RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 1 of 23

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 19

th

January, 2026

Pronounced on: 07

th

April, 2026

+ RFA 394/2023, CM APPL. 25538/2023, 38832/2025& 38833/2025

MRS. KULDIP KAUR LUTHR A

W/o Sh. Charanjit Singh

R/o 2C/26, First Floor, New Rohtak Road,

Karol Bagh, Delhi-05 .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Ashish Kapur, Ms. Chhavi

Luthra, Mr. Anmol Kapur and Mr.

Rishap Atal, Advs.

versus

1. SH. SARABJIT SINGH

S/o Late Jasbir Singh ....Respondent No. 1

2. SMT. HARINDER KAUR

W/o Late Jasbir Singh .....Respondent No.2

Both at -2C/26, Ground Floor, New Rohtak Road,

Karol Bagh, Delhi-05

Through: Mr. Manpreet Singh Dua, Mr.

Bharatdeep Singh & Ms. Kartigha,

AOR.

+ CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025

MRS. KULDIP KAUR LUTHRA

W/o Sh. Charanjit Singh

R/o 2C/26, First Floor, New Rohtak Road,

Karol Bagh, Delhi-05 .....Petitioiner

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 2 of 23

Through: Mr. Ashish Kapur, Ms. Chhavi

Luthra, Mr. Anmol Kapur and Mr.

Rishap Atal, Advs.

versus

1. SARABJIT SINGH

S/o Late Jasbir Singh

2. SUNITA LUTHRA

W/o Sarabjeet Singh

Both at -2C/26, Ground Floor, New Rohtak Road,

Karol Bagh, Delhi-05.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Manpreet Singh Dua, Mr.

Bharatdeep Singh & Ms. Kartigha,

AOR.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

CM APPL.38833/2025 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

RFA 394/2023

3. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 3 of 23

filed on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff, to challenge the Judgment and

Decree dated 19.11.2022 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi, has dismissed the Suit for Mandatory Injunction,

Possession, damages, Mesne Profits and Injunction, against the

Plaintiff.

4. The Suit No. 616986/2016 was filed by the Plaintiff for Mandatory

Injunction, Possession, damages, Mesne Profits and Injunction.

5. Brief facts are that Smt. Harbhajan Kaur was the owner of the

entire property bearing No. 2C/26, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New

Delhi, by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 01.12.1959. She had three sons,

namely, Mr. Ravinder Singh Luthra, Mr. Charanjit Singh and Mr. S. Jasbir

Singh. Mr. S. Jasbir Singh was apparently the adopted son, who died in

May, 2001. The Respondents, who are the wife and sons of Late Mr. S.

Jasbir Singh, have been living in the half ground floor portion of the subject

Property, which is the Suit Property in question, on lease and license basis.

6. The Plaintiff further stated that Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, mother of Mr.

Charanjit Singh, had executed a General Power of Attorney dated

22.06.2007, Ex.PW-1/2 in respect of the Property in question, in favour of

Mr. Charanjit Singh to manage, deal and execute any documents in respect

of the Property.

7. Mr. Charanjit Singh thereafter, on the basis of GPA for and on behalf

of his mother, Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, executed the Gift Deed dated

15.04.2008 in favour of his wife, Ms. Kuldip Kaur Luthra/Plaintiff, who

thus, is asserted to have become the owner of the half ground floor portion,

which is in occupation of the Respondents.

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 4 of 23

8. The Plaintiff, wife of Mr. Charanjit Singh, asserted that being the

close relatives, she never objected to their living in the Suit Premises, but it

was with the clear understanding that they were only licensees and shall

vacate the Suit Property, as and when required by the Plaintiff.

9. Due to the hostile attitude and misbehaviour of Defendants, Plaintiff

was no more interested to allow them to remain in the premises. She served

a Legal Notice dated 24.03.2009 asking them to vacate the premises after

which, the present Suit was filed for Possession and for Mesne Profits

@Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 16.04.2009.

