Delhi District Court
Deepa Kalra vs Som Nath Kalra And Anr on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-16, CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 428/2022
CNR No. DLCT010068882022
1. Deepa Kalra,
W/o Lt. Sh. Chander Mohan Kaira,
Resident of # 2230, Shankar Gali,
Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006
2. Vandana Kalra, Through Deepa Kalra (SPA Holder)
D/o Lt. Sh. Chander Mohan Kalra,
Resident of # 2230, Shankar Gali,
Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006
3. Anjali Kalra, Through Deepa Kalra (SPA Holder)
W/o Sh. Rahul Verma,
D/o Lt. Sh. Chander Mohan Kalra,
Presently at: 2901-1331, West Georgia Street,
Vancouver, BC, V6E 4P1, Canada. ...PLAINTIFFS
Versus
1. Mr. Som Nath Kalra,
S/o Lt. Sh. Des Raj Kalra
R/o # 2230, Shankar Gali,
Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-110006
2. Ravi Kanta Narang
Lt. Sh. Des Raj Kalra
C/o. Sh. Mukesh Narang,
R/o. J-01, Delhi Rajdhani Apartments,
Patparganj, New Delhi-110092 ...........Defendants
Date of Institution : 25.04.2022
Date of Arguments : 22.01.2026
Date of judgment : 19.02.2026
SUIT FOR PARTITION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 1/18
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit for partition, declaration, permanent injunction and damages was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants with the averments that the plaintiffs have sought the partition of the property i.e., bearing No. 2230, Shankar Gali, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). The property originally belonged to Late Desh Raj Kalra, who died leaving behind his wife and two sons and a daughter. Later on, his wife also died. The plaintiffs are the Legal representatives of Late Chander Mohan Kalra i.e., deceased son of the original owner. After the intestate death of the owner of the property and his wife, the property devolves upon two sons and one daughter. The plaintiffs claim that they have 1/3rd share in the suit property. They derive their share from Chander Mohan Kalra, who was the son of the original owner. Hence, this suit.
2. The defendant no. 1 filed his written statement and he has not denied that the original owner died intestate and there are three LR's of the original owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs are the LR's of Late Chander Mohan Kalra. However, the defendant No.1 states that due to the family settlement dated 20.11.2011, the plaintiffs became agreed to restrict their claim to the area in their possession. It is averred that they had agreed not to claim anything more in the suit property and would accept the area or the sale consideration equivalent to the area in their possession whenever the partition will take place by metes and bounds or the property is sold to the third party.
3. The defendant no.2 has no objection to the suit of the Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 2/18 plaintiffs for partition by metes and bounds and has no objection to give 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs. Rest of the contents of the plaint were denied by the defendants.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that preliminary decree has already been drawn in the present suit vide Order dated 22.01.2025 whereby an application u/O.12 Rule 6 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiffs, was disposed of by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. The plaintiffs are held to be entitled to 1/3rd share and defendant no .1 and 2 are also held to be entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit property i.e., 2230, Shankar Gali, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi measuring 236.76 sq. yds. Further parties to the suit were restrained to create third party interest in the aforesaid suit property .
5. It is important to mention that the preliminary decree passed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.01.2025 was never challenged by the defendants in appeal and hence the said order became absolute. Subsequently, with the consent of parties, Sh. Manish Sharma was appointed as Local Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to find out whether the suit property can be divided in three parts by metes and bounds. Pursuant thereto Ld. Local Commissioner has filed the report Ex.CW1/1 stating therein that the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 were found in possession of the suit property as per the site plan Mark A as under :
" The parties were found in possession of the suit property as shown in the site plan duly signed by the parties as under:-
i) The plaintiff was found in possession of portion of property shown in red colour in the site plan.
(ii) The defendant no.1 was found in possession of Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 3/18 portion of property shown in green colour in the site plan.
(iii) The defendant no.2 did not found in possession of any portion of the suit property.
(iv) The ground floor is found vacant as shown in yellow colour in site plan.
5. The existing condition of the suit property was found very old, in a dilapidated and zig zag condition as shown in the photographs taken of the Ground Floor, First Floor & Second Floor and the said photographs are annexed as Mark B to Q.
6. Proceeding sheet showing the presence and signatures of the parties and their Learned Counsels is also annexed as Mark-R.
7. Keeping in view of the existing old, dilapidated and zig zag condition, condition of passages, stairs, other walls, open space, inner walls of the suit property, it is not possible to partition the suit property by meets & bounds."
