Delhi District Court
S. Inderjit Singh Sodhi vs Savi on 2 February, 2026
DLSE010041722019
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-03
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
(PRESIDED OVER BY: SH. SACHIN MITTAL, DHJS)
CS DJ No.508/2019
In the matter of:
1. S. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (since deceased acting
through following Legal Representatives)
A. Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sodhi (Since deceased)
Through her Legal Representatives
B. Mr. Gurinderbir Singh Sodhi,
Both resident of :
B-113, 3rd Floor, Dayanand Colony,
Lajpat Nagar Part IV, New Delhi-110024.
C. Mrs. Jasleen Kaur Kohli,
W/o Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh Kohli,
R/o A-1B/115C, Krishna Apartments,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
2. Mrs. Hargovind Kaur Aneja,
R/o C-1559, Rajaji Puram,
Lucknow, (UP) ... Plaintiffs.
VERSUS
1. Ms. Savi,
Currently residing at B-113,
3rd floor, Dayanand Colony,
Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024.
2. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee,
Acting Through its office bearers at
Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan,
Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib,
New Delhi-110001. ... Defendants.
CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 1 of 31
v. Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Savi and Anr. SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2026.02.03
17:17:59
+0530
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DECLARATION, PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES.
Date of Institution : 04.06.2019
Date on which arguments concluded : 08.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 02.02.2026
Result : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide the captioned suit for possession, declaration, permanent injunction and damages.
2. The necessary and relevant facts, as pleaded in the plaint, upon which the suit of plaintiffs is based, can be summarized as under:
(a) Both plaintiffs, Sardar Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Hargovind Kaur Aneja are siblings. Plaintiffs' father, late Sardar Mohan Singh Sodhi had three children, these are, both the plaintiffs and late Sardar Harmit Singh Sodhi;
(b) Plaintiffs' father was the owner of the property bearing Municipal No. B-113, admeasuring 100 sq. yards, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024, comprising of basement, ground floor and three floors above it;
(c) Plaintiffs' father during his lifetime had sold entire first floor of the aforesaid property to one, K.K. Dua in the year 1990;
(d) Plaintiffs' father had divided the remaining property between his two sons, these are, Sardar Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. Half rear side portions of basement and ground floor alongwith entire 3rd floor were given to plaintiff no.1, Sardar Inderjeet Singh Sodhi. The other half front side CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 2 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
portions of basement and ground floor alongwith entire 2nd floor were given to late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. Plaintiffs' father had also executed various documents, registered GPA and Will in favour of his two sons to make them owners of respective portions allotted to them.
(e) Plaintiffs' father expired on 23.04.2001;
(f) Plaintiff no.1, Sardar Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi were enjoying their respective portions in the property as absolute owners;
(g) Late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi had separated from his wife by a divorce in the year 2005;
(h) Late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi was a chronic patient of diabetes and high blood pressure, due to which he had lost vision of both his eyes in 2016-17 and four fingers of his right foot were also amputated;
(i) Late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi used to reside on his 2 nd floor (hereinafter 'the suit property') of the aforesaid property. However, till his death, it was the plaintiff no.1, who used to take care of food and other needs of his brother, late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi and kitchen was common. Plaintiff no.1 only used to take his brother to hospital for his medical check ups and treatments and also used to bear all medical expenses. There was great love and affection between two brothers;
(j) As plaintiff no.1 himself was a senior citizen, so, he, in the year 2013-14, hired defendant no.1, Savi as attendant/domestic help to look after late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. Initially, Savi used to come twice, once in the morning and then in the evening. She used to do all household chores like cleaning, washing of clothes and providing food and medicines to late Sardar Harmeet CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 3 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
Singh Sodhi. In the year 2015, when the health of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi started deteriorating, plaintiff no.1 allowed defendant no.1, Savi to stay in the house from morning till night for taking care of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. From 2017, the medical condition of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi started further deteriorating and he became dependent on others even for his basic needs. In such circumstances, plaintiff no.1 permitted defendant no.1, Savi to stay on 2nd floor round the clock for taking care of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi;
(k) On the morning of 27.04.2019, when the plaintiff no.1 did not find his brother and Savi on the 2nd floor, it transpired that Savi had taken his brother to AIIMS, New Delhi without any intimation. Defendant no.1, Savi called the plaintiff no.1 and informed about the death of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi on 27.04.2019 itself. Late on, it was transpired that when the medical condition of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi had started deteriorating on 27.04.2019, Savi, instead of informing the plaintiffs and other family members, called the police control room on 100 number. The police officials then had taken late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi to AIIMS, New Delhi;
(l) Plaintiffs have doubt of some foul play having been played by the defendant no.1, Savi in the death of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi;
(m) The dead body of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi after postmortem was handed over by the hospital to plaintiff no.1. The last rights and rituals were then performed by plaintiffs;
(n) Thereafter, plaintiff no.1 required the defendant no.1, Savi to leave the suit property. Savi informed that her brother would be CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 4 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
coming to take her along and requested for 2-3 days' time, which the plaintiffs allowed;
(o) After 3-4 days, defendant no.1 refused to leave the suit property and started demanding payment of handsome amount for vacating the same. She also threatened to implicate plaintiff no.1 in false cases;
