RFA 70/2024 Page 1 of 15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 15

th

January, 2026

Pronounced on: 07

th

April, 2026

+ RFA 70/2024, CM APPL. 5115/2024

1. MS. ANJU CHADHA

W/O Mr. Virender Chadha

R/O 136, Mandakini Enclave,

Alaknanda, New Delhi.

2. MR. VIRENDER CHADHA

R/O 136, Mandakini Enclave,

Alaknanda, New Delhi. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Rishi Bharadwaj, Advocate.

versus

1. BHAVESH MAD AN

S/O Late Sh. R.C. Madan

R/O 137, Mandakini Enclave,

Alaknanda, New Delhi

2. SMT. REETU MADAN

W/O Sh. Bhavesh Madan,

R/O 137, Mandakini Enclave,

Alaknanda, New Delhi. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahindru & Mr. Birender

Chaudhary, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. An Appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed on behalf of the

South-East District, Saket Appellants Ms. Anju Chadha and Mr. Virender

Chadha against Judgment dated 18.12.2023, whereby learned ADJ-01, New

Delhi, has decreed the Suit for Mandatory Injunction, Permanent Injunction

RFA 70/2024 Page 2 of 15

and Damages and directed the Appellants to vacate the Suit Property within

30 days, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. CS DJ 619/2020 was filed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / Bhavesh

Madan and Reetu Madan for Mandatory Injunction, Permanent Injunction

and Damages against Anju Chadha/Respondent No.3 and her husband

Virender Chadha Respondent No.4.

3. The facts as narrated in the Plaint, were that Plaintiffs Bhavesh

Madan and Reetu Madan were registered owners and in legal possession of

the Suit Property bearing No.136, Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New

Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as suit property), by virtue of Sale Deed

dated 20.11.2009.

4. It was claimed that in the month of January, 2020, Defendant Nos.1

and 2, i.e. Anju Chadha (sister of Plaintiff Bhavesh Madan) and her husband

Virender Chadha, came to India from Australia and expressed their desire to

stay for a few days with the mother of Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 to

spend some time with her in her old age. As a humane gesture, Plaintiffs

permitted the Defendants to reside in the Suit Property. The

Defendant/Appellant had told the Respondent within a few days, he would

be flying back to their home in Australia and assured that they would vacate

the property as and when the Plaintiff desires. The stay of the Defendants

got extended on account of Covid Pandemic Lockdown from 22.03.2020

onwards and they therefore, continued to stay in the same property.

5. The Plaintiff’s mother died on 17.06.2020 and the Appellants

continued to stay in the property even after the demise of the mother. It is

RFA 70/2024 Page 3 of 15

claimed that they were bare licensee without any charges being the real

sister and brother-in-law of Plaintiff No.1.

6. The Plaintiff explained that he had been carrying on business from

shop, office and small guest house at Paharganj, Delhi. The parents of

Plaintiff No.1 had excluded the Defendant No.1, the real sister from their

estate and bequeathed their properties located at Vasant Vihar, Faridabad

and New Rohtak Road, Delhi, in favour of the Plaintiff and his younger

brother, who lives in USA.

7. After the demise of the mother, Plaintiff had asked the Appellants

about the status of commercial property No.25/15, New Rohtak Road, Delhi,

but they seemed to have become dishonest and greedy for more money and

were eyeing the properties of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1.

8. On 10.09.2020 the Plaintiff had asked the Appellants to make their

arrangement and vacate the property and thereby terminated the permission

to occupy the Suit property. However, they refused to vacate the property

and extended open threats to the Plaintiffs.

9. The Defendant No.1 demanded jewellery of the mother which was

kept in the locker, although she had no right to the same in terms of the Will

of the mother. The Plaintiff left with no choice, agreed to give the jewellery

of the mother to maintain peace in the family. It was agreed that after

receiving the jewellery, the Defendants would vacate the property and would

not interfere in the life of the Plaintiff in any manner.

10. Accordingly, the jewellery was given to Defendant No.1 on

29.09.2020. The parents of Appellant No.1, i.e. Mrs. Anju Chaddha and

Respondent No.1, i.e. Mr. Bhavesh Madan, have left behind vast properties

RFA 70/2024 Page 4 of 15

and businesses, in respect of which Respondent No.3 has filed a Suit bearing

CS (OS)432/2021 before this Court for Partition, Permanent Injunction and

Rendition of Accounts.