6. Defendant no. 1 filed the objections to the report of the Ld. Local Commissioner by stating that there is a possibility that the suit property can be divided by creating division with the help of brick walls without carrying out any demolition. Thereafter, one application for appointment of fresh Naksha Nafees was moved on behalf of defendant no. 1 which was dismissed vide Order dated 03.09.2025 and an opportunity was given to the parties to cross-examine the Ld. Local Commissioner in order to ascertain as to whether the Local Commissioner had carried out the inspection of the suit property in an unbiased and impartial manner. Thereafter, Local Commissioner Sh. Manish Sharma was examined as CW1 whose testimony reads as under:
Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 4/18 "i. The Local Commissioner report dated 28.03.2025 and the same is exhibit CW1/A running into four pages and bearing my signature at Point A at each page.
ii. Site plan filed along with the plaint and accepted by all the parties to the present lis and the same is Mark A and bears my signature at point A and signature(s) of parties/ counsel jointly at point B. iii. Photographs with respect to the Suit Property are Mark B-Q colly ( unning into 16 pages). iv. Proceeding sheet dated 28.30.2025 is exhibit CW1/1 and bears my nature at Point A and signature (s) of parties/ counsel jointly at Point B. XX by Shri Kunal Jain, Counsel For Defendant No 1. I am not a Civil Engineer. I did not take any measurement pertaining bearing walls, footings of the properties, size of the beam and pillars. I did not prepare Mark A i.e site plan filed along with the plaint. I did not t any sample and provide for inspection the said sample so as to determinee age of the building on the said property. As per the directions of the Hon'ble court as an LC, I was supposed to inspect the suit property and ascertain whether the same can be divided in meets and bounds. I have filed the photographs Mark B-Q (colly) along with my report Ex. CWI/A to show that the building is in dilapidated condition. It is wrong to suggest that the photographs that i have placed only show the present condition and does not ascertain that whether the property is in dilapidated condition and can not be partitioned by meets and bounds. I have not prepared or presented any partition plan to show the property can not be partitioned by meets and bounds. Vol. Since I have Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 5/18 already mentioned in my detailed report that the said property can not be partitioned therefore, the question of preparing any partition plan is out of question. It is correct that my report is not supported by any scientific report or outcome. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that I have any connivance with plaintiff.
XXXX by Sh. Puneet Sharma, Ld counsel for the Defendant No. 2 Nil. Opportunity Given.
XXX By Sh. Chirag Jamwal, ld counsel for the plaintiff.
Nil. Opportunity Given."
7. This Court has heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. It is submitted on behalf of defendant no. 1 that the report of the Ld. Local Commissioner cannot be accepted as the report is not supported by any technical proof; no structural assessment was carried out and no partition plan was prepared. It is further submitted that in the present case two mutually contradictory site plans have been filed and the site plan filed at the time of institution of the suit is correct and the subsequent site plan is incorrect being bereft of proper measurements and depicting incorrect boundary walls.
9. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the Ld. Local Commissioner had acted in an unbiased and impartial manner and he was appointed with the consent of both the parties.
10. It is not in dispute that the suit property is constructed upto three floors, the ground floor is lying vacant; the Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 6/18 defendant no. 1 is in occupation of the portion of first floor only and the entire second floor and plaintiff is in possession of the other portion of the suit property. Admittedly, no proposal for partition in the suit property by metes and bounds into three parts has been placed on record by defendant no. 1 before this Court or before the Local Commissioner at the time of inspection of the suit property. As per preliminary decree dated 22.01.2025 plaintiffs are held to be entitled to 1/3 rd share and defendant no. 1 and 2 are also held to be entitled to 1/3 rd share each in the suit property i.e., 2230, Shankar Gali, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi measuring 236.76 sq. yds. Thus, it is clear that the suit property is required to be divided into three equal parts. There is nothing in the cross- examination of Ld. Local Commissioner to indicate that he had acted in biased and partial manner. The suit property is situated in congested area and is in dilapidated state as apparent from the photographs placed on record by the Ld. Local Commissioner. At present, as per the site plan, there is only one staircase to reach the first and second floor of the suit property. The site plan filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint has also not been specifically challenged in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant.
