Delhi District Court
Rajesh Verma vs Manju Verma @ Manju Panwar on 24 April, 2026
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKUR JAIN - II, DJ-02, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No.: 435/20
RAJESH VERMA,
S/O LATE SH. SURESH CHAND VERMA,
R/O B-153, GALI NO.2, 28 FUTA ROAD,
NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR,
WEST KARAWAL NAGAR,
DELHI - 94. .......PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. MANJU VERMA @ MANJU PANWAR
W/O SH. MANOJ PANWAR
R/O FLAT NO.303-A, PLOT NO.15,
DHURVANSHU APARTMENT,
VIKRAM ENCLAVE, SHALIMAR GARDEN EXTN.-1,
NEAR HINDON AIRPORT, SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD, U.P.
2. MANOJ VERMA,
3. DHARMENDER VERMA,
BOTH S/O LATE SH. SURESH CHAND VERMA,
R/O H. NO.4610, GALI NO.4,
AJEET NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI - 31.
4. ANJU PANWAR,
W/O SH. ANSHU PANWAR,
R/O PANWAR SADAN,
INFRONT OF MURAKDWAJ JAIN MANDIR,
NEAR MEHTA PARK, ETAH, U. P. .......DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution of suit : 30.09.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.04.2026
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a suit for partition and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date:
JAIN 1 of 2026.04.24
16
14:47:46
+0530
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
BRIEF FACTS:-
2. It is stated by the plaintiff that parties are the sons and daughters of Late Smt. Urmila Devi, who was the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing no.4610, Gali no.4, Ajeet Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 31, admeasuring 47 sq. yards consisting of four floors (hereinafter referred to as "suit property"); that mother of the parties died intestate on 21.11.2017 leaving behind her husband i.e. father of the parties and the plaintiff and the defendants as LRs.
3. It is further averred that father of the parties Sh. Suresh Chand also died on 01.08.2020, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as his LRs; that the parties have inherited the suit property and have become the joint owners of the suit property having 1/5th share each; that plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 4 (the married sisters) continued to be in constructive possession of the suit property being the joint owners and defendants no.2 and 3 are residing and are in physical possession of the suit property.
4. It is further averred that after the death of father of parties, the intentions of defendant no.2 and 3 have become malafide to illegally usurp the suit property; that the plaintiff also sent a legal notice dated 17.08.2020 to the defendants calling upon them to give 1/5th share of the plaintiff in the suit property, however, defendants sent reply dated 24.08.2020 thereby leveling false allegations against the plaintiff and denied the legitimate rights and share of the plaintiff in the suit property. Hence, the present suit.
PROCEEDINGS:-
5. Pursuant to the summons issued upon the defendants, defendants no.1 and 4 filed their joint WS and defendants no.2 and 3 filed their separate joint 2Digitally of 16 signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:47:51
+0530
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
WS; that thereafter, the plaintiff also filed replication to the WS of the defendants, and on completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Court on 14.03.2024 :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary and final decree of partition in the suit property as claimed ? OPP
2. Whether Plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in the suit property? OPP
3. Whether the suit property was sold by late Smt. Urmila Devi to the father of the parties i.e. late Sh. Suresh Chand Verma vide sale documents dated 18.08.1999? OPD
4. Whether the defendants no. 2 and 3 are the absolute owners of the suit property pursuant to the sale documents dated 24.07.2020? OPD
5. Relief ?
6. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE before Ld. Local Commissioner vide order dated 14.03.2024.
7. Plaintiff has lead his evidence before Ld. LC and examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. Plaintiff relied upon the following documents:
(i) Site plan of the suit property Ex. PW1/1.
(ii) Legal Notice dated 17.08.2020 Ex.PW1/2.
(iii) Reply dated 24.08.2020 to the legal notice Ex.PW1/3.
(iv) Electricity Bill of CA No.150544614 Ex.PW1/4.
8. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants on 19.04.2024; and thereafter, the PE was closed on 19.04.2024 before Ld. LC vide separate statement of the plaintiff and the matter was listed for DE. Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:47:57
3 of 16
+0530
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
9. Defendants have led their evidence and examined Sh. Manoj Kumar (defendant no.2) as DW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavits Ex.DW-1/A. He further relied upon the documents :-
(i) Property documents in favour of Sh. Suresh Chand as Ex.DW1/1 (OSR);
(ii) Property documents in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi as Ex.DW1/2 (OSR);
(iii) Property documents in favour of Sh. Manoj Kumar and Sh. Dharmender Verma as Ex.DW1/3 (OSR);
(iv) Copy of Aadhar Card mentioned as Ex.DW1/4 was de-exhibited.
