Delhi District Court
Mohd. Akram vs Ruhi Khatoon on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH-I, DISTRICT JUDGE-03
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
Civil Suit No.: 251/2021
1. Mohd. Akram
S/o Mohd. Yunus
2. Zeenat Khatoon
W/o Mohd. Akram
Both r/o C-158, Chinot Basti,
Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055 .....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Ruhi Khatoon,
W/o Ataullah,
2. Master Atif Wali,
3. Master Asad Wali,
Defendant-2 & 3 are sons of Late Wali Azam
4. Baby Asia Wali
D/o Late Wali Azam
(defendant-2 to 4 being minors through their guardian/natural
mother Ruhi Khatoon/defendant-1)
All r/o 11/371, Lalita Park,
Shakarpur, East Delhi
Delhi-110092 .....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 06.07.2021
Final Arguments heard on : 10.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 13.12.2025
CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 1 of 16
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiffs/Mohd. Akram and his wife Zeenat Khatoon have filed this suit for partition, possession, damages, recovery of Rs. 1,83,333/- and for permanent injunction against their grandchildren / defendant-2 to 4 and their mother / defendant-1. Plaintiff's wife Zeenat Khatoon has expired on 10.09.2025, but no application has been filed to bring her LR's on record.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this suit are that:-
(a) Plaintiff's son Mr. Wali Azam married defendant-1 as per Muslim rites, customs and ceremonies and they are blessed with defendants-2 to
4. Their son Wali Azam expired intestate on 24.12.2018 and after that his wife/defendant-1 remarried to one Mr. Ataullah in the year 2019 and has been residing with him.
(b) Further, plaintiffs stated that their late son Wali Azam used to work during his lifetime with all his brothers and father in the joint business and out of their collective/joint funds, a property as per sell deed Ex. DW1/A i.e. a flat on third floor in property bearing no. 11/371, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-11092 (hereinafter referred as to suit property) was purchased jointly in the name of Wali Azam and defendant-1. Further, they stated that the suit property was purchased collectively / jointly by them and their sons thus, they have share/right in the same and otherwise being parents of Late Wali Azam, they have 1/6 th share in the suit property as per the Mohammedan Law.
(c) Plaintiffs further stated that since the defendant-1 has remarried, thus, she has no right in the properties left behind by Late Wali Azam, as such, the suit property is liable to be divided/partitioned amongst CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 2 of 16 plaintiffs and defendants -2 to 4 as per their respective shares as per Mohammedan Law. They further stated that at the time of remarriage, they requested defendant-1 to partition the suit property and gave them their due share, but she ignored it. They again requested defendant-1 in this regard on 10.04.2021 but she flatly refused to do so. Hence, they served a legal notice dated 13.04.2021 but despite service of notice, she neither complied nor replied to it.
(d) Further, plaintiffs stated that defendant-1 is intending to grab their as well as defendant-2 to 4 share in the suit property. Further, she is trying to dispose off/sell it as on 15.04.2021 she was showing the suit property to a property dealer and was negotiating with him and on their objection, she threatened that she would dispose off the suit property and will create third party interest therein and will not give any share to them.
(e) Further, plaintiffs stated that defendant-1 is staying in the whole of the property and using their share as well, so she is liable to pay the damages/mesne profits to them @ Rs. 5,000/- per month along with pendente lite and future damages till the time actual and physical partition.
(f) Further, plaintiffs stated that after the demise of Wali Azam, defendant-1 received a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- against his LIC Policy No. 537286940 without informing them, so they are entitled for 1/3rd share in the same as well (amounting to Rs. 1,83,333/-) with interest @ 18 % p.a. on the said amount till actual payment to them.
(g) Further, plaintiffs stated that despite their repeated requests and demands and service of legal notice, defendants have neither given their CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 3 of 16 due share in the suit property nor in the amount received from the LIC policy of Late Wali Azam. Hence, they filed this suit.
