Delhi District Court
Ajeet Kumar Sareen vs Lt. Col. V.K. Sareen on 26 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM,
DISTRICT JUDGE -03, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 1612/2016
CNR No. DLSH01-000556-2016
Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (Deceased)
through LRs:-
1. Sh. Urvinder Kumar Sareen (Son)
R/o 729, Sec-49, Sainik Colony, Faridabad, Haryana-121001
2.Sh. Harish Kumar Sareen (son)
R/o D-54, First Floor, Anand Vihar, Delhi 110092
3. Sh. Bhupesh Kumar Sareen (son)
R/o D-54, First Floor, Anand Vihar Delhi 110092
4. Smt. Savita Markan (daughter)
R/o A-50, Shyam Nagar, Khylala Road, Delhi 110027
5. Smt. Sunita Kapla (daughter)
R/o House No. 59, Pocket -4, Konark Apartments,
Kalkaji Extension-110019.
... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen
S/o late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen
R/o 15/2782, MHB Maitri Society,
Yerwade, Pune-6.
2. Sh. R. K. Sareen
S/o late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen
R/o 304-1C, Chelmsford Road, New Delhi-1.
3. Sh. K. K. Sareen,
S/o Late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen
R/o Anukiran Colony, P.O. Bhatha Nagar,
Rawal Bhatta via Kota, Rajasthan-323307.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 1 of 46
Digitally signed
by
MOHAMMAD
MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM
EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03
17:09:46 +0530
4 . Sh. Inder Kumar Sareen
S/o Late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen
R/o A-118, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.
5. Smt. Sneh Uppal
W/o Sh. Yoginder Paul Uppal,
R/o B-44, Pocket No. 14,
Himigiri Apartments,
Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-110019.
6. Sh. Swaran Bhandari
W/o Sh. Hari Chand Bhandari,
R/o D-237, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092
7. The Delhi Development Authority
through its Vide Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
8. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi
9. The Sub -Registrar-IV,
Geeta Colony, Delhi
......... Defendants.
Suit instituted
before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on : 21.05.2004
Suit received before the District Courts on : 27.01.2016
Final arguments concluded on : 25.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 26.12.2025.
Decision : Decreed.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 2 of 46
Digitally signed
by MOHAMMAD
MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM
EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03
17:09:51 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit was instituted by Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (now deceased) for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against the Defendants.
During the pendency of the present suit, Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen expired on 05.08.2022 and his legal heirs were impleaded on record vide Order dated 16.05.2023.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present suit as averred in the plaint are as under
(a). that Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen was the father of Sh.
Ajit Kumar Sareen and Defendant No. 1 to 6, who had purchased a plot i.e. the property No. D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092 admeasuring 187.33 sq. yds. (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') on which Ground Floor and First floor was built up later respectively by Defendant No. 1 and Plaintiff.
(b). that Ground floor portion is in possession of Defendant No.1 and first floor is in possession of the Plaintiff/LRs.
(c). that late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen had purchased the suit property out of his self-acquired income from the Delhi Administration (Land and Building Department), vide Perpetual Sub Lease Deed dated 17.10.1978 executed between the President of India on the one part, the Railway Board Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. on the second part and Shri CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 3 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date: 2026.01.03 17:09:54 +0530 Bakshi Ram Sareen on the third part; Financial constraints prevented him from constructing on the plot.
(d). that Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen had expired on 27.01.1994, whereas his wife- Smt. Leela Wati expired on April, 1997 leaving behind children- 5 sons- Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen, Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen, Sh. Inder Kumar Sareen, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sareen, Sh. Krishan Kumar Sareen and 2 daughters- Smt. Sneh Lata and Smt. Swaran lata.
(e). that during his lifetime, Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen had executed a Will on 15.03.1984 in favour of his sons and daughters except one son Shri Inder Kumar Sareen as late father of the parties disinherited him as he was not having the cordial relations with the family.
That the relevant part of the aforesaid Will is reproduced herein as under:-
"6. I own a plot of land measuring 187.33 Sq. Yds. situated at 54-D, Anand Vihar, Delhi which was acquired by me through my own savings through the Railway Board Employees Housing Society for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (approx.) in the year 1978. I allow my all the four sons namely S/Shri Ramesh Kumar Sareen, Krishan Kumar Sareen, Ajit Kumar Sarin and Vijay Kumar Sareen to built a storey/flat each on that plot of land as under:-
(1). GROUND FLOOR. To be built by Shri Vijay Kumar Sareen, Entire cost of construction to be met by him.
(II). FIRST FLOOR. To be built by Shri Ramesh Kumar Sareen. Entire cost of construction to be met by him.
(III). SECOND FLOOR. To be built by Shri Ajit Kumar Sareen and Shri Krishan Kumar Sareen. They will own the Second Floor jointly and the entire cost of construction will be met by them equally and jointly. As they will be entitled to smaller area than that of the ground and the first floors, to compensate them, I have already given to each one of the two a sum of Rs.
15,000/-each, as gift."
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 4 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:09:58 +0530
(f). that after executing the said Will, Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen had changed his mind later on in respect of the said bequest and executed a written amendment / Codicil to the said Will on 15.06.1984. The amended Clause 6 reads as under:-
"6. Alternatively the First Floor can be constructed by Shri A.K. Sareen and K.K. Sareen if they so desire at later stage with the mutual consent of R.K. Sareen.
In view of the above proposal by Shri R. K. Sareen and agreed to by all and also the disturbed conditions of Chandigarh where Shri A.K. Sareen had been allotted a flat by a Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, I have amended para 6 (II & III) of my will to read as under: 6 (II) First and Second floor:
Any two of three brothers i.e. Shri A.K. Sareen, Shri R.K. Sareen and Shri K.K. Sareen will build separately, the first floor with each others consent. Second floor will be built by third brother. The party who built the flat will be full and final owner of that flat. As all of the three brothers will be entitled to smaller area then that of the ground floor and to compensate them, I have taken steps to deposit Rs.15,000 for each of them separately as a gift in the Scheduled Banks jointly with me to be paid as and when they need either for Daughter's marriage or construction of the house, or my death whatever is earlier."
(g). that so far as the Defendants No. 4 to 6 are concerned, late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen explicitly excluded Sh. Inder Kumar Sareen (Defendant No.4) due to poor family relations, provided specific gifts to him and the daughters, and noted that Defendant No. 4 had neglected family duties while the daughters had received dowry, education, and marriage expenses.
(h). However, Defendant No.4 was granted a gift of Rs.8,000/- in the form of National Saving Certificate and cash to be used by him at the time of his daughter's marriage. Similarly, CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 5 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:01 +0530 the Defendants No. 5 & 6 were also given a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each as gift in the form of Fixed Deposits.
(i). that pursuant to the said bequests made by the late father of the parties, Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (now deceased) and Defendants No. 1 to 3 had entered into an Agreement on 12.04.1984 in regard to carry out construction in the suit property.
(j). that in the said Agreement, Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 are referred to as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th parties respectively. The relevant clauses of the said Agreement are as under:
"2. That the Party of the Ist Part will take loan from Government and first construct the Ground Floor bearing the entire cost himself.
3. That the Party of the 2nd Part, 3rd Part & 4th Part will build the First & Second Floor of the house as and when he is in a position to do so.
XXX XXX XXX
5. That the Party of the Ist Part will be bearing the entire cost of the foundation while building the Ground floor, the Parties of the 2nd and 3rd and the 4th Part shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- EACH as their share of expenditure on the foundation to the Party of the Ist Part, in cash, when the Party of the Ist Part starts the work on the foundation.
6. That the Party of the Ist Part will not obstruct or stand in the way of the construction of the First Floor and/or the Second floor when Parties of the 2nd, 3rd and the 4th Part start building those Floors.
7. That the Party who has initially built the portion/Storey will become full and final owner of the First Floor while the Parties of the 3 rd and 4th Parts will become the full and final owners in a COMBINED manner.
