Delhi District Court
S. Satveer Singh vs Jagdeep Kaur Mehr Ors on 18 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE - 09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-000065-2008
CS DJ No. 610054/16
In the matter of :-
1. S. Satveer Singh,
S/o Late S. Charanjeet Singh,
R/o 197, Vishnu Garden,
Delhi.
2. S. Sukhvinder Singh,
S/o Late S. Charanjeet Singh,
R/o 96-A, Manak Shaw Road,
Sainik Farm, New Delhi. ..... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Smt. Jagdeep Kaur Mehr,
W/o Sh. Karamvir Singh Mehr,
R/o 5173, Baron Drive,
Mississauga, L5M6V6,
Ontario, Canada.
2. Smt. Omwati
W/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o L-51, Tagore Gali no. 13,
Brahampuri, Delhi-110033.
3. S. Rupinder Pal Singh,
S/o Late S. Charanjeet Singh,
R/o D-401, Ashiana Apartment,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-110091.
4. S. Swaranjeet Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Charanjeet Singh,
R/o 96-A, Manak Shaw Road,
Sainik Farm, New Delhi.
..... Defendants
CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 1/ 33
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18
16:12:46
+0530
Date of institution : 11.08.2008
Reserved for judgment : 04.10.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 18.10.2025
SUIT FOR PARTITION, DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES/MESNE PROFITS
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for partition, declaration, possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits.
2. Succinctly put, the case of plaintiff, as per plaint, is that S. Gian Singh, grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1, 3 and 4 was the absolute and exclusive owner of property bearing no. IX/439, Bagichi Harphool Singh, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, measuring 216 sq. yards. He expired in the year 1962, leaving behind his wife Smt. Taljit Kaur, two sons and four daughters. He left behind a Will, thereby bequeathing and devising his aforesaid property to and in favour of his wife Smt. Taljit Kaur. Accordingly, after his death, his wife became the absolute and exclusive owner of the said property. Smt. Taljit Kaur expired on 07.02.1979, leaving behind a Will dated 24.01.1979, thereby bequeathing and devising the said property to and in favour of her sons namely S. Charanjeet Singh and S. Baljeet Singh to the extent of half undivided share each. Thereafter, S. Charanjeet Singh also expired intestate on 06.06.1983, leaving behind his wife namely Smt. Satvinder Kaur, four sons namely S. Rupinder Pal Singh, defendant no. 3 (for short 'D-3'), S. Satveer Singh/plaintiff no. 1 (for short 'P-1'), S. Swaranjeet Singh/defendant no. 4 (for short 'D-4') and S. Sukhvinder Singh/plaintiff no. 2 (for short 'P-2') and one daughter CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 2/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:12:52 +0530 namely Smt. Jagdeep Kaur Mehr/defendant no. 1 (for short 'D-1'), whereupon the aforesaid half undivided share of S. Charanjeet Singh in the said property was devolved. Accordingly, the plaintiffs inherited 1/6th undivided share each i.e. 2/6th share in total, in the half undivided portion of the said property, while 4/6 th undivided share was inherited by D-1, D-3, D-4 and mother of plaintiffs and of D-1, D-3 and D-4.
3. Thereafter, the said property was partitioned between S. Baljeet Singh and legal heirs of S. Charanjeet Singh. Accordingly, the plaintiffs, D-1, D-3, D-4 and their mother became joint owners of half undivided share of the said property, measuring 108 sq. yards. The said portion of 108 sq. yards was consisted of two shops situated at the ground floor in the front portion and built up area in the rear part of the said portion. However, later on, the plaintiffs, D-1, D-3, D-4 and their mother sold built up area of the aforesaid portion and all of them equally shared the sale proceeds of the same. Thus, only abovesaid two shops situated at the ground floor were left unpartitioned and undivided.
4. It has been further averred by the plaintiffs that defendant no. 2 (for short 'D-2') was in possession of one shop, measuring 9' x 33' as shown in the red color and marked A, B, C and D in the site plan. In the month of September, 2007, the plaintiffs came to know from the reflections made through the altercations with, and deliberations of, son of D-2 namely Sh. Montu Aggarwal that she was in the possession of said shop as an owner thereof, not as a tenant. The plaintiffs were shocked and surprised to know from the photocopies of the title documents handed over to them by son of D-2 that D-2 had purchased the said shop (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') from D-1, vide CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 3/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:12:57 +0530 sale deed dated 27.01.2006. It also came to the knowledge of plaintiffs that their mother had unauthorizedly, without having any absolute right, sold the suit property to D-1 on 03.04.2002 by virtue of void and illegal transfer documents like agreement to sell, general power of attorney, Will and receipt. Earlier, the plaintiffs were having a bonafide impression that their mother had let out the suit property to D-2.
5. Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached their mother with the photocopies of the transfer documents and inquired from her about the factum of execution of said documents. The plaintiffs became shocked and surprised when their mother revealed that she had not only executed transfer documents of the suit property in favour of D-1, but she had also executed sale deed dated 15.02.2006 in respect of other adjoining shop in favour of her daughter-in-law/wife of D-3.
6. The plaintiffs have further averred that since their mother had no right to sell the suit property to anybody including D-1, the said transfer transaction between their mother and D-1 was void and illegal.
Therefore, the registered sale deed dated 27.01.2006 subseqently executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 in respect of the suit property was a sham document, which did not give clear and better title to her (D-2). Thus, the aforesaid transfer documents (executed by their mother in favour of D-1) and the sale deed (executed by D-1 in favour of D-2) are liable to be revoked/canceled. Further, the plaintiffs and D-1, D-3 and D-4 alongwith their mother were the joint owners and co-sharers in two shops including the suit property, possession of which had been unauthorizedly given to D-2. The said shop/suit property could have easily fetched a minimum monthly rental income of Rs.10,000/-, had the plaintiffs succeeded in letting out the same from the period CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 4/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:13:03 +0530 03.04.2002 to 26.01.2006. The suit property could have fetched monthly income of Rs.15,000/- from 27.01.2006 onwards. Accordingly, D-1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs towards damages/mesne profits in respect of their 2/6 th undivided share in the suit property @ Rs.3333.33/- per month from 03.04.2002 to 26.01.2006. Apart from this, D-1 and D-2 were jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- to the plaintiffs towards damages/mesne profits in respect of their 2/6th undivided share @ Rs.5,000/- per month w.e.f. 27.01.2006 till 26.06.2008. They are further liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum.
