[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Kuldeep Kaur Luthra vs Sarabjit Singh & Anr on 7 April, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 19 January, 2026
Pronounced on: 07th April, 2026
+ RFA 394/2023, CM APPL. 25538/2023, 38832/2025& 38833/2025
MRS. KULDIP KAUR LUTHRA
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
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RSA 394/2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 829/2025 Page 1 of 23
Signing Date:08.04.2026
16:47:32
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.
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
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.
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 1/4th 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
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.
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;
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
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.
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
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
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.
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,
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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 1/3rd 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.
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
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