10.Thereafter, defendants examined Sh. Dharmender Verma/ defendant no.3, as DW2, who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex.DW2/A. He relied upon the documents already Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/3.
11.Both DW1 and DW2 were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on 13.09.2024.
12.Thereafter, defendants also examined Sh. Laxmi Kant Verma and Sh.
Ravi as DW3 and DW4 who tendered their evidence by way of affidavits as Ex.DW3/A and Ex.DW3/B respectively, and they also relied upon the documents already Ex.DW1/3, being the attesting witnesses to the documents dated 24.07.2020. They were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on 01.10.2024.
13.Defendants lastly examined Ms. Manju Verma/ defendant no.1 as DW5, who tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit as Ex.DW5/A. She relied upon the documents already Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/3. She was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on 07.12.2024.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR ANKUR JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:48:01
+0530
4 of 16
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
14.Thereafter, the DE was closed on 07.12.2024 before Ld. LC vide separate of Ld. Counsel for the defendants and the present matter was listed for final arguments vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed by this Court.
15.Final arguments heard from both the sides.
PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSIONS:-
16.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the suit property is in the name of his mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi, who died intestate on 21.11.2017, and the said fact is not disputed by the defendants herein.
17.It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that as per the contentions of defendants, the mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi had executed sale documents qua the suit property in favour of their father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand on 18.08.1999 and subsequently, on 24.07.2020, the father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand had further sold the suit property to defendants no.2 and 3 by way of notarized documents and Will dated 24.07.2020. However, the defendants have not examined any of the witnesses to the alleged sale documents including the Will dated 18.08.1999, therefore Late Sh. Suresh Chand could not have further sold the suit property to defendants no.2 and 3 as alleged, and the plaintiff is entitled for decree of partition qua the suit property.
DEFENDANTS' SUBMISSIONS:-
18.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendants that the suit property was sold by the mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi in favour of her husband/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand vide sale documents including Will dated 18.08.1999, pursuant to which Late Sh. Suresh Chand became the owner of the suit 5 Digitally of 16 signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24 14:48:08 +0530 Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
property and vide sale documents including Will dated 24.07.2020, Late Sh. Suresh Chand had further sold the suit property to defendants no.2 and 3, and therefore, the plaintiff has no right to seek partition as alleged and the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
FINDINGS:-
ISSUES NO.3 and 4
19.The issues no.3 and 4 are taken up first as the onus to prove the said issues was placed upon the defendants to prove that the suit property was sold by late Smt. Urmila Devi to the father of the parties i.e. late Sh. Suresh Chand Verma vide sale documents dated 18.08.1999 and subsequently, the defendants no. 2 and 3 became the absolute joint owners of the suit property pursuant to the sale documents dated 24.07.2020.
20. In this regard, the defendants no.2 and 3 have examined themselves as DW1 and DW2, who have relied upon the property documents in favour of Late Sh. Suresh Chand as Ex.DW1/1 (OSR), the property documents in favour of Late Smt. Urmila Devi as Ex.DW1/2 (OSR) and the property documents in favor of Sh. Manoj Kumar and Sh. Dharmender Verma as as Ex.DW1/3 (OSR).
21.In the cross-examination of DW1, the defendant no.2 has deposed that "the sale transaction in respect of the suit property in the name of Smt. Urmila Devi was not done in my presence. Vol- I was only 5 years old in the year 1977. It is correct that I do not have any personal knowledge w.r.t. the said transaction. It is correct that the consideration amount was not paid in my presence... I do not have any proof to show that the payment of consideration amount was made by my father... It is correct 6 ofDigitally 16 signed by ANKUR ANKUR Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.24 14:48:11 +0530 Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
that my mother was the absolute owner of the suit property. It is correct that the documents Ex.DW1/1 dated 18.08.1999 was not executed in my presence and the consideration amount was also not paid in my presence... It is correct that there is no registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of me and my brother/ Sh. Dharmender Kumar".
22.DW1 further deposed that documents Ex.DW1/3 dated 24.07.2020 were prepared in the presence of defendants no.2 and 3, Late Sh. Suresh Chand and the witnesses Sh. Laxmikant and Sh. Ravi, and the witness Sh.