3. Defendant-1 for herself and on behalf of her minor children defendants-2 to 4, filed the written statement wherein she has taken the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable as plaintiffs have concealed the material facts and they have not come to the court with clean hands. Further, the suit is filed without any cause of action, hence, is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. She claimed that she is a poor woman and resides along with her minor children. She has no source of income and is totally dependent upon the mercy of her relatives. She claimed that the plaintiffs are residing in a very big house bearing No. C-158, Chinot Basti, Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi and when she asked for some financial help, they became furious and threw her out from their house and told her not to come there and not to demand any share or anything from them. She further claimed that she and her late husband were the registered owner of the suit property and after the demise of her husband, she and her minor children became the owner by virtue of inheritance. Further, she claimed that her late husband during his lifetime bequeathed his half share in the suit property to his children/defendant- 2 to 4 by way of oral gift in the presence of her and other relatives. Further, she stated that the plaintiffs filed this suit in order to harass them, so that minor defendants will not claim any share in the property No. C-158, Chinot Basti, Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. She refused to receive any legal notice from the plaintiffs. On merits, she denied receiving of any amount including amount against LIC Policy of her late husband, apart from other allegations, hence, she prayed for CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 4 of 16 dismissal of the suit.
4. Plaintiffs filed the replication wherein they denied the averments of the written statement in toto and reiterated the averments of the suit Further, they claimed that their son Wali Azam did not make any Will or Gift as alleged by the defendants
5. From the pleadings of the parties, Ld. Predecessor framed the following issues vide order dated 01.02.2023:
I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition and possession thereby partitioning/dividing the suit property bearing no. 11/371, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi as shown in the site plan, as claimed for?OPP II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,83,333/- as prayed for ?OPP III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages/mense profits thereby directing the defendant-1 to pay pendent-lite and future damages/mense profits @ Rs. 5,000/- per month till handing over the actual and physical possession, as claimed for?OPP IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from transferring, disposing off, selling and/or creating any third party interest by any means in respect of suit property, as prayed for?OPP V. Relief.
6. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and further he also deposed as SPA of his wife as PW2.
7. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He generally deposed on the same lines as that of the suit. He relied upon the documents i.e site plan of the suit property as Ex. PW1/1; his aadhar card as Ex. PW1/2; aadhar card of his wife as Ex. PW1/3; legal notice dated 13.04.2021 as Ex. PW1/4 and postal receipt as Mark PW1/5.
During his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that suit property was CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 5 of 16 purchased in the year 2014 jointly in the name of the defendant-1 and her late husband. He claimed that the consideration amount was paid by all the family members jointly. However, he had not paid any consideration amount for purchase of suit property. He does not remember how much amount was contributed by his family members for purchasing the suit property. He was informed by his son that suit property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.28,00,000/-. He had not resided with her late son in the suit property and he claimed his share in the suit property after the death of his son. He does not know who was the nominee in the insurance policy. He admitted that he had demanded his share out of the said insurance policy amount as per Shariyat Law.
8. PW-2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A and relied upon SPA executed by his wife Zeenat Khatoon in his favour as Ex. PW2/1.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not filed the record of LIC policy in the name of his late son Wali Azam.
9. In order to establish their defence, defendants examined the only witness i.e. defendant-1 as DW1.
10. DW1 led her evidence by way of an affidavit which she tendered as Ex. DW1/1 and relied upon the sale deed dated 13.01.2015 as Ex. DW1/A. During her cross-examination, DW1 deposed that she does not get a second marriage performed. She denied that after the death of her husband, she remarried. She denied that she is getting any rental income. She received around Rs.6,00,000/- from her mother side to purchase the property along with her late husband. She denied that the suit property CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 6 of 16 was purchased by joint funds. He had received legal notice Ex.PW1/4 at her address given in the plaint.
11. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Hazi Mohd. Yameen- Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Mr. Shakeel- Ld. Counsel for the defendants and perused the case file.
12. Before giving my issue wise findings, I shall deal with the arguments of parties with regard to court fees.
13. Ld. Counsel for the defendants argued that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and they sought partition and possession in the suit property, but they have not paid court fees in regard to the relief of possession. He further argued that though the issue regarding court fees has not been framed in-spite of the objection of the defendants, yet same can be raised at any stage in terms of Order VII Rule 11 (c) CPC.
14. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that plaintiff is in constructive possession of the suit property, so they have paid the appropriate court fees and further, if there is any deficiency in court fees plaintiff is ready to pay the same.