10. The Suit was contested by the Respondents/Defendants, who in

their Written Statement, asserted that Plaintiff had no locus standi to file

the Suit as she has no right to seek the possession from the Defendants, who

had been in possession as co-owners, after the demise of original owner, Ms.

Harbhajan Kaur, the real paternal grandmother of the Defendant No. 1 and

mother-in-law of the Defendant No. 2.

11. It was asserted that Mr. Jasbir Singh, father of Defendant No. 1 and

husband of Defendant No. 2, pre-deceased Ms. Harbhajan Kaur and after her

demise, they are entitled to 1/4

th

undivided rights in the entire property in

question. The genuineness of the GPA and the Gift Deed, was denied by

asserting that these documents had been obtained by undue influence and

therefore, did not create any right in favour of the Appellant. It was denied

that the Gift Deed was ever executed by Late Ms. Harbhajan Kaur in favour

of the Plaintiff, out of her free Will; in fact, she had no intention to give the

property in dispute along with other portions of the Property in question, to

the Plaintiff at any time and no circumstances ever existed of love and

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 5 of 23

affection of Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, which could have prompted her to execute

the Gift Deed in favour of the Plaintiff.

12. On merits, the Defendants while admitting that Smt. Harbhajan Kaur

was the owner of the Suit Property, denied that she ever executed any Will

dated 22.06.2007 in favour of Late Mr. Charanjit Singh, bequeathing the

entire first floor to him. The alleged Will is challenged to be a forged and

false document.

13. It is asserted that the genuineness of the Gift Deed dated 15.04.2008,

is also questioned on the ground that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur was alive at the

time of execution of the Gift Deed and there was no reason for her to have

not gone personally for execution of the Sale Deed. The very fact that it had

been executed by Mr. Charanjit Singh, the husband of the Appellant, on the

basis of the GPA, creates a doubt about the entire transaction.

14. Furthermore, had Ms. Harbhajan Kaur executed the Gift Deed

voluntarily, out of her free will, she would have herself gone to get the

documents registered. The Plaintiff’s husband has obtained the GPA in his

name by practicing fraud and undue influence upon Ms. Harbhajan Kaur and

later, on the basis of this manipulated GPA, executed the Gift Deed in

favour of his wife.

15. The Defendants stated that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur was living in Arya

Mahila Ashram, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi since 26.04.1995 and since then

she never resided with her sons and daughters-in-law. There was no

occasion for her to have executed the GPA for management of the Property,

in favour of Mr. Charanjit Singh.

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 6 of 23

16. During her lifetime, Ms. Harbhajan Kaur was shifted to live in the

Ashram whereby the half ground floor portion, was given to Mr. Jasbir

Singh, the deceased son of Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, for residence while the

remaining ground floor portion was given to the other son. The first floor

was given to Mr. Charanjit Singh for residence purposes. Ms. Harbhajan

Kaur was not in need of any money since she was not living with the

Plaintiff, and there was no question of her having any special love and

affection only for the Plaintiff. She had equal love and affection for all the

sons, daughters-in-law and their children.

17. The Respondents/Defendants further asserted that Ms. Harbhajan

Kaur was 87 years old, in 2007. She was not having good faculties and was

not able to understand all the things properly, due to her old age and living

alone away from her family in the Ashram.

18. The Defendants further claimed that they are in possession of the Suit

Property since 1995, at the time when Ms. Harbhajan Kaur shifted to the

Ashram. She had given this Suit Property to Mr. Jasbir Singh to live there

for ever. It is denied that the Plaintiff had acquired ownership under the Gift

Deed and asserted that the Suit was liable to be dismissed.

19. The Plaintiff/Appellant in her Replication, reaffirmed her case as

stated in the Plaint.

20. The issues on the pleadings, were framed on 16.04.2010, which are

as under:-

a. “Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued

for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD;

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 7 of 23

b. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?

