Delhi District Court
Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav vs Rani Devi Etc on 21 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE-05 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 222/18
CNR No. DLET01-001712-2018
Sh. Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav
S/o Sh. Bale Yadav
R/o. H. No. B-14,
Gali No. 3, Chander Vihar,
Mandavali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092
...........Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Smt. Rani Devi
W/o Sh. Ram Lagan Yadav @ Rai
R/o. H. No. B-14, Gali No. 3, Chander Vihar,
Mandavali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092
2. Sh. Ram Lagan Yadav @ Rai
S/o Sh. Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav
R/o. H. No. 230/8, Gali No. 3, Railway Colony,
Mandavali, Near Gauri Shankar Mandir,
Delhi-110092.
............Defendants.
Date of Institution Suit : 16.03.2018
Date of Final Arguments : 23.12.2024
Date of Decision : 21.02.2025
Final Decision of the suit : Decreed
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 1/18
Digitally
signed by
VIKAS VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:17:04
+0530
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTIONS, AND RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment addresses the present suit filed for possession, permanent and mandatory injunctions, and recovery of damages.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS PER PLAINT :-
Briefly, the essential facts and averments required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the plaint, are as follows:
2. The plaintiff claims ownership of the suit property, bearing H. No. B-14, Gali No. 3, Chander Vihar, Mandavali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092, by virtue of an Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney (GPA), both dated 10.02.1983. The suit property comprises a ground floor and a first floor. The plaintiff resides on the ground floor, while defendant no. 1, the plaintiff's daughter-in-law, resides on the first floor. Defendant no. 2 is the plaintiff's son.
3. The defendants were married on 03.06.2005 in Bihar, without any dowry. Following their marriage, the plaintiff permitted them to occupy one room on the first floor of the suit property. Their son, Master Anmol, was born on 18.08.2008. However, temperamental differences soon arose between the defendants, leading to frequent quarrels. Frustrated by these disputes, the plaintiff disowned defendant no. 2 through a CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 2/18 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.02.21 15:17:12 +0530 newspaper publication, thereby relieving himself of any liability toward his son.
4. Subsequent matrimonial disputes resulted in multiple litigations initiated by defendant no. 2 against defendant no. 1 in various courts, including Delhi and Samastipur, Bihar. The matter was eventually settled with the intervention of respected members of the community, culminating in the execution of a Panchayati Bond dated 24.06.2015, wherein defendant no. 1 undertook not to disturb the peace and harmony of the plaintiff's household.
5. Despite this settlement, the defendants continued to harass the plaintiff and his wife. Defendant no. 2 eventually left the company of defendant no. 1, who refused to vacate the property or join her husband at his rented accommodation. The plaintiff alleges that defendant no. 1 engaged in frequent quarrels, created public disturbances, tarnished his reputation, and threatened false criminal implications. Additionally, she allegedly locked access to the common terrace, brought strangers to the property during late hours, and threatened to alienate the suit property.
6. As a result of her conduct, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 28.11.2017, demanding that she vacate the property within seven days. Upon her failure to comply, the plaintiff claims her status became that of a trespasser. Consequently, the plaintiff seeks possession of the suit property, permanent and mandatory injunctions, and damages, including past and future occupation charges.
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 3/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.02.21 15:17:21 +0530
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 AS PER HER WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
Briefly, the essential facts and averments required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the Written Statement, are as follows:
7. In her written statement, defendant no. 1 contends that the Agreement to Sell and GPA relied upon by the plaintiff do not confer ownership rights, citing Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. She argues that the suit is not maintainable due to insufficient court fees and claims the plaintiff has concealed material facts.
8. She further alleges collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2, asserting that the suit was filed to unlawfully evict her. According to her, defendant no. 2 continues to reside in the property alongside the plaintiff, rendering the disownment proceedings mere pretense. Defendant no. 1 denies the plaintiff's allegations and seeks dismissal of the suit.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT NO. 2 AS PER HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
Briefly, the essential facts and averments required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the Written Statement, are as follows:
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 4/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:17:35
+0530
9. Defendant no. 2, in his written statement, claims to have contributed financially toward the acquisition of the suit property, thereby asserting his right, title, and share in it. He attributes his disownment to the strained relationship between his wife (defendant no. 1) and his parents.
10. After moving to a rented accommodation, defendant no. 2 repeatedly invited defendant no. 1 to join him, but she refused. He opposes any decree of permanent injunction against him, emphasizing his continued interest in the suit property.
