Delhi District Court
Suneel Sodhi And Ors vs M. L. Sodhi And Ors on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE 02/WAQF TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 20/2016
CNR No. DLND01-013014-2016
In the matter of :
1. Mrs. Suneel Sodhi
W/o Late Shri A.K. Sodhi
2. Mr. Dhruv Sodhi
S/o Late Sh A.K. Sodhi
3. Ms. Bhawna Sodhi
D/o late Sh A.K. Sodhi
All R/o B-3/4, (First Floor),
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110 057 ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. M.L Sodhi ( since deceased)
Through Legal heir:
Mrs. Nalini Lall
W/o Sh. M.M. Lall
R/o KJ-10, New Kavi Nagar
Ghaziabad (UP),
Both as LR of
Mr. M.L. Sodhi and Mrs. Raj Sodhi.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 1 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:52:44
+0530
2. Col V.K. Sodhi (Retd.) (Since deceased)
through his legal heirs:
I. Smt Manjula Sodhi
W/o Late Col. V.K. Sodhi
II Sh. Keshav Sodhi
S/o Late col. V.K. Sodhi
III Sh. Arjun Sodhi
S/o Late Col. V.K. Sodhi
All R/o B-3/4, (First Floor),
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110 057 ....Defendants
Appearances:
Ms. Zubeda Begum and Sh. Ayush Gandhi, Learned Counsels
for plaintiffs.
Sh. Aditya Malhotra, Ms. Tripti Kapoor and Ms. Eshita Gupta,
Learned Counsels for defendant no. 1 (a).
Sh. Jeevesh Nagrath, Learned Senior Advocate, Sh. Dheeresh
K. Dwivedi, Ms. Sanam Tripathi, Sh. Apaan Mittal and
Sh.Harjeet Singh, Learned Counsels for defendant no.2(i) to
(iii).
Date of institution of the suit : 21.12.1988
Final Arguments Heard on : 17.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 18.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for seeking declaration that House no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is a Joint Family Property of the joint family CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 2 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:52:46 +0530 constituted by the plaintiffs and defendants and that the plaintiffs are in occupancy of the entire first floor of the property in the exercise of their right of residence and are not liable to be disturbed in their occupation and the joint family is liable for maintenance, of the plaintiffs and the education and marriage expenses of plaintiffs no.2 and 3 and for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs of the first floor and in the alternative for partition of the Joint family property. For the purpose of this suit, the property house no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is referred to as suit property.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under:-
2.1 It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff no.1 was married to defendant no.4 on 16.02.1975 and plaintiff no.2 and 3 were born from the said wedlock on 03.09.1976 and 10.12.1980 respectively. The defendant no.1 is the father of defendant no.3 and 4 and defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1. The plaintiff and the defendant constitute a Joint Hindu Family of which defendant no.1 being the eldest male member, is the Karta. The joint Hindu Family owns the suit property i.e. no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The plot underneath the property was allotted in 1962 (and paid for during 1962-68) and later on given on perpetual sub-lease to defendant no.1 by Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., vide perpetual sub-lease dated 10.03.1970 in consideration of payment of Rs.3,948.00 as the price of the land and Rs.6,800/- as development charges i.e. CS No. 20/2016 3 /101 Digitally signed Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:52:48 +0530 total amounting to Rs.10,748.00. It is averred that in the year 1968-69, defendant no.1 retired from his post as Deputy Director (Inspection), Directorate of Civil Aviation, New Delhi. One drawing-dining room, one bed room with attached bathroom, kitchen and study with verandas in front and in the rear a garage with two servant quarters above it, an open drive-way and lawn and back courtyard on the ground floor, a stair leading to two bed rooms with attached bathrooms and one store on the first floor and constructed in May, 1971. This constituted the first phase of the construction. The property was acquired and constructed at a cost of about Rs.77,000/- entirely with the joint family funds (H.U.F. was blessed with funds of declaration made by defendant no.1 on 01.12.1969). It is further averred that property was mentioned as joint family property in the Income Tax Return filed by defendant no.1 for the assessment year 1973-1974 as Karta of the H.U.F and was assessed by the order of Shri U.C. Malhotra, Income Tax Officer, Distt. VIII(A), New Delhi.
2.2 It is further averred that defendant no.4 in 1967 done Chemical Engineer from Banaras Hindu University and before his marriage on 16.02.1975, he took up employment with various organization including Indofil chemical Ltd., Bombay Chika Ltd., Delhi. After marriage, he worked with M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi M/s Inalsa ltd. D.C.M Group company and also worked as Import Manager, East India Hotels, Delhi from 1979 to 1983. It is further averred that he was drawing handsome salary in all these Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 4 /101 PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:52:50 +0530 employments. It is further averred that plaintiff no.1 got her Indian School Certification in 1964 from Lawrence School Sanowar and graduated from Daulat Ram College, Delhi in the year 1968 and she got her Master Degree in Business Administration from Delhi University in the year 1970 and after her marriage, she took up employment with Capital Radio Company and was drawing handsome salary, almost the same as of defendant no.4.
2.3 It is further averred that in the year 1975, plaintiff no.1 joined defendant no.4 as a Joint Account holder in his existing Saving Bank Account no. 2411 with Indian Bank, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi. It is further averred that plaintiff no.1 had started drawing her salary from Capital Radio Company from April, 1975. It is further averred that salary of both the plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4 were deposited in account no. 2411 till its closure in 1978. It is further averred that in the year 1975, defendant no.4 and plaintiff no.1 opened another joint saving bank account no. 4273 with Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and in the year 1978, another joint saving bank account no. 6999 was opened in the name of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4 with Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is further averred that account no. 4273 was mostly operated by defendant no.4, where he used to deposit his salary and only sometime, it was operated by plaintiff no.1 and account no. 6999 was operated solely by plaintiff no.1 and her salary used to be deposited in this account. It is further averred that both plaintiff no.1 and Digitally signed by PANKAJ CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 5 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:52:52 +0530 defendant no.4 were, however, entitled to operate both the accounts singly.
2.4 It is further averred that in March, 1980 the Joint Family desired to raise further construction on the suit property to make it a rent viable unit and this offer was made by defendant no.1 to both defendants no.3 and 4 to pool resources for the construction. However, defendant no.3 refused to contribute on the ground that he had booked a flat in Som Vihar and was negotiating for purchase of a farm land for commercial farming near Pathankot. It is further averred that defendant no.4 agreed to contribute funds from his wife and his son's F.D.Rs on the offer of the promise extended by all the other members of the HUF and accepted by defendant no.4 and his family that the ownership of the property so constructed would be ultimately given to defendant no.4 and his son plaintiff no.2 while the ground floor would be kept by defendant no.1 to 3. It is further averred that this agreement of construction and transfer of ownership was oral and on the basis of this agreement, defendant no. 4 agreed to contribute. It is further averred that agreement was acted upon and acting on this agreement, FDRs (1) CWSC-132-133 of plaintiff no.2 for Rs.2,207.6, (2) CWSC-72-76 of plaintiff no.2 was Rs.6,174.30, (3) SSD of plaintiff no.2 for Rs.7,200/- (4) GJC-317 of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4 for Rs.5,462/-
were got pre-maturely encashed and transferred to account no. 4273. Further 1200 units of the Unit Trust of India, which were in the name of defendant 4, (purchased with the funds of Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 6 /101 PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:52:54 +0530 plaintiff no.1) were also pre-maturally encashed for Rs.13,800/- and the amount was credited into the account no. 4273 and these amounts were transferred from account no. 4273 to the HUF,C. Account no. 595 with Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is further averred that another sum of Rs.2,000/- was transferred from account no. 6999 of plaintiff no.1 to account no. 595 of the HUF and another amount of Rs.5,000/- was transferred from account no.6999, firstly to account no. 4273 and then transferred to account no.
595. Account no. 595 was operated by defendant no.1 as Karta of the HUF. It is further averred that payments due to various parties on account of construction were paid out from account no. 595. It is further averred that by December, 1980, the second phase or the construction was completed and it consisted of one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, one T.V lounge on the first floor and on the second floor one drawing-dining, one bed room with attached bath, kitchen and two open terraces. It is further averred that besides the existing staircase, another independent staircase was provided for the first and second floor.
2.5 It is further averred that since the completion of the first phase of construction till about March,1976 the entire house (then consisting of the ground floor and the two bed rooms on the first floor-first phase construction) was let out to West German Embassy. It is further averred that in March, 1976, Sh M.L. Sodhi, defendant no.1 and Shri A.K. Sodhi, defendant no.4 and their respective wives shifted to the house Digitally signed by CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 7 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:52:55 +0530 from the rented premises no D-6/35, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is further averred that in December 1980 when the construction of the second phase was completed, the entire first floor (except one bed room with attached bath room and T.V lounge) was let to various tenants one after the other and the last tenant was M/s Market Advertising & Associates of Bombay. It is further averred that the entire second floor was also rented to Col. Arquay, Military attached of the philipine Embassy. It is further averred that in June, 1983, the Philipine Embassy vacated the second floor and thereafter M/s Marketing Advertising & Associates shifted to the second floor. It is further averred that on the vacation the same was occupied by defendant no. 4 and his family (the plaintiffs) and on 23.09.1983 and it constituted the matrimonial home of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4. Besides the occupation of the first floor by the plaintiffs was as member of the Joint Hindu Family entitled to residence.
2.6 It is further averred that defendant no.4 is a psychic patient every since 1972. It is further averred that plaintiff no.1 came to know in the year 1984 that defendant no.4 was under psychic treatment since 1972 and he suffers from recurring fits of depression. He throws up his remunerative existing job and sits idle at home, gets into abnormal/irrational and indecent behaviour towards himself, children and his wife. It is further averred that he started taking unnecessary risks like driving a car with other occupants, without his specs when he was very weak Digitally eyesight.
signed by CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 8 /101 PANKAJ SHARMA Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:52:58 +0530 On such period of depression, he was very abusive and violent towards the plaintiffs. It is further averred that he threatened and lift his hand to strike plaintiff no.1 and has to be prevented from carrying out the threats. It is further averred that on 17.07.1988, there was a theft of Rs.700/- from the almirah of plaintiff no.1, while she was away with the children and nobody was in the house except defendant no.4 and there was no domestic servant employed by the family at that time. It is further averred that defendant no.4 sensing that he may be accused of having committed theft and had violent emotional outburst. Thereafter on 19.07.1988, he suffered a heart attack and was admitted to the Intensive Coronary Care Unit of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital from where he was discharged after 10 days with instructions not to climb stairs. It is further averred that defendant no.4 thereafter began to live on the ground floor and since then is living there and he was under
the treatment of Dr. S.C Malik, Professor of Psychiatry in Lady Harding Medical College and head of the department of Psychiatry in Sucheta Kriplani Hospital.
2.7 It is further averred that defendant no.1 and his wife, defendant no.2 have started harassing the plaintiffs with a view to compel plaintiff no.1 to obtain more funds from her mother and brother for the medical treatment of defendant no.4 and they were joined in this action by defendant no.3. It is further averred that this harassment became a habit with them every 2-3 years when defendant no.4 suffers from psychiatric trouble. It is further averred that plaintiff no.1 CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 9 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:00 +0530 protested against this harassment and she stated that it was the sole responsibility of the Joint Hindu Family to incur necessary expenses for the treatment of defendant no.4 and this has greatly annoyed defendant no.1 to defendant no.3. It is further averred that they were not taking proper care of defendant no.4 and on the contrary provoke and instigate him against medical advice, to take improper steps and to disobey the instructions given by Dr. S.C Malik, Psychiatrist and Dr. Arun Joshi, Cardiologist, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and they compelled him to climb stairs and also to make a nuisance of himself towards the plaintiffs and deal harshly with them. It is further averred that this act of defendant no.1 and 3 endangers the life and mental safety of defendant no.4 and also threatened to disrupt the peace of matrimonial home of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4.
2.8 It is further averred that Joint Hindu Family is responsible for the maintenance of the plaintiffs and for the education of plaintiff nos 2 and 3 and for their proper education as also for the marriage expenses of plaintiff no.2 and plaintiff no.3. It is further averred that this obligation towards them arises from mere relationship, they being members of the Joint Hindu Family, irrespective of the fact whether defendant no.4 earns or not earning. It is further averred that their maintenance constitutes a change on the Joint family property. It is further averred that Plaintiff no.2 was 12 years old and was a student of Class VII, Lawrence School Sonawar at the time of filing of the plaint and plaintiff Digitally signed by CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 10 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:02 +0530 no.3 was 8 years old and was the student class III, Modern School, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi at the time of filing of the plaint. It is further averred that the Joint Hindu Family is responsible for their proper education and marriage expenses as also the maintenance of plaintiff no.1 and both the children were entitled to receive education in good schools keeping the educational upbringing of both the parents and the standard of life to which they have been used to till now. It is further averred that defendants no.1 to 3 insisted that education and all other expenses regarding plaintiffs and also defendant no.4 should be borne by plaintiff no.1 by any means i.e. either from her own income or by provision from her mother and brother. It is further averred that defendant no.4 has failed to provide any maintenance to the plaintiffs whenever he suffers from the periodic fits of depression and the other defendants have also failed to provide for the same. It is further averred that defendant no.4 by holding out threats of physical violence and endangered the personal safety of the plaintiffs and have compelled them to live separately in the first floor of the house, while he lives on the ground floor. It is further averred that demand for maintenance and expenses of treatment on plaintiff no.1 and her mother and brother is a wholly illegal and an extortionate demand and the plaintiffs are entitled to restrain the defendants from making any such demand.
2.9 It is further averred that the educational and marriage expenses of plaintiffs no.2 and plaintiff no.3 are the liability of the Joint Hindu Family and is not the responsibility Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 11 /101 PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:04 +0530 of Plaintiff no.1 and her mother or brother. It is further averred that the defendants are also liable not to instigate, compel or provoke defendant no.4 to come to the first floor as that Will endangered his life and lives of the plaintiffs. It is further averred that defendant no.4, provocated by defendants no.1 to defendant no.3, once physically assaulted plaintiff no.1.
2.10 It is further averred that in the alternative, it is claimed that the Joint Hindu Family property no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is liable to be partitioned amongst the co-
parceners and divided according to the shares in the co- parcenary and the plaintiffs and defendant no.4 are jointly entitled to ¼th share in property while defendant no.1 to defendant no.3 are entitled to ¼th share each.
2.11 It is further averred that the cause of action arose on various occasions and same has been detailed. Further the cause of action is continuous and is arising on day-to-day basis. It is submitted that the suit is valued appropriately for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.
2.12 Accordingly, the plaintiffs have made following prayers:
a) to pass a decree for declaration may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that suit property is the Joint Hindu Family constituted of the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 12 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:07 +0530
b) a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are in occupation of the first floor of the suit property in exercise of their right of residence as member of the co-
parcenary and also in their right under the agreement of construction.
c) It is further prayed to pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that the defendants are restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff of first floor of the suit property.
d) Further prayer is made in the alternative to pass a decree for partition of the Joint Family property no. B-3/4 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and be partitioned the property amongst the shares in the property alongwith cost of the suit.
3. Joint Written Statement was filed on behalf of defendants no.1 to 4. It is interalia submitted in the written statement that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit. It is submitted that suit has not been filed by competent person as plaintiff no.1 has not furnished any authority to file the suit on behalf of the minors. It is submitted that plaintiff no.1 is neither natural guardian and the not the guardian ad-litem of the minor plaintiffs. It is submitted that defendant no.4 i.e. father of the minors plaintiffs is alive and he is fit person to be guardian. It is submitted that there is no legal right of the plaintiffs independently of the defendant no.4. It is submitted that CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed by 13 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:09 +0530 plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration of the relief of possession as there is no priority or an agreement. It is submitted that plaintiffs have set an oral agreement with respect to the suit property and same is no enforceable as beyond the scope of Section 34 Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is submitted that the prayer for perpetual injunction is not maintainable as same is not covered by the provisions Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is submitted that there is no Joint Hindu Family and plaintiffs are nothing to do with the suit property and have no right to remain in the part of the suit property, which is only permissive through defendant no.4.
