Delhi District Court
Harish Kumar Khurana vs Devender And Others on 11 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS GOMA DABAS GUPTA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-06 : WEST DISTRICT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CS No. 607737/16
CNR No.DLWT01-000057-2014
Harish Kumar Khurana (deceased)
through his Lrs
(i) Smt Rekha Khurana (wife)
(ii) Dhiraj Khurana (son)
(iii) Bhavy Khurana (son)
(iv) Chhaya Khurana (daughter)
All legal heirs of Late Sh Harish Kumar Khurana
R/o 987, Group-3
Near Mother Dairy
Janta Flats,Hastal,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
..........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh Devender
S/o Late Sh Manohar Lal
2. Smt Anu Khurana
W/o Sh Devender
3. Smt Seema Khurana
W/o Sh Ramesh Khurana
4. Smt Kamlesh
W/o Late Deepak Ved
All R/o Ex-B 42-A,
Ground Floor, Gali No. O
Near Mother Dairy
Hari Nagar, New Delhi
CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 1/21
5. Bhisma Bala
W/o Sh Mukesh Kakkad
R/o 2/388, Block-2
Near Gurudwara,
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027
..........Defendants
Date of Institution: 30.10.2014
Date reserved for Judgment:09.10.2025
Date of Judgment: 11.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present suit, plaintiff/ Harish Kumar Khurana has sought partition of the property bearing no. Ex B-42-A, Ground Floor, Hari Nagar, Gali No.0 (zero), New Delhi ( hereinafter referred as the 'suit property'). Plaintiff has also sought declaration to declare Sale deed dated 05.11.2011 (as mentioned in plaint) executed in favour of defendant no.2/Anu Khurana as null and void. Plaintiff has also sought decree of permanent injunction.
2. Prior to proceed further, it is pertinent to mention here that during trial, plaintiff had expired and vide order dated 13.02.2017, LRs of plaintiff were brought on record. Further, vide order dated 05.03.2019, application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff was allowed and name of defendant no.1/ Raj rani was deleted from the array of parties. Hence, case title of the present suit was changed from CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 2/21 "Harish Kumar Khurana Vs. Raj Rani and Ors" to "Harish Kumar Khurana Vs. Devender and ors."
Plaintiff's Version
3. The brief facts, as per plaint, are:
(i) That plaintiff and defendants are related to each other.
plaintiff/Harish Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Devender (defendant no.1) are the sons of Late Sh Manohar Lal. Raj Rani (earlier defendant no.1) was the wife of Late Sh Manohar Lal. Kamlesh (defendant no.4) and Bhisma Bela (defendant no.5) are the daughters of Late Manohar Lal. Ramesh Kumar expired prior to institution of the present case and hence, his wife Seema Khurana (defendant no.3) was impleaded as party to the present suit. Smt Anu Khurana (defendant no.2) is the wife of defendant no.1.
(ii) That Late Sh Manohar Lal inherited one plot of 100 sq yards from his mother Smt Jawandi Bai by virtue of letter no. L & DO/SP III/I/150/Tehar-I/348 dated 10.02.1981. The said plot was allotted to Smt Jawandi Bai on 28.2.1965 by Delhi Government through Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, on 28.12.1992, Late Sh Manohar Lal sold the said plot to Smt Neelam Kakkar W/o Sh Vinod Kakkar for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,85,000/- and from the said sale consideration,Late Sh Manohar Lal purchased a plot of 75 sq yards, Plot No. Ex B-42-A, Khasra No. CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 3/21 1817, Hari Nagar, Village Tihar, New Delhi on 25.02.1993. It is averred in the plaint that during the sale and purchase of the above properties, Late Manohar Lal and Smt Raj Rani (earlier defendant no.1) were not working anywhere. It is further averred that the suit property was purchased in the name of Smt Raj Rani W/o late Manohar Lal from the amount received by Late Manohar Lal from the sale of the ancestral property No. I/150, Tihar to Smt Neelam Kakkar on 25.02.1993.
