Delhi District Court
Om Pati Ors vs Satvanti on 28 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016
CNR No. DLSW010023842015
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. SMT. OMPATI
D/o LATE SHIV SAHAI
W/o SHRI SATPAL
R/O HOUSE No.1214-A/21
GALI No.9R, PREM NAGAR
ROHTAK, HARYANA
2. SMT. HAKMO
D/o LATE SHIV SAHAI
W/o SHRI JAIPAL
R/o VPO RAJLU GARHI
DISTT. SONEPAT, HARYANA
3. SMT.KRISHNA
D/o LATE SHIV SAHAI
W/o SHRI RAJAN
R/o VPO KATLUPUR
DISTT.SONEPAT, HARYANA
4. SMT. DANWANTI
D/o LATE SHIV SAHAI
W/o SHRI MAHABIR SINGH
R/o VPO LALAKANA
PO GOLAHARH DISTT.BHIWANI
HARYANA
5. SMT. ISHWANTI
D/o LATE SHIV SAHAI
W/o SHRI NORTAN
R/o VPO BHAGWATIPUR
DISTT. ROHTAK, HARYANA
........Plaintiffs
Versus
CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 1/20
SMT. SATWANTI
D/o LATE SHIV SAHAI
W/o SHRI RAJBIR SINGH
R/o HOUSE No.362
VPO DHANSA, NEW DELHI ..........Defendant
Date of institution 16.05.2015
Date of reserving judgment 26.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment 28.03.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction. The brief facts of the case are:− PLAINT
1. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendant, and all parties are the daughters of the late Sh. Shiv Sahai and the late Smt. Bharpai. Sh. Shiv Sahai passed away on 21.07.1999, and Smt. Bharpai passed away on 28.02.2012. They are survived by the parties to the present suit.
2. Late Sh. Shiv Sahai was the owner of three properties situated in the old Lal Dora of Village Dhansa, namely:
(i) a built-up house ad-measuring approximately 200 yd.² ("Property A");
(ii) a vacant plot ad-measuring approximately 200 yd.² ("Property B"); and
(iii) a vacant plot ad-measuring approximately 320 yd.² ("Property C").
3. Additionally, late Smt. Bharpai was the owner of a plot admeasuring 1 bigha 2 biswa, situated in Khasra No. 323/3 in the extended Lal Dora of Village Dhansa ("Property D").
CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 2/20
4. These four properties shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "suit properties."
5. The three properties situated in the old Lal Dora were ancestral properties inherited by late Sh. Shiv Sahai.
6. Initially, half of the share in the property 'D' was owned by Sh. Shiv Sahai, while the remaining half was owned by Shree Kishan and Gyan Chand. Subsequently, late Smt. Bharpai purchased the shares of Shree Kishan and Gyan Chand. Simultaneously, Sh. Shiv Sahai transferred his half share in favor of his wife, Smt. Bharpai.
7. Following the demise of Sh. Shiv Sahai, Smt. Bharpai was left alone and was cared for by all her daughters in turns. At a later stage, the defendant shifted in with Smt. Bharpai pursuant to an oral family understanding, as the defendant's husband was not financially stable at the time. The plaintiffs frequently visited their mother, and their relations remained cordial.
8. After the demise of Smt. Bharpai, the plaintiffs submitted an application for the mutation of the property 'D' in favour of all parties to the suit. However, the defendant contested the same, asserting the existence of a Will dated 15.06.1999, allegedly executed by Smt. Bharpai in her favour.
9. The defendant subsequently filed Probate Petition No. 28/13, titled Satwanti vs. State and Others, seeking the grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 15.06.1999. The plaintiffs raised objections in the said probate proceedings. Thereafter, on 18.03.2013, the defendant withdrew the petition, claiming to have discovered another Will dated 12.10.2011, allegedly executed by Smt. Bharpai.
10. The defendant did not initiate a fresh probate petition in CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 3/20 respect of the alleged Will dated 12.10.2011. However, she presented the same before the revenue authorities to secure the mutation of the property 'D'.
