Delhi District Court
Smt Panna Mangat vs Shri Gobind Narang on 18 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Ishita Bhardwaj, DJS
CS SCJ No. 396/2024
CNR DLWT030006582024
Date of institution of suit : 14.03.2024
Date of reservation of Judgment : 16.01.2026
Date of passing of Judgment : 18.02.2026
SMT.PANNA MANGAT
D/O LATE S. SURJEET SINGH NARANG
R/O B-7/11, RAJOURI GARDEN,
NEW DELHI-110027
........Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. SHRI GOBIND NARANG
S/O LATE S. SURJEET SINGH NARANG
R/O C-1/7,
RAJOURI GARDEN,
NEW DELHI 110027
2. SMT. CHETNA KAKAR
W/0 SHRI VIPIN KAKAR
R/O H. NO. 31, SOUTH PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110008
ALSO, AT: ISHITA
BHARDWAJ
R/O 213 STANDHILLS, KINGSWlNFORD,
Digitally signed by
DY6 8JS, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM ISHITA BHARDWAJ
Date: 2026.02.18
.........Defendant 16:04:42 +0530
Page no. 1 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24
Argued by
Sh. Parveen Kumar: Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
____________________________________________________
SUIT FOR RECTIFICATION OF RELINQUISHMENT DEED
DATED 14.11.2019 BEARING REGN N0.13381 IN
BOOK N0.1, VOL. NO. 24671 ON PAGE N0.154 TO
157,REGISTERED ON 21.11.2019
JUDGMENT
A FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are
(i) that the plaintiff is daughter of Late S. Surjit Singh Narang and Mrs. Vishvdeep Narang, having one brother Sh. Gobind Narang i.e. defendant no. l and one sister Dr. Chetna Kakkar i.e. defendant no.2.
(ii) that there is a property bearing no. B-7/11 i.e., plot no. ll, in Block no. B-7, Rajouri garden, New Delhi -110027 (hereinafter referred as the "Original Property Address") which was co-owned by the father and the mother of the plaintiff in equal undivided share vide the registered sale deeds dated 31.01.1972 and 05.04.1980 respectively.
(iii) that the father of the plaintiff died on 28.01.2019, leaving ISHITA behind his three children and a wife. That the plaintiff's father BHARDWAJ Late S. Surjit Singh Narang had 50% undivided share in plot Digitally signed by ISHITA BHARDWAJ Date: 2026.02.18 16:04:51 +0530 Page no. 2 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24 no.11 in Block B-7, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 and his wife Mrs. Vishvdeep Narang was owner of remaining 50 % of undivided share in Plot No. 11, Block B-7, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27.
(iv) that after the demise of plaintiff's father, the defendant no.1 filed a suit for partition in Delhi High Court in the year 2019 i.e. CS(OS) No. 123 of 2019 titled as Gobind Narang Vs. Vishvdeep Narang & Ors. with respect to partition of all movable and immovable properties of plaintiff's father.
(v) that on 30.10.2019, a settlement agreement was entered into between the parties to the said suit i.e. CS(OS) NO. 123/2019 regarding settlement of suit properties.
(vi) that as per the settlement agreement, a relinquishment deed was executed by the defendant no.1, defendant no.2 and mother of the plaintiff to relinquish their right in favour of plaintiff with respect to B-7/11 plot no. 11 in block B-7, Rajouri Garden New Delhi 110027 for 50% Share vide relinquishment deed dated 14.11.2019 executed on 21.11.2019 having Regn. No.13381 in Book No.1, Vol. No. 24671 on Page No. 154 to 157. That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed a decree on the basis of settlement agreement dated 30.10.2019 vide order dated 24.02.2020.
(vii) that the plaintiffs mother also gifted her remaining undivided 50% share in subject property of B-7/11 Rajouri Garden in favour of plaintiff and the said gift deed dated 30.01.2020 was registered on 31.01.2020 vide Regn. No.1132 in Book No. 1 Vol No.24810 on Page No. 40 to 45. ISHITA BHARDWAJ
(viii) that the relinquishment deed and gift deed were executed with respect to property no. B-7/11, Rajouri Garden, Digitally signed by ISHITA BHARDWAJ Date: 2026.02.18 16:04:58 +0530 Page no. 3 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24 Delhi-110027 which came to the share of plaintiff. Thereafter Covid happened and during Covid plaintiff applied for change of name with respect to the electric connection in her name but same was rejected on 19.08.2022. That upon enquiry, plaintiff was informed about the reason for rejection, which was on account of "wrong description of property details" in relinquishment deed and gift deed. It was for the first time when the plaintiff got to know about the mutual mistake regarding the property address in the Relinquishment Deed dated 14.11.2019 and gift deed dated 30.01.2020.