Laxmikant is the brother-in-law of defendant no.3/ Sh. Dharmender and Sh. Ravi was the neighbor of Sh. Laxmikant.
23.It is pertinent to note that DW1 has further deposed that defendants no.2 and 3 paid the consideration amount of Rs.30 lakhs in cash to Late Sh. Suresh Chand pursuant to the sale documents Ex.DW1/3, from time to time and on different dates, as and when demanded by their father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand; and that the defendant no.2 cannot give the bifurcation of the amount as to how much amount was paid and on which date.
24.DW1 further admitted in his cross-examination that he does not have any documentary proof to show the aforesaid periodic payment made to his father / Late Sh. Suresh Chand, or to show the availability of funds of Rs.30 lakhs in cash on or before 24.07.2020. DW1 also admitted that there is no details of payment in the receipt dated 24.07.2020 (part of documents Ex.DW1/3), and that his father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand has never handed over the possession of the suit property to defendants no.2 and 3; and further that Late Sh. Suresh Chand has expired on 01.08.2020 Digitally 7 ofsigned 16 by ANKUR ANKUR Date:
JAIN JAIN 2026.04.24 14:48:22 +0530 Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
and he was not keeping good health in the last phase of his life as he was suffering from T.B. and other old age ailments.
25.Similar admissions were also made by the defendant no.3, during his cross-examination as DW2 in the present case as stated above.
26.Defendants have also examined Sh. Laxmikant Verma and Sh. Ravi as DW3 and DW4 respectively, being the attesting witnesses of sale documents dated 24.07.2020 Ex.DW1/3, wherein DW3 has deposed that defendant no.3/ Dharmender Verma is his brother-in-law (jija).
27.DW3 has further deposed that "I have not read the documents Ex.DW1/3.
The nature of the document is sale deed. I do not know the number of the documents, however it was a bulky set. Vol- I have not counted the same. The documents were not drafted in my presence... I do not remember the date, month or year of the execution of the documents Ex.DW1/3... The documents were first signed by Sh. Suresh Chandra Verma. I do not remember as to who had signed thereafter... No payment was made in my presence... It is correct that Sh. Suresh Chandra Verma had not handed over the possession of the suit property to the defendants no.2 and 3. Vol- There is no question of handing over the possession because they were already residing in the suit property. Sh. Suresh Chandra Verma was not well when the documents were executed. He was very weak but I do not know the diseases from which he was suffering. Sh. Suresh Chandra Verma had expired after a long time after execution of the documents Ex.DW1/3. I do not remember the exact duration whether it was six months or one year. I attended his cremation." Digitally signed by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:48:28
+0530
8 of 16
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
28.DW4 has deposed that he knew Sh. Suresh Chandra Verma because he used to supply bread to his house and that he also knew Sh. Laxmikant for the last 15 years as he used to meet him at Temple.
29.DW4 further deposed that "I am illiterate... I do not know the nature of the documents on which I put thumb mark. I do not know the number of documents. The documents were not drafted in my presence. I do not remember the date, month or year of the execution of the documents Ex.DW1/3. At the time of execution of the documents, Bauji, Guddu, Raju were present... I do not know the name of Bauji, Guddu and Raju... I do not know who signed the documents firstly... No payment was made in my presence... I do not know whether possession of suit property was handed over to defendants no.2 and 3 or not... I put my thumb mark at the instance of Raju Bhai. Sh. Suresh Chandra Verma was not well when the documents were executed. He was very weak but I do not know the diseases from which he was suffering. I do not know after how much period of execution of documents Sh. Suresh Chandra Verma had expired. I had not attended his cremation."
30.It is pertinent to note that when the case file was handed over to the witness/ DW4 to point out the documents on which he had put his thumb impression, then the witness replied that he cannot point out those documents.
31.Lastly, the defendants have examined defendant no.1/ Smt. Manju Verma @ Manju Panwar as DW5, who had deposed that her mother/ Smt. Urmila Devi was the owner of the suit property and that she transferred the suit property in the name of her father/ late Sh. Suresh Chand, but she Digitally signed 9 of 16 by ANKUR JAIN ANKUR Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:48:32
+0530
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
did not know when the same was transferred, and the said fact was told to her by her father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand.
32.DW5 further deposed that "it is correct that my father was residing in the suit property till his death. It is correct that my father was not keeping good health in the last phase of his life. Vol- He was suffering from T.B. and B.P."