11. Upon learning of the alleged Will dated 12.10.2011, the plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, bearing CS SCJ No. 1798/2014, titled Smt. Om Pati vs. Smt. Satwanti, seeking the cancellation of the said Will. (The said suit has since been decreed, and the Will dated 12.10.2011 has been declared null and void. The appeal against the said judgment has also been dismissed.)
12. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has alleged that late Sh. Shiv Sahai executed two sets of documents, viz, a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA), a registered Will, a notarized GPA, an agreement, an affidavit, a receipt, and a possession letter, all dated 15.06.1999, in respect of Plot No. 86, admeasuring 400 square yards, and Plot No. 85, admeasuring 105 square yards, both situated in the Lal Dora of Village Dhansa. The plaintiffs contend that late Sh. Shiv Sahai never disclosed the existence of any such documents to them and never intended to execute such documents exclusively in favour of the defendant. It is asserted that the defendant has committed forgery by taking advantage of the advanced age and deteriorating health of late Sh. Shiv Sahai, who was suffering from various ailments and was not in a sound state of mind at the time of execution.
13. The plaintiffs state that all documents dated 15.06.1999 are false, frivolous, and legally invalid. It is further alleged that the defendant, in conspiracy with her husband, forged the Wills dated 15.06.1999 and 12.10.2011 of late Smt. Bharpai in an attempt to usurp property 'D'. The plaintiffs assert that late Smt. CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 4/20 Bharpai maintained cordial relations with all her daughters and had no reason to exclude the plaintiffs from inheriting her property.
14. Upon the demise of their parents, all sisters have become legally entitled to equal shares in the suit properties. However, the plaintiffs apprehend that the defendant may attempt to transfer, alienate, or otherwise create third-party interests in the suit properties.
15. In view of the foregoing, the present suit has been instituted seeking:
(i) A declaration that the documents dated 15.06.1999, purportedly in respect of Plot Nos. 85 and 86, are null and void;
(ii) A decree of partition of the suit properties, granting each party a 1/6th share; and
(iii) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, selling, alienating, or otherwise creating any third-party interest in the suit properties.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
16. The defendant, in her written statement, has asserted that properties 'A' to 'C' are not ancestral in nature but are, in fact, her self-acquired properties. Furthermore, the defendant claims that late Smt. Bharpai had executed a valid Will in her favour with respect to property 'D,' thereby making her the lawful owner in possession of the said property.
REPLICATION
17. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement reiterating the contents of the plaint and denying the averments made in the written statement.
CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 5/20 ISSUES
18. Admission-denial of documents was conducted and the defendant admitted:
a) Death certificate of her parents Ex P1 and P2.
b) Registered Will dated 15.06.1999 Ex P3
c) Registered Will dated 12.10.2011 Ex P4
d) Final order passed in the probate case Ex P5.
19. Vide order dated 31.05.2019, Ld Predecessor Court framed six issues in this case:
(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of declaration with regard to General Power of Attorney, registered vide document No. 27559, Addl. Book No. IV, Vol. No. 2327, on pages 121 to 123 dated 15.06.1999, duly registered before the Sub-Registrar-VIB, and registered will, vide document No. 30379, Addl. Book No. III, Vol. No. 1000, on page 87 dated 15.06.1999 duly registered before the Sub-Registrar-VIB, and Notarised documents i.e. registered General Power of Attorney, agreement, affidavit, receipt, possession letter all dated 15.06.1999 in respect of property Plot No. 86, measuring 400 sq.yds situated under the Lal Dora of Village Dhansa, Delhi be declared as null and void? ... OPP (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of General Power of Attorney, registered vide document No. 27560, Addl. Book No. IV, Vol. No. 2327 on pages 124 to 126 dated 15.06.1999, duly registered before the Sub-
Registrar - VIB and registered will, vide document No. 30361, Addl. Book No. III, Vol. No. 1000, on page 69 dated 15.06.1999, duly registered before the Sub-- Registrar -VI B and Notarised documents i.e. registered General Power of Attorney, agreement, affidavit, receipt, possession letter all dated 15.06.1999, in respect of property bearing built up House bearing No. 85, measuring 105 sq. yds situated under the Lal Dora of Village Dhansa, Delhi be declared as null and void? ... OPP (3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property, thereby declaring CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 6/20 plaintiffs to have 1/6th share each in the below mentioned suit properties:
(i) Built up house admeasuring 200 sq.yds approx.in the old Lal Dora, abadi deh of village Dhansa New Delhi;
(ii) Vacant Plot admeasuring 200 sq.yds approx.in the old Lal Dora, abadi deh of village Dhansa New Delhi;
(iii) Vacant plot admeasuring 320 sq.yds approx.in the old Lal Dora, abadi deh of village Dhansa New Delhi, and
(iv) Khasra No. 323/3 (12) situated in the extended Lal Dora of Village Dhansa, Delhi. ... OPP (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds ? ... OPP (5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendants their friends, relatives, assigns, nominees etc. for selling , transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit properties, as shown in the red colour in the site plan?