3.1 It is denied that Joint Hindu Family owns the suit property. The suit property is a self acquired property of defendant no.1, who purchased the land from his own sources and raised construction in his own capacity as an individual owner. A perpetual lease was executed in the name of defendant no.1 as such he is the absolute owner of the property. No other person than the defendant no.1 has any right title or interest in the suit property, which was neither acquired at the cost and funds of other persons nor the construction was carried out of the funds of Joint Hindu Family. It is submitted that there is no nucleus, there is no common hotch-potch. It is submitted that the land was acquired and purchased by defendant no.1, the defendant no.4 was not even earning as such the question of contributing any amount towards the construction of house did not arise. It is submitted that the first phase of construction was from the CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 14 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:11 +0530 funds of defendant no.1 and the cost was 97,000/- and same was managed by defendant no.1 through all his retirement benefits. It is submitted that mere fact of assessment in Income Tax makes no difference in the status of the property, which is self acquired property as Revenue Authority are concerned only for the purpose of revenue. It is submitted that each defendant was separate from the other as a different unit. It is denied that defendant no.4 contributed any funds for the construction of the suit property. It is also denied that an offer was made to the plaintiff that the ownership of the property so constructed would be given to defendant no.4 and plaintiff no.2. It is denied that there was any oral agreement regarding the transfer of ownership.
3.2 It is denied that defendant no.3 ever booked any flat in Som Vihar. It is submitted that defendant no.1 on his own constructed second Phase of construction. The first phase of construction was completed in the year 1971 and defendant no.1 and 4 shifted in the house in the year 1976 and stayed there together from March 1976 to December, 1983 and during this period no demand of funds was made by defendant no.1.
to defendant no.4. Defendant no.4 and plaintiffs were living separately since 1973. It is submitted that plaintiffs have made false averments regarding the mental state of defendant no.4 as in I.A no. 9388, she stated that she came to know of the illness of defendant no.4 in 1984, whereas in the plaint, she stated that defendant no.4 was a psychic patient since 1972. Plaintiff no.1 also made a false accusation of theft against her Digitally signed CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 15 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:53:13 +0530 husband and also tortured him to the extreme limits leading to him suffering a heart attack. Plaintiff no.1 neglected the defendant no.4 completely and while the condition of defendant no.4 improved he was helped by other family members but not by plaintiff no.1. The defendant no.4 was completely neglected by plaintiff no.1 with the result that other defendants had to look after and provide for defendant no.4 with all necessary care to save him from the effect of the heart attack. It is submitted that since there is no Joint Hindu Family, the question of responsibility of maintenance and education of the plaintiffs does not arise. It is denied that maintenance constituted a charge on the Joint Hindu Family. The plaintiff no.1 caused obstruction in the way of defendant no.4 in the use, enjoyment, occupation and possession of the apartment by threatening him of police. Defendant no.4 being the husband has given permissive use to plaintiff for living in the house being the wife and children of the said defendant without having any independent right, title or stand to stay in the suit property independently of the defendant no.4. It is submitted that in the absence of any Joint Hindu Family, the question of Partition does not arise.
3.3 Vide order dated 20.07.1990, LRs (i), (iii) and
(iv) and Mrs. Nalini Lal LR no. (ii) brought on record in addition to the other defendants, who are already on record.
3.4 Written statement of Smt. Nalini Lal, defendant no.1(a) has been filed. It is averred in the written statement Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by PANKAJ 16 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:15 +0530 that the suit has been under valued and the court fees paid thereon is insufficient. It is averred that the valuation of the suit property is Rs.30,00,000/- alleged by the plaintiff, the court fees should have been paid on the valuation of Rs.30,00,000/-, whereas the valuation of property is not less then Rs.60,00,000/-. It is further averred that the suit is also under valued as regards the relief of declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are in possession of first floor of the disputed property and the valuation of the first floor is not less than Rs.20,00,000/-. It is further averred that the suit is also under valued in regard to the relief of injunction as the court fees for this relief should have been paid ad-valorem on the total value of suit property i.e. Rs.60,00,000/-. It is further averred that plaint is liable to be rejected U/O VII rule 11 CPC as the suit has been under valued as stated above and the court fees paid thereon is insufficient. It is further averred that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and as per the statement given in the plaint, Sh. A.K. Sodhi, S/o Sh. M.L.Sodhi being coparcener of the alleged HUF property has the only right to file the suit during the life time of the husband, wife has no right to initiate legal proceedings and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is further averred that plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief as declaration as they have neither any legal character nor any right as to the said property nor any interest in the property, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further averred that suit is barred by Section 34 and Section 41 clause (j) of Specific Relief Act. It is further averred that plaint is also liable to be rejected CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 17 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:17 +0530 because the plaint has not been amended by the plaintiff after the application U/o 22 rule 4 CPC and Section 151 CPC was allowed.
3.5 In the para-wise reply, all the averments made in the plaint are denied by the defendant no. 1 (a) Smt. Nalini lal.
It is submitted that defendant no.1 was the Head of the family, who died intestate on 18.11.1989 and the property has to be divided as per Hindu Succession Act. It is denied that the construction on the property was raised on Joint Hindu Family funds. The property has to be divided in equal share of the all the members according to Hindu Succession Act. It is denied that defendant no.4 by a psychic patient. It is submitted that there is no obligation upon the defendants to take responsibility of the maintenance of the plaintiffs.
4. The plaintiff have filed the replication to the Written Statement filed by defendant no.1 to 4. The plaintiff have denied the averments in the Written Statement and re- asserted their claim of existence of Joint Hindu Family and the suit property being thrown in the hotch-potch of the Joint Hindu Family by defendant no.1 on the basis of declaration made by defendant no.1 before Income Tax Deptt. It was reiterated by throwing the property in common hotch-potch the property was impressed with the character of Joint Hindu Property and the said character can not be destroyed by the unilateral act of defendant no.4.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally
signed by 18 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:20
+0530
5. Plaintiff's plea to treat his replication filed by him to the written statement of defendant no.1 and 4 be treated qua written statement filed by Nalini Lal was allowed vide order dated 14.07.1992.
6. In replication the plaintiffs have denied the averments in the Written Statement and re-asserted their claim of existence of Joint Hindu Family and the suit property being thrown in the hotch-potch of the Joint Hindu Family by defendant no.1 on the basis of declaration made by defendant no.1 before Income Tax Department. It was reiterated by throwing the property in common hotch-potch the property was impressed with the character of Joint Hindu Property and the said character can not be destroyed by the unilateral act of defendant no.4.
7. Vide order dated 22.07.2002, the name of defendant no.2 i.e. Raj Sodhi was deleted as her legal representatives were already on record, Col. V.K. Sodhi became defendant no.2.
8. Amended Written Statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 wherein it is averred that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed as envisaged at law. It is averred that plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit. It is averred that suit is otherwise not maintainable as the same has not been filed by the competent person as it the present suit has been CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 19 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:22 +0530 filed by the plaintiff no.1 but no averments regarding her authority to the file the suit on behalf of the minors. It is further averred that in case she is not fit to be the guardian ad- litem of the minors and as such she has no right or authority to file the suit on behalf of the minors when the father of the minor plaintiffs i.e. defendant no.4 is alive and is a fit person to be the guardian in his capacity as the natural guardian. It is further averred that the suit is otherwise against the provisions of Order 32 Cr.P.C and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed on that account. It is further averred that the suit is not maintainable for the relief of declaration regarding the status of the plaintiff to the effect that the property is a Joint Hindu Property constituting the plaintiffs and the defendants and there is no legal right of the plaintiffs independently of the defendant no.4 and that the relief claimed is thus not available.
8.1 It is further averred that the plaintiffs are otherwise also not entitled to the declaration of the relief of possession as claimed. It is further averred that there is no privity nor an agreement at all. It is further averred that plaintiffs have set an oral agreement is not enforceable at law and the case does not come within the ambit of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and such the suit is liable to the dismissed on this ground.
8.2 It is further averred that the suit for perpetual injunction is otherwise not maintainable as the case is not covered under the provisions of Section 38 of the Specific Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 20 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:24 +0530 Relief Act, 1963 and there is no legal right or equity in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further averred that plaintiffs have come to the Court on the basis of false averments, distorted facts and by concealing material facts and as such they are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. It is further averred that there is no Joint Hindu Family nor the plaintiffs have anything to do with the property under the circumstances the relief of partition is not available to the plaintiffs. It is averred that the plaintiffs have no right to remain in the part of the premises which is only permissive through the defendant no.4 who also on the other hand is living with the permission of defendant no.1 and as such the plaintiffs are required under law to pay court fee ad-valorem on the market value which is about Rs.8,00,000/- for the partition of the first floor of the said property. It is further averred that suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and parties and that the plaint discloses no cause of action and is liable to be rejected.
8.3 In the para-wise reply, all the averments made in the plaint are denied. It is further stated that during the pendency of the present case, the original defendant no.1 Sh.
M.L. Sodhi died on 18.11.1989 and the original defendant no.4 also expired on 04.1.1996 and further during the pendency of the present suit, the original defendant no.2 Smt. Raj Sodhi expired on 07.01.2002.It is further stated that deceased defendant no.1 left behind a Will dated 18.09.1989, whereby the deceased M.L. Sodhi bequeathed his properties movable and immovable including the suit property bearing no. H. No. Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 21 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:26 +0530 B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favour of the original defendant no.2 being his wife to the exclusion of everyone else and during her life time, the original defendant no.2 further executed a registered Will dated 01.05.1996 in favour of the present defendant no.2, whereby she bequeathed the entire property including the suit property bearing no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favour of present defendant no.2. Accordingly a prayer is made that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
9. Plaintiff has filed the replication to the amended written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2. 9.1 Plaintiffs filed replication denying the contention made in the amended written statement of defendant no.2 and reiterated the contents of the plaint. Plaintiffs further stated that suit is maintainable and has been filed by a competent person. Plaintiff no.1 has filed the suit as the next friend of the minors and it is not necessary that the plaintiff be the natural guardian or guardian at-litem of the minor plaintiffs. Further she has no interest hostile to the minors. It is further stated that defendant no.4 is a psychic patient and is not able to properly watch the interests of the minor plaintiffs and also the interest in the property of defendant no.4 denied by defendant no.1 to 3 and by joining them is not even safeguarding his own right. It is further stated that it was thrown in the hotch-potch of the Joint Hindu Family by defendant no.4 and is so evidence from the declaration made by him before the Income Tax Department. Further by throwing the property in the common CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 22 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:28 +0530 hotch-potch the property was impressed with the character of Joint Hindu Family property and that character can not be destroyed by defendant no.1 by any unilateral act. It is further denied that it is false to allege that the declaration made by defendant no.1 before the income tax authority is matter of no consequence and it amounts to an admission against his own interests. He is estopped from denying the truth of the declaration on the basis of which he obtained relief. The declaration was only evidence of the throwing of the property in the common hotch-potch of the joint family property and impressing it with a character of the joint family property which character can not be destroyed. It is denied that defendant no.1 left behind a Will dated 18.09.1999 bequeathing his movable and immovable property No. B-3/4 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to defendant no.2 his wife to the exclusion of everyone else. It is submitted that besides the fact that deceased M.L. Sodhi had no right to execute any Will, the alleged Will is a forged and fabricated documents and has been set up with an attempt to deny the legitimate rights of the plaintiffs. It is denied that defendant no.2 executed any Will 01.05.1996 in favour of present defendant no.2 ( col. V.K. sodhi) bequeathing the property in favour of said defendant . It is submitted that the said Will is forged and fabricated document beside the fact that Smt Raj Sodhi had no right to execute any such Will. The alleged Wills conferred no right on Co. V.K. sodhi or his LRs.
10. Vide order 26.10.1995, plaintiff no.1 Sh Sunil Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by PANKAJ 23 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:30 +0530 Sodhi was discharged as next friend and guardian ad-litem of plaintiff no.2 on his attaining majority.
11. Vide order dated 25.03.1996, as defendant no.4 was expired, therefore, the name of defendant no.4 was deleted from the arrays of parties upon his death and his LRs was already on record which are plaintiff no.1 to 3.
12. Vide order dated 10.05.1991 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it is recorded that defendant no.4 has sent a registered letter to Learned Counsel of defendant no.2 and 3 advising them not to represent him in any shape or form in the present suit. Ld. Counsel appearing for defendant no.4, who was appearing for defendant no.2 and 3 and was discharged as counsel for defendant no.4.
13. Vide order 26.10.1995, plaintiff no.1 Sh Sunil Sodhi was discharged as next friend and guardian ad-litem of plaintiff no.2 on his attaining majority.
14. Thereafter vide order dated 20.10.2003, the LRs of defendant no.2 was impleaded namely Manjula Sodhi, Keshav Sodhi and Arjun Sodhi upon application U/O XXII Rule 4 CPC.
ISSUES
15. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed by the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on Digitally signed by CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 24 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:32 +0530 06.09.1999 as follows:
1) Whether the suit property, B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is the Joint Hindu Family property, which had been put in the common hotch potch by late Sh. M.L. Sodhi? OPP
2) Whether the suit property was a self acquired property belonging to late Sh M.L Sodhi?OPD
3) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the first floor of the suit property in the exercise of right to residence as a member of co-parcenery and also in accordance with the agreement of construction set out in para 4 of the plaint?OPP
4) Whether there was a HUF of which late Sh M.L. Sodhi was the Karta and the other parties were its members?
OPP
5) What are the shares of the parties in the suit property?
OPP
6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction prayed for?OPP
7) Whether the oral agreement for construction is not enforceable?OPD
8) Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff no.1 as mother and the next friend of the minors was competent and maintainable in view of the natural guardian and father being then alive?OPP
9) What would be the effect, if law, of the demise of Sh.
A.K. Sodhi husband of plaintiff no.3 on issue no.8 ?OPD Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by PANKAJ 25 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:35 +0530
10) Relief?
16. Vide order dated 12.09.2003, the application filed U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by LRs of defendant no.3 for seeking amendment in the plaint to propound Wills dated 18.09.1989 and another registered Will dated 01.05.1996 executed by Sh M.L. Sodhi and Smt. Raj Sodhi respectively was allowed.
17. Upon the amended written statement by defendant no.2 and the replication filed by the plaintiff, following the additional issues were framed, vide order dated 03.03.2004:
1) Whether the Will dated 18.09.1989 allegedly executed by M.L. Sodhi in favour of the original defendant No.2 is legal and valid and if so, its effect? OPD
2) Whether the Will dated 01.05.1996 allegedly executed by Smt. Raj Sodhi is legal and valid and if so, its effect?
OPD EVIDENCE
18. Upon After framing of additional issues, vide order dated 03.03.2004, Sh. Vikas Chopra, Advocate was appointed as the Local Commissioner to record the evidence in the present case. Plaintiff no.1 as examined as PW 1 on 17.09.2002 and cross-examined on multiple dates.
19. Plaintiff/Smt. Suneel Sodhi examined herself as PW-1. She supported the contents of the plaint by filing her CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 26 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:37 +0530 evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied on the following documents:-
(1) Ex PW-1/1; Copy of pass book of the account no. 4273 (2) Ex PW-1/2; Copy of pass book of the account no. 6999 (3) Ex PW-1/3; certificate issued by the Syndicate Bank certifying the opening of HUF account no. 595. (4) Ex PW-1/4; The prescription of Dr. H.S Sethi, who treated husband of plaintiff (5) Ex PW-1/5; Copy of certificate dated 18.07.1988 of Dr. A.L. Behl (6) Ex PW-1/6; Copy of discharge summary of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital (7) Ex PW-1/7; Copy of outdoor ticket no.1184/86 dated 01.09.1988 of Lady Harding Medical College of Sucheta Kriplani Hospital for the period 19.09.1988 to 06.12.1988.
(During the exhibition of documents, the objections was raised by the learned Counsel for defendant regarding Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/7 that plaintiff is not the author of these documents nor they have been executed by her. Further Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/3 have to be proved under the provisions of amended Banker's Act and all exhibits have not been proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. To this objection, it is observed that Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/3 are filed in original and even if the author is not called as witness, if there is no doubt in the authenticity, they can be proved. Further regarding Ex. Pw-1/4 to Ex. Pw-1/7, they are seemingly created during the regular course of treatment as such are authentic.) In the cross-examination dated 29.05.2004, by Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, it is stated by the CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed by 27 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:39 +0530 PW1 that she did not remember the day of week falling on 17.09.2002.
(The objection raised on behalf of her counsel that visits to various places on 17.09.2002, when the affidavit was prepared has no bearing to the controversy in the suit is upheld.) She stated that her affidavit was completed on 17.09.2002 and her signature appears on all the pages of affidavit. She stated that she signed the affidavit after satisfying herself about its contents and veracity. She stated that she is an MBA L.L.B and also registered advocate with Bar Council of India. She stated that her affidavit was prepared by her lawyer upon her instructions and same was prepared in her presence.
(The objection regarding the duration and the exact date and month of preparation of affidavit by the Ld. counsel of the witness are reasonable and upheld.) She mentioned that she signed the affidavit in front of the oath commissioner in High Court prior to its submission.