OPP;

c. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

possession as claimed in the plaint? OPP;

d. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne

profits/damages as claimed in the plaint? OPP;

e. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

permanent injunction as claimed in the plaint? (OPP)”

21. The Plaintiff in support of her case examined PW-1, Mr. Ganesh

Kumar, who was a witness to the Will, which he proved as Ex.PW-1/1. He

also proved the GPA dated 22.06.2007 in favour of Mr. Charanjit Singh,

Ex.PW-1/2.

22. PW-2, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Record Keeper from Office of Sub-

Registrar-III, Delhi-02, produced the record pertaining to PW-1 and PW-2

and deposed that they were registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar.

23. PW-3 is the Plaintiff, Ms. Kuldip Kaur Luthra, who deposed on

similar lines as the Case set up in the Plaint.

24. PW-4, Mr. Charanjit Singh also proved the execution of the Will

and GPA and corroborated the testimony of PW-3.

25. Defendant No. 1, Mr. Sarabjeet Singh examined himself as DW-1

in support of his Case.

26. DW-2, Mr. Satbir Singh, Zonal Inspector, North Delhi, Municipal

Corporation, Karol Bagh Zone, Anand Parbat, ANC Department, Delhi,

proved the receipt No. BM 064956 dated 03.08.2012 in regard to the

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 8 of 23

property tax w.e.f. 2003-2004 to 2012-2013 by Mr. Sarabjit Singh and Ms.

Sunita as Ex. DW-2/1.

27. DW-3, Naib Subedar, Mr. S.K. Sharma, representative of Armed

Forces, Delhi, proved the original service record of Lt. Col. Jasbir Singh

Luthra as Ex. DW-3/1 wherein Mr. Sarabjeet Singh Luthra was shown as

son of Lt. Col. Jasbir Singh Luthra.

28. DW-4, Mr. Satyavir produced the record, which is Ex. DW-4/1.

29. DW-5, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Ahlmad of the Court of ADJ, produced

the certified copy of Civil Suit bearing No. CS No. 90/2014, titled Sarabjit

Singh vs. Charanjit Singh Luthra & Ors., as Ex. DW-5/1.

30. The learned Additional District Judge considered the GPA dated

22.06.2007 executed in favour of son, Charanjit Singh Luthra,allegedly by

his mother on the basis of which, he executed the Gift Deed dated

15.04.2008, in favour of his wife. It was observed after due appreciation of

the evidence, the execution of a GPA after the execution of the Will dated

14.06.2007 by Late Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, was not comprehendible. Once the

Will had been executed, there was no need for execution of the Gift Deed.

31. The testimony of PW-1, Mr. Ganesh Kumar, the attesting witness was

held to be confined only to him signing the GPA and the Gift Deed, but a

reference was made to his ignorance about the contents of the two

documents and did not prove the contents of the Gift Deed.

32. It was observed that earlier Will dated 20.10.2003 had been executed

by Late Ms. Harbhajan Kaur Luthra whereby the property had been divided

equally amongst the three sons i.e. Mr. Ravinder Singh Luthra, Ms.

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 9 of 23

Harindra Luthra, wife of Mr. S. Jasbir Singh and Mr. Charanjit Singh

Luthra.

33. However, in the Will dated 14.06.2007 that was subsequently

executed, there was no mention of the earlier Will and the suit property was

bequeathed to Mr. Charanjit Singh and Mr. S. Ravinder Singh Luthra, to the

absolute exclusion of the Defendants. It was observed that the very fact of

an execution of Power of Attorney dated 22.06.2007 soon after the

execution of the Will dated 14.06.2007, created a doubt about the entire

transactions. Moreover, mere registration of GPA or the Will, was not

sufficient to prove their execution. It was held that these documents had not

been proved and thus, created no right, title in favour of the Plaintiff. It was

further observed that once the Plaintiff was not shown to be the owner of the

Suit Property, she was not entitled for possession and other reliefs.

Consequently, the Suit was dismissed.

34. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Plaintiff/Appellant has

challenged it by way of the present Appeal. The grounds of challenge are

that the aforesaid Judgment has been passed by ignoring the documents and

the evidence of the Appellant/Plaintiff and in fact, the Suit should have been

decreed.