11. It is not the case of the defendant no. 1 that he can afford to have three front gates and then three separate staircases for reaching the first and second floor of the suit property. There is nothing in the objections filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 to indicate that the suit property can be conveniently divided by metes and bounds in three equal Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 7/18 parts keeping in view the present day requirements of the respective family of the parties. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, there is no reason to reject the report filed by the Ld. Local Commissioner wherein it is reported that the suit property cannot be divided by metes and bounds. Ample opportunities have been given to the parties to workout settlement, but in vain. Accordingly, this court would now proceed to discuss the principles governing auction sale of suit property hereinafter. PRINCIPLES OF AUCTION SALE
12. Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 is reproduced as under:
"2. Power to court to order sale instead of division in partition suits- Whenever in any suit for partition in which, if instituted prior to the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition might have been made, it appears to the court that. by reason of the nature of the property to which the suit relates, or of the number of the shareholders therein, or of any other special circumstance, a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial For all the shareholders, the court may, If it thinks fit, on the request of any of such shareholders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, direct a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds."
13. The Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has dealt with the issue of sale of property in Partition in Case bearing O. REF. no. 2/2018 in CS(OS) 1098/2005 titled as Indu Singh and Another Versus Prem Chaudhary and Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 8/18 Others. (D.O.D 11.05.2018). The relevant para nos.4 to 6 of the said Judgment are reproduced as under:
"4(i). The meaning of "partition , in one more ‟sense, is to give a person his monetary value of the share in the joint properties. Before passing of the Partition Act 1893, the concept of partition only meant partition by metes and bounds or physical partition of the joint properties. In many cases on account of the fact that physical partition by metes and bounds was not possible, there hence resulted a stalemate, because neither the properties could be physically partitioned by metes and bounds nor could sale take place of the joint properties because there was no concept prevalent of partition having the effect of giving a person his monetary value share in the joint properties by selling the joint properties. Partition Act was enacted to remedy this failing. By the Partition Act it was provided for the first time that in case a joint property could not be physically partitioned by metes and bounds (including by applying the principle of owelty or equalization) then in such a scenario the joint property could be sold. I may note that owelty means that when by physical partition a co-owner gets less or more physical property than falling to as per his percentage share in a joint property, then in such a case final partition is effected by, besides physically partitioning the property, in addition also awarding a monetary amount to a person who gets a lesser share of the property on partition than the monetary value equivalent of his share. The person who gets a share which is larger than his monetary value entitlement on partition becomes liable to pay a monetary amount to a person who gets a share Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 9/18 lesser than is his monetary value entitlement of his share in the joint property/properties. Owelty principle is thus an equalization principle. "(ii) Enactment of the Partition Act however did not provide a complete cure because an entitlement to sell the joint property/properties was only when more than one moiety or upwards of the shareholders agree that the joint property/properties are to be sold. Moiety means 50% or a half share.
Therefore, in a scenario where less than 50% of the joint owner(s) wanted an order of sale, then such an order of sale could not be passed. Therefore though the bringing into force of the Partition Act did remedy some shortcoming in the position of the partition law prevailing before the passing of the Partition Act by entitling the sale of the joint property/properties, yet even after passing of this Act there still remained a failing/shortcoming in the situation where if 50% or more of the joint owners did not agree for sale then once again there was a stalemate because partition could not be effected of the joint property/properties either by physical partition by metes and bounds or by selling the joint property/properties and giving a monetary value from the sale proceeds of the joint property/properties to a co-owner as per his share percentage in the joint property/properties. We note that there is an aspect with respect to an order of sale under the Partition Act to be deemed to be a decree in terms of Section 8 of the Partition Act, and this aspect will be adverted to in detail hereinafter inasmuch as the provision of Section 8 of the Partition Act existing in this Act is the main reason for reference to this Full Bench.
"5(i). The Partition Act was passed in the year 1893 Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 10/18 and Code of Civil Procedure was passed later in the year 1908. There are two provisions of CPC which are relevant to the issues at hand, and which are the provisions of Order XX Rule 18 and Order XXVI Rule 14. These provisions have already been reproduced above.