8. That none of the FOUR Parties who construct the portion/storey will sell it to any outsider, but if necessary to sell, any of the four Parties shall sell it to his brother/brothers or to their descendants."
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 6 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:05 +0530
(k). That as the family did not have sufficient funds to construct the house, Defendant No. 1, who was serving in the defence services, proposed to obtain a loan from the Ministry of Defence for construction of the ground floor. He stated, however, that since he was not the recorded owner of the suit property, he could not mortgage it as security. To facilitate the loan, the father, Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen, decided to transfer the property to Defendant No. 1 on paper only, without affecting the rights of his other sons, namely Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen and Defendants No. 2 and 3.
(l). It is further averred in the plaint that this transfer was purely for the limited purpose of obtaining a loan and was never intended to confer any exclusive ownership on Defendant No. 1.
The late father clearly recorded in his Will dated 15.03.1984, as amended by the codicil dated 15.06.1984, that after completion of the ground floor, the other floors would be constructed by the brothers, a condition reaffirmed in the Agreement dated 12.04.1984.
(m). Pursuant to this arrangement, a Gift Deed dated 13.06.1984 was executed, making Defendant No. 1 a joint lessee in the plot. Subsequently, as the said Gift Deed gave him only a half share and was inadequate for securing a loan, Defendant No. 1 requested execution of another deed making him sole sub- lessee. In good faith, his brothers agreed, and a Supplementary Gift Deed dated 23.07.1984 was executed, substituting the term "joint-lessee" with "sub-lessee" in respect of the entire property.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 7 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date: 2026.01.03 17:10:09 +0530
(n). It is further averred that, apart from the loan obtained by Defendant No. 1, Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen and Defendants No. 2 and 3 contributed towards the foundation of the property Rs. 5,000 each by Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen and Defendant No. 2, and Rs. 4,000 by Defendant No. 3 through cheques as recorded in the Family Agreement dated 12.04.1984. Defendant No. 1 encashed these cheques and utilized the funds for the foundation. All four brothers thereby acquired equal rights in the property and agreed to divide it amicably for maintaining family harmony. Acting on the Gift Deeds of 13.06.1984 and 23.07.1984, Defendant No. 1, with their father's consent, mortgaged the property, obtained a loan, and built the ground floor. Thereafter, with the consent of all family members, Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen commenced construction of the first floor at his sole expense.
(o). It is further alleged in the plaint that to facilitate construction of the first floor, Defendant No. 1 executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 28 June 1990 in favour of Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen, authorizing him to obtain necessary permissions and carry out construction. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 made no contribution, and the first floor was constructed by Plaintiff around 1991-92, where he has since resided with his family; that under the amended Will of the late father and the Agreement dated 12 April 1984, the first floor exclusively belongs to the Plaintiff. Clause 3 of the said GPA expressly empowered the Plaintiff to construct and possess the CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 8 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:13 +0530 first floor. The GPA was for consideration, as the Plaintiff agreed not to claim rights over the ground and other portions in exchange for ownership and occupation of the first floor. The Plaintiff contends that the agency is irrevocable under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as he has an interest in the property. Even if treated as a license, it is argued to be incidental to the property transfer.
(p). The Plaintiff further asserts in the plaint that GPA contained no clause requiring the Plaintiff to vacate the first floor and authorized him to obtain separate electricity, water, and sewer connections. The Plaintiff, with the Defendants' knowledge and consent, built a permanent structure at his own cost comprising a drawing-cum-dining room, two bedrooms, kitchen, toilets, and balconies. He claims that even if the license were revocable, it became irrevocable under Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act due to his permanent construction and investment.
(q). Defendant No. 1 did not interfere with the Plaintiff's possession from 1991-92 until December 2002, when the Plaintiff learned of Defendant No. 1's attempt to alienate the property. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, though beneficiaries under the Will, have not constructed second or third floors. Defendant No. 1, being in defense service, has rarely stayed in the property, letting out the ground floor, which has remained vacant for about one and a half years. The Plaintiff and his family have continuously occupied the first floor since January 1992. He CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 9 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:17 +0530 holds separate electricity and water connections, a ration card in his name, and has regularly paid all dues, including house tax for the entire property since 1991-92, whereas Defendant No. 1 has never paid any.
(r). It is further alleged in the plaint that in December 2002, some persons visited the suit property, and the Plaintiff was shocked to learn that Defendant No. 1 had offered it for sale to local dealers. The Plaintiff immediately informed them that Defendant No. 1 was not the sole owner, as the Plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the first floor, and Defendant No. 1 had no right to sell the entire property.
(s). To protect his rights, Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (Plaintiff herein) filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to restrain Defendant No. 1 from creating third party interests. In his written statement in the said suit, Defendant No. 1 claimed ownership of the entire property on the basis of a Gift Deed and Supplementary Gift Deed executed by late Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen. On examining these documents, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant No. 1 had fraudulently represented himself as owner, although the said gift deeds were executed only to enable him to obtain a loan from his employer. The Gift Deeds were never intended to transfer ownership or possession. No delivery of possession took place, and the deeds were never acted upon. This limited intention is clearly reflected in the Will of late Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen, which remains final and irrevocable. The Defendant CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 10 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:21 +0530 could not have obtained the construction loan without the Gift Deed; hence, it was executed merely for that purpose and not for any ownership transfer. The deed is thus a sham document in law. After the ground floor was built with the loan, the Plaintiff, with the knowledge and consent of all Defendants, constructed the first floor.
(t). It is further alleged that documents filed by Defendant No. 1 further reveal that he fraudulently induced his father to apply for transfer of the vacant plot in his name. The DDA letter dated 4 August 1984 confirming the transfer stands on record. The Plaintiff was unaware of this mutation, as it was understood between the parties that Defendant No. 1 would own only the ground floor and the Plaintiff the first floor. The Defendant appears to have obtained the mutation of suit property on his name by applying for it on 16.10.2002 concealing and suppressing the actual and correct facts. These revelations have gravely prejudiced the Plaintiff, who now seeks reliefs of declaration, partition, and injunction in the present suit. (u). In his written statement in the said suit, Defendant No. 1 claimed that Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (Plaintiff herein) was allowed to occupy the first floor only as a licensee. However, he also admitted that their late father issued a notice revoking the Gift Deed executed in his favour, though no copy was produced.
He alleged the notice was issued under the Plaintiff's influence. Even so, this admission shows that the Gift Deed lacked CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 11 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:25 +0530 consideration and was merely a paper transaction, never intended to confer ownership.
(v). That, Defendant No. 1 has also filed a suit for possession, mesne profits, and damages against the Plaintiff and his sons falsely alleging the Plaintiff is a licensee which is pending before the court of Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta, Ld. ADJ, Delhi. The Plaintiff is contesting the said suit on several grounds, including under-valuation. The facts show that Defendant No. 1 cannot claim exclusive ownership of the property, as the Will of their late father and his revocation of the Gift Deed make it clear that the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1, 2, and 3 each hold a one-fourth share in the land, with the ground and first floors belonging to Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff respectively.
(w). That Defendants No. 4 to 6 are impleaded only as proforma parties being legal heirs of late Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen, but they have no share or claim in Property No. D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi. No relief is sought against them.
Defendants No. 7 to 9 are public authorities impleaded only to carry out necessary corrections in official records.
(x). It is further alleged in the plaint that, Plaintiff / his legal heirs are entitled to a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the first floor of the suit property with a one-fourth undivided share in the land. The Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the Gift Deed dated 13.06.1984 and Supplementary Gift Deed dated 27.04.1984 in favour of Defendant No. 1 are void CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 12 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:30 +0530 and unenforceable, and that all actions of Defendants No. 7 and 8 based on them are null and void. The Plaintiff further seeks cancellation of the said Gift Deeds, partition of the property as per the Will and Agreement dated 12.04.1984, and a permanent injunction to protect the property's character and rights of all co-
owners.