35. The Defendant had moved an Application under Section 151 CPC,

which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 02.07.2022. In

between, an Application under Order XVIII CPC was filed by the

Defendants, but it was also dismissed vide Order dated 19.11.2022. None of

the parties had addressed final arguments on merits despite which the Suit

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 10 of 23

has been dismissed vide Judgment dated 19.11.2022. Both the parties have

been deprived of their right of addressing the arguments.

36. The Plaintiff/Appellant further submitted that the Will and GPA was

duly proved by PW-1, Mr. Ganesh Kumar, the attesting witness. PW-2, Mr.

Vinod Kumar from the Office of Sub-Registrar, had also proved these

documents. The further corroboration came from the testimony of PW-3 and

nothing contrary emerged in her cross-examination. PW-4, Mr. Charanjit

Singh also proved the execution of the Will and GPA and the other

documents.

37. The witnesses examined by the Defendants, were not able to disprove

the documents duly proved by the Plaintiff by examination of the witnesses.

The Defendants miserably failed to prove their case. The evidence and the

documents have not been rightly appreciated by the learned District Judge. A

prayer is, therefore, made that the Appeal be set-aside and the Suit of the

Plaintiff/Appellant, be decreed.

38. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the Respondents

wherein the contentions as raised in the Appeal, are reaffirmed.

Submissions heard and the record perused.

39. It is not in dispute that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur was the original owner of

the property in question, as per the Sale Deed dated 01.12.1959, Ex.PW-1/1.

It is further evident from the documents proved and placed on record by the

Plaintiff that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur had executed an earlier Will dated

20.10.2003, wherein she had given the first floor portion of the property in

question to her son, Mr. Charanjit Singh while the half portion on the ground

floor, was given to Defendants, the legal heirs of son, Mr. Jasbir Singh and

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 11 of 23

the remaining half to Mr. Ravinder Singh Luthra, the third son of the

Appellant. It is further brought on record that the GPA dated 01.10.1983,

Ex.PW-1/4 was executed in favour of Mr. Charanjit Singh, the son in respect

of management of the entire property in question.

40. It is also not in dispute that the Respondents came to reside in the

property, in the year 1995. It is the same time when Ms. Harbhajan Kaur

started residing in Arya Mahila Ashram since 26.04.1995, where she resided

till her demise.

41. Plaintiff as PW-3 deposed that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur used to visit

them every now and then and according to her, at least a day or two in a

week. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that even though, Ms.

Harbhajan Kaur was residing in an Ashram and not with her sons, she had

inimical relationship with Mr. Charanjit Singh. Her faith in her son, Mr.

Charanjit Singh, is evident from the fact that way back in October, 1983, she

had executed a GPA in his favour for management of the entire property.

42. That there was no inimical relationship with any of the sons, is also

evident from the Will dated 20.10.2003 wherein half share of the ground

floor was given to the Respondents and Mr. Ravinder Singh Luthra

respectively, while the first floor was given to Mr. Charanjit Singh.

43. From the testimony of PW-4 Charanjit Singh, the Plaintiff Kuldeep

Kaur, as well as in the cross-examination of DW-1, Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, it

has also emerged that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur had been essentially residing in

Ashram, but her day-to-day needs were being taken care of by Mr. Charanjit

Singh.

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 12 of 23

44. DW-1, Mr. Sarabjeet Singh deposed that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur had

love and affection towards all the family members including Defendants, but

he expressed his ignorance if Ms. Harbhajan Kaur had allowed Late Mr.

Jasbir Singh and his family to reside in the Suit Property on leave and

license basis, with a promise to vacate when desired. When questioned

whether Mr. Charanjit Singh after execution of the documents, had

permitted the Defendants, to continue to reside in the property on leave and

license basis, the Respondent avoided the answer, by saying that he was not

asked about this question and it all happened in between. However, he

volunteered that Mr. Charanjit Singh had informed him that he had executed

the documents i.e. the Will dated 14.06.2007, Ex.PW-1/1 and Gift Deed

dated 15.04.2008, Ex.PW-1/2.

