Delhi District Court
M. M. Bedi vs Madhulika Nath Anr on 7 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA :
DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
DLND010002922013
Civil Suit No. : 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014)
In the matter of :-
M.M. Bedi
S/o Late Sh. H.L. Bedi,
R/o F-128, Ground Floor,
Malcha Marg,
Diplomatic Enclave,
New Delhi.
.......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Madhulika Nath
W/o Sh. Ravinder Nath,
R/o F-128, First Floor,
Malcha Marg,
Diplomatic Enclave,
New Delhi.
2. New Delhi Municipal Council
through its Chief Architect,
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 1 of 60
M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:21:29 +0530
NDMC, Palika Kender,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Rabinder Mohan Bedi (Since deceased)
(Proceedings against him were abated
vide order dated 19.08.2019)
........Defendants
Appearances:
Sh. Prabhjit Jauhar, Learned Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Sanjeev Sindhvani, Learned Senior Counsel and Sh. Ankur
Mahindro, Learned Counsel for defendant no. 1.
Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Learned Counsel for defendant no. 2.
Date of institution of the suit : 07.06.2013
Final Arguments Heard on : 29.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 07.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the instant suit which has been filed by the plaintiff for seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
2. In brief, the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint are that his late father and mother namely Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi and Late Smt. Sushila Devi were co-owners in equal shares of property bearing no. F-128, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi-110021 ad-measuring 750 sq. yards (hereinafter referred as "Suit Property").
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 2 of 60M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:21:32 +0530
2.1 Plaintiff's late parents acquired leasehold ownership
rights over the suit property vide a perpetual lease deed dated 22.07.1958 duly executed by the President of India on behalf of L&DO duly registered consisting of ground floor, first floor and Barsati consisting of room and toilet from the very inception.
2.2 The father of the plaintiff late Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi during his life time executed a Will dated 06.10.1988. The said Will stipulated that the suit property was equally owned by him and his wife Smt. Sushila Devi Bedi. Further, vide the said Will only life interest of the half share belonging to the plaintiff late father was bequeathed to his wife and it was specifically mentioned that his wife shall have no right of disposal over the said half share during her life time. Thereafter, it was also stipulated in the said Will that after her demise, the said property shall devolve upon his two sons, namely M.M. Bedi (i.e. the plaintiff) and Rabinder Mohan Bedi. The clause 5(d) of the Will executed by Late Sh. H.L. Bedi stipulated as under:-
"the aforesaid house property consists roughly of two portions: the ground floor and the first floor. The lawn and the motor garage form a part of ground floor. The Barsati on the second floor and the servant quarter are considered as part of first floor."
2.3 Furthermore, that vide clause 5(d), it was also stipulated by Late Sh. H.L. Bedi that the said property consists roughly of two CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 3 of 60 Digitally signed M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:21:34
+0530
portions namely the ground floor and the first floor. It was also stated that the lawn and the motor garage form the part of ground floor and the Barsati consisting of one room and toilet on the second floor and the servant quarter on the first floor are considered as part of first floor. It was also stated that in case the first floor is occupied after his death by any of his sons, then that son shall have to make a payment of Rs.2,00,000/- each of his daughters and daughters shall have no right in the said property.
2.4 Sh. H.L. Bedi expired on 02.06.1989 and after his death, the property was mutated/substituted in the name of late Smt. Sushila Devi Bedi vide substitution letter dated 23.05.2001. It was also stipulated in the letter dated 23.05.2001 that she shall have no right to sell and transfer the said property. That immediately after the demise of Late Sh. H.L. Bedi on 02.06.1989, a family settlement dated 24.06.1989 was executed for the benefit of sisters of the plaintiff and Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi whereby the rights of sisters were duly extinguished. Vide the said settlement deed, two sisters namely Rajwahi and Ved Chopra agreed to receive the lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each and upon the payment of the same, their right or make any claim whatsoever, in respect of the first floor of the said property stood extinguish and said Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi i.e. defendant no.3 shall have absolutely right and title of the first floor. The said family settlement was mainly executed for the benefit of two sisters of the plaintiff to make provision for lump-sum payment in lieu CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 4 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:21:37
+0530
of rent. It is averred that contents of the said family settlement would show that it sought to extinguish the rights of certain persons and tried to effect partition in terms of the said document that is in praesenti and it was not a memorandum of a partition in the past which was being given effect vide the said document. It is submitted that the said family settlement dated 24.06.1989 is in admissible in evidence as same was not registered and could not have created any right, title and interest in favour of Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi qua the area above the first floor of the suit property.
2.5 Smt. Sushila Devi Bedi, mother of the parties duly executed the registered Will dated 07.04.2000 by virtue of which the suit property was bequeathed to both the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 in equal shares. It was also stipulated in the said Will dated 07.04.2000 as under:
"the aforesaid house property consists roughly of two portions, the ground floor and the first floor. The lawn and the motor garage form a part of the ground floor. The Barsati on the second floor and the servant quarter are considered as part of the first floor. I hereby devise that the said property shall devolve in my two sons Sh. Manmohan Bedi and Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi and or their heirs in equal shares, both in respect of the share of property owned by me as well as the share of property left by my late husband Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi who had also in his Will desired that both the sons should owned half share each in the CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 5 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:21:39 +0530 property. The ground floor of the said residence in house shall vest in my elder son Sh. Manmohan Bedi who is living with me on the ground floor and the first floor in the name Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi to the exclusion of each other."
2.6 The perusal of the said clause clearly stipulated that the Barsati on the second floor i.e. one room constructed therein alongwith the servant quarter on the first floor were considered as a part of the first floor. As such vide the said Will, the suit property was bequeathed in two equal shares to plaintiff and defendant no. 3 and no right, title or interest was given to defendant no. 3 qua the second or any other floor of the suit property. The said Will dated 07.04.2000 also stipulated that any bequeathed not covered by said testament would, however, devolve and vest in both the sons in equal shares absolutely. Smt.Sushila Devi Bedi expired on 25.09.2002 and both plaintiff and defendant no. 3 applied to L&DO for substitution vide substitution letter dated 12.12.2002, the leasehold rights of the suit property were duly substituted in the names of plaintiff and defendant no. 3 jointly and severely on the same terms and conditions as laid down in perpetual lease deed executed on 23.07.1958. The said mutation document dated 12.12.2002 clearly stipulated that the sub- division of the property will not be allowed at any stage highlighting the fiat that partition, if any, as envisaged in the family arrangement dated 24.06.1989 was never or could not be given effect to by the parties.
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 6 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.07 16:21:41 +0530 2.7 In the mean while, both plaintiff and defendant no.3
applied to L&DO for conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights qua the suit property. That a conveyance deed dated 01.05.2003 was duly executed in the name of the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 clearly stipulating that the suit property had devolved upon them in equal shares. The conveyance deed was duly registered on 12.05.2005. The conveyance deed nowhere stipulated that separate floors belonged to the parties and the entire suit property vested in both the parties in equal share/proportion.
2.8 That without effecting the partition of the entire suit property by metes and bounds and without consulting the plaintiff, defendant no. 3 sold his 50% undivided share in the suit property to defendant no. 1 vide sale deed dated 20.04.2006 who took over possession only of the first floor of the suit property in the year 2006 which happened to be in occupation of defendant no. 3. No construction was ever made on the second floor or third floor by defendant no. 3 as it could not have been made without the consent and signatures of the plaintiff.
2.9 Pursuant to defendant no. 1 being put in possession over the first floor of the suit property, the defendant no. 1 on 27.09.2006 tried to construct or carry out some construction over the second floor of the suit property. The plaintiff by way of letter to the Chief CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 7 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:21:44 +0530
Architect, NDMC recorded his objection against the said unauthorized construction by defendant no. 1. By way of said letter dated 27.09.2006, it was stated that defendant no. 1 could make any changes only on the first floor and defendant no.1 could not be allowed to make any construction or changes on the second floor of the suit property since the plaintiff had equal share in the same and without his consent, no construction can be carried out. The said letter was received by NDMC and defendant no. 1. On 10.03.2007, the plaintiff wrote to Chief Architect, NDMC that no construction should be allowed on the second floor as building is 55-60 years old and shall not be able to bear the load of a new floor and defendant no. 1 had also agreed for the same. The said letter was duly received by Chief Architect on 14.03.2007.
2.10 On 28.07.2007, the defendant no. 1 gave an undertaking to the NDMC that she shall not construct any extra dwelling unit beyond the sanctioned limit. The copy of said undertaking was duly given to the plaintiff with assurance that she shall not construct beyond the scope of the sanctioned plans. It is submitted that since the sanctioned plains do not contain any provision for construction of any dwelling unit on the second floor, therefore, defendant no. 1 agreed that except certain changes on the first floor which was duly sanctioned, she shall not carry out any other construction in the suit property. There has been various correspondences from the NDMC addressed to defendant no. 1 that there have been violation regarding CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 8 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:21:46 +0530 unauthorized construction being carried out on the first floor and no sanctioned plan existed for any kind of construction on the second floor of the suit property.