(The objection regarding the question to give specific chamber number is reasonable as generally same is not left in memory and upheld.) She stated that she was satisfied that her affidavit contained her entire case before she signed it. She stated that she came to the High Court premises on 17.09.2002 and she denied the suggestion that she never personally appeared before Oath Commissioner for attesting her affidavit of evidence. She stated that her marriage with A.K. Sodhi was an arrange marriage and she came to matrimonial home on CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 28 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:40 +0530 16.02.1975 for the first time after the marriage. She stated that she visited the Sodhi's family before 16.02.1975. She affirmed that she had no knowledge of the Sodhi's family and their affairs prior to August, 1974. She stated that she came to know about Joint Hindu Family from her father-in-law late Sh M.L. Sodhi. She stated that her father-in-law told her that he alongwith his wife and two sons had a joint Hindu Family account with Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar and he filed his Income Tax Return as a Karta of HUF and also in his individual capacity. She stated that she standby the contents of the affidavit dated 17.09.2002. She further stated that the members of the Joint Hindu Family are the components of Joint Hindu Family, which are a husband his wife and children. She stated that all the children of husband and wife are members of Joint Hindu Family and Joint Hindu Family starts from marriage. She stated that Karta is a Head of family, which was her father-in-law. She stated that her father-in-law Sh. M.L. Sodhi was common ancestor of her marital family.
She stated that M.L.Sodhi was having ancestral property besides Vasant Vihar property. She stated that paragraph no.2 of her plaint, mentions that "HUF" was blessed with funds of declaration made by defendand no.1 M.L. on 01.12.1969.
She stated that at serial no.4 at the list of reliance dated 20.12.1988, the record of the ancestral property inherited by M.L. Sodhi has been mentioned.
In the further cross-examination of witness on 24.07.2004 by the Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, She stated that she did not know that at the time of allotment Digitally signed by CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 29 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:43 +0530 of suit property in 1962, M.L. Sodhi was only the single earning member of the family. She stated that she did not know or had the personal knowledge that M.L. Sodhi paid for the allotted suit property out of his own salary. She stated that she did not know whether the payment of allotment money of the suit property was made in the name of M.L. Sodhi as an individual or the payment was made from M.L. Sodhi's individual account. She affirmed that the suit property was constructed in two phases. She stated that she has no personal knowledge as to the construction of first phase of the suit premises from M.L. Sodhi's individual fund. She stated that on 16.02.1973, her husband was gainfully employed prior to her marriage. However, she had no record to show that her husband A.K. Sodhi was gainfully employed prior to her marriage. She stated that she did not know whether there was any contribution of funds made by her husband, A.K. Sodhi towards the construction of the first phase of the suit property prior to her marriage. She stated that she does not understand the meaning of "Joint Family Nucleus" as mentioned in paragraph 7 of her affidavit. She stated that she has no knowledge of "Nucleus" in the family's of Sodhi's prior to her marriage. She stated that she did not know if M.L. Sodhi was paying house tax of the suit property in his name from the personal funds. She stated that she has no documentary proof regarding the earning of her husband. She indicated Ex PW-1/1 regarding records relating to earning of her husband.
(The objection regarding the certificate from the bank accounts as required by Banker's Book Evidence Act is dismissed as the Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 30 /101 PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:45 +0530 document Ex Pw-1/1 to Ex Pw-1/5 are the bank records filed in original and there is no evidence which can contradict their genuineness.) She stated that her husband was a psychic patient since 1972 till his death and he used to be in constant fits of depression. She stated that in 1984, her husband refused to take up any remunerative job and then she was told by her in- laws that he was psychic patient since 1972 and she discovered the same in 1984. She stated that her husband used to sit ideal at home when he got fits of depression and during this he used to get into violence, irrational and abnormal behaviour and also used to be abusive during the fits of depression. She stated that when her husband used to throw up his lucrative job, she had to support not only him but also her in-laws since they were living jointly.
In the further cross-examination on 06.08.2004 by the Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, she stated that in 1984, V.K. Sodhi told him that he got her husband treated for phychartic problems in 1972 by his friend and colleague Col. Baggiana. Col. Baggina contacted by V.k. Sodhi once again for the treatment of her husband till middle of 1986. She stated that Dr. S.C Malik treated him till his death in January, 1996. She stated that her husband was taking medicines like "Mezetol", "Trinicalm" and " "Lithium" for his psychiatric treatment.
She stated that her husband resided with her in- laws as a joint family in the suit premises. She stated that in 1984, she were shocked to learn that her husband was being a psychiatric patient even before her marriage and she took all Digitally signed by PANKAJ CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 31 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:47 +0530 the care as per the doctor instructions including finding him jobs to keep him away from depression. She stated that her husband suffered a heart attack on 18.07.1988 and he was taken to OPD and formally admitted on 19.07.1988 in Wellington Hospital. She stated that she and her young daughter attended A.K. Sodhi regularly in December 1988 when the suit was filed and thereafter she was stopped by his parents and Col. V.K. Sodhi and his family to keep away from him. She stated that they have separate kitchen on the first floor since they are shifting in September, 1983, however, previously there was joint kitchen with her in-laws on ground floor. The separate kitchen on the first floor continues till date. Two other kitchens are in the ground floor and on the second floor barsati. She denied the suggestion that there is separate place of worship on the first floor but there was a specific Puja room on the ground floor adjacent to the kitchen, where all used to worship together on occasions like Diwali etc. She stated that since the filing of this suit, she has not been allowed access to ground floor and second floor as such she does not know about the rooms utilization as of now. She stated that between 1983 to 1988, her in-laws shifted the Puja Place to the landing of the internal staircase leading to the first floor but sealed ever since they shifted to the first floor in September, 1983. She denied that A.K. Sodhi her husband workship separately always since 1988. She stated that A.K. Sodhi with his wife and children were living jointly with his parents on the ground floor and first floor till 1988. She stated that A.K. Sodhi from the date of their marriage, he gave his CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 32 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:50 +0530 salary to his father and mother for running of the joint house hold even though there were two kitchens being run from 1983 onwards for the sake of convenience. She denied the suggestion that A.K. Sodhi was living separately on first floor after its construction from 1983. The ground and first floor continued to be run jointly despite there being two independent kitchens. She denied the suggestion that ground floor and first floor being run as two separate units. She stated that hers' was a joint family in which her father-in-aw had blended his personal funds and property with the joint family funds which he had received from a partial partition in 1940 of his joint family.
In the further cross-examination on 18.08.2004 by the Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, She stated that joint family pre-existed before her marriage into the family. She stated that her father-in-law had a Joint Hindu Family with the father and brother. She stated that there was a partial partition in the year 1940 of this Joint Hindu Family in which his father-in-law received funds and he merged the funds into his M.L. Sodhi joint family vide declaration dated 01.12.1969 and into which he also merged suit property mainly B-3/4 Vasant Vihar. The said declaration is mentioned in M.L. Sodhi (HUF) income tax assessment order of 1976 and the suit property remained so assessed in the income tax department in the life time of her father-in-law. She stated that the partial partition means that same was not complete and she does not know about the assets and time of it. She stated that her father-
in-law had mentioned in his declaration of 01.12.1969 Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 33 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:57 +0530 submitted to the IT authorities the word "Partial Partition only". She stated that her knowledge of merger and blending is limited to the declaration dated 01.12.1969.
In the further cross-examination on 05.11.2004 by the Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, She denied the suggestion that she had no personal knowledge of the family funds of Sh M.L. Sodhi on 01.12.1969. She also denied the suggestion that there was no blending of personal and family funds of M.L. Sodhi on 01.12.1969. She stated that she was notified by her father-in-law of the existence of the Joint Family Funds and also other family members and he showed all the rent coming from the property in the HUF account no. 595 with the Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar and declaring his rental income in his ITR titled as M.L. Sodhi (HUF). She stated that her husband through his saving account no. 4273 of syndicate bank, Vasant Vihar transferred contribution to M.L. Sodhi HUF account no. 595 of Syndicate bank, Vasant Vihar during the period 1980 to 1981 in order to finance the project wholly of second phase construction of the suit property. She admitted that A.K. Sodhi did not show any HUF transaction in any income tax return or assessments after 1981-1982 till his death.
In the further cross-examination on 22.11.2004 by the Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, She stated that since her marriage, there have been contributions to the Joint Hindu family in her ITRs in the financial year 1980-81 and 1981-82 only. She stated that she never received any income from Joint Hindu Family as such not stated in her ITR. She Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by PANKAJ 34 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:53:59 +0530 stated that neither she nor her husband ever received any part of the rentals from all the tenants in the suit property ever. She stated that Dhruv Sodhi has not received any rental income or other income from Joint Hindu Family and therefore, same is not reflected in his ITR. She stated that Bhavna Sodhi never shown any income or contribution to any Joint Hindu Family in all her income tax returns and assessments till date. She submitted that all documents pertaining to the suit property have been issued by DDA in the name of M.L. Sodhi from the beginning, however, she denied that all house tax papers and payments regarding the suit property have been issued in the name of M.L. Sodhi by Municipal Authority from the beginning till date.
In the further cross-examination on 06.12.2004 by the Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, She denied that prior to 1980, all rental income from the suit premises came to and was deposited with the personal account of M.L. Sodhi as an individual. She affirmed that rental income of ground and first floor of the suit premises received from German Embassy came to the personal account of M.L. Sodhi as an individual. She affirmed that no payments were made from the account no. 2411 as mentioned in paragraph no.11 of her affidavit to the so called Sodhi Joint Hindu Family. She stated that on 18th March 1980 at 10.00a.m M.L. Sodhi called upon her husband to pool in resources and at that time, she and her mother-in-law were present with them. She stated that at that meeting, her father-in-law requested her husband to transfer funds from her personal account to M.L. Sodhi andDigitally signed by PANKAJ CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 35 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:02 +0530 family HUF so that construction could be started and her husband transferred the amount to account no. 595 on the same day. She stated that after that their remittances were made to account no. 595 till the construction was completed. She denied any meeting being taken place between M.L. Sodhi, A.K. Sodhi and V.K. Sodhi after 18.03.1980.
She stated that in 1969 her father-in-law Mr. M.L. Sodhi made an affidavit dated 01.12.1969 admitting that he had received family funds from a partial partition of his joint family in the year 1940 with which he blended his personal funds as well as property B-3/4 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. She denied that suggestion that she had no personal knowledge about the family funds of M.L. Sodhi on 01.12.1969. She also denied the suggestion that there was no blending of personal and family funds of M.L. Sodhi on 01.12.1969. She stated that her father-in-law notified to all the members of the family and showed all the rent coming from the property in the HUF account no.595 with Syndicate Bank and declared this rental income in his Income Tax ITR titled M.L. Sodhi HUF. She stated that her husband was assessed to Income Tax when she got married on 16.02.1975. She stated that her husband from his saving account no. 4273 of Syndicate bank transferred contributions to M.L. Sodhi, HUF account no. 595 of Syndicate bank in the period 1980-1981 in order to wholly, solely financed the project of second Phase construction of the suit property. She stated that A.K. Sodhi showed HUF transactions in his income tax return or assessment in the year 1981-82 only. She admitted that bill no. 133 of Rashtriya CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 36 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:04 +0530 Timber Store dated 29.10.1970 is issued to M.L. Sodhi but she had no idea about the signatures on it. She admitted that document dated 05.09.1995, issued by Syndicate Bank is not issued to her but to her husband Ajay Kumar Sodhi.
In the further cross-examination on 27.01.2005 by the Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, She affirmed that Col V.K. Sodhi was not in station on 18.03.1980. She stated that there was no understanding and arrangement between A.K. Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi. Her husband has reduced the oral understanding in writing and it was conveyed to his father in 1988 and on the basis of same, Second Phase construction was started and the said document was filed with the plaint, which is handwriting note addressed to Sehgal Uncle. She stated that V.K. Sodhi had agreed to the arrangement, though he was not in Delhi in March, 1980 and when her father-in-law asked him to contribute the Joint Family Funds to fund the construction then V.K. Sodhi made the excuse that he had already booked a flat through Army Quota in Som Vihar and had also negotiated to purchase through Army Quota, farming land in Pathankot and all the family members agreed that whatever V.K. Sodhi had independently purchased would be only his and similarly the funds that A.K. Sodhi is raising to make second phase construction complete and rent would be treated as his exclusive ownership. She stated that the facts of FDRs being broken and fund mobilization for second phase construction is evidence of the agreement and arrangement being acted upon. She denied that second phase of the construction was done by CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 37 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:06 +0530 M.L. Sodhi on his own in his capacity of absolute owner to the exclusion of any other person. She stated that approx. Rs. 1,40,000/- was a total cost of construction of the second phase and the billing was done in the name of M.L. Sodhi. She stated that all the cheques payment were made from the HUF account no. 595 and not from M.L. Sodhi's individual account while cash payments made by her and her husband. She stated that out of Rs.1,40,000/- approximate about Rs.65,000/- were paid by cheque through HUF account no. 595 and balance was paid in cash, however she stated that she and her husband did not take any receipt. She stated that she did not show the said amount paid in cash in the ITR of year 1979-80 and 1980-81 as the money was given to her by her mother and brother during construction. She stated that she used to advance the money received from her mother and brother to her husband to meet the expenses on the second phase construction. She stated that records of payment in cash of bills were maintained by her father-in-law. She stated that she filed a suit as a natural guardian and next friend of her children with full concurrence of her husband.
In the further cross-examination on 11.02.2005 by the Ld. Counsel for LR's of defendant no.2, She stated that her husband had filed written statement at the instance of his parents and brother while he was still under her medical treatment but he withdrew from the written statement by information through registered AD to the registrar of Hon'ble High Court as well as to the counsel of defendant. She stated that Kamal Nanda used to file Income Tax return of her father Digitally signed CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 38 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:54:16 +0530 in law for HUF and as well as in his individual capacity. She denied the suggestion that there is no legal right of the plaintiff independently of A.K. Sodhi. She denied the suggestion that there was any oral agreement in respect of the suit property. She denied the suggestion that there is no Joint Hindu Family of M.L. Sodhi. She admitted that suit property is a self acquired property of Sh M.L. Sodhi if partially correct and partially incorrect. She stated that suit property's land was purchased by M.L. Sodhi from his own resources, however, she denied the suggestion that M.L. Sodhi raised construction in his own capacity as an individual owner. She denied the suggestion that M.L. Sodhi was absolute owner of the suit property and he was in the possession of the suit property to the exclusion of any other person. She denied the suggestion that no other person except M.L. Sodhi has any right, title or interest in the suit property. She denied the suggestion that there was no Joint Hindu Family as such coercion of any funds coming from that source did not arise. She denied the suggestion there was no nucleus or joint family nucleus. She denied the suggest that there is no common hotch-potch. She denied the suggestion there was no blending of funds. She denied the suggestion that M.L. Sodhi did not have an intention to blend personal funds. She denied the suggestion that taxation assessments do not have bearing upon title and legal status of any property. She denied the suggestion that each defendant was separate from other as a different unit. She denied the suggestion that there was not any oral agreement of transfer of ownership and the question of acting Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 39 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:29 +0530 upon the same did not arise. She denied the suggestion that from March 1976 to December 1983, no demand of funds were made by defendant no.1 on defendant no.4. She denied the suggestion that no meeting in March, 1980 ever took place between M.L. Sodhi, A.K. Sodhi and herself. She denied the suggestion that there was never any unequivocal understanding or arrangement regarding construction between all the members of HUF and HUF never existed. She denied the suggestion that the oral understanding and arrangement was never accepted by all the parties living in the suit premises. She denied the suggestion that defendant no.4 and plaintiff have been living separately since 1983. She denied the suggestion that A.K. Sodhi was fit person of normal prudence. She denied the suggestion that defendants were under no obligation to maintain the plaintiffs or provide for their education She denied the suggestion that she had no basis to claim the entire construction on the first and second floor to be declared as exclusive property of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4 A.K. Sodhi. She denied the suggestion that there was never any share of the plaintiff in the suit property.
PW1 recalled for re-examination by virtue of order of Hon'ble High Court dated 21.11.2006.
