Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar Ors vs Ganga Devi Ors on 4 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030001472014
CS SCJ No. 534691/2016
In the matter of :
1. Sh Vijay Kumar
2. Sh Har Gobind
3. Sh Suresh
4. Sh Raju
All s/o Late Smt Parwati Devi @ Asudi
w/o Sh Ishwar Dass
All R/o BC-39, Paharganj,
Multani Dhanda New Delhi 110055.
........Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1. Smt Ganga Devi
w/o Sh Gopi Chand Lalwani
R/o 42-A, Neelgiri Apartments,
Alaknanda, New Delhi 110019.
2. Smt Jamna Devi @ Shobha Devi
w/o Sh Sant Ram Kadhwani
R/o Bhabhut Mal Ki Chali,
Mount Abu Road, Rajasthan.
3. Sh Ram Kumar Lalwani, NITISH by
Digitally signed
NITISH
s/o Sh Gopi Chand Lalwani
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.04
R/o C-69, Ground Floor, 16:54:53 +0530
DDA Flats, Near Gobindpuri Extn.
Kalkaji New Delhi 110019.
CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 1 / 13
4. Sh Anil Kumar Gupta
s/o Sh Raj Kumar Gupta
R/o H No. 64B, Sawanpark Extn
Ashok shok Vihar, Delhi 110052.
.........Defendants
Date of Institution 26.05.2014
Date of reservation of judgment 07.11.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 07.11.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, disposing of, or parting with possession of the suit properties, on the basis that the plaintiffs are co-heirs to the estate of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani, who is alleged to have died intestate on 23.04.2011 leaving behind the suit properties as her exclusive and absolute property.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 Plaintiff's Version 16:54:57 +0530
1. Brief facts of the present case, as per the plaint, are as follows:
(a) It is averred in the plaint that Smt Parwati Devi, mother of plaintiffs, and defendants no.1 and 2 are real sisters of Smt Sita Devi Ramani, who died intestate on 23.04.2011 leaving behind no first CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 2 / 13 class heirs. The mother of plaintiffs i.e. Smt Parwati Devi expired on 08.06.1999 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. It is further averred that plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and 2 inherited the movable and immovable estate of Late Smt Sita Devi Ramani being second class legal heirs.
(b) It is further averred that late Smt Sita Devi Ramani was exclusive and absolute owner of following properties i.e. (a) built up property bearing no. 179, Built up property bearing No. Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi-110040 consisting of Sai Baba Temple on land measuring 60 sq. yds. on the ground floor and built up area measuring 40 sq. yds. behind the Sai Baba Temple; (b) Built up property bearing No. 180, Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi-110040 consisting of round floor, first floor and half second floor; (c) Shop/Commercial Unit No. G-11, Aggarwal Shopping Plaza, Plot No. CSC in Chota Bazar Pocket-9, Sector A-5, Narela, Delhi-110040 area measuring 173 sq. feet alongwith her house hold movables, cash and deposits with banks.
(c) It is further averred that plaintiffs are in physical possession of part of the aforesaid property i.e. Shop/commercial unit No.G-11, Aggarwal Shopping Plaza, Plot No.CSC in Chota Bazar, Pocket-9 Sector A-5, Narela, Delhi whereas the other properties are occupied by the authorized occupants/tenants. Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.04 16:55:01 +0530
(d) It is further averred that defendants no. 1 and 2 and plaintiffs being the heirs of Late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani have succeeded the CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 3 / 13 above said properties in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd each by defendant No. 1 and 2 and 1/3rd collectively by all the plaintiffs. Further the defendants No.1 and 2, through the defendant No.3, filed petition u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the aforesaid properties and the plaintiffs are made parties in the said petition. It is further averred that defendants no.1 to 3 have no exclusive right, title or interest in the aforesaid properties
(e) It is further averred that defendants in order to grab the entire properties threatened the plaintiffs to create third party interest in the said properties. Despite repeated requests by plaintiffs, the defendants are trying to part with the possession of the aforesaid properties. Hence, the present suit.
Relief
2. By way of the present suit, the plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs:
A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their relatives, associates, and all persons acting on their behalf from selling, disposing of, alienating, or parting with possession of the following suit properties or any part thereof:
(a) built-up property bearing No. 179, Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi-110040, comprising a Sai Baba Temple on land measuring 60 sq. yds. on the ground floor and a built-up area measuring 40 sq. yds.
NITISH Digitally signed behind the said temple; by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.04.04 SHARMA 16:55:05 +0530
(b) built-up property bearing No. 180, Punjabi Colony, Narela, CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 4 / 13 Delhi-110040, comprising the ground floor, first floor, and half of the second floor; and
(c) Shop/Commercial Unit No. G-11, Aggarwal Shopping Plaza, Plot No. CSC, Chota Bazar, Pocket-9, Sector A-5, Narela, Delhi-110040, admeasuring 173 sq. ft.;
and further restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the said Shop/Commercial Unit No. G-11 aforesaid, wherein the plaintiffs claim to be in possession.
