Delhi District Court
Param Jeet Singh Sejwal Etc vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal Etc on 6 January, 2026
DLST010028232016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS DJ. 208562/2016
Filing No. 28041/2016
CNR No. DLST01-0028232016
In the matter of
Sh. Paramjeet Singh Sejwal
S/o. Late Sh. Sultan Singh,
R/o. F-343 Lado Sarai
New Delhi-110030
......Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.Sh Amarpreet Singh Sejwal S/o Late Sh Banwari Lal R/o F-343 Lado Sarai New Delhi-110030
2. Sh Surender Singh Sejwal S/o Late Sh Banwari Lal R/o F-343 Lado Sarai New Delhi-110030
3. Smt Saroj W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 1 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06 16:13:44 +0530 D/o Late Sh Banwari Lal R/o Village Basai, Gurgaon, Haryana,
4. Smt Rajesh W/o Late Sh Braham Prakash R/o F-343 Lado Sarai New Delhi-110030
5. Ritu Sejwal D/o Late Sh Braham Prakash R/o F-343 Lado Sarai New Delhi-110030
6. Sandeep Sejwal S/o Late Sh Braham Prakash R/o F-343 Lado Sarai New Delhi-110030
7. Sh Pradeep Singh Sejwal S/o. Late Sh. Sultan Singh, R/o. F-343 Lado Sarai New Delhi-110030
8. Smt Sarti Devi W/o Sh Randhir Singh D/o Late Sh Munni Ram R/o 23/7, Village-Bamnoli Bus Stand P/o- Dhool Siras, New Delhi-77
9. Smt Angoori Devi W/o Late Sh Mukhtiyar Singh D/o Late Sh Munni Ram R/o Village-Bajhghera, P/o Palam Vihar CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 2 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.01.06 16:13:48 +0530 Gurgaon, Haryana.
.......Defendants
Date of Institution : 19.12.2008
Date of reserving the judgment : 06.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026
Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF..................................................5 II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS.............................................8 III. ISSUES FRAMED........................................................................................ 8 IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PLAINTIFF...............................................................9 V. EVIDENCE LED BY DEFENDANTS........................................................10 VI. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES..............................11 VII. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO...............................17 i. Issue no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition of suit property as prayed for?......................................................................17 ii. Issue no 2: Whether there exists any cause of action in favour of plaintiff in filing the present suit? ............................................................17 iii. Issue no 3:Whether the present suit for partition is maintainable in view of the alleged execution of partition in 1964-65 between two brothers namely Late Mr Banawari Lal and late Mr Sultan Singh of their joint property?..........................................................................................17 iv. Issue no 3A: Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form ?........................................................................................................ 17 CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 3 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.06 Varma 16:13:51 +0530 v. Issue no 4:Whether defendant Nos 1 to 6 together/jointly with defendant Nos 8 and 9 being legal heirs are also entitled to 1/4th share each out of the suit property?...................................................................17 VIII. WHETHER AN ORAL PARTITION HAD TAKEN PLACE.................18 IX. WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND.................................................................................................................26 X. RELIEF.........................................................................................................32 CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 4 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2026.01.06 16:13:55 +0530 I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
1. The facts as asseverated by the Plaintiff are hereby succinctly recapitulated: Late Sh Munni Ram was the owner of the property bearing no F-343, total measuring 900 square yards in Village Abadi, falling in Khasra no 326 and 327 situated at Revenue Estate of Village Lado Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110030 (Suit property). It was alleged that he died in the year 1955 leaving behind his two sons namely Sh Banwari lal and Sh Sultan Singh, two daughters namely Smt Angoori Devi and Sarti Devi and also his wife namely Smt Roodi Devi. It was also alleged that after the death of Sh Munni Ram, his sons Sh Banwari Lal and Sh Sultan Singh constructed a joint and undivided property as per their requirement without partitioning the same between the legal heirs of Late Munni Ram.