15. Plaintiff in paragraph-17 of the plaint, which is in respect for the valuation of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction & court fees, stated as under:-
That the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is valued at Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two lakhs) for the relief of partition/possession and for the purpose of court fee is valued at Rs.200/- for these reliefs as the plaintiffs are in constructive possession of the suit property. For the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee for the relief of recovery, it is valued at Rs.1,83,333/- and for the relief of permanent injunction, it is valued at Rs.130/-. The prescribed ad-valorem court fee has been affixed on the plaint. The CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 7 of 16 plaintiffs undertake to pay the court fee for the relief of damages as and when it would be decided and plaintiffs would be directed to do so, as the plaintiffs are only claiming pendent lite and future damages in the suit.
16. It is clear from paragraph-17 of the plaint that for the purpose of partition and possession, the plaintiffs valued the suit for purpose of Court fees as Rs.200/- claiming to be in constructive possession of the suit property. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not in the physical possession of the suit property. Now, it is to be seen whether plaintiffs were in the constructive possession of the suit property or not, when the suit was filed.
17. In Tara Chand Gaur Vs. Satish Chand Sharma 2018 SCC Online Delhi 12923 Hon'ble Court held as under:-
I. In law, when a partition is sought by a co-owner, court-fee which is payable is a fixed court-fee in terms of Schedule II, Article 17(vi), of the Court-fees Act, 1870 inasmuch as every co-owner is either in actual physical possession of whole or part of the property or in law has to be taken in deemed possession or constructive possession of the co-owned property. II. If a defendant is a co-owner who is in actual physical possession of the complete property, even then, the possession of one or more such so-owners who are defendants in possession, the possession is for and on behalf of all co-owners including the plaintiff(s), and whether there exists exclusive possession of the respondents/ defendants and the same acts as an ouster of the plaintiff(s) is a question of fact, and only when this question of fact is proved by the respondents/ defendants by leading evidence, it can be held that the appellant/ plaintiff was not in possession, physical or constructive, of the suit property, so that court-fee is payable for the 1/3rd share as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff.
18. Further in Govindammal Vs. R. Perumal Chettiar & Others 2006 11 SCC 600 Hon'ble Court held as under:-
In order to prove ouster and adverse possession against the co-
CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 8 of 16 sharer, the following relevant factors have to be taken into consideration:
(i). Exclusive possession and perception of profits for well over the period prescribed by the law of limitation.
(ii). Dealings by the party in possession treating the properties as exclusively belonging to him.
(iii). The means of excluded co-sharer of knowing that his title has been denied by the co-owner in possession.
19. Plaintiff in paragraph-8 of the plaint stated that intention of the defendant-1 is to grab the suit property. Since, she has remarried thus, she may also grab the share of minor children. Further, plaintiff claimed that defendant-1 wants to dispose off/ sell the suit property and for this, she was negotiating with some property dealer and when he objected she threatened him that she would dispose off the suit property and shall not give any share to him. In view of this, it is clear that the plaintiff is not in constructive possession of the suit property. So, he has to give ad- valorem court fees under Section 7 (iv) (b) of Court Fees Act on the value of his share.
20. My issue-wise findings are as :
ISSUE No.-1 I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition and possession thereby partitioning/dividing the suit property bearing no. 11/371, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi as shown in the site plan, as claimed for?OPP
21. Plaintiff claimed that the suit property was purchased out of the collective/joint funds of him and their sons (including Wali Azam ) in the name of Wali Azam and defendant-1. Now, it is to be seen whether the suit property was purchased from the joint/collective funds.
22. Admittedly, the suit property was in the joint name of plaintiff's late son Wali Azam and his wife/defendant-1 vide sell deed Ex.DW1/A. CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 9 of 16 PW1 admitted in his cross examination that he had not contributed any amount for purchase of the suit property. Further, PW1 deposed that he does not remember how much was contributed by his family members for purchasing the suit property. It is pertinent that the plaintiff has not examined any of his sons or produced any document to show that their sons have made any contribution in the purchase of suit property.