(p) On 14.05.2019, plaintiff no.1 got a police complaint vide DD No. 696/19 lodged against the defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 at that time falsely alleged about some Will purportedly executed by late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi in her favour;
(q) Defendant no.1, Savi was only a domestic help and therefore, there was no reason for late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi to execute any Will in her favour. Further, late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi was not in fit state of mind to execute any Will as he had lost vision of both his eyes in the year 2016-17 and his kidneys had also stopped working, due to which he was being taken for dialysis twice a week;
(r) Plaintiff no.1, during proceedings under Section 107/111, Cr.P.C. before the SDM, got copies of some documents filed by the defendant no.1, which included a copy of alleged Will dated Nil, bearing Notary stamp dated 19.03.2018. The said Will does not bear the signature, or thumb impression of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. The attesting witnesses on the Will were neither friends nor relatives known to late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. Defendant no.1 was not the adopted daughter of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi as falsely stated in the Will. Defendant no.2, Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee is the 2nd beneficiary in the Will. The defendant no.1 has forged CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 5 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
and fabricated the alleged Will in order to grab the property of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi;
(s) On 15.05.2019, plaintiff no.1 filed another complaint against the defendant no.1;
(t) On 01.06.2019, plaintiff no.1 came to know that a process server from Saket Courts had come to the property for serving some summons upon the defendant no.1 in connection with a suit filed by one Arun Bhardwaj against her in respect of the suit property. Plaintiff no.1 upon inquiry through his lawyer came to know that the said Arun Bhardwaj had filed a suit for specific performance/possession against defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 in collusion and connivance with the said Arun Bhardwaj has initiated a litigation to usurp the suit property;
(u) The defendant no.1 also started threatening to create 3 rd party rights in the suit property:
(v) Both the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi, have right to inherit his estate;
(w) The defendant no.1 is an unauthorized occupant in the suit property. The suit property can easily fetch a monthly rent of Rs.
35,000/-, which defendant no.1 is liable to pay to plaintiff as damages;
(x) The cause of action arose when defendant no.1 refused to vacate the suit property; on 14.05.2019 and 15.05.2019, when plaintiff no.1 lodged police complaints; on 31.05.2019, when summons of the suit filed by Arun Bhardwaj against defendant no.1 were attempted to be served; and in first week of June, 2019, when plaintiff no.1 for the first time got the copy of alleged Will. The cause of action is still continuing;
CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 6 of 31v.
Savi and Anr.
(y) The relief of possession has been valued at Rs. 35 Lakhs, upon which an advalorem Court fees of Rs. 36,510/- has been affixed. The reliefs of permanent injunction and declaration have been valued at Rs. 200/- each upon which a Court fees of Rs. 20/- each has been affixed. The relief of damages has been valued at Rs. 200/- with Court fees of Rs. 20/-. Plaintiffs undertake to pay necessary Court fees upon ascertainment of damages;
(z) The suit property is situated within territorial limits of this Court and, therefore, this Court has the territorial jurisdiction.
(aa) Plaintiffs seek the reliefs : (i) recovery of possession of suit property against defendant no.1; (ii) declaration that the alleged Will dated Nil bearing Notary stamp dated 19.03.2019 is not a genuine Will of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi and that the same is a false, fabricated and void document; (iii) permanent injunction to restrain defendants from creating 3rd party rights in respect of the suit property and half portion of basement and ground floor; (iv) recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2019 till actual handing over of possession of the suit property against defendant no.1; and (v) any other relief.
3. Upon first listing of the suit on 04.06.2019, ex-parte interim injunction to restrain creation of 3rd party rights in the suit property was granted against the defendant no.1 and summons were also ordered to be issued. Defendant no.1, Savi entered appearance before the Court on 01.08.2019. Vide Order dated 11.08.2020, plaintiff no.2, who was initially impleaded as defendant no.2, was transposed as plaintiff no.2. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, which was 2nd beneficiary in the Will, was also impleaded as defendant no.2. On 20.11.2021, LRs of plaintiff no.1 upon the death of plaintiff no.1 were impleaded in the suit. Vide the same Order, right of defendant CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 7 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
no.1 to file written statement was closed. Vide Order dated 12.07.2022, the defendant no.1 was proceeded with ex-parte.
4. Defendant no.2, Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee filed a written statement therein stating the following defence:
(a) The present suit filed by the plaintiffs without first obtaining Succession Certificate/Letters of Administration is not maintainable;
(b) The relief of declaration of Will is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the same was not claimed in the initial plaint;
(c) The reliefs have not been properly valued;
(d) The plaint has not been properly signed and verified;
(e) The defendant no.2 is ready and willing to comply with all conditions of the Will and, therefore, it is entitled to the portion of the property bequeathed to it;
5. Plaintiffs filed a replication, therein denying the allegations/averments in the written statement of defendant no.2 and re-affirming those pleaded in the plaint. It has been denied that the suit is not maintainable for not obtaining Succession Certificate or Letter of Administration, or the relief with respect to the Will is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
6. Vide Order dated 12.07.2022, following issues were framed:
Issue no. 1 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession against defendant no. 1 in respect of property bearing no. B-113, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi as prayed for? OPP CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 8 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
Issue no. 2 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration thereby declaring the alleged will dated 19.03.2018 as false, fabricated and void as prayed for? OPP Issue no. 3 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property as prayed for? OPP Issue no. 4 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages against defendant no. 1 at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month w.e.f 01.05.2019 till the handing over of the suit property as prayed for?
