Delhi District Court
Satish Kumar Arora And Ors vs Ramesh Chander And Ors on 18 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Civ DJ 608538/16
CNR Number: DLWT01-000024-2008
In the matter of:
1. Satish Kumar Arora
2.Deepak Arora
Both sons of late Sh. J.L. Krishan @
Baldev Krishan
Both at 3016/1, 1st Floor,
Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi.
Presently residing at Madhav Kunj Society
Flat No. 34, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
3. Ms. Kiran Monga (daughter of Shri J.L. Krishan)
W/o Shri Janak Raj Monga
R/o A-109, Dewawal Nagar,
New Delhi. ..... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Shri Ramesh Chander,
R/o 3016/1, Ground Floor,
Ranjeet Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
2. Ms. Madhu Arora,
D/o late Shri Tilak Raj Arora,
R/o 3016/1, Ground Floor,
Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Mrs. Mohini
D/o late Shri Tilak Raj Arora
R/o 9/2, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
4.Ms. Neeru
5.Ms. Rosy
6.Mrs. Manju
D/o late Shri T.R.Arora
All C/o Ms. Madhu Arora
Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 1 of 22
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.12.18
17:44:14 +0530
3016/1, Ground Floor,
Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi.
7. Shri Anil Kumar Arora (deceased)
Late S/o Shri Harbans Lal
Through his LRs
i)Smt. Vanita Arora (wife)
ii) Mr. Nipun Arora (son)
both residents of
2979/4A, Second Floor, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi.
iii) Mrs. Nidhi Chopra (daughter)
R/o 7/53, Third Floor, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
iv) Mrs. Neetu Swati Bhatia (daughter)
R/o 3/5C, Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
8. Shri Anup Arora
9. Shri Ashok Arora
both sons of Shri Harbans Lal
10. Mrs. Veena
D/o Shri Harbans Lal
C/o Shri Anil Arora
All three at First Floor of 3016/1,
Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi.
11. Smt. Kamlesh Kharbanda
D/o Smt. Prakashwati
B-52, T-1, DDA Flats,
Dilshad Garden,
New Delhi-110095.
12.Shri Balkrishan Kwatra
S/o Smt. Prakashwati
C/o K.R. Export,
37, SKC RD,
Erode- 638001
Tamilnadu.
13. Smt. Veena Kapoor
D/o Smt. Prakash Wati
28B, Pocket-1, DDA MIG
Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 2 of 22
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2025.12.18
DAGAR 17:45:07
+0530
New Kondli, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-3, New Delhi-110096.
14. Mrs. Rekha Gulati
D/o Smt. Prakash Wati
202B, DDA MIG,
Green Flats,
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027.
15. Mrs. Neena Chadha
D/o Smt. Prakash Wati
1502, Timber Oaks Road,
Edison, NJ 08820,
United States of America.
16. Shri Lalit Kwatra
S/o Smt. Sumitra Devi
RG-A-8,
Raghubir Nagar,
New Delhi-110027.
17. Shri Ashok Puri,
S/o Sumitra Devi
R/o 51/2,
Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-60.
18. Shri Ashwani Puri
S/o Smt. Sumitra Devi
Prem Fancy Corner
Shop No. B-5,
Sona Shopping Centre,
31, Hill Road, Opp. New Talkies,
Mumbai-400052.
19. Ms. Saroj Sintholia
S/o Smt. Sumitra
2/30, Third Floor,
Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
20. Mrs. Mala Biryani (exparte)
S/o Smt. Sumitra
Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 3 of 22
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2025.12.18
DAGAR 17:45:11
+0530
502, Exotique,
17th Road, Khar,
Mumbai-400052.
21.Mrs. Meena Dadlani (exparte)
S/o Smt. Sumitra
301, Exotique,
17th Road, Khar,
Mumbai-400052.
22. Smt. Sudharshan Luthra
D/o late Shri Sunder Dass
R/o C-33, Inder Puri,
New Delhi.
23. Smt. Chanderkanta Sachdev
D/o late Shri Sunder Dass
R/o 5B/21, Tilak Nagar,
Near Malik Jewellers,
New Delhi.
