Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.07.2026
SANTOSH RANI (THROUGH GPA HOLDER) RAJEEV SETHI.....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Fahad Malik, Ms. Shivani Sinha, Mr. Shahzeb Azeem, Advs
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kr. Choudhary, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person in REVIEW
Respondent no. 4(c) and 4(d) in person.
JUDGMENT
Review Petition No. 242/2026
1. The present review petition has been filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] for review of the preliminary decree of partition dated 19.09.2024 and the final decree dated 10.10.2025 of property No. 230-231, Ghee Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi- 110055 [‘suit property’], passed in CS(OS) 352/2022.
2. It is stated that the review petitioner i.e., Smt. Urmila Juneja is not a party to the present suit. Signing Date:14.07.2026 15:37
2.1. It is submitted that the review petitioner is in occupation of a portion of the aforesaid suit property. It is clarified that the father-in-law of the review petitioner, Sh. Raghunath was a tenant in the suit property and his land-lady was Smt. Vidyawati.
2.2. It is stated that Smt. Vidyawati inherited the suit property from her mother Smt. Chand Bibi through a Will dated 10.02.1950. It is stated that Smt. Vidyawati died sometime in 1975.
2.3. It is stated that Sh. Raghunath expired on 15.01.1988 and the husband of the review petitioner (who was the son of Sh. Raghunath) passed away on 03.04.1979, and thereafter, no person has come forward to collect the rent from the review petitioner.
2.4. It is stated that the review petitioner is in occupation of a portion of the suit property comprising four rooms, one kitchen, two stores, one bathroom on the ground floor and one room, two terraces and two open areas on the first floor ever since the death of Sh. Raghunath. It is stated that the review petitioner is claiming ownership by adverse possession.
2.5. It is stated that as per the review petitioner, the title to the suit property devolved on Chand Bibi Aggarwal Dharmarth Trust [‘Trust’] i.e., respondent no. 1 after the death of Smt. Vidyawati.
2.6. It is stated that respondent nos. 21, 32 and 43 had instituted a suit NO. 85/2011 before the learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts against the review petitioner for recovery of possession and mesne profits on the plea that they Smt. Santosh Rani (Original plaintiff) Shri Harish Chandra Sethi (Defendant No. 2) Smt. Kamlesh Rani (Defendant No. 3) Signing have acquired ownership rights in the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 05.06.1980 executed by the Trust. It is stated that as per the final judgment dated 26.02.2014 passed in suit no. 85/2011, it is recorded therein that Smt. Chand Bibi bequeath the suit property in favour of her daughter Smt. Vidyawati for life and stipulated that in case, Smt. Vidyawati dies issueless, the suit property shall vest in the Trustees appointed under the said document. It is stated that the said Trust is impleaded in this petition as respondent no. 1.
2.7. It is stated that the validity of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 was made a specific issue in suit no. 85/2011. Vide judgment dated 26.02.2014 at paragraph ‘40’, the learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts concluded that the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 has not been validly executed, as all the Trustees have not executed the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 in favour of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.
2.8. It is stated that in the appeal i.e., RCA No. 15/2014 filed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 against the said judgment dated 26.02.2014, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 17.08.2015 and upheld the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, dated 26.02.2014. It is stated that no further appeal was preferred by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and thus the findings vis-àvis invalidity of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 attained finality.
2.9. It is stated that thus the present suit, which has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) claiming ownership of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 is not maintainable as the sale deed has been held to be invalid. It is stated that respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 Signing cannot claim legal ownership on the basis of the said sale deed dated 05.06.1980, which has been held to be invalid in the previous judgments dated 26.02.2014 and 17.08.2015 of the District Court.
2.10. It is stated that the present suit i.e., CS (OS) 352/2022 qua partition of the suit property is collusive. It refers to order dated 27.02.2023 passed in CS(OS)352/2022, which records the admission of Trust (which was impleaded originally as defendant no. 1) as regards the validity of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 and contends that the same indicates collusion between the parties.
2.11. It is stated that a perusal of the preliminary partition decree dated 19.09.2024 and the final decree dated 10.10.2025 shows that this Court was not apprised of the orders dated 26.02.2014 and 17.08.2015 passed in the proceedings between the review petitioner and the respondent nos. 2, 3 and
4. It is stated that non-consideration of the said judgments is a ground for seeking review.
2.12. It is stated that review petitioner became aware about the passing of the preliminary partition decree dated 19.09.2024 and the final decree dated 10.10.2025 after it received summons in an eviction petition (RC ARC NO. 61/2026) filed by respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff).
3. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhary, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff). He has filed a note of submissions dated 07.07.2026. He states that the judgments dated 26.02.2014 passed in suit NO. 85/2011 and judgment dated 17.08.2015 passed in RCA No. 13/2014 were duly filed by the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff), along with its documents, in the present suit. He states that therefore; there was a full disclosure of the said judgments before this Court. Signing
3.1. He states that the Trust was duly impleaded as defendant no. 1, in the partition suit and the Trust admitted the due execution of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 by its Chairman, Sh. Babu Lal Salmewala and Trustee, Sh. Vimal Parshad Gupta jointly pursuant to a Board Resolution dated 12.03.1980 in favour of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and other copurchasers. He relies on the order dated 27.02.2023 passed in this suit, recording the confirmation by the Trust of the due execution of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980.
3.2. He states that review petitioner has had notice of the pendency of the present suit proceedings at least since 10.12.2024. He states that a Court Auctioneer was appointed for auctioning the suit property and in this process, notices for proclamation of sale were pasted on the suit property. He states that a Local Commissioner was also appointed vide order dated 01.04.2024 to visit the site for conduct of partition proceedings.
3.3. He states that, thus the review petitioner has been aware about the pendency of the suit all along and has filed the review petition belatedly on 22.04.2026 on a false plea that it learnt about the suit only during the eviction proceedings.
3.4. He states that in the judgment dated 26.02.2014, the learned Civil Judge at paragraph ‘47’categorically rejected the contention of the review petitioner that she had acquired ownership by adverse possession. He states that this finding was upheld by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in the judgment dated 17.08.2015. Therefore, the contention of the review petitioner that she has acquired ownership by adverse possession is false.
4. Respondent nos. 4(c) and 4(d) entered appearance in person and opposed the review petition. Signing
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The stand of the review petitioner is that the suit property devolved upon the Chand Bibi Aggarwal Dharmarth Trust (‘Trust’) as per the Will dated 10.02.1950. The review petitioner admits that the Trust is the absolute owner of the suit property. The ownership of the Trust is therefore, admitted.
7. The respondent no. 2 (i.e., the plaintiff) and other co-owners purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 05.06.1980. This sale deed was executed by the Chairman, Sh. Babu Lal Salmewala and Trustee, Sh. Vimal Parshad Gupta jointly, pursuant to Board resolution dated 12.03.1980 in favour of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and the other co-purchasers.
8. The said Trust was duly impleaded as defendant no. 1 in the suit.
9. The Trust after being served with summons on 03.08.2022 entered appearance and filed I.A. No. 3833/2023, wherein it confirmed the due execution of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 and sought deletion from the array of parties on the plea that it is left with no right or subsisting interest in the suit property. The relevant paragraphs of the application read as under: -
10. The said application was allowed on 27.02.2023, wherein, the order reads as under: - “IA No.3833/2023 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC moved by the defendant no.1 Arguments heard. At this stage, it is stated by learned counsel for the plaintiff that she has no objection, if captioned IA is allowed as defendant no.1 has admitted the execution of Registered Sale Deed dated 05.06.1980 by defendant no. l/Trust in the favour of the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 to 6. The defendant no. l/Trust has also admitted that the said Sale Deed was executed by the defendant no.1 acting through its Chairman, Sh. Babu Lal Salmewala (now deceased) and trustee, Sh. Vimal Parshad Gupta (now deceased) jointly in favour of Sh. Harish Chand Sethi (defendant no.2), Smt. Kamlesh Rani (defendant no.3), Smt. Santosh Rani Signing (plaintiff), Smt. Raj Rani (defendant no. 4), Sh. Ashok Kumar (defendant no. 5) and Sh. Parveen Kumar Nalwa (defendant no. 6). Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the copy of Board Resolution dated 12.03.1980 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of its Chairman, Sh. Babu Lal Salmewala (since deceased) and trustee, Sh. Vimal Parshad Gupta (since deceased) is also supplied to learned counsel for the plaintiff. So, learned counsel for the plaintiff has no objection, if captioned IA is allowed. In view of above and in view of reasons mentioned in the application, captioned IA stands allowed to the extent that the name of defendant NO. 1 is directed to be deleted from the array of the parties. The plaintiff is directed to file Amended Memo of Parties within two weeks with copy to the opposite side. Accordingly, captioned IA stands disposed of.”
