Delhi District Court
Ram Khilari vs Ramjit And Others on 17 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TANYA BAMNIYAL, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM- RENT CONTROLLER, SOUTH WEST, NEW DELHI
RCA 3/21
SH. RAM KHILARI,
S/o Late Sh. Gulab Singh,
R/o Village Kangan Heri Delhi .......Appellants
Versus
1. SH. RAMJIT,
S/o Late Sh. Gulab Singh,
2. SH. SEWA RAM,
S/o Late Sh. Gulab Singh,
Both R/o Village Kangan Heri, Delhi
3. Smt. BABY,
W/o Late Sh. Rambir Singh,
4. Miss NISHA YADAV,
D/o Late Sh. Rambir Singh,
Both R/o Village Samipur,
Badli, Delhi. ........Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 23.03.2021
Date of reserving of order : 16.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of order : 17.09.2025
Factual Matrix:
1. This is an appeal against judgement/decree dated 26.05.2017 passed by Ld. Civil Judge-03, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Appellant is the plaintiff in the suit filed for declaration and Page No. 1/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:30:06 +0530 permanent injunction. The judgement on the said suit was passed by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 26.05.2017. For the sake of convenience, appellant shall be referred to as plaintiff and respondents as defendants, in keeping with their stature before Ld. Trial Court.
2. Factual matrix of the case, as culled out from a bare perusal of the plaint is that Late Sh. Gulab Singh was father of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 & 2 and father in law of defendant No. 3 and paternal grandfather of defendant No. 4. It is stated that late Sh. Rambir was also one of the son of late Sh. Gulab Singh, who predeceased late Sh. Gulab Singh and defendant No. 3 & 4 are legal heirs of late Sh. Rambir Singh (defendant No. 3 is wife and defendant no. 4 is daughter of late Sh. Rambir Singh). It is further stated that late Sh. Gulab Singh was karta/manager of joint family, of which plaintiff and all the defendants were members. It is submitted that late Sh. Gulab Singh was owner & bhumidhar of agricultural land and residential plots as mentioned in khatoni annexure A, which is situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kangan Heri, Delhi and he was also the bhumidhar of agricultural land as mentioned in khatoni annexure B situated in the Village Jhatikara, Delhi. It is further stated that in the family settlement, arrived between the plaintiff and remaining members of joint family including late Sh. Gulab Singh and defendant No. 1 & 2 and late Sh. Rambir, agricultural land and residential plots to the extent of 1/4th share were allotted to plaintiff and since then plaintiff is Page No. 2/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:30:11 +0530 having possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that late Sh. Gulab Singh was of the age of about 84 years at the time of his death and for last 3-4 years since before his death, he was suffering from illness and was of weak mind and had no sound disposing mind and mentally fit condition. It is further stated that he was under the complete influence of defendant No. 1 & 2 and Smt. Urmila (wife of defendant No. 2) and he used to take all the decisions as per the instructions of defendant No. 1 & 2 and Smt. Urmila. It is further stated that late Sh. Gulab Singh executed Will dated 01.09.2000, in respect of property in favour of defendant No. 1 under the influence and coercion of defendant No. 1 & 2 and Smt. Urmila and that the said Will is illegal, invalid and void document and plaintiff has strong apprehension that thumb impression of late Sh. Gulab Singh on Will dated 01.09.2000 might have been appended by some other person and same are not genuine thumb impression of late Sh. Gulab Singh, so, said Will is a forged and fabricated document. It is further stated that there was family dispute between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 & 2 and defendant no. 1 & 2 wanted to deprive the plaintiff from property, which was allotted to him in family settlement, so, by use of undue influence over late Sh. Gulab Singh, the Will dated 01.09.2000 was got executed from him by defendant No. 1 & 2 and Smt. Urmila. It is further stated that in the property, all the legal heirs of late Sh.