Hence the present suit.
3. Written statement of Defendant No. 1Defendant No. 1 has filed written statement, wherein he took the following preliminary objections and defenses:-
(a). that the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as Plaintiff has filed a suit No.20/2003 for injunction in January, 2003 before the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi.
(b). that present suit is liable be stayed under Section 10 CPC, as the Defendant filed a prior suit for possession, damages, and injunction against the Plaintiff before Shri V.K. Gupta, ADJ, Delhi; the issues here are directly and substantially involved in that suit between the same parties over the same property in a competent court.
(c). that Plaintiff undervalued the reliefs, paid insufficient court fees, valued the property at Rs. 70 lakhs himself, and failed to pay ad valorem fees on its market value..
(d). that present suit is time barred, as the limitation period of three years for a declaration suit under the Limitation Act, 1963, expired long ago.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 13 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date: 2026.01.03 17:10:36 +0530
(e). On merits, Defendant No. 1 states the suit property has ground and first floors; he and his family possess the ground floor; he licensed the first floor to Plaintiff (brother Shri Ajit Kumar Sareen), terminated the license vide a possession suit; he exclusively possesses the rest, wrongly marked red by Plaintiff; no site plan copy was supplied.
(f). Defendant No. 1 admits the father, Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen, bought the suit property (plot) but alleges that Plaintiff intentionally has not disclosed that the original perpetual sub lease deed is in power and possession of Defendant No.1.
(g). Defendant No. 1 admits the father bought the plot but denies financial constraints prevented construction. Defendant No.1 denied that during his lifetime father had executed Will on 15.3.1984 and had made certain bequests in favour of his sons and daughters or that father disinherited one of his son Sh. Inder Kumar Sareen due to non-cordial relations. Defendant No.1 alleged that father had executed a registered Gift deeds dated 22.6.84/23.7.84 and also acted upon the same and started construction upon property even after taking loan.
(h). Without prejudice to his rights, Defendant No.1 submitted that father-Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen was the member of society known as Railway Board Employees Coop. Housing Society Ltd. as he was Railway employee and had purchased the suit plot from his own funds and accordingly a Lease Deed dated 17.10.1978 was executed by the DDA in the name of father-Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen, which was duly registered as document CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 14 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:41 +0530 No.3058 in addl. Book No. I Vol. No.1057 at pages 155 to 165 on 23.10.1978 in respect of Plot No. D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi.
(i). Defendant No.1 alleged that all the family members were residing at house No. C-9, Usha Niketan, SD Area, New Delhi and the father permitted Defendant No.1 to construct on the plot and gifted it in a sound state of mind via a registered Gift Deed dated 22.06.1984 (Serial No. 1099, Additional Book No. I, Vol. No. 1736, pages 37 to 40), executed in sound mind. A supplementary Gift Deed dated 23.07.1984 corrected a minor error (Serial No. 1230, Additional Book No. I, Vol. No. 1742, pages 29 to 30); all family members accepted these unchallenged deeds.
(j). Defendant No.1 alleged that father expired in January, 1994 and Defendant No.1 had applied with the DDA for conversion of property and had deposited the full amount with DDA and a Conveyance deed dated 01.08.1996 was executed in the name of Defendant No.1 [duly registered at Serial No.4069.
Addl No. I, pages 178 to 179 on 02.08.1996]. Defendant No.1 has also intimated the MCD regarding execution of Gift Deed and had submitted papers, hence the Plaintiff is not entitled the reliefs claimed. Defendant No.1 alled that he is the exclusive owner of the entire suit property and not the Plaintiff.
(k). Defendant No.1 has evasively denied the father's alleged Will amendment/codicil dated 15.06.1984 as Defendant No.1 also contends that if any will was executed, the same was never acted upon because after the date of said will, the father of CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 15 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date: 2026.01.03 17:10:45 +0530 parties executed registered gift deed dated 22.06.84/23.07.84 and same was acted upon and accordingly D1 constructed upon the suit property after taking loan. He also denied Family Agreement dated 12.04.1984 between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to D-3. D1 admitted that he executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff however D1 alleges that a wrong interpretation is being given by the Plaintiff to grab the property. The D1 has also not denied that his father issued a notice to him for revocation of said gift deed executed in his favour.
Rest of the averments made in the plaint are denied by Defendant No. 1 and he prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
4. Replication to written statement of Defendant No. 1 was filed by Plaintiff, wherein the preliminary objections and defences raised by the Defendant No. 1 were denied; and contents of Plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed.
5. Joint written statement was filed by Defendants No. 2 and 3, wherein they supported the case of Plaintiff. However record revels that the same was filed beyond time.
6. Perusal of record shows that vide Order dated 17.01.2011 ,Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte.
7. Defendant No.5 filed written statement. In brief she stated as under: -
(a). Defendant No. 5 denied all allegations in the plaint, including the execution of any will by her father, Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen, and the existence of any sibling agreement. It is CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 16 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:50 +0530 further stated that her marriage took place in the year 1957-58 and father did a lot of expenditure from his own income. She further submitted that all her brothers were in a Govt. Service. She further submitted that the father gifted the property to Defendant No. 1 via registered deeds out of affection, as he alone cared for the parents from 1976 until 1992, when they moved to his home after his wife's cancer diagnosis.
(b). She further submitted that when Plaintiff retired from Govt. service had requested Defendant No. 1 to allow him to stay in ground floor of the suit property, which is lying vacant and also proposed to help in the construction of First floor to Defendant No. 1. Later on, mutual understanding arrived between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 that Plaintiff will construct the First Floor from his money and continue to stay in first floor as 'licencee' and he will vacate the First floor, when Defendant No. 1 will retire from service of Army or whenever Plaintiff's sons construct a house at their plot at Faridabad.
(c). She further stated that initially Defendant No. 1 paid some amount for construction of First Floor and later on the entire money was paid by Plaintiff and later on, Plaintiff refused to vacate; that a compromise took place between Defendant No. 1 and Plaintiff in the year 1992 to the effect that Defendant No. 1 will pay claimed Amount Rs.2,30,000/- to Plaintiff as a construction cost for First Floor and this meeting was witness by Mr. Y. P. Uppal (late husband of D5), Mr. Н. С. Bhandari, (Husband of Mr. Swarn Bhandari), Mr. R. K. Sareen, and D5.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 17 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:10:56 +0530 (d ). Defendant No. 5 stated that she came to know that a dispute arose between both the brothers (Plaintiff & Defendant No. 1) and both the brothers have filed a case, which is pending in Tis Hazari Court.
She prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
8. Replication to written statement of Defendant No. 5 filed by the Plaintiff, wherein all the contents of written statement of Defendant No. 5 were denied.
9. Defendant No. 6 filed written statement, wherein, she has specifically stated that she is adopting the written statement filed by the Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff in replication to written statement of Defendant No. 6 relied on the Replication filed by him to written statement of Defendant No. 1.
10. Defendant No. 8/MCD filed Written statement, wherein it stated as under:-
(a). that the present suit is not maintainable u/s 477 & 478 of DMC Act, 1957; that Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the Defendant No. 8, MCD in as much as the Plaintiff is not the recorded assessee in House Tax record of the Defendant No. 8, MCD; that no cause of action has arisen against the Defendant No. 8;
(b). On merits, D-8 alleged that mutation in House tax record has been carried out in favour of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen in Property No. D-54. Anand Vihar, Delhi on completing all formalities u/s 128 of DMC Act, 1957 and Bye laws 3&4 of Taxation Miscellaneous Provision Bye laws, 1959. Sh. Vijay CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 18 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:02 +0530 Kumar Sareen has also submitted Gift Deed, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit along with the DDA letter regarding mutation in his favour in DDA record which are annexed. Now, Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen is the primarily person for the payment of property tax u/s 120 of DMC Act, 1957.