2. For better understanding, it would be apposite to reproduce the genealogy. The family tree is thus as follows:
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 5 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06 16:13:58 +0530 Late Sh Munni Ram (died in 1955), Smt Sarti Devi Smt Angoori Devi Late Sh Banwari Lal (Daughter) Late Sh Sultan Singh (son) (Daughter) (Son) Defendant no 8 Defendant no 9 Sh Paramjeet Singh Sh Pradeep Sh Bhrahm Sh Amarjeet Sh Surender Smt Saroj Sejwal (plaintiff) Sejwal Prakash Singh Sejwal Singh Sejwal (Defendant Married to Smt Savitri (Defendant no7) Married to (Defendant no 1) (Defendant no 3) Smt Rajesh no2) (Defendant no 4) Sh Surjit Singh Sh Pradeep Singh Sh Sandeep Ms Ritu (Dead) (Defendant no 6) (Defendant no 5) CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 6 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06 16:14:01 +0530
3. It was brought to the fore that Sh Sultan Singh (father of plaintiff and defendant no 7) died on 15.08.1991 leaving behind the plaintiff and his two sons and wife namely Sh Surjeet Singh, Pradeep Singh and Smt Savitri. Sh Surjeet Singh died unmarried in the life time of Late Sh Sultan Singh.
4. It was further alleged that after the death of Sh Sultan Singh, the plaintiff requested Late Sh Banwari Lal (father of defendant no 1 2, and 3, father in law of defendant no 4 and grand father of defendant no 5 and 6) to partition the suit property by metes and bounds. However, Late Sh Banwari Lal delayed the matter on one pretext or the other, instead Sh Banwari Lal and his two sons namely Sh Amarpreet Sejwal and Sh Surinder Sejwal started harassing the plaintiff with a malafide intention to usurp the share of the plaintiff.
5. It was remonstrated that finding no other alternative, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 08.02.2008 calling upon Late Sh Banwari lal and his two surviving sons namely Sh Amarpreet Singh and Sh Surender Singh to partition the suit property by metes and bounds, and in response thereto the said notice, Late Sh Banwari Lal, and his two sons sent a false and frivolous reply dated 21.02.2008 through their Advocate.
6. It was alleged that on 16.08.2008 Sh Banwari Lal died, and is survived by defendant no 1 to 6. It was also contended that after the death of Sh Banwari Lal, the plaintiff again requested the defendant no 1 to 6 to partition the suit property.
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 7 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.06 Varma 16:14:05 +0530 However, the defendants delayed the discussion and tried to dispose of a portion of the suit property clandestinely. Hence, the present suit for partition and permanent injunction has been filed before this Court.
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS
7. As per the record, written statements were filed by the defendant no 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 qua the plaint wherein they denied all the averments put forth by the plaintiff. Defendants further contended in their written statement that the plaint filed by the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action nor has the plaintiff any cause of action against the answering defendants. It was contended that the plaintiff has given false evidence under oath before this Court. It was primarily contended that the suit property already stood divided by metes and bounds between two branches of the family viz., between Sh. Banwari Lal and Sh Sultan Singh i.e. between the sons of Late Sultan Singh i.e. plaintiff and defendant no 7 and between the sons of Late Sh Banwari Lal.
III. ISSUES FRAMED
8. Vide order dated 06.05.2013 following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition of suit property as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether there exists any cause of action in favour of plaintiff in filing the present suit? OPD CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 8 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.01.06 16:14:09 +0530
3. Whether the present suit for partition is maintainable in view of the alleged execution of partition in 1964-65 between two brothers namely Late Mr Banawari Lal and late Mr Sultan Singh of their joint property?
4. Whether defendant Nos 1 to 6 together/jointly with defendant Nos 8 and 9 being legal heirs are also entitled to 1/4th share each out of the suit property? OPD 7-9
5. Relief.
9. However, on 13.02.2023, it was observed that issues framed in the present suit are required to be amended as one additional issue is required to be framed regarding the maintainability of the suit in its present form. Thus, issue no 3A was framed as thus:
"3A- Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form ? OPP IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PLAINTIFF
10.In the proceeding 03 witnesses were examined by plaintiff, succinct testimonies whereof were as follows:
11.PW-1 Sh Paramjeet Singh Sejwal: He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon certain documents i.e. ExPW1/1 to Ex PW1/7 ( It was observed by the Court that Ex PW1/2 is already exhibited as Ex P-1 Ex PW1/3 is already Ex P-2 and Ex PW1/4 is already Ex P-3. He CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 9 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06 16:14:14 +0530 was cross examined by Ld Counsel for defendant no 1 to 6. He averred that no partition had ever taken place earlier.
12.PW-2 Smt Angoori Devi: She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A. PW-2 was cross examined by Ld Counsel for defendant no 1 to 6 at length. She denied the factum of previous partition of the suit property.