Gulab Singh have interest and after his death, they have inherited the same and that even during the life time of Sh. Gulab Singh, 1/4th share was allotted to plaintiff. It is further stated that Will is Page No. 3/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Digitally signed Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA Date:
BAMNIYAL 2025.09.07 18:30:28 +0530 not a genuine one as no sane person would do such an act, which would create or increase the enemity in his family. It is further stated that after the death of Sh. Gulab Singh, the mutation in respect of property in question, was sanctioned in favour of all the legal heirs in equal shares, however, said mutuation has been challenged by defendant no. 1 in the Court of Dy. Commissioner (South-West)/Delhi. It is further stated that on the basis of Will dated 01.09.2000, defendant No. 1 & 2 are now trying to transfer the property in question as they had brought some property dealers on said property for transferring the same, however, plaintiff told the said property dealer that there is dispute on the property and same can not be transferred by defendant No. 1 & 2. It is alleged that thereafter defendant No. 1 & 2 extended threats to plaintiff and hence, feeling aggrieved, present suit has been filed by plaintiff against defendants seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.
3. The present suit is filed before the Ld. Trial Court with the following prayers:
(i) Decree of declaration may be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1 declaring the Will dated 1.9.2000 bearing regn. No.2996, Adal. Book No. III, Volume No.51 on pages 174 to 176 executed by Late Sh. Gulab Singh in favour of defendant No. 1 in regard to the property situated in the revenue estate of Village Kangan Heri, and Jhatikara Village, Delhi, as null, void, invalid, ineffective in law, inoperative and not binding on the Page No. 4/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:30:34 +0530 plaintiff and further the plaintiff and the defendants be declared as legal heirs of Late Sh. Gulab Singh of the property in question.
(ii) Decree of permanent injunction may be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 and 2 restraining the defendant No. 1 and 2 from transferring, alienating the property situated in Village Kangan Heri and Jhatikara, Delhi.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also granted.
4. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 09.09.2004 by the Ld. Trial Court:
(1) Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder of parties? (2) Whether suit is without cause of action?OPD (3) Whether plaintiff has not come before the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts? OPD (4) Whether suit is barred in view of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act?OPD (5) Whether suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of Court Fees and jurisdiction?OPD (6) Whether suit land was acquired by deceased Gulab Singh from his own funds?OPD (7) Whether suit is not maintainable in view of provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act?OPD (8) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration?OPP (9) Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP Page No. 5/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:30:40 +0530 (10) Relief.
Grounds Of Appeal:
5. As stated above, the judgement in the said suit was passed by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 26.05.2017. The said judgment has been assailed by plaintiff by way of the present appeal on following grounds:-
(a) That the Ld. Trial Court Ld. Civil Judge in its entire Judgment dated 26.05.2017 has not discussed any argument/ submission of the appellant and has also not discussed even a single judgment relied upon by the appellant. That the Ld. Civil Judge has merely written the contents of the plaint and written statement and has given the findings in the case on the basis of the same and the Ld. Judge has not discussed the evidence in its correct prospective. The Ld. Trial Judge only discussed the examination in chief part of some of the witnesses and has not discussed the cross examination of any of the defendants witnesses. That the Ld. Judge did not discuss anything in the entire judgments about the documents relied and Exhibited by the appellant. The Ld. Judge has also not discussed anything about the contents of the Will nor the circumstances surrounding the Will which raised suspicion over the alleged execution of the Will. That the Ld. Civil Judge is based on surmises and conjectures and against the law and facts of the case.
(b) That the Ld. Trial Court while deciding the issue no. 8 and 9 against the appellant had failed to take notice of the facts that the Page No. 6/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Digitally signed Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA Date:
BAMNIYAL 2025.09.07 18:30:47 +0530 appellant in order to prove his case has himself stepped in the witness box and examined himself as the witness and deposed in consonance with the pleadings of the plaint, and also brought two other witnesses namely Sh. Manohar Lal and Sh. Laxmi Narain. The appellant in rebuttal also summoned Sh. Sushil Thakran Asst. Ahlmad from the court of Ld. MM (Mahila Courts) who proved summoned record of case FIR No. 651/09. The appellant and their witnesses remained consistent in their evidence.
(d) That the Ld. Trial court failed to consider that in order to disprove the case of the appellant and to prove the genuineness of the Will under challenge, the respondent produced two attesting witnesses of the Will i.e. Sh. Kiran as DW 5 and Sh. Virender Kumar as DW 6. It is pertinent to mention here that since for proving the due execution of the Will only one attesting witness is required hence, when in cross examination the DW-5 failed to prove what was stated in his evidence by way of affidavit and when his testimony was completely shattered, it was only after the completion of his cross examination the evidence by way of affidavit of DW 6 was prepared and filed attempting to very cleverly cover up aspects which DW5 couldn't depose and prove.