(ix) that in order to rectify the mutual mistake in description of property on 25 .11.2022, the mother of plaintiff executed a rectification deed with regard to correct property address in the Gift Deed dated 30.01.2020 with Sub Registrar-II Basai Darapur, New Delhi. That the said Rectification deed dated 25.11.2022 was registered vide Regd. no. 14701 in Book No.1 Vol No. 26789 on page 138 to 144.
(x) that the plaintiff also requested the defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2 to execute a rectification deed for the said relinquishment deed as the defendant no. 2 was in India however, they refused to come for signing/executing any rectification deed on 25.11.2022 and as a result, only the mother executed a rectification deed on 25.11.2022. Hence the present suit is filed.
(xi) By virtue of present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs :
(a) To pass a decree of rectification to the effect that the ISHITA Relinquishment Deed, dated 14.11.2019 Regd. No.13381 in BHARDWAJ Book No.I, Vol. No. 24671 on Pages No. 154 to 157 pertains Digitally signed by ISHITA BHARDWAJ Page no. 4 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24 Date:2026.02.18 16:08:05 +0530
to plot No.11 in Block B-7, Rajouri Garden Delhi 110027;
(b) To pass a decree of mandatory injunction by directing the defendants or responsible officer of this court to execute a rectification deed correcting the address in relinquishment deed dated 14.11.2019 registered on 21.11 .2019 as per decree of rectification.
(c) Pass any other or further orders.
2. Summons issued to defendant no.1 received back with the report that defendant no.1 has refused to accept the service of summons on 28.09.2024. Vide Order dated 21.10.2024, defendant no.1 was proceeded ex-parte as neither defendant no.1 appeared nor filed written statement. Summons issued to defendant no.2 was received back duly executed upon mother in law of defendant no.2 on 01.04.2024. Vide Order dated 21.05.2024, the right to file written statement of defendant no.2 was closed and defendant no.2 was proceeded exparte.
B. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and has tendered in evidence her duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. PW 1/A and has relied upon following documents.
Serl. Details Exhibits ISHITA
No. BHARDWAJ
1 Copy of sale deed dated Ex. PW 1/1 Digitally signed
31.01.1972 and 05.04.1980 (OSR) (3 pages) by ISHITA
BHARDWAJ
Date: 2026.02.18
16:08:12 +0530
Page no. 5 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24
and Ex. PW 1/ 2
( 6 pages)
2 Certified copy of plaint and Ex. PW 1/3
documents vide CS (OS) no. ( pages 9 to 39) 123/2019 3 Certified copy of settlement Ex. PW 1/4 agreement dated 30.10.2019 ( 15 pages) 4 Certified copy of Ex. PW 1/5 relinquishment deed dated ( pages 78 -84) 14.11.2019 5 Certified copy of Order dated Ex. PW 1/6 24.02.2020 ( 2 pages) 6 Copy of gift deed dated Ex. PW 1/7 30.01.2020 (OSR) (85 to 94) 7 Copy of rectification deed Ex. PW 1/8 (OSR) ( 95-108)
4. Thereafter, vide separate statement made by plaintiff on 15.11.2025 PE was closed and the matter was listed for ex- parte final arguments.
5. I have heard final arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for plaintiff and perused the record.
6. Before coming to the facts and evidence in the present matter, ISHITA it is pertinent to mention in Section 26 of Specific Relief Act BHARDWAJ that -
Digitally signed by ISHITA BHARDWAJ Date: 2026.02.18 16:08:18 +0530Page no. 6 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24 "26. When instrument may be rectified.-- (1) When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, a contract or other instrument in writing [not being the articles of association of a company to which the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), applies] does not express their real intention, then-- (a) either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified; or (b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue, claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified; or
(c) a defendant in any such suit as is referred to in clause
(b), may, in addition to any other defence open to him, ask for rectification of the instrument.
(2) If, in any suit in which a contract or other instrument is sought to be rectified under subsection (1), the court finds that the instrument, through fraud or mistake, does not express the real intention of the parties, the court may, in its discretion, direct rectification of the instrument so as to express that intention, so far as this can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.