2.11 That in the month of September 2012, the defendant no. 1 started raising some illegal and unauthorized construction on the second floor and third floor of the suit property without any sanctioned plan from the NDMC and upon the complaints made to NDMC, notice under Sec. 248 was issued to defendant no. 1 by NDMC for violation of NDMC Act. Upon accessing the NDMC file, it was revealed that the photographs taken by the NDMC Officials on 10.09.2012 clearly depict that construction has just started on the second floor of the suit property and at that point of time, there was no roof erected above the construction carried out on the second floor of the suit property. From 18.09.2012 till 27.09.2012, defendant no. 1 carried out unauthorized construction on the second floor and the third floor of the suit property with the help of NDMC Officials. On 01.10.2012, plaintiff intimated NDMC for unauthorized construction by defendant no. 1, however, no action was taken by the NDMC.On 01.10.2012, a notice was issued by Chief Architect, NDMC under Section 250 of NDMC Act thereby issue a show cause notice to defendant no. 1 regarding unauthorized construction. The said notice was served upon defendant no. 1 on 05.10.2012 as such defendant no. 1 continued unauthorized construction for the said period. On 05.10.2012, son of the plaintiff alongwith his lawyer went to the office CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 9 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:21:48 +0530
of NDMC and met the concerned Engineer where they were informed that the action had been taken against the defendant no. 1 under Section 248 & 250 of NDMC Act. Despite the said notice, NDMC took no steps for stopping the unauthorized construction.
2.12 On 06.10.2012, plaintiff sent another representation to NDMC regarding rampant unauthorized construction and again on 08.10.2012, the plaintiff gave representation to defendant no. 1 to stop unauthorized construction on second and third floor. Finally, NDMC passed a sealing order on 12.10.2012 directing sealing of second floor of the suit property under Sec. 240 of NDMC Act. No sanction was ever accorded to defendant no. 1 for carrying out any construction on second floor and neither there was any sanctioned plan submitted by defendant no.1 for the same. Immediately after the sealing order, defendant no.1 addressed a letter dated 21.10.2012 to NDMC requesting for de-sealing of second floor by claiming absolute owner of first and second floor with assurance of filing of sanctioned plan and sought one month time. While defendant no. 2 NDMC was proposing to de-seal the second floor, plaintiff filed a writ petition bearing no. 7395 of 2012 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi seeking direction against NDMC to demolish the entire illegal construction at the second and third floor of the suit property. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27.12.2012 with a direction that complaints made by plaintiff shall be dealt with by the NDMC in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations and proposed action have to be CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 10 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.07 16:21:50 +0530 communicated to the plaintiff within a week of decision regarding compounding of unauthorized construction.
2.13 The defendant no. 1 had challenged the sealing order by filing a statutory appeal before the NDMC Appellate Tribunal and in the mean time also filed a compounding application before NDMC Appellate Tribunal for compounding an unauthorized and illegal construction. The plaintiff in the said proceedings filed an impleadment application, however, the same was rejected on 06.05.2013. The NDMC vide order dated 07.03.2013 rejected the compounding application and the application for sanction plans submitted by defendant no. 1 on various grounds. One of the ground was that the plaintiff herein is the co-owner of the suit property and without his consent, no construction could have taken place on the second and third floor of the suit property. Defendant no. 1 filed a statutory appeal before NDMC Appellate Tribunal.
2.14 The defendant no. 1 has sought to claim her right, title and interest over the second and third floors of the suit property as such right of the plaintiff has infringed as plaintiff is also 50% co- owner of the undivided suit property and the same constrained the plaintiff to file the present suit seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiff is 50% owner of the undivided suit property. The sale deed executed by Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi in favour of defendant no. 1 does not in any manner bind the plaintiff nor takes away the 50% co-
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 11 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.07 16:21:52 +0530
ownership rights of the plaintiff over the entire suit property which is defined an "immovable property" in the Wills consisting of land and building. The sale deed dated 20.04.2006 is null and void to the extent it conveys ownership rights of the second and thirds floors and other portion of the suit property in favour of defendant no.1.
2.15 It is submitted that both the Wills dated 06.10.1988 and 02.04.2000 executed by Late father and mother of the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 bequeathed 50% undivided shares of the entire suit property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no.3. Defendant no. 3 vide sale deed dated 20.04.2006 could not have conveyed a better title than that possessed by him. Family settlement dated 24.06.1989 also could not vest any right or title to defendant no. 3 since the same was not duly registered and is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.
2.16 The plaintiff is admittedly 50% owner of the entire suit property and defendant no. 1 can not be allowed to carry out any kind of construction in the suit property to the detriment of another co- owner / co-sharer as defendant no. 1 has 50% co-ownership qua the suit property. Pursuant to the filing of the present suit, the defendant no. 1 has taken three parking slots and limited the parking of plaintiff to the one slot only, though plaintiff is having 50% complete right of the suit property.
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 12 of 60M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:21:54
+0530
2.17 That defendant no. 1 has put a guard house and a garbage
bin in the parking lot next to the entrance of the plaintiff as such infringing the plaintiff's ability to park two cars. The defendant no. 1 has blocked the right of the plaintiff to enter from the main entrance. Defendant no. 1 has also restrained the plaintiff to have an entrance to the common terrace of second floor which hinders the maintenance work and also limited the plaintiff's access to the main staircase of the second floor.
2.18 That the plaintiff has prayed for decree of declaration to declare sale deed dated 20.04.2006 executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 as null and void. Plaintiff has prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant for making any kind of construction on second and third floors or any portion in the suit property. Plaintiff has prayed for mandatory injunction commanding the defendant no. 1 and other defendants to demolish the unauthorized construction on the second and third floors of the suit property. Plaintiff has prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 for blocking the entrance of plaintiff to the second and third floor of the suit property.
3. Defendants were served with the summons. Defendant no. 1 appeared and filed written statement, wherein, preliminary objection was taken that plaintiff has no legal right, title and interest in the first and second floor of the suit property. It is submitted that CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 13 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:21:57 +0530
Harkishan Lal Bedi and Smt. Sushila Devi Bedi were the owners of the suit property measuring 750 sq. yards. The building consisting of ground floor, first floor, second floor ( Barsati) alongwith servant quarter which was constructed in year 1956-57 and completion certificate was obtained from NDMC. Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi executed a Will dated 06.10.1988 and after his demise, his family members namely Sushila Devi, Manmohan Bedi and Rabinder Mohan Bedi, Raj Wahi and Ved Chopra entered into family settlement dated 24.06.1989. Manmohan Bedi is also signatory to the same besides other members. Sushila Devi Bedi had executed a Will dated 16.04.1996 and registered Will dated 07.04.2000 regarding the suit property bequeathing ground floor to Manmohan Bedi, first floor and second floor to Rabinder Mohan Bedi to the exclusion of other legal heirs. After her demise, the property was mutated in the name of Manmohan Bedi and Rabinder Mohan Bedi from L&DO. Leasehold rights got converted into freehold by Manmohan Bedi and Rabinder Mohan Bedi and conveyance deed was executed on 01.05.2003. As such Manmohan Bedi became owner of the ground floor and Rabinder Mohan Bedi became the owner of first floor and second floor with servant quarters. As such Rabinder Mohan Bedi has exclusive and absolute right to raise construction above first floor as per Will and family settlement between the parties which has been acted upon by the parties.
3.1 Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi sold first floor and second CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 14 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:02
+0530
floor, balconies and terrace to defendant no. 1 and as per sale deed, defendant no. 1 was having right to construct such further area on the first floor and full second floor being the owner thereof. Defendant no. 1 applied for sanction and NDMC granted sanction vide communication dated 22.06.2007 which was released vide letter dated 19.11.2007. After obtaining sanction, defendant no. 1 had raised construction of 250.07 sq. meter on the first floor and second floor. The mutation in the property tax records in respect of first and second floors of the suit property was effected and applicable tax was paid. The suit property was segregated into different portion and mutated accordingly by NDMC. NDMC has recognized the defendant no. 1 as owner of first floor and second floor in their property tax records.
3.2 As per Will dated 06.10.1988, the property be equally divided between Manmohan Bedi and Rabinder Mohan Bedi. The suit property consisted of two portions, ground floor and first floor i.e. ground floor and lawn and motor garage forms part of Ground Floor; first floor and Barsati on second floor and servant quarter were considered as part of First Floor. Following the family settlement dated 24.06.1989 where Manmohan Bedi was also a signatory, Rabinder Mohan Bedi was to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to each sisters and will have absolute right and title on the first floor and also have right to construct any accommodation above first floor. After the death of Sh. H.L. bedi, Rabinder Mohan Bedi paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to each sisters on 30.04.1990 and sisters have discharged the interest in CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 15 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:22:06 +0530 full and final settlement of their claims as per the Will. Even in the Will executed by Smt. Sushila Devi Bedi on 16.04.1996 and 07.04.2000, all facts of family settlement and payments by Rabinder Mohan Bedi have been mentioned categorically. In sale deed executed between Rabinder Mohan Bedi and defendant no.1, all these facts have been mentioned in the recital. It has been categorically mentioned that undivided equal interest in the land comprising of 750 sq. yards in the suit property, exclusive ownership of first and second floors of the said property as per family settlement and two Wills, balconies of each floor and terraces of each floor together with the right to construct on first and second floors and equal ownership right to common areas such as drive ways, entrances, alongwith Manmohan Bedi(occupant of the ground floor). Defendant no. 1 was assured by Rabinder Mohan Bedi that he has unhindered rights to construct over second floor and upon the same, the property was purchased. In sale deed, it is mentioned that purchaser will have right to park cars in the drive ways.