13.PW-3 Sh Sanjiv Kumar Kanoongo, from SDM office: He had adduced record pertaining to the Khasra no 326 & 327. He deposed that he had seen ExPE3/A i.e. the certified copy of Khatoni for the year 1969-1970 in respect of Khasra no 326 min (0-3) & 327 Min (0-15) Khata no 62/61 revenue estate of village Ladosarai New Delhi. He had proved the summoned record i.e. Khatoni for the year 1969-70 as Ex PW3/A. He had further placed on record and proved records pertaining to Khasra no 326 and 327 Village Lado Sarai, District South for the year 2001-2002 and Khatonis of the year 1964-1965, 1969-70, 1973-1974 and 1977-73. he had also brought LR 4 register. Photocopies of the same were exhibited as Ex PW3/1. He was also cross-examined by Ld Counsel for defendants V. EVIDENCE LED BY DEFENDANTS
14. In the trial, only two defendant witnesses were examined by defendants, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows:
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 10 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.01.06 16:14:18 +0530
15.D1W1 : Sh Surendra Singh, defendant no 2- He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. D1W1/A. He relied upon certain documents viz., D1W1/1 to D1W1/10 (Colly) Ex PW1/D4 and Ex PW1/D3 and Mark A to Mark B. He further relied upon Ex PW1/D4 and Ex PW1/D3 and Mark A and B. He was cross examined by Ld Counsel for plaintiff. He broadly contended that the oral partition had taken placed earlier qua the suit property.
16. D1W2 : Smt Rajesh Sejwal defendant no 4- She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex D1W2/A. She relied upon certain documents viz., already exhibited D1W1/1 to D1W1/10 (colly) Ex PW1/D4 and Ex PW1/D3 and Mark A to Mark B. She was cross-examined by Ld Counsel for plaintiff.
VI. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
17. Ld Counsel for plaintiff submitted that no partition whatsoever including oral partition had ever taken place qua the suit property. To establish this fact, plaintiff had examined three witnesses namely PW-1 Paramjeet Singh (plaintiff herein), PW-2 Angoori Devi (daughter of Lt. Sh Munni Ram) and PW-3 Sh Sanjeev Kumar, Patwari, office of concerned SDM. Ld Counsel for plaintiff further submitted that PW-1 Paramjeet Singh had categorically averred in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/A that time and again he had requested to all the defendants for partition qua the property CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 11 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.06 16:14:25 +0530 in question, but they had delayed partitioning of the suit property on one pretext or the other.
18. Ld Counsel further contended that a perusal of legal notice dated 08.02.2008 i.e. Ex PW1/3 would also make it explicit that partition had never taken place. Ld Counsel also invited the Court's attention to the cross examination of PW-1 to contend that suit property was never divided. Ld Counsel also contended that as per the testimony of PW-2 Angoori Devi also, the property had yet not been partitioned. Lastly, Ld Counsel placed reliance on the testimony of PW-3 i.e. Sh Sanjeev Kumar, Patwari, SDM Office, to contend that records of Khasra Khatoni are merely ownership records and they do not reflect the factum of partitioning of property.
19. Per contra, Ld Counsel for defendant no 1 to 6 submitted that a perusal of Ex PW3/1 (Colly) viz. Khatonis for the year 1964-1965, 1969-1970, 1973-1974, 1977-1973 and LR Form 4 reflects that Late Shri Banwari Lal and Late Shri Sultan Singh were the Bhoomidars/owners of the property in question. According to him, this fact is also established upon a perusal of the application for mutation filed by the plaintiff i.e. Ex PW1/D1, wherein categorically the plaintiff has stated that his father, Late Sh Sultan Singh, was the recorded owner of the property in question.
20. Ld Counsel for defendants no 1 to 6 further contended that the factum of Late Sh Banwari Lal and Late Sh Sultan Singh CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 12 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.06 16:14:30 +0530 being the Bhoomidars, is also admitted by PW-2 Angoori Devi as is explicit from her cross-examination dated 12.03.2018 wherein she averred that she understands what a Khatoni is, and that the names of Sh. Sultan Singh and Sh. Banwari Lal appear on the said documents.
21. Ld Counsel submitted that witness of the plaintiff i.e. PW-3 Sh Sanjeev Kumar, Patwari, also proved this fact. Thus, Ld Counsel submitted that the land in question was agricultural land in the year 1954-1955 till the year 1982 i.e. till the date of notification u/s 507 of DMC dated 23.04.1982. It was further contended that Late Sh Sultan Singh died on 15.08.1991. However, no documents has been placed on record which would reflect the request of partition by the plaintiff up till 2008. Further, no document has been placed on record which would prove the averment that Late Sh Sultan Singh, father of plaintiff, had requested for partition.