45. It is also pertinent to mention that DW-1 Mr. Sarabjeet Singh

denied that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur died on the first floor of the Property in

question. He stated that she expired in Jeewan Mala Hospital, New Rohtak

Road, New Delhi-110005 and volunteered that he came to know about it

from his neighbours as he was not aware of the same. He had no knowledge

if Mr. Charanjit Singh had taken Ms. Harbhajan Kaur to Jeewan Mala

Hospital, around 3-4 days prior to her death. He also was not aware if Ms.

Harbhajan Kaur was residing with the Plaintiff and his family, before her

death. He was not aware if the hospital and other expenses had been borne

by the Plaintiff and her family.

46. DW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that last rites of Ms.

Harbhajan Kaur were performed by Mr. Charanjit Singh, though he

volunteered that their family members and other members of the family,

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 13 of 23

were also present. He was given a suggestion that he was not present in the

last rites as the family of Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, as he had not been accepted

as the son of Late Mr. Jasbir Singh and Defendant No.2, to which he

vehemently denied. He further denied that because of the quarrel between

Ms. Harbhajan Kaur and Late Mr. Jasbir Singh in 1995, she went to live in

the old age home. He had no idea if Mr. Charanjit Singh had been paying all

the expenses of Ashram/old age home. He admitted that while she was

residing in the Ashram, she used to come to visit the family. He further

admitted that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur had no independent income though, he

denied that her daily necessities were fulfilled by the Plaintiff and her

family. He claimed that they were also taking care of the daily necessities.

47. From the admissions made by the DW-1, Mr. Sarabjit Singh in his

cross-examination, it emerges that Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, the mother had been

taken care of all through her life by Late Mr. Charanjit Singh, and that there

was little relationship between her and the Defendants. It is significant to

note that the defendants, despite living in the same property, were not even

aware of when she was taken to the hospital and when she died. It all clearly

spelt out that Mr. Charanjit Singh was taking care of his mother, who had

immense faith in him, which got reflected in execution of the GPA dated

01.10.1983, Ex.PW-1/4 in his favour and much later again, when the GPA

dated 22.06.2007 was executed in his name, though this time, it was

specifically in respect of half portion on the ground floor i.e. the entire

Property bearing No. 2-C/26, measuring 300.00 sq. yards, situated at New

Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, consisting of Ground Floor,

First Floor and Barsasti Floor with open terrace/roof. The affection and trust

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 14 of 23

of Late Ms. Harbhajan Kaur towards Mr. Charanjit Singh, the husband of

the Plaintiff, is thus, established on record.

48. There was an oblique reference by the Respondents/Defendants that

Ms. Harbhajan Kaur was 87 years old and her mental faculties were not

good, but pertinently, there is no evidence whatsoever in this regard on

record. Rather DW-1, Mr. Sarabjit Singh had admitted that though Ms.

Harbhajan Kaur was residing in the Ashram, she used to off and on, come

to visit them in their house and that they also used to visit her at the Ashram.

Aside from claiming that she was an old lady of 87 years, there is no

evidence whatsoever produced to show that she lacked mental faculties or

that there was any undue influence exerted upon her, in getting the

Will/GPA executed from her.

49. The Will and GPA were duly proved by PW-1, Mr. Ganesh Kumar,

who had deposed that he was a witness to the Will and the GPA and

identified his signatures on the two documents. He further explained that on

the day of execution of the Will, he had been called by Ms. Harbhajan Kaur,

herself telephonically and he had remained present, when she had put her

signatures and the Will was also signed by him. He deposed consistently

about having accompanied her to the Office of Sub-Registrar, where the

documents were duly registered.

50. This aspect is also corroborated by PW- Vinod Kumar, Record

Keeper from the Office of Sub-Registrar, who on the basis of record,

deposed that the Will, as well as, the Gift Deed, was duly registered in the

Office of Sub-Registrar.

