Delhi District Court
Ved Parkash Gupta vs Urmila Gupta on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. MILAN GOEL: CIVIL JUDGE - 08
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO: 1727/2018
CNR NO. DLCT030040092018
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Ved Prakash Gupta
Son of Late Shri Murari Lal Gupta
R/o H. No. E-21, Vivek Vihar,
Opposite Ram Mandir, Delhi.
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Smt. Urmila Gupta
W/o Late Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta,
R/o R-16, 1st Floor, Gurpreet Nagar,
Near Uttam Nagar (West) Metro Station,
Delhi-110059.
2. Rajiv Gupta
S/o Late Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta
R/o R-16, 1st Floor, Gurpreet Nagar,
Near Uttam Nagar (West) Metro Station,
Delhi-110059.
...DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 19.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 13.02.2026
Digitally
signed by
MILAN
MILAN GOEL
GOEL Date:
2026.02.13
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta 16:50:16
+0530
Page no. 1/19
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,38,140/-.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 1,38,140/- from Smt. Urmila Gupta and Sh. Rajiv Gupta (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants").
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff is that his mother, Ms. Maya Devi, was the sole and absolute owner of property bearing No. 2882, Gali Saggard Wali, Hamilton Road, Mori Gate, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). She died intestate, leaving behind seven legal heirs, including the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of the plaintiff's brother, and Defendant No. 2 is the son of Defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, since his mother died intestate, he is entitled to a one-seventh share in the suit property, whereas the Defendants are each entitled to a one twenty-first share therein.
3. It is further the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants have let out the suit property and are receiving monthly rent of Rs. 21,000/- from the tenant. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims entitlement to one-seventh of the rent being received from the suit property. As he is entitled to recover rent only for the preceding three years, he claims a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- from the Defendants along with pendente lite and future interest. The plaintiff also states that the defendants have already filed a Digitally signed by MILAN CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta MILAN GOEL Page no. 2/19 GOEL Date:
2026.02.13 16:50:23 +0530 suit for partition and possession, which is presently pending adjudication. In addition, the plaintiff has sought recovery of interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Hence, the present suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS
4. The Defendants have contested the matter and filed their respective written statements. Defendant No. 1 has contended that the present suit is not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to implead Ms. Deepti Aggarwal, who is the sister of Defendant No. 2, the daughter of Defendant No. 1, and the legal representative of Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta (brother of the plaintiff). It is further stated that the plaintiff has relied upon a copy of the plaint dated 03.05.2018 titled Rajiv Gupta and Ors. vs. Hira Lal Gupta and Ors., which indicates that a partition suit is already pending in respect of the ancestral properties, including the suit property.
5. The defendants further submit that though the suit property was purchased by Smt. Maya Devi along with several other properties, the plaintiff has concealed the fact that all the ancestral properties, including the suit property, are jointly owned by all the parties. This, according to them, is evident from the copy of the plaint filed by Defendant No. 2. It is also stated that though the ancestral properties, including the suit property, are being enjoyed separately by the parties, each co-owner remains in joint possession in terms of the arrangement arrived at between them.
Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN Date:
GOEL GOEL 2026.02.13 CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta 16:50:29 +0530 Page no. 3/19
6. The properties in question are as follows:
a. Property bearing No. B-21, Vivek Vihar, Opposite Ram Mandir, Delhi-110032;
b. Property bearing No. 2882, Gali Saggard Wali, Hamilton Road, Mori Gate, Delhi-110006 (suit property);
c. Property/Shop bearing No. 394-A, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006;
d. Property bearing No. 3065, Gali Kalyan Singh, Ram Bazar, Mori Gate.
7. In order to understand the facts clearly, the family tree of Ms. Maya Devi is as follows:
(since deceased)
8. The Defendants further submit that since the aforesaid properties have not been formally partitioned and are being enjoyed by all the co- owners irrespective of their proportionate shares, the legal heirs of Sh. Suresh Gupta (since deceased) alone are entitled to the rental income Digitally signed by CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta MILAN MILAN GOEL Date:
Page no. 4/19 GOEL 2026.02.13
16:50:38
+0530
derived from the suit property until a formal partition of the aforesaid properties takes place.
REPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
9. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff denied the contents of the written statement, except those which are matter of record.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
10.On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed in the present case:
a. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1,38,140/- along with pendent lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, as prayed for? OPP.
b. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
11.In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the certified copy of the plaint dated 15.03.2018 titled Rajiv Gupta and Ors. vs. Hira Lal Gupta and Ors.
Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.13 CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta 16:50:46 +0530 Page no. 5/19
12.The witness was duly cross-examined by Learned counsel for the defendants, wherein he admitted that apart from the suit property, there are several other properties jointly owned by him and his brothers and sisters. He deposed that property bearing No. 3065, Mori Gate, Delhi, is a joint property, and that shop No. 394, Khari Baoli, is also a joint property; however, he is not claiming any rent from the said property. He further admitted that the properties mentioned in paragraph No. 4 are joint properties in respect of which a suit for partition is presently pending. He also stated that the said suit is pending in respect of property bearing No. B-21, Vivek Vihar; however, he claims to be the owner of the said property.
13.The witness was also confronted with the orders dated 29.03.2019 and 21.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) No. 180/2018, to which he stated that he had no knowledge of the same. The said orders were exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D1 and Ex. PW-1/D2, respectively. He was further confronted with the evidence led in the aforesaid suit, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D3, which included the Agreement to Sell dated 17.08.1984 executed by Sh. Chander Mohan Gupta in his favour, and he denied having filed the said document before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He admitted that he, along with his four brothers and two sisters, holds an equal share in the suit property.
14.Thereafter, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 08.08.2024, and the matter was listed for the defendants' evidence.
Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta GOEL Date:
2026.02.13 Page no. 6/19 16:50:52 +0530 DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
15.In order to contest the present case, the Defendants examined Defendant No. 2 and Sh. Om Prakash from the office of the MCD. Defendant No. 2 was examined as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
S. No. Type of Document Exhibit/Mark
1. Certified copy of plaint in Ex. DW-1/1 CS(OS) No.180/2018 titled Rajiv Gupta & Anr.
v. Hira Lal Gupta
2. Certified copy of orders Ex. PW1/D1 and dated 29.03.2019 and Ex. PW1/D2 21.10.2019 which are already exhibited as Ex.
PW1/D1 and Ex.
PW1/D2
3. Certified copy of Ex. PW-1/D3
documents, examination
and cross examination of
plaintiff's witnesses in
CS(OS) No. 180/2018
titled Rajiv Gupta & Anr.
v. Hira Lal Gupta which
are already exhibited as
Ex. PW1/D3 (colly)
Digitally
signed by
MILAN
MILAN GOEL
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta GOEL Date:
2026.02.13
16:50:58
Page no. 7/19
+0530
16.The witness was duly cross-examined, during which he admitted that the defendants, along with his father (while alive), had been receiving rent from the suit property, which was enhanced to Rs. 17,000/- in the year 2018. He further stated that on the day of cross-examination, the suit property was under tenancy of Mr. Narang at a rent of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He also admitted that Defendant No. 1 is receiving the rent from the suit property. The witness reiterated that, as per the family arrangement, all properties previously owned by Ms. Maya Devi are in the joint possession of all her sons and daughter and are being enjoyed individually, irrespective of any proportionate share.
17.Sh. Om Prakash, Section Officer from the office of the MCD, appeared as a summoned witness (DW-2) and relied upon the following documents:
S. Type of Document Exhibit/Mark No. 1. Attested photocopy of Mark-A Perpetual Lease dated 18.11.1971 with respect to plot No. 21, Block B, Jhilmil, Tahirpur Residential Scheme in the name of Sh. Chander Mohan Gupta. 2. Attested photocopy of Mark-B agreement to sell dated Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta Date: GOEL 2026.02.13 Page no. 8/19 16:51:04 +0530 17.08.1984 between Sh. Chander Mohan Gupta and Sh. Hira Lal Gupta, Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta, Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Shri Ved Prakash Gupta & Sh. Ram Avtar with respect to plot No. B-21, Vivek Vihar, Jhilmil, Tahirpur Residential Scheme, Delhi-110032. 3. Attested photocopy of Mark-C receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- dated 17.08.1984 4. Attested photocopy of Mark-D Declaration of Sh. Hira Lal Gupta, Sh. Suresh Gupta, Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta & Sh. Ram Avtar 5. Attested photocopy of Mark-E General Power of Attorney executed by Chander Mohan Gupta in favour of Ms. Maya Devi 6. Attested photocopy of Deed Mark-F of agreement to sell Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta Date: GOEL 2026.02.13 16:51:09 Page no. 9/19 +0530 executed on 17.08.1984 by Sh. Chander Mohan Gupta in favour of Sh. Ved Parkash Gupta. 7. Attested photocopy of Mark-G conveyance deed dated 31.10.2006 between Sh. Chander Mohan Gupta through Sh. Ved Parkash Gupta in favour of Sh. Ved Parkash Gupta in respect of property B-21, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-95 8. Photocopy of the Mutation Ex. DW2/1 Proceedings dated (OSR) 04.01.1994 9. Photocopy of the Mutation Ex. DW2/2 Application dated (OSR) 31.12.2010
18.The witness/DW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff.
Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta Page no. 10/19 2026.02.13 16:51:14 +0530 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES
19.I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
20.It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants have already admitted that the suit property was let out to a tenant, Mr. Narang, and that the defendants have been receiving a rent of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the suit property. It is further contended that since Ms. Deepti Aggarwal did not receive any rent from the said tenant, nor has she claimed any, she is not a necessary party in the present suit. Regarding the alleged family arrangement between the brothers, it is argued that any such arrangement, if it existed, was merely oral, and DW-1 failed to specify the date, month, or year when the arrangement was agreed upon. In fact, DW-1 was not present at the relevant time when the alleged arrangement was made.
21. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of the defendants that the present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that the plaintiff's mother, Smt. Maya Devi, died intestate, leaving behind five sons and two daughters who jointly inherited the suit property along with other ancestral properties. Since the mother of the plaintiff died intestate, each co-owner remains in joint possession of the properties, but in order to maintain harmony among the parties, the properties have been enjoyed pursuant to an arrangement arrived at between them until a formal and final partition is effected.
22.It is further argued that, under the said arrangement, the suit property is being enjoyed by the defendants, and only the defendants are entitled Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta Page no. 11/19 2026.02.13 16:51:20 +0530 to receive the rental income from the property until such time as a final partition takes place.
23.It is also contended that the legal heirs mentioned in the table at paragraph No. 7 of this judgment are necessary parties to the present suit, as no formal partition has taken place. Without impleading these parties, the present suit is claimed to be bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
24.Additionally, it is argued that property bearing No. B-21, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, valued at more than Rs. 15 crores, is joint property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has been held guilty by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi of fabricating false documents in respect of the aforesaid property in CS (OS) No. 180/2018 titled Rajiv Gupta and others vs. Heera Lal Gupta and others.
25.Ld. Counsel for the Defendants has also submitted that in paragraph No. 48 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that:
"48. Accordingly, it is held that Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 [legal heirs of the late Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta] are jointly entitled to one- fifth share, Plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 [legal heirs of the late Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta] are jointly entitled to one-fifth share, the legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 are jointly entitled to one-fifth share, Defendant No. 2 is entitled to one-fifth share, and Defendant No. 3 is entitled to one-fifth share in the suit property."
Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta 2026.02.13 16:51:33 +0530 Page no. 12/19
26.Hence, it is submitted that the suit property alongwith other properties mentioned in paragraph 6 above, are joint properties of all the legal heirs of Ms. Maya Devi.
27.It is also a matter of fact that the plaintiff has not made all the legal heirs parties to the present suit. The question that arises, therefore, is whether a suit can be dismissed if all the legal heirs are not made parties.
APPLICABLE LAW
28.In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the law relating to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides as follows:
Order 1 Rule 9 - Misjoinder and Non-joinder:
"No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it: [Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.]"
29.Order 1 Rule 9 CPC mandates that no suit shall be defeated solely on account of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, allowing the Court to adjudicate on matters involving the parties actually present. However, the rule explicitly does not apply to the non-joinder of a necessary party, and in such cases, a suit may be liable to dismissal.
Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta 2026.02.13 16:51:39 +0530 Page no. 13/19
30.The next question is who constitutes a "necessary party" in a given case. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (Civil Appeal Nos. 5755-5756 of 2011) laid down the twin test to determine whether a person is a necessary party. It says:
"20. It can thus be seen that for being a necessary party, the twin test has to be satisfied. The first requirement is that there must be a right to some relief against such a party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings. The second requirement is that no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such a party."
31.Therefore, the Supreme Court observed that a suit is liable to be dismissed if a "necessary party" is not impleaded. To qualify as a necessary party, the twin conditions must be satisfied:
a. There must be a right to some relief against the party with respect to the controversies involved; and b. No effective decree can be passed in the absence of that party.
32.It is also relevant to note that the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, forms the foundational basis of Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. No order can be passed behind the back of a person in a manner that adversely affects him. Any such order passed in violation of this principle is not binding on the affected party. Therefore, it is a well- settled principle consistent with natural justice that if certain persons are likely to be affected by a decision, the Court should not adjudicate Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta Page no. 14/19 2026.02.13 16:51:45 +0530 on the matter or consider the correctness of the decision in their absence.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS Issue No. 2: Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
OPD
33.The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. In order to discharge this burden, the defendants have contended that Late Ms. Maya Devi died intestate leaving behind seven legal heirs and that no partition by metes and bounds has taken place in respect of the estate left by her. From the pleadings as well as the evidence that has come on record, particularly the admissions made by PW-1 in his cross- examination, it stands clearly established that apart from the suit property, other properties including property bearing no. 3065, Mori Gate and shop no. 394, Khari Baoli are joint properties and that a comprehensive partition suit qua these properties, including the suit property, is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. PW-1 further admitted that all the legal heirs have equal share in the suit property.