22. Ld Counsel for defendant no 1 to 6 further contended that a perusal of legal notice dated 08.02.2008 i.e. Ex P-2 would reflect that the plaintiff himself admitted that co-shares in the ancestral property devolved upon Late Sh Banwari Lal on one hand and on the other hand, co-share devolved qua half of the ancestral property amongst the LRs of Late Sh Sultan Singh. Thus, Ld Counsel contended that the legal notice would reflect that partition was sought qua the plaintiff on the one hand, and Late Sh Banwari Lal and his two sons on the other, CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 13 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06 16:15:12 +0530 to the exclusion of Smt Satri Devi and Smt Angoori Devi, daughters of Late Sh Munni Lal. This fact is also corroborated by a perusal of Ex PW1/D2 i.e. the statement of plaintiff Sh Paramjeet Singh before the Tehsildar wherein he deposed as thus:
"STATEMENT OF SHRI PARAMIT SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SULTAN SINGH, AGE-32 YEARS R/O F-343, LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI Upon oath:
stated that: My father has already been died on 15.8.91. After his death, I and my brother Praveen Singh, only these two, are the legitimate legal heirs of my father. My father had not executed any will in favour of anyone during his life time. Whatever portion of land situated in village Lado Sari, in the name of my father should be mutated in the name of us, these two brothers, I present the death-certificate of my father along with my affidavit. After reading the statement admitted the same as correct.
Signature (illegible) Sd/- (Illegible)
DL. NO. P 94083146 4.10.01
Validity 298.2008
Burari, New Delhi"
23. Ld Counsel also contended that the order of mutation dated 04.10.2001 i.e. Ex PW-1/D3 also makes it explicit that the property was divided only amongst two sons of Late Sh Munni Lal and not qua the defendant daughters herein. Thus, Ld Counsel contended that since the land in question was agricultural land, the succession would be governed by Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, and therefore only CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 14 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06
16:15:15
+0530
male lineal descendants of Late Sh Munni Ram would be entitled for succession.
24.As far as the proof of oral partition is concerned, Ld Counsel contended that the factum of equitable distribution of the property makes it apparent that there was an oral partition. He invited the Court's attention to the cross-examination of PW-1 Paramjeet Singh, conducted on 09.01.2015, to contend that the plaintiff himself had averred that property of 900 square yards was broadly divided into two equal halves of 450 sq yards each. Ld Counsel further contended that a perusal of report of the Local Commissioner as well as the site plan would also reveal that an equitable distribution has taken place wherein both sides have been given access to front and back portions.
25.Ld Counsel further contended that oral partition is also established by the fact that separate property taxes and separate electricity bills were being paid by the plaintiff on one hand and by the defendants no 1 to 6 on the other hand.
26.Ld Counsel invited the Court's attention to cross examination of PW-1 i.e. plaintiff herein in this regard whrein the plaintiff categorically averred that his father was paying the house tax of the portion of property in his occupation and was also paying the bills of the electricity connection installed in his own name. Further, the Ld Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that certain shops in the portion of the plaintiff was let out and CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 15 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06 16:15:19 +0530 rent is being collected by the plaintiff. Thus, Ld Counsel remonstrated that the present suit for partition be dismissed inasmuch as the suit property already stood partitioned.
27. Per contra, Ld Counsel for defendant no 8 and 9 submitted that the land in question was not an agricultural land and therefore the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as well as the amended Act of 2005 would be applicable and not the provisions of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Ld Counsel contended that the land in question was not agricultural land as the land was being used for residential purposes since inception. Ld Counsel submitted that proof of residence is established by house tax receipts for the year 1989-1990 and 1990-1991, electricity bills and rent agreements.
28. Ld Counsel further contended that even as per Notification dated 23.04.1982, u/s 507 of the DMC Act, 1957 the land in question was urbanized and ceased to be agricultural property. Ld Counsel placed reliance on Harpal Singh Vs Ashok Kumar, Civil Appeal no 022967/2017 to contend that once an agricultural land loses its character of being agricultural land, the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act are inapplicable thereto. Thus, Ld Counsel contended that Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reform Act 1954 would be inapplicable and Succession would be governed by the Hindu Succession Act CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 16 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.06 16:15:31 +0530 of 1956 and therefore the daughter of Sh Munni Ram viz., defendant no 8 and 9 would have a share in the property.
29.Ld Counsel for defendant no 10 i.e. Smt Savitri Devi w/o Late Sh Sultan Singh also submitted that the land in question was not an agricultural land. It is pertinent to note that defendant no 8, 9, 10 have not filed their written statement, nor have they led any evidence to substantiate their claims.