24. Smt. Sushila Devi (deceased)
W/o late Shri Harbans Lal
R/o 3016/1, First Floor,
Ranjeet Nagar,
New Delhi- 110008. ..... Defendants
Date of institution : 01.12.2008
Date of reserved for judgment : 31.10.2025
Date of judgment : 18.12.2025
Suit for partition and permanent injunction
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs, seeking a preliminary and final decree for partition of the property bearing No. 3016/1, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi hereinafter known as a "suit property", along with a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs claimed co-ownership as legal heirs of late Sh. Sunder Dass, asserting that he died intestate, and Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 4 of 22 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.12.18 17:45:18 +0530 the property devolved upon all his legal heirs.
2. The defendants, primarily defendants No. 1, 17, 22, 23, and defendants No. 2-6, vehemently contested the suit. Their primary defence was that late Sh. Sunder Dass executed a valid Will dated 03.04.1961, bequeathing the suit property to his wife for life, and thereafter absolutely to his sons Sh. Ramesh Chander (D-1) and Sh. Tilak Raj (father of D-2 to D-6), thereby excluding the plaintiffs' father namely Sh. J.L. Krishan @ Baldev Krishan and other heirs. They further asserted that a registered partition deed dated 08.08.2002 was executed between Sh. Ramesh Chander and Sh. Tilak Raj, dividing the property. Defendants No. 7 to 10 supported the plaintiffs' claim for partition, challenging the validity of the alleged Will and Partition Deed. This Court has carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence adduced by the parties, the documents on record, and the written and oral submissions made by the learned Counsels. Brief facts of the case
3. It is averred by the plaintiff that the suit property, a three-story structure built in the 1950s at 3016/1, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi, was purchased by late Sh. Sunder Dass via a registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1955. Sh. Sunder Dass died intestate in 1963, leaving behind four sons and four daughters as his legal heirs, each entitled to a 1/8th share. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Sh. J.L. Krishan @ Baldev Krishan, one of the sons of Sh. Sunder Dass, who passed away in the year 2006. Defendants No. 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of Sh. Tilak Raj, another son, and Defendants No. 7 to 10 are the legal heirs of Sh. Harbans Lal, a third son.
Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 5 of 22 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2025.12.18 17:45:24 +0530
4. The plaintiffs claimed to be in part possession of portions on the first and second floors of the suit property. Disputes arose around July/August 2008 when Defendant No. 1 and his son allegedly demolished a grill on the top floor and hammered the first-floor roof, causing cracks. A subsequent incident on 15.11.2008 involved the demolition of a first-floor passage wall and a tin shed on the ground floor, leading to police intervention. The plaintiffs alleged threats of dispossession and refusal to partition, necessitating the present suit. Defence of defendant no. 1, 17, 22 & 23 (and defendant no. 2-6)
5. In their WS, these defendants contended that the suit property was the self-acquired property of late Sh. Sunder Dass, who executed a valid Will dated 03.04.1961. As per the Will, his wife Smt. Mathra Devi received a life estate, and thereafter, the property was bequeathed equally to his sons Sh. Ramesh Chander (D-1) and Sh. Tilak Raj. The plaintiffs' father, Sh. J.L. Krishan @ Baldev Krishan, and the daughters of Sh. Sunder Dass were specifically excluded or given limited rights. Following the death of Smt. Mathra Devi, Sh. Ramesh Chander and Sh. Tilak Raj executed a registered Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002, dividing the property into front and back portions, respectively. Municipal mutations and house tax records were subsequently updated reflecting this division. They asserted that the plaintiffs are mere licensees, having no right, title, or interest in the property, and their possession, if any, is permissive and has become unauthorized. They denied allegations of demolition or harassment and claimed that the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts, including the existence of the Will.
Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 6 of 22 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2025.12.18 17:45:28 +0530 Defence of defendants no. 7 to 10
6. These defendants supported the plaintiffs' contention that late Sh. Sunder Dass died intestate. They denied that any valid Will or Partition Deed was executed. They claimed an 1/8th share in the property as heirs of Sh. Harbans Lal and had no objection to the partition of the suit property among all legal heirs. They submitted that the Will had not been proved in accordance with law.