(3) A contract in writing may first be rectified, and then if the party claiming rectification has so prayed in his pleading and the court thinks fit, may be specifically enforced.
(4) No relief for the rectification of an instrument shall be granted to any party under this section unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided that where a party has not ISHITA claimed any such relief in his pleading, the court shall, at BHARDWAJ any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the pleading on such terms as may be just for including such Digitally signed by ISHITA BHARDWAJ claim."\ Date: 2026.02.18 16:08:23 +0530 Page no. 7 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24
7. The primary legal question in the present matter is whether the relinquishment deed dated 14.11.2019 i.e. Ex.1/5 expresses the "Real Intention" of the parties. Section 26 of Specific Relief Act is an equitable remedy based on the maxim "Equity looks to the intent rather than form". For the plaintiff to succeed, three ingredients must be satisfied :
(a) There must be a general agreement prior to the instrument which is sought to be rectified.
(b) There must be mutual mistake in expressing that agreement
(c) The rectification must not affect the rights acquired by third parties in good faith.
8. The "Real Intention" of the parties is not a matter of oral testimony alone but is crystallized in the judicial record. As per Ex. PW 1/4 (settlement agreement dated 30.10.2019) which was executed before Mediation Centre of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) No. 123/19, the defendants categorically agreed to relinquish their shares in their father's estate. The property identified before the Hon'ble High Court's proceedings was consistently B-7/11 i.e., plot no. ll, in Block no. B-7, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi -110027. The parent title deeds, Ex.PW 1/1 (OSR) (3 pages) (Sale deed dated 31.01.1972) and Ex. PW 1/2 (6 pages) (Sale deed dated 05.04.1980), described the property as Plot No. 11, Block B-7. There is no evidence of the family owning any other property ISHITA that could be confused with this address (Reference is made BHARDWAJ to the certified copy of plaint and documents vide CS OS No. 123/2019 i.e. Ex. PW 1/3). Thus, the consensus ad idem was Digitally signed by ISHITA BHARDWAJ Date:
Page no. 8 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24 2026.02.18 16:08:29 +0530 specifically for the suit property in question.
9. The error in relinquishment deed Ex. PW 1/5 is a classic clerical/typographical error. In the description of the suit property the address was incorrectly transcribed. The fact that all the three defendants signed the deed without noticing the error, and subsequently did not contest the present suit, proves that the mistake was mutual. "But for" this typographical slip, the relinquishment deed would have perfectly mirrored the settlement agreement Ex. PW 1/ 4. The plaintiff has placed on record gift deed i.e. Ex. PW 1/7 wherein similar clerical mistake is discernable. Further to rectify the same a rectification deed Ex. PW 1/8 has also been placed wherein similar mistake as in the present matter has been rectified.
10.The Court has examined the record to ensure that no third party rights are prejudiced, the property in question remains within the family. The documents placed therein by the plaintiff have not been disputed and thus, in view of this Court there is no legal bar of granting the relief to plaintiff. Further granting to said relief would be merely aligning the document with the actual intention.
11.In view of the detailed findings above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as follows - ISHITA BHARDWAJ
(a) Rectification of instrument, the relinquishment deed dated 14.11.2019 ( Regd. No.13381 in Book No.I, Vol. No. 24671 Digitally signed by ISHITA on Pages No. 154 to 157) stands rectified. BHARDWAJ Date:
2026.02.18 16:08:37 +0530 Page no. 9 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24
(b)Wherever the property is described in the said deed, it shall be corrected to read as "Property bearing no. B-7/11 i.e., plot no. ll, in Block no. B-7, Rajouri garden, New Delhi -110027".
(c)This decree shall be part and parcel of original relinquishment deed executed as Ex. PW 1/5.
(d)Concerned Sub-registrar and the relevant authority are directed to execute a rectification deed correcting the address in relinquishment deed dated 14.11.2019 registered on 21.11.2019 upon production of certified copy of this decree.
(e) No order as to costs.
12.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ISHITA ISHITA BHARDWAJ BHARDWAJ Date:
2026.02.18 PRONOUNCED IN THE 16:08:44 +0530 OPEN COURT TODAY i.e. ON 18.02.2026 (ISHITA BHARDWAJ) CIVIL JUDGE-01, WEST, TIS Note: This judgment contains 10 HAZARI COURTS, pages and each page is signed DELHI by the under signed.
Page no. 10 of 10 Smt. Panna Mangat Vs. Gobind Narang CS SCJ No.396/24