3.3 It is submitted that once the owner of the property H.L. Bedi and Smt. Sushila Devi Bedi had given ground floor to Manmohan Bedi inclusive of lawn and motor garage then no question comes about his right to raise construction on upper floors. His right is limited to construction on the ground floor with permissible ground coverage of 75%. The plaintiff filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and same was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.2012.CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 16 of 60
M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.07 16:22:08 +0530 Thereafter, plaintiff filed an impleadment application before Appellate Tribunal of NDMC. The said application was disposed of on 06.05.2013. In the impleadment application, the plaintiff claimed that he is owner of 50%, however, the same does not mean that he is the owner of built up portion of first and second floors. Plaintiff has no right to raise construction on terrace. In family settlement, Rabinder Mohan Bedi was granted right to raise construction over first floor and above and once the plaintiff had agreed to the same and the said family settlement had acted upon, he can not thereafter say that the property has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. The portion has been clearly de-marketed with clear demarcation right to raise construction.
3.4 The property was sealed by NDMC on 12.10.2012 which was challenged by defendant no. 1 and same is pending before Ld. District Judge, Patiala House Courts. During the pendency of appeal, defendant no. 1 had submitted the revised building plans with NDMC, however, same were refused and the said decision has been challenged before Ld. District Judge, Patiala House Courts. It is submitted that for the reliefs sought in the plaint against defendant no. 1, the plaintiff has to establish his legal right, title and interest qua the said portion of the suit property. The defendant no. 1 is a bona fide purchaser of the said portion vide the registered sale deed dated 20.04.2006.
3.5 In reply on merits, the defendant no. 1 has denied the
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 17 of 60
M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:10
+0530
averments made in the plaint and asserted that plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the portion which defendant no. 1 has purchased from Rabinder Mohan Bedi under a registered sale deed.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.2/NDMC, plaintiff has no cause of action against it and plaintiff has failed to serve statutory notice as provided under Section 385 of NDMC Act as such plaint is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that plaintiff has projected misleading false and frivolous facts and the suit is wholly misconceived. The averments in the plaint are denied except the record.
5. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff regarding the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 & 2 wherein the averments made in the plaint are reasserted.
6. After completion of pleadings and admission/denial of documents, following issues were framed vide order dated 28.01.2020:-
1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
OPD-1
2. Whether the plaintiff has correctly valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and paid appropriate court fees thereon? OPD-1
3. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 18 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:13
+0530
present suit? OPD-1
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration to the effect that sale deed executed by Rabinder Mohan Bedi (defendant no.3) in favour of defendant no.1, is invalid/ void? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in clause no.(b) and (d) of the suit? OPP
6. Whether plaintiff is also entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause no.(c) and (e) of the suit? OPP
7. Relief.
7. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 who has tendered in evidence his affidavit dated 2 nd March, 2020 Ex.PW-1/A and he relied upon documents Ex.PW-1/1 to PW-1/19.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he is B.A. Hons. in Economics. He deposed that he graduated from Bristol College of London. He deposed that he retired as Marketing Manager and Advisor in M/s Exide Batteries in India. He deposed that he came to know about the execution of Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.1 by his brother Mr. Rabinder Mohan Bedi (Defendant No.3) after 2/3months of its execution. He deposed that he had obtained a copy of the Sale Deed but he did not remember when he obtained the same. He deposed that he had obtained it after 2/3 months of its execution. He deposed that his brother was residing in Germany who used to CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 19 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:15
+0530
visit India after an interval of 3 months/ 6 months or after a year. He deposed that he had very cordial relations with his brother. He deposed that he had two sisters with whom they had cordial relations. He deposed that on his visits to India, his brother used to stay with them on the ground floor of the said property. He deposed that his father died at the age of 80/88 years. He deposed that his sisters at the said time were residing in Pune and Delhi. He deposed that the younger sister was residing in Pune whereas the other was residing at New Delhi. He deposed that his brother (Defendant No.3) had come to Delhi at the time of the death of his father. He deposed that he did not remember for how much time he had lived in Delhi at that time. He affirmed that his father had executed a Will on 06.10.1988. He deposed that his mother had not written any Will. He deposed that as far as he remember they are not in possession of any Will executed by his mother. He affirmed that they all siblings i.e. they, his brother and his two sisters were well placed in life around the year 1988. He deposed that his father had not discussed about the execution of the Will with them. He deposed that after the death their father, he, his brother, his sisters and his mother had read the will executed by his father. He affirmed that his brother had stayed in Delhi till 24 th June, 1989 at the time of the death of his father. He deposed that the suit property was constructed upto the first floor at the time of the death of his father. He deposed that there were three rooms, drawing and dining room, kitchen, etc. on the ground floor and similar construction on the first floor. He deposed that there is a lawn on the ground floor CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 20 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:22:17 +0530 and a path coming into the property. He deposed that there is no courtyard on the ground floor. He deposed that there is a car park on the driveway. After seeing the photographs Ex.PW-1/R-1 and PW-1/R-2, he deposed that these are the photographs of the backyard on the ground floor. He deposed that there is no portion like this on the front but there is a drive way. He deposed that the portions shown in Ex.PW-1/R-1 & R-2 are in his exclusive use. He deposed that there was only one room which may be called Barsati above the first floor. He deposed that he is not sure whether there was a bathroom in addition to the room on Barsati. He deposed that his brother had given a sum of Rs.2 lakh each to both his sisters. He deposed that he did not remember when it was discussed between him and his brother as to who will pay the sum of Rs.2 lakh each to the sisters. He deposed that he did not remember whether they had a discussion about this. He deposed that he had not raised any objection on the payment of the sum of Rs.2 lakh each to his sisters by his brother. He deposed that he did not remember whether his sisters had also discussed with him about the payment being made by his brother. He deposed that he did not remember whether this was decided prior to 24 th June, 1989 that his brother will make the payment of Rs.2 lakh each to his sisters. Upon seeing the document Ex.PW-1/3, he affirmed his signatures at points X. He also identified the signatures of his mother, brother and sisters on the document at points Y, Y-1, Y-2 & Y-3. He deposed that Sh. H.R. Chopra was his brother-in-law, he cannot identify his signature. He deposed that he did not remember who was Dr. Juneja.
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 21 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date: SHARMA 2026.05.07 16:22:21 +0530
He deposed that he did not know who had typed out document Ex.PW-1/3 and as to who had drafted it. He deposed that they had the intention of honouring the document Ex.PW-1/3 at the time it was executed by them. He affirmed that the family settlement Ex-PW-1/3 has never been challenged by its executors. He affirmed that he has been occupying the portion on the ground floor of the suit property in terms of the family settlement Ex.PW-1/3. He deposed that they had submitted documents for mutation as per the requirement of NDMC. He deposed that he did not remember then what documents were submitted by them. He deposed that the same is his answer for conversion of the property from leasehold to free hold. He deposed that he has not visited the portion of the suit property which is in occupation of Defendant No.1. He deposed that he cannot say that there were three porta cabins, coolers, exterior unit of AC installed on the terrace of defendant no.1. He affirmed that there is a bathroom on the terrace floor of the suit property. He deposed that there is a bathroom cum WC in the backyard on the ground floor. He deposed that he cannot say if the backyard portion measures about 120 Sq.Ft. He deposed that he is not aware that defendant No.1 has filed a revised plan with the NDMC. He affirmed that all legal pleas mentioned by him in his affidavit are as per the legal advice given to him by his counsel. He deposed that legal pleas are not as per his knowledge. He deposed that he is paying property tax for the ground floor of the suit property. He deposed that he did not remember whether that there is a PIN in respect of the ground floor of the suit CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 22 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:23
+0530
property. He deposed that he did not know if defendant No.1 is paying property tax for 1" Floor and 2nd Floor of the suit property. He denied the suggestion that in March, 2008 he was also interacting with the architect of Defendant No.1. He deposed that he has not clicked photographs Ex.PW-1/12A to Ex.PW-1/12D. He volunteered that they have been clicked at his instance. He denied the suggestion that ground floor properties are considered to be more prime/valuable than properties located on first or second floor. He denied the suggestion that his statement in paragraph No. 5 of his affidavit to the effect that the family settlement dated 24.06.1989 is inadmissible in evidence. He denied the suggestion that defendant No. 1 has been in exclusive possession of the first floor along with barsati and terrace of the suit property, after having gained possession on the strength of the Sale Deed dated 26.04.2006. He denied that defendant No. 1 has never objected to his exclusive possession of the courtyard and front lawn. He denied that defendant No. 1 is not occupying 3 parking slots while limiting his parking space to 1 slot. He denied the suggestion that the alleged water barrier for the lower lying garage does not block vehicle entry. He denied the suggestion that there is no leakage from the first floor kitchen area into his kitchen. He denied the suggestion that the guard house built by the Defendant No. I does not in any manner encroach upon his parking space in the suit property. He denied the suggestion that the garbage bins of defendant No.1 do not hinder his entrance to the suit property or obstruct his free movement in the suit property. He denied the suggestion that the defendant No. 1 has in no CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 23 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:25
+0530
manner whatsoever blocked his right to enter from the main entrance. He denied the suggestion that the defendant No. I has never obstructed his access to the electricity board of the ground floor of the suit property. He denied the suggestion that the defendant No. 1 relocated the water tanks from the second floor to the roof of the barsati with his consent. He denied the suggestion that he has failed to pay the appropriate court fee in respect of the present suit. He denied the suggestion that the defendant No. 1 has never obstructed him from using/accessing any of the common areas in the suit property.
