Delhi District Court
Anup Seigell vs Rajni Kapoor on 23 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER MOHAN,
DISTRICT JUDGE-14, LAC, CENTRAL ,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ 12030/2016
CNR No. : DLCT01-000047-2009
In The Matter Of :
SHRI ANUP SEIGELL
S/o Late Shri J.C. Seigell,
R/o D-142, New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060. ......... Plaintiff
VERSUS
SMT. RAJNI KAPOOR
W/o Dr. Sailesh Kapoor,
R/o 14, South Patel Nagar,
(First Floor Front Flat),
New Delhi-110008 ......... Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.05.2009
Date of Final Arguments : 13.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, contention was raised by counsel for the defendant that defendant has challenged before the Hon'ble High Court, the order of grant of Letter of Administration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and therefore arguments/decision in the present matter may be deferred till the CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 1 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:08 +0530 decision of the same (FAO 366/2008). This court is not in agreement with this contention of counsel for the defendant. The copy of the order dated 13.09.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi placed on record by counsel for the plaintiff makes it clear that trial has not been stayed and must proceed in accordance with law. Hence, there is express and even implied mandate to proceed with and adjudicate the present suit. Accordingly, I hereby proceed to adjudicate the same.
2. Vide the present suit, plaintiff seeks to recover the possession of part of property bearing no. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi consisting of one Drawing-cum-Dining Room, two bed rooms with attached bathroom, front verandah, kitchen and a mezzanine in the stairs shown red in the plan attached from the defendant along with consequential relief of permanent injunction and also recovery of occupation charges/damages etc. Same shall be referred to as suit property.
3. Facts relevant for the disposal of the present suit may be taken note of.
4. It is case of the plaintiff that Dr. Champa Seigall was resident and owner of 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Plaintiff is son of Sh. J.C. Seigall brother of Dr. Champa Seigall who was treating him and his elder brother Dr. Arun Seigall like sons. Dr. Champa Seigall did not marry and died as a spinster. During her lifetime, she executed her last will on 25.08.2000 which was duly CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 2 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:11 +0530 registered with Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and vide the said will she bequeathed part of the aforesaid property to plaintiff and other part to his elder brother. Dr. Champa Seigall died at New Delhi on 05.07.2001 and after her death plaintiff and his elder brother became absolute owner of the respective portions of the property no. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi and property in dispute (hereinafter referred as suit property) is a portion which fell to the share of the plaintiff.
5. After the death of Dr. Champa Seigall, plaintiff and his brother filed petition u/s 276 of Indian Succession Act in which defendant was impleaded as one of the respondents who hotly contested the said petition which was in respect of the will dated 25.08.2000 and the then Ld. Court of Additional District Judge vide order dated 18.08.2008 passed an order for issuance of letter of administration in favour of plaintiff and his brother. Another similar petition under section 276 of Indian Succession Act on the basis of some fabricated will dated 20.05.1996 was also filed by the defendant in respect of the suit property which was dismissed by the same Court vide order dated 18.08.2008.
6. Dr. Champa Seigall was sister of Sh. Raj Nath Seigall, father of defendant and due to this relationship defendant was allowed to use front portion of first floor consisting of one Drawing cum dinning room, two bed rooms, with attached bath room front verandah, kitchen and a mezzanine in the stair. Defendant being niece of late Champa Seigall was allowed the use of said premises CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 3 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:14 +0530 and her status was of a licensee only and after the death of Dr. Champa Seigall the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff vide will dated 25.08.2000, therefore, defendant became the licensee of the plaintiff by operation of law. Plaintiff served a notice dated 12.09.2008 upon the defendant revoking the license from the mid-night of 05.10.2008 and asked her to hand over the vacant possession along with payment of license fees @ Rs. 15,000/- per month along with interest but inspite of service of this notice defendant neither vacated the suit premises nor paid any license fee but instead in order to harass the plaintiff locked the common door of the stairs leading to first and second floor to obstruct the plaintiff's access to these floors. There is only one door of the stair leading to first and second floor. Defendant has also contacted various property dealers for sale of the suit property and security guard appointed by the plaintiff has given six visiting cards of the property dealers through whom defendant is trying to sell the suit property. The plaint finally mentions some instances where property dealer visited the suit property accompanied by intending purchasers which may be skipped for the purpose of brevity.