OPP Issue no. 5 :- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD-2 Issue no. 6 :- Whether the plaint has not been properly valued by the plaintiff in relation to the reliefs sought? OPD-2 Issue no. 7 :- Whether the plaint has not been properly signed and verified by the plaintiff? OPD-2 Issue no. 8 :- Relief.
7. On 26.04.2023, defendant no.1 filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. These applications were dismissed, vide a common Order dated 07.11.2023. The defendant no.1 challenged the said Order by way of a petition, CM (M) 2074/2023 before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed, vide Order dated 15.12.2023, with liberty to defendant no.1 to address arguments on legal defences available to her.
8. Plaintiffs in order to prove their case examined eight witnesses.
8.1. Plaintiffs' first witness, PW-1 was the deceased plaintiff no.1's son, Gurinderbir Singh Sodhi. He tendered his evidence- affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A towards his examination-in-chief wherein he CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 9 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
deposed in line with the averments pleaded in the plaint. He also tendered in evidence several documents: Conveyance Deed dated 23.04.1968, Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR); POA dated 29.04.1998, Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR); Will dated 29.04.1998, Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR); death certificate of late Sardar Mohan Singh Sodhi, Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR); copy of case status of case filed by Darshan Kaur against Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi, Mark D; medical record of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi, Ex. PW-1/6 (colly.); death certificate of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi, Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR); DD No. 10A dated 27.04.2019, Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR); complaint dated 14.05.2019 filed by plaintiff no.1, Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR); complaint dated 15.05.2019 filed by plaintiff no.1, Mark E; death certificate of late Sardar Inderjeet Singh Sodhi, Ex. PW-1/11 (OSR); LC report dated 04.07.2019, Ex. PW-1/13; POA dated 29.04.1998 in favour of Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi, Mark A; Will dated 29.04.1998, Mark B; and Will dated Nil, filed by defendant no.1 before SEM, Mark C. 8.2. Plaintiffs' 2nd witness/PW-2, Shankar Singh was a summoned witness from the office of Sub Registrar VII. He proved the copies of registered Will dated 29.04.1998 and a copy of GPA, which were filed with the plaint, and these documents were exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 and Ex.PW-2/2 respectively.
8.3. Plaintiffs' 3rd witness/PW-3, Bijayaloka Behera was a summoned witness from Record Room, District South East, Saket Courts. He proved the copy of case status of case, CS SCJ 940/2019 filed by one, Arun Bhardwaj against Savi and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/1.
8.4. Plaintiffs' 4th witness/PW-4, Gajraj Singh Bhatti was a summoned witness from Mahajan Eye Centre. He produced in evidence discharge summary dated 28.04.2017 of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi as Ex. PW-4/2.
CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 10 of 31v.
Savi and Anr.
8.5. Plaintiffs' 5th witness/PW-5, Satish Kumar was a summoned witness from Record Room, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He had brought judicial record of a mutual divorce petition, HMA 369/05 between Darshan Kaur and Sardar Harmeet Singh, which was disposed off by a Decree of mutual divorce vide Judgment dated 16.05.2005.
8.6. Plaintiffs' 6th witness/PW-6, Amit Chaudhary was a summoned witness from Netiva Hospital. He proved the copies of bills filed with the plaint, which were exhibited as Ex.PW-6/1 (colly.).
8.7. Plaintiffs' 7th witness/PW-7, Digambar Singh was a summoned witness from Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital. He proved the copies of bills filed with the plaint which were exhibited as Ex. PW-7/3 (colly.).
8.8. Plaintiffs' 8th witness/PW-8, Ram Kumar was a summoned witness from Sunrise Hospital. He produced in evidence the medical record of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi as Ex. PW-8/1 (OSR).
8.9. Plaintiffs' aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of defendant no.2 and then they were discharged. The testimonies of plaintiffs' witnesses will be dealt with, wherever relevant, while returning the findings on the issues.
9. Defendant no.2 in order to prove its defence examined five witnesses.
9.1. Defendant no.2's 1st witness, D2W1, Jagmohan Singh, was its Legal Manager. He tendered his affidavit-in-evidence, Ex.D2W1/A towards his examination-in-chief. He also tendered an Authority Letter dated 12.12.2022 in his favour as Ex. D2W1/1.
9.2. Defendant no.2's 2nd witness, D2W2, Nasreen Naaz, a Notary Public, was a summoned witness. She produced in evidence her CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 11 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
register regarding attestation of the Will in question executed by late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi as Ex. DW2/2 (OSR).
9.3. Defendant no.2's 3rd witness, D2W3, Jaswant Singh, was one of the attesting witnesses on the alleged Will of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. He deposed that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi had executed the said Will in his presence and that he had signed thereupon as a witness.