23. In view of the above, plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property was purchased out of the collective/joint funds of him and their sons.
24. Plaintiffs claimed that after the demise of their son Wali Azam, defendant-1 remarried to one Mr. Ataullah in the year 2019 and she has been residing with him. Defendant-1/DW1 deposed that she does not get second marriage performed. Admittedly, plaintiff/PW1 has not produced any document regarding remarriage of defendant-1. He has not disclosed the date of remarriage. Further, he has not examined any witness to prove that defendant-1 has remarried to Ataullah, as such, plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant-1 remarried one Ataullah in the year 2019.
25. Defendants claimed that Late Wali Azam during his lifetime bequeathed his half share in the suit property to his children/defendant-2 to 4 by way of oral gift in the presence of defendant-1 and other relatives. It is not in dispute that a gift is a transfer of property where interest is transferred from one person to another without any consideration. It is gratuitous in nature. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 contains general principles relating to transfer of property as well as laws relating to sale, mortgage, charge, lease, and exchange, transfer of actionable claims and gifts of property. Chapter VII of the Transfer of Property Act, 1872 CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 10 of 16 governed Gift made by any person irrespective of religion, caste or creed. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under:
122. "Gift" defined.--"Gift" is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
Acceptance when to be made.--Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.
26. Chapter VII does not apply to gifts or Hiba made by a Muslim. Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under:-
129. Saving of donations mortis causa and Muhammadan Law.--
Nothing in this Chapter relates to gifts of moveable property made in contemplation of death, or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Muhammadan law.
27. The conception of the term 'gift' as used in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is different from the practice under the Muslim Law. Under the Muslim Law, a gift is a transfer of property or right by one person to another in accordance with the provisions provided under Muslim law. Muslim Law defines Hiba or gift as a transfer of a determinate property without any exchange from one person to another and accepted by or on behalf of the latter. In Bibi Maniran V Mohd. Ishaque, AIR 1963 Pat 229 it was held that this exemption is constitutional and lawful. A donor must be Mohammedan, male or female, married or unmarried, attained age of majority as prescribed under Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 as amended in 1999 i.e. eighteen years and owner of the property subject matter of the Hiba. A gift should be made with free consent and a gift made under compulsion is not valid but voidable. A donee may be a Mohammedan or non-Mohammedan, male or female, married or unmarried, major or minor. Hiba cannot be lawfully made in favor of an unborn person or dead person but can be made jointly in favor of two or more persons. CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 11 of 16 Hiba can be made in respect of whole and every form of property tangible or intangible having legal value and the property must be transferable under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The clear and unequivocal declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee and delivery of possession are essential formalities of a Hiba. The declaration may be oral or in writing and should be bona fide but the form of declaration is not immaterial. The acceptance by the donee may be expressed or implied. A gift is completed only after delivery of the possession and a gift which is not accompanied by possession is void ab initio. Hiba is complete only after the delivery of the possession.
There are three ingredients for a valid gift by the Mohamdans as envisaged U/s 149 of the principle of Mohd. Law by Mulla. The first condition for making gift is that declaration of gift, second, acceptance of gift and third delivery of possession.
28. Defendants in their pleadings, have not disclosed as to when and where Wali Azam made the oral gift (Hiba) qua his half share in the suit property in favour of his children/defendant- 2 to 4 and in what form he delivered the possession of half share of suit property- which is a flat. Further, defendant-1 has not disclosed the name of any of relative(s) in whose presence her husband Wali Azam made oral gift. Even, DW1 has not testified so. It is pertinent that before making any gift there must be the identification of portion/share of the Wali Azam in the suit property which is interestingly not in the suit property. Hence, it is not enough by simply saying that Wali Azam during his lifetime bequeathed his half share in the suit property to his children/defendant-2 to 4 by way of an oral gift. As such, the defence set up by the defendants is not tenable in law.
29. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the defendants have failed to prove that Late Wali Azam during his lifetime bequeathed his half share in the suit property to his children/defendant- 2 to 4 by way of CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 12 of 16 oral gift in the presence of defendant- 1 and other relatives. Therefore, the fact remains that the half share in the suit property is of the Wali Azam/plaintiff's son.