7. Defendant Rajni Kapoor in her written statement denies her status that of a licensee. As per the defendant, she is owner of the suit property and is in possession of the same for about 25 years and same is also in knowledge of the plaintiff. Defendant claims to have become the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession and also claims her right through late Dr. Champa CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 4 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:17 +0530 Seigall. As per the defendant, plaintiff has forged and fabricated the will dated 25.08.2000. Defendant further claims that during her lifetime Dr. Champa Seigall executed a registered will dated 20.05.1996 in her favour appointing her the sole executor and that it was the last will of Dr. Champa Seigall. It is further pleaded that FAO No. 366 of 2008 has been filed by the defendant against the order of dismissal of her probate petition which is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Defendant has further raised the plea of limitation. Defendant also denies receiving any notice dated 12.09.2008 from the plaintiff to evict the suit property.
8. In his replication, plaintiff again reiterates the averments of the plaint and denies those of the written statement. Plaintiff further claims that no will dated 20.05.1996 was executed by Dr. Champa Seigall and the same is a forged document.
9. After completion of pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 05.05.2012 framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction against defendant thereby mandating the defendant to remove all her goods from the part of the property bearing no. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi, OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 5 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:20 +0530 from selling and handing over the possession of the suit property to any third person? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrear of licence fee against the defendant? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages against the defendant, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff has not paid the proper court fees?
OPD
7. Whether the defendant is the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD
8. Whether late Dr. Champa Seigell executed a registered will dated 20.05.96 in favour of defendant, if so, its effect? OPD
9. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Section 41(i) of Specific Relief Act, 1963? OPD
10. However, perusal of the record would show that on 21.11.2013 taking into account the amendment in the plaint carried CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 6 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:23 +0530 out by the plaintiff, the court observed that issue no. 1 framed vide order dated 05.05.2012 was required to be re-framed and one additional issued was required to be framed and accordinlgy, issue no. 1 was re-framed and one additional issue was re-framed which is extracted below:-
Issue no. 1 (as re-framed)- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession against the defendant with respect to suit property being part of property bearing no. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi as shown in site plan annexed.
Additional Issue :- Whether court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain or try the present suit? OPD
11. My issue wise finding is as follows :-
Issue No. 8 - Whether late Dr. Champa Seigall executed a registered will dated 20.05.1996 in favour of the defendant, if so, it affects? OPD.
Defendant, inter-alia, relies on the will dated 20.05.1996 to lay claim over the suit property. As per the defendant, she became owner of the suit property after the death of Champa Seigall as the same was bequeathed upon her by Dr. Champa Seigall vide a registered will dated 20.05.1996. Perusal of the record shows that defendants stepped into the witness box as DW1 and tendered her CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 7 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:26 +0530 evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. Perusal of the contents of the said affidavit would reveals that defendant has not exhibited any document in her evidence by way of affidavit. Even when the said evidence by way of affidavit was tendered on 08.07.2025, defendant did not rely on any will by exhibiting or even identifying the same by any other name. It simply means that defendant has not even tendered into evidence will dated 20.05.1996 upon which her entire case hinges. Even otherwise, it is well settled that to prove a will atleast one attesting witness is required to be examined as per the mandate of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. Not to speak of examination of any witness, plaintiff has not even named who were the witnesses to the alleged will in her favour. In fact, defendant in his cross examination states that " I do not know the names of witnesses in the will of 1996 or the will of year 2000. I have not read the contents of will of 1996, so I cannot tell as to which property was bequeathed in the same. I am claiming the property in which I am residing and in possession ". The above aspect of cross-examination would reveal that the plaintiff is not even aware of the names of the witnesses of will and has even not read its contents.