(iii) It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff constructed one room set at the second floor of the suit property. However, Smt Raj Rani sold the first floor and one room set on second floor to Smt Sharwani W/o Sh Om Parkash without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. Further, that Smt Raj Rani started residing with her younger son Devender Kumar Khurana on the ground floor of the property. It is also averred that in order to grab the share of the plaintiff, defendant/Devender Kumar Khurana got executed a Will dated 22.06.2010 in his favour from father of the plaintiff and when he came to know that Late Sh Manohar Lal was not registered owner of the suit property. That defendant/Raj Rani got transferred the suit property in the name of Smt Annu Khurana (defendant no.2) by showing the consideration amount of Rs. Nine Lakhs.
CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 4/21(iv) That the plaintiff demanded his share in the suit property but defendants refused for the same. That when the plaintiff came to know that his mother/Raj Rani has transferred the suit property in the name of Annu Khurana, he inquired the said fact from his mother Raj Rani, who disclosed that defendant no.3/Devender took her to Sub-registrar office upon pretext of some documentation regarding death certificate of late Sh Manohar Lal. Plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 07.09.2013 to earlier defendant no.1/ Raj Rani which was replied vide reply dated 19.09.2013 whereby she refused to give the share of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
Written Statement
4. Joint Written Statement has been filed on behalf of earlier defendants no.1,2 and 3 (who are now defendant no.2 and 3) wherein defendants have taken preliminary objection that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. Objection has been taken qua valuation of the suit property and pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Defendants have submitted that during the life time of Sh Manohar Lal, plaintiff and Sh Ramesh Kumar have received their share of Rs.1,75,000/- each and in this regard, their respective affidavits were also executed on 02.05.1997. Further, upon receipt of the said amount plaintiff and Ramesh Kumar have purchased their respective houses. It is CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 5/21 submitted that Late Sh Manohar Lal got executed Will dated 22.06.2010 in favour of defendant/Devender and the said fact is within the knowledge of the plaintiff. On merits, in reply to para no.5, it is submitted by the defendants that the suit property was purchased out of his own funds by late Shri Manohar Lal. Further, it is specifically denied that the plaintiff ever constructed any room on the second floor of the suit property. Rest of the paras were denied. In view of the averments made in the Written Statement, dismissal of the suit has been prayed.
5. Despite service, remaining defendants have failed to file Written Statement and hence, their defence was struck off.
6. Replication to WS of defendants filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein reiterated the contents of the plaint.
7. Upon completion of pleadings, vide order dated 28.07.2017, following issues were framed:
Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the property ie Ex B-42A, Ground Floor, Hari Nagar, Gali No.0 (zero), New Delhi, between the plaintiff and defendant? OPP Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for in the plaint? OPP Issue No.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 6/21 permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint? OPP Issue No.4:- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action against the defendant? OPD Issue No.5:- Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
8. In support of the plaintiff's case, Smt Rekha Khurana was examined as PW-1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. She has relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) is death certificate of Harish Khurana Mark A is the copy of lease deed dated 28.12.1965 in favour of Jawandi Bal Mark B is copy of agreement to sell and purchase dated 28.12.1992 Mark C is copy of GPA dated 25.02.1993 Mark D is copy of Will dated 22.06.2010 Mark E is copy of Sale deed in favour of Anu Khurana dated 09.11.2011 Mark F is copy of death certificate of Sh Manohar Lal Mark G is copy of reply of legal notice dated 19.09.2013.
Defendant's Evidence
9. Defendants have examined following witnesses:-
CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 7/21(9.1) Sh Alak Narayan Sharma as D2W1 by way of affidavit Ex.D2W1/A was examined. He has not relied upon any of documents during his examination in chief. (9.2) D2W2 Sh Sushil was examined by way of affidavit Ex.D2W2/A. (9.3) D2W3 Sh Devender Kumar was examined by way of affidavit Ex.D2W3/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
Ex.D2W3/1 is affidavit of Sh Harish Kumar Ex.D2W3/2 is affidavit of Sh Ramesh Kumar Ex.D2W3/3 is copy of Will dated 22.06.2010 executed by Late Sh Manohar Lal in favour of Devender Kumar Ex.D2W3/4 is Sale deed dated 15.11.2011 (9.4) D2W4 Sh Chaman Lal, Record Keeper, Sub- registrar II, Basai Darapur, Delhi was a summoned witness. He has brought the summoned record i.e certified copy of Will dated 22.06.2010, same was already exhibited as Ex.D2W1/X(OSR).