VII. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO i. Issue no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition of suit property as prayed for?
ii. Issue no 2: Whether there exists any cause of action in favour of plaintiff in filing the present suit? .
iii. Issue no 3:Whether the present suit for partition is maintainable in view of the alleged execution of partition in 1964-65 between two brothers namely Late Mr Banawari Lal and late Mr Sultan Singh of their joint property?
iv. Issue no 3A: Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form ?
v. Issue no 4:Whether defendant Nos 1 to 6 together/jointly with defendant Nos 8 and 9 being legal heirs are also entitled to 1/4th share each out of the suit property?
30. All these issues are being dealt with collectively.
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 17 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.06 16:15:35 +0530
31. In order to adjudicate the above issues, it would be apposite to determine firstly, whether an oral partition ever took place and secondly whether the land in question was an agricultural land.
VIII. WHETHER AN ORAL PARTITION HAD TAKEN PLACE.
32. It is settled position of law that the oral partition / settlement has to be proved like any other fact. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dr Suraj Munjal vs Chandan Munjal & Ors. in RFA(OS) 5/2022, decided on 3 June, 2022 has discussed the law related to the plea of oral settlement. It has held as under:
"39. The family settlement or arrangements between the members of a family have been recognized as a mechanism to settle their differences and disputes, conflicted claims or disputed titles once for all in order to bring peace, complete harmony and goodwill in the family. "40. The Supreme Court in Kale and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 119 observed that the object of such an arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation and perpetual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between various members of the family. However, the bonafide and propriety of a family arrangement has to be judged by the circumstances prevailing at the time when such settlement was made. The onus of proving the family settlement lies solely on the person claiming that a family Agreement existed. "41. This Court in Prem Prakash vs. Champa Devi (2012) SCC OnLine 3899 relied on Section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act which provides that transfer of property may be made without writing in every case when not expressly required by law to conclude that the law does not require a written CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 18 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.06 16:15:38 +0530 relinquishment deed to be made without consideration.
"42. In Prem Prakash (supra) reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Lieutenant Col. Gaj Singh Yadav vs. Satish Chander Yadav, 1999 (51) DRJ 240 wherein it was explained that if a party had a share in the property, enlargement of such share by relinquishment or gift by the other defendant would not require registration. It is only when a right in the property is created for the first time by a particular document that it would require registration. Therefore, mischief of Section 49 of the Registration Act would not fall on an oral settlement.
43. The Supreme Court in Subraya M.N. vs. Vittala M.N. (2016) 8 SCC 705 held that there is no provision of law requiring family settlements to be reduced to writing, though, if so done, they would require registration or else would be inadmissible in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act.
"44. Similarly, the Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 1, while answering the reference to the interpretation of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, held that a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognized mode of partition because a deed of partition must be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or affected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally advanced in the same manner as if it had been affected via decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and has to be rejected outrightly. "45. There is no dispute about the proposition that an oral agreement may be acted upon by the parties without its formal registration provided it is established by some cogent evidence. However, what has been raised by the appellant is merely a vague plea of oral agreement. He claims, "That as regard the shareholding in the Defendant No 6 CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 19 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06
16:15:41 +0530
Company and the joint properties, the same was matter between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1, both in fact stood settled long ago but made effective w.e.f. January, 2017". No date of alleged Oral settlement is pleaded by the appellant except claiming it be have been done "long ago" but interestingly, the same is claimed to have been made effective from January, 2017. Once a fact itself is not pleaded and is absolutely vague it cannot be considered by the court and merits rejection."
33. Ld Counsel for the plaintiff had contended that an oral partition had never taken place qua the suit property, and to substantiate his claim, three witnesses were examined. In their cross-examination, PW-1 Paramjeet Singh, Plaintiff and PW-2 Angoori Devi averred that the suit property was never divided. PW-3, the witness from the office of concerned SDM merely reiterated a position of law that the records viz., Khasra Khatoni and LR 4 Register do not reflect whether the property in question is partitioned or not, but only highlights the status of ownership thereof. Barring these averments, the plaintiff has been unable to demonstrate that a partition never took place.
34. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the defendant no 1 to 6 had vehemently contended that an oral partition had taken place during the lifetime of the two brothers i.e. Late Shri Banwari Lal and Late. Shri Sultan Singh. To establish the factum of oral partition, the defendants no 1 to 6 placed reliance on the factum of separate possession, separate electricity CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 20 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.01.06 16:15:47 +0530 connections, payment of house tax qua their portions separately as well as separate Lease Deeds qua letting out of their portion of the property.
35. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce the following extracts of the testimony of PW-1 Paramjeet Singh, elicited during his cross-examination:
"Banwari Lal constructed the portion towards the road (Volunteered. Later on it was demolished by the defendant no 1 and 2). My father sultan Singh constructed the rear porition of the property. My father constructed in the area measuring 450 sq. yards. The total area of property is 900 sq yards. The suit property was never divided. Banwari Lal was residing on the front portion towards road. Banwari Lal was residing in the area almost 450 sq. yards. My father died on 15.08.1991. My brother Surjeet Singh died in 1987. It is wrong to suggest that suit property was divided and the same was duly recorded in the Khatoni of year 1964-65. It is wrong to suggest that division of other suit property was duly recorded in the subsequent Khatoni for the year 1986-69, 1969- 70, 1977-78. I do not remember in which year my father got electricity connection installed in his name in the suit property. It wrong to suggest that the electricity connection installed in the name of my father was for the half portion occupied by him. It is correct that my father was paying the bills of the electricity connection installed in his own name. I do not remember since when my father was paying the house tax property in his occupation."
36. The factum of equitable distribution of the suit property thus becomes apparent when out of the total property of 900 sq yards, each of the brothers were given possession of 450 square yards each. The report of the Local Commissioner, CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 21 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.06 Varma 16:15:50 +0530 Shri Kapil Kumar Giri and the photographs attached therewith also make it explicit that the property was equitably distributed. Moreover, site plan of the suit property viz. Ex PW1/1 filed by the plaintiff, also reveals that the property was equitably distributed:
BACK LANE 10.0 WIDE 48BACK LANE 10.0 WIDE 48 Built Up Ground First Floor Built Up Ground Built Up Floor Ground Floor Built Up Basement 8.0 Wide Ground & First Floor Passage 75 FT. APP 40 FT APP 40 FT APP Old M.B ROAD OF 9 METERS PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF DEFENDANTS CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 22 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.01.06 16:15:54 +0530
37. Thus, it is not a case where only the entire rear portion is in the possession of the plaintiff, about 40ft of the front portion in front of old MB Road is also possessed by the plaintiff. Both branches of the family are in possession of front and rear portions. Further, a perusal of the photographs also reveal that sufficient open space in the front and back is provided to the parties to the lis. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the distribution is fair.
38. As far as the factum of separate electric connections in the name of Sh Banwari Lal and Sh Sultan Singh is concerned, DW-1 Sh. Surender Singh Sejwal adduced true copy of electricity bill for the month of November, 1984 in the name of Late Sh Banwari Lal viz. Ex DW1/5. As far as property tax is concerned, it was averred by DW-1 in his evidence by way of affidavit that Late Sh Banwari Lal and Sh Sultan Singh were paying separate property tax for their respective half divided portion of the suit property, and true copy of the property tax for the year 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 in the name of Late Sh Banwari Lal for filed as Ex DW1/6. It was averred by DW-1 in his evidence by way of affidavit that during their lifetime, Sh Banwari Lal and Sh Sultan Singh had also given their respective divided properties on rent and they were receiving their separate rents from their tenants and no one had any concern with the other's share after the partition between them.
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 23 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.01.06 16:16:03 +0530
39. It was specifically averred that after the division of the half portion of the suit property between the three sons of Late Sh Banwari Lal and their legal heirs, they constructed their separate portions from their own funds and resources and subsequently they also let out their respective shares in the said property to various tenants. Defendant no 4 let out part of her property to M/s Saurav Enterprises on 01.05.2000
40. DW-1 further proved the fact that part of his share of the property was let out to M/s Micheal Arms Export on 01.05.2001 and copy of lease deed executed between the parties dated 01.05.2001 was Ex DW1/7. Part of property was also let out to M/s Latest Cad on 09.03.2006 and the lease deed was also exhibited as DW1/8.
41. The evidence of the defence witness, DW-1 could not be controverted in his cross-examination dated 17.12.2019 and 21.12.2019. The witness affirmed the fact that in para 4 of his written statement, the partition was done orally after the demise of Sh Munni Ram, and no notice was given as mentioned in para 4 as it was done orally. The witness also averred that the house tax receipt did not bear his name but it bore the name of his father. He categorically averred that the factum of oral partition was told to him by his father and father of the plaintiff, and at the time of oral partition, defendant no 8 and 9 Smt Sarti Devi and Smt Angoori Devi CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 24 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.01.06 16:16:06 +0530 were present and they did not raise any objection at that point of time.