The only other witness examined by plaintiff is her own sister Smt. Neena Chawla in the form of DW2. It would be pertinent to mention that she was not the witness to the alleged will dated 20.05.1996 or any other will in favour of the defendant. In fact, she states in her cross examination that facts of the present case are not in her personal knowledge and facts mentioned by her CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 8 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:30 +0530 in her affidavit have come to her knowledge only from her sister Rajni Kapoor. She further states that she does not remember the date of execution of the will. She further states that she has deposed to the effect that will dated 25.08.2000 is forged and fabricated as per information regarding the same provided to her by Rajni Kapoor only. She further admitted it to be correct that Dr. Champa Seigall treated Arun Seigall and Anup Seigall like her children. Accordingly, it can be seen that the facts mentioned by DW2 Rajni Kapoor in her evidence are only hearsay in nature and her knowledge has been primarily derived from defendant only, therefore, defendant cannot take any benefit of the same. DW2 has infact admitted that Dr. Champa Seigall treated Arun Seigall and Anup Seigall like her children. She further states that there were three witnesses to the will (will in the favour of her sister) and names them as "One is Gupta Sahab and other is Malik Sahab but I do not remember their complete names". In fact, Gupta Sahab and Malik Sahab are the witnesses to the will dated 25.08.2000 in favour of the plaintiff whose complete names are Anupam Malik (PW-4) and Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate (PW-2 who has drafted the will).
At this stage, it would also be apposite to take note of the recitals of the will dated 25.08.2000 in favour of plaintiff. It specifically mentions that Dr. Champa Seigall expressly revoked all her previous will vide this will and also mentions reason as to why the earlier will inter-alia, in the favour of her niece i.e. CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 9 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER MOHAN CHANDER Date:
MOHAN 2025.12.23
17:27:33
+0530
defendant Ms. Rajni Kapoor has been revoked and new will dated 25.08.2000 executed. The relevant extract is extracted below:-
"I have my niece Mrs. Rajni Kapoor Wife of Dr. Sailesh Kapoor, daughter of my Late Brother Shri Raj Nath Seigell. Mrs. Rajni Kapoor is in possession of front flat on the First Floor of Property No. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.
Since, Mrs. Rajni Kapoor during her childhood had lived with me at Raigarh and, as such, I had a soft corner for her and in my last Will dated 22.2.1995 I wanted to give this front flat on the First Floor of this property to her but now for the last 3 to 4 years, I have been noticing and realising that Mrs. Rajni Kapoor does not deserve anything as she has no love for me rather she hates me and prejudices the minds of other persons against me and so many times she has insulted me. In case, ever visit her she does not offer me a glass of water even. I do not want her even to stay in my Flat and it is just possible that I may have to file a case against her to get possession of the said flat from her, which she is occupying.
I do not want her to inherit anything out of my estate. The front flat on the first floor and one mezzanine which is at present in possession of Mr. Rajni Kapoor shall devolve upon Mr. Anup Seigell as I bequeath the same to him.
Dr. Arun Seigell and Mr. Anup Seigell shall become the absolute owners of their respective portion, which I am bequeathing to them of property No. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 and they shall be at liberty to deal with their portion CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 10 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:36 +0530 of the property as they like as they will be the absolute owners of their portion of the property after my death."
Accordingly, it is held that the will dated 20.05.1996 in favour of the defendant does not stand proved. Even otherwise, Dr. Champa Seigell had expressly revoked all her earlier wills vide will dated 25.08.2000, therefore even otherwise all or any previous will executed by her have to be ignored. Hence, defendant cannot rely upon the will dated 20.05.1996 or any other will to lay claim of ownership of the suit property. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and it is held that there is no valid will in favour of defendant.
Issue No. 7- Whether the defendant is owner of suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD.