11. The pleadings of the Trust in I.A. 3833/2023 and order dated 27.02.2023 clearly shows that the Trust admits and acknowledges the due execution of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980. There is no objection from the Trust or any of the Trustees with respect to the execution of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 by the Chairman, Sh. Babu Lal Salmewala and Trustee, Sh. Vimal Parshad Gupta. The Trust acknowledged that it is left with no right, title or interest after the execution of the said sale deed.
12. The Trust duly served and entered appearance in this suit on 03.08.2022. In case, the Trustees had any reservations about the sale deed dated 05.06.1980, they had a full opportunity to represent their stand before this Court. However, the Trustees have elected to not dispute the validity and the binding nature of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 and have instead affirmed the due execution of the sale deed in I.A. 3833/2023, and have acknowledged the ownership of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and the other co-purchasers.
13. In view of these facts, this Court is satisfied that the preliminary decree of partition dated 19.09.2024 and the final decree dated 10.10.2025 Signing does not suffer from any infirmity as the Trust and its Trustees have confirmed the due execution of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 before this Court and have acknowledged the transfer of ownership in favour of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and the other co-purchasers.
14. The review petitioner has no locus to challenge the preliminary decree of partition dated 19.09.2024 and final decree dated 10.10.2025. The review petitioner on her own admission is only a tenant in the suit property, who is claiming ownership by adverse possession, which claim stands rejected vide judgments of the learned Civil Judge dated 26.02.2014 and learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dated 17.08.2015. The review petitioner thus only has a status of being the legal heir of the tenant (Sh. Raghunath). In view of the stand of the Trust admitting to the transfer of title to the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and the other co-purchasers, the review petitioner herein has no locus to challenge the title of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and the other co-purchasers.
15. The review petitioner is a stranger to the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 and has no locus to challenge the said sale deed, as she is not an owner or co-owner of the suit property. The locus to challenge the sale deed is only available with the Trust and its Trustees. However, in the facts of this case the Trust and Trustees have admitted to the due execution of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 and affirmed that it is left with no right, title or interest in the suit property.
16. The sale deed dated 05.06.1980 is a registered document and it has not been declared void and ordered to be cancelled as mandated under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by any competent Court. The sale deed stands valid and operative as on date. Signing
17. The findings of the learned Civil Judge vide judgment dated 26.02.2014, that the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 is invalid was passed in a suit where the Trust and its Trustees were not a party. The said findings could be construed to mean that the said Court held that the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 was voidable at the instance of the Trustees who had not joined as a party to the sale deed. However, with the filing of this suit CS (OS) 352/2022, the said issue of voidability has also been put to rest as the Trustees have elected to confirm the validity of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980.
18. The sale deed has been executed by Chairman, Sh. Babu Lal Salmewala and Trustee, Sh. Vimal Parshad Gupta in pursuance to a Board Resolution dated 12.03.1980, in favour of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and the other co-purchasers. The remaining Trustees by not raising any objection within three (3) years from the execution of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 and even after service of summons in the present suit have ratified the said sale deed by their actions and the issue of voidability does not survive. The Board Resolution dated 12.03.1980 is also evidence of the ratification of the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 by the Trustees, who have not joined in the execution but authorized the executants of the said sale deed.
19. The respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) by impleading the Trust as defendant no. 1 in the suit has duly remedied the issue of invalidity of sale deed observed by the District Court in the earlier judgments dated 26.02.2014 and 17.08.2015 and the cloud on the title of the purchasers has been removed. The title of the purchasers has been perfected. Signing
20. The review petitioner, who is a tenant has no locus to dispute the title of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and the other co-purchasers, who have purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 05.06.1980 for valuable consideration. The title of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) and the other co-purchasers could have only been challenged by the Trust or its Trustees, which is not the case in hand.
21. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’) which stipulates that where a document is proved to be 30 years old and is produced from custody which the Court considers proper, the Court may presume that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. In this case, the sale deed dated 05.06.1980 has been duly registered with the sub-Registrar as admitted at paragraph ‘1’ of the review petition. The document is more than 30 years old and its execution has been admitted by the Trustees.
22. This Court also finds merit in the submissions of the respondent no. 2 (i.e., plaintiff) that the review petitioner was presumably aware about the pendency of the suit proceedings through the proceedings of the Court Auctioneer and Local Commissioner and chose not to act upon it.
23. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present review petition and the same is dismissed.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 13, 2026/rhc/IB Signing