Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 01st JULY, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
IN
1221/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 1565/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 1393/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 1520/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 651/2026
SH. NAVEEN CHAUHAN .....Decree Holder
Through: In person.
Through: Mr. R. K. Sonkiya, Advocate with JD-2 in person.
JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been filed by Sh. Naveen Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner/Applicant’) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [“CPC”] read with Order XXI of the CPC for ascertaining proper, fair and just value of the Decretal Property at the prevailing market value for satisfying the decree.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present execution petition are as below: SINGH KIRMOLIYA 15.59.14 a. A civil suit for partition and permanent injunction was filed on 12.07.2011. The dispute arose between the legal heirs of Late Sh. Ram Chandra Singh, who died intestate on 24.10.2004. b. The parties to the present execution petition and the suit filed on 12.07.2011 were Smt. Rajwati, Wife of the deceased (Plaintiff No. 1/Decree Holder No. 1), Ms. Shashi Kumari, Daughter of the deceased (Plaintiff No. 2/Decree Holder No. 2), Sh. Rajkumar Chauhan, Son of the deceased (Defendant NO. 1/Decree Holder No. 3) and Sh. Naveen Chauhan, Son of the deceased (Defendant No. 2/Decree Holder No. 4) c. While the suit initially was filed concerning four properties, the primary focus of the execution and final decree is Property “B”, i.e. Flat No. 19-B, First Floor, DDA LIG Flat, Ber Sarai, near JNU, New Delhi d. On 17.01.2018, a Preliminary and Final Decree was passed declaring that all the Decree Holders hold a 1/4th share in the Suit property. The Court ordered the partition by sale of the flat and distribution of the proceeds amongst all the parties, in the proportion of their respective shares. An option was provided to the parties for inter-se bidding, where the highest bidder would acquire the other shares by paying their value against a transfer deed. Relevant portions of the decree dated 17.01.2018 read as under: “This suit coming on this day for final disposal before this Court in the presence of counsel for the parties-.as aforesaid; it is ordered that a preliminary decree for partition of Flat No.l9-B, 15.59.14 First Floor, DDA Flat, Ber Sarai, new JNU, New Delhi be and the same is hereby passed declaring the two plaintiffs and the two defendants to be having 1/4th share each therein. It is further ordered that a final decree for partition is also hereby passed of Flat No.l9-B, First Floor, DDA Flat, Ber Sarai, near JNU, New Delhi, by sale of the said flat and distribution of sale proceeds between the parties as per their shares declared in the preliminary decree for partition. It is further ordered that the parties shall have the option of making inter se bids for purchase of share/s of other/s in the said flat. The party bidding the highest would be entitled to acquire the share/s of the other/s by payment of value of the share/s of the others against execution of transfer deed. It is further ordered that to ensure that there is no delay in the parties executing the final decree for partition with respect to the subject property, besides 50% of the rent.of the said property already ordered to be paid.to the plaintiff No.1, the balance 50% of the rent of the said-property be deposited in this Court awaiting the orders of this Court. It is further ordered that the tenant in the said property, whose name is disclosed to be Mohd. Usman, is restrained from making payment of any amount with respect to the said property to the defendant No.1 or to the defendant No.2 and the parties to communicate this to Mohd. Usman. It is lastly ordered that the parties are left to bear 15.59.14 their own costs. Given under the hand and seal of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gita Mittal, Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, this the 17th day of January, 2018.” (emphasis supplied) e. A reading of the abovementioned decree makes it clear that this Court did not give any option to sell the property by way of a public auction nor has any application been made for modification of the Order dated 17.01.2018. f. Following this decree, the Petitioner/Applicant filed the present execution petition to enforce the terms of the decree dated 17.01.2018. g. During the course of proceedings, it was brought to the Court’s attention that the property was let out to a tenant, Mohd. Usman, at a rent of approximately ₹18,000 to ₹22,000 per month. The Decree Holder no. 3 was accused of committing fraud by letting out the property without the consent of other heirs and allegedly withdrawing the rent for himself from a joint account. Consequently, by the said decree itself, the Court restrained the tenant from making payments to either Decree Holder No.3 and Petitioner herein, directing instead that 50% be paid to Decree Holder No. 1 and the remaining 50% be deposited in Court. h. On 06.02.2023, the Decree Holder No. 1 passed away, which led to the splitting of her 1/4th share amongst her three children, 15.59.14 making them 1/3rd owners of the property by operation of law. i. On 26.02.2024 during a hearing before this Court, the Decree Holder No. 3 admitted that he had taken a personal loan from ICICI Bank by pledging the original title documents of the Suit Property to fund construction on other properties. Vide the said Order, this Court ordered ICICI Bank to submit the original Conveyance Deed and Allotment Letter to the Registry. j. In the meantime, the Court-appointed Local Commissioner, proceeded with the inter-se bidding process, under which, Decree Holder No. 3 made a bid to buy the Suit property for a value of ₹84,00,000 whereas the Petitioner/Applicant offered a price of ₹71,00,000. As the highest bidder, Decree Holder no. 3 was declared entitled to purchase the shares of his siblings at the offered value. k. On 02.04.2024, the Court noted the receipt of the title documents from the bank, clearing the path for the final transfer of the Suit Property.
3. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner/Applicant to raise and re-determine the valuation of the Suit property for the purpose of executing the partition decree.
4. It is alleged by the Petitioner/Applicant that during the bidding process conducted by the Local Commissioner in 2024, Decree Holder No. 3 intentionally provided a lesser value for the property. The Petitioner/Applicant claims that although he initially had faith in the value furnished, he has since discovered that Decree Holder No. 3 suppressed the actual market worth. 15.59.14
5. It is submitted that in 2014, in compliance with earlier directions, the average market value was assessed at approximately ₹1,44,62,000. However, the Petitioner/Applicant had submitted a new report from a Government-approved valuer, N.K. Saini & Associates, who assessed the property’s current fair market value at ₹2,06,60,000.
6. According to the Petitioner/Applicant, Gazette Notification from 2014 establishes that the property falls under Category “B”, which had a circle rate of approximately ₹2,45,520 per sq. meter. It is argued that the property must fetch its maximum realizable value in the current market scenario to protect the interests of the heirs.
7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
ANALYSIS
8. As stated above, vide Order dated 17.01.2018, the parties were given an option to conduct inter se bidding of the Suit Property so that the property remains in the family.
9. Since no consensus was being reached between the parties with respect to the bid amount, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 12.12.2023, appointed a Local Commissioner by passing the following order:
10. Even at that stage, i.e. till 12.12.2023, no application has been sought seeking clarification as to the basis of valuation of the Suit property for the purpose of carrying out the inter se bidding of the Suit Property. The Order dated 12.12.2023 was complied with and the Local Commissioner had filed the following report: “1. Vide order dated 12.12.2002[3] I was appointed the local commissioner with the directions in following terms:
(i) The local commissioner shall fix a meeting with the shareholders namely Shri Naveen Chauhan, Shri Rajkumar Chauhan and M S Shashi Kumari after giving due notice to them. She shall then take the proposed value on which Shri Naveen Chauhan and Shri Rajkumar Chauhan respectively are willing to purchase the suit property in the sealed cover. Thereafter, she may open the sealed cover in the presence of all the parties and the highest bidder be declared as the person entitled to purchase the suit property. 15.59.14
(ii) Thereafter, the local commissioner shall give the document of transfer of the share of the other party in favour of highest bidder and shall render requisite assistance to get the same registered in accordance with law. (iii) ….
(iv) The local commissioner thereafter shall submit the report in the court. The money so realise from buying of shares of one shareholder by other shareholders be deposited with the learn it registrar general of this court.
2. In terms of the order as mentioned hereinabove, the parties present pursuant to the notice issued to them. Mrs Shashi Kumari however remained absent and the proceedings continued in presence of Shri Naveen Chauhan and Shri Rajkumar Chauhan.
3. The proceedings took place on 19.0 1.2024, 23.0 1.2024, 05.0 2.2024, 08.0 2.2024, 19.02.2024, 26.0 2.2024 and on 07.03.2024.
4. That on 07.03.2024 the offers of Mr Naveen Chauhan and Mr Rajkumar Chauhan given to me in sealed cover were opened. From the said offers made by the parties, it was seen in front of both the parties that Shri Naveen Chauhan offered the purchase price at ₹71, 00, 000, whereas Mr Rajkumar Chauhan offered the expected value to be ₹84, 00, 0000.
5. In view of the offer price of Mr Rajkumar Chauhan being higher in value, Mr Rajkumar Chauhan became entitled to purchase the share of Mr Naveen Chauhan and that of Mrs Shashi Kumari at the offered value. 15.59.14
6. I was informed by the parties present that the title documents of the property have been ordered to be brought to the court from ICICI bank which is in possession of the said title documents. It was further informed to me that the purchaser Mr Rajkumar Chouhan shall get the necessary documents prepared for transfer of share in the suit property from Mr Naveen Chauhan and Mrs Shashi Chauhan. He further stated that he will deposit the share of the amount payable to Mr Naveen Chauhan and Mrs Shashi Chauhan with the registry of the Hon’ble Court after deducting the amount paid towards fees of local commissioner, the share of Mrs. Shashi Kumari in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court.