The defendant has also raised the plea of adverse possession. Law pertaining to adverse possession is well settled. To succeed on the plea of adverse possession, the possession should be, inter-alia, hostile, open and to the knowledge of the actual owner. It is well settled that a person in permissive possession cannot raise the plea of adverse possession. In fact the plea of becoming owner by way of testamentary succession on the one hand and raising the plea of becoming owner by way of adverse possession are mutually inconsistent pleas. Defendant is the niece of deceased Dr. Champa Seigall. In her cross-examination she categorically states that " after my marriage, Dr. Champa Seigall asked me to reside with her, I got CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 11 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER MOHAN CHANDER Date: MOHAN 2025.12.23 17:27:40 +0530 married in the year 1984. I shifted at 14, South Patel Nagar, Delhi in 1985. I resided with my in laws for one year in Gwalior after my marriage". Hence, it can be seen that there is own admission on the part of plaintiff that her entry into the suit property was permissive and therefore it does not lie in her mouth to claim that her possession was adverse and hostile. Accordingly, present issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove that she perfected her title by way of adverse possession.
Issue no. 1 (as re-framed)- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession against the defendant with respect to suit property being part of property bearing no. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi as shown in site plan annexed.
Issue No. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from selling and handing over the possession of the suit property to any third person? OPP.
Both these issues are taken together as they are interconnected and involve commons discussion.
As already discussed defendant has failed to prove that she became owner of the property either on the basis of will dated 20.05.1996 and nor even by way of adverse possession.
CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 12 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDERCHANDER MOHAN Date: MOHAN 2025.12.23 17:27:43 +0530 Accordingly, if plaintiff establishes his title over the suit property he has the right to initiate eviction proceedings as per law against the defendant. As already noted it is case of the plaintiff that during her lifetime, Dr. Champa Seigall executed her last and final will on 25.08.2000 which was duly registered with Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and vide the said will she bequeathed the suit property to plaintiff and to his elder brother. To prove the will dated 25.08.2000, plaintiff examined Sh. Sanjeev Gupta as PW2 who drafted the will. PW2 deposed that he personally knew Dr. Champa Seigall and will dated 25.08.2000 was executed by her in his presence and also in the presence of Sh. Anupam Malik (PW4) and Sh. Krishan Kumar Berry. He further deposed that he read out the contents of the will to Dr. Champa Seigall and in the presence of witnesses Dr. Champa Seigall signed the will at point A, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6. He further deposed that the Sub-Registar also read the contents of the will to Ms. Champa Seigall and further that Champa Seigall was in deposing mind and quite healthy executed the will while in her perfect senses. In his cross- examination he denied the suggestions of Ld counsel for the defendant that he has not drafted the will dated 25.08.2000 or that same was not executed in the presence of witnesses Sh. Anupam Malik and Sh. Krishan Kumar Berry. PW-4 Sh. Anupam Malik is the attesting witness to the will dated 25.08.2000 in favour of the plaintiff. He deposed that Champa Seigall was personally known to her and she executed the will dated 25.08.2000 in his presence and in presence of Sh. Krishan Kumar Berry and Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 13 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:46 +0530 Advocate. He further deposed that she disclosed her wish to Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate who got the will typed and read out the contents of the will in their presence and after hearing the same Champa Seigall signed the will at point A, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 in his presence and in the presence of other witnesses. He further deposed that Champa Seigall also thumb marked the will. He further deposed that will was registered before Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate on 25.08.2000 and also that Champa Seigall was in deposing mind and quite health and executed the will while in her perfect senses. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that profounder of the will dated 25.08.2000 (i.e. Ex. PW2/1) i.e. plaintiff has proved the same as per provisions of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
Moving further, plaintiff has pleaded that a notice dated 12.09.2008 (Ex. PW1/3) was served upon the defendant and he has also placed on record postal receipt of the same as Ex. PW1/4.
Since defendant denied receipt of the notice, plaintiff placed on record a letter from Superintendent of Post Office dated 02.04.2009 showing that the notice dated 02.04.2009 was delivered to the defendant. Copy of the this letter is Ex. PW1/7. Accordingly, plaintiff has proved that after he acquired ownership of the suit property by virtue of will dated 25.08.2000, he terminated the license of the defendant vide legal notice dated 02.04.2009 asking her to vacate the suit property.