On 12.12.2006 Pw-1 was re-examined. The following documents were exhibited during the cross- examination by defendant on 11.02.2005 :
(1) Ex PW-1/DXA18 dated 11.02.2005
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ 40 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:54:31
+0530
(2) Ex PW-1/DXA2 dated 11.02.2005
(3) Ex PW-1/DXA3 dated 11.02.2005
(4) Ex PW-1/DXA4 dated 11.02.2005
(5) Ex PW-1/DXA5 dated 11.02.2005
(6) Ex PW-1/DXA6 dated 11.02.2005
(7) Ex DW1A/P2
(8) Ex DW1A/P3 dated 10.08.2006
(9) Ex DW1A/P4 dated 10.08.2006
(10) Ex PW-1/DXA7 dated 11.02.2005
(11) Ex PW-1/DXA8 dated 11.02.2005
(12) Ex PW-1/DXA9 dated 11.02.2005
(13) EX PW1/X dated 06.12.2004
(14) Ex PW-1/DXA10 dated 11.02.2005
(15) Ex PW-1/DXA11 dated 11.02.2005
(16) Ex PW-1/DXA12 dated 11.02.2005
(17) Ex PW-1/DXA13 dated 11.02.2005
(18) Ex PW-1/DXA14 dated 11.02.2005
(19) Ex PW-1/DXA15 dated 11.02.2005
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 41 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:33
+0530
(20) Ex PW-1/DXA16 dated 11.02.2005
(21) Ex PW-1/DXA17 dated 11.02.2005
(22) Ex PW-1/DXA18 dated 11.02.2005
The earlier exhibits number put on the documents was retained by cancelling the other endorsement qua the exhibit number of the same very documents given later in 2006 so that there would not be any confusion qua the exhibit numbers of the documents.
In cross-examination, PW-1 stated that Ex.PW-1/DXA6 was put before her by the counsel of the defendant during her cross-examination on 11.02.2005. She stated that the item no. 6 as shown in paragraph no.3 of her application IA no. 13827/2006 is disputed as per her reading.
(The objection was raised by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff regarding the question put to PW-1 qua lay out plan of Vasant Vihar, Ex Pw-1/DXA6. The objection is sustained as the said question is vague and beyond the scope of controversy.) Vide order dated 27.05.2005, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that PW Kamal Nanda did not appear despite service upon him and directed registry to issue warrants against him on the date to be fixed by Ld. Local Commissioner. The order dated 27.05.2005 is re-produced as under:-
" I, accordingly, allow the application and direct issue of dasti summons to the plaintiff no.1 for service upon Sh Kamal CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 42 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:54:35 +0530 Nanda, Advocate. It is made clear that the responsibility to serve the witness shall vest entirely on plaintiff no.1. It is also made clear that in case the summons are not served for the appearance of the witness before the Local Commissioner on 26th July, 2005, the evidence of the witness shall stand closed and the affidavit filed on his behalf taken off the record. It is further made clear that in case the witness does not appear despite service of summons upon him, the Registry shall issue appropriate warrants for his appearance on the date to be fixed by the Local Commissioner"
However, vide order dated 23.09.2005, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ordered that the affidavit of evidence filed by Kamal Nanda be struck off the record and not be treated as an evidence. Therefore, his affidavit is not considered for the purpose of evidence.
Vide order dated 08.10.2007, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi declined to tender in the evidence the ordinary copy of the assessment order dated 02.03.1976, however, allowed the copy of assessment order dated 15.10.1977 of Sh. M.L. Sodhi, which is certified copy bearing the stamp of Income Tax Office, which is for the assessment year 1976-1977 as Ex X1. The said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was challenged by defendant Manjula Sodhi & Ors, however, the Hon'ble high Court of Delhi vide order dated 02.09.2008 dismissed the said petition observing that the assessment order dated 15.10.1977 was a certified copy bearing the stamp of Income Tax Officer, which is signed in Digitally signed by PANKAJ CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 43 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:38 +0530 original, while certifying the same and is public document more than 30 years old. Further the defendants did not dispute the said assessment in written statement.
Since evidence of PW2 Kamal Nanda was struck off the record. Evidence of Sh A.S. Dagar Inspector Income tax is considered as PW2. Since one other witness Sh Rahul Gautam was also examined as PW 2 on 08.03.2006, his evidence would be read as PW-2A.
19.1 PW-2 Sh. A.S Dagar, Inspector, Income Tax Office, Ward No. 24/4, New Delhi, have been deputed by the Department to depose in the matter and have brought the letter No. 24/(4)/2005/06/303/12.01.2006 and the same is marked as Ex PW-2/1. He further deposed that since the requisite record is very old so it could not be traced out, therefore, the Department can not produce the same.
19.2 PW 2A Sh. Rahul Gautam, tendered his affidavit dated 05.07.2005, exhibited as Ex. PW-2/32.
20. Vide separate statement recorded of Ms. Iram Majid, Ld. counsel for plaintiff, plaintiff evidence was closed vide order dated 13.01.2006.
21. In defendant evidence, Dr. P.K Ghosh was examined as DW-1. He deposed that he was Cardiologist in Apollo Hospital and he had seen the original Will dated 18.09.1989 from the judicial record executed by Mr. M.L. Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 44 /101 PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:40 +0530 Sodhi in favour of his wife Mrs. Raj Sodhi, which bears his signature at point A. Witness further deposed that he can identify the signature of Mr M.L. Sodhi, which is at point B. Witness further deposed that the third person, who has been giving dictation to the typist for typing the Will in question was having dark complexion and tall. He did not know him personally because the same person was not introduced to him. Witness further deposed that after typing out the Will, it was handed to Mr. M.L. Sodhi and the same was read over by Mr.M.L. Sodhi and given to the person, who had given dictation. Witness again said that matter was got typed after approval of the rough draft. Witness further deposed that then Mr. M.L. Sodhi signed the Will after going through the same. Thereafter witness was asked to sign the Will. Witness signed the same after cursory reading. Thereafter two other persons signed the Will in his presence after the signing of Mr. M.L. Sodhi. The Will is Marked as Ex DW-1/1. Witness further deposed that Mr. M.L. Sodhi was of sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the Will.
In the cross-examination on 31.03.2009, he stated that he is MBBS, MD and DM (Cardiologist). He stated that he started his carrier as a doctor in Army Hospital in 1972 till September 1994. He stated that he was working with Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. from January 1989. He stated that he got in touch with M.L. Sodhi, as he used to come to cardiology OPD of Army hospital. He stated that M.L.Sodhi visited the cardiology OPD of Army hospital from January 1989 till July 1989 for a number of times.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 45 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:42
+0530
(Objection was raised by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff regarding the question, the said objection is over ruled.) He denied that M.L. Sodhi never visited to him prior to September, 1989 for the purpose of any ailment. He stated that in the beginning of 1989 , he got in touch with M.L. Sodhi after joining the Army Hospital. He stated that he is unable to produce the record of visits of M.L. Sodhi as in the Army hospital, doctor never keeps the record of their patient. He stated that he did not receive any court summons for appearing in the court today and Mr. Duggal, Advocate asked him to appear through phone today in the court. He stated that in the year 1989, he was staying in Mall Road, Delhi Cantt. Area.
In the further cross-examination on 30.04.2009, he stated that he does not remember the exact date when Col V.K. Sodhi expired but he died in Apollo Hospital. He stated that he died due to coronary artery disease. He stated that he used to treat M.L. Sodhi as Out-patient for Hypertension and he died in Army Hospital, while he was admitted. He stated that till the time he attended M.L. Sodhi, he had no cirebro vascular disease.
(Regarding objection related to funeral of Mr M.L. Sodhi and bypass surgery of Col. V.K. Sodhi, the said objections are over ruled.) He stated that last time, he saw M.L. Sodhi in the month of September, 1989, when he asked him to sign the Will. He stated that he does not know when M.L. Sodhi had expired. He stated that he the Will dated 18.09.1989 was executed in the house of Mr. M.L. Sodhi in Vasant Vihar on a CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 46 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:45 +0530 working day in evening hours at sunset time. He stated that Will was drafted in the house of M.L. Sodhi. One was the rough copy and one was the final copy. He stated that during his visit in the army hospital, he asked him whether he would sign as a witness to his Will, to which he said yes and told him that he Will phone him and tell him when he has arranged for signing and on the day of signing, he called him up to tell whether I could come for signing and he said that he could come in the evening. He stated that somewhere between 10-15 days, before 18.09.1989, M.L. Sodhi had talked to him to be an attesting witness to his Will.
He stated that when he reached on 18.09.1989 at the house of M.L. Sodhi, one dark man, whose name later on revealed as Mr. Sanon and one Sardarji and a typist with a typewriter were there. He stated that the Will dated 18.09.1989 was drafted in his presence and dictation was given in his presence. He heard the drafting of the Will dated 18.09.1989. He stated that he had never been in social terms with M.L. Sodhi as he was his patient only. He denied knowing Mrs. Raj Sodhi or ever attending her as a patient.
While DW-1 was shown paragraph no. 6 of page 11 of Written statement in CS(OS) no. 2793/1993 filed by Raj Sodhi, Col. V.K. Sodhi through their counsel and asked whether the same is the Will dated 18.09.1989, which was signed by him, as a witness, to which the witness replied in negative and stated that he attested as a witness to the Will, which was in one page and he was seeing multiple pages.
During this question, objection was raised by the Ld. Counsel CS No. 20/2016 47 /101 Digitally signed Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:47 +0530 for plaintiff regarding confrontation of this document to the witness, the objection is devoid of any merit and same is dismissed.
In the further cross-examination on 20.08.2009, he stated that he is treating patient with heart ailments. He stated that he became an attesting witness only once in this case. He stated that no other patient has ever requested him to become a witness to their Wills. He stated that M.L. Sodhi had two sons and he met him number of times after 18.04.1989 in the hospital as a patient as a doctor not as a friend. He stated that the said Will was typed out, given to him and he signed. He stated that M.L. Sodhi signed first on the Will dated 18.09.1989 and thereafter he signed and thereafter two more people signed it. He stated that as far as he remember, there was place for two witnesses to sign and he did not remember who signed as a second witness and who signed as a drafter of the Will. He stated that he is not aware whether M.L. Sodhi made a Will prior to 18.09.1989. He stated that out of two persons, he met only 18.09.1989, he met Mr. Sanon in court while coming as a witness for this case. He stated that Keshav Sodhi and Arjun Sodhi had talked to him over a phone every time on the date of hearing. He stated that the execution of Will took place in the first room, where M.L. Sodhi was present and they entered through the verandah. He stated that the said room must be a sitting room and M.L. Sodhi was sitting on a chair and sometime, he was standing. He stated that he had a cursory look at the Will before signing. He stated that only thing he remember about the Will is that M.L. Sodhi CS No. 20/2016 48 /101 Digitally signed Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:54:49 +0530 had given his property to his wife. He stated that while treating M.L. Sodhi, he never find any signs of slurr. He stated that as a habit he always right his name below his signature and he supposed that he must have written his name while signing on the Will. He stated that he treated Col. V.K. Sodhi, who was in the Army. He stated that he did not remember when V.K. Sodhi personally accompanied Mrs. Raj Sodhi in November 1989 and he attended upon her. He stated that Amrik Singh was Sardarji in his 30s or 40s. He denied the suggestion that Will in question is a forged and fabricated documents. He denied that the incident, he deposed regarding 18.09.1989 never happened and is a cooked up story. He denied that M.L. Sodhi never stated the Will in question 21.1 Smt Manjula Sodhi was examined as DW-1/A. DW1/A Mrs. Manjula Sodhi has tendered her affidavit, Ex DW1A/A on 10.08.2006 and she also filed her amended affidavit on 02.01.2007, which is Marked as Ex DW-1/A/B. She has relied upon the following documents:-
i. The copy of the share certificate Ex DW-1A/1 ii. The letter from the Society regarding the share certificate and charges thereof as Ex DW-1/2 iii. letter dated 22.06.1970 vide which society allotted a piece of land bearing plot no.4 on street no. B-3, Vasant Vihar, DW-1/3.
iv. Possession letter dated 16.08.1970 issued to M.L. Sodhi Ex.DW-1/4 v. Sh M.L. Sodhi applied for sanction on 03.06.1970, Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 49 /101 PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:51 +0530 Ex.DW-1/5 and got the sanction vide letter dated 24.06.1970, Ex.DW-1/6.
vi. The Sub-lease in respect of the property bearing No. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar was duly executed in the name of Sh.M.L. Sodhi, as Ex DW-1/7.
vii. The pension payment order of Sh M.L. Sodhi is Ex.DW-1/8 viii.Hand writing note of Sh M.L. Sodhi for the Income Tax Return, Assessment year 1983-84 is already Ex.PW-1/DXA1 dated 11.02.2005.
ix. The letter dated 14.08.1987 of Mr. M.L. Sodhi is already Ex.PW-1/DXA2 dated 11.02.2005. x. The Income Tax Assessment for the year 1985-86, Ex.DW-1/11 and the challan for the same year is already Ex.PW-1/DXA3 dated 11.02.2005 xi. The letter of I.T.O regarding Income Tax assessment for the year 1984-85 of Sh. M.L. Sodhi, Ex DW-1/13. xii. The statement giving the working of the taxable income tax of Sh M.LO. Sodhi for the year ending 31.03.1978 and the assessment year 1978-79 is already Ex.PW-1/DXA4 dated 11.02.2005 xiii.The PAN of Sh. M.L. Sodhi's letter dated 19.06.1972, Ex.DW-1/15.
xiv. The letter from DGCA Civil Aviation Deptt, Govt of India dated 17.02.1976 is Ex DW-1/16 xv. The letter of AGCR, New Delhi to the Treasury officer, Delhi regarding pension payment of Sh M.L. Sodhi, Ex.DW-1/17 Digitally signed CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 50 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:54:53 +0530 xvi.The certificates issued by Bharat Air dated 18.12.72 and 22.5.1975 are Ex DW-1/18 to DW-1/19.
xvii. The occupancy certificate issued by DDA on 05.08.1971, Ex.DW-1/20.
xviii. The letter dated 07.06.68 of the Government Co-op Housing Society is Ex DW-1/21.
xix. The receipts issued by DDA dated 06.01.1971 and 04.05.1971 of the DDA are Ex DW-1/22 and DW-1/23. xx.The handwritten application of Sh M.L. Sodhi for filter water connection and the bills are already Ex.PW-1/DXA5 dated 11.02.2005, DW-1/25, DW-1/26 & DW-1/27.
xxi.The bills of construction or in connection with the construction like Pest Control, Ex.PW-1/DXA7, Ex.PW-1/DXA8 and Ex.PW-1/DXA9, Ex.PW-1/X, Ex.PW-1/DXA10, Ex.PW-1/DXA11, Ex.PW-1/DXA12, Ex.PW-1/DXA13, Ex.PW-1/DXA14, Ex.PW-1/DXA15, Ex.PW-1/DXA16, Ex.PW-1/DXA17, Ex.PW-1/DXA18, & Ex.DW-1/28(colly.) xxii. The passbooks maintained by Sh M.L. Sodhi vide passbooks are Ex. DW-1/29 to Ex.DW-1/30 and Ex.DW-1/1AP3 and Ex.DW-1A/P4 xxiii. The MCD inspection report dated 27.07.1971, is Ex.DW-2/1.
xxiv. Notice U/s 126 of DMC Act issued to M.L. Sodhi is Ex.DW-2/2.
xxv. The certificate issued by German Embassy dated 07.04.1973 is Ex.DW-2/3 CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 51 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:55 +0530 xxvi. The lease agreement with the German embassy is Ex.DW-2/4 xxvii. The perpetual sub-lease dated 10.03.1970 issued in favour of M.L. Sodhi is Ex.DW-2/5.
(During the tendering of evidence by DW-1/A, the objection was raised by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff regarding putting the exhibits, marks on the documents on account of mode of proof.
The objection is overruled as marking exhibit on a document does not dispense the proof of the same.) In her cross-examination on 10.08.2006, she stated that B.A (ENG) (Hons) from Bombay University. She stated that she was married to V.K. Sodhi on 16.02.1968 and after marriage she started residing with Mr. M.L. Sodhi, Raj Sodhi at C-2/65, Moti Bagh, New Delhi. She has stated that A.K. Sodhi also resided with them. The said premises was govt. accommodation, which was allotted to M.L. Sodhi, after the retirement of M.L. Sodhi, the whole family shifted to 6/4, Shanti Niketan, which was rented accommodation. She stated that A.K. Sodhi used to reside with his father, whenever he used to come to Delhi wherever his father stayed. A.K. Sodhi married on 16.02.1975 and resided in B Block, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. M.L. Sodhi and Raj Sodhi also stayed in the same property. She stated that suit property was leased out to West German Embassy during 1972-76. She stated that the rent realized from West German Embassy was deposited in individual account of M.L. Sodhi as he has accounts in National City bank and he had account in PNB and first Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 52 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:54:58 +0530 National & Grindlays. She stated that all her individual accounts were at Connaught Place.
She stated that Mr. M.L. Sodhi might have deposited the rent realized from West German Embassy in any one account mentioned by her. She stated that the rent paid by West German Embassy at the relevant time was Rs.1,000/- or Rs.1,500/- per month.
