Delhi District Court
Nimit Sharma vs Manphool Singh Sharma And Ors on 6 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
RCA DJ No. 55/2019
CNR No:- DLCT-01006387-2019
Sh. Nimit Sharma,
S/o Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma,
R/o 71, First Floor, Double Storey,
Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi .......Appellant
Vs.
1. Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma,
S/o late Sh. Jai Narain (deceased)
Through Smt. Savita Sharma
W/o Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma
2. Sh. Rajiv Sharma,
S/o Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma,
Both R/o 72, Ground Floor, Double Storey,
New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Ms. Vinita Vasishtha
W/o Sh. Vikram Vasishtha
R/o 2132, Nai Basi, Devi Asthan,
Rewari-123401, Haryana ......Respondents
Date of institution:- 13.05.2019
Date of conclusion
of final arguments: -22.09.2025
RCA DJ No. 55/2019
Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 1 of 44
Date of Judgment:- 06.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 96 of CPC, 1908, challenging the Orders dated 27.09.2018 and 08.04.2019 and final decree dated 08.04.2019 (henceforth 'impugned decree'), passed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge- 07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (henceforth 'Ld. Trial Court') in Suit No. 94482/2016, 'Nimit Sharma V/s Manphool Singh (deceased) through LR & Ors." (henceforth 'subject Suit'), whereby, in continuation of preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003, a final decree of partition was directed to be prepared to the effect that LR of defendant No. 1 namely Smt. Savita Sharma and the defendant No. 2 Sh. Rajeev Sharma were directed to pay the 1/9th sum of Rs. 5,00,72,650/- (Five Crore Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Only) to the plaintiff namely Sh. Nimit Sharma within two months.
2. Appellant herein was the plaintiff and respondents No. 1 & 2 were defendants No. 1 & 2 in Trial Court proceedings. Respondent No. 3 (daughter of deceased defendant No. 1/ sister of plaintiff and defendant No. 2) is not shown as a party in memo of parties of final decree sheet. For convenience, parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Learned Trial Court. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT
3. This is an old case as Suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction was filed in the year 1998. Preliminary decree in the Suit was passed on 15.02.2003 and final decree was passed on 08.04.2019. For convenience, I would narrate the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court in two parts; one, from institution of the Suit till passing of preliminary decree, and second, from passing of preliminary decree till passing of final decree.
(A) From institution of the Suit till passing of preliminary decree RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 2 of 44
4. The Suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 and 2 in respect of property No. 71-72, Double storey, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (henceforth 'suit property'). It had been stated that the plaintiff is the son of the defendant No. 1 and brother of the defendant No. 2.
5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the suit property was purchased from the sale proceeds of the ancestral property by the defendant No. 1 alongwith his two brothers namely Sh. Madan Gopal Sharma and Sh. D. D. Sharma. The defendant No. 1 and his two brothers were having 1/3rd share each in the suit property. The two brothers of the defendant No. 1, out of their sweet will, love and affection, gifted their respective shares in favour of the defendant No. 1 by way of registered gift deed dated 29.05.1963 and as such the defendant No. 1 had become the sole owner of the suit property.
6. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit property in the hands of the defendant No. 1 was an ancestral property, and the plaintiff had 1/3rd share in the suit property. Since, the defendants No. 1 & 2, in collusion with each other, were trying to dispossess him from the suit property, the plaintiff filed the suit.
7. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of both the defendants. It was submitted that the defendant No. 1, the father, had debarred the plaintiff, his son, from any share in the suit property. It had been further stated in the written statement that, in any case, the share of the plaintiff should be restricted to only 1/4th share in 1/3rd share of the defendant No. 1 which devolved upon the defendant No. 1 as ancestral property [The defendant No. 1 had following legal heirs viz. Smt. Savita Sharma (wife), Smt. Vinita Vasistha (daughter), Sh. Rajiv Sharma (defendant No. 2) and Sh. Nimit Sharma (plaintiff)]. The plaintiff had no share in the remaining 2/3rd share of the suit property since the same was gifted by the brothers of the defendant No. 1 in favor of defendant RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 3 of 44 No. 1 and as such lost its character of being an ancestral property in the hands of the defendant No. 1.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 08.04.1999:-
(1) Whether D-1 has debarred the plaintiff from any share in the suit premises ? If so, its effect ? OPD (2) Whether Sh. Madan Gopal Sharma and D. D. Sharma have gifted their share in the suit property to D-1 ? OPD (3) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction ? OPP (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties ? OPD (5) Whether this Court does not have the jurisdiction to try the present Suit ? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs C claimed ? OPP (7) Relief.
9. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 as sole witness. The defendants examined themselves as DW1 and DW2 in support of their case.
10. Findings of Ld. Trial Court may be summarised as follows:-
(a) It was held that the suit property is properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and as such, issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff.
(b) Since no evidence had been led by the defendants, issues No. 4 and 5 were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
(c) Since the plaintiff himself admitted the contents of gift deed executed by brothers of the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 1, issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.RCA DJ No. 55/2019
Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 4 of 44
(d) The 2/3rd share received by the defendant No. 1 by way of gift deed from his brothers lost the character of ancestral property and as such the plaintiff can not have any right in this 2/3rd share. 1/3rd share of the defendant No. 1 however would have the character of ancestral property.
(e) Defendants failed to prove how they can debar the plaintiff from his share in the ancestral property. Issue No. 1 was accordingly decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
(f) Since the plaintiff had failed to show that he had any right in 2/3rd share of the suit property, decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring etc. of the suit property or disposing the plaintiff from the suit property (as prayed in prayer clause 'C') can not be granted. Issue No. 6 as such was passed against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
(g) In view of findings on issues No. 1 and 6, a preliminary decree of partition in respect of suit property was passed and the plaintiff was held entitled 1/3rd share in 1/3rd share of the defendant No. 1. That is, the plaintiff will be entitled to 1/9th share in the suit property.
11. Plaintiff challenged the preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003 by way of first appeal before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge in MCA No. 91/2003. The appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 16.08.2005. The plaintiff challenged the order dated 16.08.2005 passed by the first appellate Court before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RSA No. 13/2006. Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said appeal as well. Meaning thereby, the preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003 was upheld by the first appellate and the second appellate courts.
12. Upon passing of preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003, the rights of the parties stand crystallised as under;
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 5 of 44
(a) 2/3rd of the suit property is in exclusive ownership of the defendant No. 1 whereas 1/3rd share of the suit property in the hands of defendant No. 1 is having ancestral characteristics.
(b) 1/3rd share which is ancestral in nature shall be divided in three persons viz. Defendant No. 1 (father), plaintiff (son) and defendant No. 2 (son). All will have 1/9th share.
(B) From passing of preliminary decree till passing of final decree
13. After passing of the preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003, the defendant No. 1 expired, her wife Smt. Savita Sharma has been impleaded as his LR.