8. No other witness was produced by the plaintiff and therefore, PE was closed.
9. In defendant evidence, defendant no. 1 examined two witnesses.
9.1 DW-1 Madhulika Nath, wife of Ravinder Nath, Maulseri House, 7 Kapashera Estate. New Delhi-110037 has tendered in evidence her affidavit dated 25th June, 2022 Ex.DW-1/A. She has relied upon documents Ex.DW-1/1, Ex.DW-1/2 and receipts Mark A and Mark B. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she is a Graduate. She deposed that affidavit Ex. DW-1/A has been prepared by her Lawyer. She deposed that she told her Lawyer about the facts and her husband was always present there. She deposed that her husband is an Advocate. On asking when did she intend to purchase the first floor of the suit property, she deposed that she met the owner CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 24 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:22:27 +0530 Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi in the year 2005 as far as she remembered. She met Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi for the first time in the year 2005 at the first floor of the suit property. On asking what did she see at the first floor at the time of her first visit, she deposed that Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi met them on the first floor and he showed them the construction on the first floor and a room which was built on the 2 nd Floor and a small servant quarter on the back of the 2 nd Floor and there was huge vacant space. She deposed that she did not remember where exactly the servant quarter was constructed. On asking what did Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi propose her for buying the first floor of the suit property, she deposed that they asked about the price and he quoted the market price at that time and they liked the property and she did not remember the exact price which Sh. Bedi quoted but they purchased it for a sum of Rs.4.5 Crores and made the payment by cheque to Sh. Bedi. On asking when she went for the meeting with Mr. Bedi and asked him to show her the ownership documents of the property, she deposed that she did not remember whether they had asked him about the ownership papers and in fact they had visited the property again. She admitted that she saw the ownership documents of the property prior to purchasing the said property. She deposed that her husband is a Lawyer and he made sure that all the titles of the property were clear and whatever the owner was giving them is mentioned in the contract. She deposed that she had a cursory look on the ownership documents of Mr. Bedi. She deposed that she had purchased other properties after the purchase of the suit property. She CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 25 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:22:29 +0530
deposed that she has not seen the documents since in all these dealings her husband being a lawyer, sees the documents. She deposed that she did not remember whether Sh. Bedi while she visited the first floor of the suit property tell / intimate her regarding earlier litigation of the first floor of the suit property. Upon asking that there was already a case filed in Hon'ble Delhi High Court qua the same property which she purchased and Mr. Bedi was a party to it, she deposed that after they shook hands, Sh. Bedi did tell them that he had taken money from some other person as well. She deposed that he assured them that there was nothing to worry about the deal. Upon asking whether all documents Sh. Bedi shown to her regarding his title of the first and second floor of the suit property at the time of her meeting on the first floor, she deposed that she did not see or check any document. She volunteered that her husband had seen the documents. Upon asking which document she has placed on record to show that Sh.Bedi had title over the 2nd Floor of the suit property, she deposed that she think it is the contract between her and Sh.Bedi. She deposed that Sh.Bedi showed them the documents of his ownership of the second floor. She volunteered that in fact her husband had seen the papers. She deposed that her husband had seen the ownership document of the 2 nd Floor of Sh. Bedi. She affirmed that there was construction existing on the second floor when she was intending to purchase the property. She deposed that there was one room with a Bathroom on the second floor. She deposed that it was in a habitable condition. She deposed that she did not meet Sh. Manmohan Bedi prior to purchase of the first floor of CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 26 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:31
+0530
the suit property. Upon asking that Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi possessed 50% share in the entire property due to the two Wills executed by his late parents, she deposed that Sh.Bedi had told them about the wills executed by his parents. She volunteered that but there was another document executed by the family members after deliberation after 15-20 days of the death of his father. She deposed that she did not know whether she has mentioned anywhere in her written statement that as per her answer to question, there were any deliberations among the family members of Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi after 15-20 days of the death of his father. She deposed that Sh. M.M. Bedi was the owner of the ground floor of the suit property. She deposed that she did not know about any document on record to show that Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi had exclusive ownership over the entrance door, hall and the staircase leading up to the first and second floor of the suit property but she was assured by her husband that she had the right to the entrance door, hall and the staircase. She volunteered that she did not know the name of the document, may be the contract between her and Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi where the rights have been mentioned. She deposed that she can not say whether there was any document placed on record by her to show that Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi had exclusive ownership over the entrance door, hall and the stair case leading up to the first and second floor of the suit property. She deposed that she did not know at that time she bought the suit property, it was disputed. She deposed that she did not remember when she come to know that the suit property was disputed.
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 27 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.07 16:22:33 +0530
Upon asking whether is it correct that the suit property has been converted into free hold in equal shares in the name of Mr. M.M. Bedi and Rabinder Mohan Bedi, she deposed that in fact what she has been told that they had equal shares in the land but she did not know about the construction. She deposed that she is not sure whether the suit property has been converted into free hold from lease hold in the names of Sh. M.M. Bedi and Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi. She deposed that her husband must be knowing it. Upon asking on what basis she said that she has equal ownership rights of the driveway, stairway, entrances and other open areas and easement rights after seeing para 3(c) of her affidavit Ex. DW-1/A, she deposed that Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi had told them that they will be having equal ownership rights of the driveway, stairway, entrances and other open areas and easement rights. She deposed that she did not know that prior to her occupying the first floor of the suit property, Sh. M.M. Bedi was using the 2nd Floor/ Terrace. She deposed that she is not sure whether a tubewell existed in the suit property but till they got a water connection in their name, they were drawing water from Sh. M.M. Bedi's water connection. She deposed that she had not seen the freehold conveyance deed of the suit property in favour of Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi & Sh. M.M. Bedi prior to the purchase of the suit property. She volunteered that her husband must have seen. She deposed that she has not seen the two Wills executed by the late parents of Sh. M.M. Bedi and Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi. She volunteered that her husband must have seen them. She deposed that CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 28 of 60 Digitally signed M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:35
+0530
she has not seen the family settlement executed between the Bedi family members. She volunteered that her husband must have seen them. She deposed that they had got the water connection after about one year of the purchase. She deposed that it may be or she is not aware that she had purchased the suit property in the year 2006 and she got the water connection in the year 2017. She affirmed that the suit property was owned by the parents of Sh. M.M. Bedi in equal shares. She affirmed that the will dated 16.04.1996 executed by Late Mrs.Sushila Bedi was superseded by another registered will dated 07.04.2000. She deposed that she started constructing on the terrace of the suit property in 2012. Upon asking that did she seek any prior permission from NDMC for constructing on the terrace, she deposed that they were told by the NDMC that permission for alteration will be granted in due course and therefore, they started with the construction.
She deposed that she did not remember whether prior to starting construction on the terrace, she did not even apply to the NDMC for permission. She deposed that she did not remember whether the NDMC have rejected her plans after sealing of the property on the ground that she does not have any ownership rights upon the second floor. She deposed that perhaps it was rejected on the ground that it was an old property and did not have the strength to bear construction on the second floor. She affirmed that she is not giving access to Sh. M.M. Bedi and his family to the second floor of the suit property as well as the common stair case leading to the second floor and she has put her own locks. She deposed that this was an understanding from CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 29 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:22:38 +0530 the very beginning. However, they used to allow them passage to terrace for TV antenna and water tank purposes. She deposed that they did not take permission from Sh. M.M. Bedi in writing before starting construction on the second floor/terrace. She volunteered that but he knew about it from the very beginning. She affirmed that she started constructing second floor/ terrace in the year 2012 and very soon thereafter the construction started by her was sealed by the NDMC. She volunteered that son of Sh. M.M. Bedi had objected to the construction. She affirmed that a complaint to NDMC regarding the unauthorized construction was made by Sh.M.M. Bedi and thereafter, the NDMC had sealed the second floor/terrace. Upon asking how does she say that Sh. M.M. Bedi is the owner of the ground floor only of the suit property, she deposed that Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi had told them that they had the exclusive rights of the driveway, stairway, entrances and other open areas and easement rights as also exclusive rights on the first floor and above. She denied that her averment in the amended written statement that pursuant to the conveyance deed dated 01.05.2003, M.M. Bedi became owner of the ground floor and Shri Rabinder Mohan Bedi became owner of the first, second floor and the servant quarter is false and incorrect. She denied that Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi had no absolute and exclusive right to raise construction of any accommodation above first floor as he may desire as per the Will and family settlement between the parties. She volunteered that they were told that he had the right to raise construction on the first floor and above. She deposed that she was not CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 30 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:41
+0530
told about the sale deed dated 20.04.2006 is a null and void document and Mr. Rabinder Mohan Bedi had no right or authority to sell the second floor/ terrace or any other floor above the same. She deposed that everything is recorded in the contract. She denied the suggestion that Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi had no right to sell away the second floor/ terrace or any other floor of the suit property. She denied the suggestion that the construction carried out by her was not well within the prescribed limit of MPD-2021. She denied the suggestion that she had no right to carry out any construction over the second floor/ terrace or any floor above it.
