Delhi District Court
Shanti Devi vs Bimla Devi on 8 October, 2025
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRITAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No. 11771/16
CNR No.DLSE01-009252-2016
SHANTI DEVI
W/o Sh. Manohar Lal
D/o Late Sh. Badri Prasad
R/o H.No. 15/88, Dakshin Puri Extn.,
New Delhi-110062. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
BIMLA DEVI
W/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o H.No. 628, Ground Floor,
Sun Light Colony-II, JJ Colony,
Near Mother Dairy,
Hari Nagar Ashram,
New Delhi-110014. ....Defendant
SUIT FOR PARTITION & PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Date of Institution : 26.11.2016
Date reserved for judgement : 20.09.2025
Date of judgement : 08.10.2025
DECISION : DISMISSED
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for partition and permanent CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -2- injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. CASE OF PLAINTIFF Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that late Sh. Badri Prasad, father of the plaintiff was allotted property bearing House No. 678, Sun Light Colony-II, JJ Colony, Near Mother Dairy, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi-110014 by the slum & JJ Department, New Delhi.
3. It is further stated that after the demise of father of the plaintiff Late Sh. Badri Prasad, the suit property was mutated in the name of Smt. Bhanwri Devi, mother of the plaintiff. From the wedlock of Sh. Badri Prasad and Smt. Bhanwri Devi, defendant Bimla Devi was born.
4. It is further stated that the father Late Sh. Badri Prasad and the mother Smt. Bhanwri Devi of the parties expired intestate, without executing any Will in respect of property bearing House No. 678, Sun Light Colony-II, JJ Colony, Near Mother Dairy, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi-110014 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property).
5. It is further stated that defendant being sister of the plaintiff, and on compassionate grounds the plaintiff did not ask for her share in the said suit property at that time and allowed the defendant to reside in the Ground Floor portion of the aforesaid suit property along with her other family members, while the first floor of the suit property was locked by the plaintiff.
CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -3-
6. It is further stated that it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant is trying to usurp the share of the plaintiff in the suit property, which is a joint family property, by claiming it to be her exclusive property and also trying to dispose off the suit property in an illegal manner without the consent and permission of the plaintiff despite the fact that the plaintiff is also having her undivided equal share in the suit property.
7. It is further stated that the plaintiff has equal rights, shares and interests in the suit property, thus, the suit property is liable to be partitioned and divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant by metes and bounds.
8. It is further stated that in the month of September 2016, when the plaintiff met the defendant and her family members, the defendant told the plaintiff that after the demise of her parents they have no relation with the plaintiff and not only this the defendant also started abusing the plaintiff and asked her not to come again in the suit property despite the fact that the plaintiff was having equal share and is the owner of half share in the suit property. The defendant also manhandled the plaintiff and abused her in filthy language.
9. It is further stated that when the plaintiff tried to make them understand that the suit property was the CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -4- property of her deceased parents and after their demise plaintiff was having equal share and is the owner of half share in the suit property. The defendant threatened that she would dispose off the suit property as she has already settled the deal to dispose off the the suit property to some other person.
10. It is further stated that thereafter the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 20.09.2016 through her counsel to the defendant by speed post asking for partition in the suit property and for her half share in the suit property but the defendant refused to accept the said legal notice also and the said legal notice sent to the defendant through Speed Post was returned back to the counsel of the plaintiff with the remarks "Refused".
11. It is prayed that a preliminary decree of partition in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby, appointing a local commissioner with the directions to partition the suit property amongst the parties being joint owners of the suit property and also to suggest the mode of partition of the suit property by metes and bounds. It is further prayed that a final decree of partition in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant be passed in terms of the report as submitted by the local commissioner and the parties hereto may kindly be put in exclusive and symbolic possession of their respective portions of the suit property. It is further prayed that a decree of CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -5- permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant be passed restraining the defendant, her agents, assigns etc. from selling, alienating or from creating any third-party interest in the suit property. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
12. The written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant. It is stated in the written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.
13. It is further stated that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Shri Badri Prasad as has been falsely alleged by her in the plaint. The plaintiff has no right in the suit property which was allotted in the name of Shri Badri Prasad (father of the defendant).
14. It is further stated that after the death of Shri Badri Prasad on 03.12.1975, the suit property has devolved upon Smt. Bhauri @ Bhori (wife of Sh. Badri Prasad) and the defendant (daughter of Sh. Badri Prasad) in equal share. Thereafter, Smt. Bhauri @ Bhori also expired intestate, and the suit property devolved exclusively upon the defendant being the only surviving legal heir of the deceased Smt. Bhauri @ Bhori.