34.It is also an admitted position that Late Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, one of the sons of Late Ms. Maya Devi, has expired and his undivided share has devolved upon his legal heirs, namely Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2 and Ms. Deepti Aggarwal. The plaintiff has chosen to implead only Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, while admittedly Ms. Deepti Aggarwal, being a co-sharer in the undivided share of Late Digitally signed by CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta Page no. 15/19 MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
2026.02.13 16:51:50 +0530 Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, has not been impleaded as a party to the present proceedings.
35.The relief sought in the present suit is recovery of alleged 1/7th share in rental income arising from the suit property. The entitlement to such rental income is inseparably connected with the undivided proprietary rights of all co-owners. In law, upon intestate succession, the estate devolves jointly upon all heirs and each co-owner is deemed to be in constructive possession of the whole property until partition. Any adjudication regarding distribution of rental income necessarily involves determination and adjustment of inter se rights of all co- sharers.
36.Order I Rule 9 CPC provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; however, the proviso clearly mandates that this protection does not extend to non-joinder of a necessary party. The settled test for determining a necessary party is whether in the absence of such party an effective and binding decree can be passed. In the present case, any decree directing payment of a quantified share of rent to the plaintiff would directly or indirectly affect the rights and liabilities of all co-owners, including Ms. Deepti Aggarwal and the remaining legal heirs of Late Ms. Maya Devi.
37.Further, passing a decree in absence of a co-owner would offend the principles of natural justice, as it would determine proprietary and pecuniary rights behind her back. Such a decree would neither be binding upon the non-impleaded co-owners nor would it conclusively Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL GOEL Date:
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta 2026.02.13 16:51:56 +0530 Page no. 16/19 settle the controversy, thereby giving rise to multiplicity of proceedings.
38.In view of the admissions of PW-1, the pendency of the partition proceedings, and the non-impleadment of all co-owners including Ms. Deepti Aggarwal, this Court holds that the defendants have successfully discharged the burden cast upon them to show that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties.
39.Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1,38,140/- along with pendent lite and future interest @18% per annum as prayed for?
OPP
40.The burden to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The foundation of the plaintiff's claim is that he is entitled to 1/7th share in the rental income allegedly being received by the defendants from the suit property. However, during cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the suit property is a joint property and that no partition has taken place. He further admitted that other joint properties are also being enjoyed by the respective parties and that he is not claiming any rent from those properties, despite acknowledging their joint character.
41.It is a settled principle of co-ownership that until partition by metes and bounds is effected, each co-owner is entitled to possession of every part of the joint property and the income therefrom is subject to adjustment Digitally signed by MILAN CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta MILAN GOEL GOEL Date: Page no. 17/19 2026.02.13 16:52:04 +0530 at the time of final partition or rendition of accounts. Mere receipt of rent by one co-owner does not, in the absence of proof of ouster or exclusion, entitle another co-owner to maintain a simpliciter suit for recovery of a fixed share of rent.
42.In the present case, the plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved any specific act of ouster or denial of his title by the defendants. There is no documentary evidence on record to show any formal demand for rendition of accounts or refusal thereof. The admissions made by DW-1 regarding receipt of rent do not establish wrongful exclusion; rather, they are consistent with the defence that properties are being enjoyed separately pending formal partition.
43.Moreover, it is an admitted fact that a comprehensive partition suit concerning the same estate is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The appropriate remedy available to the plaintiff is to seek adjustment of rental income and rendition of accounts in those proceedings. Entertaining the present recovery suit would amount to fragmentary adjudication of rights in respect of one property out of an undivided estate, which is neither legally sound nor conducive to complete justice.
44.Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
45.In view of the plaintiff's own admissions, the absence of proof of exclusion, the pendency of partition proceedings, and the defective Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta GOEL Date:
2026.02.13 16:52:14 Page no. 18/19 +0530 constitution of the suit, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving his entitlement to the amount claimed. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed.
(This judgment contains 19 pages and each page has been signed by me.) Digitally signed by MILAN MILAN GOEL Date:
GOEL 2026.02.13
16:52:23
+0530
Announced in the open court (MILAN GOEL)
on 13.02.2026 Civil Judge-08
(Central)/THC/Delhi
CS SCJ 1727/2018 Ved Prakash Gupta v. Urmila Gupta Page no. 19/19