out of joint family funds, however, in replication, he has stated that the suit property had been purchased by plaintiff and defendants jointly. He further argued that plaintiff has failed to prove his case and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy exemplary cost. Ld. counsel for defendants in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in i.e. (i) "Ram Charan Das Vs. Girjanandini Devi and Ors", AIR 1966 SC 323, (1965) 04 SC CK 0005 {Civil appeal No.520/1961}, (ii) "Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal", AIR 2007 SC 637, (2006) Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date:
Page no. 18 of 41 2026.04.04 18:52:44 +0530 10 SC CK 0094 {Civil Appeal No.4609/2006}, (iii) "Kale and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.", (1976) 01 SC CK 00018, {Civil Appeal No.37/1968}, (iv) "Rajeev Gupta & Ors. Vs. Prashant Garg & Ors.", 2025 INSC 552, Civil Appeal No.11061/2024, arising out of SLP(C) No.2998/2022, &
(v) "Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors.", (2010) 3 SCR 1121.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DETERMINATION OF THE CASE ISSUE WISE Issue No.2:- Whether the parties to the suit entered into a Family Settlement/Memorandum dated 11.05.1999 and if so, its effect? OPD
39. Defendants have pleaded that a family settlement/memorandum dated 11.05.1999 had been executed between plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 in presence of Sh. Babu Lal Sharma and Sh. Balwant Singh. As per family settlement Ex.DW1/1, the suit property comes into the share of defendant No.1 alone because the same had been purchased by him out of his own funds. The plaintiff has denied the existence and execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1. He further denied his signatures on the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 and pleaded that the same is a forged and fabricated document.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 19 of 41
2026.04.04
18:52:50 +0530
40. As plaintiff has denied the execution and existence of family settlement Ex.DW1/1, the burden of proof is upon defendants.
41. During the cross examination recorded on 09.07.2025, DW-1 (defendant No.1) has deposed that "I have filed the document Ex.DW1/1. I cannot tell who has purchased the stamp papers. I cannot tell where it is got typed. I cannot tell when I see the above document Ex.DW1/1 first time. I cannot tell who has shown me this document first time. I cannot read the contents of the document Ex.DW1/1 because I am illiterate." The above deposition of DW-1 clearly reflects that defendant No.1 is unaware about the fact that from where it was got typed and who has purchased the stamp paper on which the same has been typed. The deposition of DW-1 that 'he cannot tell when he has seen the document Ex.DW1/1 first times' creates probable doubts in believing the execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1 as genuine and valid because as per defendants, DW-1 has also signed the said document on 11.05.1999 but strangely he is unaware when he has seen the said document at first time and who has shown him the said document at first time.
42. It is noted that defendant No.1 through his advocate Sh.
S.S. Dabas has sent reply dated 11.04.2012 Ex.P-4 and Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 Page no. 20 of 41 MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04 18:52:55 +0530 Ex.P-6 of the legal notice dated 26.03.2012 Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 to the plaintiff's counsel Sh. Surender Kumar. It is further pertinent to mention here that defendant No.1 has not pleaded about the execution and existence of such family settlement/memorandum Ex.DW1/1 in his reply dated 11.04.2012 Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6. It is noted that thereafter, a rejoinder dated 20.04.2012 Ex.P-8 of the reply Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6 was sent to defendant No.1 which was duly served upon him and he has also replied the same vide surrejoinder/reply dated 14.05.2012 Ex.P- 15 and Ex.P-17. It is further pertinent to mention here that only in the surrejoinder/reply dated 14.05.2012 Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-17, defendant No.1 has pleaded about the execution of family settlement dated 11.05.1999. It is pertinent to mention here that defendant No.2 had sent a written letter dated 01.05.2012 Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-11 to the plaintiff's counsel pleading about the execution of family settlement dated 11.05.1999. The said written letter had been duly replied by plaintiff through his counsel vide reply dated 14.05.2012 Ex.P-14. It is further noted that plaintiff or his counsel has not sent any notice to defendant No.2 seeking partition. It is further pertinent to mention here that the existence and execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1 has been firstly raised by defendant No.2 in his letter dated 01.05.2012 Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-11 i.e. after sending the reply dated 11.04.2012 Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6 by defendant No.1 through his Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 21 of 41 MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04 18:53:00 +0530 counsel and after receiving the rejoinder dated 20.04.2012 Ex.P-8 to it. It is further to pertinent to mention here that when defendant No.2 has pleaded about the execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1 in his letter dated 01.05.2012 Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-11 only then defendant No.1 in his surrejoinder/reply dated 14.05.2012 Ex.P-15 of rejoinder dated 20.04.2012 has first time pleaded about the execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1. The said circumstances raises probable doubts about the genuineness and execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1.