11. Thereafter, the Defendants refused to vacate the property, but

continued to extend the threats. On 22.11.2020 the Defendants started

removing some of the furniture and articles belonging to the Plaintiffs, kept

in the Suit property, without the permission or information of the Plaintiffs.

They intended to steal the furniture and also to create third party rights in the

Suit property. The Plaintiffs immediately called the Police and a Police

Complaint dated 22.11.2020 was also lodged by the Plaintiffs

12. However, because of lockdown in March, 2020, they continued to

stay there. On 19.09.2020, Plaintiffs asked the Defendants to vacate the Suit

Property, however, they refused to do so. Consequently, a Suit was filed for

Mandatory Injunction, Permanent Injunction and Damages/Mesne

Profits of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 29.09.2020 to filing of the suit @ Rs.

50,000/- per month along with interest @ 12% per annum, and further

damages at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month alongwith interest @ 12%

per annum, for the period during the pendency of the suit, and for the

future period at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month alongwith interest @

12% per annum, till the time the possession of the suit property, against the

Respondents to vacate and hand over the possession of the Suit Property.

13. The Defendants/Appellants had filed a Written Statement wherein

they had taken a preliminary Objection that the Suit is a reflection of greed

with a view to cheat and deprive the Defendant No.1 and her younger

brother, of their admitted claims and rights in the suit property, as they are

RFA 70/2024 Page 5 of 15

not only the admitted owners of the property but also in possession thereof

and thus, the Suit for Injunction is not maintainable

14. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs should have sought recovery of Possession

and the present Suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction, is not

maintainable. Since, the Defendant No.2 is the co-owner of the joint family

property, the only remedy for the Plaintiff was to seek a Partition of the Joint

Family property and the Defendants cannot be evicted. In fact, the Suit is a

clandestine attempt by the Plaintiffs to grab the various Joint Family assets

and to misappropriate the wealth created by the grandfather Late Sh. Chunni

Lal Madan and thereafter, by the mother and father of the parties with

dishonest intentions. The Suit property is liable to be distributed amongst all

the legal heirs it being a Joint Family property.

15. It was asserted that various discussions/messages and noting between

the parties had taken place and some of those had been handwritten by the

Plaintiff himself. The game of the Plaintiff and his claim in the present Suit

can be justly considered, by asking the Plaintiff to produce his Income Tax

Returns for the Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 to ascertain the source of funds.

16. The Defendants have been residing in the Suit property which is not

only established from various documents, but is also not disputed by the

Plaintiffs. In fact, the Defendants have been staying in the Flat since 2015

and have been maintaining and paying all the charges including electricity,

water, maintenance, society, maids, gas, car cleaner, cook etc. in cash to the

Plaintiff. The Plaintiff could not go and deposit the said charges with the

Authorities, during the lock down period, and the Plaintiff called Defendant

No.2 to deposit the money in their bank account, on 25.06.2020. For the

RFA 70/2024 Page 6 of 15

said purpose, the Plaintiff/Respondent shared their bank account details with

the Defendants on Whatsapp, which was done by Defendant No.2 who also

deposited Electricity bill in 2016-17 through his bank account.

17. The Plaintiff No.1 had filed another Suit for Permanent and

Mandatory Injunction in respect of the Joint Family properties, assets and

business being the Travellers (I) Forex Blue (P) Ltd., M/s Madan Traveller

Guest House Pvt. Ltd. & Madan Stores etc. It was claimed that the Plaintiff

by way of the present Suit, was trying to convert the joint possession of the

properties bearing No. XV/4360A, 4361 and 4362, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj

as his exclusive possession, even though the ancestral family business was

being carried out since 1948-49. He is attempting to take control of the

entire business as well as the family properties, which cannot be permitted.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not only admitted that all the properties

belonged to Joint Family, but also that they have to be distributed between

three legal heirs of Late Sh. R.C. Madan and Smt. Kamlesh Madan.

18. The Family Settlement had been drawn up by the Plaintiff in his own

hand writing, detailing the manner in which the properties were to be

distributed, in addition to distribution of goods, valuables, cash, jewellery

etc., lying the almirah of the Suit property.