14. Before proceeding any further, few things may be noted about Smt. Vinita Vashisht, daughter of deceased defendant No. 1 (who has been arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the present appeal). And, for this, I would like to reproduce certain paras of a separate Order dated 14.08.2015 passed by Ld. Trial Court whereby the application of Smt. Vinita Vashist under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, 1908 and Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 were dismissed;
"9. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2008. Upon perusal of record, on 18.01.2010, Sh. Vishal Chopra, Advocate had appeared for the applicant and had filed fresh vakalatnama and the court had also given time to applicant to file written statement in the matter. Thereafter, on 05.07.2010, the applicant was transposed as plaintiff no. 2. On 21.07.2011, the applicant was again made a party as one of the LR of defendant no.1. It is also recorded in the Order dated 21.07.2011 that Ld. Advocate for the Applicant Smt. Vinita Vashisht had submitted that he had instructions from her that she has no grievance with the preliminary decree passed and she wants to claim her share in the property left behind by the defendant no.1 being her father. On 17.10.2011, the Advocate for the applicant had sought more time to file the written statement. On 01.02.2012, the counsel for the applicant had appeared in the matter. Since then, there has been no RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 6 of 44 appearance on behalf of the applicant. On 05.09.2012, the court had again proceeded ex-parte against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant had never appeared before the court till 20.07.2015 when the present applications were filed by the applicant.
10. First of all, the applicant has not stated anything about the proceedings from 20.11.2008 till 05.09.2012 when there were appearances made on her behalf and submission relating to her no objection to the preliminary decree was also made on 21.07.2011. The applicant was proceeded ex-parte again on 05.09.2012. By going through the order sheets, it is noted that the applicant had participated in the proceedings even after the earlier order dated 29.11.2008 whereby she was being proceeded ex-parte. The applicant never moved any application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 29.11.2008 till 01.02.2012 which is the last date of appearance on behalf of the applicant in the proceedings in this case. There has been no sufficient cause shown by the applicant why the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was not filed for four years from November 2008 till February 2012 when there were already appearances made on behalf of the applicant in the matter. There is also no reason shown for non- appearance of the applicant or her counsel in the matter for the last more than 3 years. Merely because the applicant is a resident of Rewari, Haryana does not give her a right to sleep over the matter for more than 3 years. Therefore, no sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is shown by the applicant for causing delay in moving the present application. The applicant has also not assigned any good cause under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC for her non appearance for the last more than 3 years for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings against the applicant. Both the applications are, therefore, dismissed."
15. Now, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of order dated 10.12.2009 passed in trial Court proceedings;
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 7 of 44 "In present Suit, preliminary decree was passed declaring that defendant No. 1 (Father) as exclusive owner of 2/3rd of suit property and remaining 1/3rd was to be divided between Defendant No. 1 (father) and plaintiff and defendant No. 2 (sons). As per admission of both the parties, applicant, Smt. Savita Sharma is real mother of plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Besides, there is one sister, Smt. Vinita Vashist, who was never made party in the suit.
This Court is of opinion that plaintiff is disputing the Will made by defendant No. 1 in favour of the applicant, who now wants to have exclusive 2/3rd share in the property and also to have 1/3rd share as share of defendant No. 1 out of remaining 1/3rd share. Hence, daughter of deceased defendant No. 1 (died on 20' Feb' 2006) be also made party. Plaintiff is directed to bring on record all LRs of defendant No. 1.
xxxxx At request of parties, an issue is being framed:
"Whether Will dated 03.06.2003 purportedly executed by deceased defendant No. 1 in name of Smt. Savita Sharma is genuine ? If so, its effect on suit property ? OPD1"
Fix for PE on 18.01.2010."
16. From perusal of record, it appears that to prove the issue settled vide Order dated 10.12.2009, the defendants examined three witnesses viz. Sh. S. C. Verma (one of the attesting witnesses) as DW1, Sh. Rambir, UDC from office of Registrar-3 as DW2 and Ms. Jyotsana Sharma (the other attesting witness) as DW3 (It may be noted that before passing of preliminary decree, both the defendants too were examined as DW1 and DW2). In rebuttal, the plaintiff again examined himself as PW1. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments vide order dated 12.07.2013.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 8 of 44
17. Perusal of record reveals that vide Order dated 11.04.2017 matter was reserved for pronouncing judgment on 06.05.2017. On 06.05.2017, following order was passed;
"The matter is fixed for final judgment.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. Vs. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr.", 2011 9 SCC 788, has observed that the modification of preliminary decree after amendment in Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005 is permissible. The Hon'ble Court has held as under :-
18. This Court in the case of S. Sai Reddy vs. S. Narayana Reddy and Others had an occasion to consider the question identical to the question with which we are faced in the present appeal. That was a case where during the pendency of the proceedings in the suit for partition before the trial court and prior to the passing of final decree, the 1956 Act was amended by the State Legislature of Andhra Pradesh as a result of which unmarried daughters became entitled to a share in the joint family property. The unmarried daughters respondents 2 to 5 therein made application before the trial court claiming their share in the property after the State amendment in the 1956 Act. The trial court by its judgment and order dated August 24, 1989 rejected their application on the ground that the preliminary decree had already been passed and specific shares of the parties had been declared and, thus, it was not open to the unmarried daughters to claim share in the property by virtue of the State amendment in the 1956 Act. The unmarried daughters preferred revision against the order of the trial court before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the trial court and declared that in view of the newly added Section 28-A, the unmarried daughters were entitled to share in the joint family property. The High Court further directed the trial court to RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 9 of 44 determine the shares of the unmarried daughters accordingly. The appellant therein challenged the order of the High Court before this Court. This Court considered the matter thus;
".........A partition of the joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, viz., by a family settlement, by a registered instrument of partition, by oral arrangement by the parties, or by a decree of the court. When a suit for partition is filed in a court, a preliminary decree is passed determining shares of the members of the family. The final decree follows, thereafter, allotting specific properties and directing the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds. Unless and until the final decree is passed and the allottees of the shares are put in possession of the respective property, the partition is not complete. The preliminary decree which determines shares does not bring about the final partition. For, pending the final decree the shares themselves are liable to be varied on account of the intervening events. In the instant case, there is no dispute that only a preliminary decree had been passed and before the final decree could be passed the amending Act came into force as a result of which clause (ii) of Section 29-A of the Act became applicable. This intervening event which gave shares to respondents 2 to 5 had the effect of varying shares of the parties like any supervening development. Since the legislation is beneficial and placed on the statute book with the avowed object of benefitting women which is a vulnerable section of the society in all its stratas, it is necessary to give a liberal effect to it. For this reason also, we cannot equate the concept of partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case with a RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 10 of 44 mere severance of the status of the joint family which can be effected by an expression of a mere desire by a family member to do so. The partition that the legislature has in mind in the present case is undoubtedly a partition completed in all respects and which has brought about an irreversible situation. A preliminary decree which merely declares shares which are themselves liable to change does not bring about any irreversible situation. Hence, we are of the view that unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of the benefits conferred by the Act. Any other view is likely to deprive a vast section of the fair sex of the benefits conferred by the amendment. Spurious family settlements, instruments of partitions not to speak of oral partitions will spring up and nullify the beneficial effect of the legislation depriving a vast section of women of its benefits".
In view of aforesaid judgment, the preliminary decree which was passed in this case in the year 2003, is required to be amended /modified as daughter of Sh. Manphool Singh was not given any share. Therefore, let Court notice be issued to the plaintiff, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as to the defendants including all legal heirs and their counsel for the next date of hearing.
List the matter for appearance of parties and for arguments on modification of preliminary decree on 01.07.2017."
18. So, Ld. Trial Court while referring the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganduri Koteshwaramma supra instead of pronouncing judgment, adjourned the matter for amending/ modifying the preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003 in light of amendment in Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005.