15. It is further stated that the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the suit property as she was never adopted by Shri Badri Prasad, who was the actual owner of the CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -6- suit property. After the death of the said Shri Badri Prasad, no right, title or interest pertaining to his property can devolve upon the plaintiff as she was neither the biological daughter nor the adopted daughter of Shri Badri Prasad. As no actual giving and receiving in adoption pertaining to the plaintiff has ever been taken place, therefore, the plaintiff cannot even claim herself to be the adopted daughter of Shri Badri Prasad.
16. It is further stated that the marriage of Shri Badri Prasad with Smt. Bhauri @ Smt. Bhori had taken place in the year 1969. As per the admitted case of the plaintiff, her date of birth is 15.08.1962, i.e. around 5 years prior to the marriage of Shri Badri Prasad with Smt. Bhauri @ Smt. Bhori. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff is not born out of the wedlock between Shri Badri Prasad with Smt. Bhauri @ Smt. Bhori. The averments made by the plaintiff in her plaint that she is the real sister of the defendant or that Sh. Badri Prasad was the father of the plaintiff are false and frivolous averments.
17. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fees, and has not paid the ad-valorem Court fees thereon. It is stated that the market value of the suit property on the date of institution of the suit was not CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -7- less than Rs.30,00,000/-. The plaintiff should have valued the suit property on the said amount and should have paid the appropriate ad-valorem court fees thereon as she is not in possession of any part of the suit property and has been excluded from the possession of the suit property by the defendant. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has valued the suit for the relief of jurisdiction at Rs.9,00,000/- but she has failed to pay the ad-valorern court fees even on the said valuation. All other averments made in the written statement were denied. REPLICATION
18. The replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant. It is stated in the replication that after the marriage of the mother of the plaintiff with Sh. Badri Prasad, the plaintiff also acquired the legal status of the daughter of Sh. Badri Prasad and since after the demise of Late Sh. Badri Prasad, the suit property was mutated in the name of Smt. Bhauri @ Smt. Bhori, the mother of the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff being the eldest daughter of Smt. Bhauri @ Smt. Bhori, is entitled to her equal half share in the suit property.
19. It is specifically denied that the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the suit property or that she was CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -8- never adopted by Sh. Badri Prasad or that no right title or interest in the suit property can devolve upon the plaintiff that the plaintiff cannot claim herself to be the daughter of Badri Prasad.
20. It is further stated that the mother of plaintiff had married Sh. Badri Prasad and as such she became daughter of Sh. Badri Prasad and no ceremony or formal adoption is necessary in this regard.
21. It is further stated that the marriage of the mother of the plaintiff with Sh. Badri Prasad, the plaintiff also acquired the legal status of the daughter of Sh. Badri prasad and since after the demise of Sh. Badri Prasad, the suit property was mutated in the name of Bhori, i.e. the mother of the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff being the eldest daughter of Smt. Bhauri is entitled to her equal half share in the suit property.
22. It is further stated that the plaintiff and the defendant have jointly received the amount of the deceased mother of the plaintiff in a joint account. All other avermens made in the written statement were denied.
ISSUES
23. On the basis of pleadings and documents on record, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2018 :-
CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi -9-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree of partition in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declaring that the plaintiff and defendant are joint owners in equal shares of property described as bearing no. 628, Sunlight Colony-II, J.J. Colony, near Mother Dairy, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a final decree of partition thereby partitioning property described as bearing no. 628, Sunlight Colony-II, J.J. Colony, near Mother Dairy, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares declare under the preliminary decree of partition ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in any manner whatsoever over property described as bearing no. 628, Sunlight Colony II, J.J. Colony, near Mother Dairy, Hari Nagar Ashram, Near Delhi? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit property? OPD.
5. Whether the suit property was allotted in the name of Sh. Badri Prasad and upon his death on 03.12.1975 devolved upon his two legal heirs i.e. his widow and the defendant daughter in equal shares and after the death of the widow of Late Sh.
Badri Prasad, the defendant is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property? OPD.