(c). It is further stated that the action of the mutation in favour of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen does not confer any title of ownership. It is also mentioned at Serial No. 2 of the mutation letter dated 06.07.2004 that "that this is to make clear that the mutation is only for the purpose of payment of property tax and does not devolve legal title".
11. After completion of pleadings, Vide Order dated 18.03.2014, the following Issues were framed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:-
(I) Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees? If so, whether appropriate court fees has been paid? OPD (II) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC?
If so, to what effect? OPD (III) Whether the proceedings of the present suit are liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC in view of the pendency of Suit No.20/2003 titled Ajit Kumar Sareen vs. Lt. Col. V.K. Sareen and Suit No.424/2004 titled Lt. Col. V.K. Sareen Vs. Ajit Kumar Sareen, both pending in the court of Civil Judge, Varanasi? If so, to what effect? OPD (IV) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is within limitation? OPP (V) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the gift deed dated 13.6.1984 and the supplementary gift deed dated 23.7.1984 (wrongly written in the prayer clause as 27.4.1948) is null and void? If so, to what effect? OPP CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 19 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:07 +0530 (VI) If the answer to issue No.(V) is in affirmative, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that he has 1/4th share in the suit bearing No.D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi-92 measuring 187.33 square yards along with proportionate 1/4th undivided share in the land underneath? If so, to what effect? OPP (VII) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP (VIII) Whether the deceased Bakshi Ram Sareen had made a valid and legal Will dated 15.3.1984 and amended Codicil dated 15.6.1984? If so, to what effect? OPP (IX) Relief.
12. Evidence of Plaintiff Five witnesses were examined from the Plaintiff/Lrs of the Plaintiff side. (It is relevant to note here that witnesses- Sh. Rajender Singh and Sh. Uttam Kumar Das-both were examined as 'PW-4', therefore, in order to avoid confusion, witness-Sh. Uttam Kumar Das is mentioned hereinafter as 'PW-5')
(a). Plaintiff Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen examined himself as PW-1, who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence. He relied and proved following documents:-
1.Original Site plan as Ex. PW 1/1;
2.Certified copy of perpetual sub lease deed dated 17.10.1978 as Ex. PW1/2;
3.Original Will dated 15.03.1984 Ex. PW1/3;
4.Original codicil to the Will dated 15.03.1984 as Ex. PW1/4;
5.Original family agreement dated 12.04.1984 as Ex. PW1/5'
6.Copy of Gift Deed dated 13.06.1984 as Mark A;
7.Copy of supplementary Gift Deed dated 23.07.1984 as Mark B;
8.Pass book of Syndicate bank of late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen as Ex PW 1/8;
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 20 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:11 +0530
9.Original GPA dated 28.06.1990 as Ex. PW 1/9;
10. Original affidavit dated 06.08.84 of Late Sh. Bakhsi Ram Sareen as Ex PW 1/10;
11. Original letter dated 04.05.93 written to MCD by the Plaintiff as Ex.PW 1/11;
12. Original letter dated 10.01.1991 issued by father of Plaintiff to Plaintiff as Ex. PW 1/12;
13. Original electricity receipts as Ex. PW 1/13 (colly).
14. Original house tax receipts as Ex.PW 1/14 (colly);
15.Certified copy of case No. 20/2003 titled as 'Ajeet Kumar Sareen Vs. V.K. Sareen' as Ex. PW1/15;
16. Certified copy of Written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 in the suit bearing No.20/2003 as Ex. PW 1/16;
Perusal of record shows that PW1/Plaintiff was cross examined at length on two different dates, however his Cross examination could not be concluded as PW1 expired on 05.08.2022, thereafter, legal representative of Plaintiff was examined as PW-2.
(b). Sh. Bhupesh Kumar Sareen was examine as PW-2, who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW2/A in evidence. He relied and proved following documents:-
1.Site plan as Ex. PW2/1;
2.certified copy of Perpetual Sub lease deed dated 17.10.1978 as Ex. PW2/2;
3.Will dated 15.03.1984 of Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen as Ex. PW2/3;
4.Codicil to the Will dated 15.03.1984 as Ex. PW2/4;
5.Family Agreement dated 12.04.1984 as Ex. PW2/5;
6.Copy of Gift deed dated 13.06.1984 as Mark A;
7.copy of supplementary Gift Deed dated 23.07.1984 as Mark B;
8.Envelop containing Passbook of Syndicate bank of late Sh.
Bakshi Rama Sareen as Ex. PW2/8;
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 21 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:15 +0530
9.GPA dated 28.06.1990 executed by Defendant No. 1 as Ex. PW2/9;
10. Affidavit dated 06.08.1984 of late Sh. Bakhsi Ram Sareen as Ex. PW2/10;
11.Letter dated 04.05.1993 written to MCL by Sh. Ajit Kumar Sarren as Ex. PW2/11;
12.Postcard/letter dated 10.01.1991 as Ex. PW2/12;
13. Electricity receipt and Delhi jal board as Ex. PW2/13 (colly);
14. 8 House Tax receipts as Ex. PW2/14 (colly);
15.certified copy of CS No. 20/2003 titled as 'Ajeet Kumar Sareen v. V. K. Sareen' as Ex. PW2/15;
16.certified copy of written statement filed by Defendant No.1 in CS No. 20/2003 as Ex. PW2/16;
PW2 was cross examined at length and discharged.
(c). Ms. Priya Yadav, Junior Secretariat Assistant at Cooperative Society DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023 was examined as PW-3. She came along with the original property file bearing No.F13 (54D) RB/78/CS/DDA of plot No.D54 Railway Board, Delhi-110092. She also brought the certified copy of the above property as a. Conveyance Deed dated 01.08.1996 in favour of Vijay Kumar Sareen.
b. ID proof of two witnesses namely S. Bhupender Kumar & Hari Chand Bhandari.
c. Execution Call letter dated 04.07.1996 & 13.11.1995 to Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen.
d. Letter dated 13.09.1995 to Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen e. NOC dated 06.08.1995 in favour of Vijay Kumar Sareen S/o Bakshi Ram from railway board employee CHBS Ltd.
f. Certified copy of conversion application alongwith its enclosure containing 17 pages.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 22 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:19 +0530 g. Form of Mortgage Deed between Major V.K. Sareen S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram & The President of India, containing 8 pages. h. Copy of Form-D dated 02.02.1985 in respect of property No.D-54, Anand Vihar, New Delhi i. Certificate from Railway Board Employee CHBS Ltd. in favour of Vijay Kumar Sareen.
j. Form of Reconveyance Deed dated 11.10.1993 containing 3 pages.
k. Permission to Mortgage Letter dated 30.11.1984 in favour of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen.