9.2 DW-2 Ravinder Nath, S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Nath, R/o 7 Maulseri House, 7 Kapashera Estate, New Delhi-110037 has tendered in evidence his affidavit dated 03 rd August, 2022 Ex.DW-2/A. In his cross-examination, he denied that he met Mrs.Sushila Devi, Mrs. Rajwahi and Mrs. Ved Chopra prior to Defendant No.1 entering into transaction with Defendant No.2. He volunteered that Some of them were already dead. He deposed that after the sale deed had been entered into and registered between the buyer and the seller, sometime later, it transpired that there was somebody who claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
approximately to the Defendant No.2 and that dispute was settled and did not affect the transfer of the property in dispute. He deposed that he did not remember as to when he came to know about the said CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 31 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:43
+0530
dispute. But defendant No.2 told him that he will settle and will not enter into any agreement to sell or any other document which will affect the transfer of the property in favour of Defendant No.1. He denied that prior to the execution of sale deed he and defendant no.1 were fully aware of the dispute between the defendant No.2 and two other parties qua the suit property. He affirmed that the said persons had also filed a case qua the suit property in Court. He deposed that he came to know about this but he did not remember as to when he came to know about this but this may be close to 2/3 years later. He denied that he was very well aware of the dispute pending qua the suit property and knowingly purchased the suit property. He volunteered that however, it does not affect the title to the suit property qua defendant No.1. Upon asking whether the party namely M/s Miraj Homes had filed a suit qua the suit property against the Defendant No.2, he deposed that he did not remember the name of the claimant. He deposed that as far as he remembered there was some claim may have been a suit which was settled. Again said dismissed. He denied that defendant No.1 purchased the suit property which was disputed as there were two claimants who had already entered into a transaction qua the suit property with defendant no.2. He deposed that he did not know the date of the transaction of the aforesaid two claimants with defendant no.2 qua the suit property and as he has already stated that the defendant No.2 passed a good title in favour of defendant no.1 and there has not been any claim by such other parties. He deposed that he is not aware of those two transactions qua the suit property were CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 32 of 60 Digitally signed M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:45
+0530
entered into by defendant no.2 much prior to the sale deed between defendant Nos. 1 and 2. He deposed that prior to execution of the sale deed with defendant No.2 in 2006, he think they did meet the plaintiff and he has stated that he met with the plaintiff and his wife on several dates but he did not remember as to when they had met them. He denied that the defendant no.1 purchased the suit property at a very lower price as the same was a disputed one. He volunteered that the defendant No.2 told him that his brother was wanting to buy this property at ¼ of the sale price. He deposed that he told his lawyer that the plaintiff's offer was not acceptable to defendant No.2 and he had in fact told his lawyer that the plaintiff wanted to buy the suit property at ¼ of the sale price approximately but he did not think relevant to mention it in the written statement/ affidavit. Upon asking whether he was a party/ executant to any of the documents for the purchase of the first floor of the property No.F-128, Malcha Marg, New Delhi, he deposed that the sale deed dated 20 th April, 2006 was signed between defendant No.2 seller and defendant No.1 buyer and it pertained not just to the first floor but to the entire property minus the ground floor which was already occupied by the plaintiff and had been so occupied since the time of the family settlement which had been entered into approximately 17 years before that and the defendant No.2 was in possession and enjoyment of the entire property which is the subject matter of the sale deed which included the right to construct above the first floor. He has not executed the sale deed or any other documents for the purchase of the Property from the defendant No.2 but he had CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 33 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07 16:22:48 +0530 examined the documents of title before defendant No.1 signed the sale deed and paid the consideration and paid a stamp paper for Rs.27,00,000/-. He denied that the defendant No.2 had no right, title, interest over the second floor of the suit property. He deposed that he had the possession and was using himself or renting out the entire property including the second floor both the bedrooms, bathrooms, the open area and the servant room and also a small servant's bathroom on ground floor approachable from the service lane in addition to the common driveway, the entry point, the staircase, the entrance hall right up to the roof. Upon asking that at the time of the execution of the sale deed, the sanctioned plan of the suit property only envisaged a Barsati on the first floor and one bathroom, he deposed that he did not the sanctioned plan. He volunteered that however, what is being called a Barsati floor was in fact the second floor of the property which had a full bedroom and a bathroom, open area as stated above and a servant room. He deposed that the defendant No.2 had shared a copy of the family settlement deed with defendant No.1 prior to the execution of the sale deed. Upon asking whether the defendant No.2 shared a copy of the sanctioned plan of the suit property with the defendant No.1, he deposed that he did not remember what the defendant No.2 shared with them. He volunteered that but he do remember that he shared a proposed plan to fully construct the second floor along with a further room on the third floor which he had got prepared from an architect and had told him that this was a part of his right and entitlement in terms of the oral family settlement which was negotiated between him CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 34 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:50
+0530
and his siblings when he had come to India soon after the death of his father. He deposed that after such negotiations, they arrived at a family settlement which was later on given over to a professional to have it typed out and signed as an aid memoir. He deposed that he did not remember if they had taken a copy of the sanctioned plan at the time of the purchase of the suit property. Upon asking whether the defendant No.1 or he share the copy of the sanctioned plan of the suit property sanctioned prior to the sale deed with his architect, he deposed that he did not remember even if he had it. He deposed that he was not present at the time when the alleged negotiation took place between the family members of the Bedi family as stated by him in his statement. He deposed that he assist the defendant No.1 in preparing the amended written statement filed in the Court on 14 th October, 2014. He volunteered that the suit was amended and its character was changed from one of injunction to something else which was way beyond. He deposed that the family settlement agreement dated 24-06-1989 between the family members of Bedi Family was not registered as far as he know. He volunteered that it was a record of a discussion and decision arrived at between the family members of late Sh. H.L.Bedi which was later reduced to writing so that there is no hazy notion or dispute and this family settlement was then acted upon over the next 8-10 months. He deposed that he was not present nor a witness to the alleged discussion and decision arrived at between the family members of Late H.L. Bedi as stated by him. He volunteered that however, this fact was confirmed to him by the CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 35 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:53
+0530
defendant No.2 and the plaintiff who has also stated so on oath before the Court. He deposed that he hold a bachelor's degree in Commerce and a bachelor degree in Law. He deposed that he has some other qualifications internationally. He deposed that he has been practicing as a lawyer for more than 50 years. He deposed that he assisted the counsel of his wife in preparing the written statement in this case. He volunteered that on factual matters. He deposed that he mentioned the fact of the family settlement and history of title with respect to the property being purchased and that included the family settlement arrived at between the widow of Late Shri H.L. Bedi and his four children which was being discussed between themselves soon after the demise of Mr. Bedi when his son who came for his funeral from Germany discussed the matter and arrived at a family settlement which he was told was then written down with the aid of a professional and typed out and was then signed by the aforesaid family members. He deposed that it was then implemented over a period of 06 months in which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each was paid by Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi to his two sisters in accordance with the family settlement and they had signed receipts. This family settlement was also mentioned by Mrs. Sushila Devi Bedi in her Will and codicils executed subsequently which Will and codicil were drafted and witnessed by lawyers and then typed out in English and signed in Hindi. He deposed that it is mentioned in the written statement in Para 32-E regarding the factum of 'Oral' family settlement. He deposed that it is matter of record that in the earlier written statement dated 29 th CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 36 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:22:55 +0530 June, 2013, only family settlement was mentioned and there was no mention of any oral family settlement in para 3 of preliminary objections and in para 4 of the reply on merits to the plaint. He affirmed that at the time of the drafting of the first written statement dated 29th June, 2013, he had engaged Sh. K.B. Gupta, Advocate and at the time of drafting the amended written statement, he had engaged the services of Sh. Ankur Mehendru, Advocate. He deposed that it is matter of record that his subsequent lawyer for the first time introduced one line with regard to oral family settlement in the written statement dated 15th October, 2018 and the same was not there in the earlier written statement dated 29 th June, 2013. He volunteered that he was told by Sh. Rabinder Mohan Bedi that the matter was discussed over some days, settlement arrived at and later on reduced into writing. He denied that he was a part to any discussion between Defendant No.2 or his family members as stated by him. He volunteered that he also discussed it with the plaintiff who affirmed having signed the settlement. He deposed that he did not remember whether he / his family have filed two other Court cases regarding certain immovable property. Upon asking whether the plaintiff grant him any no objection for raising construction on the Barsati Floor, he deposed that he discussed the matter with the plaintiff who said that the building structure is old and it will therefore, be desirable not to add any weight to it without strengthening the same. He denied that the plaintiff never gave him any no objection for constructing on the Barsati Floor and deposed that his no objection was not required.CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 37 of 60
M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:22:57
+0530
However, his son wanted some money to give a no objection. He deposed that it is a matter of record that the plaintiff gave a complaint to the NDMC for unauthorised construction by him in respect of the Barsari Floor. He volunteered that the plaintiff first objected to renovation but later on relented and he put up three porta cabins on the second floor along with a bathroom. He deposed that he did not get any sanction from NDMC to construct the porta cabins on the second floor but both NDMC and plaintiff were aware of this. He deposed that the plaintiff told him that they have contacted the Chief Minister Smt. Sheela Dixit through her brother-in-law and will get the whole thing sealed. He denied that that the earlier sanction plan of the suit property, only had a provision for one room and toilet on the Barsati floor. He deposed that it had a provision for bathroom, bedroom, a servant quarter and open terrace. He deposed that he saw the earlier sanctioned plan. He deposed that he does not have the same. He denied that he was deposing falsely and intentionally not producing the earlier sanctioned plan before the Court because it had only provision for one toilet and a room on the Barsati. Upon asking in the earlier sanctioned plan there was no provision for a servant quarter on the Barsati, he deposed that that is not what his recollection is but he don't have the earlier sanctioned plan. He seen the original sanctioned plan dated 23rd December, 1961 and he was asked that there is no provision for servant quarter on the Barsati Floor, he deposed that he is unable to read and decipher fully the plan Ex.DW-2/P-1. However, when his wife purchased the property it CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 38 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:22:59 +0530 already had a bedroom, bathroom and a servant quarter on the second floor. He has not seen any completion or as constructed drawings. He denied that he is deposing falsely since there was no provision made for any servant quarter on the barsati floor and the same constructed by him is totally unauthorised. He deposed that he did not have a sanctioned plan for the servant quarter on the second floor. He deposed that he did not have a sanctioned plan for the servant quarter on the second floor. He volunteered that as he said earlier, he renovated the bedroom and bathroom and put up three porta cabins servant quarters and a servant bathroom. Upon asking that the so- called three porta cabins as well as the servant bathroom erected by him / his wife on the barsati floor are totally unauthorised and without sanction of NDMC, he deposed that there was no formal sanction of NDMC for the porta cabins. However, this is a practice and was well known to the plaintiff that he has done so and he did not object to it for 7 years. He denied that he is deposing falsely in as much as when he started constructing on the barsati floor, the plaintiff complained to the NDMC and had only allowed him to do the renovations on the first floor. He volunteered that only ground on which the plaintiff objected was the structural stability of the building to with stand the load but he never objected to his ownership and use of the full second floor together with the right to construct. He denied that he is deposing falsely that the plaintiff never recognized you or your wife as an owner of the second or any floor above it in respect of the suit property. He volunteered that he discussed the issue with the plaintiff CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 39 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:23:01 +0530 in the context of his occupying the ground floor along with the garden and his brother taking the rest of the house alongwith the right to construct while the ownership in the land remained equal. He denied that he is deposing falsely and the plaintiff never discussed or agreed with him for being an owner of the Barsati Floor or above. He volunteered that the plaintiff confirmed that he had a choice to pay Rs.2,00,000/- each to his sisters and to switch with his brother but he did not exercise the said option and preferred to be on the ground floor along with the garden. He denied that he is deposing falsely that there was no such discussion between him and the plaintiff as stated above. He deposed that he can not produce any copy of NOC given by the plaintiff regarding the construction above the first floor granted in favour of your wife and he objected to any structural addition to the second floor. He denied that the plaintiff has been only helping him and his wife to settle down on the first floor of the suit property. He volunteered that it was both floors first and second. He denied that he has never got any repairs done on the ground floor nor got the same painted and he had done this on the request of the occupants of the ground floor. He denied that because of renovations carried on the first floor, water had seeped into the kitchen and pantry on the ground floor and the seepage is still there. He deposed that he has always striven to do his best and he is not sure whether the seepage was as a result of renovation done on the first floor or simply the weathering effect.CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 40 of 60
M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:23:04
+0530
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.
Plaintiffs have relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Mohan Lal Bhatnagar Vs. Kamlesh Kumari Bhatnagar & Ors., 185 (2011) DLT 394 (DB);
2. Kale & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119;
3. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2020) 9 SCC 706;
4. Pilla Muniyappa & Ors. Vs. H. Anajanappa & Ors., AIR 2011 Kar 103;
5. Kavita Sharma Vs. Kamaljeet Sharma, 309 (2024) DLT 667;
6. Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 3767;
Defendant no. 1 has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Mallavva and Anr. v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since dead) by Legal Heirs and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3846;
2. Nikhil Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., 2025 INSC 485;
3. Romesh Chander Sethi v. Inder Mohan Sethi and Ors., 163 (2009) DLT 4;
4. Madan Lal v. Kuldeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4008;
5. K. Arumuga Velaiah v. PR Ramaswamy, (2022) 3 SCC 757;
6. Kale & Ors. (Supra);
7. Ravinder Kaur Grewal(Supra);CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 41 of 60
M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:23:06
+0530
8. Jai Pal Shishodhia v. Poonam Rathore and Ors.,
MANU/DE/3200/2012;
9. Asha Johri v. Neerja Rajput and Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2931;
10.Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 550;
11.Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra and Anr., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 129;
12.Rasool Bee & Ors. v. Gousiya Begum, 2002 SCC OnLine AP 794;
13.Priyanka Vivek Batra v. Neeru Malik & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 917;
14.Kanwal Sibal v. NDMC & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9779;
15.Sanjay Paliwal and Anr. v. BHEL through its ED, 2026 INSC 61; and
16.Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India & Anr. (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 260.
The legal issues involved in the aforesaid judgments are grasped and same has been considered while deciding the issues.
ISSUE-WISE FINDING
11. My issue-wise findings are as under:
11.1 ISSUE NO.1 Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD-1 CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 42 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07 16:23:08 +0530 The burden to prove this issue is on the defendant no. 1. The plea was raised on behalf of defendant no. 1 that the suit is barred by limitation. It was contended that the sale deed was within the knowledge of the plaintiff within 2-3 months of its execution on 20.04.2006. As per the plaintiff's own letter dated 27.09.2006, his knowledge to the sale deed dated 20.04.2006 is clear. He was also in knowledge of the same upon filing of the application under Section 254(1) (M) of NDMC Act before the Appellate Tribunal / MCD. The sale deed is dated 20.04.2006 and the relief is sought against the said sale deed by way of present suit which is filed in the year 2013 as such prayed that same is barred by limitation. It is contended that the sale deed could have been challenged within 03 years only by way of the suit as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is contended that the prescribed period of limitation is 03 years from when the right to sue first accrues. The said contentions were resisted by the plaintiff contending that the defendant no. 1 initiated unauthorized construction on second and third floors in September 2012. The defendant no. 1 for the first time threatened to infringe upon the rights of the plaintiff by undertaking construction over the second and third floors of the suit property in September 2012 without obtaining any sanctioned plans from NDMC or the consent of the plaintiff (NOC) as required by NDMC rules and regulations for co-owned properties.
Upon the objections raised by the plaintiff, NDMC issued a show cause notice dated 01.10.2012 Ex.PW-1/14 and also passed the sealing order dated 12.10.2012 Ex.PW-1/16.
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 43 of 60M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:23:11
+0530
Although the sale deed was executed on 20.04.2006 and its knowledge admittedly came to the plaintiff within 2-3 months, however, execution of sale deed does not ipso facto gives the right to the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration when the same was not violating any legal right of him. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the sale deed, it is imperative for the plaintiff to have approached the court with a valid and subsisting cause of action in his favour. The limitation begins when a right is denied by threat of infringements and on such day, when the threat becomes actionable, the limitation begins to run. Further, if the threat is continuous, a fresh period of limitation may begin daily. As per law, the limitation period is trigged not just by a breach of a right, but also by a clear and unequivocal threat to that right. So to ascertain when "right to sue" accrues, the same requires careful scrutiny of the facts. A clear and unequivocal threat must subsist which had compelled the plaintiff to approach the court for relief of declaration.
In the present circumstance, the plaintiff while observing threat to his legal right by way of construction by the defendant no. 1 on the second floor and third floor of the suit property approached the court by filing the instant suit after approaching the concerned authorities. The limitation for filing the instant suit for seeking declaration had started to run from the day when the right of the plaintiff was threatened and the cause of action accrued in his favour.