30. There is no dispute that the parties in the matter would be governed by the Shariat Law. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1973 governs the non-testamentary succession. However, different Shariat laws apply to the Sunni and Shia sects of Muslims. Section 2 of the Act reads as under;
2. Application of Personal Law to Muslims.--Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal properly inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties, and wakfs (other than charities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).
31. Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with Intestate Succession. Section 29 of the Act states that this part shall not apply to the property of Muhammadan.
32. In view of above, it is clear that PW1's son Wali Azam was owner of half of the suit property and he died intestate and therefore, plaintiff being father has 1/6th share as per Sheriyat Law in half of the suit property. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided, as such. ISSUE No.-II.
II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,83,333/- as prayed for ?OPP
33. According to PW1, his late son was having LIC policy bearing no. CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 13 of 16 537286940 and after his demise, defendant-1 has received a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from LIC but she has not given any amount of his share. As such, he is entitled for 1/6th share of the total amount of Rs.5,50,000/-.
34. During his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he does not know who was the nominee in the LIC Policy of his late son Wali Azam. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any record of LIC policy in the name of his deceased son Wali Azam. In view of this, it is clear that PW1 has not placed on record any document showing that his son Wali Azam had obtained any LIC policy and after his death defendant-1 got Rs.5,50,000/-. It is pertinent to note that plaintiffs has neither produced any document nor examined any witness from LIC to prove that LIC policy bearing no. 537286940 was issued in the name of his son Wali Azam and after his death, the said policy amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- has been released in the account of defendant-1.
35. In view of above discussion, plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of any amount, as such, the aforesaid issue decided against the plaintiff. ISSUE No.-III:
III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages/mense profits thereby directing the defendant-1 to pay pendent-lite and future damages/mense profits @ Rs. 5,000/- per month till handing over the actual and physical possession, as claimed for?OPP
36. According to PW1, defendant-1/DW1 is misappropriating and using the entire suit property illegally hence, defendant- 1 is liable to pay damages/mesne profit @ Rs.5,000/- per month for unauthorized use of his share in the suit property.
37. It has already been established that suit property i.e. a flat was jointly owned by plaintiff's son Wali Azam and defendant-1. It is CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 14 of 16 admitted that there has been no partition regarding half share of Wali Azam in the suit property. It is pertinent that the suit property which comprises the portion of Wali Azam not only is in the occupation of the defendant-1 but also his own children/defendant-2 to 4. Hence, it cannot be said that defendant- 1 is misappropriating and using the entire suit property illegally.
38. Further, PW1 has not brought any evidence to prove that the defendant-1 by any other source has any income from the portion of Wali Azam. As such, plaintiff is not entitled for any damages or mesne profit from the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE No.-IV.
IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from transferring, disposing off, selling and/or creating any third party interest by any means in respect of suit property, as prayed for?OPP
39. According to PW1, defendant-1/DW1 is trying to dispose of/sell the suit property. He testified that on 15.04.2021, defendant-1 was showing the suit property to some property dealer and was negotiating with him. When he objected, she threatened that she would dispose of the entire property or create third party interest in the same. Hence, he has apprehension that defendant-1 may sell the suit property. This testimony of PW1 has remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 that defendant -1 may sell the suit property.
40. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for injunction thereby restraining the defendants not to transfer, CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 15 of 16 dispose off, sell or create third party interest in the suit property till the plaintiff gets his share. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. V/RELIEF
41. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff and defendants have following shares in half of the suit property:
Sr. No. Party Name Share
1. plaintiff 1/6th
2 defendant-1 1/8th
3 defendant- 2 & 3 17/60th
4 defendant-4 17/120th
A declaration to this effect is hereby passed. Partition of the half of suit property shall take place in aforesaid proportion. It is directed that till partition takes place, none of the parties shall create third party interest in the suit property. Preliminary decree sheet be prepared.
Announced in the open Court (Ravinder Singh - I)
on 13th Day of December, 2025 District Judge-03, Court No.206,
N/B, East District, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.12.16 13:46:04 +0530
CS No. 251/2021 Mohd. Akram and Another Vs. Ruhi Khatoon & Others Page No. 16 of 16