In her cross-examination on 10.01.2007, she stated that the construction of plot in question was commenced somewhere in the month of 1970 and completed in the month of June, 1971. She stated that some construction was raised at later stage, when Mr. M.L. Sodhi, occupied the suit property in 1976. She stated that sanction for additional construction of the suit property was given in 1982 or 1983 but she was not sure. The additional construction completed somewhere in 1983. She stated that M.L. Sodhi has several individual saving accounts in many banks and he had no HUF account. She denied account no. 595 of M.L. Sodhi and family HUF in Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar. She stated that M.L. Sodhi was filing his individual tax returns. She denied that rent received from West German Embassy reflected in the returns of M.L. Sodhi as Karta, HUF.
In her cross-examination on 20.02.2007, DW-1/A stated that Barasti consisted of one dining room, a drawing room, a bathroom, a bed room, a kitchen, two terraces and a verandah and the construction was completed in 1983 and same was occupied by Col. V.K. Sodhi and his family, who was living on the ground floor prior to that. She CS No. 20/2016 53 /101 Digitally signed Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:00 +0530 affirmed that M.L. Sodhi was filing property tax returns.
(The objection was raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant, while the witness is shown attested copy of lease deed dated 01.08.1985 (Mark AX). The said objection is baseless as the said document is already part of the record and the questions from the witness could be asked only by showing it to her.
After seeing document Mark AX, she stated that she does not recognise the signature at the place of lessor on the said document.) She stated that she knows Ms. Nalini Lal. She stated that Ms. Nalini Lal has filed a suit for Partition against Mrs. Raj Sodhi, her husband, Col. V.K. Sodhi and Mr. A.K. Sodhi after the demise of M.L. Sodhi. She stated that her husband Col V.K. Sodhi found the Will dated 18.09.1989 of Sh M.L. Sodhi. She stated that her husband did not disclose to her about the execution of Will by Sh M.L. Sodhi with respect to the suit property during 18.11.1989 to 07.01.2002.
In her cross-examination dated 03.10.2007, She stated that all the construction details given in three handwritten sheets in her affidavit pertains to year 1970-71 and all the bills are filed for the same period.
(The objection raised on behalf of the defendant regarding the said question is overruled.) She stated that construction in 1980's was started in 1976 to 1982 and was solely done by the individual and personal funds of M.L. Sodhi without any contribution by any family members and there was no system of consolidating the bills. She stated that she was staying with Col. Sodhi, whenever he was having army accommodation and rest of the time she used to come and stay with her in-laws. She stated CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 54 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:55:03 +0530 that between 1980-81 Col. Sodhi was posted in Pathankot and in 1982, he was posted in Firozpur and in 1983-1985 in Ahmednagar. She denied the knowledge that plaintiffs were shown as members in the ration card of M.L. Sodhi as head of the family from 1975-1976 onwards till 1983-1984. She denied that she has deliberately not produced documents in her possession for the second phase of construction because they showed that funds were spent from Joint Hindu Family Account. She stated that for the time of construction of second floor, her family was occupying the same and it was not rent to anybody.
(While the question regarding renting out of the entire second floor to Col. Arquay, military attache of Philippine embassy from 1980 to June 1983 was asked she replied that at the time of construction of second floor, she was occupying with her family and it was not rented to anybody. The objection raised on behalf of defendant that the question is frivolous is dismissed.) In her cross-examination on 23.11.2007, she stated that her husband was not posted in the year 1980 in Delhi but she was well aware that M.L. Sodhi was keeping good health as she used to visit her in-laws for four months in a year at least.The objection to this question raised by the defendant is that it is beyond pleadings is dismissed.
(She denied that her mother till her death was residing at Dehrudun and her father till his death was residing in Madhya Pradesh. The objection raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the question is frivolous and irrelevant is sustained.
The objections raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant regarding the question of delivery of her children and place is sustained.) Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 55 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:55:07 +0530 In her cross-examination on 03.05.2008, she stated that the whole property was rented out to German embassy and not a portion and there was no joint account in the name of Col. V.K. Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi. She stated that she does not remember the bank from which payments were made and Sh. M.L. Sodhi was operating many individual accounts.
(The objection regarding document Ex DW-1/A/X1 is sustained. She stated that whole property was rented out to German Embassy and not a portion and there was no joint account of M.L. Sodhi and V.K. Sodhi. While the letters dated 05.09.1999, issued by the bank certifying the account opened on 04.07.1972 bearing no. 595, jointly held by M.L. Sodhi and V.K. Sodhi, she stated that both the document Ex DW-1/A/X2 and Ex DW-1/AX3 are false. The objection of the defendant regarding putting the said documents to her is dismissed.) She stated that the assessment order in 1983- 1984, which is filed with her affidavit does not mention the construction or the amount spent pursuant to sanction of 20.03.1980. She stated that there was no HUF or no account having no. 595 of Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar. She stated that M.L. Sodhi has been depositing house tax in respect of the suit property. She stated that no bank account of V.K. Sodhi with his father M.L. Sodhi. She stated that V.K. Sodhi has no interest in any of the property than suit property. She stated that while her husband was posted in Delhi in 1988, he started living with her while she was already residing at the second floor of the suit property. She stated that plaintiff and her family were having a separate kitchen from the time they have shifted to suit property in the year 1976. She stated that study CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 56 /101 by PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors.
PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:15 +0530 room on the first floor was converted into kitchen as soon as the plaintiff and her family shifted to the suit property. She denied the suggestion that the Wills mentioned by her in affidavit are forged and fabricated.
21.2 DW-2 Shri Chander Mohan Sanon has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex DW-2/A. He stated that Will is Ex DW-1/1. M.L. Sodhi signed the Will at Mark A over the word executant. Col. P.K. Ghosh signed at Mark B. Amrik Singh signed at Mark C and he signed at Mark D as drafter of the Will.
In his cross-examination dated 11.03.2010, he stated that he joined legal profession on 19.08.1966. He started his profession as an associate of Sh J.D Bagga, Advocate and thereafter started practicing independently. He stated that he never practiced with Mr. P.K. Duggal, Advocate and he came in contact with him when he received summons from the court in this case. He stated that he came in contact with M.L. Sodhi on 18.09.1989 as on that day, he came to his seat at about 11.00a.m. He stated that M.L. Sodhi told him that he wanted to execute a Will and also stated that he can not discuss the same here and hence asked him to come to his house situated at Vasant Vihar, Delhi in the evening. He stated that in the evening, he accompanied by typist reached at his house at about 5.00-5.30p.m. He stated that Will was executed between 7.00p.m and he was free by 8.30p.m. He stated that when he reached at the house of Mr M.L. Sodhi at 5.30 p.m. on 18.09.1989, Mr. M.L. Sodhi was present there and there CS No. 20/2016 57 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:18 +0530 was one sikh gentlemen, they were sitting in the Hall room and there was a dining table on the side and some chairs on the other side. In between the dining table and chairs, there was a table. He stated that there was only one rough draft of the Will. He Volunteered that M.L. Sodhi told him the material, which is to be written in the Will and on the basis of the same, he drafted the Will and showed the same to M.L. Sodhi and after reading the same, he made certain corrections and on the basis of the same, he took out a fair draft. Mr. M.L. Sodhi read the contents of the fair draft and thereafter signed the same. He stated that M.L. Sodhi first told the material to him and thereafter he got it drafted through the typist. He stated that typist was not his regular typist. He said that he never met Mr. M.L. Sodhi after 18.09.1989. He stated that he never appeared in the case of M.L. Sodhi. He denied the suggestion that in the criminal complaint filed by Sunil Sodhi, he appeared on behalf of M.L. Sodhi alongwith Mr. P.K.Duggal and on behalf of P.K. Duggal, he stated that M.L. Sodhi must be 65-66 years old on 18.09.1989. He volunteered that he was an old man. He stated that sikh gentlemen was already present in the house of M.L. Sodhi, when he reached there. He denied the suggestion that Will Ex DW-1/1 was not executed on 18.09.1989. He stated that M.L. Sodhi had three children, Ajay Sodhi, Col.V.K. Sodhi and Daughter Nalini Lal. He stated that he knows about the three children of M.L. Sodhi as he told him on 18.09.1989. He stated that except the present case he never appeared before any court as a witness to any Will or as a drafter. He volunteered that he never drafted any CS No. 20/2016 58 /101 Digitally signed Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors.
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 15:55:20 +0530 other Will. He stated that he does not remember what was stated by M.L.Sodhi to him on 18.09.1989 but only remembered that he has executed the Will in favour of his wife. He denied the suggestion that he did not remember about the Will as he was not present on 18.09.1989 at the time of execution of the Will. He denied the suggestion that he did not draft the Will in question. He stated that he has come to the court on his own. He stated that as an advocate after drafting a plaint or WS, he only writes his designation and not his address. He stated that Will was signed first by M.L. Sodhi from his own pen and he signed in the last. After M.L. Sodhi, it was signed by P.K. Ghosh and Amrik Singh. He stated that he never met P.K. Ghosh and Amrik Singh after 18.09.1989. He stated that he never visited M.L. Sodhi after 18.09.1989. He knows about the death of M.L. Sodhi but not the date of death.
In his further cross-examination on 08.12.2010, he stated that he met M.L. Sodhi on 18.09.1989 only and never before and never after. He stated that he gave oral instructions for the purpose of drafting of the Will. He stated that he entered straight into the house of M.L. Sodhi. He stated that he did not notice that there is a gate in the middle of the house. He denied that M.L. Sodhi was not in a fit state of mind to give any instructions after his heart attack. He stated that his speech was coherent and at no stage he was stammering. He stated that he was in perfect health when he met him. He denied that M.L. Sodhi never visited Tis Hazari Court on 18.09.1989. He stated that he drafted the Will and signed as CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 59 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:22 +0530 drafter and thereafter wrote his name. He stated that when he reached M.L. Sodhi's house, he was sitting on a chair near the table. He stated that about 45 minutes to one hour was taken for the first draft of the Will and the second draft was ready within 45 minutes. He left the house of M.L. Sodhi at 18.50p.m. with his typist. He stated that he can even go now to the house of M.L. Sodhi at Vasant Vihar. He stated that when he was dictated to the typist on 18.09.1989, M.L. Sodhi was there and after Ghosh came when Mr. Sodhi was giving him instructions and also Amrik Singh was there. He denied that he was in touch of family of M.L. Sodhi. He denied knowledge about Keshav Sodhi, Manujla Sodhi. She stated that at the time of instructions Mr. Sodhi told him that Raj Sodhi was his wife. He stated that he received the summons in this case once and thereafter, he is appearing in this case as his duty. He denied that on 18.09.1989 M.L. Sodhi was week, feeble and sick because of the heart attack and he was accompanied by his wife all the time. He denied the suggestion that Will in question was forged and fabricated documents. He denied the suggestion that he knew about the incident which took place on 18.09.1989. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Sodhi never executed the Will on 18.09.1989. He denied the suggestion he deposed falsely to help to interest some people.
While he was cross-examined on behalf of Ms. Nalini lal, he stated that M.l. Sodhi gave him instructions and he drafted accordingly and he told that he wanted to give property to his wife. He did not ask him the reason for the same. Digitally signed by PANKAJ CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 60 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:55:25 +0530 21.3 Since Sh Chander Mohan sanon has been examined as DW-2, therefore, the evidence of Sh Ram Kishan is re-numbered as DW2A.
DW-2A Ram Kishan deposed that he has brought the summoned record. The property in question is assessed in the name of M.L. Sodhi in their record. Suit property was inspected by their official on 02.07.1971 and M.L. Sodhi was found owner. Photocopy of the inspection report dated 02.07.1971 is Ex DW-2/1, notice U/s 126 DMC Act was issued to Mr. M.L. Sodhi, Photocopy of same is Mark Ex DW-2/2, photocopy of the certificate issued by tenant, Embassy of Republic of Germany in favour of owner Sh M.L. Sodhi dated 07.04.1973 in their record in original, photocopy of same is Ex DW-2/3, their file have two pages of the original lease agreement between M.L. Sodhi and the Embassy of Republic of Germany, Photostate copy of the pages no.2 & 3 of the said lease agreement is Ex DW-2/4, while the original tenancy agreement is also on record. Photocopy of the perpetual sub-lease dated 10.03.1970 issued by Delhi Administration ( Land & Building Deptt.) in favour of Mr. M.L. Sodhi S/o Br. R. Sodhi R/o C-II/65, Moti Bagh, New Delhi alongwith the Sanction letter of DDA( Deptt. Of Bldg.), photocopy of the perpetual sub lease as well as sanction letter are marked as Ex DW2/5 (objected to being incomplete) respectively. He stated that he has seen the original notice under Section dated 11.11.1980 from the judicial record, which was Ex DW-2/6.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally
signed by 61 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:27
+0530
(The objection regarding incomplete record is dismissed being vague.) Vide order dated 29.07.2010, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi permitted the defendants to lead evidence of Smt Veena Anand, Sh. Manu Gurbaxani as DW-3 and DW-4 respectively and also summoned to officers described in item no. 20 and 29 of the list of witnesses filed by them.
21.4 DW3 Sh. Manu Gurbuxani examined on 11.08.2011, he has tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex DW-3/1. Witness identified the signature of Smt. Raj Sodhi at Mark A, A1 and A2 and the signature of other witness namely Mrs. Veena Anand is Mark C. However, cross-examination could not be conducted as Manjula Sodi and Arjun Sodhi stated that they do not want his examination. No cross-examination was conducted of this witness.
21.5 Since Manuburbaxani has been examined as DW-3 pursuant to the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the evidence of Bal Kishan Yadav is re-numbered as DW-3A DW-3A Sh Balkishan Yadav examined on 25.04.2006 Government Servant, Co-operative House Building Society, Vasant Vihar, has brought the summoned record pertaining to Government Servant's Co-operative House Building Society Building, Kalyan kendra, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Witness deposed that Sh M.L. Sodhi had applied for society membership on 30.03.1960, CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 62 /101 by PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors.
PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:29 +0530 proved the photostate copy of the same is Ex DW3/1. Admission form duly signed by Mr. M.L. Sodhi and duly admitted by the President of the society on 17.03.1962 is available in the file, photocopy of same is Marked A. Witness has also brought the two solemn declaration of Mr. M.L. Sodhi, photocopy of same are Mark B and C. Witness has also brought the following documents:
1. Letter dated 13.05.1966 of Mr. M.L. Sodhi for payment of first installment for the plot, Mark D;
2. Letter dated 15.10.1966 concerning payment of second installment for the plot, Mark E;
3. Letter dated 03.01.1968 of Mr. M.L. Sodhi concerning development charges, Mark F
4. Handwritten letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 16.08.1970 requesting physical possession of the plot, Mark G;
5. Letter dated 16.08.1970 of the Secretary of the Government Servant's Co-operative House building society Limited regarding handing over the suit plot, Mark H;
6. Letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 30.08.1968 concerning payment of Rs.646/-, Mark I;
7. Handwritten letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 05.12.1968 concerning payment of Rs.1,000/- towards balance due for the price of the plot, Mark J;
8. Handwritten letter of M.L. Sodhi dated 05.08.1968, Mark K;
9. Handwritten letter of M.L. Sodhi dated 22.03.1976 CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 63 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:55:32 +0530 concerning installation of unfiltered water supply, Mark-L;
10.Letter dated 22.03.1976 regarding sanction for unfiltered water supply, Mark M;
11.Application dated 15.03.1976 for electric plumbing of Mr. M.L. Sodhi, Mark N;
12.Hand Written letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi concerning unfiltered water supply for additional construction dated 20.06.1980, Mark O;
13.Hand written letter of Mr M.L. Sodhi concerning disconnection of water supply for additional construction dated 30.08.1980, Mark P;
14.Letter dated 16.03.1990 of Smt. Raj Sodhi, Mark Q;
15.Notices of the society dated 24.05.1995 and 01.04.2001, Mark R;
Proved the photocopies of the above said documents are Marked as D to R respectively.
In the cross-examination, he stated he might have seen M.L. Sodhi, 15 years back but he unable to recollect his face. He stated that he can identify his signature.
21.6 DW-4 Smt. Veena Anand had tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex DW-4/1. She stated that the Will of Smt. Raj Sodhi is already exhibited as Ex DW-3/A, however, in her affidavit, same is mentioned as DW-5/1. She stated that the Will bears the signature of Smt. Raj Sodhi at Mark A, A1 and A2 and her signature at Mark C. The signature of other witness namely Mr. Manu Gurbuxani is CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 64 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:34
+0530
at Mark B.