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 15 of 23

51. Pertinently, the Will dated 14.06.2007 has the photographs of Late

Ms. Harbhajan Kaur. It is a bounden duty of the Sub-Registrar as well, to

ensure that the signatures are executed in his presence. There is no evidence

to prove any suspicious circumstances, to the contrary. The execution of the

Will and the Gift Deed, was duly proved.

52. The learned District Judge had found it intriguing that having

executed the Will dated 14.06.2007, where was the need of executing the

GPA on 22.06.2007 i.e. barely after seven days, in favour of Mr. Charanjit

Singh. However, merely because after execution of Will, a GPA was

executed in favour of Mr. Charanjit Singh, cannot in itself be a suspicious

circumstance.

53. It cannot be overlooked that in the Will dated 14.06.2007, Ex.PW-1/1,

Late Ms. Harbhajan Kaur had clearly stated that the half portion on the

ground floor, shall go to the Plaintiff. The subsequent Gift Deed dated

15.04.2008, Ex.PW-1/2 executed in favour of the Plaintiff, is in absolute

consonance with the contents of the Will dated 14.06.2007.

54. In fact, the intention of Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, to bequeath half share of

the ground floor i.e. the suit property to the Plaintiff, has been reinforced by

the execution of the Gift Deed. It is understandable that though the Will had

been executed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Premises, but it

is evident that in order to avoid any future disputes and to ensure that

Plaintiff gets the share, the Gift Deed was soon thereafter, executed in

respect of half share of the ground floor, which is presently in occupation of

the Respondents.

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 16 of 23

55. The entire chain of events and the surrounding circumstances, proved

the genuineness of the documents i.e. the Will, as well as, the Gift Deed and

the Defendants have not been able to point out even any suspicious

circumstance, in respect of these documents.

56. The learned District Judge, therefore, fell in error in disregarding the

Will, as well as, the GPA in favour of the Plaintiff. The findings of the

learned District Judge that the Plaintiff/Appellant did not acquire ownership

in respect of half ground floor portion of the property in question, on the

basis of Will dated 14.06.2007 and the Gift Deed dated 15.04.2008, is

hereby set-aside. The Plaintiff is held to be the owner of the half portion of

the ground floor of the property in question.

57. Having held the Plaintiff as the owner of the Suit Property, the next

question, which emerges is whether she is entitled to possession of the

Property. As has already been discussed, the Respondents being the son and

wife of Late Mr. Jasbir Singh, son of Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, had been in

occupation of the Suit property as a family member, a fact which is not

denied by the Defendants. Their occupation is, therefore, only permissive

and once the owner decides to revoke the permission, there is no option for

the Respondents, but to vacate the Suit Premises.

58. In view of the aforesaid, the Impugned Judgment dated 19.11.2022 is

hereby, set-aside and the Suit of the Plaintiff for Possession, is hereby,

decreed.

59. Insofar as the Mesne Profits are concerned, the Plaintiff in her

testimony as PW-3 stated that the rental of the Suit Property is about

Rs.14,000/-15,000/- per month, which is long time back i.e. around 8 or 9

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 17 of 23

years back. Her testimony was recorded on 29.07.2011. DW-1, Mr. Sarabjit

Singh was also given a suggestion that the Property would get the rent of

Rs.14,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of filing of the Suit.

60. Considering the location and the area of the Suit Property, it can

safely be accepted that the Property could have got about Rs.15,000/- per

month. However, considering that the Respondents are the family members,

who had been living in the Property with the permission of Ms. Harbhajan

Kaur, the Mesne Profits are granted @7,500/- per month along with the

interest @6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Suit till the date of

handing over of the possession. The Respondents are given two months’

time to vacate the premises, failing which the Appellant is at liberty to seek

the Possession, in accordance with law.

61. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, parties to

bear their own cost. The Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly. The pending

Applications are also disposed of, accordingly.

CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025:

62. A Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971 has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Petitioner Kuldip Kaur

Luthra against the Respondents, for violation of the Order dated 16.05.2023

passed in RFA No.394/2023.

63. It is explained that the petitioner/Plaintiff had filed a Suit for

Mandatory Injunction, Possession, Mesne Profits against the Respondents

which was dismissed vide Judgment dated 19.11.2022 by learned ADJ

against which the RFA No.394/2023 has been filed. During the pendency of

the RFA, vide Order dated 16.05.2023 had restrained the Respondents from

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 18 of 23

creating third party right or interest in the Suit property i.e. northern side of

the Ground Floor of the property (150 sq. Yds.) forming part of property

No.2C/26, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

64. The Appellant asserted that despite the Order dated 16.05.2023, the

Respondents are hell bent on creating third party interest in the Suit

property. Numerous strangers have visited and inspected the Suit property

and enquired about the Northern portion of the Ground Floor of the property

in question. The Petitioner had made complaints to the Respondents about

the visits of strangers, but they did not mend their ways and hurled the

abuses.

65. The Respondents without the consent of the Petitioner broke and

damaged new tiles on the front wall, which were got installed by the

Petitioner from her own money for the better look of the property. Time and

again, strangers/Respondent park their car in front of the house of the

Petitioner leaving no space for them to park their own car.

66. On 24.04.2025, the Respondent had affixed their name plate on the

entrance of the property, wherein names of three strangers i.e. Amandeep

Kaur, Kartigka and Mahant Swatantra Pal, had been mentioned, aside from

the name of Respondent No.2 which reflects the malafide intention to put

them in possession and create third party rights.

67. The Petitioner claims that the Respondents have parted with the

possession to these three strangers and permitted them to occupy the Suit

property, despite the stay orders of this Court. The Respondents have also

threatened that they would hand over the Possession of the Suit property to

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 19 of 23

some outsiders, for which she has made a Police Complaint dated

25.04.2025 in P.S. D.B. Gupta Road, Delhi.

68. The Respondents time and again used abusive and foul language,

towards the Petitioner and the family members. She is threatened by the

Respondents who claims to be an Advocate and claims that they can twist

the law and its procedures, to rope in the Petitioner and her family in false

cases.

69. The Petitioner is suffering from old age and co-morbidities despite

which nuisance is being created time and again. Hence, a prayer is made

that Contempt proceedings be initiated against the Respondents and

directions be issued to SHO D.B. Gupta Road to comply with the Orders

dated 16.05.2023 of this Court.

70. The Respondents in their Reply have submitted that the present

Contempt Petition has been filed against the Respondent No.2, Sunita

Luthra who is the wife of Sarabjit Singh and is not a party to RFA. It is

claimed that the allegations of the Petitioner that Respondents have parted

with possession of property to three strangers and created third party rights,

is absolutely false and is intended to threaten and put pressure on the

Respondents. The Respondents assert that they had never parted with the

possession of the property to any third party and there is no evidence to this

effect.

71. The true facts are that the present Petition is a counter-blast, to put a

pressure upon Respondent No.2 to withdraw the criminal Complaints filed

by her, against the Petitioner and her family members for committing

assault, by entering forcibly in the house of the Respondents.

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 20 of 23

72. On 03.05.2025 at about 12:00 noon, the Respondent No.2 was out of

her house and was going towards the office of her colleague, when Supreet

Kaur, daughter-in-law of Petitioner started screaming towards her and

repeated her words as to why she has made a false Complaint against them.

The minor maid and her son Harmeet Singh, also came there and they

started a fight with Respondent No.2. She made a video on her mobile

phone, which was then snatched by the Petitioner and in the process,

Respondent No.2 suffered injuries. The neighbours came out and the

Respondent No.2 was saved.

73. One neighbour Satrupa Chopra called the PCR on the spot on

03.05.2025. The police personnel namely Nitesh and Shubham got the

phone recovered from Harmeet Singh, Supreet Kaur, Kuldip Kaur and their

minor female maid and was handed over to Respondent No.2, after about 90

to 120 minutes, in the presence of neighbours. The statements of the parties

were recorded. The medical examination of Respondent No.2 was got done

at Dr. RML Hospital, in the presence of one lady Constable and her MLC

was prepared.