42. It would also be pertinent to note that the factum of oral partition on the basis of Revenue Records also becomes apparent upon a perusal of not only the Khasra Khatonis but also upon a perusal of Ex PW1/D-2, i.e. the statement of PW-1 Paramjeet Singh, which is reproduced hereunder:
"STATEMENT OF SHRI PARAMIT SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SULTAN SINGH, AGE-32 YEARS R/O F-343, LADO SARAI, NEW DELHI Upon oath:
stated that: My father has already been died on 15.8.91. After his death, I and my brother Praveen Singh, only these two, are the legitimate legal heirs of my father. My father had not executed any will in favour of anyone during his life time. Whatever portion of land situated in village Lado Sari, in the name of my father should be mutated in the name of us, these two brothers, I present the death-certificate of my father along with my affidavit. After reading the statement admitted the same as correct.
Signature (illegible) Sd/- (Illegible) DL. NO. P 94083146 4.10.01 Validity 298.2008 Burari, New Delhi"
43. Further, the order of mutation dated 04.10.2001 i.e. Ex PW1/D3 also makes it explicit that the property was divided only amongst two sons of Late Sh Munni Ram and not qua the daughters namely defendant no 8 and 9 herein. Even the legal notice sent by the plaintiff dated 08.02.2008 would reflect that the plaintiff himself admitted that the ancestral property devolved upon Late Sh Banwari Lal on one hand and CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 25 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 16:16:10 2026.01.06 +0530 LRs of Late Sh Sultan Singh on the other, to the exclusion of the daughters of Sh Munni Ram i.e. defendant no 8 and 9.
44. Thus, the factum of oral partition has been cogently established by the defendant no 1 to 6 herein.
IX. WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND.
45. It was contended by the plaintiff that the suit property was not agricultural in nature and therefore the defendants no 8 and 9, being daughters of the deceased Late Sh Munni Ram, were entitled to share in the property in light of the provision of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
46. Per contra, Ld Counsel for the defendants had contended that at the time of oral partition of the property, the land was agricultural in nature, and therefore succession would be governed by the provisions of the Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954. At this juncture, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954:
"50. General order of succession from males.- Subject to the provisions of section 48 and 52, when a Bhumidhar or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of the succession given below:
(a)male lineal descendants in the male line of the descent:
Provided that no member of this class shall inherit if any male descendant between him and the deceased is alive:
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 26 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.01.06 16:16:13 +0530 Provided further that the son or sons of a predeceased on how low so ever shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the deceased if he had been then alive:
(b)widow
(c)father
(d)mother, being a widow;
(e)step mother, being a widow;
(f)father father
(g)father mother, being a widow;
(h)widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent;
(i)unmarried daughter;
(j)brother, being the son of same father as the deceased;
(k)unmarried sister;
(l)brother son, the brother having been a son of the same father as the deceased;
(m)father father son;
(n)brother son son;
(o)father father son son;
(p)daughter son"
47. Further, it would apt to refer to Section 6 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 2005:
"6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.
-- (1)On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,--(a)by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
(b)have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c)be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son,and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 27 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06
16:16:18
+0530
alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004."
48. During the course of arguments, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff had contended that provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 would have an overriding affect over the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and in this regard reliance was placed on Nirmala and Ors Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors WP© 6435 of 2007. However, the reliance on Nirmala (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as in Nirmala (supra) the owner of the disputed land had died intestate on 15.12.2006 i.e. after the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 had come into force i.e. w.e.f 09.09.2005. However, in this case, Late Sh Munni Ram had died in the year 1955.
49. Therefore, in the present case, the ratio of Har Naraini Devi & Anr Vs Union of India and Ors 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1265 would be applicable, relevant extracts whereof are as under:
"24. Till 2005, to be specific 09.09.2005, when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 was enacted, the aforesaid provision remained on the statute. It is not in dispute that the property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 at the time when Mukhtiyar Singh died, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time. In 1997 Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act, was very much on the statute, its subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment. Therefore, on facts deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act would not help the appellants.
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 28 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
2026.01.06 Varma 16:16:23 +0530
25. It is well settled that all amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature. Reference may be had to the following decisions:
[L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise10; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra11; Union of India v. Zora Singh12 .]