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standee to institute the suit for any relief in respect of the suit property? OPD
8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD
9. Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
24. Plaintiff in support of her case examined herself CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 10 -
as PW-1 Smt. Shanti Devi. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit EX.PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex.PW1/A- Original site plan of the suit property
2. Ex.PW1/B1 (OSR)-Copy of ration card
3. Ex.PW1/B2 (OSR)- Copy of voter ID card
4. Ex.PW1/B3 (OSR)- Copy of Aadhar Card
5. Ex.PW1/B4 (OSR)-Copy of school leaving certificate.
6. Ex.PW1/B5 (OSR)-Copy of passbook of SBI
7. Ex.PW1/B6 (OSR)-Copy of passbook of Central Bank of India.
8. Ex.PW1/B7-Original water bill
9. Ex.PW1/C (OSR) Copy of death certificate of Bhauri Devi
10. Ex.PW1/D- Legal notice
11. Ex.PW1/E - Postal receipts
12. Ex.PW1/F- Original returned envelop
13. Ex.PW1/G1 (OSR)- Copy of invitation card
14. Ex.PW1/G2 (OSR)-Copy of passbook of Central Bank of India
15. Mark A (colly)-Copies of allotment and mutation of suit property.
16. Mark B-Copy of letter from slum and JJ Department MCD
17. Mark C- Copy of cheque of UCO bank.
CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 11 -
25. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant at length.
26. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Manohar Lal as PW-2. Who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit EX.PW2/1. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant at length.
27. Plaintiff also examined PW3 Sh. Ajay Kumar Mohindroo, Assistant Section Officer, Delhi Development Authority. Who has brought the copy of the employment record in respect of Smt. Bhouri W/o Sh. Badri. The file number is F-10 (168) respect 82/H-1/DDA. The copy of the same is marked as Mark-PW3/A.
28. Plaintiff also examined PW4 Ms. Shipra, Senior Manager, Central Bank. Who brought the certified copy of the passbook and statement оf Account from 05.04.2005 to 31.12.2005 in respect of the account bearing no. 1006287547 in the joint name of Mrs. Shanti Devi and Ms. Vimla. The certified copy of the same is Ex. PW4/A (colly).
29. Plaintiff also examined PW5 Ms. Dipti Dubey, who brought the copy of the register of admission and withdrawal of the year 1978. As per their records, Ms. Shanti Kumari D/o Sh. Badri Prasad, R/o 628-II, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi was student in our school. She was admitted in the school on 19.05.1978, as per CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 12 -
serial no. 1362, her admission was withdrawn on 05.11.1979. The copy of the school register along with the certificate issued by the Principal of the school is EX.PW5/A.
30. Plaintiff also examined PW6 Sh. Vinod Meena, Dealing Assistant, South Zone, Urban Shelter Improvement Board as PW6. He has brought the complete file in respect of allotment mutation of property no. 628, JJ Colony, Sunlight Colony-II, New Delhi. The copy of the same is Rx. PW6/A. He has stated that as per the records, the property was allotted to Sh. Badri and was later on mutated in the name of Smt. Bhouri W/o Late Sh. Badri, Plot no. CP 628, Sunlight-II, New Delhi vide dispatch no. AZO/S/DDA/83/672, dated 27.07.1983. He has brought the original allotment letter. The allotment letter and receipt are Ex. A (colly).
31. Plaintiff also examined PW7 Sh. Chin Muan Langel, Jr. Secretariat Assistant from Delhi Development Authority, Horticulture Division-1, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II, New Delhi. Who has brought attested copy of the Family Pension Register with respect to employee Late Smt. Bhouri W/o Sh. Badri. He has deposed that as per their record she was expired on 12.12.2004 and dues (Rs.1,44,258/- including leave encashment, full and final GPF and CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 13 -
benevolent fund) in respect of Smt. Bhouri were transferred in the name of her two daughters namely Smt. Shanti and Smt. Bimla. The attested copy of the said Register is Ex.PW7/A. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
32. The defendant in support of her case examined herself as DW1 Ms. Bimla Devi. Who tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A, bearing her signatures at points A and B. She also relied on the following documents :
1. Photocopy of affidavit dated 26.11.1969 executed Smt. Bhauri Devi is Ex.DW 1/1 (OSR).
2. Photocopy of mutation letter dated 28.07.1983 is Ex.DW1/2 (OSR).
3. Photocopy of Electricity bill is marked as Mark DW 1/3.
4. Photocopy of disability Certificate Ex. DW1/4 (OSR).
5. Photocopy of ration card of Smt. Bhauri Devi is marked as Mark DW1/5.
6. Photocopy of death certificate Ex. DW1/6 (OSR).
7. Photocopy of Voter ID Card is marked as Mark DW1/7.
8. Photocopy of Aadhar Card is marked as Mark DW1/8.
33. DW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 14 -
plaintiff at great length.
34. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff was born from the first marriage of his mother Bhouri Devi and after death of her first husband Bhouri Devi re- married Late Sh. Badri Prasad and out of the wedlock of Late Sh. Badri Prasad and Bhouri Devi defendant was born and the plaintiff and defendant are stepsisters. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further states that though, the suit property was allotted to Late Sh. Badri Prasad, however, after demise of Late Sh. Badri Prasad the suit property was transferred in the name of Sh. Bhouri Devi who became owner of the suit property. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further states that the plaintiff and defendant being first class legal heirs of Late Smt. Bhanwri Devi have equal share in the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit property. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further states that Late Smt. Bhouri Devi was working during her life time and benefits of her service were transferred in a joint account of both the parties which have been shared by them jointly. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further states that after the wedlock of Late Sh. Badri Prasad and Bhouri Devi the plaintiff was brought up by them and the name of Sh. Badri Prasad was used as father's name of plaintiff in all the documents and it is proved from the testimony of PW5 Ms. Dipti Dubey, who brought the school record CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 15 -
of the plaintiff stating that plaintiff was daughter of Badri Prasad. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further states that PW6 Vinod Meena had brought the mutation of suit property of Late Smt. Bhouri Devi after demise of Late Sh. Badri Prasad and as a result of which Late Smt. Bhouri Devi became the owner of the suit property and as she died intestate, therefore, her both daughters, plaintiff and defendant, are entitled to have equal share in the suit property. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further states that there was no need for any formal adoption of the plaintiff by Late Sh. Badri Prasad because he married to Bhouri Devi, mother of the plaintiff and become father of the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further states that any property inherited by a Hindu female becomes her self-acquired property U/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act, therefore, after the demise of Late Sh. Badri Prasad, the mother of the plaintiff inherited the suit property became her self-acquired property and on her demise the suit property was devolved between the plaintiff and defendant equally. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff further states that the defendant is trying to dispose of the suit property in order to usurp the share of the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant may kindly be restrained from creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
35. Ld. Counsel for the defendant states that though the plaintiff is step sister of the defendant, however, the CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 16 -
plaintiff has no right, interest or title in the property owned by Late Sh. Badri Prasad, father of the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the defendant further states that the plaintiff is not entitled to have any share in the movable or immovable property of Late Sh. Badri Prasad as she is not first-class legal heirs of Late Sh. Badri Prasad. Ld. Counsel for the defendant further states that the plaintiff has equal right along with the defendant only in the property owned by their mother Late Smt. Bhouri Devi but not in the property owned by Late Sh. Badri Prasad. Ld. Counsel for the defendant further states that as Late Sh. Badri Prasad never adopted the plaintiff as his daughter, therefore, she has no right, title or interest in the property of Late Sh. Badri Prasad. Ld. Counsel for the defendant further states that the suit is not maintainable, therefore, the same may kindly be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the following rulings:-
1. Nilima Mukherjee v. Kanta Bhusan Ghosh AIR 2001 SC 2725.
2. Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh & Ors AIR 1987 SC 1616.
3. Dudhnath Kallu Yadav & Ors. v. Ramashankar Ramadhar Yadav & Ors. MANU/MH/0135/2018.
4. Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakanta Kalita & Ors. 2003(1) GLT 149.
36. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 17 -
Counsels for both the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
REASONS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT ISSUE NO.1.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree of partition in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declaring that the plaintiff and defendant are joint owners in equal shares of property described as bearing no. 628, Sunlight Colony-II, J.J. Colony, near Mother Dairy, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi? OPP.
37. The burden to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff reiterated her case in her evidence by way of affidavit and claiming herself daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad. The plaintiff in order to prove that she is the daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad has relied upon the copy of her school leaving certificate Ex.PW1/B4. From Ex.PW1/B4, it is established that the name of Late Sh. Badri Prasad was being used as father of the plaintiff. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was born out of the wedlock of her late mother with her first husband. Late Smt. Bhouri Devi, mother of the plaintiff re-married Late Sh. Badri Prasad and in this way plaintiff became step daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad. The question arises whether the step daughter has right in the property of her step father.
CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 18 -
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dudhnath Kallu Yadav & Ors. Vs. Ramashankar Ramadhar Yadav & Ors. (Supra) has held/observed in para 5 as under:-
"5. The claim is clearly preposterous. In the first place, the Applicant must show that he is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased either as a relative specified in class-I and if there be no such relative, then as a relative specified in class-II, of the schedule under Hindu Succession Act read with Section 8 of that Act. It is important to note that the controversy involves a claim to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate. The schedule to the Hindu Succession Act refers to heirs in class-I and class-II within the meaning of Section 8 of that Act. A son is included in class- I of the schedule. The Applicant, as son of the wife of the deceased from her first marriage, cannot claim as a son of the deceased. The expression son appearing in the Hindu Succession Act does not include a stepson. The expression son not having been defined under the Hindu Succession Act, the definition of son under the General Clauses Act may be appropriately referred to. In clause (57) of Section 2 of the General Clauses Act, the expression son includes only an adopted son and not a stepson. Even otherwise son as understood in common parlance means a natural son born to a person after marriage. It is the direct blood relationship, which is the essence of the term son as normally understood."
39. From the ruling Dudhnath Kallu Yadav & Ors.
Vs. Ramashankar Ramadhar Yadav & Ors. (Supra) it is clear that step son does not come in the definition of son as provided in class-I legal heirs of schedule of CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 19 -
Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Applying the same analogy the step daughter also does not fall within the definition of daughter as provided in clause (a) of sub- section 1 of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act.
40. Only a son or daughter who is adopted under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 falls within the definition of son/daughter and is entitled to have right in the property of his adopted father. In the case in hand, it is not the plea of the plaintiff that she was adopted by Late Sh. Badri Prasad after his marriage with her mother Bhouri Devi. Just on the basis that the name of Late Sh. Badri Prasad was recorded as father in her school record it cannot be presumed that Late Sh. Badri Prasad adopted the plaintiff. For a valid adoption all the requirements and conditions provided under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act must be fulfilled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nilima Mukherjee v. Kanta Bhusan Ghosh (supra) has held that no document for adoption was produced before the court and a witness who was neighbour was examined but the said witness stated that he did not know anything about the alleged adoption. Some documents were produced to prove the fact of adoption, however, the document merely showed that there was a joint bank account in the name of Late Ramesh Chand Ganguly and the appellant. It CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 20 -
was further held that there was no iota of evidence that any ceremony was performed and the appellant was actually handed over for adoption by her parents to Late Ramesh Chand Ganguly and hence, the court rejected the adoption of the appellant.
41. In the case in hand also, first of all, the plaintiff has not taken the plea that she was adopted by Late Sh. Badri Prasad prior or after his marriage with Late Smt. Bhouri Devi. In fact, the case of the plaintiff is that her mother married to Late Sh. Badri Prasad after the demise of her first husband and as a result of marriage of her mother with Late Sh. Badri Prasad the plaintiff became the daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad. However, the plaintiff became only the step daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad and cannot be considered as adopted daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad.
42. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff stressed upon that after the demise of Late Sh. Badri Prasad the suit property was transferred in the name of his wife Late Smt. Bhouri Devi and this fact has also been proved by PW6. This plea of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has no much substance because PW6 has merely stated that as per the records the suit property was allotted to Late Sh. Badri Prasad and later on the suit property was mutated in the name of Late Smt. Bhouri Devi W/o Late Sh. Badri Prasad. The suit property was CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 21 -
mutated in the name of Late Smt. Bhouri Devi being wife of Late Sh. Badri Prasad. However, it is well- settled law that mutation does not confer the title of ownership, therefore, Late Smt. Bhouri Devi did not become owner of the suit property.