Hence the evidence of DW 6 should have been given less weightage. Besides his testimony was also shattered in his cross examination. He deposed that no share was given to Sewa Ram under the Will. He did know whether the name of the person who would have inherited the property in the event of death of Sh. Ram Jeet was mentioned in the Will or not. Hence, from the above cross Page No. 7/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. Digitally signed by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA Date:
BAMNIYAL 2025.09.07 18:30:56 +0530 examination it is very clear that it is not proved whether Sh. Gulab Singh knew what he was doing or whether he understood the contents of the said Will as Late Sh. Gulab Singh was illiterate and also did not even knew how to sign in English which raises a grave suspicion over the due execution and free will of Sh. Gulab Singh. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to take the notice of this cross examination while passing the Judgment dated 26.05.2017.
(e) That the Ld. Trial Court Judge grossly erred while giving a finding that with the cross examination of DW5 and DW6 that nothing has come on record during cross examination of these witnesses which creates doubt on their version and the Ld. Trial court should have rather given a finding that the evidence of these witnesses neither supporting the examination in chief nor inspire any confidence and that there evidence is doubtful to be believed.
(f) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the evidence led by the appellant in the rebuttal i.e summoned witness Sh. Sushil Thakran Asst. Ahlmad from the court of Ld. MM (Mahila Courts) who proved summoned record of case FIR No. 651/09 was also not considered by the Ld. Trial Cout while passing the judgments. The documents show the health condition of Late Sh. Gulab Singh was not good. The perusal of the documents would show that it is impossible for Late Sh. Gulab Singh to have executed the Will in the manner alleged by the witnesses.
(g) That the Ld. Trial Court decided issue no. 2 against the appellant and in favour of the respondent without assigning any cogent reasons for the same. The onus of proving this issue was Page No. 8/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:31:05 +0530 upon the respondents which they have completely failed to prove.
(h) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to decide the factum of possession of the appellant in his favor and should not have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession, while deciding issue no. 4, in favor of the appellant and against the respondents.
(i) That issue no. 6 is one of the most important issue and should have been decided by the Ld. Trial Court specially in the light of the fact that when the appellant has deposed that Late Sh. Gulab Singh was the Karta/Manager of the joint family of the appellant and all the respondents were the members and Late. Sh. Gulab Singh was the owner and Bhumidar of the agricultural land and the residential plots situated in revenue estate of village Kangan Heri, Delhi and in the same way Sh. Gulab Singh was also the Bhumidar of the agricultural land and he was the recorded owner and bhumidar of the above said property in the representative capacity on behalf of all the members of the joint family including the appellant and the respondents. That if Late Sh. Gulab Singh held the property in his name as the Karta of the family and only on the representative capacity then even otherwise as per law he could not have made the Will with regard to the properties so mentioned in the Will. So the decision on this issue was very important and necessary. The Ld. Trial Judge wrongly held that there was no requirement to decide this issue. Moreover the onus of proving this issue was upon the respondents and they have failed to prove this issue. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:31:10 +0530 Page No. 9/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors.
Final Arguments:
6. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and considered the written submissions. The plaintiff relied upon the following judgements to support his contention;
(i) Jagdish Chand Sharma Vs. Narain Singh Saini (dead)
(ii) Gurdial Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagir Kaur (Dead)
(iii) Gitika Puri Vs. Suman Chopra
(iv) Paramjit Kaur (Dead) through LRs Vs. Tarlochan Singh And Ors.
(v) H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma
(vi) Ram Singh Vs. Arjun Singh
(vii) Devku And Ors. Vs. Sunari and Ors.
(viii) Mit Singh And ORs. Vs. Malkiat Singh and Ors.
(x) Chander Bhan Vs. Harnath Singh And Or.