33.It has not been denied by the defendants that the suit property was purchased by their mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi in her name vide documents Ex.DW1/2 (OSR). However, the sale documents dated 18.08.1999 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) has not been proved by the defendants as per law, as neither the defendants have proved that their father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand had paid any consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- to their mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi on 18.08.1999, nor the defendants have examined any attesting witness to the said documents including the alleged Will dated 18.08.1999 so as to prove the same as per law.
34.DW1 and DW2 have admitted in their cross-examination that the documents dated 18.08.1999 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) were not executed nor any sale consideration amount was paid in their presence, and that the sale documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) allegedly executed by their father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand in their favour qua the suit property are unregistered.
35.It is also pertinent to note that the father of the plaintiff/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand is stated to have expired on 01.08.2020, whereas the sale documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) allegedly executed by Late Sh. Suresh Chand in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 qua the suit property have been 10 of 16 Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24 14:48:43 +0530 Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
prepared on 24.07.2020, which also raises suspicion as it has come in the evidence of the defendant witnesses that at the time of execution of the said documents, Late Sh. Suresh Chand was not keeping good health.
36.Without prejudice to the above, the defendants have also not proved as to when and in what manner, they have allegedly paid the cash amount of Rs.30 lakhs to Late Sh. Suresh Chand towards the purchase of the suit property. It has also not been denied that no details of payments are mentioned in the receipt dated 24.07.2020 qua the suit property Ex.DW1/3 (OSR).
37.Although the defendants have examined DW3 and DW4 as Sh.
Laxmikant and Sh. Ravi, stated to be the attesting witnesses of the documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR), but the name of the witness/ DW4 Sh. Ravi is not mentioned in the list of witnesses to the said documents and instead only one thumb impression is there, and it is also not described as to whether it is 'Right Thumb Impression' or the 'Left Thumb Impression'.
38.It has also come in the evidence of DW3 that the defendant no.2/ Sh.
Dharmender Verma is the brother-in-law of the attesting witness/ Sh. Laxmikant and he has deposed in his cross-examination that he had neither read the documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR), nor he remembered the date, month or year of the execution of the said documents. He further deposed that he does not remember as to who had signed after Late Sh. Suresh Chand Verma, and that no payment was made in his presence.
39.DW3 has further deposed that Late Sh. Suresh Chand Verma was not well when the documents were executed and that he expired after a long time 11 of 16 Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24 14:48:47 +0530 Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
after the execution of documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) and that he does not remember the exact duration whether it was 06 months or one year, whereas Late Sh. Suresh Chand Verma admittedly expired on 01.08.2020 i.e. only one week after the execution of alleged documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR).
40.DW4/ Sh. Ravi has deposed in his examination that he knows Sh. Suresh Chand Verma as he used to supply bread to his house, and that he also knows the other attesting witness/ Sh. Laxmikant for the last 15 years as he used to meet him at the Temple. Whereas in the evidence of DW1, he has deposed that Sh. Ravi is the neighbour of Sh. Laxmikant.
41.Further, it is also pertinent to note that both the witnesses i.e. DW1 and DW2 have deposed in their evidence that the documents Ex.DW1/3 were prepared in the presence of DW3 and DW4, whereas both the attesting witnesses namely Sh. Laxmikant and Sh. Ravi respectively, have denied their presence at the time of preparation of the documents Ex.DW1/3, and therefore, there is material contradiction in the deposition of DW1 and DW2 on one hand and DW3 and DW4 on the other hand, in this regard, and since defendant no.3 is the brother-in-law of DW3/ Sh. Laxmikant Verma, therefore the possibility that both the attesting witnesses had come to sign the documents only at the behest of defendants no.2 and 3 and not called by Late Sh. Suresh Chand, cannot be ruled out.
42.Also, DW4 has deposed in his cross-examination that he has only put his thumb impression on one stamp paper, whereas there are four stamp papers filed alongwith the documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR). DW4 has further stated that he put his thumb impression at the instance of Raju Bhai (whose real name has not been disclosed in his evidence) and that he did 12 of 16 Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:49:14
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
not know as to who signed the documents firstly. Infact, the witness has also not stated that he had seen Sh. Suresh Chand Verma signing the documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) in his presence, and when the case file was handed over to him, he also could not point out the documents on which he has put his thumb impressions.