Replication by the plaintiffs
7. The plaintiffs, in their replication, vehemently denied the existence or validity of the Will dated 03.04.1961, labeling it as forged, fabricated, and concocted. They asserted that Sh. Sunder Dass died intestate, and therefore, the property devolved through intestate succession upon all legal heirs. They challenged the 2002 Partition Deed as invalid, having been executed by non-owners. They further contended that the upper floors of the suit property were constructed jointly by the plaintiffs and other co-owners, and they relied on a 1976 Agreement to prove joint liability and repayment of a loan for construction. They denied being licensees and asserted their rights as co-owners in joint possession. Issues for determination
8. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court for determination:
1.Whether the Will dated 03rd April 1961 was validly executed by late Shri Sunder Dass? OPD-1, 17, 22, 23 and 2-6.
2.Whether any partition deed dated 08th August 2002 was validly executed by Shri Tilak Raj and Shri Ramesh Chander? If so, to what Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 7 of 22 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.12.18 17:45:32 +0530 effect? OPD1 and 2-6.
3.Whether the agreement dated 13th December 1976 was executed between the plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 1, Shri Tilak Raj (Father of defendant no. 2 to 6) and Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Harbans Lal? OPP
4.Whether the plaintiffs are in the possession of the first and second floor of the suit property as per the site plan filed by them in their own rights? OPP
5.Whether the defendant no. 1 has damaged the boundary wall of the first and second floor, thereby causing substantial damage to the rooms in occupation of the plaintiffs and disconnected the water supply to the upper floors so as to make the said floors not habitable? OPP
6.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the preliminary decree of partition of the suit property? OPP
7.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction? OPP
8.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a final decree of partition of the suit property? OPP
9. Relief.
Evidence adduced Plaintiffs' Evidence:
9. It is critical to note that the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence in support of their case.
Defendants' Evidence:
10. In order to prove his case, the defendants examined Shri Ramesh Chander as DW1. On 10.10.2012, the DW1 tender his evidence by way Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 8 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.12.18
17:45:35
+0530
of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the documents Will dated 03.04.2016 as Mark A, copy of application dated 11.07.2002 filed with the office of the Assistant Deputy / Assessor and Collector, House Tax Department MCD Zone, Karol Bagh Delhi applying for mutation and individual assessment in respect of front side portion of the suit property Ex. DW1/2, a copy of individual assessment / mutation / sub division document allowing mutation in respect of suit property in the name of DW1 and his brother Tilak Raj Ex. DW1/3, original house tax receipt in his name for the years 2004 to 2008 Ex.DW1/4, original water, electricity and telephone connection bills in his name Ex. DW1/5 Mark B and Ex. DW1/7, partition-deed dated 08.08.2002 Ex. DW1/8, police complaint dated 24.07.2007 and 13.06.2009 Ex DW1/9 and Ex. DW1/10, photographs clicked in February 2011 of the stair way leading to upper floors of the suit premises Ex. DW1/11 and Ex. DW1/12, six colour photographs clicked in February 2011 of terrace on the top of 1 st floor i.e. second floor of the suit property Ex. DW1/13 to Ex. DW1/18 and letter dated 10.02.2011 alongwith copies of four election I cards Mark C.
11. DW-1 Shri Ramesh Chander (D-1) deposed that the suit property was self-acquired by Sh. Sunder Dass, who executed a Will dated 03.04.1961 bequeathing the property to his wife for life, and then to DW-1 and Sh. Tilak Raj equally. He stated that a registered Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002 divided the property, with the front portion going to him and the back portion to Sh. Tilak Raj. He produced mutation records, tax receipts, and utility bills. He claimed plaintiffs were licensees, their possession permissive, and denied any demolition or Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 9 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:45:39 +0530 harassment. He alleged the 1976 agreement was forged. In cross- examination, he admitted that the property was constructed with his and Tilak Raj's assistance, a loan of Rs. 8,000/- was jointly repaid, and plaintiffs previously resided there, with an electricity connection in the plaintiff's name.
12. DW2 Shri Dilip Kumar Sachdeva tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2. He stated to be the attesting witness of the Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002 Ex. DW1/8. He confirmed its execution by Sh.
Tilak Raj and Sh. Ramesh Chander and his attestation before the Sub- Registrar. He is a maternal grandson of late Sh. Sunder Dass.
13. DW-3 Shri Umed Singh, Advocate, draftsman and attesting witness to the Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002, confirmed drafting the deed on instructions of both executants and their signing in his presence, followed by his and DW-2's attestation before the Registrar.
14. D22W1 Smt. Sudharshan Luthra is the daughter of late Sh. Sunder Dass. She confirmed the existence of the Will dated 03.04.1961, stating it bequeathed the property only to Tilak Raj and Ramesh Chander. In cross- examination, she admitted she could not identify the Will Mark-A or read English, and partially contradicted the defence by admitting that the front portion of the first floor was constructed by the plaintiffs.
15. D23W1 Smt. Chandrakanta Sachdev, another daughter of late Sh. Sunder Dass. She confirmed the Will dated 03.04.1961. In cross- examination, she admitted that a loan was taken against the property and an agreement was executed in the year 1976 for loan repayment. She further stated that the property was divided under that agreement, though Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 10 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.12.18 17:45:44 +0530 she could not identify the agreement Mark-B.
16. D1W3 Shri Ashok Puri is the maternal grandson of late Sh. Sunder Dass. He supported the Will and defendants' version but admitted he did not remember seeing the Will. The partition was not executed in his presence, and Plaintiff No. 1 lived on the first floor for a long time. His testimony lacked personal knowledge.
17. D1W4 Shri Swatantra Kumar, from North DMC is the official witness who produced mutation records dated 11.07.2002, showing mutation in favour of Tilak Raj and Ramesh Chander.
18. D1W5 Shri Desh Bandhu Gosain, from Sub-Registrar Office is the official witness who produced the original registered Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002, confirming its registration.
19. DW-7 Shri Nipun Arora, LR of D-7 claimed Sh. Sunder Dass died intestate and relied on the 1976 agreement, claiming possession. In cross- examination, he admitted being born after death of Shri Sunder Dass. He stated never to have seen the agreement being executed and could not identify signatures. He further admitted that the agreement lacked the signatures of the daughters and Baldev Krishan i.e. plaintiffs' father. He also admitted no family member resided in the suit property since 2012- 13 and that his father's Written Statement did not mention the 1976 agreement. His testimony was largely based on hearsay and self- contradictory.
Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. Final aguments.
20. I have heard final arguments as addressed by Ld. Counsel for Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 11 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:45:48 +0530 plaintiff and Ld. Counsels for defendants.
21. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, defendant no. 2 to 6 and defendant no. 7 to 10 have filed written synopsis of their arguments. Ld Counsel for defendant no. 1 who is plaintiff in the connected matter bearing Civ DJ No. 609663/2016 titled as Ramesh Chander v. Satish Kumar Arora which are read in this matter as well.
Plaintiffs.
22. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently argued that the Will dated 03.04.1961 is forged, fabricated, and unproven, as no executor or attesting witness was examined, violating Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They highlighted the absence of probate and the late surfacing of the Will. They asserted that Sh. Sunder Dass died intestate, making the property ancestral and devolving upon all legal heirs. They relied on the 1976 agreement and admitted facts regarding joint loan repayment and plaintiffs' long possession. They sought a declaration that the Will and Partition Deed are null and void. Defendant No. 1:
23. Learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 relied on the Will dated 03.04.1961 and the subsequent Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002. It was contended that if the Will is accepted, the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest. Ld. Counsel has referred to Section 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that Will must ordinarily be proved by examining at least one attesting witness as per Section 68 Indian Evidence Act but if no attesting witness is present i.e. if both attesting witness are dead or cannot be found, the Will can still be proved provided Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 12 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:45:52 +0530 that the handwriting / signatures of at least one attesting witness is proved and the signatures/ handwriting of the attestator is proved. It is submitted that circumstantial evidence may be taken as the document is more than 30 years old. It is submitted that neither witness nor LR of any witness could be traced despite best efforts. The sisters have supported the case of the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 2 to 6 are exparte. Ld Counsel has referred to Section 90 of the Evidence Act to submit that the Court may presume due execution and due attestation of the Will as there is presumption regarding the the signature and every other part of such document which is 30 years old. Also future conduct of the parties i.e. execution of partition deed, house tax of property in name of defendant no. 1 and 2 to 6 can be looked into. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 has filed case laws in support of his arguments : Banwari Lal Charitable Trust v. UOI CP (C) 15897/2006 decided on 18.09.2009 and Harvinder Singh and another v. Ranjit Kaur (deceased) through her legal heirs and others RFA No. 250/1994 decided on 18.01.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court in support of his arguments.
Defendants No. 2 to 6:
24. Learned counsel for these defendants echoed the arguments regarding the validity of the Will dated 03.04.1961, emphasizing that Sh.
Sunder Dass was the absolute owner, and the Will lawfully bequeathed the property to his two sons after his wife's life interest. They argued that the property was lawfully partitioned, and mutations and tax payments corroborate ownership. They invoked the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for documents over 30 years old. He Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 13 of 22 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.12.18 17:45:56 +0530 has relied upon the case law Shyam Sunder Chowkhani Alias Chand v. Kajal Kanti Biswas AIR 1999 GAU 101 in support of his arguments. Defendants No. 7 to 10:
25. Learned Counsel for these defendants supported the plaintiffs' stance, arguing that the Will was not proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sections 68-69 of the Indian Evidence Act, due to the non-examination of attesting witnesses. They contended that a Partition Deed based on an unproved Will cannot stand and expressed no objection to partition among all legal heirs. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 7 has orally argued that the Will is only marked and not exhibited. He has referred to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act alongwith Section 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 7 to 10 has relied upon the case law in support of his arguments Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi Versus Mrudula Jyoti Rao (2006) 13 SC 433.
Court observations and findings Issue wise findings Issue No. 1: Whether the Will dated 03rd April 1961 was validly executed by late Shri Sunder Dass? OPD-1, 17, 22, 23 and 2-6.
26. The onus to prove the valid execution of the Will dated 03.04.1961 rested squarely on the defendants who asserted its existence (OPD-1, 17, 22, 23 and 2-6). Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, mandates that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness 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.
Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 14 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:46:00 +0530
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, specifies the requirements for the execution of a Will.
27. In this case, the defendants have presented evidence from D22W1 and D23W1, daughters of late Sh. Sunder Dass, who confirmed the existence of the Will and stated it was prepared in their presence. Critically, D22W1 and D23W1, while not attesting witnesses themselves, provided testimony supporting the execution of the Will. The argument for applying the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for documents over 30 years old, is particularly strong in this context. While the Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh v. Shamsher Singh (2009) 3 SCC 687 observed that the presumption under Section 90 does not apply to Wills with the same rigor as other documents because a Will must be proved under Section 68 Indian Evidence Act. In Ashutosh Samanta v. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi and Others (2023) SCC OnLine SC 255 clarifies that where attesting witnesses are dead or unavailable due to the passage of time, the Court can rely on Section 69 and the antiquity of the document to find it proved, provided it comes from proper custody.
28. Given the age of the Will which is over 60 years old, it is highly probable that the attesting witnesses are no longer alive or traceable. In such circumstances, Section 69 Evidence Act regarding proof where Attesting Witnesses are Unavailable will apply. Since the Will dates back to 1961, it is practically impossible to produce attesting witnesses. In V. Kalyanaswamy (D) by Lrs. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (2020) SCC OnLine SC 584, the Supreme Court held that if the attesting witnesses are dead, it is sufficient to prove that the signature of the testator and at least one Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 15 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:46:05 +0530 attesting witness are in their respective handwritings.
29. The collective testimony of DW-1, D22W1, and D23W1, coupled with the presumption under Section 90 Indian Evidence Act, provides sufficient corroboration for the valid execution of the Will. Furthermore, as held in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443, once the propounder proves the prima facie genuineness of the Will, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to prove "suspicious circumstances." In the present case, the plaintiffs led no evidence to prove forgery or fraud.
30. The fact that the Will was merely "marked" by the Court does not detract from the defendants' efforts to prove its contents through testimony and the presumption of antiquity. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have failed to lead any evidence to rebut this presumption or prove forgery, beyond mere allegations. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the defendants on whom the onus of proof lies and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 2: Whether any partition deed dated 08th August 2002 was validly executed by Shri Tilak Raj and Shri Ramesh Chander? If so, to what effect? OPD1 and 2-6.
31. The onus to prove the valid execution of the Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002 was on the defendants (OPD1 and 2-6). The defendants have presented overwhelming evidence to prove its execution and registration. DW-2 Shri Dilip Kumar Sachdeva, an attesting witness, and DW-3 Shri Umed Singh, the draftsman and another attesting witness, both testified to the execution of the Partition Deed by Sh. Tilak Raj and Sh. Ramesh Chander in their presence and their subsequent attestation before the Sub-
Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 16 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:46:09 +0530
Registrar. D1W5 from the Sub-Registrar's Office produced the original registered Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002, confirming its registration details. D1W4 from North DMC produced official mutation records dated 11.07.2002, showing mutation in favour of Tilak Raj and Ramesh Chander, based on this Partition Deed. Under the Registration Act, 1908, a registered document carries a presumption of genuineness. As held in Prem Singh & Ors. v. Birbal & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 353 , "there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed."
32. This evidence conclusively establishes that the Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002 was indeed validly executed by Sh. Tilak Raj and Sh. Ramesh Chander and was duly registered. The effect of this deed is significant, as it was executed by the rightful owners Sh. Tilak Raj and Sh. Ramesh Chander who acquired title through the valid Will of late Sh. Sunder Dass as found in Issue No. 1. Therefore, the Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002 lawfully divided the suit property between Sh. Tilak Raj and Sh. Ramesh Chander, granting them exclusive ownership of their respective portions.
33. Therefore, the Partition Deed dated 08.08.2002 was validly executed and registered by Shri Tilak Raj and Shri Ramesh Chander, and its effect is that it legally partitioned the suit property between them, making them exclusive owners of their respective allotted portions. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2 to 6 and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 3: Whether the agreement dated 13th December 1976 was executed between the plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 1, Shri Tilak Raj Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 17 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:46:13 +0530 /Father of defendant no. 2 to 6 and Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Harbans Lal? OPP
34. The onus to prove the execution of the agreement dated 13.12.1976 was on the plaintiffs (OPP). The plaintiffs have relied upon this agreement but have failed to lead any evidence whatsoever to prove its execution or contents. No witness was called to prove the signatures or the circumstances of its execution. DW-1 Defendant No. 1 explicitly denied its execution and his signatures, alleging it to be forged. DW-7 Shri Nipun Arora, who supported the plaintiffs, admitted he never saw the agreement and could not identify signatures. D23W1, while admitting that an agreement was executed in 1976 for loan repayment, could not identify the specific Mark-B agreement. It is pertinent to mention that an application was moved by the plaintiff to get expert opinion on the said agreement, however, later the plaintiff did not press the said application. In the absence of any evidence from the plaintiffs to prove this document, their claim regarding its existence and validity remains unsubstantiated. Hence, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiffs are in the possession of the first and second floor of the suit property as per the site plan filed by them in their own rights? OPP
35. The onus to prove possession "in their own rights" was on the plaintiffs (OPP). While DW-1 admitted that plaintiffs previously resided in the suit property and an electricity connection on the first floor is in the plaintiff's name, he consistently maintained that their possession was permissive, based on humanitarian grounds, and not as owners. He Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 18 of 22 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.12.18 17:46:17 +0530 further stated that their possession had become unauthorized. DW-2 also stated that plaintiffs largely vacated the property by around 1999.