9.4. Defendant no.2's 4th witness, D2W4, Baljeet Singh, was the 2nd attesting witness on the alleged Will of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. He deposed that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi had executed the said Will in his presence and that he had signed thereupon as a witness.
9.5. Defendant no.2's 5th witness, D2W5, Mohd. Nazrul Hoda, was a summoned witness from the office of Sub Registrar V (I). He produced in evidence the registered Lease Deed dated 04.04.2019 between Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi and Rohit Monga as Ex. DW2/5A (OSR).
9.6. Defendant no.2's aforesaid witnesses were cross- examined on behalf of plaintiffs and then they were discharged. The testimonies of defendant no.2's witnesses will be dealt with, wherever relevant, while returning the findings on the issues.
10. I have heard Mr. Manu Bansal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Mohit Auluck, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1; and Mr. Lakhmi Chand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2.
10.1. Mr. Bansal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the Will dated 19.03.2018 allegedly executed by late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi was propounded by defendant no.1 and 2 and, therefore, it was their onus to prove the said Will. He submitted that the original Will was never produced before this Court and that merely a photocopy CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 12 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
of the said Will has been led into the evidence without first laying the foundation for leading secondary evidences. In this regard, Ld. Counsel relied upon Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Jai Prakash Aggarwal v. State and Ors., MANU/DE/0061/2017 decided on 10.01.2017. He also submitted that the alleged Will suferrs from various defects. He submitted that the age of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi on the Will has been stated to be 57 years, though he was of the age of 59 years in the year 2018. He submitted that in the Will it has been stated that wife of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi had died, while he was divorced in the year 2005. He submitted that the Will on page no. 3 mentions the same to have been executed in September, 2012, while the same was notarized after almost 6 years on 19.03.2018. He submitted that in the Will it has been stated that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi had adopted defendant no.1 in the year 2012, while as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, adoption of a female child by a single male was not valid. He submitted that the defendant no.1 at the time of receiving dead body of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi had signed in the capacity of a maid being the daughter of Mr. Kim Bahadur, which proves that she was not the adopted daughter of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. Mr. Bansal then submitted that the defendant no.2's 4 th witness, Baljeet Singh, who was one of the attesting witnesses on the Will, in his testimoney has stated that the Will was drafted by the defendant no.2, however, the defendant no.2's stand is that it came to know about the Will only in the year 2022. Mr. Bansal submitted that the defendant no.2's 3rd and 4th witnesses during their cross- examination has stated that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi on 19.03.2018 was in a private room, while as per hospital's record, he was in ICU from 16.03.2018 till 21.03.2018. He submitted that the defendants have not led any evidence to prove that the alleged thumb CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 13 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
impressions on the Will were that of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. He submitted that neither of the two witnesses on the Will were related to late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. He submitted that as per the defence of defendant no.2, defendant no.1 was involved in execution of Will, which casts suspicion on the validity of the Will. Mr. Bansal submitted that there is no explanation in the Will as to why the natural legal heirs were excluded from inheritance. He submitted that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi was a patient of chronic diabetes and high blood pressure, who had lost vision of both his eyes and whose four fingers of one foot has also been amputated. Basis this, Mr. Bansal submitted that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi was not in a fit state of mind to execute the alleged Will. Mr. Bansal in this regard relied upon the medical record produced by the summoned witness from Mahajan Eye Centre as PW-4 and another summoned witness from Sunrise Hospital as PW-8. He submitted that the defendant no.1 had forged and fabricated the alleged Will so as to illegally usurp the property late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. Mr. Bansal then submitted that the suit property could easily fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 35000/-, which claim has not been rebutted by the defendants. In this regard, Mr. Bansal relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopalkrishna Pillai and Ors. v. Meenakshi Ayal and Ors., MANU/SC/0268/1966; Judgments of High Court of Delhi in Suman Verma and Ors. v. Sushil Mohini Gupta and Ors., MANU/DE/4656/2013 and in Consep India Pvt. Ltd. v. CEPCO Industrious Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/0700/ 2010.
10.2. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 submitted that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi, vide his Will executed on 19.03.2018, had bequeathed the suit property i.e. 2nd floor in favour of defendant no.2 subject to condition of providing job and accommodation to defendant no.1, which the defendant no.2 is willing to comply. He CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 14 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
submitted that the said Will was executed by late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi in the presence of two witnesses and the notary public. He submitted that the said two witnesses as well as the notary public has duly proved the execution of the Will in question. He also submitted that the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the alleged Will is a forged and fabricated document. He submitted that as per the medical report, late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi was conscious and oriented on 19.03.2018 and, therefore, he was in fit state of mind to execute the Will. He submitted that the defendant no.2 could not produce the original Will as the same was never in its possession. He also submitted that as per the provisions of Succession Act, 1925, in the absence of original Will, a photocopy thereof can be produced in evidence. Ld. Counsel then relied upon registered Lease Deed dated 04.04.2019, Ex. DW2/5A (OSR) executed by late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi in favour of Rohit Monga and contended that in the said Lease Deed defendant no.1 was authorized to collect rent and, therefore, it was natural for late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi to bequeath a part of his properties in favour of defendant no.1.