REPLICATION:-
11. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, the allegations and averments made by the defendant no. 1 in her written statement have been categorically denied, while the claims made in the plaint have been reaffirmed.
Issues:-
12. On completion of pleadings following issues were framed for trial on 14.11.2019:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of immovable property, as prayed for against defendant no. 1? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for? OPP CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 5/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:17:43
+0530
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claim of assured profit at the rate of 15% per annum? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction against the defendants? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages and if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly and not annexed proper Court fee? OPD1
7. Relief.
No other issues were raised or pressed, and no objections regarding the burden of proof were made at that stage.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
13. The plaintiff, Sh. Shobhi Rai, testified as PW-1 and submitted his evidential affidavit, marked as Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he reaffirmed the contents of the plaint with certain updates regarding the defendants' residential status. The affidavit states that at the time of filing the suit, Defendant No. 1 was residing in the suit property.
However, she later moved with Defendant No. 2 and her minor son to a rented accommodation at H. No. 230/8, Gali No. 3, Railway Colony, Mandavali, Near Gauri Shankar Mandir, Delhi. It is further CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 6/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:17:52
+0530
alleged that the first floor of the suit property has been unlawfully locked by the defendants.
PW-1 relied on the following documents:
1. Copy of Agreement to Sell dated 10.02.1983 as Ex. PW-1/1.
2. Copy of GPA dated 10.02.1983 as Ex. PW-1/2.
3. Site Plan as Ex. PW-1/5.
4. Office copy of letter dated 20.03.2009 as Ex. PW-1/6.
5. Copy of Newspaper Rashtriya Sahara as Mark PW-1/7.
6. Punchayati Bond dated 24.06.2015 as Ex. PW-1/8.
7. Legal Notice dated 28.11.2017 as Ex. PW-1/9.
PW-1 was subjected to extensive cross-examination by the counsel for Defendant No. 1.
The plaintiff further examined Mohd. Raziq as PW-2, who submitted his affidavit, marked as Ex. PW-2/A. In his affidavit, he stated that he has been residing at H. No. 31, Chander Vihar, Gali No. 3, Mandavali, Delhi-110092, since birth and is well-acquainted with the plaintiff and his family as neighbors and family friends, both hailing from neighboring villages in Bihar.
PW-2 further deposed that, being closely associated with the plaintiff's family, he is aware of the dispute between the parties. He described Defendant No. 1 as quarrelsome, alleging that she frequently causes disturbances, lodges false complaints, and uses these tactics to pressurize the plaintiff into accepting her unlawful demands for money and property, including the suit property, i.e., H. CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 7/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:18:00
+0530
No. B-14, Gali No. 3, Chander Vihar, Mandavali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092.
PW-2 asserted that the said property was solely purchased, constructed, owned, and possessed by the plaintiff without any financial contribution from Mr. Ram Lagan. He also stated that the electricity and water connections for the property are in the plaintiff's name, and he was occasionally asked by the plaintiff's family to deposit the corresponding bills.
PW-2 was also cross-examined at length by the counsel for Defendant No. 1.
DEFENDANT NO. 1'S EVIDENCE:-
14. Defendant No. 1, Smt. Rani Devi, testified as DW-1 and submitted her evidential affidavit, marked as Ex. DW-1/A, wherein she reiterated the contents of her written statement with certain modifications and updates. She also informed the court about the pending complaint before the Mahila Court.
In her affidavit, DW-1 also stated that she was residing in the suit property (H. No. B-14, Gali No. 3, Chander Vihar, Mandavali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092), which she claimed as a shared household. However, during the proceedings, upon the predecessor judge's suggestion dated 09.01.2018, she shifted to a rented accommodation with Defendant No. 2. She emphasized that no court order had directed her to vacate the suit property.
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 8/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.02.21 15:18:09 +0530
DW-1 relied on the following documents:
1. Copy of settlement application dated 10.12.2015 as Mark-A.
2. Copy of order dated 17.08.2014 in HMA No. 1932/2014 as Mark-B. She underwent extensive cross-examination by the plaintiff's counsel. During cross-examination by the plaintiff's counsel, several photographs were exhibited: Ex. DW-1/H1 (four photographs of the suit property), Ex. DW-1/H2, Ex. DW-1/H3, and Ex. DW-1/H4.
Additionally, complaints were exhibited as Ex. DW-1/H5, Ex. DW-1/H6, Ex. DW-1/H7, Ex. DW-1/H8, and Ex. DW-1/H9.