26. In the present case there is no such intention reflecting from the amending Act.
27. By virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the repeal of an enactment would not affect the previous operation of such an enactment. In Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE13 , this Court has held that repeal is to be treated similarly as an omission and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply equally to an omission as it would apply to a repeal. On account of Sections 6(b) and 6(c) of General Clauses Act, the omission of Section 4(2) of 1956 Act cannot affect the previous operation of the said Section 4(2). Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the aforesaid report are reproduced below:
"12. From this it is clear that when Section 6 of the General Clauses Act speaks of the repeal of any enactment, it refers not merely to the enactment as a whole but also to any provision contained in any Act. Thus, it is clear that if a part of a statute is deleted, Section 6 would nonetheless apply. Secondly, it is clear, as has been stated by referring to a passage in Halsbury's Laws of England in Fibre Board judgment, that the expression "omission" is nothing but a particular form of words evincing an intention to abrogate an enactment or portion thereof. This is made further clear by the Legal Thesaurus (Deluxe Edition) by William C. Burton, 1979 Edition. The expression "delete" is defined by the Thesaurus as follows: "Delete:- Blot out, cancel, censor, cross off, cross out, cut, cut out, dele, discard, do away with, drop, edit out, effect, elide, eliminate, eradicate, erase, excise, expel, expunge, extirpate, get rid of, leave 13 (2016) 3 SCC 643, para 12. 16 out, modify by excisions, obliterate, omit, remove, rub out, rule out, scratch out, strike off, take out, weed, wipe out."
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 29 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.01.06 16:16:27 +0530 Likewise the expression "omit" is also defined by this Thesaurus as follows:
"Omit:- Abstain from inserting, bypass, cast aside, count out, cut out, delete, discard, dodge, drop, exclude, fail to do, fail to include, fail to insert, fail to mention, leave out, leave undone, let go, let pass, let slip, miss, neglect, omittere, pass over, praetermittere, skip, slight, transire." And the expression "repeal" is defined as follows: "
Repeal:- Abolish, abrogare, abrogate, annul, avoid, cancel, countermand, declare null and void, delete, eliminate, formally withdraw, invalidate, make void, negate, nullify, obliterate, officially withdraw, override, overrule, quash, recall, render invalid, rescind, rescindere, retract, reverse, revoke, set aside, vacate, void, withdraw.
13. On a conjoint reading of the three expressions "delete", "omit", and "repeal", it becomes clear that "delete" and "omit" are used interchangeably, so that when the expression "repeal" refers to "delete" it would necessarily take within its ken an omission as well. This being the case, we do not find any substance in the argument that a "repeal" amounts to an obliteration from the very beginning, whereas an "omission" is only in futuro. If the expression "delete" would amount to a "repeal", which the appellant's counsel does not deny, it is clear that a conjoint reading of Halsbury's Laws of England and the Legal Thesaurus cited hereinabove both lead to the same result, namely, that an "omission' being tantamount to a "deletion" is a form of repeal."
28. The deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005. Therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005. This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued. In the present case, it is to be held that succession has opened prior to 09.09.2005, the rights of the descendants in terms of Section 50 became crystallized on account of the said Section read with Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act.
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 30 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06
16:16:31
+0530
Therefore, the deletion of Section 4(2) cannot have retrospective effect.
29. There is one more reason, why the existence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act and its deletion will not have any impact in the present case. The reason is that the 1954 Act, as held above is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof. The existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial."
50. Thus, the provision of the Hindu Succession Act, Amendment Act, 2005 would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the present case, it was the plaintiff witness PW-3 who proved Ex PW3/1 viz., Khatonis for the years 1964-1965, 1969-1970, 1973-1974, 1977-1973 and LR Form 4 which reflects that Late Shri Banwari Lal and Late Shri Sultan Singh were the Bhoomidars/owner of the property in question. The factum of Late Sh. Banwari Lal and Late Sh. Sultan Singh being Bhoomidars is also admitted by PW-2 Smt Angoori Devi in her cross-examination dated 12.03.2018. The factum of the name of the Sh Banwari Lal and Sh. Sultan Singh recorded in the Khatonis for the years 1964-1965, 1969-1970, 1973-1974, 1977-1973 reflects that the property was agricultural in nature and provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, were applicable. Thus, succession would be as per Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and therefore, the daughters namely defendant no 8 and 9, would be excluded.
CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 31 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.06 16:16:34 +0530 X. RELIEF.
51. Ergo, in view of the above in extenso discussion, the suit as filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
52. No order as to costs.
53. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma on this 6tj January, 2026 Date: 2026.01.06 Varma 16:16:39 +0530 (ARUL VARMA) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI CS DJ 208562/2016 Page. 32 of 32 Paramjeet Singh Sejwal Vs Amarpreet Singh Sejwal & Ors