7. Accordingly, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 27.09.2007 to D-1 and D-2 as well as to their mother, thereby calling upon them to cancel the documents of transfer dated 03.04.2002 and sale deed dated 27.01.2006. But, they did not give any response. Thereafter, plaintiffs issued another notice dated 20.02.2008, thereby calling upon them to cancel the above documents and also to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of their 2/6th share in the suit property and to pay damages too.
8. The plaintiffs have further averred that their mother expired on 17.04.2008, whereupon her 1/6th undivided share in the suit property had devolved upon her legal representatives i.e. the plaintiffs and D-1, D-3 and D-4. Accordingly, they became joint owners of the suit property to the extent of 1/5th undivided share each. In the month of March, 2008, before death of their mother, the plaintiffs approached her, but she flatly refused to get canceled the aforesaid documents and refused to make partition of aforesaid two shops.CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 5/ 33
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:13:08 +0530
9. The plaintiffs have further stated that they are entitled to a decree of declaration against D-1 and D-2, thereby declaring the said sale/transfer documents dated 03.04.2002 and 27.01.2006 as null and void. Further, the said two shops had never been partitioned despite repeated requests made by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are also entitled to a decree of partition of the said two shops. However, the plaintiffs are seeking decree for partition of the suit property only, as they have filed a separate suit for obtaining decree of partition in respect of another shop. Thus, the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of partition of the suit property amongst them, D-1, D-3 and D-4 in five equal shares. They have further prayed for decree of declaration that sale/transfer documents dated 03.04.2002 executed by their mother in favour of D-1 and dated 27.01.2006 executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 as null and void. They have further prayed for a decree of possession of the suit property against D-2. Further, the plaintiffs have prayed for recovery towards damages/mesne profits of Rs.26,000/- against D-1 for the period July, 2005 to 26.01.2006, of Rs.1,77,000/- against D-1 and D-2 for the period from 27.01.2006 till filing of the suit and future damages/mesne profits @ Rs.6,000/- per month against D-1 and D-2 from date of filing of the suit till handing over of the possession of the suit property by D-2 to them.
10. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants. Order dated 16.08.2016 reflects that D-1 was served by way of publication on 23.04.2016, however, none appeared on behalf of D-1. Accordingly, D-1 was proceeded ex-parte.
11. In her written statement, D-2 has stated that the present suit is barred under the principles of estoppel. She has denied all the CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 6/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:13:15 +0530 averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint against her. She has submitted that since the plaintiffs and their mother were residing in the same premises i.e. 96-A, Manek Shaw Road, Sainik Farms, New Delhi, the entire family i.e. the plaintiffs, D-1, D-3 and D-4 were having due knowledge of all the transactions done by their mother and she executed all the documents including the sale deed in respect of the suit property with due consent and knowledge of all. Late Smt. Satvinder Kaur was in possession of a relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998 executed in her favour by all the family members including the plaintiffs and on the basis of the said deed, she executed the sale deed in favour of D-2. The title documents in favour of D-2 are legal and valid. Thus, present suit needs to be dismissed.
12. In his written statement, D-3 has admitted that half undivided portion measuring 108 sq. yards of property no. 9/439, Bagichi Harphool Singh, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31 was consisted of two shops in the front portion and built up area in the rear portion. The plaintiffs, D-1, D-3, D-4 and their mother sold the built up portion of the said property, but he (D-3) denied that all of them equally shared the sale proceeds of the same. He has further stated that the said entire 108 sq. yards of above property had been sold as per family settlement. The plaintiffs had received their part of sale proceeds at the time of execution of all the sale deeds in respect of above property. Now, they have filed the present suit only for the purpose of harassment and mental agony to D-1, D-3 and D-4. Further, the deceased mother of plaintiffs, D-1, D-3 and D-4 sold the abovesaid property on the basis of relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998 executed in her favour by all other legal heirs including the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were in due knowledge of all the transactions done by their deceased mother, who CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 7/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:13:21 +0530 was residing at the same address as that of P-2 and she executed all the sale deeds in respect of the property with due consent and knowledge of all other legal heirs including the plaintiffs. Thus, D-3 has prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
13. Order dated 22.11.2016 reflects that service of Court notice upon defendant no. 4 had been refused and thus, the same was affixed on the premises. D-4 was thus deemed to be served. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.02.2017, he was proceeded ex-parte.
14. In the replication filed in response to the written statement of D-2, the plaintiffs have stated that the alleged relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998, as claimed by D-2, was notarized and unregistered.
Accordingly, the said deed was inadmissible in law and it did not confer any right, title or interest to D-2. Further, the plaintiffs denied that they had ever consented to the transactions made by their mother and their sister (D-1). They denied that D-1 had been living at the address of P-2 (S. Sukhvinder Singh). The plaintiffs have further stated that Smt. Satvinder Kaur was residing at the same address as that of P-2, but that did not mean that he had ever consented to the sale of suit property.