1. Extension of time letter dated 30.11.1984 in favour of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen.
m. Letter dated 29.11.1984 from Major V.K. Sareen for revalidation of mortgage permission.
n. Fourth copy of challan No.1091 dated 30.11.1984 for Rs.314/-
o. Affidavit of Sh. Bakshi Ram S/o Late L.Ganga Ram dated 10.07.1978 p. Copy of perpetual sublease deed dated 17.10.1978 in favour of Sh. Bakshi Ram S/o Sh. Ganga Ram, containing 20 pages.
q. Letter dated 15.04.1981 from Sh. Bakshi Ram for extension of time limit for construction.
r. Letter dated 05.05.1981 to Sh. Bakshi Ram regarding extension of time/mortgage permission/non encumbrance certificate for plot No.D-54, Railway Board, Delhi.
s. Letter dated 12.06.1981 from Sh. Bakshi Ram t. Letter dated 15.05.1981 from Railway Board Employee CHBS Ltd., Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.
u. Letter dated 29.06.1981 to Sh. Bakshi Ram regarding extension of time.
v. Letter dated 26.03.1984 from Sh. Bakshi Ram in respect of extension of time limit for construction.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 23 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:25 +0530 w. Letter dated 10.03.1984 from Railway Board Employee CHBS Ltd.
x. Demand letter dated 09.04.1984 to Sh. Bakshi Ram for Rs.628/-, y. Letter dated 07.05.1984 from Railway Board Employee CHBS Ltd. in respect of.
transfer of membership of plot No.54-D at Anand Vihar.
z. Letter dated 14.03.1984 from Bakshi Ram Sareen to the Secretary Railway Board Housing Society, Anand Vihar, Delhi in respect of transfer of plot No.54-D. aa. I-Bond Dated 21.04.1984 by Sh. Bakshi Ram S/o Late Sh. Ganga Ram.
bb. I-Bond Dated 21.04.1984 by Major Vijay Kumar Sareen S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram.
cc. Affidavit of Sh. Bakshi Ram S/o Sh. Ganga Ram dated 18.04.1984 dd. Affidavit dated 18.04.1984 of Major Vijay Kumar Sareen S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram.
ee. Copy of resolution for intimating the meeting to be held on dated 08.04.1984 from Railway Board Employee CHBS Ltd.
ff. 3 rd Copy of challan dated 24.05.1984. gg. I-Bond dated 22.05.1984 between Sh. Bakshi Ram and his Son Major V.K. Sareen.
hh. Affidavit for blood relation dated 22.04.1984 from Major V.K. Sareen S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram. ii. Certificate of Higher Secondary Examination 1962 of Vijay Kumar Sareen S/o Sh. Bakshi Ram.
jj. Two Notices U/S (1) of Section 26 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 kk. Affidavit of Sh. Bakshi Ram S/o late Sh. Ganga Ram dated 24.04.1984.
11. Letter of DDA dated 01.06.1984 to Sh. Bakshi Ram.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 24 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:29 +0530 mm. Letter to Hon. Secretary Railway Board Employee CHBS Ltd. with reference to their letter No.MS/287 dated 07.05.1984. nn. Letter of DDA dated 01.06.1984 to Sh. Bakshi Ram. (received copy) oo. Letter to Hon. Secretary Railway Board Employee CHBS Ltd. with reference to their letter No.MS/287 dated 07.05.1984.
(received copy).
pp. Letter from Bakshi Ram Sareen to Director (CS) DDA received on 02.07.1984.
qq. Gift Deed dated 13.06.1984 containing 4 pages rr. Deficiency letter dated 24.07.1984 to Hony.
Secretary The Railway Board Employees CHBS Ltd. Anand Vihar, I.P. Extension -II, Delhi (Copy to Bakshi Ram Sareen).
ss. Letter dated 03.07.1984 from Major V.K. Sareen to competent authority DDA.
tt. Letter dated 30.07.1984 from V.K. Sareen to Assistant Director CS DDA.
uu. Supplementary Gift deed dated 23.07.1984 by Sh. Bakshi Ram S/o Late Sh.
Ganga Ram, in favour of Sh. (Major) Vijay Kumar Sareen S/o Bakshi Ram vv. Letter dated 04.08.1984 to Hony. Secretary Railway Board Employees CHBS Ltd.
in respect of transfer of plot No.D-54, in railway Board CHBS Ltd.
ww. Letter dated 06.08.1984 from Major Vijay Kumar Sareen in respect of mortgage permission. xx. Affidavit of Major Vijay Kumar Sareen S/o Sh.
Bakshi Ram dated 06.08.1984.
yy. Notice U/S (1) of Section 26 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 dated 06.08.1984.
ZZ. Letter dated 10.08.1984 to Major Vijay Kumar Sareen in respect of permission to CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 25 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:34 +0530 mortgage residential plot No.54, Block No.D in Railway Board CHBS Ltd.
aaa. Letter dated 10.08.1984 to Major Vijay Kumar Sareen in respect of Notice U/S (1) of Section 26 of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 in respect of Plot No.D-54, Railway Board CHBS Ltd.
bbb. Letter dated 21.09.1984 by Major V.K. Sareen to the Director CS in respect of non encumbrance certificate separately.
ccc. Deficiency letter dated 24.09.1984 to Major Vijay Kumar Sareen.
(d). Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Attendant, Office at-
Department of Delhi Archives, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 18-A, Satsang Vihar Marg, SPL. Institution Area, New Delhi-110067 was examined as PW-4, who deposed in evidence that details of the documents mentioned in the summon i.e. Regd. GPA, document No3135, Book No.IV. Volume No.1707, Page 196-200, Dated 28.06.1990 are not received by way of transferred in their office from the office of Sub-Registrar Office, New Delhi-110002.
(e). Plaintiff also examined Sh. Uttam Kumar Das, Junior Commission Officer at MP5B, R.K. Puram, New Delhi /PW5., who proved authority letter dated 09.08.2024 in his favour as Ex.PW-4/1. He has brought the original Officer Dossier Cover in which nomination - Army Group Insurance Fund was released to Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen. The certified copy of the same is Ex.PW-4/2. He has also brought the letter dated 13.11.1984 under which the amount of Rs.70,000/- was released to Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen and the same is Ex.PW-4/3.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 26 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:11:41 +0530
13. Evidence of Defendants Record reveals that Ld. Counsel for D1 submitted that only Defendant No. 1 is the contesting party. Perusal of record shows that despite various opportunities, Defendant No. 1 failed to lead evidence in defence and vide Order dated 21.07.2025, DE was closed by order.
14. I have heard the final arguments as addressed by Ld. Counsel for LRs/Plaintiff and Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1.
15. Arguments on behalf of Lrs/Plaintiff.
a. Learned counsel for the LRs/Plaintiff while highlighting the contents of Will dated 15.03.1984 (Ex. PW2/3) and codicil of the same date (Ex. PW2/4) and submits that subsequently, with mutual consent of all the beneficiaries (i.e. Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 3) of the said will a Family Agreement dated 12.04.1984 (Ex. PW2/5) was entered into between the Plaintiff. Ld. Counsel further argued that as decided by the father of parties in the will and in furtherance of terms and conditions of the said family agreement Defendant No. 1 constructed ground floor after obtaining the loan and therefore the Defendant No. 1 has right in respect of only ground floor constructed by him and the Plaintiff is the owner of the first floor as the same was constructed by him in conformity with the Will/codicil/fam- ily agreement. Ld. Counsel further argued that Plaintiff Defend- ant No. 2 and 3 contributed a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards the foundation expenses, which were duly paid to Defendant No. 1 and recorded in the said family agreement. Learned counsel emphasised that the family agreement was not only executed but CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 27 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date: 2026.01.03 17:11:45 +0530 also acted upon, inasmuch as the said payments were received by Defendant No. 1.
b. Ld. counsel further argued that the Gift Deed dated 13.06.1984 (Mark A) was executed by late Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen in fa- vour of Defendant No. 1, thereby making him a joint owner of the suit property only to facilitate Defendant No. 1, in obtaining a construction loan from his department as he was serving in Indian army. Ld. counsel further argued that When the department declined to sanction the loan on the ground that Defendant No. 1 was only a joint owner and not the sole owner, with mutual decision of the parties a supplementary Gift Deed dated 23.07.1984 (Mark B) was executed, again solely to enable Defendant No. 1 to secure the said loan. Subsequently, Defend- ant No. 1 executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 Ex. PW 2/9 in favour of the Plaintiff, wherein he acknowledged the Will dated 15.03.1984 (Ex. PW2/3) and the Gift Deed, and authorized the Plaintiff to take physical possession of the roof/terrace of the ground floor, to construct the first floor at his own expense, to obtain all necessary permissions and connections (water, electricity, power), to secure completion and supplementary sub-lease deeds, to get the house tax assessed, and to let out the first floor. By the said GPA, the Plaintiff was further empowered to institute suits and to sign, execute and present all related legal documents. In exer- cise of this authority, the Plaintiff constructed the first floor of the property in 1990-91, which fact has not been denied by De-
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 28 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:02 +0530 fendant No. 1 in his written statement. Learned counsel thus contended that Gift Deeds Mark A and Mark B were executed in the above circumstances and there was no intention to create ex- clusive ownership of Defendant No. 1.