Further, as per record, after defendant no. 1 was put in possession by defendant no. 3 of the first floor on the suit property, the CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 44 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:23:14 +0530 defendant no. 1 on 27.09.2006 started to construct or carried out some construction on the second floor of the suit property. The plaintiff by way of letter dated 27.09.2006 to the Chief Architect, NDMC recorded his objections regarding the said unauthorized construction by defendant no. 1. The said letter was received by NDMC and defendant no. 1. On 10.03.2007, the plaintiff wrote a letter to Chief architect, NDMC for stalling the construction on second floor which was received on 14.03.2007. On 28.07.2007, the defendant no. 1 has given an undertaking to NDMC that she shall not be constructing any extra dwelling unit beyond the sanctioned limit and copy was provided to the plaintiff with assurance that defendant no. 1 shall not construct beyond the scope of the sanctioned plan. As such the threat which initiated from the construction by defendant no.1 came to a halt by the said assurance and undertaking. However, in the month of September, 2012, the defendant no. 1 again started raising some illegal and unauthorized construction on the second floor and third floor of the suit property without any sanctioned plan from NDMC and thereafter, notice under Section 248 of NDMC Act was issued for violating the NDMC Act. On 01.10.2012, plaintiff intimated NDMC for said unauthorized construction by defendant no. 1 and thereafter, a notice was issued under Section 250 of NDMC Act to defendant no. 1 to show cause regarding unauthorized construction which was served to defendant no. 1 on 05.10.2012. On 06.10.2012, plaintiff sent another representation to NDMC and on 08.10.2012 to defendant no. 1 regarding unauthorized construction by defendant CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 45 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:23:16
+0530
no.1 on second and third floor and thereafter, a sealing order dated
12.10.2012 was passed. Therefore, the threat which was paused earlier got revived in September 2012 as such leading to fresh cause of action and a fresh start of limitation period. In this regard, the undertaking of defendant no. 1 which is Ex. PW-1/11 wherein she undertook that she will not construct any extra dwelling unit beyond sanctioned assumes significance as same was executed on 27.08.2007 and which gave quietus to the dispute at that time. As per the testimony of DW-1, she started constructed second floor/terrace in the year 2012 and very soon thereafter, the construction started by her was sealed by the NDMC. Since the defendant no. 1 again started construction on the second floor and third floor, the plaintiff was constrained to approach the NDMC and later filed the present suit. In the present facts and circumstances, the limitation period would be considered from the point of time when the defendant no. 1 again started construction on the first and second floors in September 2012. As such the plea of the defendant no. 1 that limitation period would start from the accrual of first cause of action is meritless. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11.2 ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff has correctly valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and paid appropriate court fees thereon? OPD-1 The burden to prove this issue is on the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of relief of declaration CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 46 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJPANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:23:18 +0530 at Rs.200/- and upon which appropriate court fees has been affixed. Further, for the purpose of relief of permanent injunction, the suit has been valued at Rs.3,10,000/- for which requisite court fees has been paid. For the purpose of mandatory injunction, the valuation has been made at Rs.200/- and requisite court fees has been paid.
The plaintiff has sought relief of declaration regarding the sale deed executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 dated 20.04.2006. Apparently, plaintiff is not party to the said sale deed Ex.PW-1/8. Therefore, he is a non-executant and as such seeking declaration against the said sale deed, he is not required to pay ad- valorem court fees. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC
112.
Also, regarding the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, the plaintiff has valued them correctly and paid the appropriate court fees. No evidence has been adduced by defendant no. 1 to give a finding otherwise.
11.3 ISSUE NO. 3 Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD-1 The burden to prove this issue is upon defendant no. 1. No evidence has been adduced by defendant no. 1 to prove this issue. However, it is pertinent to note that the valuation of the suit which is done by plaintiff and has found to be correct and within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 47 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:23:22 +0530
and against the defendant.
11.4 ISSUE NO .4 Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of
declaration to the effect that sale deed executed by Rabinder Mohan Bedi (defendant no. 3) in favour of defendant no.1, is invalid/ void? OPP Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi and Smt. Sushila Bedi were the co-owners of equal shares of the suit property bearing no. F-128, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi-110021, admeasuring 750 sq. yards. Both acquired lease hold rights over the suit property by way of perpetual lease deed dated 23.07.1958 Ex. PW-1/1 executed by President of India on behalf of L&DO which was duly registered having ground floor, first floor and one barsati on the roof of the first floor consisting of one room and a toilet. Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi executed a Will dated 06.10.1988 Ex. PW-1/2 having stipulation that the suit property was equally owned by him and his wife and through the said Will, only life interest in the half share belonging to him was bequeathed to his wife with specific mention of the fact that his wife shall have no right of disposal over the said half share of the property during her life time. Further stated in the para 5A that after the death of his wife, the half share of him in the suit property would devolve upon his two sons in equal shares subject to other terms and conditions mentioned in sub-clauses (b-e). The sub-clause (b) of clause 5 of his Will was related to rental income of the first floor portion regarding its usage and distribution. There was a stipulation that half rental income of his share in the property shall go to his both daughters during their CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 48 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:23:24
+0530
life time, if the first floor is let out. In sub-clause (c) of clause 5 of the Will, it was mentioned that in case his wife Sushila Devi chooses not to let out the first floor portion to any tenant and it becomes vacant and she wanted to give the same to any of her son for residence then that son will pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each to both the sisters i.e. his daughters and such son will be entirely responsible for making payment of all Municipal charges etc. and shall keep and maintain that portion in proper condition. Sub-clause (d) of Clause 5 of the Will stipulated the description of extant of construction existing at the suit property which is as follows:-
"The aforesaid house property consist roughly of two portion: the ground floor and first floor. The lawn and motor garage form the part of ground floor. The barsati on the second floor and the servant quarter are considered as part of first floor."
Sub-clause (e) of clause 5 of the Will had a narration about the drafting of the Will after careful consideration and discussion with his wife.
After the death of Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi, the suit property was mutated / substituted in the name of Smt. Sushila Bedi vide substitution letter dated 23.05.2001 Ex. PW-1/5. In the said letter, it was stipulated that she shall have no right to sell and transfer the said property. Thereafter, a family settlement dated 24.06.1989 Ex.PW-1/3 was executed for the benefit of the daughters of Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi and the rights of the both daughters were duly extinguished. Upon receiving of lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each regarding their CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 49 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07 16:23:27 +0530 claim with respect to the first floor of the suit property.
From the bare perusal of sub-clause (b) and (c) of Clause 5 of the Will of Sh. H.L. Bedi, it is forthcoming that the right and interest of the daughters in the half share of the suit property of Sh. Harkishan Lal Bedi would have come to an end upon receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- from the son who was to occupy the first floor for residence granted by Smt. Sushila Devi. Sh.Harkishan Lal Bedi separated the property in two portions for the purpose of making arrangement for the residence of his sons and in the alternative for letting out for rent. The description of extant of construction existing at that time was for the purpose of making arrangement for the residence of both sons without partitioning of the shares of the parents. In this regard, the assertion of PW-1 that the property was constructed upto first floor during the life time of his father and there were three rooms, drawing and dining room, kitchen etc. on the ground floor and similar construction on first floor assumes significance as upon the existing structure of the suit property, equal shares were given to both the sons for their residence.
The defendant no. 1 had contended that family settlement dated 24.06.1989 Ex. PW-1/3 is not disputed by the plaintiff. The said family settlement makes a categorical reference to the Will dated 06.10.1988 Ex. PW-1/2 executed by Sh. Harkrishan Lal Bedi wherein under a life interest in respect of his half share in the property had been created in favour of his wife, and after her demise, the said share was to devolve on his two sons, subject to provision that 50% of the gross rent of the first floor shall be paid in equal shares to his daughters, and any CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 50 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07 16:23:29 +0530 of his two sons wish to take over the first floor and decide not to give it on rent, then he would have the option to do so on the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the two daughters where upon the rights of the debtor of the daughters shall terminate. It is contended that the recitals of Ex. PW-1/3 would clearly state that with the purpose of avoiding any dispute or misunderstanding amongst the family members, an agreement was arrived at between the parties regarding implementation of the aforesaid Will of Sh. Harkrishan Lal Bedi. As per Ex. PW-1/3 Clause I, defendant no. 3 will pay Rs.2,00,000/- each to two daughters and shall have absolute right, title of the first floor. Clause 2 further states that defendant no. 3 has full right, title to the first floor and shall have the right to construct any accommodation above first floor as he may desire to do. It was further contended that Ex. DW-1/1 which is a Codicil dated 16.04.1996 of Smt. Sushila Bedi states that defendant no.3 has paid Rs.2,00,000/- each to the daughters as such highlighting that family settlement Ex. PW-1/3 was acted upon. It further notes that Ex. PW-1/3 was entered into amongst the family members and Ex.DW-1/1 categorically acknowledges the family settlement Ex.PW-1/3. It was contended that Codicil Ex. DW-1/1 was executed because the family settlement notes that rights in respect of the first floor which has gone to defendant no. 3 but its silent with respect to ground floor rights and for the purpose of completeness, Ex. DW-1/1 was executed which reiterated the family settlement and yet harmoniously balances ground floor rights.
The plaintiff has contended that unregistered family CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 51 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07 16:23:31 +0530 settlement Ex. PW-1/3 can not create new right or title in the suit property. It was contended that the terms of unregistered family settlement dated 24.06.1989 revealed that instead of giving right of residence as per term 5(C) of the Will of Sh. H.L. Bedi dated 06.10.1988 full ownership rights and title was given to defendant no. 3 qua the first floor with all right to construct the property above that floor also as such creating a new right and title under the said family settlement. Since the said family settlement created a separate and independent new right to the defendant no. 3 and extinguishing rights of other co-owners, as such same was required to be registered.