"(ii) A reference to Order XX Rule 18 CPC shows that properties of which partition take place are of two types. First type of properties are agricultural properties i.e. those properties which pay land revenue to the Government. Qua such properties the provision of Sub-Rule (1) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC applies. Second type of properties are the properties in urban areas and with respect to partition of such properties, it is the provision of Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 which applies. "(iii) As per Order XX Rule 18 Sub-Rule (1) in a suit for partition there is only one decree which is passed and the ministerial act of physical division of joint property/properties is left to the Collector or a person deputed by the Collector as is provided in Section 54 CPC. Therefore, with respect to partition suits of properties paying land revenue to the Government, after a decree was passed declaring the shares of the parties, then by the same decree the Collector or a person deputed by the Collector is appointed to bring about physical division of the properties in terms of the shares declared in the decree. "(iv) So far as urban immovable properties are concerned which are not the subject matter of Sub- Rule (1) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC, Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC provides that where partition cannot be conveniently made without further enquiry, then first a preliminary decree is passed declaring shares/rights of the parties, and Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 11/18 thereafter further directions as are required in the facts and circumstance of each case are passed. Of course, even with respect to immovable properties which are subject matter of Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC there can be cases where it may not be required to pass first only a preliminary decree, and that in certain cases a Court can pass both a preliminary and final decree by one judgment if the properties which are subject matter of the suit for partition are such that the Court can physically divide the joint properties in terms of the shares of the joint owners.
"(v) Of course, the factum of physical division of the properties, whether under Sub-Rule (1) or under Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC, the same would also be; where facts of a case so require; by also applying the principle of owelty, because surely and in many cases partition by metes and bounds does result in a person getting that physical share of the property/properties which will be less or more than the monetary value percentage share of that co-owner/joint owner in the properties. The principle of owelty (i.e. an equalization amount) is found and clearly so specified under Order XXVI Rule 14 Sub-Rule (1), and this Sub-Rule (1) of Order XXVI Rule 14 will apply to partition of the properties which are subject matter of both Sub-
Rule (1) and Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC.
"6.(i) At this stage it will be extremely relevant to note two important aspects. (ii) First aspect is that while Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC provides that a court may on account of the facts and circumstances as regards the properties which are subject matter of the suit for partition, find that Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 12/18 straightaway a final decree for partition cannot be passed giving physical shares in the joint properties to the joint owners, then therefore in such cases, the court passes only a preliminary decree declaring the shares of the parties, and that after passing of the preliminary decree, a court has; as per the last line and set of words of Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC; powers to pass "such further directions as may be required". These words appearing at the end of the Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC are very important and of great significance because these words in my opinion has removed the shortcoming which had still remained in spite of passing of the Partition Act as regards the situation when moiety or upwards of the shareholders did not want sale of the suit properties. With respect to properties which were not subject matter of payment of land revenue to the government, then with respect to such properties which are subject matter of Order XX Rule 18 Sub-Rule (2) CPC, court was given intendedly the power to pass such further directions as may be required, and such a wide expression therefore in my opinion will entitle a civil court to order for sale of the joint property/properties even if moiety or upwards of the shareholders do not want sale of the joint property/properties. This language of the last few words at the end of Order XX Rule 18 Sub-Rule (2) in my opinion becomes very important and relevant in today s age and date because a ‟considerable number of immovable properties which are subject matter of suits for partition are properties which have been constructed many decades earlier and which is the next aspect which is being immediately adverted to hereinafter.
Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 13/18 "(iii) The second aspect is that over a period of time in urban areas the covered area of construction which is permissible on a plot has been steadily increasing. For example, in Delhi previously on a plot ordinarily a ground floor, first floor and a barsati floor (part second floor) was only allowed to be constructed. Barsati floor means that the entire second floor is not allowed to be covered but the second floor which is called as a barsati floor is allowed to be only partly covered. The municipal law thereafter changed whereby almost the entire second floor was allowed to be covered.
Thereafter, the municipal law has further changed and a third floor was allowed to be constructed, besides allowing construction of a basement on a property. Now in addition to a plot having a basement and four floors, in view of the scarcity of parking of vehicles in a city like Delhi on account of the existence of unending number of vehicles, stilt parking is also permitted to be made below the ground floor and above the basement floor. Since the ultimate object and the real intention of the joint properties being partitioned is to give a person his monetary value equivalent of his percentage share in the joint property/properties, and since now additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/covered area permissible, therefore in old constructed properties, simply by physically dividing the existing construction the same does not result in a person getting his monetary value of his percentage share in the joint property/properties. Partition therefore really in today's date and age in urban areas is a partition in terms of FAR/covered area, and once that is so, then on such FAR/covered area being available to a co- owner/joint owner then such a Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 14/18 person may/would/could want to reconstruct for enjoying more constructed area falling to his share, and which will necessarily require bringing down the old construction and thereafter making fresh construction on the plot of basement plus four floors and stilt parking. Thus, in very old constructed properties simply physically partitioning of such joint property/properties is not the answer, and the joint property/properties in many cases have necessarily to be sold so as to give a person his actual monetary share value in the joint property/properties. At this stage I would hasten to add that with respect to sale of a joint property, the entitlement of a co-owner in terms of Sections 3,4, 6 and 7 of the Partition Act come in, whereby on an order being passed of sale of a joint property, the sale is not necessarily and firstly by public auction/sale, because firstly in the sale proceedings, one or more co-owners can buy out the other co- owner/co-owners i.e. rights of pre- emption. "(iv) Therefore in my opinion the words as found in the last line of Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC would result in a position that as of today there no longer exists any gap or shortcoming or failing which would result in a stalemate if joint owner(s), having less than a 50% share, ask for his/their share by filing a suit for partition of the joint property/properties."