10.3. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 reiterated the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2. He also submitted that the suit property has been undervalued and that proper Court fees has not been paid. He submitted that as per Section 101 of the Evidence Act, it was the onus of plaintiff to prove forgery of the Will, which he failed.
11. Ld. Counsels for plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 also filed written submissions. I have carefully perused the judicial record.
FINDING ON ISSUES
12. Issue no. 5 :- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 15 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
present form? OPD-2 12.1. The onus of proving this issue was upon defendant no.2.
12.2. The defendant no.2, however, neither led any evidence to prove this issue, nor was any oral submission made by Ld. Counsel on this issue.
12.3 The defendant no.2 in its written statement has pleaded that this suit, without plaintiffs first obtaining Succession Certificate, or Letter of Administration, is not maintanable. It has also been pleaded that the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
12.4. There is no provision in the law that a plaintiff in order to seek the reliefs of possession and mesne profits on the basis of ownership/title through inheritance must first obtain Succession Certificate, or Letter of Administration.
12.5. As regard the bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC, it is noted that the plaintiffs had not initially sought the relief of declaration with respect to the Will in question. Plaintiffs, susbsequently, were allowed to amend the plaint for adding the said relief of declaration with respect to the impugned Will. Pertinently, plaintiffs' case was that they got the copy of the Will in the office of Executive Magistrate before whom the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. between plaintiffs and defendant no.1 were pending. Plaintiffs, upon obtaining a copy of the Will, amended the plaint and sought an additional relief of declaration that the said Will is a forged and fabricated document. For the applicability of bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the cause of action for the two suits or two reliefs has to be the same. Plaintiffs' initial suit was based upon the cause of action that upon the death of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi they became owner of the suit property which was in possession of defendant no.1 and recovery of which was initially sought. Subsequently, when the plaintiffs came to know about the Will CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 16 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
in question, which they alleged to be forged and fabricated, a new cause of action arose in their favour. The cause of action of the relief of possession with mesne profit as initially sought and that of the relief of declaration that the Will is forged and fabricated document, are entirely different. The bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply.
12.6. The issue no.5 is, therefore, decided against the defendant no.2 and in favour of the plaintiffs.
13. Issue no. 6 :- Whether the plaint has not been properly valued by the plaintiff in relation to the reliefs sought? OPD-2 13.1. The onus of proving this issue was upon defendant no.2.
13.2. Ld. Counsels for the defendants submitted that the relief of possession of the suit property has not been valued as per the market value of the suit property.
13.3. Plaintiffs have valued the relief of possession at Rs. 35 Lakhs and has paid an advalorem Court fees of Rs. 36,510/- thereupon. In this regard, defendants have failed to lead any evidence to prove that the suit property was under valued by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the relief of possession cannot be said to have been undervalued by the plaintiffs.
13.4. Plaintiffs have also sought recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 35000/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2019 till actual handing over of possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs have valued this relief at Rs. 200/- and have paid a Court fees of Rs. 20/- with an undertaking to pay necessary Court fees upon ascertainment of mesne profits. So far the relief of damages for pre-suit period is concerned, the same was based upon an existing cause of action, which the plaintiff should have valued and should also have paid proper Court fees, accordingly. The quantification of damages for pendente-lite and future period is a matter of inquiry/trial. It is only upon ascertainment of damages for CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 17 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
pendente-lite and future period that a plaintiff is supposed to pay Court fees, accordingly.
13.5. Even if plaintiffs have not properly valued the relief of mesne profits for pre-suit period, the suit cannot be dismissed on this ground alone without giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to pay the proper Court fees. Similarly, plaintiffs will be required to pay proper Court fees upon mesne profit for pendente-lite and future period upon ascertainment of the same.
13.6. The other two reliefs sought in the plaint are declaration of Will to be void and injunction to restrain defendants from creating 3rd party rights in the suit property. Both these reliefs have been valued at Rs. 200/- each and a Court fees of Rs. 20/- each has also been paid thereupon. The said valuation and payment of Court fees is as per Section 7(iv)(d) and Article 17(iii) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
13.7. In view of the above, the issue no.6 is decided against defendant no.2 and in favour of plaintiffs.
14. Issue no. 7 :- Whether the plaint has not been properly signed and verified by the plaintiff? OPD-2 14.1. The onus of proving this issue was upon defendant no.2.
14.2. Again, neither any evidence has been led, nor has any argument been advanced on this issue at the instance of defendant no.2.
14.3. Upon perusal of plaint, it is found that the same has been signed and verified by both the plaintiffs.
14.4. In view of the above, the issue no.7 is decided against defendant no.2 and in favour of plaintiffs.
CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 18 of 31v.
Savi and Anr.
15. Issue no. 1 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession against defendant no. 1 in respect of property bearing no. B-113, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi as prayed for? OPP Issue no. 2 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration thereby declaring the alleged will dated 19.03.2018 as false, fabricated and void as prayed for? OPP 15.1. The onus of proving both these issues was placed upon plaintiffs.
15.2. Both these issues are being taken up together as the same can be decided on the basis of common findings.
15.3. Plaintiffs are seeking possession of the suit property i.e. the 2nd floor on the basis of their claim that they acquired ownership/title through inheritance upon the intestate death of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. Both the plaintiffs being the siblings of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi claim to be the class II legal heirs.
