Mrs Deepali Aggarwal vs Shri Varun Gupta & Anr on 28 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mrs Deepali Aggarwal vs Shri Varun Gupta & Anr on 28 April, 2026

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of C ivil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against Judgement and Decree dated 09.04.2025, whereby Suit of the Plaintiff / Appellant for Declaration of the Gift Deed dated 29.08.2014, registered on 15.09.2014, executed by Defendant No.1 Sh. Varun Gupta in favour of his father / Defendant No.2 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gutpa, with respect of Flat No.106, Pocket-B6, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi, as null and void and Permanent Injunction be granted for refraining the Defendants from creating third- party rights in the Suit Property.

2. Facts in briefs are that the Plaintiff / Appellant Smt. Deepali Aggarwal got married to Defendant No.1 Sh. Varun Gupta, on 24.04.2012 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and no child was born from their wedlock. The parties resided in property No.28, Pocket-B8, Sector 4, This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 20:56:11 Rohini, Delhi, for about a month. Thereafter, they both went to Dubai, as Defendant No.1 was working with Zee Enterprises Ltd. and was posted Video Editor at Dubai.

3. During the period when the parties were residing at Delhi, the behaviour of in-laws was absolutely bad and cruel and they used to taunt, insult and nag the Plaintiff on the pretext that the Defendant No.1 was an NRI and the marriage and other ceremonies had not been performed upto to their expectations. The Plaintiff ignored the cruel, insulting and bad behaviour of the in-laws with the hope that Defendant No.1 would be going to Dubai because of his job and ultimately Plaintiff would also go to reside with him in Dubai.

4. Defendant No.1 went to Dubai on 09.05.2012, but the Plaintiff was unable to join him as her VISA was not ready. Eventually, she went to Dubai on 20.05.2012. During the stay of Plaintiff, because of the pressure of the in-laws on her, who would instigate her husband that the Appellant must take up a job, she was left with no option except to work at Dubai. She took up a job in real estate firm on a salary of Rs.80,000/- per month, aside from incentives in Indian currency. The total salary of the Plaintiff was used by Defendant No.1 on the pretext that he would be buying a house. The Plaintiff did not object, for the sake of happy and matrimonial life.

5. The Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 returned from Dubai to New Delhi and resided for some time in Flat No. 28 and thereafter shifted to Flat No.106, Pocket-B6, Sector 4, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Property'). Half share of the Suit Property was purchased benami in the name of Defendant No.2 / Sh. Ravinder Kumar Gutpa, who was not the absolute owner and never claimed the ownership in the real sense, since he This is a digitally signed order.

6. The case of Defendant No.1 illegally executed Gift Deed dated 29.08.2014 in favour of Defendant No.2 / his father, about which Plaintiff was neither taken into confidence nor informed. It is claimed that this Gift Deed is absolutely illegal, against public policy and is outcome of collusion and conspiracy between the Defendants to defeat legitimate rights of Plaintiff in the said Property. There were no good and cogent grounds to execute the said Gift Deed by Defendant No.1. In fact, this was done only to harass the Plaintiff by all means.

7. Because of the acts and omissions of the Defendants, the Plaintiff filed Application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

8. The Plaintiff asserted that she has every Right to reside in Suit Property as well as Flat No.28, which, at one point of time was belonging to Grandfather of Appellant No.1. Furthermore, the Suit Property is also matrimonial house, in which Plaintiff has one-half share and Protection Order dated 04.12.2014 has also been passed in her favour, on the facts and circumstances and in accordance with the law. Therefore, Gift Deed dated 29.08.2014 is liable to be declared void.

9. It is further submitted that a Public Notice was given by mother-in- law of the Plaintiff as well as by Defendant No.2, father-in-law, whereby Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were shown to have no connection with them, but thereafter, Defendant No.2 had been attending the Office of CAW Cell along with Defendant No.1.