15. In the replication filed in response to the written statement of D-3, the plaintiffs have stated that D-3 has made contradictory submissions in his written statement. On one hand, D-3 stated that their mother executed the sale deed with due knowledge of the plaintiffs, on the basis of relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998. On other hand, D-3 had signed a memorandum of understanding alongwith his brothers on 26.02.2006 approximately 10 to 15 days after the sale of shop in his wife's name and agreed that they would share the sale proceeds of one CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 8/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:13:26 +0530 shop in the manner that 25% share would go to S. Rupinder Pal Singh (D-3), 50% share would go to S. Satveer Singh (P-1) and 25% share would go to S. Sukhvinder Singh (P-2). It was further decided that another shop (suit property) would go to Smt. Satvinder Kaur, Smt. Jagdeep Kaur (D-1) and S. Swaranjeet Singh (D-4). The said memorandum had been signed by Smt. Jatinder Kaur (wife of D-3), Smt. Satvinder Kaur, Smt. Parminder Kaur (wife of P-2) and S. Swaranjeet Singh (D-4). The plaintiffs have reiterated about the aspect of unregistered relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998.
16. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 22.05.2018:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit on account of execution of Relinquishment Deed in favour of their mother, Late Smt. Satvinder Kaur with respect to the suit property? OPD
2. Whether late Smt. Satvinder Kaur was not legally entitled to sell the suit property? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration thereby declaring sale/transfer documents executed by late Smt. Satvinder Kaur in favour of the defendant no. 1 in respect of the suit property as null and void and its cancellation, as prayed vide prayer clause (iii) ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration thereby declaring sale deed dated 27.01.2006 executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 2 as null and void and its cancellation, as prayed vide prayer clause (iv)? OPP CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 9/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:13:33 +0530
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of partition of the suit property, as prayed vide prayer clause (i)? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of possession of suit property, as prayed vide prayer clause (ii)? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of mesne profits, as prayed vide prayer clause (v) and (vi)? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to pendente lite and future interest, if so, at what rate? OPP
9. Relief.
17. It is to be mentioned here itself that the plaintiffs had filed two cases in respect of two shops situated at the front portion of the said property measuring 108 sq. yards i.e. present suit and another suit bearing no. 608003/16, titled as 'S. Satveer Singh and Anr. v. Smt. Jatinder Kaur and Ors'. Vide order dated 22.01.2019, on the submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties, both the suits were tried together and suit no. 608003/16 was treated as lead suit and the evidence recorded in the lead suit was ordered to be read as evidence in the present suit too. However, during the proceedings dated 22.08.2019, it was submitted on behalf of the parties that 'keeping in view the pleadings and that defendants in the suit are different from the defendants in the other suit, and further that documentary evidence is different and as such, in order to avoid confusion regarding the nature of documents and the oral evidence, the evidence by way of cross-
examination of the plaintiff Sukhvinder Singh, already recorded in the other suit no. 608003/16 be placed in this file and henceforth, the CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 10/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:13:40 +0530 parties shall be leading evidence in each case separately and not in common'.
18. Now, the Court proceeds to consider the evidence led by the parties. To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined four witnesses.
PW-1 is the plaintiff no. 2. He tendered his evidence affidavit as PW-1/A. He submitted on the similar lines as stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint. He has relied upon the following documents:-
1. Site plan, Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Copy of sale deed favouring Smt. Omwati, Mark A.
3. Copy of GPA, Deed of Will and Agreement to sell [executed by mother of plaintiffs in favour of D-1], Mark B, C and D respectively.
4. Receipt dated 03.04.2002, Mark E.
5. Copy of legal notice dated 27.09.2007 [issued by the plaintiffs to their mother, D-1 and D-2], Mark F.
6. Copy of legal notice dated 20.02.2008 [issued by the plaintiffs to their mother, D-1 and D-2], Mark G.
7. UPC of dispatch of those notices, Ex.PW-1/9 and Ex.PW-1/10.
8. Postal receipts, Ex.PW-1/11 and Ex.PW-1/12.
9. Acknowledgment card, Ex.PW-1/13.
10. Copy of relinquishment deed [dated 12.02.1998], Mark H. PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of D-2 and D-3 at length.
19. PW-2 is the plaintiff no. 1. He tendered his evidence affidavit, PW-2/A. He too submitted almost on the similar lines as stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint. He too has relied upon all the documents CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 11/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.10.18 16:13:46 +0530 tendered in evidence by PW-1. PW-2 was cross-examined on behalf of D-2 and D-3 at length.
20. PW-3 is Ms. Kanta, Reader in the Office of Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Delhi. She tendered a registered GPA dated 03.04.2002 executed in favour of Jagdeep Kaur Mehr (D-1) as Ex.PW-3/A. During her cross-examination conducted on behalf of D-2, she admitted the suggestion that GPA dated 03.04.2002 was duly executed in favour of D-1 by Smt. Satvinder Kaur.
21. PW-4 is Sh. Parvesh Khatri, Record Keeper, in the Office of Sub Registrar-VIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He tendered the registered sale deed dated 27.01.2006 executed in favour of Smt. Omwati (D-2) W/o of Sh. Om Prakash by Smt. Jagdeep Kaur Mehr (D-1) as Ex.PW-4/A. PW-4 was not cross-examined by the defendants no. 2 and 3.
Thereafter, plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 05.10.2023.
22. To prove her defence, D-2 examined two witnesses. DW-1 is the defendant no. 2 herself. She tendered her evidence affidavit as Ex.DW-1/A. She submitted almost on the similar lines as stated by her in her written statement. She was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.
23. DW-2 is Sh. Manoj Kumar Dahiya, JJA, Record Room Sessions, THC, Delhi. He had brought record pertaining to Civil Suit No. 47/95, titled as 'Sardar Baljit Singh v. Smt. Satvinder Kaur' decided on 05.07.1996 by the Court of Sh. S. S. Bal, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi, having Goswara No. 159/D and tendered copy of order/judgment and CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 12/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:13:52 +0530 decree dated 05.07.1996, as Ex.DW-2/A. Thereafter, evidence of defendant no. 2 was closed on 05.01.2024.