... OPP (6) Relief, if any."
EVIDENCE
20. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined three witnesses:
20.1. Plaintiff no.1/PW1 tendered her affidavit Ex PW-1/A in evidence which reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. She relied on Ex P1 to Ex P5 and the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as 1. Site plan of the suit properties Ex PW1/3 2. Khasra Khatoni Mark X 3. A copy of the sale deed of property 'D' Mark Y 4. A copy of the mutation application Mark Z 5. A copy of synopsis of the mutation proceedings Mark Z1 CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 7/20 6. Certified copy of judgment in CS No. 26234/16 Ex PW1/10
20.2. PW2/Witness from the Record Room proved the copy of judgment Ex PW1/10 as Ex PW2/A. 20.3. PW3/Witness from SDM Office proved Mark Z as Ex PW3/A, Mark Z-1 as Ex PW3/B and also brought a copy of order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner directing mutation of property 'D' in favour of all daughters as Mark A (certified copy is already Mark DW1/1A.)
21. The defendant examined seven witnesses in her support:
21.1. DW1/Defendant no.1 tendered her affidavit Ex DW-1/A in evidence which supports the averments made in the written statement. She relied on Ex P3, Mark Y and the following documents:
S. No. Document Marked as
1. Copy of chain of documents in respect of plot Ex DW1/1 no.85
2. Copy of chain of documents in respect of plot Ex DW1/3 no.86
3. Original two Wills dated 15.06.1999 of Sh. Shiv Ex DW1/6 Sahai (copies are already part of Ex DW1/1 and Ex (colly) DW1/3) 21.2. DW2/Manjeet Solanki was summoned to prove the signatures of Sh Baljit Singh in Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3. He stated that Sh Baljeet Singh had passed away. He brought a copy of the passbook of Sh. Baljeet Singh Ex DW2/1 (OSR.) 21.3. DW3/Azad Singh and DW4/Naveen Kumar stated that they were the attesting witnesses in the Will Ex P4 and testified on those lines.{Testimonies irrelevant as the Will Ex P4 has already been declared null and void vide judgment dated 29.01.2018, upheld in appeal on 20.11.2019} CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 8/20 21.4. DW5/Jai Singh stated that he was one of the attesting witnesses in Will Ex DW1/6 but did not fully support the case of the defendant.
21.5. DW6 and DW7/Witnesses from Sub-Registrar Office proved the registration of the documents Ex P4, Ex DW1/3, Ex DW1/6, Ex DW1/1 and Ex P3.