19. Next, I am reproducing the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court;
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 11 of 44 "...Perusal of file provides that the file has been pending for last several years for arguments on the plea whether the preliminary decree could be modified and thereafter, on the proposition whether this court had power to decide the genuineness of the Will on the submissions of the counsel for applicant. It is important to observe that the said applicant was a party to the present suit and was proceeded against ex-parte and thereafter, the application moved by the applicant namely Vanita Vashist u/o IX rule 7 CPC was also dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of the court vide order dt. 14.08.15. Accordingly, the conduct as well as locus standi of the applicant is very clear. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to adjourn the case again for the said purpose. As in the present case, preliminary decree has already been passed vide judgment dt. 15.02.03 and Will in question was executed on 03.06.03, I am of the confirmed view that court is not required to go into the genuineness of the Will. Moreover, admittedly, the proceedings regarding the genuineness of Will are pending before the concerned court in probate proceedings between the parties.
Accordingly, file is taken up for proposition the preliminary decree dt. 15.02.03 can be modified. In this it is to obverse that previously an application was filed u/s 151 CPC on behalf of plaintiff for modification of preliminary decree, which was dismissed vide order dt. 14.08.15 with the observations that the final decree would be drawn up considering the death of deceased defendant no.1 namely Manphool Singh. However, subsequently, by the observation of the Ld. Predecessor of the court, the matter was taken up for arguments on modification of preliminary decree on the ground that the daughter of Manphool Singh was not given any share. Said daughter of deceased Manphool Singh is the applicant namely Vinita Vashist herself as discussed above.
Now it is to further observe that the preliminary decree was passed on 15.02.03 and same has been upheld by first appellant court as well as RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 12 of 44 second appellate court i.e. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dt. 13.02.06 in RSA No. 13/06. Same has not been in dispute. Accordingly, it is settled that the shares of the parties to the suit were determined by way of preliminary decree dt. 15.02.03. It is to further observe that the amendment was incorporated in Hindu succession Act w.e.f. 09.09.05 and by way of proviso, it was made clear that any partition which had taken place before 20.12.04, shall not be affected or invalidated by way of amendment in Sec. 6(1) of HSA. Again, the same has been duly confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the authority of "Prakash and Ors. vs. Phulvati & Ors." dt. 16.10.15 in which it was observed that the the transactions referred in the proviso to Sec. 6 (1) of HSA were intended to be excluded. It was further observed that explanation could not permit reopening of partitions, which were valid when effected. Accordingly, the said amendment can not have a retrospective effect before 20.12.04. When the preliminary decree has already passed on 15.02.03, the partition had already become effective and the only purpose of passing of final decree is with respect to mode of partition and not determination of shares except the changed circumstances.
In the present case, the only changed circumstance is the death of defendant no. 1 and accordingly now matter is adjourned to 20.08.18 for final arguments on final decree..."
20. By Order dated 25.07.2018, Ld. Trial Court (the Ld. Successor), while relying on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash and Ors. V/s. Phulvati & Ors opined that there is no need of amending/ modifying the preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003.
21. Next, I am reproducing the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court;
"...It is submitted by counsel for plaintiff that by way of preliminary decree dt. 15.02.03, the plaintiff was given 1/9th share in the suit RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 13 of 44 property. Subsequently, the defendant no. 1. father of plaintiff and defendant no.2 died on 20.02.06 and allegedly a Will was executed by him and probate proceedings regarding the said Will are pending before the concerned court. It is submitted that until and unless the probate proceedings are adjudicated, the final decree can not be prepared and accordingly, date has been requested to adjourn the matter until the probate proceedings are decided.
On the other hand, the counsel for LR of defendant no. I namely Savita Sharma and defendant no. 2 has submitted that previously an application u/s 10 CPC was moved on behalf of plaintiff on the ground of pendency of probate proceedings and same was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of the court vide order dated 05.12.15. Accordingly, matter can not be adjourned on this ground. It is further submitted that the report of LC has already been received, which provides that suit property can not be partitioned by meets and bounds and that the LR of defendant no. 1 namely Savita Sharma and defendant no. 2 are ready to pay the monetary value of 1/9th share to the plaintiff.
Heard. Perusal of the preliminary decree dt. 15.02.03 clearly provides that the share of deceased defendant no. 1 namely Manphool Singh in the ancestral property was considered as 1/3rd and therefore, the plaintiff alongwith his brother i.e. defendant no. 2 and the father i.e. deceased defendant no. 1 was granted 1/9th share each. Now, the genuineness of the alleged Will executed by deceased defendant no. 1 has to be decided certainly by the probate proceedings and not by the civil court. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the authority of "Chiranji Lal vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors." 1993 2 SCC 507 . Accordingly, it is to be concluded that the issue framed to this effect on 10.12.09 can not be decided by the present court and is the subject matter only before the probate court.RCA DJ No. 55/2019
Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 14 of 44 It is to further observe that undoubtedly the share of plaintiff in the separate property of deceased defendant no. 1 is subject to the adjudication of probate proceedings, however, only on the ground that probate proceedings are pending, the present matter can not be adjourned time and again as being no legal bar as discussed above. Accordingly, matter is taken up for preparation of final decree..."
22. Ld. Trial Court concluded that issue framed vide order dated 10.12.2009 can not be decided by the Civil Court as the said matter pertains to probate Court where the same is pending disposal (and there is no legal bar to decide this suit and pass a final decree).
23. Ld. Trial Court vide Order dated 08.04.2019 finally disposed of the matter and directed for preparing a final decree in terms thereof. Relevant portion of Order dated 08.04.2019 is reproduced herein below;
"...In the given circumstances, final decree of partition be prepared to this effect that LRs of D1 namely Savita Sharma and Rajeev Sharma / defendant no. 2 are hereby directed to pay the 1/9th sum of Rs. 5,00,72,650/- (five crore seventy two thousand six hundred and fifty only) to the plaintiff within two months from today. Aggrieved party is at liberty to approach the court for satisfaction of same, if same is not complied with either of the parties..."
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
24. The aforesaid final decree has been challenged by the plaintiff in the present appeal inter alia on the following grounds:-
(A) That Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides for right as executor or legatee when established. When after the death of the testator, an executor or a legatee comes on a record and proceed with the suit and is trying to enforce his right under a Will, the Section 213 would come into play and the probate or letters of administration will have to be obtained before the judgment is delivered. As such, the RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 15 of 44 final order/ final decree ought not have been passed without the decision of the probate case.
(B) That the said probate petition has already been withdrawn by Smt. Savita Sharma without getting the Will probated. The effect of withdrawal of the probate petition would be that there exists no Will and the plaintiff is entitled to equal share that of defendants i.e. 1/4th to the plaintiff, mother Smt. Savita Sharma, defendant No. 2, and sister Vinita Vashist.
(C) That Ld. Trial Court committed grave error in accepting the valuation report valuing suit property of Rs. 5,00,72,650/- (Five Crore Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Only). Ld. Trial Court ignored that similar property in the locality as that of suit property was sold for Rs. 6,25,00,000/- (Six Crore Twenty Five Lakh Only).
REPLY
25. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (LR of deceased defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2) filed their joint reply on 14.09.2020. Respondents in their reply, supported the impugned orders and final decree and prayed for dismissal of appeal with costs stating that it is devoid of merit. Respondent No. 3 (daughter of deceased defendant No. 1/ sister of plaintiff and defendant No. 2) failed to appear and file reply despite service.
ARGUMENTS
26. Arguments were heard on behalf of the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ld. counsel for the appellant during arguments questioned the impugned orders and final decree of the Ld. Trial Court on the grounds referred above and prayed for its setting aside. Per Contra, Ld. Counsels for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the Ld. Trial Court rightly decided the Suit and prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal with costs. The written arguments have also been filed on behalf of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 and 2.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 16 of 44 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. The above narration of facts of the case from passing of preliminary decree till passing of final decree shows that following important events happened/ occurred;
(a) The defendant No. 1 expired. On death, his wife Smt. Savita Sharma has been impleaded as his LR.
(b) Vide order dated 21.07.2011, the daughter of deceased defendant No. 1 Smt. Vinita Vasishth was also made a party as one of the LRs of deceased defendant no.1.
(c) Vide order dated 10.12.2009, an additional issue to the effect "Whether Will dated 03.06.2003 purportedly executed by deceased defendant No. 1 in name of Smt. Savita Sharma is genuine ? If so, its effect on suit property ? OPD1" was framed.
(d) Ld. Trial Court in order dated 06.05.2017 (while relying on Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. V/s. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr.; 2011 9 SCC
788) opined that the preliminary decree which was passed on 15.02.2003, is required to be amended/ modified as daughter of Sh. Manphool Singh was not given any share. Court notice was issued to the plaintiff, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff as well as to the defendants including all legal heirs and their counsel for the next date of hearing.
(e) Vide order dated 25.07.2018, Ld. Trial Court (the Ld. Successor), while relying on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash and Ors. V/s. Phulvati & Ors opined that there is no need of amending/ modifying the preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003.
(f) Vide order dated 27.09.2018, Ld. Trial Court concluded that issue framed vide order dated 10.12.2009 can not be decided by the Civil Court as the said matter pertains to probate Court where the same is pending disposal.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 17 of 44
(g) Vide Order dated 08.04.2019 finally disposed of the matter and directed for preparing a final decree in terms thereof.
28. So, there were two issues which need to be addressed by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the final decree viz. (i) Whether the preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003 was required to be amended/ modified as daughter of Sh. Manphool Singh, Smt. Vinita Vasishth was not given any share; and (ii) Whether Will dated 03.06.2003 purportedly executed by deceased defendant No. 1 in name of Smt. Savita Sharma is genuine ? If so, its effect on suit property.
29. Ld. Trial Court (the Ld. Successor), while relying on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash and Ors. V/s. Phulvati & Ors, vide order dated 25.07.2018, opined that there is no need of amending/ modifying the preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003. Further, vide order dated 27.09.2018, concluded that issue framed vide order dated 10.12.2009 can not be decided by the Civil Court as the said matter pertains to probate Court where the same is pending disposal.
30. As is apparent, the appellant in the present appeal is disputing the findings of Ld. Trial Court only qua issue No. (ii) (decided vide order dated 27.09.2018), and not qua the issue No. (i) (decided vide order dated 25.07.2018).
31. Appellant has made Smt. Vinita Vashisth a party as a respondent No. 3 in the present appeal. Notice of appeal was issued to respondent No. 3 which was served on her (refer order dated 05.09.2019). However, she chose not to appear. So, there is no challenge to the order dated 25.07.2018 of Ld. Trial Court before this court.
32. Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC, 1908 gives vide power to the appellate court to do complete justice between the parties and enables it to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed, or as the nature of case may require notwithstanding that the party in whose favour the power is sought to be exercised has not filed any appeal or cross-objections (Mulla, The Code of Civil RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 18 of 44 Procedure, 20th edition, Volume 3, page 4141). Mulla, however, cautioned that discretion has to be exercised with care and caution and that too in rare cases.
33. Generally, a party who is aggrieved by a decree should, if he/ she seeks to escape from its operation, appeal against it, within the time allowed after complying with the requirements of law. There are well recognised exceptions to this (in terms of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC). One such is recognised where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant it becomes necessary to re-adjust the rights of other parties. Here, in the present case, however, it (interference with preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003) would operate against the appellant.
34. It is an established position of law that settled things can not be permitted to be unsettled at the behest of a person who has not been careful enough with regard to his/ her rights and claim (Daya Engg. Works (Sleeper) Ltd. V/s Union of India and Another; 2023 SCC OnLine Del 178). While noting so, this court wants to record that a submission was made on behalf of Smt. Vinita Vashist on 21.07.2011 before the Ld. Trial Court that she had no grievance with the preliminary decree (refer order dated 21.07.2011).
35. This court as such is not inclined to examine the correctness of the order dated 25.07.2018 of Ld. Trial Court (and is not examining the same).
36. Now, coming to the second issue viz. Whether Will dated 03.06.2003 purportedly executed by deceased defendant No. 1 in name of Smt. Savita Sharma is genuine ? If so, its effect on suit property.
37. Ld. Trial court while relying on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chiranji Lal V/s. Jagjit Singh & Ors.; (1993) 2 SCC 507, held that issue framed vide order dated 10.12.2009 can not be decided by the Civil Court as the said matter pertains to probate Court where the same is pending disposal. Ld. Trial Court, while noting that there is no legal bar to decide this suit (pending probate petition), passed the final decree without deciding the additional issue framed vide order dated 10.12.2009.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 19 of 44
38. Arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant are two fold; firstly, Ld. trial court should not pass the final decree pending a probate petition (in view of Section 213 of Indian Succession Act, 1925) and secondly, as the probate petition had already been withdrawn by Smt. Savita Sharma (without getting the Will probated) on 20.02.2020, its effect would be that there existed no Will.
39. Here, it is required to be noted that in NCT of Delhi, Will is not required to be probated.
40. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanta Yadav vs Om Prakash Yadav; (2020) 14 SCC 102, held;
3. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the bar under Section 213 of the Act is not applicable and, therefore, set aside the order of rejection of plaint and directed that both the suits be clubbed and common evidence be led together.
4. The short question to be examined is whether it is necessary to seek probate or letter of administration in respect of a Will in terms of Section 213 of the Act in the National Capital Region of Delhi.
5. It is undisputed that the present National Capital Region Delhi was part of erstwhile State of Punjab prior to November 1, 1966. The argument raised by the respondents is that Section 57 of the Act is applicable where the properties and parties are situated in the territories of Bengal, Madras or Bombay, therefore, it is not necessary to seek probate or letter of administration in respect of properties or the persons when they are not located in the States of Bengal, Madras or Bombay. To examine the said question, certain statutory provisions are relevant to quote hereunder:
"Section 213- Right as executor or legatee when established.- (1) No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 20 of 44 granted probate of the Will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the Will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed.
(2) This section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans, and shall only apply-
(i) in the case of Wills made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina where such Wills are of the classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of section 57; and
(ii) in the case of Wills made by any Parsi dying, after the commencement of the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 1962 (16 of 1962.) where such Wills are made within the local limits of the [ordinary original civil jurisdiction] of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, and where such Wills are made outside those limits, in so far as they relate to immovable property situated within those limits.]"
"Section 57- Application of certain provisions of Part to a class of Wills made by Hindus, etc.- The provisions of this Part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply
(a) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieutenant-
Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and
(b) to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immoveable property situate within those territories or limits; and RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 21 of 44
(c) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which those provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b):
Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such Will or codicil."
6.***
7.***
8.***
9.***
10.***
11. The statutory provisions are clear that the Act is applicable to Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, who were subject to the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Madras or Bombay - {clause (a) of Section 57 of the Act}. Secondly, it is applicable to all Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immoveable property within the territories aforementioned - Clause (b) of Section 57. The clause (c) of Section 57 of the Act relates to the Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain on or after the first day of January, 1927, to which provisions are not applied by clauses (a) and (b). However, sub-section (2) of Section 213 of the Act applies only to Wills made by Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain where such Wills are of the classes specified in clauses (a) or (b) of Section 57. Thus, clause (c) is not applicable in view of Section 213(2) of the Act.
12. In view thereof, the Wills and codicils in respect of the persons who are subject to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal or who are within the local limits of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of High Court of Madras or Bombay and in respect of the immoveable properties situated in the above three areas. Such is the view taken in the number of RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 22 of 44 judgments referred to above in the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as in Delhi as also by this Court in Clarence Pais.
13. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
(Underlined by me)
41. As such, since, in NCT of Delhi, Will is not required to be probated, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon the validity of the Will cannot be said to be excluded.
42. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Praveer Chandra V/s Aprajita and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10820 had an occasion to discuss the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chiranji Lal supra. Hon'ble High Court noted as under;
"9. ...Insofar as the Chiranjilal (supra) judgment is concerned, the Supreme Court in the said judgment has laid down the nature of probate proceedings being proceedings in rem, which proposition is not in dispute. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:
"16. The grant of probate by court of competent jurisdiction is in the nature of a proceeding in rem. So long as the order remains in force it is conclusive as to the due execution and validity of the will unless it is duly revoked as per law. It binds not only upon all the parties made before the Court but also upon all other persons in all proceedings arising out of the Will or claims under or connected therewith. The decision of the Probate Court, therefore, is the judgment in rem. The probate granted by the competent court is conclusive of the validity of the Will until it is revoked and no evidence can be admitted to impeach it except in a proceeding taken for revoking the probate.
.................RCA DJ No. 55/2019
Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 23 of 44
20. ...The Probate Court has been conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to grant probate of the Will of the deceased annexed to the petition (suit); on grant or refusal thereof, it has to preserve the original will produced before it. The grant of probate is final subject to appeal, if any, or revocation if made in terms of the provisions of the Succession Act. It is a judgment in rem and conclusive and binds not only the parties but also the entire world. The award deprives the parties of statutory right of appeal provided under section 299. Thus the necessary conclusion is that the Probate Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction and the Civil Court on original side or the Arbitrator does not get jurisdiction, even if consented to by the parties, to adjudicate upon the proof or validity of the Will propounded by the executrix, the appellant"
10. The observations of the Supreme Court in Chiranjilal (supra) that the Probate Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction to grant a probate and a Civil Court would not be entitled to examine the validity of the Will is obviously in the context of a petition seeking probate of a Will. A civil court cannot examine the validity of a Will for the purpose of granting a probate of the Will, but the scope of the issues to be determined in a probate petition is limited. In a civil suit where the Will is called in issue, the Court can look at various surrounding circumstances, including allegations relating to suspicious circumstances if any, genuineness of the Will, whether there were Wills prior to or subsequent to the Will relied upon etc.,
- which issues may not arise in a Probate petition . The scope of proceedings in a partition suit are broader than that in a probate petition."
(Underlined by me) RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 24 of 44
43. This court as such is not in agreement with the submission made by Ld. counsel for the appellant that as the probate petition had already been withdrawn by Smt. Savita Sharma (without getting the Will probated) on 20.02.2020, its effect would be that there existed no Will.
44. As already noted an additional issue with respect to genuineness of Will dated 03.06.2003 has been framed vide order dated 10.12.2009. Even evidence is led by the parties in this regard.
45. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore V/s State of Karnataka and Others; (2022) 7 SCC 796 cautioned the trial courts by stating that it is the duty cast upon the courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue.
46. Since, the preliminary decree in the suit has been passed on 15.02.2003, in order to avoid any further delay, this court is not remanding the case back to the Ld. Trial court to decide the additional issue framed on 10.12.2009. Instead, it takes upon itself to decide the issue.
47. I have already heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
48. Law relating to proof of Wills is no longer res-integra, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426: AIR 1959 SC 443; Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, (2004) 2 SCC 321; Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta, (2021) 11 SCC 209 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 464 and various other judgments. It is a well settled legal position that the onus to prove the due execution of the Will by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind is upon the propounder of the Will. Moreover, as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), even a registered Will is required to be proved by examining RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 25 of 44 at least one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, who shall prove the execution thereof by the testator in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
49. Moreover, in case, the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, onus to remove all the legitimate suspicions, before the document is accepted by the Court as the last and genuine Will of the testator, shall also be upon the propounder of the Will. No doubt, if a Caveat is filed alleging exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of execution of the Will, the same is required to be proved by the Caveator, however, even without any such plea, the circumstances, may give rise to doubts as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in execution of the Will and onus to remove such legitimate doubts shall also be the part of initial onus of the propounder. The issue as to what circumstances can be considered to be suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, shall depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down in this regard.
50. Relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as to the legal position in the matter of proof of Wills in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426: AIR 1959 SC 443 are being reproduced herein below for ready reference:
"18...The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under s. 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under ss. 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 26 of 44 be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. Similarly, ss.59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus, the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by s.63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills, it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.
19. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 27 of 44 court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.
20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 28 of 44 presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
21....It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word 'conscience' in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive.
22. It is obvious that for deciding material questions of fact which arise in applications for probate or inactions on wills, no hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence. It may, however, be stated generally that a propounder of the will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 29 of 44 result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is quite true that, as observed by Lord Du Parcq in Harmes v. Hinkson [(1946) 50 CWN 895] "where a will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth". It would sound platitudinous to say so, but it is nevertheless true that in discovering truth even in such cases the judicial mind must always be open though vigilant, cautious and circumspect."
(Underlined by me)
51. This Court shall now proceed to examine whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of aforesaid legal principles, Smt. Savita Sharma (LR of deceased defendant No. 1), being the propounder of the Will dated 03.06.2003; Ex.DW1/B, has been able to discharge her onus to prove the due execution of the said Will by the deceased testator (deceased defendant No. 1) in a sound disposing state of mind. While dealing with this issue, this court will also examine whether there were/ are suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will dated 03.06.2003 making it unreliable.
52. The Will dated 03.06.2003, Ex.DW1/B is attested by two attesting witnesses viz. Sh. S. C. Verma (examined as DW1) and Ms. Jyotsana Sharma (examined as DW3). Sh. Rambir, UDC from the office of Registrar-3 has been examined as DW2.
53. DW1 Sh. S. C. Verma tendered his evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A in his examination-in-chief. I am reproducing the relevant portion of his evidence affidavit;
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 30 of 44 "1. I state that on 3rd of June, 2003, Shri Manphool Singh Sharma along with Smt. Jyotsna Sharma, came to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and expressed his desire to make a Will.
2. That on there instructions, I drafted the Will dt. 3/6/2003 & explained each & every contents of the same to Shri Manphool Singh Sharma in the presence of Smt. Jyotsna Sharma.
3. That Shri Manphool Singh Sharma signed, each page of the Will, after understanding minutely, in my as well as in the presence of Smt. Jyotsna Sharma. There after I alongwith Smt. Jyotsna Sharma signed the Will, in the presence of Shri Manphool Singh Sharma.
4. That after the execution & signing of the Will, the same was presented before the Sub-Registrar office, situated at Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. The Sub-Registrar verified parties to the Will and accepted the same
5. That at the time of signing of the Will dt. 3/6/2003, Shri Manphool Singh Sharma was in sound mind & without any influence or outside pressure."
54. While tendering the evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A, DW1 deposed in his examination-in-chief to the effect that I have seen the original Will dated 03.06.2003 executed by Sh. Manphool Singh, S/o Sh. Jai Narayan Sharma/Defendant No.1 in the main suit. The Will is Ex. DW-1/B which bears my signature at point A & B. The same was drafted by me on the instructions of Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma. Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma had signed in my presence and signed at point C. Manphool Singh Sharma had signed in the presence of Jyotsna Sharma. The signature of Jyotsna Sharma is at point D. The Will was got registered on 03.06.2003 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Asif Ali Road, Delhi. This is the true Will which is executed by Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 31 of 44
55. DW1 has been cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff on several dates (17.10.2011, 16.11.2012, 24.01.2013 and 10.04.2013). From the reading of cross-examination of DW1, following things emerge;
(a) DW1 knew deceased defendant No. 1/ testator/ Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma since 1998 as deceased defendant No. 1 was his client.
(b) DW1 drafted and filed a joint written statement on behalf of deceased defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 in the suit.
(c) During his lifetime, deceased defendant No. 1 through DW1 got published a public notice in newspaper Hindustan Times dated 01.04.1998 (Ex.DW1/B) to the effect that he severed all his relationship with the plaintiff. [Here, it may be recalled, before passing of preliminary decree, deceased defendant No. 1 was examined as DW1 only].
(d) The deceased defendant No. 1 had come along with the other attesting witness Smt. Jyotsana Sharma.
(e) DW1 got typed the Will in question in Tis Hazari Courts in the last week of May, 2003 (after 2-3 days of receiving instructions from deceased defendant No. 1). Neither deceased defendant No. 1 nor Smt. Jyotsana Sharma was present when DW1 got typed the Will.
(f) DW1 deposed in cross-examination to the effect It is correct that when I got the Will Ex. DW-1/B typed, I kept the place of date blank and got typed the month May. It is correct that I put the date "3rd" on the said blank place and I cut the word 'May' and written the word as 'June' because Manphool Singh alongwith Jyotsana Sharma came at my seat on 3rd of June, 2003 for signing and execution of the Will. It is wrong to suggest that the Will Ex. DW-1/B was got typed on 3rd May, 2003. It is further wrong to suggest that the Will was signed on 3rd of May, 2003 by Manphool Singh, Jyotsana Sharma and myself at RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 32 of 44 Tis Hazari Courts. It is further wrong to suggest that as the Will was Ex. DW-1/B was registered on 3rd June, 2003 that is why I cut the month 'May' and written 'June' in my hand.
(g) Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma informed DW1 that earlier also he executed two Wills dated 10.07.1995 and 07.04.1998. DW1 had seen those two Wills at the time of drafting of the Will in question. DW1 deposed to the effect that I do not remember whether I had drafted those Wills. Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma had not told me in whose favour earlier two Wills were executed by him.
(h) Deceased defendant No. 1 did not tell DW1 the reason for cancellation of earlier two Wills.
(i) DW1 is confronted with both the Wills. The earlier Will dated 10.07.1995 registered on 11.07.1995 (Ex.DW1/P1) was not drafted by me. The Will dated 07.04.1998 registered on 13.04.1998 (Ex.DW1/P2) was drafted by me and signed as a witness.
(j) DW1 is suggested on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect It is wrong to suggest that Manphool Singh had not given any instructions to me for drafting and execution of the Will Ex. DW-1/B and I got this Will typed on the basis of earlier Will Ex. DW-1/P2.
(k) DW1 is further suggested on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect It is wrong to suggest that Manphool Singh was very weak and feeble and used to murmur and talked to himself all the time and used to remained in semi conscious state on account of his being heart and asthmatic patient. It is wrong to suggest that his illness had affected his mantle faculty to such an extent that he had been rendered incapable to attend his duly course of life and he was unable to understand the nature and effect of deposition and he was not capable to put his signatures on any document after knowing what it contains.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 33 of 44
(l) DW1 is further suggested on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect It is
correct that the Will Ex. DW-1/B was executed by Manphool Singh and got registered during the pendency of the present suit in which I was counsel of Manphool Singh and Rajiv Sharma...it is wrong to suggest that I in collusion with Rajiv Sharma got the Will in question Ex. DW-1/B got signed and registered from Manphool Singh taking advantage of his ill health and debar the other son Nimit Sharma from his property.
56. It appears that the plaintiff wants to suggest that at relevant time the deceased defendant No. 1 was ill (who used to remain in a semi conscious state), and taking advantage of his ill health, the DW1 prepared the Will in question at the instance of defendant No. 2. Further, DW1 (who was counsel for deceased defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2) prepared the Will in question, without any instruction from the deceased defendant No. 1, from an earlier Will dated 13.04.1998 (Ex.DW1/P2).
57. It may be noted that the plaintiff has not led any positive evidence to show that the deceased defendant No. 1 was not keeping well at the time of execution of Will dated 03.06.2003 (Ex.DW1/B). As already noted, before passing of preliminary decree, the deceased defendant No. 1 was examined and cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Record shows that the deceased defendant No. 1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff at length on 06.05.2002. Plaintiff has not filed any document to prove that the health of defendant No. 1 deteriorated from 06.05.2002 to 03.06.2003 to such an extent that the defendant No. 1 rendered himself incapable of understanding the nature and effect of his acts/ deeds. It has come on record that the defendant No. 1 expired in February, 2006.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 34 of 44
58. This court deems it appropriate to reproduce, at this stage, the relevant portion of cross-examination of DW1 Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma (deceased defendant No. 1) (conducted on 06.05.2002);
"...I have two sons and one daughter. Rajeev Kumar is my elder son and he resides with me and looks after me. Plaintiff is my younger son...
...It is correct that marriage of my son with daughter of Sh. Rajender Sharma Adv. took place to negotiations done by Sh. Gopal Sharma Adv. I had not disclosed to Sh. Gopal Sharma or to Sh. Rajender Sharma at that time that plaintiff is habitual drinker.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have told Sh. Gopal Sharma and Sh. Rajender Sharma that my son that is plaintiff is a nice person having good antecedents and bright future...It is incorrect to suggest that I, my wife, defendant No. 2, and his wife had demanded dowry from Menu Sharma my daughter-in-law...I am not aware of the fact as to whether Menu Sharma had lodged any complaint against me or not...
...The WS filed in court bears my signatures. I was read over the contents of the WS before signing the same. I had told all the relevant facts to my counsel before preparation of the WS. I had told my counsel that my son had not given me account of the money paid by me to him, therefore, I want to debar him from my property. I have mentioned in the WS that I am debarring the plaintiff as he had failed to give account of the money given by me. All the a/c of the money paid by me to the plaintiff have been filed by me on record. I do not remember the date of publication..."