43. DW-1 during his cross examination recorded on 12.07.2025 has deposed that "I do not know who is Babu Lal Sharma and Balwant Singh and I never met with them.". He further during his cross examination recorded on 09.07.2025 has deposed that "at the time of execution of document Ex.DW1/1, all the family members were present. I cannot tell who were present at the time of execution of document Ex.DW1/1. No one outsider was present at the time of execution of document Ex.DW1/1." Defendant No.1/DW-1 during his cross examination has deposed that he does not know Sh. Babu Lal Sharma and Sh. Balwant Singh and he never met with them. Sh. Babu Lal Sharma and Sh. Balwant Singh are none other then the attesting witnesses of family settlement Ex.DW1/1. If DW-1 has never met with Sh.
Digitally signed
CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER by DEEPANKER Page no. 22 of 41
MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.04.04
18:53:07 +0530
Babu Lal Sharma and Sh. Balwant Singh; if he does not know about them and if no outsider was present at the time of execution of document Ex.DW1/1 then in that case, the testimony of DW-3 Sh. Babu Lal Sharma would be of no avail for defendants. The testimony of DW-1 and DW-3 are contradictory to each other and raises probable doubts in believing the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 as genuine and valid document.
44. Defendants have also not examined the family members in whose presence the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 had been executed. The written statement is silent about the name of the family members who were present at the time of execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1. Defendants have not explained the reasons why the family members, who were present at the time of execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1, have not signed the family settlement Ex.DW1/1. The afore-said circumstances also creates reasonable and probable doubts in believing the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 as genuine and valid.
45. Admittedly, plaintiff and defendants had jointly filed a civil suit bearing No.825/1975 (Old Suit No.415/70) titled as 'Prem Singh & Ors. versus Gopal Singh & Ors.' i.e. suit for partition in respect to portion of 200 sq. yards of the property bearing No.503, Gali Bahar Wali, Chhata Lal Mian, Daryaganj, New Delhi-02 against the LRs of Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 23 of 41 MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 18:53:12 +0530 Chhuara Singh. The said suit had been decreed in favour of plaintiff and defendants on 24.10.1997. Thereafter, plaintiff and defendants have jointly filed execution petition bearing No.98/14 (Old No.64/05 and also 42/13). The execution petition Ex.DW1/P1 reflects that the same had been signed by plaintiff and defendants on 10.05.2005 and has been jointly filed by them on 23.09.2005. It is pertinent to mention here that the execution petition which has been filed on 23.09.2005 does not mention about the execution of family settlement dated 11.05.1999 Ex.DW1/1. Defendants have not explained the reasons why they have not mentioned about the family settlement dated 11.05.1999 in the execution petition bearing No.98/2014 at the time of its filing on 23.09.2005. If the said family settlement dated Ex.DW1/1 had been executed on 11.05.1999 then the said fact probably would be mentioned in the execution petition, however, execution petition is silent about the family settlement dated 11.05.1999. Rather it has been filed and signed by plaintiff as well as defendant No.2.
The said circumstance also raises probable doubts in believing that the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 is not a genuine and valid document.
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para No.20 of its judgment passed in "Kale and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 CS No.2679/2016 18:53:17 +0530 Page no. 24 of 41 of Consolidation and Ors.", (1976) 3 SCC 119 has stated the general proposition which are mentioned as under:-
(1) A family arrangement can be made orally. (2) If made orally, there being no document, no question of registration arises.
(3) If though it could have been made orally, it was in fact reduced to the form of a "document", registration (when the value is Rs.100/- and upward) is necessary.
(4) Whether the terms have been 'reduced to the form of a document' is a question of fact in each case to be determined upon a consideration of the nature and phraseology of the writing and the circumstances in which and the purpose with which it was written.
(5) If the terms were not 'reduced to the form of a document' registration was not necessary (even though value is Rs.100/- or upward); and while the writing cannot be used as a piece of evidence for what it may be worth, e.g. as corroborative of other evidence or as an admission of the transaction or as showing or explaining conduct.