10. On 03.06.2015, both the Defendants attended the Office, which shows that the Public Notice was a manipulation inter se the Defendants and in This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 20:56:11 fact, Defendant No.2 has not severed his relationship with Defendant No.1, who is still living with Defendant No.2 and other family members.

11. The Plaintiff was thus, constrained to institute the present Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction for declaring the Gift Deed dated 29.08.2014 as illegal, ultra vires, non-est, against public policy and not binding on the Plaintiff.

12. Written Statement was filed by Sh. Varun Gupta, Defendant No.1 wherein he took the preliminary objection that the Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the Suit Property. He, out of his own free will, has gifted his share of Suit Property to Defendant No.2 / his father, out of love and afflation, who has now become the absolute owner of the Suit Property. Plaintiff has no legal connection or status viz.-a-viz. the Suit Property and has no locus standi to challenge the Gift Deed.

13. Moreover, the Suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, as similar case has been filed before learned Senior Civil Judge, Rohini vide Suit No.61351/2016, which had been decided on 21.04.2016. Furthermore, there is deliberate concealment of the decision of this Suit, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge had even declined to issue summons to the answering Respondent in the Suit. Moreover, the Suit had also not been valued properly. Further, no cause of action ever arose in favour of the Plaintiff.

14. On merits, the factum of marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and going to Dubai were admitted, but all other averments were denied. It is asserted that Plaintiff had not allowed Defendant No.1 on 23.11.2014 to enter the Suit Property, as summons / Notices under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were returnable for 04.12.2014. In a conspiracy, she had mentioned the place of residence of Appellant No.1 as This is a digitally signed order.

15. It was further asserted that since Defendant No.1 was dispossessed and was not even permitted to enter the house; all the domestic articles as well as personal belongings including Laptop and other electronic devices, were lying in the Flat. He had no place to reside and took an accommodation on rent and is still residing separately from the Plaintiff as well as from his father and other family members.

16. It was denied that the Suit Property had been purchased from the funds of Appellant No.1, as per arrangement. It is also denied that Plaintiff ever became co-owner of the Suit Property. It was explained that the Suit Property had been purchased from Sh. Shyam Lal Sethi, his father, vide Registered Sale Deed dated 02.08.2004, which is prior to the marriage of the parties on 24.04.2012.

17. Defendant No.1 further asserted that his name has been included in the Sale Deed by his father / Defendant No.2 out of love and affection and thereby, he became the co-Applicant in the Loan, which was taken from HDFC Bank by the father, which was also fully refunded, prior to the marriage of parties. The Suit Property had been purchased from the own funds of Defendant No.1 and his father, who was a Government Employee, by the time the parties got married.

18. Defendant No.1 started working in the month of May, 2003 and at that time, his salary was only Rs.11,000/-. In the year 2004, he was not having good financial condition.

19. It was further submitted that at the time of execution of the Gift Deed dated 29.08.2014 by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2, there was This is a digitally signed order.

20. Similar, Written Statement has been filed on behalf of Defendant No.2.

21. The issues were framed in the pleadings.

22. Plaintiff filed her Affidavit of Evident and her evidence, before she could be cross-examined, was closed. A cost was imposed, which she was not able to pay and filed a C.R.P. 210/2022 before this Court, which was decided vide Order dated 22.03.2023, whereby the Plaintiff conceded to not leading any evidence and the Suit was directed to be restored from the stage of Defendants' evidence.

23. After the High Court Order, Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII CPC was filed by the Plaintiff / Appellant seeking Review of the Order dated 22.03.2023 for permitting her to lead the evidence. However, the Review Petition was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 25.02.2025.

24. The Defendants also, did not lead any evidence.

25. The learned District Judge, vide impugned Judgment dated 09.04.2025 dismissed the Suit filed by the Plaintiff / Appellant, on the ground that no evidence has been led by the Plaintiff / Appellant, in support of her case.

26. Present Appeal has been file against this impugned Judgment dated 09.04.2024. The grounds of challenge are that for a Gift to be valid, it must be voluntary and unconditional, but the transfer in the present case was executed pursuant to an understanding that Respondent No.2 would execute a Will in favour of Respondent No.1 bequeathing his entire property, This is a digitally signed order.

27. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the impugned Gift Deed was solely with the intent to harass the Appellant. It does not satisfy the essential ingredients of a valid Gift under law and is therefore, void and unenforceable.

28. Plaintiff / Appellant was unable to adduce evidence, due to bona fide illness. She has been denied a fair opportunity to substantiate her case. Her non-appearance was not deliberate and wilful. In fact, it is a Respondents, who had acted in collusion, to put the Appellant in a disadvantageous position.

29. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgement dated 09.04.2025 be set aside and the case be remanded back for trial with an opportunity to the Plaintiff / Appellant to adduce her evidence.

30. Learned counsel for Respondents has appeared on advance Notice. Submissions heard and record perused.

31. The Plaintiff has sought that the Gift Deed dated 29.08.2014 registered on 15.09.2014 executed by Defendant/Respondent No. 1 in favour of his father-Defendant No. 2, be declared illegal, ultra vires, void and against public policy and non-binding on her, in any manner.

32. There is no challenge to the genuineness or the execution of the Gift Deed by Defendant No. 1 / Varun Gupta in favour of his father. It has been explained by the Respondent that the Suit Property had been purchased by Respondent No. 2, father of Respondent No. 1, vide Sale Deed dated 02.08.2004 from his own funds, for which a loan was also taken.

33. The Defendant No. 2, the father, out of love and affection had This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 20:56:11 included the name of Respondent No. 1 in the Sale Deed. He became co- applicant for the loan which was taken by the father from HDFC Bank.

34. Defendant No. 1 had explained in his Written Statement that he had started working in the month of May 2003 and his salary at that time was only Rs.11,000/- per month. He was not having good financial condition in the year 2004. Subsequently, the loan was cleared by his father, by the time that he got married. Furthermore, the Gift Deed had been executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of his father on 29.08.2014 at which time, there was no matrimonial dispute between the parties.

35. The Appellant and Respondent No. 1 / Varun Gupta got married on 24.04.2012 and soon after the marriage, they had gone to Dubai where the Defendant No. 1 was employed.

36. The Respondent has thus, explained that it was in fact a genuine purchase by the father who had included the name of his son/defendant No.1 out of love and affection and also because the loan was taken jointly by the two and that the loan also got satisfied. The subsequent Gift Deed had been executed on 29.08.2014 by when, there was no inter se dispute between the parties.

37. The Appellant challenged the Gift Deed on the ground that the same had been executed by her husband, only to defeat her bona fide claims. She has asserted it to be her matrimonial home and had been given protection from dispossession in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, she herself has admitted that in a Suit filed by the father-in- law against her, she has been allowed appropriate alternate accommodation in lieu of continuing in this house.

38. The Appellant in order to buttress her contention that it is only an This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 20:56:11 endeavour to oust her from the Suit Property, has asserted that the collusion between Respondent No. 1 and 2. It is evident from the fact that the Respondent No. 2 and his wife had taken out a Public Notice disowning the Respondent No. 1, but he is continuing to reside with his parents and has even being participating along with his father, in the multiple litigation. This again, cannot be a ground for avoidance of the Gift Deed which has been validly executed by the son in the name of his father, much prior to the initiation of disputes inter se the Appellant-wife and Respondent No. 1- husband.

39. It is quite evident that her assertion that the Gift Deed was mala fide or with an ulterior motive, is not established and cannot be taken as ground for declaring the Gift Deed as null and void.

40. The learned District Judge vide impugned Order dated 09.04.2025 has rightly observed that the onus of proving the grounds for declaring the Gift Deed as null and void was on the Plaintiff / Appellant, but she failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever. Her evidence has been closed and she did not need any evidence.

41. The learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the Suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant.

42. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Pending Applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

APRIL 28, 2026 R/N This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/05/2026 at 20:56:11

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders