Delhi District Court
Shakuntla Devi vs Ashok Kumar Sharma on 15 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMEET ANAND, DISTRICT
JUDGE-11, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI.
CS DJ No.617042/16
CNR No. DLCT-01-000092-2008
1) Sh. Sushil Chander Sharma,
S/o Late Shri Rajinder Pal Sharma
R/o House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
2) Mrs. Asha Sharma
W/o Sh. S. C. Sharma
R/o House No.B-232, Saraswati Vihar,
New Delhi-110034.
3) Sh. Jugal Kishore Sharma (since deceased )
S/o Late Shri Rajinder Pal Sharma
R/o House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
3a) Kartik Sharma
S/o Late Sh Jugal Kishore
R/o House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
3b) Kunal Sharma
S/o Late Sh Jugal Kishore
R/o House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
4) Mr. Manoj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Jaswant Rai Sharma
R/o House no. 72, First Floor,
Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026
but at present residing at:
AG-1/75-A, Vikas Puri.
5) Sh. Kamal Kishore (since deceased)
5a) Mrs. Amita Sharma
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
CS DJ No.610742/16 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16
Page No. 1 of 53 17:18:34
+0530
W/o Late Kamal Kishore
R/o H-72, First Floor, Shivaji Park,
Punjabi Park, New Delhi-110026
5b) Sh. Rahul Sharma
S/o Late Kamal Kishore
R/o H-72, First Floor, Shivaji Park,
Punjabi Park, New Delhi-110026
5c) Mrs. Reema Sharma
D/o Late Kamal Kishore
R/o House no. 64, Block-E,
Mohan Garden, Bhagwati Garden extension,
New Delhi-110059. ......Plaintiffs
Versus
Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Jaswant Rai Sharma
R/o House No.72, First Floor,
Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
......Defendant
Date of Registration : 15.09.2008
Date of Arguments : 04.04.2026.
Date of Judgment : 15.05.2026
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2026.05.16
17:18:43
+0530
CS DJ No.610742/16
Page No. 2 of 53
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND FOR RECOVERY OF ARREARS
OF MENSE PROFITS/DAMAGES FOR ILLEGAL USE AND
OCCUPATION
JUDGMENT
1. The original plaintiff, Smt. Shakuntala Devi (since deceased) instituted the present suit for possession, and recovery of arrears of mesne profits/damages for illegal use and occupation of the 'Suit Property' against the defendant (Ashok Kumar Sharma). After her death, her three legal heirs were impleaded as plaintiffs, and on their behalf, their eldest brother Sushil Chander Sharma on the strength of Power of Attorney executed by other legal heirs in his favour continued the suit against the defendant. Further, during the course of the trial two brothers of the defendant, namely Manoj Kumar and Kishore Kumar were also impleaded as the plaintiff; and Manoj Kumar on the strength of Power of Attorney executed in his favour by his brother represented him during the trial. Further, after the death of Kishore Kumar, his LRs were impleaded, who also gave Power of Attorney to represent them during the trial to Sushil Chander Sharma.
2. Defendant (Ashok Kumar Sharma) is the nephew of Late Sh. Rajinder Pal Sharma, the deceased husband of the deceased original plaintiff; and son of Late Jaswant Rai Sharma, one of the deceased brothers of deceased husband of the deceased original plaintiff (Smt. Shakuntala Devi).
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon the death of Late Rajender Pal Sharma on 04.06.2021, her wife, the original plaintiff CS DJ No.610742/16 Digitally signed by Page No. 3 of 53 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:18:48 +0530 (Smt. Shakuntala Devi) became the absolute and exclusive owner of the entire property bearing House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 which is a three storey built-up house on a plot on area ad-measuring 249 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as 'The Entire Property'), which was the self acquired property of Late Rajender Pal Sharma, having purchased it from DLF in the year 1952, and who also constructed the house over the plot.
4. The 'First Floor' of the said property is stated to be in the possession of the defendant, of which the plaintiff's are seeking possession, and arrear of mesne profits and damages for illegal occupation. The said portion, i.e. 'First Floor' of the property is hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property".
5. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs claim that after the death of Sh. Rajender Pal Sharma, his wife Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi inherited the entire property being the sole legal successor of her husband by virtue of a Relinquishment Deed executed in her favour by other legal heirs of her deceased husband. And, the property also stands mutated in her name already in the records of MCD since 23.08.2005.
6. Plaintiffs also claim that Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of the defendant) was working in Punjab Police Services, and he came to Delhi sometime in 1956 along with his family in search of job; and Late Sh. Rajender Pal Sharma, the husband of original plaintiff helped him to secure a job in a workshop as mate (helper) from where he retired in 1979.
7. Plaintiffs claim that, since Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of the CS DJ No.610742/16 Digitally signed by Page No. 4 of 53 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:18:53 +0530 defendant) was new to Delhi, therefore, Late Rajender Pal Sharma, the husband of the original plaintiff, allowed him to live in his house at Sarai Rohilla out of love and affection and on humanitarian and compassionate grounds towards his brother without any charges, as he had no other place to live in Delhi and was also without a job, where he lived till 1964. And, till then none of the other brothers of Late Rajender Pal Sharma were living in Delhi.
8. Plaintiffs also claim that Late Rajender Pal Sharma constructed a house on the entire property, including the suit property out of his own funds; and shifted in it in the year 1964. Moreover, since the financial position of his brother Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of the defendant) was not good, therefore, he was allowed to live in the property without any charges out of love and affection and on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
9. Plaintiffs also claim that Late Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of defendant) had four children (03 sons and 01 daughter). They were married in the years 1977, 1976, 1988 & 1984. Further, out of his three sons, one son namely Sh. Kamal (plaintiff no.5) was in a private service in Punjab and was living there; and his other son, namely Sh. Manoj (plaintiff no.4) was an accountant with CPWD being posted at different places at Chandigarh, Faridabad, Nepal and then in Delhi. However, the defendant (Ashok Kumar Sharma), the third son of Late Jaswant Rai Sharma, due to his bad character was not allowed to stay in the entire property by his own father and also by Late Rajender Pal Sharma. And, the defendant used to stay here and there without any knowledge of the plaintiffs.
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND
Page No. 5 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16
17:18:59
+0530
10. Plaintiffs also claim that, since the defendant was having criminal tendencies, he was thrown out of the family sometime in the year 1970, after which he started residing somewhere in Azadpur. That, he was also named in FIR No.780/07, registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, under Section 379 IPC. That, he was also arrested, and was also involved in other heinous offences; and was wanted by police stations of Defence Colony, Special Staff (North) at Kodipur, and Special Staff (West) at Punjabi Bagh. Moreover, when the defendant was working with DTC he also absconded; and was later traced out by IO (Investigating Officer) of police station Punjabi Bagh; and thereafter, he was regularly called to the police station for one or other crime. That, the defendant was involved in different kinds of crimes like snatching, auto-lifting, house breaking, robberies and other thefts. In this regards, the house of the defendant at Azadpur was also raided by the police. That, the defendant was notoriously known in his criminal circles as "Ganza". That, while the defendant was living separately at Azadpur, he also got married against the wishes of his parents and relatives, and started living in MCD quarters in Azadpur till 1982.
11. Plaintiffs also claim that, although the defendant was discarded by one and all of the members of the family /relatives, but in the year 1982, he was brought to the property by his elder brother Manoj (plaintiff no.4), after he came back from Nepal. This was done due to his love for his younger brother and with the intention that he would council him and help him to leave his criminal activities and stay peacefully with the family. However, as at that CS DJ No.610742/16 Digitally signed by Page No. 6 of 53 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:19:06 +0530 time there was no place in the entire property for the defendant to stay, therefore, he was adjusted in an open verandah with his wife and one daughter, at which place he used to live and also used it as his kitchen.
12. Plaintiffs also claim that, subsequently, Manoj (plaintiff No.4), the elder brother of the defendant adjusted the defendant and his family in one room on the 'first floor' of the suit property which was under his occupation. Although, Late Rajender Pal Sharma initially objected to this arrangement, but Manoj (plaintiff no.4), the elder brother of the defendant convinced him to let the defendant stay on the 'first floor' in the suit property with him. Thus, the defendant entered the suit premises and initially occupying only a portion on the 'first floor' in the suit property. Subsequently, Manoj (plaintiff no.4), the elder brother of the defendant got a DDA flat allotted in Vikaspuri in 1986; and he started living with his family there after locking two rooms and kitchen on the 'first floor' in the suit property.
13. It is the case of the plaintiffs and their grievance that the defendant broke open the lock of one room on the 'first floor' of the suit property which was under the occupation of his elder brother Manoj (plaintiff no.4), and the defendant started using it for his own use. Plaintiffs also claim that in this criminal act of the defendant he was helped by his son-in-law Rakesh Kumar. However, because of the intervention of relatives and family members no criminal complaint for house breaking/trespass was lodged with the police against the defendant and his son-in-law. Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 CS DJ No.610742/16 17:19:11 +0530 Page No. 7 of 53
14. It is also the case and the grievance of the plaintiff that, even when the elder brother of the defendant, namely Manoj, objected to the breaking of locks by the defendant, the defendant pleaded and convinced him that since he (Manoj Kumar) has already shifted to his own house in Vikaspuri, and since the two rooms in the suit property are vacant, thus, till the time they are needed by him (Manoj Kumar) for use of his family members, till then, the defendant may be allowed to use the same. That, Manoj Kumar (plaintiff no.4 and the elder brother of defendant) agreed to his arrangement.
15. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that in the year 2005, when the son of Manoj Kumar (plaintiff no.4 and elder brother of the defendant) got married, then he asked the defendant to hand over a room forcefully taken over by him on the 'first floor' in the suit property that, so as to accommodate his newly married son. However, the defendant not only refused to do so, but threatened his own elder brother with dire consequences stating that he will not hand over the possession of the suit property.
16. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that, the father of the defendant (Jaswant Rai Sharma), after coming to Delhi and getting a job purchased a house in East Delhi. But, he never shifted there and gave the same on rent with malafide intention. Thereafter, the father of the defendant sold his house in East Delhi and purchased a DDA flat (Flat no.22, Ground Floor), at Bhat Nagar, Chitra Vihar, Delhi, which is still with the defendant; and the defendant has given the same on rent and is earning a handsome rental income from there and on the other hand he is enjoying free accommodation on the Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND Page No. 8 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:19:22 +0530 'first floor' in the suit property.
17. It is also the case of the plaintiffs, that after the death of mother of the defendant in the year 1999; and the death of his father on 16.02.2002, Late Rajender Pal Sharma requested verbally many times to the defendant to vacate the suit property for his own use, and the use of his family members, but the defendant did not vacate the suit property and kept on postponing the matter on one or other pretext.
18. Further, the plaintiffs claim that after the death of Late Rajender Pal Sharma his wife Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the original plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant through her counsel on 25.08.2008, calling upon him to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit property within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, failing which damages @ Rs.8000/- per month shall be recovered from the defendant with effect from 01.09.2008.
19. It is the case of the plaintiffs and their grievance that despite due service of the legal notice the defendant failed to comply with it and did not hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is illegally, unlawfully and unauthorizedly occupying the suit property without any right, title or interest. Hence, the present suit.
20. The plaintiff has prayed for, and sought the following reliefs in the present suit; viz.
a) A decree for the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 9 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:19:27 +0530 the suit premises i.e. the two rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and common latrine and open space in the front of the first floor of the said property delineated in red in the site plan annexed hereto to this suit, in property No. H-72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026.
b) A decree of Rs. 8000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the illegal use and occupation of the suit premises from 01.09.2008 to 30.09.2008 i.e. for the one month @ Rs. 8000/- per month.
c) A decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for mesne profits/damages pendente lite and future @ Rs. 8000/- per month till the delivery of possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.
d) The plaintiff may by awarded interest @ 18 per month till realization of the payment.
e) The plaintiff may also be awarded costs of the suit.
21. The present suit, after its filing was first listed before this court on 16.09.2008. On the same date, summons for settlement of Issues were issued to the defendant. The defendant entered appearance on the next date of hearing and filed his written statement. The same is on record. Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 CS DJ No.610742/16 17:19:37 Page No. 10 of 53 +0530
22. As per the averment made by the defendant in his written statement, it is the case of the defendant that;viz
(a) He is in occupation of the 'first floor' of the suit property as a lawful owner in his own right, and the plaintiff has no locus standi to claim the relief of the possession against him.
(b) The suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of parties, as all the co-owners of the property have not been arrayed/impleaded as a party to the present suit, including other brothers of the defendant.
(c) The suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued. Further, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The value of the suit property is around Rs. 28-30 Lacs.
(d) The defendant has denied the ownership of the plaintiffs over the entire property, and it is also denied that the entire property was self acquired property of Late Rajender Pal Sharma and that the same was constructed by him out of his own funds.
(e) The defendant has also denied that after the demise of Rajender Pal Sharma, his wife Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi inherited the entire property. It is alleged by the defendant that the mutation of the entire property in the name Late Smt Shakuntala Devi has been obtained fraudulently in collusion and connivance with the brothers of the plaintiff.
(f) It is denied by the defendant that Late Rajender Pal Sharma allowed the defendant and his father to live with him at his Sarai Rohilla house on humanitarian and compassionate grounds without any charges. It is also denied that father of the defendant lived with his brother Rajender Pal Sharma at his Sarai Rohilla House till 1964;
Digitally
signed by
CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET
Page No. 11 of 53 SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2026.05.16
17:19:44
+0530
and that till date none of the other brothers of Late Rajender Pal Sharma were living in Delhi.
(g) It is denied by the defendant that Late Rajender Pal Sharma constructed the house on the entire property with his own funds, and allowed the father of the defendant to live in it with his family. It is also denied that at the time relevant time the financial position of the father of the defendant was not good.
23. In a nutshell, it is also the case of the defendant that, the family of four brothers including Late Rajender Pal Sharma and Late Jaswant Rai Sharma, the father of the defendant have been through out part of a Joint Hindu Undivided Family, which was being managed, run and controlled by Late Smt. Udhmi Devi, i.e. the late grandmother of the defendant, and wife of Late Sh. Parmeshwari Dass, grandfather of the defendant, who originally belonged to village Oel, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pardesh.
24. That Sh. Parmeshwari Dass (grandfather of the defendant) expired when Smt Udhmi Devi was nearly 28 years old, and he left behind his wife, Udhmi Devi and his one daughter and four sons namely; i) Satpal Sharma; ii) Rajender Pal Sharma; iii) Jaswant Rai Sharma; iv) Janak Raj Sharma; and v) Smt. Sheela Devi.
25. It is the case of the defendant, that all the sons of the Late Udhmi Devi studied at the Village School; and except for Satpal Sharma all of them passed Matric from Himachal Pardesh. That, the only source of income of Smt. Udhmi Devi was agricultural land which is still in the joint name of all the family members.
26. That before shifting to Delhi, Jaswant Rai Sharma (Father of Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND Page No. 12 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:19:51 +0530 the defendant) joined Police Service in 1941 in Saharanpur (now in UP). Later on, he left the police services and joined his brothers Rajender Pal Sharma and Janak Raj Sharma who were already working at 505 Workshop at Delhi Cantt established during the British Empire as Indian Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Workshop and also known as 505, Army Base workshop. Further, Satpal Sharma, their another brother, was also working at 505 Army Base workshop as a labourer but he died as a bachelor.
27. As such, all the four brothers, all descendants of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi were residing and living with their respective families together as one unit of the Joint Hindu Undivided Family strictly managed under the control of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi. That all the members of the family shifted to Delhi during 1941-42 and initially lived at Naraina and later on shifted to Sarai Rohilla in a rented house. All the brothers, including Rajender Pal Sharma, and Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of the defendant) were in service at that time and were earning members of the family.
28. It is the case of the defendant that Late Smt. Udhmi Devi got registered/booked a plot (the entire property) in the name of her elder son, Late Rajender Pal Sharma being the eldest male family member as per the custom and traditions prevailing in the Joint Hindu Undivided Family. Pursuant to the same, the property was allotted, and the possession of the same was taken in the year 1952 after remittance of all the requisite installments from the pool of savings from the earning of all the brothers.
29. During the year 1960 the construction on the entire property Digitally signed by SUMEET ANAND SUMEET Date:
CS DJ No.610742/16 ANAND 2026.05.16
17:20:00
Page No. 13 of 53 +0530
was started under the close supervision of family members by utilizing the funds accumulated out of the savings of all the earning members which was maintained and controlled by Smt. Udhmi Devi.
30. The construction on the ground floor of the property was partially completed in the year 1962 and it was initially given on rent to meet further cost and expenses of the construction. Further, in the year 1964 it was mutually decided by the joint family to vacate the rented house and shift to the house built by them in the property. Accordingly, the entire family, including the family of the plaintiff and the defendant and other brothers shifted to the property and continue to live together as Joint Hindu Undivided Family till 1987.
31. In the year 1952, the sale deed of the entire property was executed in the name of Late Rajender Pal Sharma being the eldest son with the understanding that the property throughout shall remain a Joint Property of all the brothers and their children.
32. Further, after the death of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi on 16.06.1970, Late Rajender Pal Sharma, started looking after and managing the entire affairs of the Joint Hindu Undivided Family and got the marriages of the children of the family members from the common pool of earning.
33. Thus, the entire property, including the suit property at the 'first floor' being the property of a Joint Hindu Undivided Family cannot be claimed by the plaintiffs to be belonging to them exclusively. Thus, there is no question of Late Rajender Pal Sharma having allowed the father of the defendant to reside in the property Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 14 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:20:08 +0530 on humanitarian and compassionate grounds without any charges.
34. Further, to meet up the requirements of the grown up children of the joint family, it was mutually decided to undertake the construction at the first floor of the property. The construction of the first floor was started in the year 1971 and it was completed in a phase manner in the year 1974 from the joint funds accumulated from the savings of the all family members.
35. Further, the portion at the first floor was also partially given on rent to meet the further costs and expenses and was partially occupied by Manoj Kumar Sharma. Later on, the entire family of the father of the defendant shifted to the first floor of the property.
36. Moreover, presently all the family members of Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of the defendants) namely Manoj Sharma, Kamal Kishore Sharma as well as the defendant are in the possession of the entire first floor.
37. Later on, in the year 1986, second floor was constructed in the property from the joint funds of savings of Joint Undivided Hindu Family. After the construction of the second floor, Sh. Janak Raj Sharma, other brother of Late Rajender Pal Sharma shifted to the second floor of the property; and is still in possession of the second floor in the property since 1986.
38. It is the case of the defendant that it was mutually decided, agreed and understood between the family members, especially between Late Rajender Pal Sharma and Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of the defendant) that the floors in the entire property respectively occupied by all the brothers shall be owned and possessed by the Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
Page No. 15 of 53 2026.05.16
17:20:16
+0530
them in their own right. And, Rajender Pal Sharma in whose favour the Sale Deed of the property was executed shall execute relevant documents in favour of other brother, so that they can occupy and enjoy the portions in their possession without any obstruction or hindrance. However, unfortunately Late Rajender Pal Sharma died on 04.06.2001; and Late Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of defendant) also died on 16.02.2002. Therefore, the documents for exclusive possession by all the family members of the portions under their control in the property could not be materialized.
39. It is the case of the defendant, that even during the lifetime of Late Rajender Pal Sharma, the proportionate share of the house tax was also paid by the Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of the defendant) to Late Rajender Pal Sharma, and after his death to his wife Late Smt Shakuntala Devi.
40. It is the case of the defendant, and his grievance that, after the death of Late Rajender Pal Sharma, his wife Late Smt Shakuntala Devi, in collusion with Manoj Kumar Sharma (plaintiff no.4) and Kamal Kishore Sharma (plaintiff no.5) (brothers of the defendants) hatched a conspiracy to deprive the defendant of this right in the property; and they fraudulently obtained the signatures of the defendant in good faith on letter dated 14.06.2006 addressed to Assistant Assessor and Collector (West), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. That, the defendant has already submitted a letter of protest dated 09.05.2008 to MCD, requesting to cancel/withdraw the execution of the mutation in favour of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi qua the entire property; and the defendant has also Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 16 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:20:25 +0530 written letter to his brother's to withdraw the letter dated 14.06.2006.
41. It is the case of the defendant, that his father and his mother had been living in the suit property along with their children including the defendant. And, that the present suit has been filed only to pressurize the defendant to withdraw his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by him in Civil Suit no. 62/2007.
42. Rest all the facts averred by the plaintiff in his plaint are specifically denied as wrong by the defendant.
43. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by defendant. After the completion of pleadings, vide order dated 23.12.2008, the following issues were framed for trial; viz.
(1) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? (OPD) (2) Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner of the suit property? (OPP) (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of mesne profits/damages for illegal use and occupations of suit property. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to claim any relief of possession on the plea that defendant is in occupation of the premises in question being lawful owner? (OPD) (5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND Page No. 17 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:20:35 +0530 be dismissed in view of provisions of order 7 Rule 11 CPC? (OPD) (6) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of parties as whole co-owners of the property have not been impleaded by the plaintiff in the array of parties? (OPD) (7) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? (OPD) (8) Relief.
44. In order to prove its case, on the threshold of preponderance of probability, the original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntla Devi filed her evidence by way of affidavit. The same is Ex.PW1/A. On 13.03.2009, she was examined as PW1, and she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11 and Mark A and B. On 13.03.2009, she was also partly cross-examined, and her further cross-examination was deferred at request of counsel for the defendant.
45. Subsequently, on 27.07.2009, application for impleading LRs of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi was filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, as it was stated that Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the original plaintiff has expired on 22.06.2009. The application for impleadment was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2009 and the three LRs of the deceased plaintiff Shakuntala Devi were arrayed as plaintiffs in this case. The eldest son of deceased Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi continued the suit for himself and other LRs on the strength of Power Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 18 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:20:43 +0530 of Attorney executed in his favour by other LRs.
46. Thereafter, the son of the plaintiff Sh. S.C Sharma filed his evidence by way of affidavit, the same is Ex.PW1/X. In his evidence he filed and relied upon documents Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/11 and Mark A, B and C. He was subjected to detailed cross-examination spread over several dates.
47. In support of its case the plaintiff, also examined Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma (plaintiff no.4) as PW2. His evidence way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. In his evidence he relied upon document i.e. photocopy of letter dated 16.06.2006 which is marked as Mark Z. He was also subjected to detailed cross-examination spread over several dates.
48. In support of its case, the plaintiff also examined one Anil Kumar, LDC from A&C Department of SDMC as PW3. His evidence by way of affidavit is Ex.PW3/A. He placed on record photocopies of documents Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW3/2 and Mark X and Mark Y.
49. Further, the plaintiff also examined one Ravinder, JSA in DDA Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi as PW4. His evidence by way of affidavit is Ex.PW4/A. He placed on record documents Mark X and Mark Y.
50. The list and the details of the documents filed and relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of their case are tabulated here under; viz Ex.PW1/A Original death certificate of Smt. Shakuntala Devi Ex.PW1/B Amended Memo of Parties.
CS DJ No.610742/16Page No. 19 of 53 Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2026.05.16
17:20:50
+0530
Ex.PW1/C Power of Attorney dated 10.07.2009
Ex.PW1/1 Site Plan
Ex.PW1/2 Copy of certified copy of Sale Deed/Conveyance
Deed dated 29.12.1952 in favour of Rajender Pal Sharma.
Ex.PW1/3 Copy of certified copy of Relinquishment Deed dated 08.06.2005 executed by S.C Sharma, Jugal Kishore, Asha Sharma in favour of Smt. Shakuntala Devi.
Ex.PW1/4 Original Death Certificate of Sh. R. P. Sharma S/o Parmeshwar Dass (husband of the plaintiff). Ex.PW1/5 Copy of letter dated 14.06.2006 issued to (Subsequent Assistant Assessor and Collector, West for ly marked mutation of the property.
as Mark Z) Ex.PW1/6 Original Sale Deed in Urdu alongwith its English translation regarding sale of property in village Oel, Police Station Amb, tehsil Una, Himachal Pradesh.
Ex.PW1/7 Certified copy of Jamabandi of Land in Himachal Pradesh for the year 1990-1991 Ex.PW1/8 Legal notice dated 25.08.2008 issued by plaintiff Shakuntala Devi to defendant Ashok Kumar Sharma.
Ex.PW1/9 Postal receipt of Legal Notice Ex.PW1/10 UPC receipt of legal notice.
Ex.PW1/11 AD Card of legal notice.
Ex.PW1/12 Adenda to the Power of Attorney dated 10.07.2009 Mark A Photocopy of the Jamabandi of Land in Himachal Pradesh for the year 2001-2002 Mark B Copy of letter dated 20.05.1982 issued by Depot Manager, IP Depot directing Ashok Kumar to CS DJ No.610742/16 Digitally Page No. 20 of 53 signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:20:58 +0530 report for investigation.
Ex.DW1/P1 Certified copy of suit for recovery of Rs. 20 lacs instituted by Ashok Kumar Sharma (defendant) against S.C Sharma.
Ex.DW1/P2 Service Record of Janak Raj Sharma Ex.DW1/P3 Information sought under RTI regarding CGHS Card issued to Late Rajender Pal Sharma Ex.DW1/P4 Death Certificate of Sat Prakash Ex.DW1/P5 Information sought under RTI Act regarding service details including address of defendant Ashok Kumar Sharma
51. PW2 Manoj Kumar Sharma (Plaintiff No.4) in his evidence has relied on document Mark Z. Further, PW3 Anil Kumar (Official witness) has also prove documents already marked as Mark X and Mark Y. Further, PW4 Ravinder (official witness) has proved documents Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/4, which are allotment letter issued by DDA in favour of Jaswant Rai Sharma (father of defendant), death certificate of Jaswant Rai Sharma, and Relinquishment Deed executed by LRs of Late Jaswant Rai Sharma in favour of Manoj Kumar Sharma qua property Flat no.22, Ground Floor, Bhat Nagar in favour of Manoj Kumar Sharma and Conveyance Deed executed in favour of Manoj Kumar Sharma qua the said property respectively.
52. In order to prove its case on the threshold of preponderance of probability, the defendant examined himself as DW-1. He also examined DW2 (Himanshu Sharma, his son); DW3 (Smt. Meenu Sharma, wife of the defendant); DW4 (Vijay Grover, official Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
Page No. 21 of 53 2026.05.16
17:21:05
+0530
witness), DW5 (Praveen Kumar Kashyap, official witness), DW4 and DW5 both have been examined from Army Based Workshop and DW6 (Ashwani Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of Ld. ADJ-10, Central).
53. The defendant, in his examination as DW1 filed on record two CDs which are exhibited as Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2. Sh.
Himanshu Sharma was examined as DW-2. His evidence way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A. In his evidence he relied upon Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.DW2/1.
54. Ms. Meenu Sharma was examined as DW-3. Her evidence way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A.
55. Sh. Vijay Grover, UDC, Unit 505, Army Base Workshop, Delhi Cantt was examined as DW-4. He produced the records of Sh. Jaswant Rai Sharma, pertaining to his salary and pension. The same is exhibited as Ex.DW4/1( colly 9 pages). DW4 also brought the signed letter of appointment, date of retirement and pension of Rajender Pal Sharma and Jaswant Rai. The same is exhibited as Ex.DW4/2.
56. Sh. Praveen Kumar Kashyap, LDC, Unit 505, Army Base Workshop, Delhi Cantt was examined as DW-5. He brought the service record of Sh. Sat Prakash Sharma. Copy of the same is exhibited as Ex.DW5/1 (colly, 15 pages( (OSR). He also brought the service record of Sh. Jaswant Rai. Copy of same exhibited Ex.DW5/2 (colly, 4 page) (OSR).
57. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Jiten Mehra, Ld. ADJ-10 was examined as DW-6. He produced original of case Digitally CS DJ No.610742/16 signed by Page No. 22 of 53 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:21:14 +0530 file of Suit No.613224/2016 qua summoned documents i.e. Ex.DW3/C and Ex.DW3/D which was exhibited as Ex.DW6/1 and Ex.DW6/2.
58. This court has perused the entire record and has carefully perused the evidence led by the contesting parties. This court has heard Ld. Counsels for the parties at length and has also obtained clarifications as and when required.
59. On the basis of the pleadings made by the contesting parties, and the evidence led, the issue-wise findings of this Court are as under.
ISSUE NO.1 Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? (OPD)
60. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. The present suit relates to 'first floor' of property No. H-72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The present suit was filed and first listed before this court on 16.09.2008.
61. The Union Territory of Delhi was divided into districts vide different notifications. Consequently, the judicial districts were also carved out. The onus was directly on the defendant to file and prove that on the basis of which notification this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
62. No evidence, whatsoever, has been led by the defendant to show that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, it is not the case of the defendant that owing to this court lacking territorial jurisdiction, there has been a consequent failure of justice, thereby, Digitally CS DJ No.610742/16 signed by SUMEET Page No. 23 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:21:20 +0530 preventing the defendant from leading evidence in support of his case.
63. The defendant has led very detailed and elaborate evidence in support of his case. He has examined several witness and filed voluminous records of documents in support of his case.
64. Moreover, there is always a presumption in favour of existence of jurisdiction in favour of the court trying the matter. This presumption needs to be rebutted during the course of the trial upon leading of cogent evidence.
65. Hence, there is nothing material on record in this case, to show that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
66. Accordingly, this court arrives at a conclusion that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
67. Hence, Issue No.1 is decided against the defendant.
68. For the sake of convenience and due to commonality of pleadings and evidence to be appreciated, and due to overlapping nature of Issue No.2 and Issue no.4, both the said Issues are being taken up for determination together, ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner of the suit property? (OPP) AND ISSUE NO.4 Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to claim any relief of possession on the plea that defendant is in occupation of the premises in question being lawful owner? (OPD) Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
Page No. 24 of 53 2026.05.16
17:21:25
+0530
69. The present suit for possession and recovery of arrears of mesne-profits and damages for illegal use and occupation was filed against the defendant by Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi (the original plaintiff). The plaint is signed by Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. The affidavit in support of the plaint is also signed by Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi.
70. The original plaintiff, Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi claimed in the plaint that the entire property H-72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 was the self acquired property of her Late husband Sh. Rajender Pal Sharma, who also constructed the said property out of his own funds. The copy of the Conveyance Deed executed in his favour is exhibited as Ex.P2. In the plaint, the original plaintiff, Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi has also claimed that, after the death of her husband Late Rajender Pal Sharma, the other legal heirs i.e. her children executed a Relinquishment Deed in her favour; thereby, she (original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi) became absolute and exclusive owner of the property bearing no. H-72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026; and on 23.08.2005, and her name was also mutated in the MCD records.
71. The copy of Relinquishment Deed executed in favour of the original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi on 08.06.2005 was executed by i) Sushil Chander Sharma, ii) Jugal Kishore Sharma (both sons of Late. Rajender Pal Sharma) and iii) Smt. Asha Sharma w/o Sh. Sharda Charan (Daughter of Late Rajender Pal Sharma). The same is exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. However, Ex.PW1/3 has not been proved during the trial as per set required legal standards.
Digitally
CS DJ No.610742/16 signed by
SUMEET
Page No. 25 of 53 SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2026.05.16
17:21:30
+0530
72. The original plaintiff, Smt. Shakuntala Devi during her life time, in order to prove her case on the threshold of pre-ponderence of probability filed her evidence by way of affidavit. The same is on record. The same is ExPW1/A.
73. The evidence by way of affidavit of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, i.e. Ex.PW1/A was tendered in evidence on 13.03.2009. On the said date, she was also briefly cross-examined by counsel for the defendant. However, her further cross-examination was deferred at request of counsel for the defendant, who stated that an application for transfer of this case is pending before Ld. District & Session Judge.
74. Before, further cross-examination of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi could be conducted, on 06.04.2009, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the original plaintiff (Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi) for appointing her son Sushil Chander Sharma as her Attorney. The application is on record and the same, at the time of writing of this judgment has been marked as Mark A1 for future reference.
75. Mark A1 is duly supported with affidavit of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, and is accompanied with original Power of Attorney executed by her appointing her son Sushil Sharma as her Attorney. The said original Power of Attorney is, at the time of writing of this judgment, is marked as Mark A2 for future reference.