24. It is worth noting that on 05.10.2023, the plaintiffs' evidence was closed and matter was listed for defence evidence. Further, till the proceedings dated 02.11.2023, there had been appearance on behalf of defendant no. 3 in the present suit. On 02.11.2023, the application under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC moved on behalf of D-2 for appointment of Local Commissioner for recording the testimony of D-2 was allowed. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.11.2023, the Court directed Ld. Local Commissioner to record the evidence at the residence of D-2 and also directed other defendants to file the affidavit of evidence. On that day and thereafter, there was no appearance on behalf of defendant no. 3. Accordingly, DE was closed vide order dated 05.01.2024.
25. I have heard respective Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff no. 1 and for defendant no. 2, and plaintiff no. 2 in person, who is an advocate too. I have carefully perused the material available on record. Plaintiff no. 2 has argued that the relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998 is an unregistered document and thereby, it is inadmissible. The plaintiffs had never given any consent to their mother to sell the suit property.
Furthermore, they did not get any share out of the sale proceeds received by their mother by selling the suit property to D-1 and thereafter, by D-1 to D-2. Further, the mutation of the suit property got done in the name of their mother did not create any title in favour of their mother. Accordingly, entire series of transactions i.e. transfer documents executed by mother of plaintiffs in favour of D-1 and sale CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 13/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA NAVEEN Date:
GUPTA 2025.10.18
16:13:58
+0530
deed executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 are void. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed by them. Ld. Counsel for D-1 has also argued on the same lines.
26. Ld. Counsel for D-2 has argued that the property bearing no. IX/439, Bagichi Harphool Singh, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, measuring 216 sq. yards had been partitioned by the decree dated 05.07.1996, Ex.DW-2/A and mother of plaintiffs and of D-1, D-3 and D-4 was declared owner of 108 sq. yards out of the said property. But, the plaintiffs never challenged the said decree. Thereafter, the plaintiffs and defendants except D-2 herein relinquished their share in the property measuring 108 sq. yards in favour of their mother. Subsequently, pursuant to the said relinquishment, built up portion situated at the backside of the said area of 108 sq. yards was sold by mother of plaintiffs to one Rohtash Aggarwal in the year 1998. The plaintiffs never objected to the said sale executed by their mother on the basis of relinquishment deed dated 12.02.2008. Thereafter, on 03.04.2002, mother of plaintiffs transferred the suit property (situated at the front portion of the above 108 sq. yards) in favour of D-1. She (mother of plaintiffs) had been living with P-2, D-1 and D-4 at their Sainik Farm residence. It could not be possible that P-2 was not aware of transfer documents having been executed by his mother in favour of his sister, D-1. Moreover, the said transfer documents of GPA and Will had been registered too. Subsequently, on 27.01.2006, D-1 executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of D-2. It has come on record that mother of the plaintiffs had been collecting rent of the shop i.e. suit property. Thus, it can be made out that by executing a deed of relinquishing their shares in the property measuring 108 sq. yards in favour of their mother, the plaintiffs and D-1, D-3 and D-4 had given up CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 14/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:04 +0530 all the rights in the said property including the suit property. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that the said relinquishment deed was not registered. But, by giving all rights over the suit property to their mother, the plaintiffs and their other siblings had allowed their mother to claim herself to be the owner of suit property. Thereafter, if she had dealt with the suit property and transferred its rights in favour of D-1, then the said transaction would be considered as sale of property by an ostensible owner under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had deliberately not filed the suit challenging the said transfer by their mother to D-1 and then, by D-1 to D-2 till their mother was alive. Even if it is accepted that the plaintiffs had any right in the sale proceeds of suit property, they must have sought their share from their mother and at the most from their siblings. Thus, the present suit deserves to be dismissed.
27. Issue wise findings:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit on account of execution of Relinquishment Deed in favour of their mother, Late Smt. Satvinder Kaur with respect to the suit property? OPD
2. Whether late Smt. Satvinder Kaur was not legally entitled to sell the suit property? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration thereby declaring sale/transfer documents executed by late Smt. Satvinder Kaur in favour of the defendant no. 1 in respect of the suit property as null and void and its cancellation, as prayed vide prayer clause (iii) ? OPP CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 15/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:08 +0530
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration thereby declaring sale deed dated 27.01.2006 executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 2 as null and void and its cancellation, as prayed vide prayer clause (iv)? OPP
28. Above four issues have been taken up for consideration together as the findings on the above issues are related to each other. The Court proceeds to examine different aspects brought forward by the parties one by one.
A previous suit filed by S. Baljeet Singh against Smt. Satvinder Kaur in respect of the property
29. Ld. Counsel for D-2 has argued that a suit had earlier been filed by S. Baljeet Singh against Smt. Satvinder Kaur and findings of the said suit were never challenged by the plaintiffs. In this regard, PW-1 during his cross-examination admitted the suggestion that there was an earlier suit titled as 'Baljeet Singh v. Satvinder Kaur' filed during the lifetime of his mother in the Court of Sh. S. S. Bal, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi. He further admitted that in the aforesaid proceedings, Satvinder Kaur was declared owner of half share of the total property of deceased Sh. Gian Singh and other half share was owned by Sh. Baljeet Singh. He admitted that he or his brothers had not challenged the suit as had been decreed by the Court. He denied the suggestion that they were not necessary party in the said suit.
30. PW-2 also admitted that suit titled as 'Baljeet Singh v. Satvinder Kaur' was decreed by the Court and his mother was declared as sole owner of the entire suit property bearing no. IX/439, Subhash Road, CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 16/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:14 +0530 Baghichi Harphool Singh, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He further admitted that till date, they had not challenged the said judgment. He admitted that the said judgment was prior to execution of relinquishment deed Ex.PW-2/D2X.