(xi) Yoginder Singh Vs. Sumit Gahlot Analysis and Findings:
7. The appeal has been filed by the plaintiff Ram Khilari being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Ld. Trial court in civil suit no. 7776/2016 titled as Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. The facts of the case as emerging from the record are that Late Sh. Gulab Singh was the father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and 2 and father in law of defendant no. 3 and paternal grandfather of Page No. 10/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Digitally signed by TANYA Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. TANYA BAMNIYAL Date:
BAMNIYAL 2025.09.07
18:31:16
+0530
defendant no 4. Late Sh. Rambir Singh another son of Late Sh. Gulab Singh has pre-deceased him. Defendant no. 3 and 4 are legal heirs of Late Sh. Rambir Singh. It is averred by the plaintiff/appellant that Sh. Gulab Singh was karta/Manager of the joint family comprising the appellant and the respondents.
8. It is undisputed that Late Sh. Gulab Singh was bhumidar of agricultural land and residential plots situated in the revenue estates of Village Kanganhairi and Village Jatikra, Delhi. It is averred by the plaintiff that pursuant to a family settlement 1/4th share in the said property was alleged to have been allotted to the appellant and he claimed to have enjoyed the possession of the same since that time.
9. The primary controversy in the instant case revolves around the validity of the will dated 01.09.2000 in favor of defendant no. 1/Ramjit, executed by Late Sh. Gulab Singh. The appellant alleged that the will was executed under coercion and undue influence of defendant no. 1, 2 and Smt. Urmilla (wife of defendant no. 2). The plaintiff further alleges that late Sh. Gulab Singh was suffering from illness and was of weak mind and had no sound disposing mind and hence, was incompetent to execute the will.
10.The Ld. Trial court framed 09 issues for determination, of which following are of paramount importance as the same were decided against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant which Page No. 11/17 Digitally signed RCA SCJ 3/21 by TANYA Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:31:21 +0530 consequently led to dismissal of the suit. Issue No. (3) Whether plaintiff has not come before the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts? OPD Issue No. (6) Whether suit land was acquired by deceased Gulab Singh from his own funds?OPD Issue No. (8) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration?OPP Issue No. (9) Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
11.Upon careful perusal of the entire material on record, it is apparent that the plaintiff did not plead in the plaint that the suit property was an ancestral property. There is no specific pleading before the Ld. Trial Court raising any such claim. However, the plaintiff specifically pleaded before the Ld. Trial Court that Late Sh. Gulab Singh was karta/manager of the joint family comprising the appellant and all the respondents and that he owned the property in that representative capacity. It is pertinent to note that ancestral property refers to a property inherited up to four generations of male lineage and includes properties jointly held by family members by birth. However, a karta may also hold self acquired property in his individual name which is not treated as ancestral property unless specifically so pleaded and established. It is trite law that ancestral property can be claimed only if specifically pleaded and proved by the party asserting it. As per the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar1 after
1. (1987) 1 SCC 204 Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.09.07 18:31:26 +0530 Page No. 12/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors.
passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the position which traditionally existed with respect to an automatic right of a person in properties inherited by his paternal predecessors-in-interest from the latter's paternal ancestors upto three degrees above, has come to an end. Under the traditional Hindu Law whenever a male ancestor inherited any property from any of his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him had a right in that property equal to that of the person who inherited the same. Putting it in other words when a person 'A' inherited property from his father or grandfather or great grandfather then the property in his hand was not to be treated as a self- acquired property but was to be treated as an HUF property in which his son, grandson and great grandson had a right equal to 'A'. After passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, this position has undergone a change and if a person after 1956 inherits a property from his paternal ancestors, the said property is not an HUF property in his hands and the property is to be taken as a self- acquired property of the person who inherits the same. There are two exceptions to a property inherited by such a person being and remaining self-acquired in his hands, and which will be either an HUF and its properties was existing even prior to the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and which Hindu Undivided Family continued even after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and in which case since HUF existed and continued before and after 1956, the property inherited by a member of an HUF even after 1956 would be HUF property in his hands to which his Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL Page No. 13/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. 18:31:32 +0530 paternal successors-in-interest upto the three degrees would have a right. The second exception to the property in the hands of a person being not self- acquired property but an HUF property is if after 1956 a person who owns a self-acquired property throws the self- acquired property into a common hotchpotch whereby such property or properties thrown into a common hotchpotch become Joint Hindu Family properties/HUF properties. In order to claim the properties in this second exception position as being HUF/Joint Hindu Family properties/properties, a plaintiff has to establish to the satisfaction of the court that when (i.e date and year) was a particular property or properties thrown in common hotchpotch and hence HUF/Joint Hindu Family created.