43. The Hon'ble High Court of Guhawti in Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakanta Kalita & Ors. (Supra) held in para 20 as under:-
"20. Since the object of Section 15(2) is to ensure that the property left by a Hindu female does not lose the real source from where the deceased female had inherited the property, one has no option but to hold that son or daughter (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) of such a Hindu female will mean the son or daughter begotten by the Hindu female from the husband, whose property she had inherited, and not the son or daughter whom she had begotten from a husband other than the one, whose property she had inherited. If such property is allowed to be drifted away from the source through which the deceased female has actually inherited the property, the object of Section 15(2) will be defeated. In other words, if such a property is allowed to be inherited by a son or daughter, whom the deceased female had begotten not through her husband, whose property it was, but from some other husband (whose property it was not), then, Section 15(2)(b) will become meaningless and redundant. Notwithstanding, therefore, the fact that a female Hindu becomes a full- fledged owner of the property inherited by her from her husband, the property, on her death, will pass over to, and devolve upon, only those sons and daughters, whom she had begotten from her husband, whose property she had inherited and if there is no such issue CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 22 -
or if such issue is not alive, then, the property, instead of devolving upon the sons or daughters whom she might have begotten from another person as husband, will devolve upon the heirs of her deceased husband, whose property she had inherited. Viewed from this angle, it becomes clear that since Jagat Kalita was not born to Mahesari out of her wedlock with Shyamrai Jagat Kalita, on Maheswari's death, did not become entitled to the property and, thus, when Jagat Kalita was not entitled to the property, question of the appellant, Dhanistha, succeeding to the property did not arise at all. The property, therefore, on the death of Maheswari, devolved upon the heirs of Shyamrai and when looked from this angle, the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit land as great grand children of Shyamrai. However, since there is no cross objection against the decrees granted by the learned Courts below, I am not inclined to disturb the findings and or the decree impugned in this appeal."
44. The plea of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the mother of plaintiff became the owner of the suit property after the demise of Late Sh. Badri Prasad, has found answer in negative in Dhanistha Kalita v. Ramakanta Kalita & Ors. (supra). In the case in hand, admittedly the suit property was alotted to Late Sh. Badri Prasad and after his demise the suit property was mutated in the name of Late Smt. Bhouri Devi being his wife. For the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that Smt. Bhouri Devi became the owner of the suit property after the demise Late Sh. Badri Prasad and the suit property was transferred/mutated in CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 23 -
her name, however, on the demise of Bhouri Devi the suit property would go back only to the legal heirs of her husband Late Sh. Badri Prasad U/s 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and not to her children from her first husband. Thus, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property either being step daugher of Late Sh. Badri Prasad or being daughter of Late Smt. Bhouri Devi.
45. In view of the above discussions it is clear that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was adopted by Late Sh. Badri Prasad during his life time and as such the plaintiff being step daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad is not entitled to have share in the movable or immovable property of Late Sh. Badri Prasad and hence, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.3
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in any manner whatsoever over property described as bearing no. 628, Sunlight Colony II, J.J. Colony, near Mother Dairy, Hari Nagar Ashram, Near Delhi? OPP.
46. The burden to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. As per the findings on the issue no.1 as the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property, therefore, there is no ground to restrain the CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 24 -
defendant from creating third-party interest of the suit property.
ISSUE NO.4, 7 and 84. Whether the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit property? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standee to institute the suit for any relief in respect of the suit property? OPD
8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD
47. Issue no.4, 7 and 8 are interconnected, therefore, it would be convenient if they are decided by common finding. The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant. As per the findings on the issue no.1 it is established that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property and the plaintiff being step daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad has no right in the suit property, therefore, the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit. Hence, these issue are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5
5. Whether the suit property was allotted in the name of Sh. Badri Prasad and upon his death on 03.12.1975 devolved upon his two legal heirs i.e. his widow and the defendant daughter in equal shares and after the death of the widow of Late Sh. Badri Prasad, the defendant is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property? OPD.
48. The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant. It is not in dispute that the suit property was CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 25 -
allotted to Late Sh. Badri Prasad by the Slum & JJ Department, New Delhi. Thus, Late Sh. Badri Prasad was mere allottee of the suit property and not the owner of the suit property. Upon the death of Late Sh. Badri Prasad only his widow and defendant being his daughter inherited the same rights in the suit property that were available to Late Sh. Badri Prasad. This issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.6
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD.
49. The burden to prove this issue was on the defendant. However, the defendant has not brought anything on record to show that the suit was barred by limitation. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a final decree of partition thereby partitioning property described as bearing no. 628, Sunlight Colony-II, J.J. Colony, near Mother Dairy, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares declare under the preliminary decree of partition ? OPP.
50. As per the findings on issue no.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for preliminary decree of partition, therefore, the issue no. 2 has become infructous and disposed of accordingly.
RELIEF:-
CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi
- 26 -
51. In view of the above discussions and as per the finding on issue no.1 and 3 the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit. Hence, the suit is dismissed.
52. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
53. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
PRITAM
PRITAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.10.08
Announced in open Court 17:01:04
+0530
On 08.10.2025
(PRITAM SINGH)
District Judge-04
South-East, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
CS DJ 11771/16 Shanti Devi vs. Bimla Devi