In view of aforesaid discussion, both the issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and it is held that CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 14 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN Date: MOHAN 2025.12.23 17:27:50 +0530 plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property and defendant is directed to vacate the suit property, remove her goods, belongings etc. from the suit property and she is also restrained from selling and handing over the possession of the suit property to any third person.
Issue No. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrear of licence fee against the defendant? OPP.
Issue No. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages against the defendant, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP Issue No. 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP All these issues are taken together as they are interconnected and involve common discussion.
As per the plaintiff, defendant did not vacate the suit property despite termination of license vide notice dated 22.09.2008 and therefore he is entitled to license fee @ Rs. 15,000/- per month along with interest @ 18% per annum beginning from the date of revocation. Plaintiff examined PW3 Sh. Sanjay who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex PW3/A to prove the rate of rent in the area under which the suit property falls. PW3 deposed that he was doing business of sale and purchase and renting out property under the style of Maharaja Properties and he CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 15 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:53 +0530 had also seen the property no. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi which is under occupation of Smt. Rajni Kapoor and same consists of two bed-rooms with attach bathrooms, drawing cum dining room, store, veranda and kitchen and also one mezzanine. He further deposed that area under the occupation of defendant is on the roadside, located in posh colony and also airy and sunny. As per his testimony, the premises in occupation of defendant could fetch monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month during 2005 to 2010 and now-a-days it can fetch monthly rent of Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and further that the rental value of property keeps on increasing every year. He was duly cross- examined by counsel for the defendant. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not file any document to show that he dealt with any property regarding the dealing of purchase or sale or rent in the area of South Patel Nagar, Delhi for the last 20 years. He further admitted not to have filed document to show that the property in occupation of defendant commands the rent as deposed by him in examination-in-chief. However, it has been noted by this court that no suggestion was given to this witness or otherwise deposed by any of the DWs as to what was the the actual or estimated rent of the property under occupation of defendant Rajni Kapoor. Defendant in his cross-examination admitted that she was having/residing in two rooms, drawing room, kitchen, two bathrooms at the first floor of the said property and further that the property was in the front portion of the first floor. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case, the locality, also CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 16 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:27:56 +0530 considering the fact that the defendant is in occupation of front portion etc., this court is of the opinion that defendant ought to pay occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month beginning from the institution of the present suit till actual realization. In event, defendant fails to pay this amount within a period of two months, plaintiff shall be entitled to interest on the arrears of occupation charges @ 9% per annum till actual realization.
Issue No. 6. Whether the plaintiff has not paid the proper court fees? OPD Issue No. 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable under Section 41(i) of Specific Relief Act, 1963? OPD Additional Issue:- Whether court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain or try the present suit? OPD The onus to prove these issued was upon the defendant. No evidence was led by the defendant to prove the above assertions. In fact during the course of arguments, these issued were not pressed.
Accordingly, both these issues are also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Relief.
13. In view of the finding of the aforesaid issues, the present suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and it is CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 17 of 18 Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:28:01 +0530 held that plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property i.e. part of property bearing no. 14, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi consisting of one Drawing-cum-Dining Room, two bed rooms with attached bathroom, front verandah, kitchen and a mezzanine in the stairs shown red in the plan attached. Defendant is ordered to vacate the suit property by removing her goods and all her belongings within a period of two months beginning from today and handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. Defendant is also restrained permanently from selling and handing over the possession of the suit property to any third person. Defendant is further ordered to pay occupation charges to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month beginning from the institution of the present suit till actual realization. In the event, defendant fails to pay this amount within a period of two months, plaintiff shall be entitled to interest on the arrears of occupation charges @ 9% per annum till actual realization.
14. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
15. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
16. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the Open Court Digitally signed by CHANDER CHANDER MOHAN On 23rd December 2025 MOHAN Date:
2025.12.23 17:28:06 +0530 (CHANDER MOHAN) District Judge-14, LAC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS DJ 12030/16 ANUP SEIGELL Vs. RAJNI KAPOOR Page 18 of 18