c. Learned counsel further argued that Defendant No. 1 has admitted the loan taken by him from his department for construction of the ground floor. It was also argued that in paragraph 10 of the written statement of Defendants No. 2 and 3, it has been specifically stated that the Gift Deed and the supplementary Gift Deed were prepared at the instance of Defendant No. 1, who consistently represented to the family that such documents were required only for getting the loan sanctioned from his employer and that late Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen never intended to confer any exclusive right in the suit property upon Defendant No. 1.
d. Learned counsel further argued that Defendants No. 2 and 3 have stated that the Family Agreement dated 12.04.1984 also bears the signatures of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 and 3 and that the payment of Rs. 5,000/- each was made by the other three brothers by cheques, which were duly encashed by Defendant No. 1 and utilized towards the cost of construction of the foundation of the suit property.
e. Learned counsel referred to the Will Ex. PW2/3, the codicil Ex. PW2/4, the Family Agreement dated 12.04.1984 Ex. PW2/5, and the affidavit of the father dated 06.08.1984 Ex. PW2/10 to demonstrate that late Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen never intended to CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 29 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:07 +0530 confer exclusive rights in the suit property upon Defendant No. 1 and that the said documents were mutually executed to safeguard the interests of the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 and 3 as well. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the passbook of Syndicate Bank of late Shri Bakshi Ram Sareen (Ex. PW1/8) shows that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was transferred on 10.10.1984 to the account of Defendant No. 1 (relevant entry marked 'A'). f. Ld. Counsel further argued that in his written statement in the previous suit filed by the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 admitted that their late father issued a notice revoking the Gift Deed executed in his favour (though no copy was produced) which shows that the Gift Deed was merely a paper transaction, never intended to confer ownership.
g. Ld. counsel for Plaintiff while relying on the cases of Kale v.
Deputy Director of Consolidation [ AIR 1976 SC 807] and Kor- ukonda Chalapathi Rao and anr. v. Korukonda Annapurna Sam- path Kumar [Civil Appeal No. 6141 of 2021, DOD-01.10.2021 ] by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India argued that family settlement agreements such as the family agreement Ex. PW2/5 are not required to be registered and are validly enforceable and binding. Ld. counsel for Plaintiff while relying on the cases of Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs v. Bishun narain Inter College and ors.[AIR 1987 SC 1242], Pradeep Oil Corporation v. Municipal Corporation of Delih and anr. [AIR 2011 SC 1869] and Babu Fazal Haq and ors. v. Lala Data Ram and anr. [AIR 1975 Allahabad 373] further argued that even if the Plaintiff is CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 30 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:11 +0530 considered as a licensee, by virtue of clause (b) of Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act, the Defendant No. 1 who had ex- ecuted GPA dated 28.06.1990 Ex PW2/9 cannot turn around to revoke the licence as the Plaintiff has made permanent construc- tion on the First floor on the suit property and continued to reside therein thereafter and now his LRs are residing therein.16. Arguments on behalf of Defendant No. 1
a. Learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 argued that all the docu- ments relied upon by the Plaintiff are prior in point of time to the Gift Deed dated 13.06.1984 and the supplementary Gift Deed dated 23.07.1984. Learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 further argued that the said Gift Deed is a complete document of owner- ship in favour of Defendant No. 1 and, therefore, all prior docu- ments stood eclipsed or rendered ineffective. b. Learned counsel further contended that a conditional Gift Deed is impermissible in law and that no condition is mentioned in the said Gift Deed therefore Defendant No. 1 is the exclusive owner of the suit property. Learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 argued that the Gift Deed was executed by the father in favour of Defendant No. 1 after his all other sons failed to contribute funds for construction, despite the Will dated 15.03.1984, and that by the Will the father was only attempting to give rights in the suit property to the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 2 and 3, but since this arrangement failed, he executed the Gift Deed in favour of CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 31 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:16 +0530 Defendant No. 1, who alone was in a position to construct the property.
c. Learned counsel argued that circumstantial evidence cannot be looked into in civil matters. Ld. Counsel further argued that the allotment of plot could have been cancelled by the allotting agency if construction was not raised within the stipulated period and, therefore, the father executed the Gift Deed in favour of De- fendant No. 1 to enable construction; Defendant No. 1 thereafter took the loan, constructed the suit property and repaid the loan. d. Learned counsel pointed out that the Conveyance Deed dated 01.08.1996, stands in favour of Defendant No. 1. It was argued that no document has been placed on record to prove that the Plaintiff and the other two brothers (D-2 and D-3) transferred Rs.
5,000/- each to the account of Defendant No. 1 towards the cost of construction of the foundation of the suit property. e. Ld. Counsel further argued that Defendant No. 1 permitted the Plaintiff to construct the first floor only as a permanent licensee and, for that limited purpose, executed the GPA dated 28.06.1990 (Ex. PW2/9) in his favour, without any right to sell or mortgage the property. Learned counsel contended that at the time of execution of the Family Settlement dated 12.04.1984 (Ex. PW2/5), none of the brothers (Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 to 3) had any interest or ownership rights in the suit property, as their father, the absolute owner, was still alive, and therefore the family settlement is invalid and, at best, can be treated as a mere agree- ment for the future.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 32 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:20 +0530 f. Learned counsel further argued that Defendant No. 1 executed the GPA dated 28.06.1990 (Ex. PW2/9) in favour of the Plaintiff without consideration, as the Plaintiff was managing the suit property and Defendant No. 1 was residing outside Delhi. It was emphasized that a GPA is not a legally recognized mode of trans- fer of title in immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act and that ownership can be transferred only through a duly executed and registered conveyance deed. Learned counsel also contended that the passbook Ex. PW1/8 pertains to the account of the Plaintiff's father, and since the Plaintiff is not the author of that document, he cannot rely upon it to establish his case. It was further argued that mere construction of the first floor and obtain- ing departmental permission for construction does not clothe the Plaintiff with ownership of the suit property. Learned counsel submitted that even the house tax receipts in the name of the Plaintiff, at best, indicate occupation or possession and not owner- ship.
g. Finally, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 argued that Defend-
ant No. 1 only complied with his father's directions to construct the suit property so that the allotted land standing in the name of the father was not cancelled. It was also urged that in 1984, under the then applicable Building Bye-laws, only two-and-a-half storey construction was permissible and that, if the father intended to create independent rights in favour of the other brothers in the suit property, he could have divided the property equally at that stage. Counsel maintained that after execution of the Gift Deed in CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 33 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date: 2026.01.03 17:12:24 +0530 favour of Defendant No. 1, the father had no subsisting right to further deal with or transfer the suit property and, therefore, his affidavit dated 06.08.1984 (Ex. PW1/10) is of no evidentiary value.
h. Ld. counsel for Defendant No. 1 while relying on the case of Amarjit Kaur v. Satnam Kaur [2008 LAWPACK(Del) 36430] argued that the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the Plaintiff has not taken any leave or liberty to file present suit while instituting his earlier suit for permanent injunction be- fore the Learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Ld. coun- sel for Defendant No. 1 while relying on the case of C.N. Ar- unachala Mudaliar v. C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar [1953 AIR 495] further argued that a property gifted by a father to his son could not become ancestral property in the hands of the donee simply due to the fact that the donee got it from his father.