As per Will of Sh.H.L. Bedi, only right to occupy the first floor was given to either of his sons and 50% undivided share in the suit property alongwith barsati floor on the second floor and rest of the property was to be equally divided between both the sons. The family settlement Ex.PW-1/3 is not giving effect to the Will of Sh. H.L. Bedi rather it gave exclusive right and title of the second floor and any other construction to be carried out on and above first floor to defendant no.3. Also, the family settlement Ex. PW-1/3 was not a record of prior oral arrangement or oral partition agreed between the parties in the past which was given effect to by way of said family settlement. Ex.PW-1/3 was executed in prasenti having clauses which affect rights of the parties and created new right, title and interest in favour of the parties. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Kale and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1976(3) SCC 119, which is as follows:
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 52 of 60 Digitally signedM.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:23:34
+0530
"15. In Tek Bahdur Bhujil v. Debi Singh
Bhujil and others it was pointed out by this Court that a family arrangement could be arrived at even orally and registration would be required only if it was reduced into writing. It was also held that a document which was no more than a memorandum of what had been agreed, to did not require registration. This Court had observed thus:
Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon between the parties. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be founded. It is usually prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon so that there be no hazy notions about it in future. It is only when the parties reduce the family arrangement in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and, where the arrangement is brought about by the document as such, that the document would require registration as it is then that it would be a document of title declaring for future what rights in what properties the parties possess."
Family settlement Ex. PW-1/3 is not a record of what had been agreed upon but brings out an arrangement by creating new right, title and interest declaring future rights as such same would have required registration. Ex. PW-1/3 extinguishes the rights of daughters and as such was not a memorandum of partition or arrangement CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 53 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:23:36
+0530
recorded in the past which was given effect to by it. Therefore, Ex.PW-1/3 loses its legal sanctity and validity. Later, Smt.Sushila Bedi executed a registered Will dated 07.04.2000 Ex.PW-1/4 (superseding her previous Will) and by virtue of the same, the suit property was bequeathed to both the plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 in equal shares. It was also stipulated in the said Will dated 07.04.2000 and relevant extract is reproduced as under:-
".........I have now full right of disposal in the whole of the property. I hereby devise and bequeath that after my demise the said property 128-F, Malcha Marg, New Delhi, shall devolve on my two sons Shri Manmohan Bedi and Shri Rabinder Mohan Bedi and/or their heirs in equal shares without any reservations of any description. I had in my earlier Will made stipulations as to my two daughters Mrs.Raj Wahi and Mrs. Ved Chopra, however, since these have already been complied with as I have already given to them or whatever was so stipulated in my earlier Will has been carried out and complied with already and now they and their heirs have no right, title or interest of any description in this property in any manner whatsoever and there should be no reservations of any description on their account. The specified stipulations in my carlier Will have already been satisfied and i.e. my son Rabinder Mohan Bedi has made payment to them in terms of the family settlement arrived at among all the members on 24th day of June, 1989 in case it is rented the rent is payable to any body and the whole of the rent shall solely belong to Rabinder Mohan Bedi.CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 54 of 60
M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:23:38
+0530
The aforesaid house property consists
roughly of two portions the ground floor and the first floor. The lawn and motor garage form a part of the ground floor. The Barasati on the second floor and the servant quarter are considered as part of the first floor. I hereby devise that the said property shall devolve in my two sons Shri Manmohan Bedi and Shri Rabinder Mohan Bedi and or their heirs in equal shares both in respect of the share of property owned by me as well as the share of property left by my late husband Shri Harkrishan Lal Bedi who had also in his Will desired that both the sons should own half share each in the property. The ground floor of the said residence in house shall vest in my elder son Shri Man Mohan Bedi who is living with me on the ground floor and the first floor in my son Shri Rabinder Mohan Bedi to the exclusion of each other.
....... I hereby further devise and bequeath all that is not covered by my aforesaid testament or whatever may be acquired by me hereafter which is not subject matter of the above testament, to devolve and shall vest in my two sons as aforesaid in equal shares absolutely."
Ex. PW-1/4 i.e. the Will dated 07.04.2000 of Smt. Sushila Devi Bedi superseded her earlier Will dated 01.10.1998. Further, Ex.PW-1/4 was executed after execution of Ex. PW-1/3. Since legal sanctity of Ex. PW-1/3 has been assailed as such Ex. PW-1/4 has to be CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 55 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:23:40
+0530
linked into for the purpose of bequeathment of shares of plaintiff and defendant no. 3 in the suit property.
From the testimony of DW-1, it is forthcoming that she was aware that plaintiff and defendant no. 3 had equal share in the land after freehold but she feigned ignorance the construction on it. Therefore, the assumption of defendant no. 1 that by virtue of Ex.PW-1/3, right to raise construction on the second floor and above would be transfer of right and title of the said floors is fallacious. Since the claim of defendant no. 1 was premised on Ex.PW-1/3(family settlement) as such same can not be sustained as the family settlement lacks legal validity. Further, Ex. PW-1/4 in clear and unequivocal terms declared the intention of the testators that her two sons Manmohan Bedi and Rabinder Mohan Bedi and / or their heirs shall have property in equal shares without any reservation of any description. It further clarified that her daughters Raj Wahi and Ved Chopra had no right, title or interest in the property since in her earlier Will stipulation with them have been complied with. Ex. PW-1/4 had also made provision for further eventuallity as it had noted that anything not covered by the said Will or whatever be acquired by her after the said Will shall devolve and vest in her two sons in equal shares absolutely. It is noteworthy that the Wills of both the parents Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/4 are not disputed by any of the parties.
Apparently no partition of the suit property by metes and bounds took place between the plaintiff and defendant no. 3. There individual 50% shares were not determined or specified. From a bare CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 56 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors. Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:23:43
+0530
reading of the Will dated 07.04.2000 of Smt. Sushila Devi Ex.PW-1/4, it is not forthcoming that any right, title or interest was given to Sh.Rabinder Mohan Bedi qua the second floor or above as nothing is mentioned about second floor therein. Further, Ex. PW-1/4 made it clear that any bequeath not covered by the said Will, the same would vest in both the sons in equal shares. Merely by giving reference about the existing construction and two parts of the property in paragraph 5(d) of Ex.PW-1/2 can not be termed as partition by metes and bounds. The said reference about the existing construction of different portion in Paragraph 5(d) of Ex.PW-1/2 was for limited purpose either for giving right of occupancy to any of his sons at the discretion of Smt. Sushila Devi or for letting out purpose. The transfer of right and title of the above floors then first floor can only be by way of partition amongst the brothers. Therefore, defendant no. 3 Rabinder Mohan Bedi had not got any exclusive ownership right over the second floor as such could not have passed better title to defendant no. 1. The plaintiff's right and interest in the second floor portions and upper floors (yet to be constructed) and any benefits accruing therein is intact. If the plaintiff and defendant are co-owners in equal shares of the land underneath then by way of logical corollary, they are equally entitled for the floors built above and same is sanctified by Ex. PW-1/4. While Ex. PW-1/4 was executed by Smt.Sushila Devi, the vertical addition of floors in the suit property was not in contemplation. Therefore, as per the existing structure arrangement was made for the residence of plaintiff and defendant no.3. Since family arrangement Ex. PW-1/3 had CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 57 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.07
16:23:46
+0530
no legal sanctity, defendant no. 3 had no right, title or interest on the floors above first floor. The vertical addition of floors on the suit property has to be considered for partition amongst the co-owners. Since defendant no. 1 had purchased the share of the defendant no. 3 as such she was entitled for the property in the manner provided in Ex.PW-1/4 without any further right of construction on the second floor. The rights of defendant no. 1 are confined to the first floor and the barsati above with servant quarter as there is no bequeath with respect to the exclusive ownership and right of construction on the second floor. Thus, Sale Deed executed in favour of defendant no. 1 by defendant no. 3 to the extent that defendant no. 3 was exclusive owner of the second floor with unhindered right to construct the full second floor as conveyed to defendant no. 1 is hereby declared invalid/void. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
11.5 ISSUE NO .5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in clause no.(b) and (d) of the suit?
OPP Since the suit property is required to be partitioned by metes and bounds till such time, plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their representatives assigns etc. from raising any kind of construction upon the second or third floors of any portion above it qua the suit property bearing no. F-128, Malcha Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi-110021 and CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 58 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:23:48 +0530
further restraining the defendant no. 1 from alienating, parting with possession or creating any third party rights qua the suit property. Plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from blocking the access of the plaintiff to the second and the terrace floor of the suit property marked 'A' and 'B' in the site plan annexed to the plaint and also from blocking the access of the plaintiff to enter from the main entrance of the suit property on the ground floor of the suit property. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11.6 ISSUE NO .6 Whether plaintiff is also entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause no.(c) and (e) of the suit? OPP As per the facts, the unathourised construction was sealed by NDMC / defendant no. 2. Since it has been observed that the portion upon which unauthorized construction has carried out by defendant no.1 does not belong to her exclusively, as such defendant no. 2 may take appropriate steps as per law for its demolition. Further, with regard to the parking slots and other common facilities and common area such as staircase is concerned, plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are entitled for equal and equitable use of the same. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
11.7 ISSUE NO .7 RELIEF: From the foregoing discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in above terms. No order as to the costs.
CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 59 of 60M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.05.07
16:23:50
+0530
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA PANKAJ Announced in the open court on SHARMA Date: 2026.05.07 16:23:54 07.05.2026 +0530 (Dr. Pankaj Sharma) DJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. CS No. 56394/2016 (Old No. 238/2014) Page 60 of 60 M.M. Bedi Vs. Madhulika Nath & Ors.