59. From reading of cross-examination of DW1 Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma, following things emerge;
(a) Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma used to reside with his elder son Sh.
Rajiv Sharma (defendant No. 2) who looks after him.
(b) The wife of the plaintiff had levelled allegations against the defendant No. 1 and other family members of demanding dowry from her.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 35 of 44
(c) Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma wanted to debar the plaintiff from his property and for that purpose he had issued a public notice in a newspaper.
(d) DW1 Sh. S. C. Verma since very inception was his counsel (also for defendant No. 2).
(e) Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma had disclosed all the relevant facts to his counsel before preparation of the written statement in the suit.
60. This court is of the considered view that the testimony of deceased testator Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma, unequivocally dispels any suspicion sought to be cast upon the execution of Will merely on the ground that the plaintiff was excluded from inheritance. It further negates the allegations made by the plaintiff that DW1 Sh. S. C. Verma prepared the Will in question, without any instruction from the deceased defendant No. 1, from an earlier Will dated 13.04.1998 (Ex.DW1/P2).
61. The other attesting witness to the Will dated 03.06.2003 (Ex.DW1/B) namely Smt. Jyotsana Sharma has been examined as DW3. She tendered her evidence affidavit Ex.DW3/A in her examination-in-chief. She deposed in the line of DW1 Sh. S. C. Verma (DW1).
62. DW3 has been cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff on 05.10.2012. From the reading of cross-examination of DW3, following things emerge;
(a) DW3 is the daughter in law of the real brother of Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma namely Sh. D. D. Sharma.
(b) DW3 deposed in cross-examination to the effect I was told by deceased Man Phool Singh that his property will go to his wife after his death and after her death, it will go to Rajiv Sharma his elder son. We did not discuss anything except that.
(c) DW3 deposed in cross-examination to the effect I was to reach at Tis Hazari Courts near SBI for being witness for the Will. I had come RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 36 of 44 alone. I had informed my family members that I am going to Tis Hazari Courts to be a witness in a Will to be executed by deceased Man Phool Singh. I left the house between 9 to 9.30 a.m. and I reached about 10.30 a.m. On reaching me near SBI I met deceased Man Phool Singh (chachaji) and he was alone at that time.
(d) DW3 is suggested on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect It is correct that I had signed the Will Ex. DW-1/B in Tis Hazari Courts and deceased Man Phool Singh had also singed the Will Ex. DW-1/B in Tis Hazari Courts. I do not remember who were present when I had signed the Will. The Will Ex. DW-1/B was not typed in my presence. I have no idea as to who had brought the Will in question before me to signed the same. I remained about 1½ hour in Tis Hazari Courts.
(e) DW3 deposed in cross-examination to the effect I did not go to home from Tis hazari Courts. On asking of deceased Man Phool Singh, I and deceased Man Phool Singh Went to Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road and we reached there at around 12 O'clock. The Will Ex. DW-1/B was put before the concern authorities for registration by deceased Man Phool Singh. I do not know before whom the Will was presented. Sub Registrar had asked me my name and about identification of deceased Man Phool Singh and I replied my name is Jyotsana Sharma and also replied that the deceased Man Phool Singh is my uncle. The contents of the Will was not readover to me by the Sub Registrar. I had signed on the Will Ex. DW-1/B on the asking of staff of Sub Registrar's Office at the places where they told me. I do not remember the number of pages on which I had signed at the Sub Registrar's Office. I also do not remember how many signatures I put on the Will Ex. DW-1/B. RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 37 of 44
(f) Will Ex.DW1/B was put to DW3 who identified her signature at point
'D'.
63. So, the propounder of the Will Smt. Savita Sharma (LR of deceased defendant No. 1) got examined both the attesting witnesses viz. DW1 and DW3 who withstood cross-examination. Their respective testimonies duly corroborated each other.
64. From the above discussion this Court concludes that the propounder of the Will Smt. Savita Sharma (LR of deceased defendant No. 1) has been able to prove due and valid execution of the Will dated 03.06.2003 Ex.DW1/B and has further been successful in removing the suspicious circumstances around the Will from the mind of the Court.
65. In this connection it may also be noted that in the present case, the Will dated 03.06.2003 Ex.DW1/B is a registered one. DW2 Sh. Rambir, UDC, office of Registrar-3, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi has brought the summoned record as per which Will dated 03.06.2003 was registered with sub registrar office vide registration No. 3527, Book No. 3, Vol No. 1244 at page No. 28 to 31on 03.06.2003. A Will though is not compulsorily required to be registered, registration thereof makes it more reliable and credible.
66. Hence, the additional issue framed on 10.12.2009 viz. Whether Will dated 03.06.2003 purportedly executed by deceased defendant No. 1 in name of Smt. Savita Sharma is genuine ? is decided in favour of Smt. Savita Sharma and against the plaintiff.
67. Now, it is to be seen what would be its effect on the suit property.
68. As already noted, on passing of preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003, the rights of the parties stand crystallised as under;
(c) 2/3rd of the suit property is in exclusive ownership of the defendant No. 1 whereas 1/3rd share of the suit property in the hands of defendant No. 1 is having ancestral characteristics.
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 38 of 44
(d) 1/3rd share which is ancestral in nature shall be divided in three persons viz. Defendant No. 1 (father), plaintiff (son) and defendant No. 2 (son). All will have 1/9th share.
69. So, the deceased defendant No. 1 could have disposed of (2/3rd + 1/9th) share of the suit property through the Will dated 03.06.2003. I am reproducing the relevant contents of Will dated 03.06.2003 (Ex.DW1/B) [Here, it is important to note that the original Will dated 03.06.2003 has been returned to Smt. Savita Sharma against filing of certified copy of same vide order dated 26.02.2015 of Ld. Trial Court];
"...I was married with Smt. Savita Sharma who is still alive and from whom I have two sons namely Sh. Rajiv Kumar and Sh. Nimit Sharma and a daughter Smt. Vinita Vashishtha wife of Shri Vikram Vashistha r/o rewari (Haryana) as my legal heirs. There is no other legal heir of mine.
Property No.71 and 72, Double Storey built up, at Now Rajinder Nagar, Now Delhi-60 was purchased by me and my brothers Shri Madan Gopal slonoms and Shri D. D. Shama with our joint funds. Later on, vide Gift Deed dated 5.6.1963 duly registered with Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, the my brothers Shri Madan Copal and Shri D.D. Sharma gifted their respective 1/3 share in the aforementioned properties to me.
I also have movable properties, including cash, Bank Balance, Fixed Deposits, Jewellery and ornaments, etc. etc. I shall own and enjoy my aforementioned immovable and movable properties during my life time and after my demise, the same shall devolve on my wife Smt. Savita Sharma for her life time except 1/3 share out of my 1/3 share in the properties, which has fallen to my son Nimit Sharma in pursuance of the Preliminary Decree passed by the court of Shri Amit Kumar, Civil Judge, Delhi, in cane No. 606/2000, New No. 516/2002, titled as "Nimit Sharma vs. Manphool Singh and others" dated 15.2.2003. After the death of my wife Smt. Savita Sharma, or if she pre-deceases me then my property as defined above, movable RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 39 of 44 and immovable shall devolve on my son Shri Rajiv Kumar only who will alone inherit the property No.71 and 72, New Rajinder Nagar, Double Storey, New Delhi, to the exclusing of 1/3 share out of 1/3 share in the property which has gone to my son Nimit Kumer, as per order of the aforementioned court. My son Rajiv Sharma shall have all powers to sell, transfer or dispose off and to enjoy the said property in any manner he likes together with movable property, but my wife Smt. Savita Sharma shall have only right to use and enjoy the properties during her life time, and shall have no right and power to sell, transfer or dispose of the said properties in any manner whatsoever..."