FINDINGS
22. I have heard Sh. Shaminder Kadiyan, Ld Counsel for the plaintiffs and Ms. Saroj Bala, Ld Counsel for the defendant.
23. Issue-wise findings are as under:
24. (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of declaration with regard to General Power of Attorney, registered vide document No. 27559, Addl. Book No. IV, Vol. No. 2327, on pages 121 to 123 dated 15.06.1999, duly registered before the Sub-Registrar-VIB, and registered will, vide document No. 30379, Addl. Book No. III, Vol. No. 1000, on page 87 dated 15.06.1999 duly registered before the Sub-Registrar-VIB, and Notarised documents i.e. registered General Power of Attorney, agreement, affidavit, receipt, possession letter all dated 15.06.1999 in respect of property Plot No. 86, measuring 400 sq.yds situated under the Lal Dora of Village Dhansa, Delhi be declared as null and void? ... OPP (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of General Power of Attorney, registered vide document No. 27560, Addl. Book No. IV, Vol. No. 2327 on pages 124 to 126 dated 15.06.1999, duly registered before the Sub-Registrar - VIB and registered will, vide document No. 30361, Addl. Book No. III, Vol. No. 1000, on page 69 dated 15.06.1999, duly registered before the Sub-Registrar -VI B and Notarised documents i.e. registered General Power of Attorney, agreement, affidavit, receipt, possession letter all dated 15.06.1999, in respect of property bearing built up House bearing No. 85, measuring 105 sq. yds situated under the Lal Dora of Village Dhansa, Delhi be declared as null and void? ... OPP 24.1. There are certain typographical errors in these two issues.
The issues currently read: "...Notarized documents i.e., CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 9/20 registered General Power of Attorney,..." whereas they should correctly read as: "Notarized documents i.e., General Power of Attorney,..." The word "registered" appears to have been inadvertently included.
24.2. Additionally, the document numbers of the registered General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) are erroneously mentioned as "27559" and "27560," whereas the correct document numbers are "37559" and "37560."
24.3. Furthermore, there is no affidavit in the chain of documents pertaining to Plot No. 85; however, the same has been incorrectly mentioned in Issue No. (2).
24.4. The aforementioned corrections should be incorporated accordingly.
24.5. Both these issues are interconnected, as the two sets of documents are alleged to have been executed simultaneously. The burden of proof for this issue rested upon the plaintiffs. 24.6. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have raised two primary grounds to challenge the validity of the documents Ex DW1/1, Ex DW1/3, and Ex DW1/6, seeking their declaration as null and void. First, they contend that Sh. Shiv Sahai never disclosed the existence of these documents to them. Second, they assert that Sh. Shiv Sahai never intended to execute these documents exclusively in favour of the defendant and that the defendant committed forgery by taking advantage of his old age. It is their case that Sh. Shiv Sahai was suffering from various ailments and was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of these documents.
24.7. With respect to the first ground, the mere fact that Sh. Shiv Sahai did not inform the plaintiffs about the execution of these CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 10/20 documents does not, in itself, create grounds for suspicion. It is pertinent to note that Sh. Shiv Sahai passed away approximately 35 days after executing these documents. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that Sh. Shiv Sahai was hospitalised prior to his passing. Given these circumstances, it is possible that he may not have been in a position to inform others about the execution of these documents.
24.8. However, the second ground raised by the plaintiffs carries merit. The defendant admitted during cross-examination that Sh. Shiv Sahai was seriously ill before his death and was admitted to Brahm Shakti Hospital and DDU Hospital.
24.9. Ex DW1/1 pertains to Plot No. 85, while Ex DW1/3 pertains to Plot No. 86. The copies of Wills Ex DW1/6 (colly) were already part of the chain of documents Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3 and are therefore being dealt with under Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3 only.
24.10. For ease of reference, Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3 may be categorised into two groups each:
(a) Ex DW1/1 consists of: Two registered documents - General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Will, and four notarised documents
- GPA, agreement, receipt, and possession letter.
(b) Ex DW1/3 comprises: Two registered documents - General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Will, and Five notarised documents - GPA, agreement, affidavit, receipt, and possession letter.
Registered Documents 24.11. While this Court acknowledges that Ex DW1/1 (registered GPA and Will) and Ex DW1/3 (registered GPA and Will) are registered documents bearing the certificate of the Sub-Registrar, CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 11/20 it is a well-settled principle that mere registration does not automatically confer an irrefutable presumption of genuineness upon a document. The recitals of a registered document are presumed to be valid; however, such a presumption may be rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary, as held in Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC 434.