17. I have carefully gone through the material available on record.
18. Issue wise findings:
My issue-wise findings are as under:-
19. Issue No. I: Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees? If so, whether appropriate court fees has been paid? OPD
(i). The onus to prove this issue was on Defendant. The Defendant has not led any evidence to prove this issue.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 34 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:28 +0530
(ii). The Plaintiff is seeking declaration that the registered gift deed (Mark A and Mark B) executed by the father in favour of the Defendant No. 1 is void. The Plaintiff is not party to the said gift deeds as such he is not required to file ad valorem court fee for seeking declaration of the gift deed as void. Further this is not in dispute that the Plaintiff is in possession of the first floor of the suit property in respect of which he is seeking declaration of his ownership on the strength of the Will dated 15.03.1984 Ex. PW2/3 and codicil to the Will dated 15.03.1984 Ex. PW 2/4 executed by his father.
(iii). The Plaintiff is not seeking recovery of possession therefore no consequential relief exists. Thus the Plaintiff is merely seeking declaration of his pre-existing rights in property which he already possesses. Therefore only fixed court fee is payable under Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act, 1870. Thus it is concluded that there is no deficiency in the court fee in the present suit.
(iv). Accordingly issue No. I is decided against the Defendants.
20. Issue No. II: Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC? If so, to what effect? OPD
(i). The onus to prove this issue was on Defendants. The Defendants have not led any evidence to prove this issue.
(ii). A subsequent suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC is barred only when both suits arise from the same cause of action and the earlier suit omitted reliefs that could have been claimed. It is not in dispute that the previous suit filed by Plaintiff (Suit No. 20/2003) was limited to CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 35 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:33 +0530 permanent injunction. However, the present suit seeks the comprehensive reliefs of declaration of title and partition.
(iii). The case law Amarjit Kaur (Supra) relied on by Defendant No. 1is not applicable in the present matter as the core issue in the earlier suit for permanent injunction filed by the Plaintiff was different and in the present case the cause of action for seeking declaration and partition arose only when the Defendant, in his written statement in 2003 (Ex. PW2/16), claimed absolute ownership, thereby repudiating the Plaintiff's title.
(iv). Now since the cause of action for the major reliefs of declaration and partition is distinct from the cause of action for the limited relief of injunction, it is concluded that the present suit is not barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.
Thus this issue is answered in the Negative and is decided against the Defendants.
21. Issue No.III: Whether the proceedings of the present suit are liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC in view of the pendency of Suit No.20/2003 titled Ajit Kumar Sareen vs. Lt. Col. V.K. Sareen and Suit No.424/2004 titled Lt. Col. V.K. Sareen Vs. Ajit Kumar Sareen, both pending in the court of Civil Judge, Varanasi? If so, to what effect? OPD
(i). The onus to prove this issue was on Defendants. The Defendants have not led any evidence to prove this issue.
(ii). The provision under Section 10 CPC is attracted when the matter directly and substantially in issue in the present suit is also pending adjudication in a previous suit between the same parties in a competent court. The Plaintiff in replication to the written statement CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 36 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:37 +0530 filed by the Defendant No. 1 has stated that the earlier suit was filed only against Defendant No. 1 for the relief of only permanent injunction and therefore issues and parties in both the suits are not common. The Defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the issues and parties in both the suits are common.
(iii). Perusal of record shows that in the present matter Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Order dated 15.07.2005 has stayed the proceedings in the previous suits.
(iv). The present suit is a comprehensive suit for declaration, cancellation of deeds, and partition, which determines the fundamental title of the parties whereas the other suits (injunction, eviction/ possession) are limited in scope.
(v). Since the present suit is comprehensive and the trial is concluded, the issue of stay is rendered infructuous. As such the present suit is not liable to be stayed.
(vi). Thus, this issue is also answered in the Negative and is decided against the Defendants.
22. Issue No. IV: Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is within limitation? OPP
(i). The onus to prove this issue was on Plaintiff.
(ii). Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation for a declaratory suit runs from the date the right to sue accrues. Under Article 59 of the Schedule of The Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for setting aside an instrument based on fraud or mistake is three years from the date the facts become known.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 37 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:41 +0530
(iii). It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff is in continuous possession of the first floor. The Plaintiff has averred in plaint and deposed that he only became aware of the Defendant's adverse claim of absolute ownership and fraudulent mutation in December 2002. The Defendant No. 1 has not led any evidence to prove that he had claimed adversely against the Plaintiff before December 2002 to demonstrate that suit is barred by law of limitation.
(iv). The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff shortly after the said period of December 2002 which is within the prescribed period of limitation.
(v). Thus in view of the above discussion, this issue is answered in the Affirmative and in favour of Plaintiff.
23. Issue No. V: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration to the effect that the gift deed dated 13.6.1984 and the supplementary gift deed dated 23.7.1984 (wrongly written in the prayer clause as 27.4.1948) is null and void? If so, to what effect? OPP and Issue No. VIII : Whether the deceased Bakshi Ram Sareen had made a valid and legal Will dated 15.3.1984 and amended Codicil dated 15.6.1984? If so, to what effect? OPP
(i). Issues No. V and VIII are taken up together to avoid repetition and discussions.
(ii). The onus to prove these issues was on Plaintiff.
(iii). It is not in dispute that Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen, the father of the parties was the owner of the suit property on which the ground floor and first floor are constructed.
(iv). The Plaintiff proved the Original Will (Ex. PW2/3) and Codicil (Ex. PW2/4). The Plaintiff/PW1 is one of the witnesses of the CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 38 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:46 +0530 Will and proved the Will. The execution and legality of these documents were further corroborated by the Family Agreement (Ex. PW2/5) and the father's subsequent Affidavit (Ex. PW2/10), which explicitly admitted and relied upon the Will and the family agreement. The Will, its codicil, the Family Agreement and father's subsequent Affidavit; all these documents are inter-consistent and stand corroborated by the testimonies of PW1 and PW2.
(v). Since the Defendant failed to lead any evidence to challenge the execution or validity of these testamentary documents, the Plaintiff's evidence stands unrebutted.
(vi). Accordingly the Will and Codicil are held to be valid and legal instruments governing the disposition of the Suit Property.
(vii). The case of the Plaintiff is that the Gift Deeds were executed solely for the collateral purpose of securing a loan for construction by the Defendant No. 1 at the behest of Defendant No.1 and Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen never had intention to exclusively gift the entire suit property (plot) to Defendant No. 1. This contention raised by the Plaintiff falls under the exceptions to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits evidence to be led to prove that a document was never intended to be acted upon, but was merely a sham transaction.
(viii) Perusal of para 7 of the Will Ex PW2/3 shows that late Sh.
Bakshi Ram Sareen in no uncertain terms has discussed the inability of Defendant No. 1/ Sh. V.K.Sareen to obtain loan for construction of ground floor and further that due to the same reason he has taken steps to transfer the suit property (plot) in the name of Defendant No. 1. In the CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 39 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date: 2026.01.03 17:12:52 +0530 same para 7 it is also mentioned that after construction of ground floor the construction of first floor and second floor will be undertaken as per para No. 6 of the Will Ex PW2/3 (by the other brothers).
(ix). The consistent documentary evidence (Will, Codicil, Family Agreement, and Father's Affidavit) proves the limited intent of securing loan for construction behind the execution of gift deed in favour of Defendant No. 1. Moreover The Defendant No. 1 has admitted in his written statement that he constructed the ground floor after taking loan. The PW5 proved the loan of Rs. 70,000/- taken by the Defendant No. 1 from his department, which further corroborate the case of the Plaintiff.
(x). Furthermore, the GPA Ex. PW2/9 executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of Plaintiff after the execution of gift deeds have reference of the said Will and Gift deeds executed by the father which clearly establishes that the Defendant No. 1 impliedly accepted that he is not the exclusive owner of the suit property and also the limited intent of (securing loan for construction) behind the execution of gift deed in his favour. Moreover Defendants have not led evidence and the Plaintiffs evidence remained unrebutted, that the Gift Deeds were not executed with intention to create absolute transfers in favour of Defendant No. 1.