19. It regards to the Suit property, it as agreed that the same would be

gifted to Defendant No.1 and aside from it she would be given a sum of Rs.1

Crore by Bhavesh Madan. This would be a part from the payment to be

made by the Bhavesh Madan to Mr. Sumesh Madan amounting to Rs.2

Crores 80 Lakhs, as detailed herein, for the transfer of Pahar Ganj

properties.

RFA 70/2024 Page 7 of 15

20. In furtherance of this Family Settlement, the Plaintiff had shared

number of property dealers with Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff had also

shared the details of Vasant Vihar property on 22.09.2020. The Defendant

No.2 requested for the papers of the suit property from the Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 also started getting the papers made in this

regard and draft Deeds were also prepared, on the basis of the Family

Settlement. The Suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the properties at

Paharganj belongs to the family and grandfather of the parties had been

carrying out business from the said premises, the License dated 03.01.1960,

had been issued for the said premises.

21. The Defendant further asserted that Defendant No.1 got married from

the Flat No.144, Krishi Apartment, Block-D, Vikaspuri, and she stayed in

the said flat from the year 1988 till 1997. However, the Plaintiff who was

running a firm in the name of a Rossete, lost huge money in the business and

had fallen ill during this period.

22. The family including Defendant No.1 sold the Vikaspuri flat and

another property A-44, Preet Vihar between 1996 to 2005 and a sum of

Rs.70 lakhs were spent on the treatment and settling the dues suffered by the

Plaintiff at that time. It was under these circumstances that the Suit property

was purchased. The parents of the parties assured Defendant No.1 that they

would gift the said Suit property to her at the time of distribution of family

properties and till such time, she could continue to reside in the flat. The

Plaintiff as well as Sumesh Madan, the younger brother agreed for the same.

It is in this manner that Defendant No.1 and 2 are in occupation and in

RFA 70/2024 Page 8 of 15

possession of the Suit property since 2015 i.e. from the date of demise of the

father.

23. On merits, the defence as stated above was reiterated and it was

claimed that the Suit of the Plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.

24. Thereafter, an Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed

on 05.05.2022 on behalf of the Respondents, wherein it was stated the Suit

Property was exclusive property of the Plaintiffs, as the same was purchased

by them vide Registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009, to which Defendant

No.1 / Appellant No.1, was the attesting witness and had never challenged

the Sale Deed and even now has not challenged the title of the Plaintiffs

with respect of the Sale Deed. The defence taken by the Defendants was

sham and moon shine; rather reading of Written Statement shows that with

the mala fide intention of dragging the Suit Property into lengthy litigation

and to continue in occupation of the Suit Property without any charges and

to harass and blackmail the Plaintiffs to accept their illegal demands.

25. The Defendants have not been able to show any right to occupy the

Suit Property and merely by taking false plea of property having been

purchased from the joint family funds, they cannot claim valid defence and

they are liable to handover the possession of the Suit Property, to the

Plaintiffs.

26. It was further submitted that Defendants cannot be permitted to

challenge the Registered Sale Deed or ask the Plaintiffs to show the funds,

as the contents of the Registered Sale Deed itself show how the payments

had been made, by the Plaintiffs.

RFA 70/2024 Page 9 of 15

27. There was no triable issue raised in the Written Statement and there is

clear admission about the Suit Property having been purchased by the

Plaintiffs. Therefore, a Decree under Order 12 Rule 6, was sought.

28. The Application was contested by the Appellants, who in their

Reply to the Application had stated that Defendant No.1 / Appellant No.1

has filed CS(OS) 432/2021 for partition claiming that the Suit Property was

purchased from joint family fund and is liable to be partitioned between him,

Plaintiff and Sumesh Madan (brother of Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1).

The rights of the parties in regard to the Suit Property, shall be determined in

the said Suit and cannot be decided in the present Suit filed by the Plaintiffs.

29. It was denied that there were any admissions made about the Plaintiffs

being the exclusive owners of the Suit Property, which in fact, has been

purchased from joint family funds. There is no unequivocal admission ever

made by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 entitling the Plaintiffs to a Decree under

Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defence had always been that the Suit Property

was purchased from joint family funds.