36. Given the finding in issue No. 1 that the Will was validly executed, the plaintiffs' father namely Sh. J.L. Krishan @ Baldev Krishan was specifically excluded from inheriting the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs, as his legal heirs, cannot claim possession "in their own rights"
as co-owners. Any possession they may have had was, at best, permissive or as licensees, which can be terminated by the rightful owners. The mere existence of an electricity connection in a plaintiff's name does not confer ownership rights, particularly when the underlying title is established elsewhere. Therefore, while the plaintiffs may have had some permissive occupation, they are not in possession of the first and second floors of the suit property in their own rights as co-owners. Hence this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 5: Whether the defendant no. 1 has damaged the boundary wall of the first and second floor, thereby causing substantial damage to the rooms in occupation of the plaintiffs and disconnected the water supply to the upper floors so as to make the said floors not habitable? OPP
37. The onus to prove these allegations was on the plaintiffs (OPP). The plaintiffs detailed specific incidents of demolition and damage and alleged disconnection of water supply. However, the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence to substantiate these claims. They did not produce any police reports as exhibits, nor did they prove the photographs through a witness who took them or could identify the damage depicted. There is no testimony from the plaintiffs or any independent witness regarding these Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 19 of 22 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2025.12.18 17:46:21 +0530 specific acts of damage or disconnection of water supply. DW-1 unequivocally denied all allegations of demolition, threats, and violence.
38. Under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558, the Supreme Court held that "the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. Without any evidence from the plaintiffs to corroborate their allegations to discharge the burden of proof, this issue cannot be decided in their favour. Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is decided against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 6: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the preliminary decree of partition of the suit property? OPP
39. The onus to prove entitlement to a preliminary decree of partition was on the plaintiffs (OPP). A preliminary decree for partition can only be passed if the plaintiffs establish their co-ownership in the suit property.
40. As per the finding in Issue No. 1, the Will dated 03.04.1961 was validly executed by late Sh. Sunder Dass. This Will specifically excluded the plaintiffs' father namely Sh. J.L. Krishan @ Baldev Krishan and the daughters from inheriting the suit property, bequeathing it exclusively to Sh. Ramesh Chander (D-1) and Sh. Tilak Raj father of D-2 to D-6. Consequently, the plaintiffs, as legal heirs of Sh. J.L. Krishan, have no right, title, or interest in the suit property. Having no ownership rights, they cannot claim co-ownership or seek partition of the property. Since the Will excluded the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, they are not "tenants-in-common." Their possession, if any, is merely permissive. A licensee cannot seek partition against the true owner. Accordingly, Issue Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 20 of 22 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:46:25 +0530 No. 6 is decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 7: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction? OPP
41. The onus to prove entitlement to a permanent injunction was on the plaintiffs (OPP). The plaintiffs sought injunctions restraining alterations/construction, dispossession, and creation of third-party rights.
42. Given the finding in Issue No.1 and 6 that the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest in the suit property, they cannot seek a permanent injunction to protect rights they do not possess. An injunction is an equitable remedy granted to protect legal rights. Since the plaintiffs have failed to establish any legal right /co-ownership in the property, their claim for a permanent injunction against the rightful owners cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the specific allegations of damage and harassment as per Issue No. 5 were not proved. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction. Accordingly, Issue No. 7 is decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a final decree of partition of the suit property? OPP
43. The entitlement to a final decree of partition is a consequential relief that flows from the grant of a preliminary decree. Since this Court has found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary decree of partition, the question of granting a final decree does not arise. Accordingly, Issue No. 8 is decided against the plaintiffs. Relief (Issue No. 9)
44. In light of the findings on all the aforesaid issues, the Court Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 21 of 22 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:46:28 +0530 concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to establish any right, title, or interest in the suit property. The defendants have successfully proven the valid execution of the Will dated 03.04.1961, which divested the plaintiffs' father of any inheritance rights in the suit property. The total lack of evidence from the plaintiffs' side necessitates the dismissal of the suit. Consequently, the plaintiffs do not possess the locus standi to seek partition or any injunctive relief concerning the suit property. Therefore, the suit is hereby dismissed.
Costs
45. Considering the circumstances of the case, including the plaintiffs' failure to lead any evidence and the successful defence presented by the contesting defendants, the plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to records after compliance.
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2025.12.18 DAGAR 17:46:32 +0530 Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar) on 18th Day of December 2025 District Judge-08, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. (This judgment contains 22 pages.) Civ DJ 608538/2016 Satish Kumar Arora and ors. v. Ramesh Chander and ors. Page no. 22 of 22