(6) If the terms were 'reduced to the form of a document' and, though the value of Rs.100/- or upwards, it was not registered, the absence of registration makes the document inadmissible in evidence and is fatal to prove of the arrangement embodied in the document'.
47. The family settlement Ex.DW1/1 reflects that plaintiff and defendant No.2 had agreed that the suit property belongs to defendant No.1. Admittedly, the sale deed Ex.P-1 pertaining to the suit property is registered in the joint name of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 and parties to the suit are the lawful and absolute owners of the suit property. If plaintiff and defendant No.2 agreed to release their share/right in the suit property in favour of defendant No.1, then the said document required to be registered. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kale Ram (Supra), the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 requires registration and as the Digitally signed by DEEPANKER CS No.2679/2016 DEEPANKER MOHAN Page no. 25 of 41 MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 18:53:22 +0530 same is an unregistered document, therefore, the document is inadmissible in evidence and is fatal to prove of the arrangement embodied in the document. Moreover, the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 is also hit by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Haryana & Ors."- SLP (Civil) No. 13917 of 2019;
"Shakeel Ahmed versus Syed Akhlaq Hussain", Civil Appeal No.1598/2023,"M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. versus J. Manjula Etc.", Civil Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.13618-13619 of 2020; "Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand" (Civil Appeal No.6377/2012), 2025 INSC 1059 and "Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. versus Mahaveer Lunia & Ors", 2025 SCC Online 1208".
48. The defendants have failed to produce cogent, reliable, positive and independent evidence to establish the existence and execution of family settlement Ex.DW1/1, therefore, the same cannot operate as estoppel against plaintiff. The judgments relied by defendants are on different facts and circumstances and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present suit.
49. In view of the above discussions and findings, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 26 of 41
2026.04.04
18:53:27 +0530
Issue No.4:- Whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred under Article 65 of Schedule 1 read with Section 27 of the Limitation Act? OPD
50. Defendants have claimed that defendant No.1 is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property since 1969. Admittedly, plaintiff and defendants are the lawful, registered and joint owners of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 22.09.1969 Ex.P-1.
51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin and others v. Syed Shah Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri and Ors.", (1971) 1 SCC 597 held that possession of one co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all co-owners unless it is established that the possession of the co-owner is in denial of title of co-owners and the possession is in hostility to co-owners by exclusion of them. It was further held that there has to be open denial of title to the parties who are entitled to it by excluding and ousting them.
52. Three judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Lakshmi Reddy v. R.Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 1789 while examining the necessary conditions for applicability of doctrine of ouster to the shares of co- owners, held as follows:
"4. Now, the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi nec clam nec precario. [See Secretary of State for Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 27 of 41 2026.04.04 18:53:32 +0530 India v. Debendra Lal Khan (1933) LR 61 IA 78, 82]. The possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. [See Radhamoni Debi v. Collector of Khulna (1900) LR 27 IA 136, 140]. But it is well- settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits of the properties. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co- heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heir's title. [See Cores v. Appuhamy (1912) AC 230]. It is a settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. This does not necessarily mean that there must be an express demand by one and denial by the other."
53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash, (1995) 4 SCC 496 held that:
"28. 'Ouster' does not mean actual driving out of the co-sharer from the property. It will, however, not be complete unless it is coupled with all other ingredients required to constitute adverse possession. Broadly speaking, three elements are necessary for establishing the plea of ouster in the case of co-owner. They are (i) declaration of hostile animus, (ii) long and uninterrupted possession of the person pleading ouster, and (iii) exercise of right of exclusive ownership openly and to the knowledge of other co-owner. Thus, a co-owner, can under law, claim title by adverse possession against another co-owner who can, of course, file appropriate suit including suit for joint possession within time prescribed by law. "Digitally signed by DEEPANKER
DEEPANKER MOHAN
CS No.2679/2016 Page no. 28 of 41
MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04
18:53:38 +0530
54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naga Bhushanammal (D) by LRs Vs. C.Chandikeswaralingam, Civil Appeal No.1858-1859 of 2016 arising out of SLP(C) No.10449-
10450/2009 has held that ouster is a weak defence in a suit for partition of a family property and it is strong if the defendant is able to establish consistent and open assertion of denial of title, long and uninterrupted possession and exercise of right of exclusive ownership openly and to the knowledge of the other co-owner.