She was cross-examined on 20.12.2011, she stated that her date of birth is 30.01.1946 and her mother and Mrs. Raj Sodhi were neighbours in Lahore. She stated that her mother resided in Nagpur after partition from 1948 till date. She stated that she studied in Bombay from Sophia College. She stated that she was on visiting terms with Mrs. Raj Sodhi and in 1973 she moved to Delhi and after that she visited her socially. She stated that she did not know Manjula Sodhi in college but she believed that they were in same college. She denied the suggestion that she knew Manjula Sodhi in college or that they were sharing the same hostel in Bombay. She stated that she does not think Manjula Sodhi did her graduation in English (Hons.). She stated that she was in college from 1961 to 1964 and she did her graduation in English( Hons.). She stated that Mrs. Raj Sodhi was the age of her mother. She stated that on and average, she met them 3-4 times in a year.
(The objections raised regarding her mother's meeting with Raj Sodhi and the age of her mother are dismissed.) She met them in Vasant Vihar residence after Shanti Niketan residence. She denied that she never used to visit Raj Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi 3-4 times in a year and that is why she is unable to tell their residences before shifting to D-3/4 Vasant Vihar.
(The objection regarding the place of residence of Raj Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi, 1975 is dismissed.) She stated that she did not know what were the CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 65 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:37 +0530 family nick name of A.K. Sodhi. V.K. Sodhi, Nalini Lal. She stated that A.K. Sodhi was sometimes referred to as "Poles". She denied that Manjula Sodhi was referred to as " Poles". She stated that A.K. Sodhi nick name in Punjabi was said " Phola". She attended the marriage of Vijay Sodhi and also of A.K. Sodhi and Sunil Sodhi. She stated that she does not know in which year M.L. Sodhi had died but she attended his cremation. She stated that V.K. sodhi died one year after his mother.
She was cross-examined on 08.08.2013. She stated that she has no personal knowledge as to how educated was Mrs. Raj Sodhi. She stated that Mrs. Raj Sodhi informed her telephonically that she wanted to execute a Will sometime in April 1996. She stated that on 07.05.1996, she was present at the Registrar office when the Will was being registered. Mrs. Raj Sodhi, Manu Gurbaxni, Advocate and she was present. She stated that Raj Sodhi was not accompanied by any family member. She stated that when she reached Raj Sodhi was already present. She stated that on 01.05.1996, she went to the house of Mrs. Raj Sodhi in the morning 11.00/11.30a.m. When she reached her house, Mrs. Raj Sodhi and one another gentlemen was present. She did not remember as to which day of the week it was but stated that it may be Wednesday. She affirmed that her husband used to travel very frequently during 1973-1980. She denied the suggestion that on 01.05.1996, she was not in Delhi and was travelling. She denied the suggestion that on 07.05.1996, she was not in Delhi and not present before the office of Sub-Registrar. She stated CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 66 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:40 +0530 that no one read out the Will to Mrs. Raj Sodhi either on 01.05.1996 or 07.05.1996. However, she volunteered that it was she who read out the Will. She denied the suggestion that Mrs. Raj Sodhi was not conversant with English and therefore, he could not have read out the Will. She stated that Mrs. Raj Sodhi signed the Will on the ground floor on 01.05.1996 in the drawing-cum-dining room. She stated that there were about three pages in the Will and she signed all the three pages. She stated that she did not put her name while affixing her signatures as the names were already typed. Manu Gurubaxmi reached the residence of Raj Sodhi first and then she reached, she stated that no one reached after her. She stated that she was present there for almost an hour and a half. She stated that she did not sign all the pages of the Will. She stated that Manu Gurubaxni is the other witness and she does not know him.
She met him once after 01.05.1996 and 07.05.1996 in the court. She stated that she did not visit Raj Sodhi frequently between 1980-1996. She stated that she was asked by Mr. Duggal, counsel for LRs of deceased defendant no.2 to depose in the present matter. She stated that she knows Mrs. Nalini Lal. She did not attend her wedding and she never met and spoken to Mrs. Nalini Lal after the death of Mrs. Raj Sodhi. She stated that she aware that Mrs. Raj Sodhi was executed another Will and she mentioned about the said Will in Will dated 01.05.1996. She stated that photograph of Mrs. Raj Sodhi was not affixed on the Will dated 01.05.1996. She stated that Will of Mrs. Raj Sodhi 01.05.1996 was shown to her by counsel on 23.05.2006 when her affidavit was sworn. She CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed by PANKAJ 67 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:42 +0530 denied the suggestion that she did not have the occasion to see Mrs. Raj Sodhi signing between 01.05.1996 to 23.05.2006.
She volunteered that she had seen her signing on 07.05.1996. She stated that she did not disclose about the Will to Mrs. Manjula Sodhi. She denied the suggestion that Will dated 01.05.1996 is forged and fabricated document. She denied the suggestion that the incidents of 01.05.1996 were concocted and she is deposing at the behest of Mrs. Manjula Sodhi. She denied the suggestion that she was not present on 01.05.1996 and 07.05.1996 when the Will was executed.
In her cross-examination on behalf of deceased LRs of defendant no.1, she stated that she was not aware, if Mrs. Raj Sodhi was suffering from any ailment on 01.05.1996. She volunteered that she was hale and hearty. She stated that Will was signed at the residence of Raj Sodhi on 01.05.1996. Her affidavit Ex PW-4/1 was prepared by Mr. Duggal on her instructions.
21.7 DW-5 Mr.Deepak Mandal, (08.08.2013) Manager, Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society have brought the summoned record which is letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi received by the society on 30.03.1960, Admission Form dated 09.03.1962, Solemn declaration of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 13.05.1966, letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 15.10.1966 and 03.01.1968, hand written letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 16.08.1970, letter dated 16.08.1970 of Government Servants Cooperative House Building Society, Letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 30.08.1968, handwritten letters CS No. 20/2016 68 /101 Digitally signed Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:44 +0530 of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 05.12.1968 and 22.03.1976. Letter from Government servants Cooperative House Building society dated 22.03.1976 and 15.03.1976 alongwith receipt dated 15.03.1976 hand written letter of M.L. Sodhi dated 20.06.1980 and 30.08.1983, letter of Government Servants Cooperative House Building society dated 24.05.1995 and 01.04.2001, layout plan of Vasant Vihar, B Block signed by Mr. M.L. Sodhi, Solemn declaration by the signatories of the society, same are Ex DW-5/1 to Ex DW-5/21(colly.)(OS&R) Witness was cross-examined on 30.04.2014, he stated that he is in employment of Government servants Cooperative House Building society since 2007. He was appointed as a record keeper in the society. He stated that as a manager, his duty is to look after the day to day affairs of the society. He stated that as a manager he has no role in preparation of record of the society. He affirmed that the summoned file contained all the documents pertaining to the suit property B-3/4 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He affirmed that as and when society received any documents pertaining to the suit property, it is recorded serial wise in the file. He affirmed that he has no information whether Sunil Sodhi has been writing to the society as co-owner of the suit property. He stated that he is not aware whether Manjula Sodhi or V.K. Sodhi had been writing letters to the society in this regard.
Witness was cross-examined on 26.08.2015 and he stated that he is working in the Government Servant Co-op House building Society from 2007. He stated that in the record Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 69 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:55:47 +0530 of the society, the property is in the name of M.L. Sodhi. He produced the original of Ex DW-5/21. He denied the suggestion that Ex DW-5/21 was not in possession of the society earlier or that it has been obtained by the society from somewhere else. He admits letter Ex DW-5/PX1 in the record of the society. The reply of the society to this letter is Ex DW-5/PX2. He admitted letter Ex DW-5/PX3.
21.7 On 28.04.2017, Smt. Nalini Lal was examined as DW-1, however as per the defendant's evidence, DW-1 was Dr. P. Ghosh. Therefore, for the sake of record and convenience, the evidence of Smt. Nalini Lal is renumbered as DW-6 DW-6 Smt. Nalini Lal has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex DW-1/A and she relied on the document, copy of her mother's Smt Raj Sodhi Will dated 07.06.1991 and death certificate of Smt Raj Sodhi, Mark B. Witness was cross-examined on 28.04.2017, she stated that she was not aware, if her father Sh M.L. Sodhi died intestate without leaving a Will. She stated that she had filed a Written Statement bearing her signature duly verified on 24.07.1991. She affirmed that in her WS, she has mentioned that her father died intestate. She affirmed that her father died intestate and there is no question of Will. She stated that she understand the meaning of word "intestate". She affirmed that paragraph 4 of Will dated 07.06.1991 Mark A, there is a mention of Will dated 09.09.1989 of her father. She stated that there is no Will dated 09.09.1989 of her father and as such Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by PANKAJ 70 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:55:50 +0530 same is not filed by her. She stated that her mother said that she had the Will dated 09.09.1989 of her father and informed her that her father bequeathed the suit property in her favour.
Witness was cross-examined on 05.09.2017, She stated that she does not recollect, who are the witnesses of the Will, however, it may be V.N Puri and Dr. Indira Behl. She denied that in the said Will of Mr. M.L. Sodhi, his wife Raj Sodhi had only lifetime interest and after her death, it was equally divided between their two sons only. She stated that her claim as per suit no. 2793/1993, for a share in the property was upon the instance of her mother because her two brothers were fighting for the second floor and mother decided to give it to her. She stated that her mother had asked her to file the suit and take her to registration office to a Will. She affirmed that in paragraph no.6 of her affidavit, that her father left the Will dated 18.12.1989. However, she has not filed the same on record. She stated that her father passed away on 18.11.1989 as such he would not have executed a Will on 18.12.1989. She stated that her father must have made the Will before he was expired. She stated that the witnesses of first Will 09.09.1989 of M.L. Sodhi were Indira Behl and V.N Puri, however, she could not recollect, who were the witnesses of the second Will dated 18.09.1989. She denied that the Will dated 07.06.1991, Mark A of her mother is forged and fabricated documents. She stated that the construction of the suit property were not done in two phases and same was completed on 1970 only. She denied that her father had ever HUF. She stated that all Wills of Smt Raj Sodhi after 07.06.1991 are forged and fabricated. CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 71 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:55:52 +0530 Witness was cross-examined on 12.09.2017, she stated that M.L. Sodhi was member of the Defence Housing Society and he was leased out property vide lease dated 10.03.1970. She stated that her brother A.K. Sodhi was under depression but a psychic patient. She denied that A.K. Sodhi and his wife were not in goods terms. She stated that Sunil Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi lived separately only for sometime and not always. She stated that both my brothers V.K. Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi living separately and not as a part of M.L. Sodhi.
She stated that her father said that A.K. Sodhi and his family Will stay at first floor and V.K. Sodhi Will stay at second floor, till he get accommodation.
Witness was cross-examined on 09.02.2018, She stated that M.M Lal was the attesting witness of Will dated 07.06.1991. She admitted her signature on Ex D1W1/R1. She admitted that WS was filed by her in the court after 47 days of execution of the Will.
Witness was cross-examined on 24.02.2018, She stated that her mother and her husband told her about the Will dated 07.06.1991. Her mother told her that her father left a Will in her favour.
Witness was cross-examined on 23.10.2018, she stated that she was pressurized to withdraw her Partition suit by her brother, mother and P.K. Duggal. She stated that she withdrew the said suit unconditionally because her mother promised her to look after her interest in the property. She denied the suggestion that she voluntarily relinquished her right and claim in the suit property.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
72 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:55
+0530
21.8 Since Sh Chander Mohan Sanon has been
examined as DW-2, the evidence of DW-2 Sh Sushil Kumar is renumbered as DW-7.
DW-7 Sh. Sushil Kumar Kala (24.02.2018), Judicial Assistant, RKD (original) Branch, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, have brought the summoned record i.e. CD pertaining to CS (OS) No. 2793-1993, titled Mr. Nalini Lal Vs. Mrs. Raj Sodhi and ors. Witness has also brought the Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dated 11.09.2017 and also the Certificate U/s 65B(4) © of the Indian Evidence Act, dated 21.09.2017 is Ex DW-2/3. Ex DW-2/2 and Ex DW-2/3 have been signed by Ms. Naveen Kathpal, Assistant Registrar, RKD ( O), Branch, High Court of Delhi. Witness identified her signature at point A and B and deposed that she has seen her signing during the court of his duty.
22. Defendant evidence stands closed vide order dated 23.10.2018.
23. I have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record. Both the parties have filed judgment in support of their contentions.
Plaintiffs have relied upon the following judgments:
1. Union of India Vs. Moksh Builders and Financiers Ltd.
Digitally signed by CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 73 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:55:58 +0530 MANU/SC/0057/1976 AIR 1977 SCC 409;
2. Narayan Singh Vs. Kallaram & Ors.
MANU/MP/0520/2015 W.P. NO. 7860 OF 2014 decided on 19.03.2015 by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench);
3. Muddasani Ventaka Narsaiah (Dead) Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, MANU/SC/0524/2016, 2016 (12) SCC 288(4) Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre Vs. Pathankhan & Ors. MANU/SC/0516/1970: (1970) 2CC 717;
4. Ved Prakash vs. Om Prakash and Ors.
MANU/DE/5183/201;
5. Suraj Bhan Vs. State and Ors. MANU/DE/0255/2008;
6. Reeta Ramesh Vs. State MANU/DE/9084/2006; and
7. Lilian Coelho and Ors. Vs. Myra Philomena Coalho MANU/SC/0004/2025.
Defendants have relied upon the following judgments:
1. Sunny(Minor) & Anr. vs. Raj Singh & Ors, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13446;
2. Sh. Surender Kumar vs. Dhani Ram & Ors., 2016 SCC On Line Del 333;
3. Jai Narain Mathur & Ors. vs. Jai Prakash Mathur (deceased) through LRs 2016, SCC OnLine Del986;
4. Dayanand Rajan & Anr. vs. Ram Lal Khattar, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6402;
5. Aarshiya Gulati (Minor) Through Next friend & Ors vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6867;
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 74 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:00
+0530
6. Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice ( Retired) & Anr. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., 2013 SCC On Line P&H 20369;
7. Jupudi Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar v. Jupudi Keshava Rao (died) & Ors. AIR 1994 AP 134;
8. Jupudi Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar v. Jupudi Keshava Rao (died) & Ors. 2003 (8) SCC 282;
9. G. Narayana Raju (dead) by his legal Representative V.H. Chamaraju and Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1276;
10. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Anr. (2008) 17 SCC 491;
11. D.D.A v. Krishna Construction Co. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4134;
12. Lalsa Prasad Singh vs. Chanderwala, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10961;
13. Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148;
14. Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust v. Chandran, (2017) 3 SCC 702;
15. Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah vs. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 299;
16. Rishab Kumar Jain vs. Roopwati Jain, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4600;
17. Dayanand Rajan & Anr. Vs. Ram Khattar, RFA 1064/2017 &CM Nos 47059-60/2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; and
18. Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi and others Vs. Lakkireddi Lakshmama 1963 SCC On Line SC 221:
(1964)2 SCR 172:AIR 1963 SC 1601.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ 75 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:56:03
+0530
ISSUE-WISE FINDING
24. My issue-wise findings are as under:
24.1 ISSUE NO.1: Whether the suit property, B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is the Joint Hindu Family property, which had been put in the common hotch potch by late Sh.