70. In terms of the Will dated 03.06.2003 (Ex.DW1/B), after the death of Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma, his share (2/3rd+1/9th) in the suit property would devolve upon her wife Smt. Savita Sharma for her lifetime. Smt. Savita Sharma would have only the right to use and enjoy the suit property. She has no right and power to sell, transfer or dispose of the suit property. After the lifetime of Smt. Savita Sharma, the suit property would devolve upon defendant No. 2 namely Sh. Rajiv Sharma absolutely who has all the rights and power to sell, transfer or dispose of the suit property.
71. From the above discussion this court concludes as under;
(a) 1/3rd share in the suit property which is ancestral in nature (in the hands of deceased defendant No. 1) would be divided amongst three persons viz. LRs of deceased defendant No. 1 (deceased father), plaintiff (son) and defendant No. 2 (son). All will have 1/9th share [in terms of preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003]
(b) After the death of Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma (defendant No. 1), his share (2/3rd+1/9th) in the suit property, in terms of the Will dated 03.06.2003 (Ex.DW1/B), would devolve upon her wife Smt. Savita Sharma for her lifetime. Smt. Savita Sharma would have only the right to use and enjoy the suit property. She has no right and power to sell, RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 40 of 44 transfer or dispose of the suit property. After the lifetime of Smt. Savita Sharma, the suit property would devolve upon defendant No. 2 namely Sh. Rajiv Sharma absolutely who has all the rights and power to sell, transfer or dispose of the suit property.
72. So, there would be no change in the share of the plaintiff. He would be entitled to 1/9th share in the suit property.
73. Here, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court;
"...In view of the report of LC, I am duly satisfied that property can not be partitioned by meats and bounds. Same is further reflected from the fact that parties failed to effect the settlement till date after passing of preliminary deeree in the year 2003. Now the question to be determined by the court is regarding the mode of partition. In this regard, it is to observe that admittedly the property is a dwelling house consisting of two floors and at present, plaintiff with his family is residing on the first floor and defendant no. 2 with his family and LR of defendant no. 1 namely Savita Sharma are residing on the ground floor. Again, as submitted on behalf of defendant, the property is not free hold and same is not disputed even on behalf of plaintiff. Accordingly, the property can not be sold and rather the interest of justice will be served, if LR of defendant no. 1 namely Savita Sharma and defendant no. 2 are allowed to pay the value of 1/9th share in the suit property to the plaintiff..."
74. It appears that the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 25.03.2019 appointed independent valuers namely Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Government approved valuer and Er. Anil Kumar Sharma to assess the value of the suit property. The independent valuer Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma filed his report valuing the suit property at Rs. 5,00,72,650 (Rupees Five Crore Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty Only). Ld. Trial court accordingly passed the order dated 08.04.2019 to the effect;
RCA DJ No. 55/2019Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 41 of 44 "...In these circumstances, final decree of partition be prepared to this effect that LRs of D1 namely Savita Sharma and Rajeev Sharma / defendant no. 2 are hereby directed to pay the 1/9th sum of Rs. 5,00,72,650/- (five crore seventy two thousand six hundred and fifty only) to the plaintiff within two months from today. Aggrieved party is at liberty to approach the court for satisfaction of same, if same is not complied with either of the parties..."
75. The appellant while objecting to the valuation of the suit property stated that the Ld. Trial Court ignored that similar property in the locality as that of suit property was sold for Rs. 6,25,00,000/- (Six Crore Twenty Five Lakh Only). Ld. Trial court in his order dated 08.04.2019 negated the said contention made on behalf of the appellant herein noting that the valuation was filed by an independent valuer appointed by the court and there was no reason to presume that the valuation report was filed with a view to favour any of the parties.
76. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant has failed to bring on record any thing to show that the valuation report was filed with a view to favour the respondents. In other words, the appellant has not led anything to show that the independent valuer was biased against him or in favour of respondents.
77. There is no reason for this court not to believe the valuation report filed by the independent valuer valuing the suit property at Rs. 5,00,72,650 (Rupees Five Crore Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty Only) on relevant date i.e. 08.04.2019. Arguments of Ld. counsel for the appellant is accordingly rejected.
78. Having held so, this court can not lose site of the fact that there has been steady rise in the property prices, and the escalation in the value of property, particularly in urban and Metropolitan areas like Delhi, must be duly taken note by the court. This court, as such, in order to balance the equities, directed the LR of defendant no. 1 namely Smt. Savita Sharma and defendant no. 2 namely Sh. Rajiv Sharma to pay interest @ 9% on an amount of Rs. 5,00,72,650 (Rupees RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 42 of 44 Five Crore Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty Only) to the appellant from the date of preferring the present appeal till passing of decree in the present appeal.
CONCLUSION
79. In light of the foregoing discussion, the findings of this court may be encapsulated as under;
(a) 1/3rd share in the suit property which is ancestral in nature (in the hands of deceased defendant No. 1) would be divided amongst three persons viz. defendant No. 1 (deceased father), plaintiff (son) and defendant No. 2 (son). All will have 1/9th share [in terms of preliminary decree dated 15.02.2003]
(b) After the death of Sh. Manphool Singh Sharma (defendant No. 1), his share (2/3rd+1/9th) in the suit property, in terms of the Will dated 03.06.2003 (Ex.DW1/B), would devolve upon her wife Smt. Savita Sharma for her lifetime. Smt. Savita Sharma would have only the right to use and enjoy the suit property. She has no right and power to sell, transfer or dispose of the suit property. After the lifetime of Smt. Savita Sharma, the suit property would devolve upon defendant No. 2 namely Sh. Rajiv Sharma absolutely who has all the rights and power to sell, transfer or dispose of the suit property.
(c) Legal representative of deceased defendant No. 1 namely Smt. Savita Sharma, and defendant No. 2 Sh. Rajeev Sharma are hereby directed to pay the 1/9th sum of Rs. 5,00,72,650/- (five crore seventy two thousand six hundred and fifty only) to the plaintiff within two months from today.
(d) Legal representative of deceased defendant no. 1 namely Smt. Savita Sharma and defendant No. 2 Sh. Rajiv Sharma are also directed to pay interest @ 9% on an amount of Rs. 5,00,72,650 (Rupees Five Crore RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 43 of 44 Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty Only) to the appellant from the date of preferring the present appeal till passing of decree in the present appeal, within two months from today.
80. In view of abovesaid, the present appeal stands disposed of.
81. Any of the parties are at liberty to get the final decree prepared by depositing the requisite non-judicial stamp papers. Final decree be prepared on payment of requisite stamp duty.
82. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(Announced in the open court on this 6th day of November, 2025 This Judgment consists of Forty Four signed pages).
(Abhishek Srivastava) District Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2025.11.06 16:53:41 +0530 RCA DJ No. 55/2019 Nimit Sharma Vs. Manphool Singh Sharma and Ors.
Judgment dated 06.11.2025 Page No. 44 of 44