7. Report of the local commissioner along with the original proceedings and the original offers made by the parties is being filed along with the present report.”
11. The abovementioned report of the Local Commissioner was filed in Court on 12.03.2024 and, even at that time when the report was filed, there were no objections from the Petitioner/Applicant to this report.
12. The record reveals that on 26.02.2024 it emerged that the original title documents of the Suit property had been pledged with ICICI Bank. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the Bank on 06.03.2024 and the original title documents were ultimately deposited with the Court Registry on 02.04.2024. Thus, by April 2024, the last subsisting impediment in the path of execution stood removed and the execution proceedings had ultimately reached the stage of culmination. It is at this time that the present Application has been filed with the following prayers: “a) Consider/Re-determine the value of the decreetal property in accordance with the prevailing market 15.59.14 value as on 2026. b) Take on record the latest valuation report submitted by the Decree Holder for the purposes of further execution proceedings, in the interest of justice. c) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
13. On the face of it, the present Application is only a ruse to protract the execution proceedings.
14. Before this Court proceeds to make any observations on the merits, it deems it fit to first define the scope of this Court’s power in execution proceedings.
15. It is now settled law that executing Courts must be vary of steps taken to protract the execution proceedings in order to deny the fruits of the Decree. It is an age old adage in India that troubles of decree holder begins only after passing of the decree. The Apex Court has emphasized that executing courts must dispose of the execution petitions at the earliest and that the courts must not resort to taking evidence in execution proceedings and this process must be resorted to only in rare and exceptional cases.
16. The decree directing partition by sale and inter-se bidding was passed way back as 17.01.2018. The execution petition itself came to be instituted on 11.02.2019. Despite the decree having attained finality, the execution proceedings remained pending for several years, during which the Court undertook various measures to ensure effective implementation of the decree.
17. The conduct of the Petitioner/Applicant at this stage leaves little room 15.59.14 for doubt that the present application is devoid of bona fides.
18. Pursuant to the appointment of the Local Commissioner on 12.12.2023, sealed bids were submitted on 08.02.2024 and opened on 07.03.2024 in the presence of the concerned parties. The Local Commissioner thereafter submitted a formal report on 12.03.2024 declaring Decree Holder No. 3 as the highest bidder with an offer of ₹84,00,000/-.
19. At no stage during the bidding process, nor immediately thereafter, did the Petitioner/Applicant raise any objection regarding the adequacy of the bid amount, the valuation methodology, the bidding mechanism, or the alleged market value of the property. The Petitioner/Applicant consciously engaged in the process, allowed the proceedings to attain finality, and remained completely reticent regarding any alleged inadequacy in the market value of the Suit Property.
20. The Petitioner/Applicant remained silent when bids were invited. The Petitioner/Applicant remained silent when bids were opened. The Petitioner/Applicant remained silent when the Local Commissioner submitted her report. The Petitioner/Applicant remained silent when the highest bidder was identified. The Petitioner/Applicant remained silent when the title documents were secured from the Bank. Having allowed every material stage of the execution proceedings to conclude without objection, the Petitioner/Applicant cannot now be permitted at this stage, to raise such an objection.
21. Though finding out the value of the Property through valuation report is one of the methods for determining the value of the property, however, inter se bidding between the parties to the Suit is also a well recognised mode for arriving at the value of the Suit Property, more so when it is an 15.59.14 agreed procedure. Having agreed to the inter se bidding process and having lost in the bidding by offering a lower amount, the Petitioner/Applicant now cannot object by urging this court that a recent valuation report be called for before the decree attains finality in execution.
22. This Court opines that the present application has the effect of frustrating and postponing the realization of a decree that was passed more than eight years ago.
23. This Court is therefore of the view that the present application lacks any legal foundation and appears calculated to prolong proceedings that have remained pending for a considerable period despite the decree having attained finality long ago.
24. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
25. Considering the protracted nature of the litigation and the fact that the present application has unnecessarily impeded the expeditious culmination of execution proceedings, a cost of ₹25,000/- is imposed upon the Petitioner/Applicant, payable within four weeks. EX.P. 17/2019, CCP(O) 19/2024, CCP(O) 30/2026, EX.APPL.(OS) 1221/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 1565/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 1393/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 1520/2025, EX.APPL.(OS) 651/2026
26. List on 07.09.2026.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JULY 01, 2026