14. This Court has carefully perused the record. Before proceeding to ascertain the mode of partition, it is important to mention that as far as relief no. (b), (c) & (d) of the prayer clause in the plaint are concerned, the same have neither been pressed for nor any issues have been framed in this regard. Therefore, the said reliefs have not Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 15/18 been considered by this Court. Further, it is clear that the size of suit property no.1 i.e., 236.76 sq. yds. is quite small vis-à-vis the number of shareholders herein, situated in congested area, and in dilapidated state, thus, it is not feasible to divide the said property by metes and bounds. However, considering the discussion above in the light of facts and circumstances of the present matter as well as in view of the submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs and the report filed by the Ld. Court Commissioner, it is evident that the only mode which is practically available under the law is to auction the property in question or to invoke Section-3 of the Partition Act, 1893. However, final decree is required to be passed before invoking Section-3 of the Partition Act, 1893. Further, final decree is required to be engrossed upon non-judicial stamp paper, as has been dealt by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid Judgment and the relevant operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
"ORDER OF THE FULL BENCH (Per majority, R.K. Gauba, J, dissenting):
"I. An order of sale passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is a final decree in a partition suit, and all proceedings towards sale of the property which is subject matter of the final decree of partition, have to take place in execution proceedings of this final decree.
"II. An order of sale in a partition suit passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is an instrument of Partition under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act and requires to be stamped in accordance with Article 45 of the Schedule thereof.
"III. The judgments of this Court in the cases of Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 16/18 K.N. Khanna 2000 (55) DRJ 544: 2000 (87) DLT 286 (DB) and Sushil Kumar Gupta v. Smt. Prem CS No. 998/16 Om Bala & Ors. vs. Prakasho & Ors. Page 16 Gupta and Ors. 2013 (135) DRJ 341 (DB) are hereby overruled."
15. Section 8 of the Partition Act, 1893 is also reproduced hereunder:
"8. Orders for sale to be deemed decrees -Any order for sale made by the court under section 2,3 or 4 shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1552)."
16. RELIEF Accordingly, the following order is passed:
FINAL ORDER
17. (A) The suit property bearing no. 2230, Shankar Gali, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi measuring 236.76 sq. yds. as shown in site plan Mark A, shall be sold out in auction and the auction amount, after deducting necessary expenses, shall be distributed amongst the parties, as per their respective re-casted shares ascertained by way of preliminary decree passed vide order dated 22.01.2025. The parties are, however, at liberty to invoke Section 3 of the Partition Act at the time of execution of the Final Decree. (B) The Final decree in this case is required to be engrossed upon non-judicial papers as an order of sale in a partition suit passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is an instrument of Partition under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act and requires to be stamped in accordance with Article 45 of the Schedule thereof. The parties are directed to place on record the non-judicial stamp papers of Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 17/18 requisite amount, as per Article 45, in accordance with their shares.
(C) If one party or more than one party fails to deposit the non-judicial stamp papers of their respective shares, then the other party(s) is/are at liberty to file the non-judicial stamp paper of the value of the defaulting party and the amount so spent by such party(s) shall be recoverable as a cost and the auction amount of the defaulting party(s) shall be reduced accordingly against the said cost and shall be paid to the party who bore the expenses of defaulting party.
(D) In the meantime, parties are restrained from creating any third-party interest in the suit property till the said property is sold out in auction or Sec. 3 of Partition Act is invoked, whichever the case may be.
18. Accordingly, the Final Decree is directed to be drawn only upon submission of the requisite Stamp papers.
19. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly in terms of this judgment.
20. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 19.02.2026.
(PANKAJ ARORA) DISTRICT JUDGE-16/ CENTRAL:
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI/19.02.2026 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.02.20 16:10:17 +0530 Suit No. 428/2022 Deepa Kalra & Ors. Vs. Som Nath Kalra & Anr. Page no. 18/18