M.L. Sodhi? OPP ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit property was a self acquired property belonging to late Sh M.L Sodhi?OPD ISSUE NO.4: Whether there was a HUF of which late Sh M.L. Sodhi was the Karta and the other parties were its members?OPP (Issue nos. 1, 2 & 4 are interconnected and they are decided together.) The plaintiff has asserted that suit property i.e. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was a Joint Hindu Family property consisting of plaintiff and defendants, where Mr. M.L. Sodhi was the Karta. The suit property was Joint Hindu Family property before the marriage of plaintiff with defendant no.4 on 16.02.1975. The suit property was allotted in 1962 (and paid up for during 1962-1968) and later on given on perpetual sub- lease to defendant no.1 Sh M.L. Sodhi by Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. vide perpetual Sub- lease dated 10.03.1970 in consideration of payment of Rs.3,948.00/- as the price of the land and Rs.6,800/- as development charges i.e. in all for Rs.10,748/-. Since defendant no.1 had retired in the year 1968-69 as such the suit property had been allotted to him much prior to his retirement. The first Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 76 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:05 +0530 phase of construction was completed in May 1971, which included one drawing-dining room, one bed room with attached bathroom, kitchen and study with verandahs in front and in the rear a garage with two servant quarters above it, an open driveway and lawn and back courtyard on the ground floor, a stair leading to two bed rooms with attached bathrooms and one store on the first floor. The plaintiff has pleaded that the acquisition of property and construction cost was about Rs.77,000/- entirely with the Joint Family funds as HUF was blessed with funds of declaration made by the defendant no.1 on 01.12.1969. The said declaration was not denied by the defendant no. 1 either specifically or categorically while he filed his written statement in the present suit as such existence of the same is established. Further, the claim of the plaintiff that HUF was blessed with the funds while the suit property was acquired and constructed by the defendant no.1 i.e. Karta has been established by other documentary evidence. In this regard, Ex X1 is relevant as the said Assessment Order dated 15.10.1977 depicts suit property as HUF having declared total income of Rs.14,913/- as on 24.07.1976 with subsequent income of Rs.8,125/- as on 29.07.1976. This declaration of the property as HUF in the Income Tax Return has been made by defendant no.1 and the same was not denied too by him while he filed his Written Statement. This declaration is made by defendant no.1 M.L. Sodhi to the Income Tax Authorities and the same has legal sanctity and which also shows the intention of Mr. M.L. Sodhi regarding the status of the suit property as HUF. Infact it is a admission on the part of M.L. Sodhi Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by PANKAJ 77 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:07 +0530 regarding the status of suit property as HUF property. Further the Income Tax Return Ex X1 shows the status of the suit property as HUF in the Assessment year 1976-1977 and income from the suit property as Rs. 12,329/-. The said income in Ex X1 tallies with the income shown in the Mark-BX, which is House Tax Return. Also, the House Tax Returns Ex DW-1/A/X4 filed by defendant no.1 before MCD for assessment of House Tax shows suit property as HUF. These documents are filed by defendant no.1 before the statutory authorities declaring the suit property as HUF, as such there is no doubt over their genuineness and the declaration made therein. Although defendants have denied existence of HUF and having ancestral funds but they have not led any cogent evidence to rebut the said claim of the plaintiffs' regarding use of ancestral HUF funds by the defendant no.1 for purchase of the suit property. The defendants have relied upon the transaction entries made by M.L. Sodhi from his account, however, same are not sufficient to decipher that the suit property was not Joint Hindu Family asset as the intention of M.L. Sodhi is important to decipher its status which can be gathered from the declaration made by him before the statutory authorities. Thus, the pre-existence of HUF has been proved and it can be safely deciphered that HUF was blessed with the funds of previous partition and the said corpus of funds was infact utilized for acquisition of suit property. The volition and intention of M.L. Sodhi is clearly discernible from his declaration made before Income Tax and MCD regarding the status of the suit property as HUF property.Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 78 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:56:09 +0530 Defendant no. 2 (i) to (iii) have argued that PW-1 stated in her cross-examination that there was no nucleus in the Sodhi's family prior to her marriage and she was having no knowledge of any nucleus in the family prior to her marriage. Further, the defendants have argued that PW-1 replied that she had no knowledge of any ancestral funds or ancestral property owned by Sh M.L. Sodhi. It is argued by defendants that there was no nucleus or ancestral funds in the Sodhi family, however, as per the documents produced on record, the said contention is seemingly misconceived. The nucleus and the ancestral funds in the Sodhi's family is well established by the uncontested averments and the documents filed before concerned authorities. It seems from the backdrop of declaration of defendant no.1 the source of funds for purchase of the suit property is the corpus of the ancestral HUF funds and not from the retirement benefits.
On behalf of LRs of defendant no.1/ Ms. Nalini Lal, it is argued that suit property was a separate property of M.L. Sodhi, which is established by the evidence on record. As such plea of the plaintiff that it was HUF property is baseless. However, it is pointed out that plaintiff has failed to establish as to when HUF was created and if at all HUF existed when the suit property was thrown into hotch potch by abandoning or surrendering of his rights by M.L. Sodhi in the suit property. It was contended that mere declaration while filing ITRs and with House Tax and Municipal Authorities is not sufficient to assume that suit property was impressed with a character of HUF. On behalf of other defendants, it was argued that no Digitally signed CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 79 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:56:12 +0530 HUF existed when the said property was acquired. However, the said pleas are not tenable as there is clear evidence of ancestral funds/HUF and joint family nucleus. The suit property was purchased from the ancestral funds and Karta i.e. defendant no.1 has thrown it in the HUF voluntarilly by subsequent acts, which is substantiated by the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The ancestral funds of HUF had contributed towards purchase of suit property and first phase of construction. Therefore, the same formed the corpus / nucleus of joint family as such plea of the defendants that the suit property was purchased out of his own funds of defendant no.1 is not tenable. It is noteworthy that defendant no.1 M.L. Sodhi was allotted a plot by the Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society Ltd as he was a government servant and same could not have been allotted to an HUF, however, the subsequent act and conduct of M.L. Sodhi shows that he thrown the property in hotch-potch. The plaintiffs have established factual substratum of existence of Joint Hindu Family and ancestral funds/ nucleus before purchase of the suit property.
The income tax returns of M.L. Sodhi, the declaration before municipal authorities shows that the suit property was claimed as HUF asset. Further, the account no. 595 with Syndicate Bank was opened in the name of HUF.
There is no document which could otherwise shows that defendant no.1 Sh M.L. Sodhi ever shown this property as his own. Evidence also shows that M.L. Sodhi had surrendered all his rights in the suit property and, therefore, the suit property has taken the colour and characteristic of HUF. Accordingly, Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 80 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:14 +0530 the stand of the plaintiff that the suit property partakes the colour of HUF because same was acquired and constructed from the ancestral fund/ nucleus is well founded. It is established by the plaintiff that nucleus of Joint Hindu Family was available and the suit property had been purchased from the said nucleus. The defendant no.1 declared the suit property as HUF and thrown the same into common hotch-potch of the family. The declaration of defendant no.1 before the Income Tax return of the property tax authorities clearly shows his act of wavering and surrendering his special rights over the property.
PW-1 categorically stated that from the date of her marriage with A.K. Sodhi, her husband gave his salary to his father and mother for running the joint household even though there were two kitchens being run from 1983 onward for the sake of convenience. PW-1 also stated that her father-in-law had blended her personal funds and property from the joint family funds, which she had received from partial partition in 1962 of his Joint family. She also asserted that Joint family pre- existed before her marriage consisting of her father-in-law with his father and brother and the said preposition was remained unrebutted during the evidence. As such, it is forthcoming that declarations reflect the funds received from the HUF by M.L. Sodhi and same were merged with his funds and eventually merged in suit property. This substantiates the blending of HUF funds from a previous nucleus into the suit property. The continuance of the HUF is substantiated from the fact that rent coming from the property was credited in HUF account no.Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 81 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:17 +0530
595, Syndicate Bank, which was declared by M.L. Sodhi in ITR as HUF fund. Although the documents pertaining to suit property have been issued by DDA in the name of M.L. Sodhi but the declaration by M.L. Sodhi before House Tax Office, Income Tax Return made his intention clear regarding the status of the property as HUF. Further from the evidence of PW-1 it is forthcoming that M.L. Sodhi notified to all the members of the family, the rent coming from the property in HUF account no.595 was declared as rental income in his ITR titled as M.L. Sodhi (HUF). It is noteworthy that account no. 595 was duly verified by a certificate issued by the bank, Ex DW-1/A/X2 and its running statement Ex DW-1/A/X3. However, defendants failed to rebut the ITR of 1973-1974 and account no. 595. DW-1/A, Manjula Sodhi admitted that suit property was rented out to West German Embassy and fetching monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- or Rs.1,500/- per month but no document evidencing the same was produced the same despite directions. Further the documents filed by Manjula Sodhi are self-serving and they are unable to cast shadow on the status of the suit property as HUF. Her denial about existence of account no. 595 of M.L. Sodhi and filing of individual tax returns by M.L. Sodhi is without any evidence and also about rent received from West German Embassy in the account of M.L. Sodhi as Karta (HUF). Further she remained conveniently silent about the question regarding the status of the plaintiffs and the Head of the family in the ration card. Also she did not produce any document pertaining to second phase of construction, PAN of HUF of M.L. Sodhi, though she produced documents pertaining to the first phase of Digitally signed by CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 82 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:19 +0530 construction. She remained conspicuously silent about the PAN of HUF of M.L. Sodhi despite being confronted with its details during cross-examination. Further her assertion that second phase of construction was solely done by individual and personal funds of M.L. Sodhi without any contribution from other family members is devoid of any merit as abundant evidence is on record to substantiate that funds were infused/mobilized by plaintiff and defendant no.4 in the HUF account for the said purpose and no document has been produced by her to support her position from her possession. She handpicked only those documents which serves her interest and nothing more nothing less. This contribution by plaintiff no. 1 and her husband to the HUF account of M.L. Sodhi is an evidence of blending of funds for the construction of the second phase of the suit property.
On behalf of defendant, it was argued that PW-1 in her cross-examination admitted that suit property was purchased by M.L. Sodhi from his own funds, however, the said admission has to be seen in proper perspective as in a later suggestion, she denied the same. The said admission by PW-1 can not alter the status of the suit property, which has been declared by M.L. Sodhi showing his manifested intent regarding its status.
After passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the person inheriting the property from the parental / ancestral funds, the said property is not HUF in his hand and property is to be taken as self-acquired property. After inheriting the same, however, where said person throws the said property into CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 83 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:21 +0530 common hotch-potch, then such property becomes HUF/ Joint Hindu Family property. The facts in the present case clearly shows that defendant no.1 Sh. M.L. Sodhi, who acquired and constructed the first phase construction from the ancestral funds/ nucleus with blending his own funds and had thrown the same property into common hotch-potch, thereby same would become Joint Hindu Property/HUF property.
While evaluating the evidence in civil case, the court has to satisfy itself about the existence of the fact which is more probable than its non-existence. The standard of prudent person is determined while considering the facts on record in support of the claim. The more probable scenario is taken after evaluating conflicting probabilities of the case.
By way of documents produced by the plaintiff, it is manifestly clear that M.L. Sodhi had thrown the suit property into common hotch-potch, whereby characterized its status of an HUF property in unequivocal terms. Thus, all the children of M.L. Sodhi are entitled to the share of the suit property equally being HUF property. The judgments filed on behalf of the parties have been carefully perused and the legal point embodied therein has been considered. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.1 ISSUE NO.3: Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the first floor of the suit property in the exercise of right to residence as a member of co-parcenary and also in accordance with the agreement of construction set out in para 4 of the plaint?OPP CS No. 20/2016 84 /101 Digitally signed Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:56:24 +0530 As per the evidence of PW-1 after her marriage, there have been contribution to Joint Hindu Family, which is reflecting in the ITRs of financial year 1980-1981 and 1981- 1982. On 18.03.1980, M.L. Sodhi called upon her husband to pool in resources and at that time she and her mother-in-law were present, so that construction of the second phase could be started. Her husband transferred the amount to account no. 595 on the same day and remittances continued in the said account till construction was completed. As per evidence, A.K. Sodhi through his saving account no.4273 of Syndicate Bank transferred contribution to M.L. Sodhi HUF account no. 595 of Syndicate Bank during the year 1980-1981 to finance second phase of construction of the suit property and same is well documented.
The assertion of PW-1 that her husband A.K. Sodhi wholly and solely financed the second phase construction of suit property was based on the contribution by her husband made from his saving account no. 4273, Syndicate bank to M.L. Sodhi ( HUF) to account no. 595, Syndicate Bank, in 1980- 1981. The phrase wholly and solely refers to the contribution made by her husband only as the other brother did not make any contribution towards the second phase. PW-1 affirmed that Col. V.K. Sodhi was not in station on 18.03.1980 and he had agreed to the arrangement while his father asked him to contribute for the second phase, he took an excuse of having booked a flat from Army quota in Somvihar and also negotiating to purchase a farming land in Pathankot.
As such the averment of oral understanding between M.L. CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 85 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:56:27 +0530 Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi regarding contribution of funds for second phase of construction and same would be treated as his exclusive ownership appears to be existed and acted upon. Record substantiates that FDRs were broken and fund mobilization was done by plaintiff and A.K. Sodhi for second phase of construction upon the said agreement and arrangement. While cheque payments were made from HUF account no.595 and some cash payments were made by PW-1 and her husband. PW-1 stated that the said cash was given to her by her mother and brother and was not shown in the ITR nor receipts were taken. The same appears to be reasonable as often parents and family members help financially for construction of home and for which no documents/receipts are executed. The fact that Col. V.K. Sodhi agreed to the said oral agreement and arrangement between M.L.Sodhi and A.K.Sodhi is substantiated as no payment has been paid by him or any evidence to the contrary has been adduced by the defendants.
The second phase of construction included one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, one T.V lounge on the first floor and on the second floor one drawing-dining, one bed room with attached bath, kitchen and two open terraces and besides the existing staircase, another independent staircase was provided for the first and second floor. The entire second floor was rented to Col. Arquay, military attache of Philippine embassy and in June 1983, the same was vacated by the said embassy and thereafter M/s Marketting Advertising & associates shifted to second floor and upon their vacation same was occupied by A.K. Sodhi and his family 23.09.1983 and Digitally signed CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 86 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18 15:56:29 +0530 since then it constituted the plaintiff no.1 matrimonial home. From the testimony of DW-1/A Smt Manjula Sodhi, it is forthcoming that defendant no.4 A.K. Sodhi after marriage resided in B-Block, Vasant Vihar with M.L. Sodhi and Raj Sodhi. DW-1/A further admitted that sanction for additional construction of the suit property was given in 1982 or 1983. Although, she was not sure about the said years but from the evidence, it is clear that she was referring to second phase of construction which started and completed also in 1980. She admitted in Ex. DW-1A/P1 that plaintiffs were in possession of first floor of the suit property. She also admitted that after shifting to first floor of the suit property, first floor was converted into kitchen. The said admissions proves the assertion of the plaintiff that she was occupying first floor as a member of Joint Hindu Family. Since the suit property has been held as Joint Hindu Family property as such plaintiff was in possession of the first floor of the suit property in exercise of right of residence as a member of co-parcenary and also in accordance with the agreement of construction set out in paragraph no.4 of the plaint. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.2 ISSUE NO.5 : What are the shares of the parties in the suit property?OPP As it has been observed that the suit property was Joint Hindu Family Property of the HUF created by M.L. Sodhi. Sh. M.L. Sodhi was survived by their three children and wife. However, during the course of time his wife and two sons CS No. 20/2016 87 /101 Digitally signed Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:31 +0530 passed away, therefore, each children of M.L. Sodhi is entitled for 1/3rd share. The grand children would be entitled from the share of their father/mother (being son and daughter of M.L. Sodhi). Since it has been established by the evidence that second phase of construction was done from the pooled resources of plaintiff and A.K. Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi, therefore, the said construction has become a part of the suit property.
However, all the siblings of M.L. Sodhi are entitled to equal share in the suit property and the actual share of them would be crystallized after partition of the suit property. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.3 ISSUE NO.6:Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction prayed for?OPP Since it has been observed that suit property is Joint Hindu Family property, where the plaintiffs have equal rights with other family members as such plaintiffs' right to remain in the property is duly protected and defendants are restrained from dispossessing from the suit property, till such time the actual partition is effected between them. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.4 ISSUE NO.7:Whether the oral agreement for construction is not enforceable?OPD The defendants have argued that oral agreement is not enforceable in view of Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. However, the said plea is not legally tenable as a written contract is not strictly required if an implied legal obligation existed. The CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 88 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:34 +0530 said implied legal obligation can be deciphered from the agreement and the subsequent act and conduct of the parties. As per the facts, in March 1980 M.L. Sodhi offered to defendant nos. 3 and 4 to pool resources for making suit property rent viable unit. However, defendant no.3 refused to contribute on the pretext that he had booked a flat in Somvihar and also negotiating for purchasing a farm land for commercial farming near Pathankot.