24.12. The registration of these documents has already been proved through DW7.
24.13. Ex DW1/1 (registered GPA and Will) and Ex DW1/3 (registered GPA and Will) were witnessed by two individuals:
Advocate R.R. Bhardwaj and Jai Singh (DW5.) 24.14. Since the executant, Sh. Shiv Sahai, is deceased, and the whereabouts of Advocate R.R. Bhardwaj could not be ascertained despite best efforts (as submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant), the testimony of DW5, Jai Singh, becomes crucial in assessing the validity of these registered documents.
24.15. DW5 identified his signatures on these documents. He testified that he and Sh. Shiv Sahai signed the documents outside the Sub-Registrar's office while sitting in a car. He further deposed that Sh. Shiv Sahai was not in a position to sit or walk, as he had come directly from Brahm Shakti Hospital to the Sub- Registrar's office.
24.16. When questioned regarding the mental capacity of Sh.
Shiv Sahai at the time of execution, DW5 explicitly stated that due to his illness, his mental faculties had significantly deteriorated, causing forgetfulness and absent-mindedness. In his own words, "Woh dimaag se absent ho gaye the" (he had become mentally absent.) CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 12/20 24.17. In the case of Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. & others vs Shiv Singh, 2023 INSC 876 the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted the following observations from the case Rani Purnima Debi and another vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, AIR 1962 SC 567 with approval:
"There is no doubt that if a Will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. But the mere fact that a Will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a Will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the Will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the Will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a Will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeing the testator reading the Will) that the testator knew that it was a Will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the Will was registered would not be of much value. It is not unknown that registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering. Law reports are full of cases in which registered Wills have not been acted upon ......... Therefore, the mere fact of registration may not by itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a Will; though the fact that there has been registration would be an important circumstance in favour of the Will being genuine if the evidence as to registration establishes that the testator admitted the execution of the Will after knowing that it was a Will the execution of which he was admitting."
24.18. Furthermore, DW5 testified that he was illiterate and was not informed of the contents of these documents. The only information conveyed to him was by Sh. Shiv Sahai, who stated that he was transferring the property in favour of Smt. Bharpai. According to DW5, Sh. Shiv Sahai explicitly mentioned that he could not exclude any of his daughters from his estate, stating, "Kisi bhi ek ungli ko kaṭenge toh dard barabar hoga, main teri CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 13/20 mami ke naam property kar dunga, vo hi karegi jo kuchh karegi. "
(If you cut any one finger, the pain is the same; I will transfer the property in your aunt's name, and she will decide what to do with it.) 24.19. This testimony reveals that both Sh. Shiv Sahai and DW5 were illiterate and that the contents of Ex DW1/1 (registered GPA and Will) and Ex DW1/3 (registered GPA and Will) were never read over to them. Furthermore, Sh. Shiv Sahai was seriously unwell at the time of execution, having arrived directly from the hospital, and was not in a physical condition to leave the car and enter the Sub-Registrar's office. Importantly, he had expressed his intent to execute the documents in favour of his wife, Smt. Bharpai; however, the documents were ultimately recorded in the name of the defendant.
24.20. The plaintiffs have, therefore, led strong and cogent evidence suggesting that Ex DW1/1 (registered GPA and Will) and Ex DW1/3 (registered GPA and Will) were not duly executed.
24.21. Consequently, the burden shifted to the defendant to prove the genuineness of Ex DW1/1 (registered GPA and Will) and Ex DW1/3 (registered GPA and Will). However, no additional evidence was presented to substantiate their validity. Furthermore, the defendant did not cross-examine DW5 to challenge or disprove his testimony.