74. The Respondent No.2 is a practicing lawyer in Tis Hazari Court, New

Delhi. She got married to Respondent No.1 on 16.09.2012 and since her

marriage, she has been residing with her husband in the Suit property. She

along with the associates and colleagues affixed her name plate along with

the names of her siblings, namely Amandeep Kaur Advocate and Mahant

Swatantar Pal, her real brother who are both resident of Punjab, and

Advocate Kartiga, Practicing in Supreme Court of India, outside the garage

of her house, which is in possession of her husband for the last 30 years, but

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 21 of 23

there is no such name plate affixed as on date. Mere affixing of name plate,

does not show that third party rights have been created in the Suit property.

It was merely a symbolic act and does not amount to transfer of rights.

75. It is further stated that the name plate that was affixed by the

Respondent No.2, has been removed by Harmeet Singh, son of Petitioner on

the same day forcibly and has not allowed the Respondent No.2 to fix her

name plate at her own residence, which is her legal right. He has even

misbehaved with Respondent No.2 and threatened her with dire

consequences. A Complaint dated 25.04.2025 has already been made by

Respondent No.2 in this regard.

76. It is further asserted that the Petitioner has sought to mislead this

Court by alleging numerous strangers have visited and inspected the Suit

property, which is absolutely false. Whereas the correct fact is that the

visiting relatives of Respondents stay in her house, but that does not mean

that they are strangers and they make the Petitioner and her family

uncomfortable. In fact, the Petitioner makes videos and took photographs

on their mobile phones, for which Complaint has been made by Respondent

No.2.

77. The Respondents being co-owners of the property after demise of the

owner Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, the real grandmother of Respondent No.1 have

inherited 1/3

rd

undivided right in the property in question. The Petitioner in

connivance with her husband, intends to grab the share of the Respondents

when in fact, they have not got any interest in the Suit property.

78. The Will dated 14.06.2007 had been executed in favour of Charanjeet

Singh, while the Gift Deed had been executed in the name of Kuldip Kaur.

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 22 of 23

It is submitted that Inder Pal, elder son of Kuldip Kaur has got false and

frivolous FIR registered against Respondent No.1 which is pending

adjudication. There are multiple litigations which have been initiated by the

parties against each other.

79. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 is innocent. The Respondent

No.2 being the wife and a practicing lawyer, had tried to fix her name plate

outside their garage, but that has also been taken down forcibly by the son of

the Petitioner.

80. There is no merit in the present Petition which is liable to be

dismissed.

Submissions heard and record perused.

81. It is evident from the submissions that it is an inter se dispute between

the family members. The Petitioner is in occupation of 1/2 Ground Floor

portion in which she is staking her claim, but unfortunately Smt. Harbhajan

Kaur by way of her Will and a Gift Deed executed in favour of Kuldip Kaur,

has gifted the said property to Kuldeep Kaur, to the exclusion of the

Petitioners. There are disputes in regard to the property, which has further

escalated into multiple Suits, Complaints and criminal litigations.

82. The only allegation made by the Petitioner is that there are strangers

visiting the property and the Respondents are intending to create third party

rights, which in itself is not the violation of the Stay Order dated 16.05.2023.

The allegations in the Petition are more conjectural and do not disclose any

violation.

83. Rather, there are specific allegations of fight, etc made against the

Respondent No.2. Moreover, Smt. Sunita Luthra is not even a party to the

RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 23 of 23

main RFA and she happens to be the wife of Respondent No.1, who had

merely endeavoured to put her name plate, which also was not acceptable to

the petitioner. The Petitioner has miserably failed to show violation of the

Order dated 16.05.2023.

84. There is no merit in the Contempt Petition, which is hereby,

dismissed. The pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

APRIL 07, 2026/RS