(xi). A gift, once accepted, cannot generally be revoked, but here in the totality of circumstances and above discussions the evidence proves the transfer was conditional and not absolute.
(xii). The argument of counsel for Defendant No. 1 that circumstantial evidences cannot be looked in to civil matters is not CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 40 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:12:56 +0530 sustainable as the standard of proof in civil proceedings is preponderance of probabilities. It is settled law that the facts can be decided in civil cases entirely on circumstantial evidences if, when all circumstances are weighed, one version appears more probable than the other. The court has to compare competing probabilities rather than demanding absolute certainty. Therefore, in the light of the material available on record and considering the totality of circumstances and above discussions, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there was no intention of late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen to transfer exclusive ownership of suit property in favour of Defendant no. 1.
(xiii). Another limb of argument of counsel for Defendant No. 1 is that when the family agreement dated 12.04.1984 Ex PW2/5 was executed, Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen i.e. the father of the parties who was the owner of the suit property was alive, therefore the family agreement is not valid as the parties to the agreement do not had any right in the suit property. However perusal of affidavit (Ex PW2/10) shows that the said family agreement was impliedly ratified by Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen as he has referred the said family agreement in the said affidavit.
(xiv). The case law C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar (Supra) relied on by the Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1 is of no help to the Defendant as the facts of the present case is entirely different and the Plaintiff/Lrs have successfully proved in the present case the limited intent of securing loan for construction behind the execution of gift deed by Late Sh. Bakshi Ram sareen in favour of Defendant No. 1 and thus the same being a sham transfer.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 41 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:13:00 +0530
(xv). Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that the Gift Deeds (Mark A and Mark B) are null and void as were executed without intent of absolute conveyances.
(xvi). Now coming to the effect of the above declaration. In view of my above findings and in view of the fact that Gift Deeds are declared void as without intention of absolute transfers, the consequent effect is that the onwership of the suit property is to be governed by the Will, Codicil, and Family Agreement, which establish respective ownership of the different floors of the suit property among the four brothers in the manner and subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the said Will, Codicil, and Family Agreement. Further, the necessary changes in the record of Defendants no. 7 and 8 is to be made. However, the parties have to take steps in this regard as per rules. (xvi). Thus, both the issues i.e. Issues No. V and VIII are answered in the Affirmative in above terms in favour of Plaintiff and against Defendants.
24. Issue No. VI: If the answer to issue No.(V) is in affirmative, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that he has 1/4th share in the suit bearing No.D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi-92 measuring 187.33 square yards along with proportionate 1/4th undivided share in the land underneath? If so, to what effect? OPP
(i). The onus to prove this issue was on Plaintiff.
(ii). While deciding issue No. V, this Court has already concluded that with Gift Deeds declared void as without intention of absolute transfers, the ownership of the suit property is to be governed CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 42 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:13:04 +0530 by the Will, Codicil, and Family Agreement, which establish ownership of the different constructed floors on the suit property among the four brothers in the manner and subject to terms and conditions decided in the said Will, Codicil, and Family Agreement.
(iii). The perusal of codicil Ex PW2/4 shows that it is mentioned therein that any of the three brothers (Plaintiff, Defendant No, 2 and 3) will built separately the first floor with each other consent and he will be full and final owner of that flat. It is further mentioned that Second Floor will be built by the other brothers. Perusal of para 7 of the family agreement dated 12.04.1984 Ex PW2/5 (which is also signed by the Defendant No. 1) shows that the same arrangement in conformity of the codicil Ex PW2/4 has been agreed therein between the parties that the party who will initially built the portion/storey will become full and final owner of the first floor. It is clear from the pleadings that it is not in dispute that the first floor on the suit property has been constructed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 2 and 3 have supported the case of the Plaintiff which shows their consent in favour of Plaintiff. From the record, it is clear that Defendant no. 4 to 6 have not claimed any right in the suit property.
(iv). The Plaintiff's exclusive construction of the first floor under the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/9), which was coupled with construction costs and agreement not to interfere or claim the rights of other beneficiaries including Defendant No. 1 as reflected in Will, Codicil and Family Agreement has been duly proved in the light of the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and PW2 and the documentary evidences as discussed above.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 43 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:13:09 +0530
(v). Thus, in the light of the above discussion it is concluded that the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of exclusive ownership of the first floor.
(vi). The Plaintiff has also sought declaration of ownership of proportionate 1/4th undivided share in the land. Under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu father can fully bequeath self-
acquired immovable property via will, overriding intestate equal shares among Class I heirs. Therefore Partition suits will have to yield to valid wills disposing of self-acquired assets.
(vii). In the case in hand, the father Late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen has effected vertical partition of the suit property while giving specific floors to his respective sons as mentioned in the will and codicil. As discussed above, the family agreement has also been ratified by him. It is an admitted fact that the suit property (plot in question) was the self- acquired property of the father of the parties/ Late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen as such his will qua his self-acquired immovable property cannot be modified in favour of Plaintiff as per his desire. Section 85 of the Indian Succession Act, mandates upholding possible meanings of the will. The suit property has already been partitioned vertically by Late Sh. Bakshi Ram Sareen through his Will which is also reflected in the Family Agreement. Therefore, no party to the present suit can claim exclusive ownership in any part of the land of the suit property. Thus this court cannot entertain the repartition (of the plot) prayer of the Plaintiff.
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 44 of 46
Digitally signed
by MOHAMMAD
MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM
EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03
17:13:12 +0530
(viii). Accordingly, it is concluded that the Plaintiff is not entitled
to the declaration of ownership of proportionate 1/4th undivided share in the land in question.
(ix). Thus, this issue is answered partially in favour of Plaintiff in above terms.
25. Issue No. VII: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(i). The onus to prove this issue was on Plaintiff
(ii). Since the Plaintiff's rights as an exclusive owner of the first floor are established, and the Defendant has demonstrated an intention to alienate the entire property (discovered in December 2002).
(iii). Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1 to 6, their servants, agents, assignees, representatives, nominees etc from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the property No. D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.
(iv). Thus, this issue is answered in the Affirmative and in favour of Plaintiff.
RELIEF
26. In light of the findings on the Issues No.(IV), (V), (VI), (VII) and (VIII), the present suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs/LRs and against the Defendants in the following manner:-
(i) A Decree of Declaration is passed, thereby declaring that the Gift Deed dated 13.06.1984 (now given exhibit number as Ex. C1) (regd. at Sr. 1099 in Addl. Book no. I, Vol. no. 1736 on pages -37 to 40 on dated 27.06.1984 at the office of Sub-
CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 45 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:13:16 +0530 registrar IV, Delhi) and the Supplementary Gift Deed dated 23.07.1984 (now given exhibit number as Ex. C2) (Sr. No. 1290, addl. Book no. I, vol. no. 1742, page no. 29 to 30 on dated 23.07.1984 at the office of Sub-registrar IV, Delhi) re-
garding the Suit Property No. D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092 as null and void.
(ii) A Decree of Declaration is also passed, thereby declaring that the Plaintiffs/LRs are the sole and exclusive owners of the First Floor of the Suit Property No.D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.
(iii) A Decree of Permanent Injunction is also passed thereby restraining the Defendants No. 1 to 6, their servants, agents, assignees, representatives, nominees etc. from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property No. D-54, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Pronounced in the Open Court on 26.12.2025) (MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM) District Judge-03 (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 26.12.2025 CS 1612/2016 Sh. Ajit Kumar Sareen (deceased) through LRs v. Lt. Col. V. K. Sareen and ors. Page No. 46 of 46 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD EHTESHAM EHTESHAM Date:
2026.01.03 17:13:20 +0530