76. In a nutshell, it is stated in Mark A1 that plaintiff (Smt. Shakuntala Devi) is 84 years old, and now she has been advised bed Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 26 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:21:35 +0530 rest by the doctors on various health grounds. That her evidence by way of affidavit is already on record, but since she is unable to attend the court, therefore, she has appointed her son Sushil Chander Sharma as her attorney.
77. Mark A1 further specifically reads in Para no.5 that, "from now onwards Sh. Sushil Chander Sharma is fully authorized to lead fresh evidence in the said case on her behalf, and to do all other necessary things required in the said case, as per power of attorney given in her favour by the plaintiff, as he is fully conversant with the facts of the said case from the very beginning."
78. The filing of this application under Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff, and the contents of the application very clearly and categorically reflect that, the plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi expressly withdrew from her further cross-examination which was pending.
79. While, the reply and arguments were pending on this application under Section 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff, the plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi, unfortunately expired on 22.06.2009. Therefore, as the plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi before her death expressly withdrew from submitting herself to further cross-examination, and before the court could decide her application under Section 151 CPC, or compel her to subject herself to further cross-examination, she unfortunately expired, therefore, her cross- examination remained unconcluded. Accordingly, no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the un-concluded evidence of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi for want of her cross-examination. Thus, no Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 27 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:21:39 +0530 reliance, whatsoever, can be placed on the evidence affidavit of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. i.e. Ex.PW1/A.
80. On 27.07.2009, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was filed to bring on record the three legal heirs of the plaintiff. The said application is on record. The same, at the time of writing of this judgment is marked as Mark A3 for future reference. Mark A3 is accompanied with affidavit of Sh. Sushil Chander Sharma (son of the original plaintiff Late Smt.Shakuntala Devi).
81. It is stated in Mark A3 that the plaintiff (Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi) has left behind three legal heirs; and it was prayed that the said legal heirs be brought on record in place of plaintiff. Mark A3 records the following persons as LRs of deceased plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Devi; viz
a) Sunil Chander Sharma (son);
b) Asha Sharma (daughter);
c) Jugal Kishore Sharma (son).
82. Order dated 27.07.2009 records that along with application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, a Power of Attorney has been filed along with amended memo of parties. The said Power of Attorney is on record and is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. However, for the sake of convenience and to maintain due chronology, the same, at the time of writing of this judgment is also marked as Mark A4 for future reference.
83. As per Mark A4, Ms. Asha Sharma and Sh. Jugal Kishore Sharma nominated and appointed their elder brother Sushil Chander Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 28 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:21:46 +0530 Sharma as their Attorney in the present case to represent them as plaintiffs. There was a minor typographical error in Mark A4, therefore, an addendum to Mark A4 was filed correcting the date of death of the original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. The amended Power of Attorney executed in favour of Sushil Chander Sharma by Asha Sharma and Jugal Kishore Sharma is, at the time of writing of this judgment is marked as Mark A5 (the same is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/12) for future reference.
84. The defendant filed formal reply to the application of the LRs of the plaintiff seeking their substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC opposing their impleadment as LRs of the deceased plaintiff, and seeking the rejection of their application for their impleadment as LRs of the plaintiff.
85. The reply of the defendant to the application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC is on record; and the same, at the time of writing of this judgment is marked as Mark A6 for future reference.
86. The defendant in Mark A6 specifically stated that the application of the LRs of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as the applicants have no locus standi to file and maintain the present application.
87. It is also categorically stated by the defendant in Mark A6 that the original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi in respect of the entire property, as per the knowledge of the defendant, during, her lifetime, although without any right, title or interest in the entire property has executed a WILL, as per which she did not bequeathed Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND Page No. 29 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:21:55 +0530 the 'first floor' of the property, which is the suit property in this case to the applicants i.e. LRs of the plaintiff; therefore, they cannot be substituted as plaintiffs in the present suit as on the basis of the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, as they are not left with any cause of action with respect to the suit property.
88. However, the application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2009 and the matter was posted for plaintiff evidence. Thus, all the three LRs of the deceased original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, through their eldest brother Sushil Chander Sharma, on the strength of Power of Attorney executed in his favour entered into the shoes of the original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi.
89. Subsequently, while the case was at the stage of evidence of PW1 Sushil Chander Sharma, on 09.04.2010, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The said application is on record. The same, at the time of writing of this judgment has been marked as Mark A7 for future reference.
90. It is stated in Mark A7 that the plaintiff Shakuntala Devi expired on 22.06.2009 and thereafter her legal heirs were impleaded. The defendant contested the impleadment application of the LRs of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has not bequeathed the suit property, i.e. the first floor of the property to her legal heirs, therefore, they have no occasion and any cause of action against the defendant qua the suit property i.e. first floor of the property. However, the application for impleadment came to be allowed as Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND Page No. 30 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:01 +0530 legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff argued that no such WILL has been executed by the deceased plaintiff Shakuntala Devi.
91. It is further stated in Mark A7 that the defendant has now found out that the deceased original plaintiff Late Shakuntala Devi, during her lifetime executed a WILL which was registered at office of Sub-Registrar, Nangloi, Delhi as document No. 2804 in Book No.III, Volume No. 160 on page 116 to 120 on 07.10.2008; and that by virtue of the said WILL, the deceased original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi has bequeathed the suit property i.e. the entire 'first floor ' of the property to the two real brothers of the defendant namely Manoj Kumar and Kamal Kishore.
92. Accordingly, it was argued by the defendant, as stated in Mark A7 that upon the execution of the WILL by deceased plaintiff, whereby she bequeathed the suit property to persons other th an her LRs, therefore, her LRs are left with no right, title or interest qua the suit property and have no subsisting cause of action against the defendant and cannot maintain the suit against the defendants.
93. The LRs of plaintiffs filed reply to the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The same is on record. The same, at the time of writing of this judgment is marked as Mark A8 for future reference. The said reply was filed on 15.07.2010.
94. It is stated in para no.5 of Mark A8 that, "para no.5 of the application is not denied since the details of the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff's too XXXXX." It is also stated in Mark A8 that, "XXXX it is absolutely wrong to alleged that the pursuant to the said WILL the legal heirs Digitally CS DJ No.610742/16 signed by Page No. 31 of 53 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:06 +0530 of the plaintiff, Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, have been left with no right, title or interest in the property in question i.e. entire floor or any part thereof and it is also wrong to alleged that as such the legal heirs substituted in place of the plaintiff have no right to continue with the present suit and that no cause of action subsist in their favour, having no right, title or interest in the suit property. It is stated that since the said suit has been filed on 15.09.2008 and since the date of death of the plaintiff is 22.06.2009, the legal heirs of the plaintiff, Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi have every right, title and interest in the suit property from 15.09.2008 till 26.06.2009 as per law of Succession as the WILL of the plaintiff, Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi cannot be read or come in operation before 22.06.2009 i.e. the date of death of Smt. Shakuntala Devi. It is stated that accordingly an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by the plaintiffs before this Hon'ble Court to bring on record both the brothers of the defendant, i.e. Manoj Kumar and Kamal Kishore as one of the plaintiff along with present three plaintiffs in whose favour whole of the first floor of the property no. 72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 has been bequeathed by Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. It is further stated that according to the said WILL both the beneficiaries i.e. Manoj Kumar and Kamal Kishore have also filed an application before this Hon'ble Court under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC for bringing them on record of this Hon'ble Court as one of the plaintiff in the said case in pursuant of the said WILL ".
95. On the same date, i.e. on 15.07.2010, when the plaintiff filed Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND Page No. 32 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:11 +0530 reply to the application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the beneficiaries of the suit property under the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, namely Manoj Kumar and Kamal Kishore, both sons of Late Jaswant Rai Sharma, and brothers of the defendant, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking their impleadment as plaintiff's in the present case.
The said application for impleadment at the time of writing of this judgment has been marked as Mark A9 for future reference. In the said application it is stated that, "it has come to the knowledge of both the applicants that the deceased Late Smt Shakuntala Devi has bequeathed the suit property to them by her WILL, therefore, they are necessary parties, and thus they be impleaded as plaintiff's in the present suit".
96. On the same date, i.e. 15.07.2010 another application under Section 151 CPC was filed by proposed plaintiff namely Kamal Kishore seeking appointment of his elder brother namely Manoj Kumar (second proposed plaintiff) as his Attorney in the present case. The said application, at the time of writing of this judgment is marked as Mark A10 for future reference. The application is supported by affidavit of applicant Kamal Kishore. The original Power of Attorney executed by Kamal Kishore in favour of his elder brother Manoj Kumar to represent him during the trial is on record, and the same, at the time of writing of this judgment is marked as Mark A11 for future reference.
97. Very interestingly, on 15.07.2010, another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed by LR Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND Page No. 33 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:15 +0530 of the original plaintiff Sushil Chander Sharma, seeking impleading of Manoj Kumar and Kamal Kishore, both sons of Jaswant Singh and brothers of the defendant as plaintiffs in the present matter. The said application is supported with affidavit of the applicant Sushil Sharma. The same at the time of writing of this judgment, is marked as Mark A12 for future reference.
98. This court deems it appropriate to re-produce some excerpts contents of Mark A12. It is stated in Mark A12 that, "Since the original plaintiff (smt. Shakuntala Devi) in this case has died on 22.06.2009 and in place of her the present three legal heirs have been brought on record in the said case, but now the plaintiffs have come to know that their mother, Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, had left a registered WILL, registered on 07.10.2008 as Document No. 2804, in Addl. Book No. 3, Volume No. 160 on pages 116 to 120, bequeathing the first floor of the suit property No. H-72, Shivaji Park, New Delhi-110026 in the name of Sh. Manoj Kumar and Kamal Kishore, both son of Late Sh. Jaswant Rai Sharma, which is actually the part of the present suit pending before this Hon'ble Court. Photocopy of the WILL is annexed hereto is Annexure A1".
99. The photocopy of the WILL of the deceased original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi is on record. The same at the time of writing of this judgment is marked as Mark A13 for future reference. The same has been placed on record by the LRs of the plaintiff. The same is running into 5 pages.
100. There are three important aspects to be considered in Mark A13 which contradict the averments made by the LRs of the original Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND Page No. 34 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:21 +0530 plaintiff in document Mark A12; Firstly; the elder son of the testator has been appointed as the executor of the WILL. Mark A13 reads that, "AND I HEREBY appoint my elder son as executor of this WILL who shall be entitled to obtain probate or letter of Administration on the basis of this WILL and it shall not be necessary for him to furnish any security for the same". Thus, the elder son of deceased plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, namely Sushil Sharma was appointed as executor of this WILL, thus, the applicant of Mark A12 Sushil Sharma has lied through his teeth in his application Mark A12 that he came to know about the WILL of his mother after her death. Secondly, in Mark A13, which is the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, her daughter Asha Sharma, W/o Sh. S.C Sharma is one of the attesting witnesses. She also stands impleaded as a plaintiff in this matter. Thus, it is unfathomable that the LRs of deceased plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi were unaware of the existence of the registered WILL executed by their mother. Thirdly, as per the clear endorsements made on the last page of the WILL, it is drafted by Sh. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. The same counsel, since the inception of the suit has represented the original plaintiff, and after the death of the original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, has also represented her Legal Heirs. Moreover, the application for impleadment of brothers of the defendant, namely Manoj Kumar and Kishore Kumar has also been drafted by him.
101. Thus, the claim of the LRs of the plaintiff, that they became aware of the WILL of their deceased mother only after her death and Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 35 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:25 +0530 only after having been impleaded as her legal representatives in this suit is a blatant lie. This court, on the basis of above-done discussion has no hesitation to put it straight on record that the legal representatives of the plaintiff impleaded in this suit very carefully tried to conceal the factum of execution of WILL by Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. Thus, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi have not approached this court with clean hands and are guilty of suppression of facts.
102. Further, PW1 S.C Sharma (LR of deceased original plaintiff Late Shakuntala Devi), who is also representing other LRs of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi on the strength of Power of Attorney executed in his favour, in his cross-examination conducted on 25.05.2015 has very categorically stated that, "after the death of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Sh. Manoj Kumar is the exclusive owner of the portion in dispute. Again Said: I am the owner of the said portion but since the WILL of Smt. Shakuntala Devi has come to light and according to same Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma is the owner of the same. As of today, plaintiff nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have no right in the portion in dispute of the property. But I have interest in the same from 01.09.2008 till the opening of the WILL in respect of damages. The said WILL came to light only in sometime in March 2011, but I do not recollect the year. XXXX"
103. In his cross-examination, PW1 has once again lied regarding the dates when the existence of the WILL came to light. In his cross- examination, he has specifically stated that the fact of existence of WILL came to light sometime in March 2011; however, his Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 36 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:29 +0530 application Mark A12 to implead other plaintiffs in the present suit, duly supported by his affidavit dated 07.05.2010 was filed in the court on 17.05.2010 in which he has specifically mentioned about the existence of WILL. Thus, this further reaffirms the finding returned by this court that the LRs of the deceased plaintiff intended to conceal the WILL from the court and have not approached the court with clean hands and have also attempted to mislead the court during cross-examination.
104. Even at the sake of repetition it is worth to mention herein again that the dispute in the present suit is only with respect to the 'First Floor' of House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 which has been consistently referred as the 'Suit Property'; and on the basis of the application Mark A12 filed by the LRs of the plaintiff, and in the light of the above-referred statement made by PW1 in his cross-examination conducted on 25.05.2015, it stands established not only on the threshold of pre-ponderence of probability, but beyond doubt that none of the three LRs of the deceased plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, namely i) Sushil Chander Sharma, ii) Asha Sharma and iii) Jugal Kishore Sharma have any subsisting right, title or interest in the suit property. By filing and by placing their reliance on the WILL of the deceased Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, and by themselves filing application for impleadment of beneficiaries under the WILL, the LRs of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi have themselves affirmed that they are not the exclusive owners of the suit property, i.e. 'First Floor' of House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026.
Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND Page No. 37 of 53 ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:35 +0530
105. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that, after the impleadment application of the three LRs of the deceased original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi was allowed on 30.10.2009; and subsequently, after the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of Manoj Kumar and Kishore Kumar, the beneficiaries under the WILL was also allowed on 03.03.2011, in total five persons were impleaded as plaintiffs in the case. Three are the LRs of deceased plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi; and other two as the beneficiaries as per the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. The amended memo of parties reflecting all the five said plaintiffs is on record and the same is marked as Mark A14.
106. Once the WILL of the deceased original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi is filed and relied upon by the plaintiffs, the entire cause of action, on which the present suit was initially instituted by the deceased original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi against the defendant, qua the 'Suit Property' stands significantly altered.
107. The plaintiffs Manoj Kumar (plaintiff No.4) and Kishore Kumar (defendant No.5) upon the filing of WILL of deceased original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi stand impleaded in this suit as plaintiffs in their own right on the strength of WILL executed in their favour.
108. The three legal representatives of deceased original plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi cannot, rather must not challenge the WILL executed by the deceased Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, because they have themselves filed it and are relying on it and they are beneficiaries of significant share in the entire property, except the Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 38 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:40 +0530 suit property i.e. 'First Floor' in the property.
109. Thus, after the death of deceased plaintiff Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, and after coming to the light of the WILL of the deceased Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, which is being relied upon all the plaintiffs, if anyone could have staked and made any claim with respect to the suit property i.e. the 'First Floor ' of the property, House no. 72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026, then the same could have been only made by Manoj Kumar (plaintiff no.4) and Kishore Kumar (plaintiff no.5), both sons of Late Jaswant Rai Sharma and brothers of the defendants, but not the three LRs of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi.
110. Upon the impleadment of Manoj Kumar (plaintiff no.4) and Kishore Kumar (plaintiff no.5) in the present suit, they entered into the shoes of the plaintiff to seek the reliefs sought in the plaint, particularly the relief of possession of the suit property from the defendant including mesne profits and damages for illegal occupation. However, as the plaint, on the basis of which the present suit has been tried, was filed by Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi herself during her lifetime, therefore, there was no occasion to stake any claim on the basis of her WILL.
111. Thus, once after the death of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Manoj Kumar (plaintiff no.4) and Kishore Kumar (plaintiff no.5) stake their claim on the suit property on the basis of WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, then it was absolutely incumbent upon them, after their impleadment as plaintiffs in the present suit to suitably amend the plaint, include the factum of existence and execution of Digitally CS DJ No.610742/16 signed by Page No. 39 of 53 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:45 +0530 WILL by Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi in the plaint, thereby affording an opportunity to the defendant to file his reply in the form of written statement to the factum of existence and execution of the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi.
112. However, for true and correct reasons known only to the plaintiffs Manoj Kumar and Kishore Kumar, the beneficiaries under the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, did not prefer to suitably amend the plaint after their impleadment as plaintiff in this case.
Thus, the factum of existence and execution of any WILL by Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi is absolutely beyond the pleadings made in the plaint. And, it is the settled proposition of law that no evidence can be led regarding the facts which are beyond the pleadings.
113. Furthermore, despite availability of adequate opportunities to the plaintiffs, they did not lead any evidence, whatsoever, to prove the execution of the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi as per the prescribed legal standards.
114. Section 68 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( Now, Section 69 of Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023) deals with 'Proof of Execution of document required by Law to be attested'. It provides that, 'If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast 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:
Digitally signed by SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
Page No. 40 of 53 2026.05.16
17:22:51
+0530
[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document not being a WILL, which has been registered in accordance with the Provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied].
115. Thus, to prove the execution of WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to examine atleast one attesting witness of the WILL of the deceased Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. However, the plaintiffs have not examined either of the two attesting witnesses of the WILL of deceased Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi namely, (i) Bharam Dutt S/o Om Prakash; and (ii) Asha Sharma W/o S.C Sharma.
116. Accordingly, the WILL of deceased original plaintiff Late Smt.Shakuntala Devi despite being a registered WILL has not been proved during the course of trial as per the required and prescribed legal standards. The existence of the WILL being beyond pleadings and for the failure of the plaintiff to proof the execution of WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi as per law no reliance whatsoever can be placed on the said WILL.
117. The plaintiff would argue that the defendant has admitted the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, as per the averments made by him in reply to the impleadment application filed by the LRs of the plaintiff, as well as in accordance with the contents of his application Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 41 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:22:55 +0530 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In this regard, it is incumbent to put it straight on record that there is no substitution to the prove of the WILL, except to prove it in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 69 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and in accordance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi to examine atleast one attesting witness, but they have failed to do so. Reliance is placed on Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs vs Suresh Chand Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012, decided on 01.09.2025.
118. Accordingly, for want of proof of execution of WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, this court safely and surely arrives at the conclusion that Manoj Kumar (plaintiff no.4) and Kishore Kumar (plaintiff no.5) have not been able to prove that they are the exclusive owners of the suit property i.e. 'First Floor' of House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026.
119. Further, although, the WILL of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi has not been proved as per the required legal standards, therefore, no reliance can be placed on it for giving any relief, as sought, to the plaintiffs. However, insofar as the existence and execution of WILL demolishes the case of the plaintiff itself, as the WILL has been filed and relied upon by the plaintiff themselves, the same can be read and considered against then. Therefore, on the basis of this analogy, this court safely and surely arrives at the conclusion that the three legal heirs of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi are aliens/strangers to the present litigation and they have no cause of action against the defendant for Digitally signed by SUMEET SUMEET ANAND CS DJ No.610742/16 ANAND Date:
Page No. 42 of 53 2026.05.16
17:23:01
+0530
claiming the relief of possession and mesne profits and damages against the defendants for illegal occupation of the suit property as they are not exclusive owner of the suit property i.e. 'First Floor' of House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026.
120. Accordingly, on the basis of above-done discussion Issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiffs.
121. Now, this court proceed to decide Issue No.4.
122. The Issue No.4 requires determination and returning of a finding by this court that, whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to claim relief of possession on the plea that the defendant is in occupation of the premises in question as a lawful owner.
123. The determination of this Issue requires adjudication of the issue that, whether the suit property, i.e. 'First Floor' of House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 was the self acquired property of Late Rajender Pal Sharma, or it was part of a Joint Hindu Undivided Family Property purchased out of common pool of earnings of members of Joint Hindu Undivided Family, i.e. the four brothers and decedents of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi and Late Sh. Parmeshwari Dass.
124. It is the settled position of law that merely because brothers live together, or they also own some property together does not automatically leads to proof of the fact that, the properties in which they live together, or they own belong to a Joint Hindu Undivided Family.
125. To establish the existence of a Joint Hindu Family and to prove that the properties, even if purchased in name of one member CS DJ No.610742/16 Digitally signed by Page No. 43 of 53 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:23:07 +0530 of the family actually belongs to the Joint Hindu Family, the proof of family nucleus and jointness of family needs to be proved like any other relevant fact by leading of cogent evidence; and no presumption can be raised regarding jointness of family.
126. In order to prove, that a property purchased in the name of one brother, even if his other brothers and family members reside in that property, actually belongs to a Joint Hindu Family, the joint status of the family, source of fund, common pool of earning, jointness of possession and intention are extremely relevant and these factors needs to be proved during the course of the trial upon leading of cogent evidence.
127. A Joint Hindu Family and the Joint Family Property are two absolutely different concepts. Merely, because the family is a Joint Hindu Family does not preclude any of its member to obtain and retain a separate property for himself. Even if it is proved that the family is a Joint Hindu Family, still the property possessed by any of its members does not automatically become a Joint Family Property.
128. Even joint residence together by itself alone is not a decisive factor to determine that the property in which all the brothers are residing together is joint family property.
129. In this case, the defendant claims that all the four brothers, who are the decedents of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi and Late Sh.
Parmeshwari Dass are members of Joint Hindu Undivided Family, firstly under the Kartaship of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi, and thereafter succeeded by Kartaship of Late Rajender Pal Sharma.
Digitally
signed by
CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET
Page No. 44 of 53 SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2026.05.16
17:23:12
+0530
130. It is also the case of the defendant that the suit property was purchased from the common pool of earning originating from the earnings received by Late. Smt Udhmi Devi from the agricultural land at Himachal Pradesh, which was a joint family property. Further, it is also the case of the defendant that the property on the plot purchased was constructed from common pool of earning from all the four brothers.
131. The defendant has gone to a significant extent to prove the financial capacity of his father at the relevant point of time when the property, comprising of the suit property was purchased and subsequently constructed. He has led evidence and examined witnesses to prove the earnings of his deceased father Late Jaswant Rai Sharma.
132. However, proof of earnings of Late Jaswant Rai Sharma do not prove contribution for purchase of joint family property. There is no ounce of evidence led by the defendant to show any contribution by his father either to Late Smt. Udhmi Devi, or towards Late. Rajender Pal Sharma for purchase of the property comprising of the suit property, or towards its construction. Only proof of source of existence of funds do not prove contribution.
133. The entire property, including the suit property having been constructed decades ago, and despite the fact that father of the defendant, as well as the defendant, and other family members being in possession of the same, but still there is not even a electricity meter in their name in the suit property suggest that they have no right, title or interest in the suit property in their own independent Digitally signed by SUMEET ANAND SUMEET CS DJ No.610742/16 Date:
ANAND 2026.05.16
Page No. 45 of 53 17:23:17
+0530
right.
134. Moreover, the defendant has admitted the letter signed and issued by him along with his other brothers on the basis of which the suit property was mutated in the name of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi. Although, the defendant claims that he has subsequently written to the MCD to cancel the mutation, and has also issued notice to his brothers for fraudulently obtaining his signatures on the letter; however, there is nothing on record to show that till date MCD has canceled the mutation of the property in name of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi, or the defendant has instituted any suit for cancellation of mutation, or the defendant has instituted any suit against his brother for fraudulently obtaining his signatures on the letter on the basis of which mutation of the property in favour of Late Smt. Shakuntala Devi was done.
135. The defendant has failed to prove the existence of any common bank account of the four brothers which was used as common pool for expenses towards the purchase, construction and maintenance of any joint family property, much less the property comprising the suit property. Further, the defendant has not proved any existence of separate common bank account of any HUF (Hindu Undivided Family). There is nothing on record to show that any member of the family ever reflected the existence of HUF in any of the documents, whatsoever, including their ITRs. There is nothing to show that at any point of time any of the brothers claimed any benefit, rebate, or refund on account of existence of any HUF between them from any authority.
Digitally
signed by
SUMEET
SUMEET ANAND
CS DJ No.610742/16 ANAND Date:
Page No. 46 of 53 2026.05.16
17:23:21
+0530
136. There is no proof that ever that any portion of any House Tax was paid by the father of the defendant or the defendant directly to the concerned department ever.
137. Furthermore, the defendant has not attempted to examine either Janak Raj Sharma or his LRs, or Sheila Devi, or her LRs to prove that the property comprising of the suit property is a joint family property.
138. From the cross-examination of the defendant, it is established that father of the defendant had purchased a house at Chitra Vihar, Bhat Nagar. The defendant has clearly stated in his cross- examination that, "Vol: The house of DDA was purchased by my father on installments on Pension Scheme in 1988". He has also admitted that a separate litigation is going on between the LRs of Late Jaswant Rai Sharma, i.e. his brothers and sisters with respect to the said house at Chitra Vihar, Bhat Nagar.
139. Further, the fact that the father of the defendant himself purchased a flat in Delhi, which is not considered as a Joint Family Property suggests that there was no HUF in existence, and the properties were not purchased by the brothers as Joint Family Properties.
140. Further, the defendant in his cross-examination has stated that, "it is correct that my grandmother had purchased a plot Himachal Pardesh in name of all her four sons i.e. Sat Prakash Sharma, Rajender Pal Sharma, Jaswant Rai Sharma and Janak Raj Sharma". This statement suggests clear intention of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi, that the property which she herself purchased, she purchased it for Digitally CS DJ No.610742/16 signed by Page No. 47 of 53 SUMEET SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:23:32 +0530 all the four brothers, i.e. in the name of all her sons. Hence, there was no occasion for Late Smt. Udhmi Devi to purchase a plot in Delhi only in the name of one son i.e. Late Rajender Pal Sharma.
141. On the basis of above-done discussion, this court safely and surely arrives at the conclusion that the property i.e. House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026, comprising of the suit property was purchased by Late. Rajender Pal Sharma and was constructed by him without contribution from any common pool of HUF between his brothers. Thus, the property i.e. House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 is the self acquired property of Late Rajender Pal Sharma, and not a part of any joint family property.
142. As far as the CDs, in evidence of proof of admission of Late Smt. Savitri Devi, that the defendant is the owner of the suit property is concerned, this court is of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the CD and its contents as it is not a primary evidence.
143. The video contained in the CD has been made by the son of the defendant, namely Himanshu Sharma, who has been examined as DW-2. In his evidence he has categorically stated that he recorded the conversation between Late Smt. Savitri Devi and his mother Smt. Meenu Sharma (DW3) on his mobile phone and then transferred the video to his computer and from it prepared the CDs i.e. Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2.
144. Thus, the primary evidence to prove the video contained in the CDs is the mobile phone from which the video was made, if the Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 48 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:23:41 +0530 video was told in the internal memory of the phone. If, the video was saved in an SD Card (Secure Digital Card), if any contained in the mobile phone from which the video was made, then the said SD Card would be the primary evidence.
145. The moment the video shot from the mobile phone was transferred to another device and then ported to the CDs, the CDs became secondary evidence.
146. In the absence of proof of primary evidence, and in absence of any application of the defendant to prove the video by secondary evidence having been allowed by the court, no reliance can be placed on the contents of the CD i.e. Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2.
147. Hence, on the basis of above, this court safely and surely arrives at the conclusion that the defendant is not the lawful owner of the suit property.
148. Lastly, having locus standi to claim a relief of possession, and proving of facts leading to grant of relief of possession are two entirely separate and distinct aspects.
149. For the detailed discussion done-above, while deciding Issue no.2, this court returns a specific finding that the three LRs of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi do not have any locus standi left after they filed and relied upon Will of Late Smt. Udhmi Devi to claim any relief for possession.
150. Further, this court also returns a specific finding that defendant no.4 and 5 namely Manoj Kumar and Kishore Kumar respectively, on the basis of WILL executed in their favour by Late Smt. Udhmi Devi have locus standi to claim relief of possession of Digitally CS DJ No.610742/16 signed by SUMEET Page No. 49 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:23:48 +0530 the suit property, but for not having amended the plaint suitably, after they were impleaded as parties in the suit, and failing to aver and plead the factum of existence of WILL qua the suit property in their favour, and for their sheer failure to prove the WILL as per the set legal standards of evidence by not examining the attesting witnesses of the WILL, even if they have locus standi to set a claim for relief of possession of suit property, but they are not entitled to the said relief.
151. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is decided against the defendant. ISSUE NO.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of mesne profits/damages for illegal use and occupations of suit property. If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
152. For the detailed discussion done for determination of Issue no.2, whereby this court has returned a specific finding that none of the plaintiffs has been able to prove that they are the exclusive owners of the suit property, therefore, none of the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of any arrears of mesne profits/damages for illegal lieu and occupation of the suit property.
153. Moreover, none of the plaintiffs, despite availability of adequate opportunity has led any evidence, whatsoever, so as to prove the prevailing rate of rent at the relevant time, at the time of filing of the suit, or thereafter, to establish quantum of mesne profit /damages for illegal use of occupation of the suit property.
154. Mere guess work cannot be used for ascertaining the prevailing rate of rent. The court cannot make guess work in thin air.
Digitally
signed by
CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET
Page No. 50 of 53 SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
2026.05.16
17:23:53
+0530
Guess work cannot take form of evidence. Coming to a figure which might be the rent of the area on its own without any material is not permissible in law. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, either oral or documentary, this court, is not in a position to calculate the mesne profits. Thus, no mesne profits can be awarded. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Sarvinder Singh & Anr vs Vipul Tandon passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 2453/2015 decided on 08.07.2025.
155. Accordingly, Issue no.3 is decided against the plaintiff. ISSUE NO.5 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view of provisions of order 7 Rule 11 CPC? (OPD)
156. As far as rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, it is the settled position of law that the Rejection of the plaint has to be determined only upon the consideration of the averments made in the plaint. In the case at hand entire evidence has been led in detail by both the contesting parties. The case after crossing all the stages of civil trial has reached the stage of final disposal. Accordingly, there is no occasion to reject the plaint of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
157. Hence, Issue No.5 is decided against the defendant. ISSUE NO.6 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of parties as whole co-owners of the property have not been impleaded by the plaintiff in the array of parties? (OPD)
158. The onus to prove this Issue was of the defendants. As the Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 51 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:23:58 +0530 claim of the defendant that the property i.e. House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026, comprising of the suit property was a Joint Family Property stands rejected, therefore, there is no question for the suit being bad for non-joinder of all co-owners of the property.
159. This court having already returned a specific finding that the property i.e. House No.72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 being a self acquired property of Late Rajender Pal Sharma, thus, the present suit is not bad for non-joinder of whole co- owners of the property.
160. Accordingly, Issue No.6 is decided against the defendant. ISSUE NO.7 Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? (OPD)
161. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant.
162. It is the settled proposition of law that there is always a presumption in favor of jurisdiction of the court, and the onus lies on the party to prove that the court lacks jurisdiction, which alleges such lack of jurisdiction by the court.
163. However, in the it case at hand the defendants have failed to lead any cogent evidence to show that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Suit.
164. Despite mere averments that the suit has not been properly valued, the defendant has not led any evidence, whatsoever, to prove the then circle rate of the suit property at the relevant point of time, or the then prevailing market value. No Sale Deed of sale of any Digitally signed by CS DJ No.610742/16 SUMEET Page No. 52 of 53 SUMEET ANAND ANAND Date:
2026.05.16 17:24:07 +0530 similar property in the same similar area at the relevant time has been proved. No witness having special means of knowledge of the then prevailing price of the property have been examined.
165. Hence, the defendant has failed to discharge his onus qua Issue No.7.
166. Accordingly, Issue No. 7 is decided against the defendant. Relief
167. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
168. Parties to bear their own cost.
169. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
170. Nothing else survives in this case. File be consigned to record room after due compliance as per rules.
Judgment be digitally signed and uploaded online.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open court SUMEET
on 15.05.2026 SUMEET ANAND
ANAND Date:
(This judgment contains 53 number of pages) 2026.05.16
17:24:15
+0530
(SUMEET ANAND)
District Judge-11, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi CS DJ No.610742/16 Page No. 53 of 53