15.4. Per contra, both the defendants are claming that the suit property i.e. the 2nd floor was bequeathed by late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi through his Will dated 19.03.2018 in favour of defendant no.2.
15.5. Plaintiffs claim that they obtained a copy of the aforesaid alleged Will during proceedings under Section 107/151 before the Court of Ld. Executive Magistrate and then they amended the plaint and also sought an additional relief of declaration that the alleged Will is a forged and fabricated document.
15.6. The decision on the question whether plaintiffs should be held to be entitled to possession of the suit property depends upon the proof or otherwise of the Will in question. In case, it is held that the Will has been duly proved to have been executed as per law, plaintiffs would not be entitled to possession of the suit property. However, in CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 19 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
case, the execution of the Will as per law is not proved, plaintiffs would be entitled to possession of the suit property on the basis of their ownership/title through inheritance.
15.7. The Delhi High Court in the case, Deepika Talwar v. Shalini Chaudhry Sharma and Ors., CS(OS) No. 110/2016 (decided on 30.01.2017) has held that the party which propounds a Will has to prove the same and the onus cannot be placed on the challengers 1. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 369 has observed as under:
"8. The defendant who is the principal legatee and for all practical purposes the sole legatee under the will, is also the propounder of the will. It is he who set up the will in answer to the plaintiff's claim in the suit for a one-half share in her husband's estate. Leaving aside the rules as to the burden of proof which are peculiar to the proof of testamentary instruments, the normal rule which governs any legal proceeding is that the burden of proving a fact in issue lies on him who asserts it, not on him who denies it. In other words, the burden lies on the party which would fail in the suit if no evidence were led on the fact alleged by him. Accordingly, the defendant ought to have led satisfactory evidence to prove the due execution of the will by his grandfather Sardar Gobinder Singh."
15.8. The Supreme Court in Jaswant Kaur (supra) explained as to how the propounder of a Will is supposed to discharge his onus of proving the Will:
"9. In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder 1 The reliance for this proposition is also placed upon the landmark Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case, H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 443.CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 20 of 31
v.
Savi and Anr.
of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will.
10. There is a long line of decisions bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required to prove a will. Those decisions have been reviewed in an elaborate judgment of this Court in R. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma [AIR 1959 SC 443 : 1959 Supp 1 SCR 426] . The Court, speaking through Gajendragadkar, J., laid down in that case the following propositions :
"1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty.
2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.
3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.
4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 21 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator.
6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter."
(emphasis added) 15.9. In the present case, the defendant no.1 and 2 have propounded the alleged Will. Therefore, as per the law, as explained herein above, it was the onus of both the defendants to prove the Will. It is only in rebuttal of the defendants' evidences led in support of proof CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 22 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
of the Will that the plaintiffs could lead evidence to prove forgery or fabrication of the Will.
15.10. Now, it needs to be examined as to whether the defendants have been able to prove the execution of Will as per law.
15.11. Ld. Counsels for the defendants argued that the execution of Will as per law was proved by examination of two witnesses and notary public who attested the said Will. In this regard, plaintiffs' Counsel argued that in the absence of production of original Will before the Court, the same cannot be said to have been proved.
15.12. Before the Court can decide whether a document has been proved, or disproved, the very document has to be led in evidence as per law. Section 56 of Bhartiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023 (herein after 'the BSA') provides that the contents of a document may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. As per Section 59, a document, in the first instance, is required to be proved by primary evidence. Primary evidence, as defined under Section 57, means the document itself produced before the Court. As per Section 58, a photocopy of document is only a secondary evidence. As per Section 60, secondary evidence can be led only under certain circumstances.
15.13. Now, coming to the present case, the defendants, who propounded the Will in question, never produced the original Will before this Court. The right of defendant no.1 to file written statement was closed on account of non-appearance on her behalf. She was also proceeded with ex-parte. She also did not participate during trial for cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses. Her Counsel participated in the suit only at the stage of final arguments. Defendant no.2, though filed written statement, neither original, nor copy, of the Will in question, was filed by it. Defendant no.2 could have confronted plaintiffs' witnesses during their cross-examination with the original CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 23 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
Will, which was also not done. Defendant no.2, in fact, had made a submission before the Court that the original Will was in the custody of defendant no.1, as recorded in Order dated 20.11.2021. Vide Order of even date, defendant no.1 was directed by the Court to file the original Will. On the next date of hearing i.e. 18.02.2022, defendant no.1 appeared through her Counsel, but she did not file the original Will. After conclusion of evidences, while the case was at the stage of final arguments, defendant no.2, had filed an application for leading additional evidences, which was allowed, vide Order dated 29.07.2024. Defendant no.2, then, on 07.11.2024, led a Lease Deed as an additional evidence. On 07.08.2025, when the case was at the stage of final arguments, defendant no.1 sought an adjournment for tracing the original Will. The matter was accordingly adjourned. However, the original Will never came to be filed on behalf of either of the parties.