12. This position of law alongwith facts as to how the properties are HUF properties was required to be stated as a positive statement in the plaint of the present case, there is no statement or a single averment in the plaint as to when was this HUF which is stated to own the HUF properties came into existence or was created ie whether it existed even before 1956 or it was created for the first time after 1956 by throwing the property/properties into a common hotchpotch. In the present case, the plaintiff pleaded that Sh. Gulab Singh was the karta of the joint family and the property was held by him in that capacity.
13. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first, a foundation for it is to be build in the pleadings. The Page No. 14/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Digitally signed Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. TANYA by TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:31:39 +0530 appellant/plaintiff ought to have made averments by factual references qua each property claimed to be a HUF property as to how the same is a HUF property. Moreover, the issue in the instant matter is qua the challenge to will and not partition. Therefore, the judgements relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the defendant would not apply as challenge to will is a separate cause of action. Furthermore, the plaintiffs entire case was premised solely on the allegation of undue influence and invalidity of the will, therefore, no fault can be found in the Ld. Trial Court decision qua the disposal of the issue no. 6.
14.Furthermore, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly concluded that the plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands. The cross examination of plaintiff himself PW1 reveals material admissions including separation from his father in the year 1995, strain relations with his family and the fact that FIR no. 80/01 PS Kapashera had been lodged against him at the behest of late Sh.
Gulab Singh. These facts are material and ought to have been disclosed in the plaint. The maxim "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" is fully applicable in this scenario. Therefore, issue no. 3 was rightly decided against the defendant. The evidence led by the defendants particularly DW5 and DW6, established the execution of the will in a lawful and a proper manner. They deposed that the testator Sh. Gulab Singh affixed his thumb impression in their presence after being fully aware of its contents and both attesting witnesses signed the will. Nothing Page No. 15/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:31:46 +0530 could be illicited from the aforesaid witness during cross examination that created reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the will. It is trite law that testimony of attesting witnesses is sufficient to prove the validity of a will unless rebutted by strong and cogent evidence which was absent in this case. As per the settled principle of law, the burden of proving the undue influence and incapacity rests entirely on the party alleging it. The plaintiff failed to discharge this burden. The plaintiff failed to produce any medical documents or expert testimony to substantiate the claim of prolonged weakness of mind or incapacity of Sh. Gulab Singh at the time of the execution of the will. The only ground raised was that Sh. Gulab Singh sought exemption in criminal matters between the same parties on medical grounds which is entirely insufficient and legally untenable to substantiate the claim of incapacity or undue influence as the mental capacity for the purpose of executing a will must be a permanent condition existing at the time of execution, not a transient condition such as a temporary illness or a reason for seeking exemption on one or two occasions. Thus, seeking of exemption in a criminal matter does not establish weak mind for the purpose of validity of a will. The principle of burden of proof is well settled under Section 104 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) whereby the party alleging undue influence and incapacity must prove it. The appellant failed to discharge his burden and no credible evidence was led to substantiate either the claim of ancestral property or mental capacity of the testator. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.09.07 18:31:52 +0530 Page No. 16/17 RCA SCJ 3/21 Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors.
15.The Ld. Trial Court, applying settled principle of civil jurisprudencce, rightly held that the will executed in favor of defendant no. 1 was valid and binding. The Ld. Trial Court further correctly concluded that there was no cause of action in favor of plaintiff and he was not entitled to any relief either declaratory or injunctive. Thus, the finding recorded by Ld Trial Court are cogent based on proper evaluation of evidence and in consonance with binding precedents.
16.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court does not find any merit in the present appeal. Order passed by the Ld. Trial Court does not merit any interference. Accordingly, present appeal is hereby dismissed. TCR be sent back to the trial court alongwith the copy of this judgement.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by TANYA
TANYA BAMNIYAL
BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.09.07
18:31:56 +0530
Announced in open (TANYA BAMNIYAL)
court on 17.09.2025 SCJ-cum-RC/ South-West
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
This judgement consists of 17 pages and each and every page of this judgement is signed by me.
Page No. 17/17 RCA SCJ 3/21Ram Khilari Vs. Ramjit And Ors.