55. The law always presumes that all co-owners have an equal right to possess and use the property, even if one co-owner is physically in control of it. Just because co- owner is not living on the property or receiving income from it does not mean they have lost their right to it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelavathi and Ors. Vs. Natarajan and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 691 ruled that one co- owner files for a partition, the question of adverse possession does not arise unless the person in possession can prove that the other co-owner was completely excluded by a definite and open act. This means means that simply using the property alone does not make the someone sole owner unless they have clearly denied the rights of other co-owners in a way that cannot be ignored. Unless there is a strong evidence of exclusion, co-owners continue to have rights over the property, no matter how long one of them has been in possession.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
CS No.2679/2016 Page no. 29 of 41
MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04
18:53:43 +0530
56. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Saroj Salkan Vs. Captain Sanjeev Singh and Ors.", 2008 SCC Online Delhi 1278 has held that in a suit for partition, every co-sharer is presumed to be in constructive possession of the property, which is a statutory presumption.
57. It is not the case of defendant No.1 and 2 that defendant No.1 had ouster the plaintiff from the suit property and has committed a definite or open act against plaintiff disclosing his hostile possession over the entire suit property including the share of plaintiff. The written statement is silent about commission of a definite, open and overt act by defendant No.1 against plaintiff. The written statement also does not disclose the date when the possession of defendant No.1 has become adverse to plaintiff in respect to the suit property.
58. Defendants have failed to produce cogent, reliable, positive and independent evidence to establish that the possession of defendants has become adverse to the plaintiff in respect to the suit property and the suit of the plaintiff is time barred as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: CS No.2679/2016 2026.04.04 Page no. 30 of 41 18:53:49 +0530
59. Considering the factual matrix, circumstances, material came on record and above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, plaintiff is having constructive possession over the suit property and the suit of the plaintiff is well within limitation. Issue No.4 is accordingly decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants.
60. Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of partition in respect of the suit property i.e. plot of land bearing No.4, area 300 sq. yards, measuring 41' x 65' part of Khasra No.329, situated at Village Babarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi and if so, what is the share of the parties? OPP
61. Defendants in their written statement have pleaded that the suit property is a self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and the entire sale consideration amount has been paid by him out of his own funds. The onus of proof is upon defendants to prove that the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.3,000/- had been paid by defendant No.1 to the seller Sh. Ram Sarup out of his own funds.
62. Defendants have not produced any documentary material including the bank statement of defendant No.1 for the relevant period to establish that defendant No.1 was Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 31 of 41 2026.04.04 18:53:55 +0530 having sufficient funds of Rs.3,000/- with him and he alone has paid the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.3,000/- to seller Sh. Ram Sarup at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.P-1. Defendants have also not examined Sh. Ram Sarup and witnesses to the sale deed to prove that defendant No.1 has paid the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.3,000/- to him. This Court has already concluded that the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 is not a valid and genuine document because defendants have failed to prove the existence and execution of the family settlement Ex.DW1/1; and the family settlement Ex.DW1/1 is inadmissible in evidence because the same is unregistered, therefore, the purported arrangements embodied in the said settlement cannot be considered as true, valid and genuine. This Court has further concluded that defendants have failed to prove the plea of adverse possession taken by defendants and issue No.4 has been decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff.
63. Admittedly, plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are the lawful and registered owners of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 22.09.1969 Ex.P-1, therefore, LRs of plaintiff being the co-owners of the suit property are entitled for decree of partition in respect to the suit property against defendants especially when Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2026.04.04 CS No.2679/2016 18:54:01 Page no. 32 of 41 +0530 issue No.2 and 4 have been decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants.
64. Considering the factual matrix of the case, material came on record and above observations, this Court declares/determines that LRs of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and LRs of defendant No.2 are the co-owners of the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd undivided share each respectively.
65. Accordingly, Preliminary Decree of partition is passed in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants No.1 and 2 in respect to the property/plot of land bearing no.4, area 300 sq. yards (41' X 65') part of khasra No.329, situated at Village Babarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi in which LRs of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and LRs of defendant No.2 shall have an undivided share of 1/3rd each respectively. Issue No.1 is accordingly decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants.