Written statement
3. Litigation, by its very nature, presents two sides to a story. In response, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.4, stating that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as late Smt Sita Devi Ramani had executed a Will dated 20.12.2010 in favour of defendant no.4 bequeathing her estate in his favour. The plaintiffs have no right in the said properties and thereby, the present suit deserves to be dismissed. Rest of the assertions made in plaint are denied in toto.
Proceedings
4. During the course of proceedings, defendants no.1 and 3 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 02.09.2014 and defendant no.4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.10.2018 for non- appearance. The present case was, thereafter, fixed for exparte PE.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.04 16:55:09 +0530 CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 5 / 13 Plaintiff Evidence
5. To substantiate their case, the plaintiffs examined Sh Vijay Kumar as PW1 vide his duly sworn in affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW1/1 who has relied on the following documents :-
S. No. Particular Exhibit
1 Original photographs Ex.PW1/2
2. Certified copy of petition u/s 278 of Ex.PW1/3
Indian Succession Act
3. Copy of Special Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/4
dated 14.01.2013
4. Copy of death certificate of Smt Sita Ex.PW1/5
Devi dated 10.05.2011
5. Copy of death certificate of Smt Parwati Ex.PW1/6
Devi Adwani dated 03.01.2013
6. Copy of death certificate of Yashpal Ex.PW1/7
dated 11.03.2002
7. Copy of death certificate of Rekh Chand Ex.PW1/8
dated 11.03.2002
6. Plaintiffs also examined Sh Hargobind as PW2, Sh Raju as PW3 and Sh Suresh Kumar as PW4 vide their duly sworn in affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW4/1 whereby they relied on documents already exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/8.
7. As defendants were already exparte, the exparte PE was closed vide order dated 01.07.2019 and the matter was listed for ex-parte final arguments. NITISH by Digitally signed NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.04 16:55:12 +0530 CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 6 / 13
8. I have heard ex-parte final arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for plaintiff as well as perused the record.
Analysis And Findings
9. Before adverting to the merits of the relief claimed, it is necessary to first examine whether the plaintiffs have been able to establish the foundational basis of their claim, namely, their right and title to succeed to the estate of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani as her legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The entire edifice of the plaintiffs' case rests on the singular averment that late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani died intestate on 23.04.2011 leaving behind no first class heirs, and that consequently, the plaintiffs, being children of her pre-deceased sister Smt. Parwati Devi, are entitled to succeed to her estate as second class heirs under Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, along with defendant nos. 1 and 2. It is on this premise alone that the relief of permanent injunction has been sought. NITISH by Digitally signed NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 16:55:19 +0530
10. The devolution of property of a female Hindu dying intestate is governed by Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which prescribes a specific and sequential order of succession. Under Section 15(1)(a), the estate devolves firstly upon the sons and daughters, including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter, and the husband; thereafter, under Section 15(1)(b), upon the heirs of the husband; under Section 15(1)(c), upon the mother and father; under Section 15(1)(d), upon the heirs of the father; and lastly, under Section 15(1)(e), upon the heirs of the mother. The scheme of Section 15 is exhaustive and sequential in nature. A CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 7 / 13 subsequent entry in the order of succession is activated only upon the complete exhaustion of all prior entries. The plaintiffs claim under Section 15(1)(d), which is the fourth entry in this sequence. Their claim is therefore contingent upon the complete absence of any heir falling within the three preceding categories.
11. It is at this foundational stage that the plaintiffs' case encounters an insurmountable difficulty. The plaintiffs themselves have placed on record, as Ex. PW1/3, a certified copy of the petition filed under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which was instituted by defendant nos. 1 to 3 for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the estate of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani. A bare perusal of this petition reveals material facts of profound legal consequence and which are conspicuously absent from the plaint.
12. It is material to mention that Ex. PW1/3 discloses that late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani was married to one Sh. Kalyan Kewal, that a son was born out of the said wedlock, and that the said son is stated to have pre-deceased Smt. Sita Devi Ramani. It is further disclosed Digitally signed that the deceased was subsequently divorced. NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.04 16:55:23 +0530
13. These facts i.e. the marriage of the deceased, the existence of a son born from such marriage, the divorce, and the pre-decease of the son, are material facts of the highest order going directly to the root of the question of succession. Yet, none of these facts finds even a passing mention in the plaint. The plaint proceeds on a bare and bald CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 8 / 13 assertion that the deceased left behind no first class heirs, without offering any explanation for, or even acknowledgment of, her marital history or the existence of a son. The evidence of PW1 to PW4, consisting of affidavits in examination-in-chief, similarly maintains a studied silence on all these aspects. No witness has deposed to the marriage, the birth of the son, the nature or particulars of the divorce, and whether the pre-deceased son left behind any children.