10.During defendant's evidence, an application under Order XVIII Rule 19 of CPC r/w Order XXVI Rule 4A of CPC filed by defendants was allowed and Local Commissioner was appointed for recording evidence on behalf of defendants.
CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 8/2111.I have heard final arguments advanced by counsels for both the sides. I have perused the record alongwith written arguments filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendants.
12.Counsel for plaintiff submitted that suit is perfectly maintainable. She argued that plaintiff, being the son of Late Sh Manohar Lal, acquired a right in the suit property on the intestate death of his father. She contended that defendants have failed to carry out the partition despite repeated requests. She argued that the suit property was purchased from the sale consideration of the ancestral property and earlier defendant no.1 Raj Rani cannot claim to be the absolute owner of the property. She further submitted that defendants have failed to establish exclusive ownership and possession. In support of her contention, counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Smt Veena Khanna Vs State & Ors, decided on 29.04.2024
(ii) Shiva Kumar and Ors Vs Sharanabasappa & Ors, AIR (SC) 3102
(iii) K L Mahotra through his legal heirs Vs Sudershan Kumar & anr, dated 01.04.2008
(iv) Pratap Singh and anr Vs. The State and anr, decided on 12.08.2010.CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 9/21
13.On the other hand, counsel for the defendants argued that the suit is not maintainable. He argued that the suit property is the self acquired property of defendant No.1/Raj Rani and plaintiff cannot seek its partition. He mentioned that defendant No.1 purchased the suit property from her own funds and the same cannot be treated as ancestral. He mentioned that plaintiff has made a bald plea in the plaint that the suit property is ancestral but there are no pleadings to support the said stand. He contended that plaintiff has failed to mention as to how the suit property acquired the colour of a joint undivided property. He submitted that there is no cause of action to file the suit and the same should be dismissed. In support of his case, counsel for defendants relied upon following documents:-
(i) Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Ors. Vs. Chander Sen & Ors, (1986) 3 SCC 567
(ii) Yadhister Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204
(iii) Rahul Behl and Ors Vs. Smt Ichayan Behl and anr, 1991 SCC Online Del 432
(iv) Sunny (Minor) and anr. Vs. Shri Raj Singh & Ors, 2015 SCC Online Del 13446
(v) Ishwar Dass Jain (dead) through Lrs Vs. Sohan lal (dead) by Lrs, (2000) 1 SCC 434
(vi) Chandrika Singh (dead) through Lrs Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh (dead) by LRs, (2006) 10 SCC 404
(vii) Gyan Chand Verma Vs. Veena Rani, 2016 SCC CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 10/21 Online Del 5679
(viii) Leela & Ors. Vs. Muruganantham & Ors., dated 02.01.2025
14.My issue-wise findings is as hereunder:
Issue No.4:- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action against the defendant? OPD
15.The burden to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The defendant has not led any evidence to prove the same. Even otherwise, from the bare perusal of the plaint it becomes clear that there is cause of action in favour of plaintiff to file the present case. Hence, issue no.4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
16. With respect to issues no.1 and 2.
Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the property ie Ex B-42A, Ground Floor, Hari Nagar, Gali No.0 (zero), New Delhi, between the plaintiff and defendant? OPP and Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
17.Plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that the suit property is ancestral. He has mentioned that the suit property has become a CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 11/21 joint undivided property. He claims that he and defendants have equal share in the suit property.
18.It can be seen that the present controversy revolves around the point whether the suit property is ancestral or joint undivided property or it is the self acquired property of defendant No.1/Rajrani? It is a settled preposition that in order to constitute an ancestral property, the same must have been inherited from the paternal ancestors. Plaintiff has claimed in the plaint that he acquired a right in the suit property on account of the intestate death of his father.
19.In the cross examination of PW-1 Smt Rekha Khurana, she has stated that she can not say whether the property in question at Hari Nagar was purchased by Sh Manohar Lal in the name of Smt Raj Rani from the money that was received by selling the property situated at Subhash Nagar, Delhi. She has further deposed that the property at Hari Nagar was purchased by Sh Manohar Lal in the name of his wife Smt Raj Rani prior to the marriage of PW-1. She has further deposed that she was expelled from the property at Hari Nagar, New Delhi on 01.05.1994. She has also deposed that she has complete knowledge of the case filed by her husband. The PW-1 has further deposed that she does not know whether the suit property at Hari Nagar was purchased by Sh Manohar Lal in the CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 12/21 name of Smt Raj Rani from the money received after selling the property at Subhash Nagar.