Issue No.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages and mesne profits and if so, at what rate? OPP
66. Plaintiff has also prayed for passing of decree for mesne profit/damages @ Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f. March, 2009 to March, 2012 totaling to Rs.1,44,000/-. Plaintiff has also prayed for decree for future damages/mesne profit @ Rs.4,000/- per month w.e.f. April, 2012 till the Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 33 of 41 2026.04.04 18:54:07 +0530 date of delivery of possession of his portion/share in the suit property.
67. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sita Kashyap and Anr. v. Harbans Kashyap and Ors.- 2011 (123) DRJ 52 in a suit for partition amongst co-owners held that " In my view, since it is the bounden duty of the Court to direct appropriate division/apportionment not only of the common immovable property but also of the profits earned/ mesne profits which accrues from that immovable property, even if no application for grant of profits is pending at the time when the final decree is passed, would not be material when suit continues to be pending before Court for one reason or the other."
68. In B. Basavayya V.B. Guravayya v. B. Guravayya, (C.R.P. No. 1695/1948) AIR 1951 Madras 938: (24) SCC 669 the Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that "A tenant-in-common who files a suit for partition seeks a partition not only of his share of the properties forming the subject matter of the suit, but also of his share of the profits accruing from these properties during the pendency of the suit or till he is put in possession of his share." It is also held by the Full Bench that "The profits accruing from the common properties pending a suit for partition, like the properties themselves, are liable to be partitioned under the final decree even without a specific prayer in the plaint for Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
CS No.2679/2016 2026.04.04 Page no. 34 of 41 18:54:13 +0530 account of such profits and a division thereof. The right to an account of such profits is implicit in the right to a share in the common properties and both rights have to be worked out and provided for in the final decree for partition."
69. In Ramaswami Iyer v. Subramania Iyer, 43 M.L.J 408, Sadasiva Aiyar J., (with whom Napier, J., agreed) referred to the decision of Judicial Committee in Pirthipal and Uman Parchad v. Javahersingh, 14 Cal 493 (Privy Council) and observed as follow: "As stated by their Lordships a sharer has a 'clear right' to an account of the profits received by the person in possession of the whole and to be awarded his share thereof, not as profits received by a person in wrongful possession but as appurtenant to the plaintiff's right in his share of the lands."
70. The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Dr. Pradnya Nagar & Anr. versus Sh. Rohit Nagar & Ors.", 2015 SCC Online Del 12340.
71. The suit property was purchased on 22.09.1969 in the name of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2. Plaintiff before filing of the present suit has served a legal demand notice dated 26.03.2012 Ex.P-2 upon defendant No.1 thereby calling him to partition of the suit property by meets and bounds. It is also mentioned in the legal Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 35 of 41 2026.04.04 18:54:18 +0530 notice Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 that the defendant No.1 shall be liable for damages on account of use and occupation of the entire suit property including undivided 1/3rd share of plaintiff to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month, if defendant No.1 fails to comply with the said notice. Plaintiff also demanded damages/mesne profit @ Rs.4,000/- per month from defendant No.1 after expiry of 15 days of the receipt of the notice till the partition is affected between plaintiff and defendant No.1. The said notice was served to defendant No.1, however, despite service, defendant No.1 has not complied with the legal notice and has sent reply dated 11.04.2012 Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-6.
72. Even after getting the notice demanding division of the suit property, defendant No.1 did not agree to partition the suit property and enjoyed, used and occupied the entire suit property thereby denying the plaintiff to enjoy, use and occupy his 1/3rd (One-third) portion/share in the suit property which he is entitled for, therefore defendant No.1 is liable to pay damage/mesne profit to the LRs of plaintiff.
73. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the above-mentioned judgment and also considering the fact that LRs of plaintiff are entitled for preliminary decree of partition in the suit property and have one-third undivided share in the suit property, Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
CS No.2679/2016 Page no. 36 of 41
2026.04.04
18:54:24 +0530
therefore, this Court held that LRs of plaintiff are also entitled for decree of damages against defendant No.1 for the period from 26.03.2012 till the date of filing of the present suit. This Court further concludes that LRs of plaintiff are also entitled for decree of mesne profit including pendent-alite as well as future, against the defendant No.1 till the date of delivery of the possession of one-third share/portion of the suit property to LRs of plaintiff.
