* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd JANUARY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ I.A. 30625/2024
IN
CS(OS) 73/2019
SH. DEEPAK TARA .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Neeha Nagpal and Mr. Nikunj
Mahajan, Advocates and Plaintiff in
person.
versus
SH. BAIJ NATH TARA & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Saubhagya
Chauriha, Mr. Aditya Sharma,
Advocates for D-2 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. This is an Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking ex parte
ad interim injunction, restraining the Defendants from restricting and
obstructing the right of the Plaintiff/Applicant to access/enjoy the Suit
Property and specifically the room on the ground floor as shown in red
colour in the Site Plan attached with the Plaint.
2. The instant Suit is one for declaration, partition and injunction, that
the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/7thshare of the property being A-23, Nizamuddin
East, New Delhi-110013("Suit Property") for partition of the Suit Property
by metes and bounds and putting the Plaintiff in possession of his 1/7th
share.
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that a Perpetual Lease Deed dated
05.01.1961 with the respect to the Suit Property was executed in favour of
Late Dwarka Nath Tara.Further, a Conveyance Deed dated 09.12.1999, was
executed by the competent authority, i.e., the Land & Development Office
(L&DO), in favour of Late Dwarka Nath Tara with respect to the Suit
Property.
4. It is stated that Dwarka Nath Tara passed away on 20.02.2001 leaving
behind his wife and children. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Suit
Property has yet not been partitioned.
5. The Plaintiff is a Swedish citizen and at the time of filing the Suit in
the year 2019, he was about 75 years and has been residing in Sweden for
more than 45 years along with his wife and children. It is stated that the
Plaintiff has been frequently visiting India to meet his parents.
6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that his father used to visit him regularly
in Sweden. Pursuant to the death of his father, whenever the Plaintiff used to
visit India, he used to reside at ground floor of the Suit Property which has
been shown in red colour in the Site Plan, while the other Defendants were
in possession of the other areas of the Suit Property.
7. It is stated that subsequently the siblings of the Plaintiff became
malafide since 2011, started playing nuisance whenever Plaintiff visited
India and they would not allow him to approach his room peacefully, the
idea being to ultimately oust the Plaintiff from the Suit Property altogether
and deprive him of his rightful share.
8. It is stated that the evil designs of the Defendants came to be known
to the Plaintiff, when he got knowledge that the Defendants have
surreptitiously approached the authorities and got the Suit Property mutated
in the name of Defendant No.4/Pradeep Tara, resulting in filing of FIR
No.282/2011 dated 22.11.2011, registered at Police Station, Lajpat Nagar
for offences under Section 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
9. It is stated that when the Plaintiff made a request for partition of the
Suit Property on 25.11.2018, he was physically assaulted by the Defendants,
ultimately leading to filing of the present Suit.
10. Vide Order dated 11.02.2019, this Court directed the parties to
maintain status quo regarding the title and possession of the Suit Property
till further orders. The said Order has not been varied till date and the same
is reproduced as under:-
"This application is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
CPC. It is pleaded that on 5.1.1961 a perpetual lease
was executed of property A-23, Nizamuddin East, New
Delhi-110013 in favour of Late Shri Dwarka Nath
Tara. Shri Dwarka Nath Tara father of the plaintiff
and defendants No.1 to 5 and husband of defendant
No.6 died on 20.2.2001. Hence, the present suit for
partition.
Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Parties will
maintain status quo regarding title and possession till
further orders. Plaintiff to comply with provisions of
Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within three days from today.
Issue notice to the non-applicants by ordinary process
and speed post returnable on the date fixed above."
11. Written Statement has been filed by Defendant No.3/Ashok Tara.
According to Defendant No.3, Late Dwarka Nath Tara had executed a Will
dated 20.02.1993, wherein, the ground floor of the Suit Property including
all household goods were to be inherited by Defendant No.4/Pradeep Tara,
subject to payment of Rs.4,00,000/-, in ten annual instalments of Rs.40,000/-
each to two siblings, namely, Plaintiff/Deepak Tara and Defendant No.5/Ms.
Shama Bengston. It is stated that after the said Will, the Plaintiff has no right
in the Suit Property. It is also stated that it is due to the disturbance caused
by the Plaintiff that the mother of the Plaintiff had to file complaints and
there is evidence of police complaints lodged by his mother.
12. The instant Application has been filed by the Plaintiff stating that on
23.11.2023, when the Plaintiff visited Delhi and wanted to reside in his
room of the Suit Property, the Defendants in collusion with Police restricted
his entry in the Suit Property.
13. It is stated by the Plaintiff that since he has no other place to stay in
Delhi and in view of the Order dated 11.02.2019 passed by this Court
granting status quo regarding the title and possession of the Suit Property,
the Defendants must be restrained from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the ground floor in the said Suit Property, which is shown in
red colour in the Site Plan.
14. A reply has been filed to the present Application by Defendant No.3
stating that the Plaintiff has been staying in Sweden for the last 45 years
along with his wife and children. It is stated that the Plaintiff does not come
to India anymore and thus, the instant Application is an abuse of the process
of law, only meant to create trouble for the Defendants. It is further stated
that vide the Will dated 20.02.1993, the ground floor of the Suit Property has
been given to Defendant No.4, and therefore, the Plaintiff has no right
whatsoever in the Suit Property.
15. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
16. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is entitled to 1/7th share of the Suit
Property and that the father of the Plaintiff has died intestate.
17. On 11.02.2019, status quo orders regarding the title and possession of
the Suit Property were passed by this Court. The said Order has not been
varied on the ground that the Plaintiff was never in possession of any portion
of the Suit Property.
18. Material on record indicates that FIR No.282/2011 dated 22.11.2011,
registered at Police Station, Lajpat Nagar for offences under Section 468 and
471 of the IPC was filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant No.2/Surender
Nath Tara, (who has since passed away) and Defendant No.4/Pradeep Tara.
A Charge-sheet was also filed and after leading evidence, the Trial Court
vide Judgment dated 10.05.2024, convicted Defendant No.4/Pradeep Tara,
stating that he used a forged No Objection Certificate to get the Suit
Property mutated. Paragraph 25 to 27 of the said Judgment reads as under:-
"25. It is noted that while there are many witnesses
who deposed to the act that there is a will of Sh. DN
Tara and according to the will the complainant was
given Rs. 4 Lakhs, the probate of such will has never
been produced before this court. The copy of thewill is
on record and accused has also produced a receipt of
Rs. 4Lakhs allegedly made by Sh. Deepak Tara in
favour of accused person. But these facts nowhere
prove that the said NOC was signed by Sh. Deepak
Tara. Although the will and the receipt has not been
proved by the defence, even if it is presumed that both
these documents are true, it is entirely possible that the
complainant could have refused to sign the NOC even
after receiving the payment. The defence produced
three witnesses who deposed that the NOC was signed
by the complainant, but they were never confronted
with the document on record and they could not depose
to the fact that the same document which was used in
mutation was signed by the complainant. Even if the
contentions of DWs is presumed to be true, it is
possible that the said document which was signed by
complainant allegedly was never used in mutation.
Therefore, even if the story of defence is believed to be
true without any proof, it does not create any doubt in
the mind of the court about the story of prosecution.
26. The prosecution has successfully proved that the
document was forged in two aspects that are the
signatures of the complainant and the stamps of the
notary. It is highly improbable that the person who
made this document did not have malafide intention
as even the notarized stamps are forged on the
affidavit. The additional fact that the notarized paper
was allegedly purchased in year 2002 and was used in
year 2004 gives more arsenal towards the guilt of
accused person. No person with good intentions, that
too in a contentious matter of property would dare to
use forged and old stamps for making any affidavit.
The argument that the accused had nothing to gain
or lose has no legs as it is admitted fact that the issue
was related to division of property between brothers
and determination of rights qua the same property. It
is also admitted that the complainant and the accused
persons did not have very cordial relations.
Therefore, the fact that a brother can forge
documents to usurp the property of another is not
unfathomable. The fact that the stamp paper was old,
forged and signatures of the complainant were also
forged has been proved by the prosecution. Thus, the
intention of the accused person is inherent from the
fact that the said document was totally forged and used
in an unconventional manner. The argument of the
accused that the said document was given to him his
brother could have been believed if any evidence qua
the same would have been led by the accused in his
defence. But as the prosecution has successfully proved
the material on record, the accused person was not
able to create a defence or rebutt the same
successfully.
27. In view of the above said reasons it is established
beyond reasonable doubt that accused Pradeep Tara
had used forged NOC knowing or having reason to
believe same to be forged to get the property in
question mutated. Therefore, accused Pradeep Tara
S/o Late DN Tara is convicted for offence U/s 471 IPC
read with section 465 IPC."
(emphasis supplied)
19. Material on record shows that Police complaints and Kalandaras have
been given by the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendants stating that the
Plaintiff has created nuisance. However, this Court cannot shut its eyes to
the fact that the mother was staying with other brothers of the Plaintiff.
20. The Plaintiff lives in Sweden and comes occasionally to India. There
is a status quo order regarding the title and possession of the Suit Property,
but it is also important for this Court to take into account the fact that all the
affidavits have been filed by some Power of Attorney holder of the Plaintiff
and the possibility of the Plaintiff permitting somebody else to live in the
Suit Property, who can create trouble for the persons already residing
therein, cannot be ruled out.
21. The Site Plan attached with the Plaint shows that the room marked in
red colour on the ground floor which is in the northern portion of the Suit
Property, with a back road in Nizamuddin East, New Delhi, has a separate
and independent entry along with a toilet, giving access to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, no hindrance would be caused to the other occupants in the Suit
Property.
22. The Plaintiff is, accordingly, permitted to access his room marked in
red colour in the Site Plan. But, the Plaintiff cannot permit any other person
to use his room when he is not in Delhi. Only when the Plaintiff is in Delhi
along with his wife and children, they can have access to the room without
any hindrance from the other Defendants.
23. With these observations, the application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 73/2019, I.A. 1728/2019, I.A. 17387/2019, I.A. 30625/2024, I.A.
24. List before the Joint Registrar on 24.02.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JANUARY 23, 2026
Hsk/JR
