Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Smt. Shashi Chopra And Others on 19 September, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
FA No.167 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J
1. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel
for the appellants.
2. Mr. Yashasawi Shah, learned counsel
for the caveator.
3. The instant first appeal has been
preferred by the appellant/defendant Nos.4 to
8 against the Judgement and Decree dated
29.08.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Haridwar in Original Suit
No.165 of 2018, "Dr. Seema Chopra versus
Smt. Shashi Chopra and Others, whereby the
suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been
decreed.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the
plaintiff respondent No.1 is the real sister of
one Sunil Rai Chopra, who died on
13.12.2016. Sunil Rai Chopra inherited the
property by virtue of a Will Deed dated
30.11.1990 executed by his mother Smt.
Satyawati Chopra.
5. The mother of Sunil Rai Chopra and the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 Smt. Satyawati
Chopra died on 03.12.2003.
6. The Defendant No.1, 2 and 3, after the
death of Sunil Rai Chopra, executed two sale
deeds on 03.10.2017. By one sale deed, the
Schedule B property was sold to defendant
Nos.4, 5 and 6 and by another sale deed of
the same date, the Schedule A Property was
sold to defendant Nos. 7 and 8. After
purchasing the property by defendant Nos.4
to 8, by two different sale deeds on
03.10.2017, the property was demolished,
and, thereafter, reconstructed after
sanctioning of map. The respondent
No.1/plaintiff Dr. Seema Chopra, the real
sister of Late Sunil Rai Chopra, instituted a
suit bearing OS No.165 of 2018 for
cancellation of both the sale deeds dated
03.10.2017 and also for seeking mandatory
injunction.
7. A written statement was filed and
specific objection was taken that the suit filed
by the plaintiff is misconceived since neither
she has shown any title over the suit property
nor she could establish her possession.
8. It is also stated in the written statement
that the defendant No.1 to 3 being the legal
heirs of Sunil Rai Chopra, have absolute right
over the suit property and as such, rightly
executed two sale deeds in favour of the
defendant Nos. 4 to 8 by two different sale
deeds.
9. The suit was subsequently decreed by
framing different issues by observing that
both the sale deeds are null and void since no
prior consent was sought from the plaintiff-
the real sister of Sunil Rai Chopra, to whom
the living right was given on the suit property
by Will dated 30.11.1990.
10. Now being aggrieved with the Judgment
and Decree passed by the trial Court, the
instant first appeal has been preferred by
those who were also defendant in the suit and
purchased the property by two different sale
deeds dated 03.10.2017, which was cancelled
by declaring it to be null and void by the
impugned judgment.
11. It is contended by learned counsel for
the appellants that firstly by virtue of Will
dated 30.11.1990, the absolute right was
given to Late Sunil Rai Chopra and secondly
the mother, who executed the Will, died in the
year of 2003 and the sale deed was executed
in the year of 2017 and in between this
period, the plaintiff never came to reside in
the suit property.
12. Apart from this, it is also contended
that the present appellants are the bonafide
purchasers and by virtue of two registered
sale deeds, they now owned the property and
merely on the ground that the consent was
not sought from the plaintiff, the sale deed
cannot be declared to be null and void.
13. Learned counsel further argued that
even otherwise by virtue of the Will Deed
dated 30.11.1990, only a limited right was
given to the plaintiff to live in the suit
property, as and when, she wish to live there,
therefore, merely on the ground that no
consent was sought, the sale deed cannot be
declared to be null and void since no such
absolute right was given to the plaintiff.
14. On the other side, Mr. Yashasawi Shah,
learned counsel for the respondent No.1
submits that the trial Court rightly declared
the sale deed as null and void since though
no absolute right was given to the plaintiff
but a right for living in the suit property was
given by virtue of Will dated 30.11.1990
which cannot be taken away by her counsel,
therefore, the consent before execution of the
sale deed was necessary.
15. Admit.
16. Mr. Yashasawi Shah, learned counsel
for the respondent accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.1.
17. Though respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
arrayed as proforma respondents, but in fact
they are the contesting respondents because
they are those, who executed two sale deeds
dated 03.10.2017, which was declared by the
trial Court as null and void, therefore, the
and 3.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants shall
take steps within a week to serve respondent
Nos. 2 and 3.
19. The counsel for the respondent pointed
out that one of the defendant, namely,
Saurabh Chopra, who was the defendant
No.3 in the suit, is not arrayed as the
respondent, in such an eventuality the
counsel for the appellant is directed to
implead the said defendant as one of the
respondent during the course of the day.
20. Summon the trial Court record.
21. Meanwhile, the effect and operation of
the impugned judgement and decree dated
29.08.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Haridwar in Original Suit
No.165 of 2018 Dr. Seema Chopra versus
Shashi Chopra and Others shall remain
stayed subject to this condition that either of
the parties shall not create any third party
interest over the property in question during
the pendency of the instant first appeal.
22. List this first appeal on 29.10.2025 for
final hearing.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
19.09.2025
R.Bisht