74. LRs of plaintiff have not examined any independent witness to prove quantum of damages suffered by them proving/showing the prevalent market rate in the neighbourhood entitling them to such an amount. However, regarding the amount of pendent-a-lite and future damages, a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the amount of rent for various properties in and around Delhi have been rising staggeringly. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Vinod Khanna & Ors. versus Bakshi Sachdev (deceased) through LRs & Ors."- AIR 1996 (Delhi) 32" has observed that the judicial notice can be taken of the fact about increase of rents in the premises in and around, Delhi, which is a city of growing importance being the Capital of the Country, which is a matter of public history. In another case- "Sh. M.R. Sahni v. Mrs. Soris Randhawa"- 2008 (104) DRJ 246, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while reiterating the Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 37 of 41 2026.04.04 18:54:30 +0530 steep increase in the rentals in Delhi, again emphasized that in relation to determination of mesne profits, there is 'always some element of guess work.'
75. During evidence, it has come on record that defendant No.1 is running his factory from the suit property and is earning profits from it.
76. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the amount of rent of a 300 sq. yards property which is being used for running a factory should at least be around Rs.10,000/- to Rs.11,000/- per month. LRs of plaintiff are entitled to the portion of 100 sq. yards in the suit property, therefore, they are entitled for an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as damages/mesne profit and accordingly, a decree of damages to the tune of Rs.3500/- per month is awarded in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 from 26.03.2012 till the date of filing of the suit and further a decree of mesne profit to the tune of Rs.3500/- per month is awarded in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery possession of the 1/3rd portion of the suit property to LRs of plaintiff. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendant No.1.
77. Final judgment/Relief.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
CS No.2679/2016 2026.04.04 Page no. 38 of 41
18:54:35 +0530
I. A preliminary decree of partition is passed in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendants No.1 and LRs of defendant No.2 in respect to the property/plot of land bearing no.4, area 300 sq. yards (41' X 65') part of khasra No.329, situated at Village Babarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi in which LRs of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and LRs of defendant No.2 shall have an undivided share of 1/3rd each respectively.
II. A money decree of damages to the tune of Rs.3500/- per month is awarded in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 from 26.03.2012 till the date of filing of the suit.
III. A money decree of mesne profit to the tune of Rs.3500/- per month is awarded in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery possession of the 1/3rd portion of the suit property to LRs of plaintiff. IV. A decree of permanent injunction is also granted in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 and LRs of defendant No.2 thereby restraining the defendant No.1 and LRs of defendant No.2 from selling, alienating, disposing off, transferring or creating any third party right or interest in the suit property till the date the suit property is not partitioned amongst the parties by metes and bounds. In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and preserving the suit property, Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN CS No.2679/2016 MOHAN Date: Page no. 39 of 41 2026.04.04 18:54:41 +0530 the decree of permanent injunction is necessary to be passed.
V. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of LRs of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 and LRs of defendant No.2.
78. Preliminary decree be accordingly drawn.
79. LRs of plaintiff are directed to deposit the requisite court fees on the decree of mesne profit/damages awarded in their favour.
80. After depositing the requisite court fees, Reader of this Court is directed to prepare decree sheet.
81. As the suit property has not been divided between LRs of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and LRs of defendant No.2 by metes and bounds, therefore, this Court deem it appropriate to conduct inquiry under Order XX Rule 18 CPC for separate possession of shares of LRs of plaintiff and defendants in a new/fresh miscellaneous DJ. Thus, Ahlmad of this Court is directed to register a fresh/new MISC DJ titled as "Prabhu Singh through his LRs Vs. Hukum Singh and Ors.". Ahlmad of this Court is also directed to place copies of judgment passed in the present suit along with decree sheet and amended memo of parties in fresh MISC DJ after its registration. Ahlmad is directed to list the MISC DJ, after its registration, on 10.04.2026.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: CS No.2679/2016 2026.04.04 Page no. 40 of 41 18:54:47 +0530
82. It is made clear that till the disposal of the MISC DJ, the present judicial file shall be attached/tagged with the MISC DJ.
83. With the above directions, the present suit is decreed and accordingly disposed of.
84. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
Announced in the open Court 2026.04.04
18:54:54 +0530
on 4th April, 2026
(Deepanker Mohan)
District Judge-04
Shahdara District/KKD Courts/Delhi CS No.2679/2016 Page no. 41 of 41