24.22. As a result, the evidence on record conclusively establishes that the registration of Ex DW1/1 (registered GPA and Will) and Ex DW1/3 (registered GPA and Will) was carried out in an entirely perfunctory manner. The executant, an illiterate man who was not in a sound mental state, had intended to CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 14/20 execute documents in favour of his wife, but the documents were ultimately executed in favour of his daughter (the defendant.) Notarised Documents 24.23. There were two witnesses to Ex DW1/1 (four notarised documents) and Ex DW1/3 (four notarised documents, excluding the Affidavit, which has no witness): Baljit and Jai Singh. 24.24. The testimony of Jai Singh has already been discussed above. He gave the same statement regarding all the documents in Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3.
24.25. DW2, the son of Baljit, was examined in his place as it was stated that Baljit had passed away in 2010-11. DW2 identified his father's signatures on the documents and further provided a sample signature from his father's bank passbook, marked as Ex DW2/A. 24.26. However, a comparison of the signatures reveals significant discrepancies. The signature of Baljit in Ex DW2/A appears as "Baljit," whereas on the notarised documents, it is signed as "Baljit Singh." Furthermore, the manner in which "Baljit" is written in Ex DW2/1 is entirely different from the signatures found on Ex DW1/1 (four notarised documents) and Ex DW1/3 (four notarised documents).
24.27. It is also pertinent to note that DW2 is the son-in-law of the defendant, thereby having a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case. Consequently, his testimony cannot be considered reliable.
24.28. Additionally, there are other suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex DW1/1 (four notarised documents) and Ex DW1/3 (four notarised documents). While the name and particulars of the other witness, Jai Singh, were typed on the CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 15/20 documents, the name of Baljit Singh does not appear in any of them. Moreover, the signatures of Jai Singh and Baljit Singh are overlapping in almost all the documents, raising further doubts about their authenticity.
24.29. Furthermore, it is illogical why a person would choose different sets of witnesses for documents executed simultaneously and forming part of a single chain of transactions. 24.30. It is also relevant to highlight that the defendant herself has failed to support her own case. She explicitly stated that she was unaware of the contents of her affidavit in evidence, Ex DW1/A. 24.31. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act provides that any person entitled to any legal character or any right concerning property may institute a suit against any person denying or intending to deny such right, and the court may, in its discretion, declare that the person is so entitled.
24.32. In the present case, the plaintiffs, being the daughters of Sh. Shiv Sahai, have rightful claims over properties 'A' to 'C'. However, the defendant has denied these rights by relying on the disputed documents Ex DW1/1 to Ex DW1/3. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek a declaration that these documents are null and void.
24.33. In light of the evidence discussed above, this case warrants the exercise of the Court's discretion to pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs.
24.34. These issues are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. The following documents are declared null and void:
a) Registered General Power of Attorney, document No. 37559, CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 16/20 Addl. Book No. IV, Vol. No. 2327, on pages 121 to 123 dated 15.06.1999, registered with Sub-Registrar-VI-B, in respect of property Plot No. 86,
b) Registered Will, document No. 30362, Addl. Book No. III, Vol. No. 1000, on page 87 dated 15.06.1999 registered with Sub-Registrar-VI-B, in respect of property Plot No. 86,
c) Notarised documents i.e. General Power of Attoney, agreement, affidavit, receipt and possession letter all dated 15.06.1999 in respect of property Plot No. 86,
d) Registered General Power of Attorney, document No. 37560, Addl. Book No. IV, Vol. No. 2327 on pages 124 to 126 dated 15.06.1999, registered with Sub-Registrar - VI-B, in respect of property Plot No. 85,
e) Registered Will, document No. 30361, Addl. Book No. III, Vol. No. 1000, on page 69 dated 15.06.1999, registered with Sub-Registrar -VI B in respect of property Plot No. 85, and
f) Notarised documents i.e. General Power of Attorney, agreement, receipt and possession letter, all dated 15.06.1999, in respect of property Plot No. 85.