15.14. It is noted that it was only the plaintiffs, who had filed a copy of the Will with the amended plaint and the same was tendered in evidence as Mark C. It was the said copy only which was relied upon by defendant no.2 and its witnesses during defendants' evidences. It can, therefore, be said that the defendant no.2 has only relied upon secondary evidence of the Will. As per Section 60 of the BSA, secondary evidence of a document can be led only after laying foundation for the same. Section 60 is in the nature of an exception to Section 59, which mandates that a document should be proved by primary evidence. Section 60 lays down various circumstances under which secondary evidence of a document can be led. One such circumstances is when the original document is in possession of another person. In such a case, the party proposing to lead secondary evidence, is supposed to give a notice under Section 64 of the BSA to the party in whose possession the original document is. However, in the present case, defendant no.2 did not lead any evidence of having CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 24 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
given any such notice under Section 64 to the defendant no.1, in whose possession it was alleged by the defendant no.2 that the original Will was. The secondary evidence as per Section 60 can also be led when the original document has been lost. However, again, no foundation to prove that original Will was lost, was laid by either of the defendants. Therefore, it is held that the defendants have failed to prove the Will by producing the original Will.
15.15. Plaintiffs' Counsel, in this regard, has rightly relied upon the Judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi on 10.01.2017 in the case, Jai Prakash Aggarwal v. State and Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6478, wherein the Will was held to not have been proved because the original of the same was not produced before the Court:
19. Section 61 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides for the contents of the documents to be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. Section 64 provides that document must be proved by primary evidence except in cases thereafter mentioned. The following Section 65 provides that secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of the document in situations mentioned thereunder.
20. Primary evidence, as per Section 62 means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Secondary evidence, as per Section 63 means and includes certified copies, or copies made from original by mechanical process which insures accuracy of the copies and copies compared with such copies, or copies made from or compared with the original, or counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them, or oral account of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.
21. In a petition seeking probate, judgment wherein is judgment in rem, the petitioner is required to prove the existence and execution as required by law of the document claimed to be Will of the deceased. Such proof, as per aforesaid provisions has to be by producing the document itself. Admittedly neither of the two documents claimed to be CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 25 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
the Will and Codicil of the deceased has come before this Court. Though the petitioner under the law aforesaid is also entitled to prove the document by leading secondary evidence of the kind mentioned in Section 63 i.e. either by proving a certified copy of document, or a copy made from original by mechanical process which insures accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies, or copies made from or compared with the original, or by oral account of the contents of document by some person who has himself seen it, but it is not as if there is absolute freedom to prove a document either by primary or secondary evidence or to adopt any of the modes provided in Section 63 of secondary evidence. Section 65 provides the situations on proving existence of which only secondary evidence can be led and the nature of the secondary evidence which can be led. For instance, if the petitioner proves that the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom it is sought to be proved or of any person not subject to the process of the Court or of any person who is bound to produce but does not produce even after notice, the petitioner is permitted to give any form of secondary evidence. However, if the petitioner proves that the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved, secondary evidence in form of written admission only is admissible. Similarly, when the petitioner proves that the original has been destroyed or lost or for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect is unable to produce it, again any form of secondary evidence provided in Section 63 is admissible. On the contrary, when original is a public document, secondary evidence only in the form of a certified copy and in no other form is admissible.
22. Thus, the person wanting to prove the existence and execution of a document by secondary evidence, before doing so, is first required to prove the existence of one of the several situations in which Section 65 permits proof of a document by secondary evidence and thereafter prove the document by secondary evidence of the form and the kind permitted in that situation. Without fulfilling this twin task, no document can be said to have been proved by secondary evidence. Such task can be performed only while leading evidence and the Court, only at the time of appreciating such CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 26 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
evidence and which generally is at the time of final arguments, can hold whether a situation in which Section 65 permits secondary evidence has been proved to exist and if so, whether the document has been proved by secondary evidence. No such finding can be returned on an application and without leading evidence. The petitioner thus cannot take any advantage of the orders dated 22nd September, 2006 and 4th August, 2015 supra allowing the applications of the petitioner to prove the documents by secondary evidence. In fact, the applications were misconceived as no permission for proof of a document by secondary evidence which is permitted by Evidence Act itself, is required. It is for this reason that it needs to be examined on appreciation of the evidence led by the petitioner, whether the petitioner has proved before this Court existence of any of the situations mentioned in Section 65 in which secondary evidence is permitted to be led. Without the petitioner proving the existence of such situation, the question of proving the document by secondary evidence does not arise. This is what is meant by "laying the foundation for leading secondary evidence".
15.16. There are strong reasons for insisting upon production of primary evidence i.e. the original document itself. The primary evidence is considered to be the best evidence. When the genuineness of a document is in dispute, its original has to be produced before the Court. The genuineness or otherwise of the document cannot be ascertained on the basis of perusal of a photocopy. Today, due to technological advancements, a copy of a document can be created by cropping of a portion, be it the content, or signature, or thumb impression, from the original and then pasting the same on a different document. Hence, from a photocopy, genuineness of a document cannot be judged.
15.17. In the present case, defendant no.2 examined the alleged two witnesses and a notary public to prove the execution of alleged Will by late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. However, the examination CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 27 of 31 v.