31. The judgment and decree dated 05.07.1996, Ex.DW-2/A reflects that a suit had been filed by Sardar Baljit Singh against Smt. Satvinder Kaur for declaration and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein in terms of their statements [recorded on 20.05.1996]. The plaintiff was declared to be the owner of portion shown in red line of the property no. IX/439, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. This portion existed towards the right side of the said house while facing the said house. Further, the statement given by Smt. Satvinder Kaur in the said suit on 20.05.1996 shows that she had conceded to the statement given by the plaintiff before the Court on the said date, wherein he stated that 'the plaintiff i.e. myself is the exclusive owner of the portion shown in red lines in Ex.C-2 and the other portion shown in blue lines is owned by the defendant exclusively'. Though the parties have not filed the said document Ex.C-2 and the site plan reflecting red and blue lines, yet it can be safely made out that the property at Gandhi Nagar had been divided in two equal parts and the area falling at the right side was declared under the ownership of plaintiff therein and consequently, the area falling at the left side was given to the defendant therein i.e. Smt. Satvinder Kaur. Admittedly, the plaintiffs or his siblings had never challenged the proceedings of the said suit culminating into decree dated 05.07.1996, Ex.DW-2/A, wherein the defendant Smt. Satvinder Kaur had been projected as owner of half portion of Gandhi Nagar property.
CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 17/ 33
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18
16:14:19
+0530
Relinquishment Deed dated 12.02.1998
32. It is admitted case of the plaintiffs that a relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998 had been executed by them, D-1, D-3 and D-4 in favour of their mother in respect of the property at Gandhi Nagar. In this regard, during his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted the suggestion that the relinquishment deed was written in favour of their mother by all her children for sale of one part of the property. He voluntarily stated that the said deed was never registered. The original of deed, Ex.PW-2/D2X, was given to the person to whom one part of the property was sold. He admitted the suggestion that this relinquishment deed had never been canceled by any action of PW-1 or by any of other executants. He voluntarily stated that he had filed the present suit which automatically canceled the relinquishment deed.
33. PW-2, during his cross-examination, admitted his signatures on all the pages and his photograph pasted on the relinquishment deed Ex.PW-2/D2X. PW-2 has further admitted that all the brothers had executed the relinquishment deed in favour of their mother in respect of property no. IX/439, Subash Road, Baghichi Harphool Singh, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He admitted that till date, they had not challenged the relinquishment deed.
34. Perusal of the relinquishment deed shows that the same bore the photographs, signatures and thumb impressions of all the executants i.e. D-3, P-1, D-4, P-2 and D-1. It has been categorically mentioned in the deed that the releasors voluntarily, being in affection, do hereby relinquish all their right, title or interest in the property measuring 108 sq. yards, bearing no. IX/439, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. It has been further stated that now, the releasee has become sole and absolute CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 18/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:24 +0530 owner of the said property and shall have right to sell or to mortgage, to transfer the same to any other person without any interference or disturbance from the releasors. Further, the releasee is fully entitled to get the substitute mutation of the property under relinquishment affected in his own name in the concerning record of DDA/MCD and other concerning authorities on the basis of this deed. The execution of said deed has been witnessed by two witnesses and notarized too. The above contents nowhere reflect that the deed was executed only in respect of back portion of Gandhi Nagar property and not for two shops existing in the front portion of property.
35. It has come on record that P-1 is retired government servant from DRDO and P-2 is an advocate. Thus, the plaintiffs are well educated persons. It is highly improbable that while executing the relinquishment deed Ex.PW-2/D2X in favour of their mother, they were not aware of its contents that the said deed had been executed not merely for the back portion of Gandhi Nagar property, but it was for the entire property measuring 108 sq. yards at Gandhi Nagar. It is further improbable that they were not having knowledge about the implications of having executed such deed in favour of their mother. The argument that filing of the suit on 11.08.2008 would automatically cancel the relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998 is not tenable.
Mutation of the property in the name of Smt. Satvinder Kaur
36. Further, PW-1 has deposed that the property in question was mutated in the record of MCD in the name of his mother. This version reflects that the relinquishment deed had subsequently been acted upon and the property was mutated in the name of Smt. Satvinder Kaur. The CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 19/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:30 +0530 plaintiffs had never raised any objection of such mutation done in favour of their mother.
Sale of the rear portion of property
37. PW-1 has deposed that the rear portion of suit property was sold to the purchaser by mother and her children. They had executed the sale deed in favour of the purchaser. The said transaction took place in the year 1998. He again stated that the sale deed had been executed of the said portion by the mother. All brothers and sisters had signed a relinquishment deed in favour of their mother for the purpose of this particular sale. The name of purchaser was Mr. Rohtas Aggarwal. He admitted the suggestion that the said sale deed [executed] in favour of Rohtas by his mother had not been challenged at all before any Court of law. He voluntarily stated that because whatever the amount had been received from the purchaser, that was divided amongst all brothers and sisters as whatever his mother wanted to give to anyone except D-3, as he (D-3) had already received his share in the property and he had no interest in the property of Gandhi Nagar.
38. PW-2 too deposed that he never challenged the sale deed of Sh. Rohtash Aggarwal because sale was done with their consent. He deposed that the portion other than front two shops, was sold in the year 1998. The documents/sale documents of the said portion were executed by their mother in favour of purchaser. This sale by their mother was executed with their consent and knowledge. He admitted that sale of that portion was never challenged by them because the same was with their consent.
CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 20/ 33Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:36 +0530
39. It is surprising to note that on one hand, the plaintiffs are challenging the validity of relinquishment deed on the ground of it being unregistered, but on other hand, the rear portion of property had been sold by their mother by virtue of rights granted to her over the property through the said relinquishment deed. Admittedly, the said sale deed executed in favour of Mr. Rohtash Aggarwal in the year 1998 had not been challenged by the plaintiffs. This shows that the plaintiffs are blowing hot and cold. All the transfer documents either of back portion or front portion had been executed by their mother by virtue of rights derived through the relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998. But, the plaintiffs, as per their convenience, have challenged the transfer documents in respect of two shops including the suit property existing in the front portion of Gandhi Nagar property, while they did not challenge the sale deed of back portion of the property.