20.In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that during the sale and purchase of the suit property, Late Sh Manohar Lal and Smt Raj Rani were not working anywhere. In the cross examination, the PW-1 has deposed that her mother-in-law, Smt Raj Rani, was working in the government school as a peon during the period from 1992 to 1997. She has further deposed that her father-in- law used to run telephone booth alloted by MCD. The said depositions of the plaintiff are against the averments made in the plaint.
21.The plaintiff has further averred that the plaintiff constructed one room set at the second floor of the suit property. In the cross examination, the PW-1, has deposed that the construction was made by her husband. However, she has deposed that she did not remember the month when the construction was made and also could not tell the expenses incurred in the construction. She further deposed that she could not bring the bank statement of herself and her husband pertaining to the year 1993-1997.
22.Perusal of the cross examination of PW-1 clearly shows that the PW-1 has not been able to prove either by leading any documentary evidence or oral evidence that the suit property CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 13/21 was either ancestral in nature or purchased from ancestral funds. Further, the cross examination of PW-1 is contradictory to the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint.
23.The defendants no.1 and 2 have examined D2W1, Sh Alak Narayan Sharma who has deposed that Sh Manohar Lal had given Rs. 1,75,000/- each to Sh Ramesh Kumar and Sh Harish Kumar in cash in his presence. The said witness has remained un-controverted in his cross examination. The receipt of Rs.1,75,000/- by the plaintiff can also be inferred from the affidavit of Sh Harish Kumar which is Ex.D2W3/1 as no questions have been put in the cross examination to controvert the same.
24.Defendant no.1 has examined himself as D2W3 and has filed evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.D2W3/A. He has deposed that his father had bequeath entire ground floor of the suit property in his favour by virtue of Will dated 22.06.2010. He has further deposed that his mother had executed Sale Deed in favour of his wife in respect of the suit property. The said Sale Deed is Ex.D2W3/4. D2W3 has remained uncontroverted in his cross examination. D2W3 has placed on record copy of Sale Deed dated 15.11.2011. A registered document carries a legal presumption of its genuineness and correctness of its contents. No material has been brought on record to dislodge this CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 14/21 presumption and therefore, the registered Sale deed can safely be treated as reliable and authentic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors (2006) 5 SCC 353 has held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. Thus, the sale deed in favour of Defendants No. 2 is duly proved.
25.It has been held in the matter of " Surender Kumar Vs Dhani Ram" AIR 2016 Delhi 120 that when a Hindu inherits the property from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, he takes it as his separate property and not as joint family property. The observation made by the High Court of Delhi squarely covers the issue. The court observed;
"5.The Supreme Court around 30 years back in the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 567, held that after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the traditional view that on inheritance of an immovable property from paternal ancestors up to three degrees, automatically an HUF came into existence, no longer remained the legal position in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This judgment of the CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 15/21 Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sen (supra) was thereafter followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that after coming into force of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 does not create an HUF property and inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 therefore does not result in creation of an HUF property.
26.In view of the ratios of the judgments in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter (supra), in law ancestral property can only become an HUF property if inheritance is before 1956, and such HUF property therefore which came into existence before 1956 continues as such even after 1956. In such a case, since an HUF already existed prior to 1956, thereafter, since the same HUF with its properties continues, the status of joint Hindu family/HUF properties continues, and only in such a case, members of such joint Hindu family are coparceners entitling them to a share in the HUF properties".
27.The High Court of Delhi has taken the same view point in the matter of "Sunny (Minor) & Anr. Vs Sh. Raj Singh & Ors. "
CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 16/21CS(OS) No.431/2006 decided on 17.11.2015. The High Court concluded the principles for determining whether the property can be categorized as an ancestral joint family property or self acquired property. The court arrived at the following conclusions in para-7 of the judgment:
(i) If a person dies after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and there is no HUF existing at the time of the death of such a person, inheritance of an immovable property of such a person by his successors-in-interest is no doubt inheritance of an 'ancestral' property but the inheritance is as a self-acquired property in the hands of the successor and not as an HUF property although the successor(s) indeed inherits 'ancestral' property i.e a property belonging to his paternal ancestor.
