Delhi High Court - Orders
Zameer Ahmed Jalwa vs Mrs. Firdaus Begum & Ors on 3 November, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 742/2024
ZAMEER AHMED JALWA .....Plaintiff
Through: Plaintiff in person.
versus
MRS. FIRDAUS BEGUM & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Amankant Mishra, Mr. Avinash
Kashyap, Advs. for D-1
Mr. Gautam Gupta, Mr. Uzair Elahi,
Advs. for D-3
Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Mr. Aman
Shekhar, Advs. for D-4
Mr. Dhurv Kumar, Adv. D-5
Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan, Adv. for
D-6(DHCLSC)
Mr. Baasir Aziz, Adv. for D-8
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 03.11.2025 I.A. 46672/2024 in CS(OS) 742/2024
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on I.A. 46672/2024.
2. The submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no. 1 were recorded by this Court in the order dated 30.04.2025. His principal contention is that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, 1988 (Benami Act), with respect to property bearing No.G-62, Masjid Moth, Kailash Part-II, New Delhi-110048. According, to him, the said property was purchased by This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 21:27:56 defendant no. 1 after her marriage out of her own funds. He submits further that, even assuming, without prejudice, that the consideration was paid by the father, namely Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Jalwa, the same would have no significance in view of the provisions of Benami Act.
3. He has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.Rajgopal Reddy V. Padmini Chandrashekharan.1 The relevant paragraphs of the said decision has been extracted by the Court in its order dated 30.04.2025.
4. Hearing on the application was deferred at the request of the plaintiff on 20.04.2025.
5. Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the present application is misconceived and meritless. According, to him, the Family Settlement dated 26.09.2002 which has been placed on record along with the reply, would clearly indicate that the defendant herein was non-earning during 1997, and all financial consideration were paid by the executants' father- Mr. Jahoor Ahmed Jalwa. He, therefore, submits that if the family settlement is considered in its right perspective, it would clearly indicate that the consideration was paid by Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Jalwa.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.1 controverts the aforesaid submission and contends that the said family settlement is a disputed document, and the same has neither been admitted nor placed on record by defendant no.1. According to him, if such a document is produced at the instance of any of the parties, the same would not bind defendant no.1 unless the document is duly proved in evidence.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 21:27:56
7. To support his contention, he places reliance in the case of EARTHZ Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. v/ Ravinder Musnhi & Ors. in FAO (OS) 79/2022 decided on 09.10.2025.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
9. The record would clearly indicate that the property is recorded in name of defendant no.1. Whether the consideration for the same was paid by Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Jalwa is a question which will have to be looked into, during the course of trial. It is only, thereafter, that the Court would determine the title of defendant no. 1 over the said property. Considering that the registered title deed in respect of the said property stands in the name of defendant no. 1, the Court is, prima facie, of the view that the said property was purchased by defendant no. 1.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, it would be inappropriate to continue the rigour of injunction over the said property i.e., G-62, Masjid Moth, Kailash Part-II, New Delhi-110048. It be clarified that the principle of lis pendens shall continue to apply over the said property. It is needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are not on the merits of the case, and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties to be raised at the appropriate stage.
11. In view of the above, the application stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J NOVEMBER 3, 2025 Pallavi/AMG 1 1995 (2) SCC 630 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/11/2025 at 21:27:56