25. (3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for a preliminary decree of partition of the suit property, thereby declaring plaintiffs to have 1/6th share each in the below mentioned suit properties:
(i) Built up house admeasuring 200 sq.yds approx.in the old Lal Dora, abadi deh of village Dhansa New Delhi;
(ii) Vacant Plot admeasuring 200 sq.yds approx.in the old Lal Dora, abadi deh of village Dhansa New Delhi;
(iii) Vacant plot admeasuring 320 sq.yds approx.in the old Lal Dora, abadi deh of village Dhansa New Delhi, and
(iv) Khasra No. 323/3 (12) situated in the extended Lal Dora of Village Dhansa, Delhi. ... OPP CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 17/20 (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds ? ... OPP 25.1. It is undisputed that the suit properties were owned by the parents of the parties to this suit. In light of the findings on Issue Nos. (1) and (2), properties 'A' to 'C' were never transferred to the defendant and, therefore, remained under the ownership of Sh.
Shiv Sahai.
25.2. Likewise, the Will Ex P4 of Smt. Bharpai, which purported to bequeath property 'C', has been adjudged null and void. That judgment has attained finality, thereby confirming that property 'C' continued to be owned by Smt. Bharpai. 25.3. Arguments were raised as to whether the suit properties were self-acquired, ancestral, or benami (with Sh. Shiv Sahai as the factual owner). However, such arguments are inconsequential for determining the present suit, given that both Sh. Shiv Sahai and Smt. Bharpai are now deceased.
25.4. It is undisputed that they are survived by their six daughters, who are the parties to this suit. In the absence of any testamentary disposition, the estates of Sh. Shiv Sahai and Smt. Bharpai would devolve equally among all their Class-I heirs, i.e., all the plaintiffs and the defendant.
25.5. During the course of submissions, the Court inquired about the property numbers of the suit properties. However, no satisfactory response was provided by either side, except that the properties are situated in old Lal Dora/extended Lal Dora and do not have fixed numbers.
25.6. Further inquiries were made regarding the identification of Plot Nos. 85 and 86 in relation to properties 'A' to 'D'. However, neither party could provide a conclusive response.
CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 18/20 25.7. As noted earlier, the documents Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3, which reference Plot Nos. 85 and 86, have already been declared null and void and thus, hold no legal effect. 25.8. Moreover, the plaintiffs have described the suit properties not only by their area but also through a site plan, specifying measurements and immediate surroundings. The defendant accepted this description and site plan. She also claimed, in her affidavit, to possess documents for all the suit properties. Specifically, in affidavit Ex DW1/A, she asserted that:
Documents for property 'A' were Ex DW1/1, Documents for property 'B' were Ex DW1/2, Documents for property 'C' were Ex DW1/3, and Documents for property 'D' were Ex DW1/4.
25.9. However, the defendant only tendered Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3 and omitted the remaining documents. The plaintiffs' counsel objected to the marking of Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3 on the ground that they were forged and contained incorrect dimensions of the properties. This objection deserves to be sustained since the documents Ex DW1/1 mention that the property is 105 yd.² whereas property 'A' is 200 yd.². Similarly, the documents Ex DW1/3 describe the property as having 400 yd.² whereas property 'C' is 320 yd.² 25.10. Since the defendant has already accepted the plaintiffs' description of the properties and has failed to explain the discrepancies in her documents, it must be inferred that the property descriptions in Ex DW1/1 and Ex DW1/3 were also incorrect.
25.11. Consequently, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and it is held that all the suit properties are liable to be CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 19/20 partitioned, with each of the plaintiffs and the defendant receiving an equal 1/6th share.
26. (5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendants their friends, relatives, assigns, nominees etc. for selling , transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit properties, as shown in the red colour in the site plan? ... OPP
26.1. Since it held that the suit properties are to be partitioned between the parties, none of them shall sell, transfer, alienate or create any third party interest in the suit properties without the permission of this Court. This issue is accordingly answered.
27. (6) Relief, if any.
27.1. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Preliminary decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
28. Parties are directed to file their affidavits suggesting the mode of partition by metes and bounds.
29. Put up for further proceedings on 21.05.2025.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN
GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2025.04.02
SOLANKI 16:44:47 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
on 28th March, 2025 District Judge-02
South-West District
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS DJ ADJ No. 516431/2016 Ompati & Ors vs. Satwanti Page no. 20/20