14. The legal significance of this omission cannot be overstated. Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in express and unambiguous terms, includes children of any pre-deceased son or daughter within the first category of heirs of a female Hindu. If the pre-deceased son of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani left behind any children, those children would be entitled to succeed to the entire estate of the deceased under Section 15(1)(a) itself, to the complete exclusion of the sisters and the children of a pre-deceased sister, i.e., the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2. The estate would, in that event, never devolve to the level of Section 15(1)(d) under which the plaintiffs claim. The question of whether the pre-deceased son left behind any children is therefore not a peripheral or incidental question. It is the very threshold question upon which the plaintiffs' entire case depends. Unless and until this question is answered in the negative, no finding of heirship under Section 15(1)(d) can lawfully be returned. NITISH by Digitally signed NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.04 16:55:27 +0530
15. The burden of proving entitlement to succeed as an heir lies firmly and squarely upon the party asserting such entitlement. It is a well-settled principle of succession law that a claimant must CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 9 / 13 affirmatively establish not merely his own relationship with the deceased, but also the absence of all heirs who would take in preference to him. Where a claimant seeks to succeed under a lower entry in the order of succession prescribed by statute, he must establish through pleading and proof, that the field is clear of all superior claimants.
In the present case, the plaintiffs, having themselves produced Ex. PW1/3 i.e. a petition that affirmatively discloses the existence of a son of the deceased, have, by their own act, raised the very question they have failed to answer. Having introduced into the record the fact of the son's existence, the onus upon the plaintiffs to prove the absence of his children, or other superior heirs, became all the heavier. This burden has not been discharged at all.
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.04
SHARMA 16:55:31 +0530
16. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Ex. PW1/3, which is the certified copy of the petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3, was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. The said petition was thus never adjudicated on merits. No Letter of Administration was ever granted, and no court has ever returned a finding on the composition of the heirs of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani or on the validity of the Will set up by defendant no. 4. Therefore, the contents of Ex. PW1/3, being pleadings in a dismissed petition, do not carry the sanctity of any judicial finding. They remain, at best, admissions or statements made by defendant nos. 1 to 3 in those proceedings. However, their significance in the present suit lies not in what they prove conclusively, but in what they reveal ,namely, the existence of a son who may have left behind children. The dismissal of the CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 10 / 13 petition for non-prosecution equally means that no adjudication has taken place on the succession, and the entire question of who the legal heirs of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani are remains an open, unresolved, and contested question.
In the face of this unresolved uncertainty, a decree of permanent injunction based on an assumed and unproved heirship would be legally unsound. It is also relevant to note that defendant no. 4 filed a written statement setting up a Will dated 20.12.2010 allegedly executed by late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani bequeathing her entire estate in his favour. Though defendant no. 4 was subsequently proceeded against exparte and no evidence was led by him to prove the said Will and though an unproved Will can confer no rights, the very existence of this rival claim is yet another indicator that the question of heirship and title to the estate of the deceased is neither simple nor settled, and requires proper adjudication with complete pleadings and evidence.
17. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the primary and foundational burden of establishing their right to succeed to the estate of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani under Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The averment in the plaint that the deceased left behind no first class heirs is not only unsupported by any evidence but is, on the face of it, contradicted by the plaintiffs' Digitally signed by NITISH own exhibit, Ex. PW1/3. KUMAR NITISH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.04.04 SHARMA 16:55:35 +0530 The material facts of marriage, birth of a son, pre-decease of the son, and the all-important question of whether the son left behind CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 11 / 13 any children, have been neither pleaded in the plaint as required under Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, nor established through any oral or documentary evidence. In the absence of such pleading and proof, this Court is unable to return a finding that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani entitled to succeed to her estate, and consequently, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for the grant of a decree of permanent injunction in their favour.
18. An independent and equally fatal infirmity in the plaintiffs' case is the complete absence of any document establishing that late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani was the owner of the suit properties. The plaint avers that the deceased was the "exclusive and absolute owner" of the three suit properties.
19. A perusal of the documents exhibited by PW1 to PW4 reveals that not a single document has been placed on record to establish the title or ownership of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani over any of the suit properties. The oral testimony of PW1 to PW4, consisting of affidavits merely reiterating the plaint averments, cannot substitute for documentary proof of title to immovable properties.
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR Date: 2026.04.04
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 16:55:39 +0530
20. It is trite that a decree, even an exparte one, cannot be passed as a matter of course and the plaintiffs must prove their case through cogent and legally sufficient evidence. The plaintiffs' case suffers from a dual failure: first, the failure to establish their own heirship, as discussed hereinabove; and second, the failure to establish that the CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 12 / 13 deceased herself had any title over the suit properties.
Conclusion
21. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. The plaintiffs' neither established their right to succeed as heirs of late Smt. Sita Devi Ramani under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, nor have they established that the deceased was the owner of the suit properties. Accordingly, the present suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
Announced in the open court KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.04
on 04.04.2026 16:55:44 +0530
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini,Courts,Delhi/04.04.2026 CS SCJ 534691/16 Vijay Kumar and Ors vs Ganga Devi and Ors 13 / 13