30. It was claimed that ancestral family businesses had been carried on

since 1948/1949 and any attempt to control the entire business as well as the

family properties cannot be permitted. Plaintiff in the said Suit has claimed

himself to be the proprietor of “Madan Store”, despite being fully aware that

he is not Sole proprietor of the same and has made false averments in order

to defraud the parties and to grab the family properties.

31. The Appellants have placed on record various documents, in regard to

Diary Notes of Late Sh. Ramesh Chand Madan, Whatsapp Messages/Chats

between Appellant No.2 and Respondent No.2, ABN-AMRO, Bank

RFA 70/2024 Page 10 of 15

Statements of Accounts of Smt. Kamlesh Madan. It is asserted that without

giving sufficient opportunity to prove these documents, impugned Order

under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been passed.

32. The learned District Judge referred to the rival contentions of the

parties and observed that the only plea taken by the Appellants/Defendants

in their Written Statement was that the property was purchased from the

joint family funds and all the legal heirs of Late R.C. Madan were true and

rightful owners of the Suit property. They claimed to be the co-owners and

that they were entitled to stay in the Suit property.

33. They relied upon purportedly on the Family Settlement as per which,

it was decided that the Suit property shall be gifted to Defendant No.1 by the

Plaintiff. It was observed that the Plaintiffs admittedly had a Sale Deed in

their favour which had not been challenged in the Suit by the Defendants.

Once the title of the Plaintiff’s was admitted in the property, the same

cannot be challenged by the Defendants merely to claim a right to stay in the

property. Their only defence was that the Suit property had been purchased

from the joint family funds.

34. Furthermore, the defence of Section 4 Benami Transactions

(Prohibition Act) taken by the Defendants by asserting that the property was

purchased from the joint family funds for the benefit of the whole family

could not be sustained, in view of express proviso of Section 4 Benami

Transaction Act.

35. Moreover, a Suit for Partition had already been filed which is

pending in this Court, wherein also, the Defendants had not sought

cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009 in favour of the Plaintiffs. It

RFA 70/2024 Page 11 of 15

was held that the title of the Plaintiffs in the Suit property by virtue of Sale

Deed dated 20.11.2009 stood established and the Sale Deed was not under

challenge. In view of the aforesaid, the Application under Order XII

Rule 6 CPC was allowed and the Suit of the Plaintiff was decreed.

36. Aggrieved by Order dated 18.12.2023 of the Ld. District Judge,

Delhi, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Defendants/Appellants.

37. The grounds of challenge are that while in the Impugned Order,

reference has been made to the contention raised by the Appellants in the

Written Statement that the Suit Property being purchased by joint family

funds, has to be divided in the name of all legal heirs of parents of Plaintiff

No.1 and Defendant No.1, the title of the Suit Property has been wrongly

adjudicated, when only question of possession was to be adjudicated. The

Plaintiff has admitted that the only business, consisting of a Shop, Office

and Small Guest House at Paharganj, Delhi, was a joint family business and

therefore, Respondents admitted that the only source of income was from

the joint family business, which was run by their father and that Respondent

No.1/ Plaintiff No.1 had no independent source of income in 2009.

38. Reliance has been placed on K. V. Naarayanaswami Iyer vs. I. V.

Ramakrishna Iyer, AIR 1965 SC 289, wherein it was held that if on the date

of acquisition of a particular property, the joint family had sufficient nucleus

for acquiring the property in the name of any member of the joint family, it

should be presumed to be acquired from the family funds, so as to form part

of the joint family property unless the contrary is proven.

39. Similar observations have been made in Vinod Kumar Dhall vs.

Dharam Dhall (Deceased) Through his LRS & Ors. and Mallapa

RFA 70/2024 Page 12 of 15

Girimallapa Betgeri and Ors. vs. R. Yellappagouda Patil and Ors., AIR

1959 SC 906.

40. Reliance is also placed on Dal Chand vs. Babu Ram, AIR 1981 All

335, wherein it was held that where the Suit was founded on the averment

that the purchase was in the name of a member of a coparcenary. It was

really a purchase by the joint family and so no question of Benami

transaction arose.

41. Reliance is also placed on Pawan Kumar vs. Babulal Since Deceased

through LRs & Anr., 2019 SCC 367, wherein it has been observed that

whether the plea raised by the Appellant is barred under Section 4 of

Benami Transaction Act or not, cannot be a subject of assessment at the

stage of Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

42. Similar observations have been made in G. Tuhin Kumar vs. State

Bank of India, MANU/YL/0089/2020.

43. It is further asserted that learned Trial Court has wrongly placed

reliance on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernande vs. Erasmo Jack De

Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370, to hold that despite a challenge being raised to

the ownership of the Plaintiffs and a claim of co-ownership being raised,

merely the possession rights could not have been adjudicated in the Suit

under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

44. There was no admission made ever by the Appellants about the

exclusive ownership of the Respondents. Therefore, the impugned Judgment

dated 18.12.2023 is liable to be set aside.

45. Learned counsel for the Respondents has vehemently opposed the

Appeal and argued that aside from bald assertions that property is a joint

RFA 70/2024 Page 13 of 15

family property, there is no challenge to the Registered Sale Deed, which

proves the exclusive ownership of the Respondents in the Suit Property. In

any case, the challenge to their claim of ownership is subject matter of Suit

for Partition, which has already been filed after filing of present Suit.

Submissions heard and record perused.

46. It is admitted that the Plaintiffs had purchased the Suit property by

virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.11.2009, to which the Appellant No.1 Anju

Chadha was also a witness. She was aware of the execution of the Sale

Deed in favour of the Respondent since the day of its execution in 2009,

despite which never ever was any challenge raised to the Sale Deed being in

the exclusive name of the Respondents. The Sale Deed which has never

been challenged, clearly reflects the exclusive ownership of the Respondents

in the Suit property.

47. The only defence which has been set up by the Appellant’s is that in

fact there were joint businesses being conducted by their father, sons and

other family members and that the funds for purchasing the Flat had been

mobilised by the parents and it was a Joint Family property in which the

Plaintiff cannot assert his exclusive rights.

48. The first aspect which emerges from the submissions in the Written

Statement is that there was a business being carried out by the three

generations of the family, but it has been explained by the Defendants

themselves that the businesses were being carried out from the Paharganj

properties. Those properties which were in joint names, are already a

subject matter of the Partition Suit.

RFA 70/2024 Page 14 of 15

49. The family may have had some family businesses and there may be

assets in the name of the family business or acquired from the funds of

family business, but this is one property which is the exclusive property of

the Plaintiff, as is evident from the Sale Deed. The parents of the parties

may have lived in the said premises during their life time and that the

Defendant No.1 being the sister, may have also come to live in the Flat

while the parents were alive and may have continued even thereafter, but

they cannot claim any ownership rights in the Suit property.

50. The Defendants have significantly, asserted that there is a Family

Settlement wherein the Plaintiff had agreed to sell the property or to give it

to the Defendants, which again is not within the scope of this simpliciter

Suit for Possession. This family settlement, on the basis of which the

Appellant is claiming a right to property, is already a subject matter in the

Suit for Partition. The Appellants are at liberty to take all these grounds in

that Suit, to establish their claim on the basis of Family Settlement or the

suit property having being put in the common hotch-potch, by the

Plaintiff/Respondent.

51. In this context, it may be observed and clarified that the Defendants

claim that they have a share in the Suit property being a Joint Family and

that there was a family settlement, is a subject matter of a separate Partition

Suit, which has been filed inter-se the parties. The present Suit is confined

solely to recovery of Possession on account of the Sale Deed in the name of

the Plaintiffs.

52. It is pertinent to note that in the present Suit there being a Sale Deed

exclusively in the name of the Plaintiffs, and other admissions in the Written

RFA 70/2024 Page 15 of 15

Statement, the learned District Judge has rightly held that there was no

defence per-se, made out in the Written Statement which would give rise to

a triable issue. There is no challenge to the Sale Deed being in the name

of the Plaintiffs.

53. In view of the clear unambiguous and unequivocal admission in

regard to the Sale Deed being in the name of the Plaintiffs to which there is

no challenge, the Decree of Possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has

been rightly made by the learned District Judge.

54. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed.

55. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly along with the pending

Application(s).

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

APRIL 07, 2026/va