(ii) The only way in which a Hindu Undivided Family/joint Hindu family can come into existence after 1956 (and when a joint Hindu family did not exist prior to 1956) is if an individual's property is thrown into a common hotchpotch. Also, once a property is thrown into a common hotchpotch, it is necessary that the exact details of the specific date/month/year etc of creation of an HUF for the first time by CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 17/21 throwing a property into a common hotchpotch have to be clearly pleaded and mentioned and which requirement is a legal requirement because of Order VI Rule 4 CPC which provides that all necessary factual details of the cause of action must be clearly stated. Thus, if an HUF property exists because of its such creation by throwing of self-acquired property by a person in the common hotchpotch, consequently there is entitlement in coparceners etc to a share in such HUF property.
(iii) An HUF can also exist if paternal ancestral properties are inherited prior to 1956, and such status of parties qua the properties has continued after 1956 with respect to properties inherited prior to 1956 from paternal ancestors.
Once that status and position continues even after 1956; of the HUF and of its properties existing; a coparcener etc will have a right to seek partition of the properties.
(iv) Even before 1956, an HUF can come into existence even without inheritance of ancestral property from paternal ancestors, as HUF could have been created prior to 1956 by throwing of individual property into a common hotchpotch.
CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 18/21If such an HUF continues even after 1956, then in such a case a coparcener etc of an HUF was entitled to partition of the HUF property.
28.It is noted that defendant No.1/Raj Rani has set up a case that she and her husband purchased the suit property from their own funds. She had claimed that the suit property is self acquired property. The documents of the suit property have been placed on record as Mark C. The documents demonstrate that the suit property was acquired by defendant No.1/Raj Rani. Thereafter, Late Smt Raj Rani executed Sale deed in favour of defendant no.2/Annu Khurana. Copy of the said Sale deed is placed on record as Ex.D2W3/4.
29.The plaintiff has prayed for declaring the Sale Deed dated 15.11.2011 as Null and Void. However, the plaintiff has not raised any grounds except for malafide intention of the defendants, for proving the same. Further, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove any malafide on the part of defendant. Per contra there is registered Sale deed which carries the presumption of genuineness. D2W3 has placed on record copy of Sale Deed dated 15.11.2011. A registered document carries a legal presumption of its genuineness and correctness of its contents. No material has been brought on record to dislodge this presumption and therefore, the copy of the registered Sale CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 19/21 deed can safely be treated as reliable and authentic. Defendant No. 1 who has examined himself has placed on record sale deed dated which is exhibit D2W3/4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors (2006) 5 SCC 353 has held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. Thus, the sale deeds in favour of Defendants No. 2 is duly proved. On the basis of the above discussions, the plaintiff can not be held entitled to the relief of declaration. Thus, issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiff.
30.In view of discussions made in afore-mentioned paras, I have reached a conclusion that the suit property is the self acquired property of Smt Raj Rani. Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. He claims to have acquired an interest in the suit property but there are no pleadings to show as to how the property can be described as an ancestral or a joint family property. The bald plea of the plaintiff that he acquired right in the property on account of intestate death of his father is erroneous and incorrect. Since, plaintiff has no right in the suit property, therefore, he cannot seek its partition. Accordingly, issues no.1 is decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 20/2131.With respect to issue no.3.
Issue No.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint? OPP In view of the findings given on issue no.1 and 2, no question for the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff arises. Hence, issue no.3 is decided against the plaintiff.
Relief
32.In view of the discussion made above, the suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared.
33.Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
34.File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Digitally
signed by
GOMA GOMA DABAS
Announced in the open court DABAS
GUPTA
Date:
on 11.11.2025 GUPTA
(Goma Dabas Gupta)
2025.11.11
15:12:07
+0530
District Judge-06
West District, Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi/11.11.2025
CS No.607737/16 Harish Kumar through Lrs Vs Devender & Ors. Page 21/21