The copy of the Mahila Court order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, marked as Ex. M-1, was placed on record on 01.08.2024, and its existence was not disputed by the plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS:-
15. Plaintiff's Arguments:
Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued in line with the plaint, evidential affidavit, and supporting documents. He highlighted inconsistencies between the written statement and the evidential affidavit of Defendant No. 1. It was contended that while Defendant No. 2 claimed to have contributed to the property's acquisition in the written statement, no evidence was presented to substantiate this claim.
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 9/18
Digitally
signed by
VIKAS VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:18:17
+0530
The plaintiff's counsel further emphasized specific portions of DW-1's cross-examination to reinforce his case. He relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ashish Naiyer vs. Ms. Shally Naiyer, wherein the court held that evidence beyond the scope of pleadings is inadmissible. Additional reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court judgments in Mr. Barun Kumar Nahar vs. Parul Nahar and Pooja Mehta vs. Govt. of MCD.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's counsel prayed for the suit to be decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Defendant No. 1's Arguments:
Learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 argued in line with the written statement, contending that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership, as the GPA and Agreement to Sell do not confer title, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.
He further argued that the site plan submitted by the plaintiff is defective and not in compliance with Order VII Rule 3 of CPC.
The defendant's counsel also contended that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being a special law, overrides general property laws, thus preventing the dispossession of Defendant No. 1 from the suit property. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi and prayed for the suit's dismissal.
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 10/18 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.02.21 15:18:26 +0530
16. I have carefully listened to and considered the arguments presented by both parties, thoroughly reviewed the records, and taken into account the relevant laws and precedents.
Issue-wise Findings:-
17. All the issues in the present case are interconnected and intertwined; therefore, they are being addressed collectively. The plaintiff asserts ownership of the suit property based on an Agreement to Sell and a General Power of Attorney (GPA), both dated 10.02.1983. In contrast, Defendant No. 1 contends that these unregistered documents do not confer ownership rights. While it is true that, in a strict legal sense, the plaintiff may not be deemed the owner, considering the aspect of superior rights and better title, it is justifiable to conclude that the plaintiff possesses a stronger claim over the suit property.
It remains undisputed that Defendant No. 1 gained access to the suit property solely by virtue of her status as the wife of the plaintiff's son. The written statements of the defendants repeatedly assert that Defendant No. 2 contributed to the acquisition of the suit property; however, no evidence has been presented to substantiate this claim. Given that the GPA and the Agreement to Sell date back to 1983, and considering the ages of Defendants No. 1 and 2, it is difficult to believe the assertion regarding their contribution towards the property's acquisition. Furthermore, even if such a contribution were made, it does not automatically confer ownership rights.
Digitally signedVIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.02.21 15:18:34 +0530 CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 11/18 The primary issue for determination is whether Defendant No. 1 is entitled to retain possession of the suit property under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The record includes Ex. M1, a copy of an interim order issued by the Mahila Court under the DV Act, 2005, which granted interim relief to the complainant, permitting her free access to a larger room for storing household articles that were left outside in an open area.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, [2020] 12 S.C.R. 189, observed:
"157. From the above discussions, we arrive at following conclusions:-
(i) The pendency of proceedings under Act, 2005 or any order interim or final passed under D.V. Act under Section 19 regarding right of residence is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of order interim or final passed in proceedings under D.V. Act, 2005.
(ii) The judgment or order of criminal court granting an interim or final relief under Section 19 of D.V. Act, 2005 are relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Evidence Act and can be referred to and looked into by the civil court.
(iii) A civil court is to determine the issues in civil proceedings on the basis of evidence, which has been led by the parties before the civil court.
(iv) In the facts of the present case, suit filed in civil court for mandatory and permanent injunction was fully maintainable and the issues raised by the appellant as well as by the defendant claiming a right under Section 19 were to be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence, which is led by the parties in the suit."
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 12/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:18:43
+0530
From the above observations, it is evident that there is no legal impediment preventing this court from adjudicating the present suit for possession of the suit property, despite orders passed under the DV Act, 2005. The judgment further clarifies that the Civil Court must base its decision on the evidence presented before it.
The primary contention of Defendant No. 1, the daughter-in-law, is that she has a right to residence in the shared household under the DV Act. In support of this argument, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi [2022] 5 S.C.R. 970 and Satish Ahuja (supra).