43.The evidence of DW5/ Smt. Manju Verma also does not prove the case of the defendants as she was only a hearsay witness, and she has fairly admitted in her cross-examination that she does not have any personal knowledge regarding the said transfer of the suit property in her father's name, and neither the said documents were executed in her presence nor any consideration amount was paid in her presence. She further deposed that the document Ex.DW1/3 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 were not prepared or executed in her presence, and the said fact was again told to her by her father before his death and she cannot tell as to whether any consideration amount was paid by defendants no.2 and 3 to her late father qua the purchase of the suit property.
44.Since the defendants have failed to prove that the documents including the Will dated 18.08.1999 qua the suit property were allegedly executed by the mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi, therefore, Late Sh. Suresh Chand was also not competent to execute any documents including the Will dated 24.07.2020 qua the suit property in favour of defendants no.2 and 3.
45.Even otherwise, the defendants no.2 and 3 have not been able to prove that they had actually paid any consideration amount of Rs.30 lakhs in cash to Late Sh. Suresh Chand as alleged; and further, admittedly the Digitally signed ANKUR by ANKUR JAIN 13Date:
of 16 JAIN 2026.04.24 14:49:10 +0530 Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
documents Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) dated 24.07.2020 are unregistered and as per the judgment titled as ''Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.' dated 11.10.2011 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same do not transfer any right, title or interest qua the suit property as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in any manner whatsoever.
46.In view of the above, this Court holds that the defendants no.2 and 3 are not the absolute owners of the suit property pursuant to the sale documents dated 24.07.2020 Ex.DW1/3 (OSR), nor the defendants have been able to discharge the burden placed upon them to prove that the documents including the Will dated 18.08.1999 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) qua the suit property were allegedly executed by the mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi in favour of Late Sh. Suresh Chand Verma, as alleged.
47.Accordingly, issues no.3 and 4 are decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 148.The onus to prove the said issue was placed upon the plaintiff to prove that whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of decree of partition qua the suit property as claimed.
49.In this regard, plaintiff has only examined himself as PW1 and in his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not placed on record any document w.r.t. the suit property and that he is not residing in the suit property since the year 2014-15.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR JAIN
ANKUR Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:49:19
14+0530
of 16
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
50.The plaintiff has denied the execution of documents dated 18.08.1999 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) and stated that the same are fabricated and never executed by his mother/ late Smt. Urmila Devi in favour of his father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand; and that even the documents dated 24.07.2020 Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) was never executed by his father/ Late Sh. Suresh Chand in favour of defendants no.2 and 3, as alleged.
51.Since it has been admitted by both the parties that the suit property was earlier in the name of their mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi, who died on 21.11.2017, and it has also been observed above by this Court that the defendants no.2 and 3 are neither the absolute owners of the suit property pursuant to the sale documents dated 24.07.2020 Ex.DW1/3 (OSR), nor the defendants have been able to discharge the burden placed upon them to prove that the documents including the Will dated 18.08.1999 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) qua the suit property were allegedly executed by the mother/ Late Smt. Urmila Devi in favour of Late Sh. Suresh Chand Verma, as alleged, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for grant of relief of partition qua the suit property, and all the parties are held to be co-sharers having 1/5th share each in the suit property, being the LRs of Late Smt. Urmila Devi.
52.Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2
53.Since it is already been held that the plaintiff is entitled for grant of relief of partition having 1/5th share in the suit property and admittedly, the defendants no.2 and 3 are stated to be in joint possession of the suit Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR JAIN 15 of 16 Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:49:23
+0530
Civil Suit No. : 435/20 Rajesh Verma Vs. Manju Verma & Ors.
property, therefore, the defendants are directed not to create any third party interest qua the suit property in any manner, whatsoever.
54.Accordingly, issue no.2 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF
55.In view of the detailed analysis and the findings given on the issues hereinabove, the preliminary decree of partition is passed between the parties and it is directed that all the parties including the plaintiff are held as co-sharers and entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit property, and the defendants are further directed not to create any third party interest qua the suit property in any manner, whatsoever.
56.Preliminary decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
57.Now, to come up for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds between the parties as per their shares pursuant to inquiry U/o 20 Rule 18 CPC and for filing of any proposal by both the parties in this regard and for further proceedings/ passing of final decree on 27.04.2026.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally
signed by
on this 24th day of April, 2026 ANKUR ANKUR JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2026.04.24
14:49:27
+0530
(Ankur Jain - II)
District Judge - 02
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
16 of 16