Tenancy over the suit shop created by Smt. Satvinder Kaur and rent collected by her
40. PW-1 has deposed that the shops in question had been let out to the tenant by his mother and she used to collect the rent from the tenant. He further deposed that prior to year 2006, when his mother was letting out the shops, she was collecting approximately an amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per shop from the tenant. He further admitted that prior to sale deed/sale documents, his mother had been in possession of the suit shops. He admitted the suggestion that earlier to sale of said shop, Mr. Montu Aggarwal was in the possession of the shop, as tenant. He voluntarily stated that at that time, he was not aware that Montu Aggarwal was son of D-2. He deposed that he did not know as to since when he was in possession of the shop as a tenant. However, CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 21/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:41 +0530 he admitted that Montu Aggarwal was tenant in the shop for number of years prior to sale of shop. PW-1 admitted that rent agreements were executed between Montu Aggarwal and his mother and the rent was received by her.
41. PW-2 too deposed that the rent from the remaining portion of the property at Gandhi Nagar was received by their mother and she used to go to collect the rent. The entire rent was kept by their mother and other family members including him (PW-2) never received a single penny from the rent.
42. The above versions of PW-1 and PW-2 show that their mother had been in possession of two shops including the suit shop. It is their mother only who had let out the suit property to Mr. Montu Aggarwal. The rent agreement was also executed between the tenants and their mother only. It is she only who used to collect rent of the shops including of the suit property from the tenants. The proceeds of rent were also kept by their mother only. The above entire circumstances further reflect that the plaintiffs by their conduct also had relinquished all their claims over the suit property. And, further, they had by this conduct gave the general public an implied notice that their mother was the owner of the suit property and thereby, she was managing all the affairs of the same on her own.
Transfer documents dated 03.04.2002 executed by Smt. Satvinder Kaur in favour of D-1
43. PW-1 denied the suggestion that some documents executed by his mother in favour of D-1 in respect of the suit property in the year 2002, were also registered. He deposed that he did not know as to who CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 22/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:46 +0530 had taken the sale consideration amount of Rs.40,000/- as was received for sale in favour of D-1. He denied that sale consideration amount which was received by his mother had been distributed amongst mother and four brothers. PW-1 admitted that D-4/his brother, who lived in same Sainik Farm property where he (PW-1) lived, was the attesting witness to all the documents Mark B to Mark E executed by his mother in favour of D-1. He denied the suggestion that he and his entire family knew about the transactions done by his mother in favour of his sister.
44. PW-2 too admitted that in Mark-B i.e. GPA dated 03.04.2002 executed by his mother in favour of D-1, one of the attesting witnesses was his brother/D-4. He further admitted that the Will Mark-C, Agreement to sell Mark-D, and Receipt Mark-E, bore the signatures of D-4 as witness.
45. At this stage, testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 in respect of residence of P-2 alongwith his mother, D-3 and D-4 at their Sainik Farm property become relevant. During his cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that the property no. 96A, Manak Shaw Road, Sainik Farm, New Delhi was a joint family property. The owners of the said property were his mother, D-3, D-4 and P-2 (i.e. PW-1). Further, apart from him (P-2), D-4 was also residing in this property. PW-2 has deposed that in the year 2002, his mother was living at Sainik Farm, alongwith his brother/D-4 and P-2. At that time, his sister/D-1 was either living in US or in Canada. In the year 2002, the age of her mother was approximately 69 years. Their mother was post graduate and knew how to read and write English language. Whenever his mother used to go outside, either of two brothers D-4 or P-2 used to accompany her. He voluntarily stated that sometimes, D-3 also accompanied her. During CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 23/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:14:52 +0530 the year 2002, his mother also went outside alone. PW-2 deposed that his brother/P-2 was residing at Sainik Farm since around year 1995.
46. According to testimony of PW-2, Smt. Satvinder Kaur was a post graduate. Thus, she was supposed to have knowledge about the implications of her actions. She must have consciously executed the documents of transfer of rights over the suit property in favour of D-1 vide documents dated 03.04.2002. It is worth noting that the execution of registered GPA Ex.PW-3/A, registered Deed of Will Mark-C, Agreement to Sell Mark-D and Receipt Mark-E had been witnessed by D-4. It has come on record that in the year 2002, Smt. Satvinder Kaur, D-3, D-4 and P-2 had been residing at their Sainik Farm property. It is highly improbable that P-2 could not have come into knowledge about execution of transfer documents by his mother in favour of his sister/D-1, which had been witnessed by his brother/D-4 too. But, the plaintiffs, at that time, did not challenge the said documents executed on 03.04.2002 by their mother in favour of their sister/D-1. Furthermore, the execution of sale deed Ex. PW-4/A by D-1 in favour of D-2 had been witnessed by Smt. Satvinder Kaur, as one of the attesting witnesses.
Finding
47. From the entire facts and circumstances deliberated upon in preceding paragraphs, it stands proved that the plaintiffs did not challenge the findings of decree dated 05.07.1996 Ex.PW-2/A, whereby their mother had been shown as owner of 108 sq. yards of Gandhi Nagar property. They alongwith their siblings relinquished their rights in the property in favour of their mother through relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998, though it was not registered. Thereafter, the property CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 24/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA NAVEEN Date:
GUPTA 2025.10.18
16:14:59
+0530
was mutated in the name of their mother. Subsequently, the rear portion of property was sold by their mother by virtue of rights conferred upon her through the relinquishment deed. The plaintiffs never challenged the said sale. Smt. Satvinder Kaur was in possession of the suit shop and created the tenancy over it. She used to collect rent of the tenanted shop. D-4/ brother of plaintiffs was one of the attesting witnesses of the execution of transfer documents by Smt. Satvinder Kaur in favour of D-1/sister of plaintiffs. Further, Smt. Satvinder Kaur was one of the attesting witnesses of execution of sale deed dated 26.01.2006 under challenge. In the background of these circumstances, the Court is in agreement with the argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for D-2 that the present case stands covered under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and all the ingredients of the said provision are fulfilled herein.
48. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882 states:
41. Transfer by ostensible owner. - Where, with the consent, express or implied, of the persons interested in immoveable property, a person is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not be violable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it:
Provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has acted in good faith.
49. Ld. Counsel for D-2 has relied upon the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Som Dutt v. Sharma Devi, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 494, wherein the Court has held that:
6. [I]n my opinion, the respondent/plaintiff is supported by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads as under...CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 25/ 33
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:15:07 +0530 xxx A reading of this provision shows that where the property stands in the name of a particular person and a third person/stranger purchases the property on the basis of the apparent ownership, then, even if someone else is an actual owner (which in this case, let us assume was Sh. Mool Chand), even then, the bonafide purchaser for value (the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 in this case) gets a valid title of the property.
10. [F]urther even assuming for the sake of arguments that what is stated by the appellant/plaintiff is correct, the fact of the matter is that for 18 long years the suit property continued to be shown in the ownership of defendant No. 1 and there- fore Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 gives a complete protection to defendant No. 2 with respect to the ti- tle which she has derived by means of registered sale deeds dated 28.4.1992 after paying valuable consideration.
50. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Seshmull M. Shah v. Sayed Abdul Rashid, 1990 SCC OnLine Kar 392, has held that:
7. [S]ection 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is in the nature of an exception to the Rule that a person cannot confer better title than he has. The Section provides that a transfer shall not be avoidable on the ground that the transferor was not authorised to make it where, with the consent express or implied of the real owner, the transferor is the ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration. The Section obliges the transferee in all such cases to make reasonable enquiries to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, and in addition the transferee must have acted in good faith. This is based on the principle of equity that one, who allows another to hold himself out as the owner of an estate and a third party purchased for value from the apparent owner in the belief that he is the real owner, the man, who so allows the other to hold himself out, shall not be permitted to recover upon his secret title, unless he can over throw that purchaser by showing either that he had direct notice or something which amounts to constructive notice of the real title, or that there existed circumstances which ought to have put him upon an enquiry, which if prosecuted would have lead to a discovery of it. (See: Ramcoomar v. Macqueen)*.CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 26/ 33
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:15:12 +0530 It is equally well settled, and the Section is quite clear, that the real owner must have by his consent express or implied held out the ostensible owner as the owner of the property. If either by words or by conduct, he induced others to treat such a person as the real owner and to do that from which they might have abstained, he cannot question the legality of the Act to the prejudice of those who acted in good faith. Mere possession of a Manager cannot be treated as ostensible ownership with the consent of the real owner. In every case, where a transferee for valuable consideration seeks protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, he must show that it was the real owner, who permitted or created the apparent ownership of the transferor either by express words or consent or by acts or conduct, which imply consent. Conversely, it must be held that if the real owner was not responsible for permitting or creating the apparent ownership, the protection under Section 41 will not be available to a transferee from such person because such a person cannot be said to be an ostensible owner as his claim to ownership does not arise from the consent of the real owner. In substance, before one can be considered to be an ostensible owner, it must be shown that it was with the consent express or implied of the true owner that he was enabled to represent himself as the owner of the property to a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. If it is found that the so called ostensible owner by any fraudulent means created documents without the knowledge of the real owner and represented himself as the owner of the property, Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act will not protect the interest of a transferee from such a person and it must be held that the ostensible ownership of the property is not created by an act of the real owner or with his consent express or implied. Indeed such a person cannot claim himself to be an ostensible owner. Section 41, in my view, incorporates a Rule akin to the Rule of estoppel whereby the real owner, who by reason of his conduct or express or implied consent was responsible for the creation of an ostensible ownership, cannot be permitted to set up his real ownership to defeat the rights of a bonafide purchaser acting in good faith and who despite reasonable enquiries could not discover such real ownership. It is, therefore, the conduct of the real owner which gives rise to an equity in favour of a bonafide purchaser acting in good faith. Section 41 is a statutory recognition of this equitable Rule.
51. Applying the above principles, the plaintiffs/co-sharers of the suit property by their above mentioned conduct held out the ostensible CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 27/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.18 16:15:18 +0530 owner/their mother as the owner of suit shop. Their mother initially transferred the suit property in favour of their sister/D-1. Thereafter, D-1 sold the same to D-2 and at that time too, their mother was present as a witness. The said sale transaction was for consideration. It is not the case of plaintiffs that no sale consideration was paid by D-2 at all. There is no circumstance on record which could lead to infer that the transferee/D-2 did not act in good faith. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot now be allowed to question the legality of sale deed dated 26.01.2006 to the prejudice of D-2.
Settlement dated 26.02.2006
52. The entire case can be looked into from another angle, which depicts hide and seek play of the plaintiffs. In their replication to the written statement of D-3, the plaintiffs have submitted that as per memorandum of understanding dated 26.02.2006 [copy of which is available on record] regarding the sharing of family property, D-3 was to share the sale proceeds of one shop with the plaintiffs. It had been further decided that one shop would go to their mother, D-1 and D-4, while other shop was given to D-3 and the plaintiffs. Though the said memorandum of understanding was not tendered in evidence, yet this aspect is part of pleadings of the plaintiffs and thus, the same can be read for appreciating the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, if the said understanding dated 26.02.2006 and decision are taken into consideration, two shops including the suit property had been partitioned amongst the legal heirs of Sh. Charanjeet Singh and the suit property was given to their mother, D-1 and D-4. As per case of the plaintiffs themselves, their mother and D-1 had transferred their rights in the suit property in favour of D-2. It is not the case that D-4 is CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 28/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.10.18 16:15:26 +0530 challenging those transfer documents executed in favour of either D-1 or D-2. Thus, the plaintiffs could at the most, initiate proceedings against D-3 for non-compliance, if any, of the said memorandum of understanding dated 26.02.2006. In such circumstances, even if for the sake of arguments, it is said that mother by virtue of relinquishment deed could not have sold the suit property to D-1 as the deed was unregistered, she as well as D-1 had acquired complete rights over it after understanding regarding sharing of family property on 26.02.2006. Then, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would be applicable to the rescue of D-2, which states:
43. Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred. - Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists.
Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option.
Whether deed dated 12.02.1998 was a relinquishment deed or a recording of settlement already arrived at amongst legal heirs
53. Ld. Counsel for D-2 has argued that though the deed dated 12.02.1998 had been named as relinquishment deed, yet the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 reflect that it was, in fact, recording of settlement already arrived at amongst the legal heirs of late S. Charanjeet Singh. In this regard, the Court examines the excerpts of testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 made during their cross-examination. PW-1 has stated that the property at Sainik Farm was divided in three parts i.e. in the name of D-3, D-4 and P-2. No writing had taken place in this regard. The said property was divided when it was built in the year 1998. This property CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 29/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:15:33 +0530 had been built by his mother and PW-1 himself. PW-1 further admitted the suggestion that four sons [including the plaintiffs] and one daughter had executed the relinquishment deed in favour of their mother pursuant to their family understanding. PW-2 has deposed that in the year 1998, his sister/D-1 was to be married and for arranging the funds, his family decided to sell the portion of the property i.e. IX/439, Subhash Road, Baghichi Harphool Singh, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. With the intent to sell portion of the property, he alongwith other family members executed relinquishment deed dated 12.02.1998 in favour of their mother.
54. Thus, Sainik Farm property had been partitioned amongst Smt. Satvinder Kaur and her children and it was divided in three parts in the name of D-3, D-4 and P-2 in the year 1998. The relinquishment deed Ex.PW-2/D2X had also been executed on 12.02.1998. It has come on record through testimony of PW-1 that the said deed was executed pursuant to their family understanding. While PW-2 has deposed that for arranging the funds for the marriage of D-1, his family decided to sell portion of the property at Gandhi Nagar. In view of above versions of plaintiffs, the Court is in agreement with the argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for D-2 that these circumstances lead to infer that there was a family arrangement arrived at amongst Smt. Satvinder Kaur and her children in the year 1998 in respect of the properties left behind by late Sh. Charanjeet Singh, including the property at Gandhi Nagar.
Pursuant to such family arrangement, a memorandum was written by the children of Smt. Satvinder Kaur relinquishing their share in Gandhi Nagar property in her favour. If there had been a family settlement arrived at amongst the parties previously and a memorandum was CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 30/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:15:40 +0530 reduced into writing on 12.02.1998, it was not required to be registered. The Hon'ble Delhi High court in Himani Walia v. Hemant Walia & Ors., in Ex. P 26/2019 decided on 23.03.2022, has held that:
10. Thus, it is clear that family settlements are not required to be compulsorily registered, and stamp duty is not required to be compulsorily paid in respect of the same, when the settlement has been arrived at initially as an oral partition and is thereafter put into writing for the purpose of information.
55. In view of above observations of the Court, issues no. 1 to 4 are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of D-2.
Issues No. 5 to 8:
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of partition of the suit property, as prayed vide prayer clause (i)? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of possession of suit property, as prayed vide prayer clause (ii)? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of mesne profits, as prayed vide prayer clause (v) and (vi)? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to pendente lite and future interest, if so, at what rate? OPP
56. Though when the issues no. 1 to 4 have been decided against the plaintiffs, there is no need to deliberate upon the issues no. 5 to 8 pertaining to partition of the suit property, possession and mesne profits. However, the Court wishes to point out one technical aspect related to the issue of partition. Admittedly, the front portion of property was consisted of two shops including the suit property. The plaintiffs in para no. 10 of their plaint have claimed that they alongwith CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 31/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:15:45 +0530 D-1, D-3, D-4 and their mother were the joint owners and co-sharers in two shops forming part of property at Gandhi Nagar and all of them had equal valuable rights and interest over the same. None of them can transfer, alienate, sell any portion thereof without obtaining consent of each other. In para no. 18, it has been further averred that as aforesaid two shops were never partitioned amongst the plaintiffs, D-1, D-3 and D-4 despite repeated requests made by the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of partition of the said two shops. It has been stated that, however, the plaintiffs are seeking decree of partition of the suit property only by metes and bounds in the present suit, and are filing a separate suit for obtaining decree for partition in respect of another shop, as the defendant no. 2 is a stranger not only to the suit property but also to the adjoining shop.
57. Ld. Counsel for D-2 has argued that when admittedly there were two shops of which the plaintiffs wished to seek partition, the present suit with prayer of partition of suit property only i.e. partial partition, is not maintainable. The plaintiffs did not seek any leave of the Court for splitting their claim and filing a separate suit for partition of another shop. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kenchegowda (since deceased) by LRs. v. Sri Siddegowda @ Motegowda, 1994 (2) SCALE 559, has held that it is well-settled in law that a suit for partial partition is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in K.R. Ravishankar v. Vijayamma, in RFA no. 345/2019 decided on 26.10.2023, has also held that the suit filed by the plaintiff for partial partition is not maintainable.
58. Since the Court has denied any relief to the plaintiffs regarding cancellation of sale deed dated 26.01.2006 vide which the suit property CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 32/ 33 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18 16:15:50 +0530 had been sold to D-2, they are not entitled to its partition and possession and also the claim of mesne profits. Accordingly, the issues no. 5 to 8 are decided against the plaintiffs.
Relief
59. In view of the findings on above issues, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint. This suit is dismissed.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open Court NAVEEN
NAVEEN
GUPTA
on the 18th day of October, 2025 GUPTA Date:
2025.10.18
16:15:57
+0530
(Naveen Gupta)
District Judge-09, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS DJ 610054/16 Page no. 33/ 33