It is undisputed that the plaintiff, being the father-in-law, is a senior citizen, and it is highly probable that the mother-in-law is also a senior citizen. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Ahuja's case (Supra), which state:
"83. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by High court in CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 13/18 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.02.21 15:18:51 +0530 paragraph 56 adequately balances the rights of both the parties."
Furthermore, in Vinay Verma vs. Kanika Pasricha, 2019:DHC:6519, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 29.11.2019, laid down broad guidelines regarding whether the liability should be imposed on the in-laws or the husband under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, set down in paragraph 46 of the decision read as under:-
"1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son's/ daughter's family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son-in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 14/18 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.02.21 15:18:58 +0530
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son's family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter- in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
The record clearly indicates that Defendant No. 1 has filed multiple complaints against the plaintiff, with some litigations still ongoing between the parties. The evidence leaves no doubt that the relationship between the parties is acrimonious. The plaintiff testified that one room on the first floor of the suit property was provided to the defendants after their marriage. Due to the quarrelsome attitude of the defendants, defendant no. 2 was disowned by the plaintiff through a public notice published in a newspaper. It was also testified that the defendants lived together for some time in rented accommodation at house no. 230/8, Gali no. 3, Railway Colony, Mandawali, Delhi.
Defendant no. 1 admitted in her cross-examination that she resided in rented premises before re-entering the suit premises. She further admitted that the rent of the premises, where she resided prior to her re-entry into the suit property, was Rs. 3,000/-, which was paid by CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 15/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:19:04
+0530
defendant no. 2. There is no assertion regarding the existence of a joint family. Additionally, the evidential affidavit of defendant no. 1 establishes that she left the rented premises of her own accord. There is an averment that she vacated the suit premises based on the suggestion of the predecessor judge on 09.10.2018; however, no judicial order to that effect is present in the case file.
An allegation of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 has been made. However, in the absence of any claim regarding the existence of a joint family, the mere allegation of collusion is not sufficient to justify defendant no. 1's retention of possession. Defendant no. 1 should seek maintenance and financial support from her husband, defendant no. 2. There is no legal basis upon which the obligation of defendant no. 2 to maintain his wife can be shifted onto the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, being a senior citizen, should not have his peaceful life disrupted by being unduly burdened with the responsibility of defendant no. 1. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pooja Mehta & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2024: DHC: 7873, as relied upon by the plaintiff, wherein the Court observed:
"24. In considering the present circumstances, the Court must evaluate the nature of the relationship between the parties and strike a balance between the Senior Citizens Act and the DV Act. The record demonstrates that the relationship between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 3, the senior citizen, has deteriorated beyond repair. Allegations of ill-treatment, financial exploitation, and CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 16/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:19:11
+0530
mental harassment have been raised and corroborated by complaints and evidence presented before the authorities. This strained and hostile environment has severely impacted the senior citizen's peace and well-being in her own home, thereby entitling her to seek the eviction of the Petitioners, including her daughter-in-law. The existing acrimony, supported by multiple complaints and a breakdown of the familial relationship, demonstrates that the senior citizen's desire to evict the Petitioners is not only justified, but also necessary to secure her right to live peacefully, in an advanced stage of her life."
The arguments put forth by the counsel for the defendant regarding the alleged impropriety of the site plan hold no merit in the present case, especially when it has been established that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property and Defendant No. 1 is merely occupying a portion of it.
Regarding the issue of suit valuation and deficiency in court fees, the burden of proof rested upon Defendant No. 1. However, no evidence has been presented to substantiate this claim. Since Defendant No. 1 has failed to discharge this onus, the issue of court fees is also decided in favor of the plaintiff.
In light of the foregoing discussions, the plaintiff has successfully established his case based on the preponderance of probabilities and is therefore entitled to possession of the suit property as well as a permanent injunction. However, given the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages.
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 17/18 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.02.21 15:19:18 +0530 Relief:-
18. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as follows:
A. A decree of possession is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the first floor of House No. B-14, Gali No. 3, Chander Vihar, Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi-110092, as marked in red in the site plan.
B. A permanent injunction is granted in favor of the plaintiff, prohibiting the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property. Additionally, the defendants are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the property.
19. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court Digitally signed
on 21.02.2025 VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.02.21
15:19:28 +0530
(Vikas Garg)
District Judge-05 /EAST
KKD, Delhi- 21.02.2025
CS No. 222/18 Shobhi Rai @ Shobhi Yadav Vs. Rani Devi Page no. 18/18