Savi and Anr.
of these witnesses is of no avail once the original Will in itself was not proved by primary evidence and no evidence of circumstances permitting leading of secondary evidence was led.
15.18. There appears to be a glaring doubtful circumstance upon the copy of Will, Mark C as pointed out by plaintiffs' Counsel. The copy of the Will on its page 3 bears the date of September, 2012. As per defendants' case, the said Will was executed on 19.03.2018. The huge gap of six years casts serious doubts upon the genuineness of the Will.
15.19. Moreover, the defendants were supposed not only to prove execution of Will, but also the fact that the testator, late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi had executed the Will in sound and disposing mind and of his own free Will. In the present case, there are so many suspicious circumstances, such as late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi being in poor state of health, being a chronic patient of diabetes and high blood pressure, having lost vision of his eyes, having four fingers of his foot amputated, being dependent upon defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 being in dominant position. The defendants, thus, had heavy burden to prove not only that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi at the time of execution of the alleged Will was in sound in disposing state of mind but also that he executed the Will of his free Will. Pertinently, the defendants did not even examine any doctor to prove that late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi was in fit medical condition at the time of execution of the alleged Will. The conscience of the Court is, therefore, not satisfied that the impugned document/instrument dated Nil bearing notary stamp of 19.03.2018 was the last Will and testament of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi.
15.20. In view of the above discussion, in the absence of original Will, this Court is not in position to return any positive finding that the copy of Will, Mark C is false, fabricated and void document.
CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 28 of 31v.
Savi and Anr.
However, it is, at the same time, held that the defendants have failed to prove any Will of late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi. In view of this, the issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the suit property. The issue no.1 and issue no.2 are determined accordingly.
16. Issue no. 4 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of damages against defendant no. 1 at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month w.e.f 01.05.2019 till the handing over of the suit property as prayed for? OPP 16.1. The onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiffs.
16.2. The plaintiffs did not lead any evidence to prove that the suit property i.e. 2nd floor could fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/-. However, plaintiffs' Counsel relied upon Lease Deed dated 02.04.2019 which was led in evidence by defendant no.2 as Ex. DW2/5A (OSR). The said Lease Deed was between late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi and his tenant, Rohit Monga in respect of front half portion of ground floor. As per the said Lease Deed, the said portion was rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000/-. Despite the fact of suit property being double the size of the demised property which as per the aforesaid Lease Deed was rented out at a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000/-, plaintiffs are claiming mesne profits in respect of the suit property at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month only.
16.3. Even in the absence of any evidence in respect of mesne profit as claimed, this Court with the help of aforesaid Lease Deed takes judicial notice that the suit property could very easily fetch monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/-. The plaintiffs are held entitled to the recovery of the same for the period from 01.05.2019 till the actual handing over of the suit property by the defendant no.1.
CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 29 of 31v.
Savi and Anr.
16.4. Interest is an integral part of mesne profits. Therefore, simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum upon the mesne profits to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2019 till actual handing over, is also awarded.
16.5. As per Section 11 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, plaintiffs are directed to pay within 15 days an advalorem Court fees on the amount of mesne profits with interest as awarded herein above, failing which, the Decree in the present suit shall not be executable.
16.6. The issue no.4 is determined in aforesaid terms.
20. Issue no. 3 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property as prayed for? OPP 20.1. The onus of proving this issue was upon the plaintiffs.
20.2. It has already been held above while determining issue no.1 and issue no. 2 that plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit property on the basis of their ownership/title through inheritance from late Sardar Harmeet Singh Sodhi and it has further been held that the defendants have failed to prove the alleged Will. In view of such findings, plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction to restrain defendants, or their agents, or assignees, or attorneys etc. from creating any sort of 3rd party rights in the suit property, and in front half portions of basement and ground floor.
20.3. The issue no.3 is determined in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
RELIEF:
21. As a net result of determination of all the issues, the present suit is decreed with following reliefs in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants:
CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 30 of 31v.
Savi and Anr.
(a) Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing no. B-113, 2nd floor, admeasuring 100 sq. yards, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024, against the defendant no.1;
(b) The impugned Will dated Nil bearing notary stamp of 19.03.2018 has been held to have not been proved;
(c) Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum for the period w.e.f. 01.05.2019 till actual handing over of possession of the suit property, subject to plaintiffs depositing within 15 days advalorem Court fees upon the mesne profits claim as allowed;
(d) The defendants are restrained from creating any sort of 3rd party rights in the suit property and in front half portion of basement and ground floor;
(e) Recovery of costs of the suit as per rules.
22. Decree-sheet be prepared, accordingly.
23. File be consigned to Record Room thereafter.
Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
Announced & dictated in MITTAL 2026.02.03
17:18:02
the open Court on 02.02.2026 +0530
(Sachin Mittal)
District Judge-03/South-East District
Saket Courts, New Delhi/02.02.2026
Certified that this Judgment contains 31 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Sachin Mittal) District Judge-03/South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi/02.02.2026 Digitally CS DJ No. 508/19 S. Inderjeet Singh Sodhi and Anr. Page 31 of 31signed by v. SACHIN Savi and Anr. SACHIN MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.02.03 17:18:05 +0530