But defendant no.4 agreed to contribute funds from his, his wife and son's FDRs on the said offer of M.L. Sodhi and other members of HUF. It is pertinent to note that plaintiffs have filed plenty of documents showing transfer of funds from their account to the account of M.L. Sodhi (HUF) by premature encashment of FDRs and Units of Unit Trust of India. The said oral agreement was premised on transfer of ownership of the second phase to the defendant no.4 upon contribution of funds. Only defendant no.4 and his family contributed for the said construction and therefore, the said oral agreement is enforceable as the agreement was acted upon by the parties. The judgments filed on behalf of the parties have been carefully perused and the legal point embodied therein has been considered. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.5 ISSUE NO.8: Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff no.1 as mother and the next friend of the minors was competent and maintainable in view of the natural guardian and father being then alive?OPP The facts show that defendant no.2 A.K. Sodhi was incapable of protecting the interest of the minor children at the Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 89 /101 PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:36 +0530 time of filing of the suit owing to his illness as such the mother i.e. plaintiff no.1 was constrained to file the suit on behalf of the minor children. In this background, the mother can act as a natural guardian of the minor children for protecting the interest of minors. However, during the course of time, children became major and vide order dated 26.10.1995, plaintiff no.1 was discharged as next friend and guardian ad-litem of the minors on their attaining majority. Therefore, plaintiff no.1 being mother was competent to institute a suit as next friend of the minors being natural guardian. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.6 ISSUE NO.9:What would be the effect, if law, of the demise of Sh. A.K. Sodhi husband of plaintiff no.3 on issue no.8 ?OPD In issue no.8 the maintainability of the suit was upheld which was filed by plaintiff no.1 being guardian of the minor children as defendant no.4, her husband was incapable of looking after the interest of the affairs of the minor children owing to his physic condition and depression. There is enough evidence on record in support of the said illness and physic condition of the defendant no.4. Since plaintiff no.1 was competent to pursue the present plaint on behalf of minor children as next friend, therefore, there could be no effect on the said aspect upon the demise of A.K. Sodhi, i.e. defendant no.4. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.CS No. 20/2016 90 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:38 +0530 24.7 ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1: Whether the Will dated 18.09.1989 allegedly executed by M.L. Sodhi in favour of the original defendant No.2 is legal and valid and if so, its effect? OPD The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant. DW-1/A, Manjula Sodhi filed her affidavit and asserted that M.L. Sodhi executed a Will on 18.09.1989 and passed away on 18.11.1989. However, the said Will is denied by the plaintiff. Also she stated that Smt.Raj Sodhi, original defendant no.1 executed her last registered Will on 01.05.1996 and died on 07.01.2002. The said Will was registered after the death of A.K. Sodhi i.e. on 04.01.1996. As per the Will dated 18.09.1989 Ex DW-1/1 of M.L. Sodhi, he bequeathed the entire suit property to Smt. Raj Sodhi(defendant no.2).
However, in the Written statement filed on 18.09.1995 by defendants in suit no. 2793/1993, EX DW1/A/P-1, it is averred that M.L. Sodhi bequeathed the property in different shares to the defendants. The defendants in that suit were Raj Sodhi, Col. V.K. Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi. Further, in the said Written Statement, defendant no.1 Raj Sodhi and defendant no.2 Col. V.K. Sodhi averred that deceased M.L. Sodhi had bequeathed the suit property to Raj Sodhi and after her the property would devolve upon Col. V.K. Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi. Manjula Sodhi duly admitted document Ex. DW1/A/P-1, in IA No. 5193 of 2009. If the averment in affidavit of DW-1/A regarding the Will of M.L. Sodhi executed on 18.09.1989 Ex DW-1/1 qua bequeathment is juxtaposed with the averment in Ex. DW1/A/P-1, then the same provides two contradictory CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 91 /101 by PANKAJ Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:41 +0530 versions of the Will dated 18.09.1989. The Ex. DW1/A/P-1 was filed on 18.09.1995 as such Col. V.K. Sodhi was cognizant of the Will of M.L. Sodhi dated 18.09.1989 Ex DW-1/1 and in that case, he could not have averred that bequeathment of the property by the said Will is in different shares to the defendants, if the said Will bequeathed the suit property to Raj Sodhi alone. There can not be two contradictory versions of a single Will. In this backdrop the Will Ex. DW1/1 give rise to rational presumption that either same is replaced or forged.
The contention raised on behalf of the defendant that Smt. Raj Sodhi in her Will dated 01.05.1996, Ex DW-3/A excluded plaintiff due to mis-treatment, harassment and legal cases filed by her. However, in Will Ex DW-3/A, the Testator has not given any reason for excluding his younger son A.K. Sodhi. If at all the younger son pre-deceased her, there should have been some cogent reason for excluding his children, who were minor at that time. Death of A.K. Sodhi was all the more reason for protecting the interest of his minor children. If at all the plaintiff being daughter-in-law had some estranged relationship with father-in-law but same is not a reason enough to exclude the children of a son, who was having cordial relationship with the parents. There is no evidence, which can substantiate that A.K. Sodhi had some troublesome relationship with his parents.
It is noteworthy that the Will Ex DW-1/1 of M.L. Sodhi though relied upon in Ex. DW-1/A/P-1 but not filed therein and for the first time produced in the present suit after CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 92 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:43 +0530 about 14 years of the death of M.L. Sodhi. The said Will was filed with the amended Written Statement of defendant no.2 (Col. V.K. Sodhi) on 08.10.2002 and also the Will of Raj Sodhi executed on 01.05.1996 in favour of Col. V.K. Sodhi (defendant no.2 after the death of Raj Sodhi). There is no plausible explanation for not filing the same earlier despite having knowledge of the Will of M.L. Sodhi in the year 1995 and the explanation furnished that it was found in clothes in 2002 makes the version highly doubtful and suspicious. Further, there is no explanation as to why probate petition was not filed regarding the said Wills as such shows clandestine conduct of the defendant.
Regarding the execution of Ex DW1/1, two witnesses namely Dr. P.K. Ghosh, DW-1 and C.M. Sanon, DW-2 were examined. It is pertinent to note that DW-1 was attesting witness to the Will of M.L. Sodhi and DW-2 was drafter/scribe of the Will.
The contention of the plaintiff that the Will, Ex DW-1/1 has not been proved in accordance with law is reasonable on the premise that the account of defendant no.3 in Written statement filed in suit no. CS(OS) no. 2793/1993 and of DW-1/A regarding the last Will of M.L. Sodhi is shrouded with suspicion. Further, the evidence of Dr. P.K. Ghosh, DW-1 shows several facts which makes him unreliable witness. His account during his cross-examination exposes that its truthfulness and makes its doubtful. DW-1 was in Army hospital in 1989 while Col. V.K. Sodhi was posted there and he was attending Col. V.K. Sodhi for his heart ailments.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 93 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:45
+0530
He knew about the surgery underwent by Col. V.K. Sodhi in Batra Hospital too which shows his close connection with him. It is not out of place to mention that Col. V.K. Sodhi is the ultimate beneficiary of the bequeathment through Wills. Further it is unusual that M.L. Sodhi would be seeking treatment for Hypertension and High BP from a Cardiologist in Army hospital despite having entitled for CGHS facility. DW-1 deposed that he always writes his name below his signature but same is not appearing on Ex DW-1/1. Despite no contact details like contact number and address on Ex DW-1/1 and after having retired in 1994, it is not forthcoming from the facts that how he was contacted in the year 2006 for his testimony in the present case. The testimony of this witness do not qualify the test of uninterested attesting witness of the Will of M.L. Sodhi. These facts seen in totality does not inspire confidence of his testimony and makes him an unreliable witness.
So far as DW-2 C.M Sanon is concerned, he was an Advocate and was drafter/scribe of Ex DW-1/1. His cross- examination would reveal that he never practiced with Mr.P.K. Duggal, Advocate and he came in contact with Mr. P.K. Duggal, Advocate, when he received the summons from court in this case. However, both the counts have been belied by the evidence. He signed reply in IA no. 1451/89 with advocate Sh.P.K.Duggal and as per the record, no summons were issued to him. His reply in the cross-examination that he came in contact with M.L. Sodhi on 18.09.1989 as on that day, he has come to his seat at about 11.00a.m. conveys the sense that he CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed by 94 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:48 +0530 met him for the first time on that day, which is however, contrary to record as he filed reply in IA No. 1451/89 for him with Advocate Mr. P.K. Duggal. Further, he testified that he only writes his designation as an advocate after putting his name but do not write his address. Also he has not given his seat number and contact number on Ex DW-1/1. As such it is not clear that how he was informed about his evidence when no court summons were issued to him. Since this witness has failed to establish trustworthiness of his testimony by giving misleading answers on the basic questions as such, his testimony is deserves to be discredited and the remaining portion is discarded from the zone of consideration.
The contradictions as discussed hereinabove introduced an element of doubt and suspicion regarding the validity of execution of Ex DW-1/1 as the last Will and Testament of the departed Testator. There can not be two different and legal declaration of the intent of the Testator with respect to the suit property by the same Will. If the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the court must sift the evidence of the attesting witness for removal of legitimate suspicious circumstances before accepting the Will of the Testator. However, a careful reading of the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 with attending facts and circumstances is unable to remove the suspicious circumstances which have cropped during the proceedings. The propounder of the Will has to lead cogent evidence for removal of doubts for satisfying the conscious of the court. The propounder has not led cogent evidence to establish the Digitally CS No. 20/2016 signed by 95 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:50 +0530 legal validity of the Will of M.L. Sodhi Ex. DW-1/1. As such the Will so propounded fails the legal test. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.8 ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2: Whether the Will dated 01.05.1996 allegedly executed by Smt. Raj Sodhi is legal and valid and if so, its effect?OPD The burden to prove this issue was on defendant.
DW-1/A Manjula Sodhi in her affidavit had asserted the execution of Will by M.L. Sodhi on 18.09.1989. By virtue of said Will Ex DW-1/1, M.L. Sodhi bequeathed the entire property to Smt. Raj Sodhi (original defendant no.2). However, the said fact got contradicted by document Ex DW-1/A/P1, wherein it is averred by the defendants namely Raj Sodhi and Col. V.K. Sodhi that M.L.Sodhi bequeathed the property in different shares to defendants. Further, the averment in the said Written statement that M.L. Sodhi bequeathed the suit property to Raj Sodhi and after her devolution of the same upon Col.V.K. Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi is contrary to Ex DW-1/1. The Will of Raj Sodhi dated 01.05.1996 is predicated on the Will Ex.DW-1/1. However, the legal validity of Ex. DW-1/1 could not be established as same is shrouded in suspicion. Thus, the Will of Raj Sodhi Ex. DW-3/A could not be proved. Therefore, the Will dated 01.09.1999 of Col. V.K. Sodhi claiming entire ownership on the suit property by virtue of Will of Raj Sodhi, Ex. DW-3/A also looses its sanctity as the very premise of Ex. DW-3/A has been shaken.
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 96 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:52
+0530
Further, the testimony of attesting witness DW-4 creates doubts and suspicion as she was the daughter of friend of Raj Sodhi and her husband is a witness of Will dated 01.09.1999 of Col. V.K. Sodhi (the beneficiary). Both husband and wife are witness to two consecutive Wills creating a doubt regarding their valid execution. Further, no evidence is there which could suggest that DW-4 was confidant of the deceased Testator. The reason for exclusion of minor sons of A.K. Sodhi is not convincing in the Will of Raj Sodhi. It is pertinent to note that Veena Anand DW-4 who was an attesting witness to the Will of Raj Sodhi Ex. DW-3/A stated in her cross-examination that on 07.05.1996 at Registrar office when the Will was registered, Raj Sodhi was not accompanied by any family member, however, the said fact got contradicted from the Will Ex. DW-3/A as signatures of Col. V.K. Sodhi appeared on the rear side of the Will. This exposes the falsity of her testimony. Thus, it is clear that Col.V.K. Sodhi was present when the Will was registered on 07.05.1996 as his signature are appearing thereon. Since at the time of execution of Will Smt. Raj Sodhi was with Col. V.K. Sodhi as such the influencing factor can not be ruled out. The influencing factor seems to be the reason behind the bequeathment to Col. V.K. Sodhi alone. In such scenario, it is forthcoming that Col. V.K. Sodhi took a prominent part while execution of the Will and therefore, if the propounder himself take a prominent part in the execution of Will, which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. However, no such CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 97 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:54 +0530 satisfactory evidence has been produced by the defendants to satisfy the conscious of the court. Further, a careful comparison of Ex. DW-3/A and Ex. R2W3/1(in Test case) would show that the contents of the Wills regarding the execution are different. In rear side of Ex. DW-3/A, the signatures of Raj Sodhi are appearing at different place, the names of the witnesses are different as in Ex. DW-3/A, L.D. Malik and R.K. Kaushik are appearing, however, in Ex. R2W3/1, the names of Veena Anand and R.K. Kaushik are appearing. If at all Ex. R2W3/1 is a true and certified copy of Ex. DW-3/A, then such a contradiction can not appear. This contradiction and inconsistency renders Ex.DW-3/A unproved. So the Will of Raj Sodhi looses its legal sanctity. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.9 Relief: From the foregoing discussion, this Court is of considered view that plaintiffs have established their case and proved that suit property no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is a Joint Hindu Family Property of the HUF created by M.L. Sodhi. Their existed a nucleus and further blending of funds was done by the plaintiff and her husband A.K. Sodhi, thereby made second phase of construction also a part of Joint Hindu Family Property. M.L. Sodhi through his manifested intent thrown the suit property into hotch-potch making it a Joint Hindu Family Property of HUF. M.L. Sodhi was survived by three children namely Col. V.K. Sodhi, A.K. Sodhi and Nalini Lal. Since wife of M.L. Sodhi had already passed away, the suit property would devolve upon all the children of M.L. CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 98 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:56 +0530 Sodhi. It is noteworthy that two of his sons have already passed away and they are survived by their children. Col. V.K. Sodhi is survived by his two children namely Sh. Keshav Sodhi and Sh.Arjun Sodhi. A.K. Sodhi is survived by Mr. Dhruv Sodhi and Ms. Bhawna Sodhi. The children of deceased sons of M.L. Sodhi are entitled to the share of their father in equal proportion. All the siblings of M.L. Sodhi are entitled to 1/3rd share each of the suit property. Therefore, a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property is being passed in favour of the existing LR i.e. Nalini Lal and children of the deceased sons of M.L. Sodhi. In this regard, reliance is placed upon K.N. Khanna vs. B.K Khanna, 2000 (87) DLT 286(DB): (2000) 55 DRJ 544: 2000 SCC OnLine Del 512, it is held that:
"43. There is no manner of doubt that in a suit for partition after a preliminary decree is passed declaring rights, title or interest of the parties, which decree makes a provision for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds and of separate possession in terms of the rights declared under the said decree, which has to be treated as preliminary, further inquiry is required to be held to enable the Court to finally and conclusively determine rights of the parties by actually partitioning the said property by metes and bounds. In order to do so, usually the task is assigned to a Commissioner to suggest mode of partition, who usually suggests the mode and manner of dividing the property. On receipt of such a report and deciding objections of the parties, if any, the Court then proceeds to pass a final decree declaring the persons entitled to separate shares, which enable the parties thereafter to hold and enjoy the property separately. Such a division of the property has the effect of creation of an exclusive right of a person in that portion of the property, which falls to his share and extinguishes his right, title or interest in those portions, which fall the exclusive shares of the others. This decree of course would be covered by the definition of ―"instrument of partition", as defined in clause (15) of Section 2 CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 99 /101 signed by Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:56:59 +0530 of Indian Stamp Act. ―"Instrument of partition‖ is defined therein to mean any instrument whereby co- owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, and include also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any Revenue Authority or any Civil Court and an award by an Arbitrator directing partition. In case partition is effected of a property even by an Arbitrator by his award, the same would fall in the definition of ―instrument of partition. So also a decree of Civil Court affecting partition of the property would fall in the said definition and the same would be required to be stamped according to the provisions of Indian Stamp Act.
44. But it is not that every decree in a partition suit would be required to be drawn up on a stamp paper.
Only those decrees Will be required to be drawn up on a stamp paper, which divide any property in severalty amongst co-owners. In the instant case neither by award made by C.K. Daphtary nor by order dated 15-4-1983 the property has been ordered to be divided or agreed to be divided in severalty. Only a tentative arrangement was made for enjoying the property separately, which was only a temporary measure whereby the parties continued to be the joint owners of each and every part of the property though separately enjoying separate portions. The decree nowhere provided for separation or division of the property in severalty since it was held that the property is incapable of being divided in two equal shares or that the division by metes and bounds was not possible. Therefore, the mode suggested was to sell the property and then divide sale proceeds in equal shares. Such an award or a decree would not come within the definition of ―instrument of partition." Pursuant to the said decree passed in the suit, in case the property is sold, the rights, title and interest of the appellant and the respondents would come to an end, on sale deed being drawn and executed on a stamp paper, after the sale is confirmed by the Court. ...".
Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it would be expedient to appoint a Local Commissioner to suggest the mode and manner of partition by visiting the CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 100 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18 15:57:01 +0530 property and in consultation with all the stakeholders. Ms.Pallavi, Enrl. No. D/2164/2011, Office At : 16/11, 3 rd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060, Ph. No. 8709623440, 8877210438, is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the suit property after due notice to all the parties on an early convenient date and file his report regarding the suggestion of the mode and manner of the partition of the suit property no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, for his division amongst the decree holders in equal shares. The fees of Ld. Local Commissioner is fixed as Rs.90,000/- which shall be borne by the parties equally.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
Announced in the open Court SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:57:04
on 18.04.2026 +0530
(Dr. Pankaj Sharma)
District Judge-02 & Waqf Tribunal
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi CS No. 20/2016 101 /101 Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors.