Delhi District Court
Baldev Raj Ahuja vs Wanti Devi Ors on 20 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF AYUSH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution of Suit: December 9th, 2006
Reserved on: July 16th, 2025
Pronounced on: August 20th, 2025
SUIT NO: 8746/16
IN THE MATTER OF: -
BALDEV RAJ AHUJA
S/O SH. RAM CHAND AHUJA
R/O 16, OLD GEETA COLONY,
DELHI. ...PLAINTIFF
Through: Mr. Ajit Nair,
Advocate.
VERSUS
1. SMT. WANTI DEVI
W/O LATE SH. RAMLAL GAKHAR
R/O 2/101, GEETA COLONY
DELHI.
2. SH. MOTAN DASS GAKHAR (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRs:
2A. SH. PREM KUMAR GAKHAR
2A-1. SH. SUNIL KUMAR GAKHAR
2B. SH. NARESH KUMAR GAKHAR
2C. SH. RAJESH KUMAR GAKHAR
2D. SH. VIKRAM KUMAR GAKHAR
ALL S/O LATE SMT. SHEELA DEVI GAKHAR
W/O SH. MOTAN DASS GAKHAR
ALL R/O 1366, RAJPURA TOWN
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 1 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:34:40
+0530
PUNJAB.
2E. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI
D/O LATE SMT. SHEELA DEVI GAKHAR
W/O SH. ASHWANI KUMAR
R/O 2842, RAJPURA, PUNJAB.
2F. SMT. VEENA RANI
D/O LATE SMT. SHEELA DEVI GAKHAR
W/O SH. NARESH KUMAR
R/O 2704, RAJPURA, PUNJAB.
3. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI ...DEFENDANTS
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma &
Mr. Maqsood
Hussain, Advocates
for Defendant No.1.
None for LRs of
Defendant No. 2 and
Defendant No. 3.
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed seeking declaration, partition,
possession and injunction in respect of immovable property viz. 2/101,
Geeta Colony, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) with
the following reliefs:
“(A) Pass a decree of declaration that the Will dated 12.02.1971
executed by Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja in favour of Smt. Talian Bai
is null and void.
(a) Pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring that the
property No. 2/101, Geeta Colony, Delhi is the property
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 2 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:34:44
+0530
of Ram Chand Ahuja and consequently mutation in the
name of Smt. Talian Bai is null and void and ineffective in
law as no relinquishment deed was ever executed by the
adopted son Sh. Baldev Raj Ahuja i.e. the Plaintiff the
adopted son Lt. Sh. Ram Chand.
(b) Pass a permanent decree of partition thereby partition of
the suit property No.2/101, Geeta Colony, Delhi
according to the shares of the Plaintiff and Defendants
which is specifically shown in site plan.
(c) Pass a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendants and in case the Property is not
partitionable then this Hon’ble Court may appoint Local
Commissioner for valuation of the property thereby an
amount as assessed may be directed in 3 equal share, if
the property is not in a position of the partition, the same
may be put to auction.
(d) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining
the Defendants, their agents, servants, associates etc.
from selling, mortgaging, alienating or creating third
party interest in the suit property No. 2/101, Geeta
Colony, Delhi.
(e) Pass a decree for rendition of account/mesne profit for
enjoyment of the possession for several years and to give
appropriate share to the Plaintiff.
(f) Any other or further relief which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendants in the interest of
justice.”
2. The factual conspectus of the case, as outlined by the parties in their
respective pleadings, is set out below:
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
2.1 The plaintiff’s father, Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, was the owner of
the suit property. During his lifetime, he did not execute any Will. Since
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 3 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:34:48
+0530
he had no male child, he adopted the plaintiff at around the age of one, in
accordance with customary practices. As a result, Smt. Sheela Devi (wife
of Sh. Motan Dass), Smt. Wanti Devi (wife of Late Sh. Ram Lal), and Sh.
Baldev Raj Ahuja (plaintiff) became the only legal heirs of Sh. Ram Chand
Ahuja.
2.2 The genealogical chart of the family is set out below for the sake
of convenience:
Ram Chand Ahuja Talian Bai @ Leelawati
+
(Father) (Mother)
Sheelo Devi Motan Dass Wanti Bai Ram Lal
+ +
(Defendant no. 1) Gakhar
Baldev Raj Ahuja 7 other legal heirs
(Plaintiff) + (Defendant no. 2A to 2G)
2.3 Owing to the Partition of India in August 1947 and the resulting civil
unrest in the Nawakot area (now in West Pakistan), Late Sh. Ram Chand
Ahuja, Late Smt. Talian Bai, and their daughters Sheelo Devi and Wanti
Bai were compelled to migrate. The family initially took refuge in Punjab
and Haryana before eventually settling in Delhi. They first resided at
Pahari, Gud Mandi, Delhi, and later received the suit property as
compensation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 4 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:34:54
+0530
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The lease deed for the property was executed
on 26.08.1960.
2.4 The plaintiff, having been adopted in 1960, became entitled to a
share in the suit property along with his adoptive father, mother, and two
sisters, under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
2.5 The plaintiff was originally born in the family of Motan Dass but
was adopted at a young age by Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, in the presence
of Late Smt. Sheela Devi and Smt. Wanti Devi. All the ceremonies of
adoption including handing over and taking were performed in the
presence of various relatives and Panditji at Rajpura. After his adoption,
plaintiff severed all ties with his biological family and attained the status
of a natural son of the family of Ram Chand. When the plaintiff was
adopted both the daughters of Late Sh. Ram Chand were married and
residing in Rajpura.
2.6 Upon Ram Chand Ahuja’s death in 1972, the suit property devolved
equally among his legal heirs–i.e. the plaintiff, Smt. Sheela Devi, and
Smt. Wanti Devi. The plaintiff also performed the last rites of Ram Chand
Ahuja, as recorded in records maintained at Haridwar/Pehwa.
2.7 The plaintiff married in 1984, and his mother (Late Smt. Talian Bai)
was listed as a dependent in the CGHS card of his wife, Smt. Sarita Ahuja
and was availing medical benefits through her office. In 1988, the plaintiff
was transferred to Chandigarh. During his absence, Smt. Wanti Devi
(defendant no.1) and her legal heirs took forcible possession of the suit
property by removing the plaintiff’s belongings.
2.8 The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.07.2006, which was
replied by Smt. Wanti Devi (defendant No.1) through her counsel on
14.07.2006. The reply referred to a registered Will dated 12.02.1971 and a
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 5 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:34:58
+0530
relinquishment deed executed by the legal heirs in favour of Smt. Talian
Bai, which devolved the property upon her. The plaintiff, being a minor at
that time, claims he had no knowledge of these documents. The plaintiff
claims that the mutation in the name of Smt. Talian Bai was done
fraudulently, as the relinquishment deed did not mention his name, despite
being the adopted son of Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja. Thus, the mutation
is illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff. Consequently, the present suit.
DEFENDANT NO.1’S CASE
2.9 The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing a written statement
(‘WS’). It is averred that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order II
Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC‘) as well as by limitation.
Furthermore, the suit has been filed in collusion with defendant Nos. 2,
2(2), and 2(A) to 2(F), and is, therefore, a collusive proceeding.
2.10 The suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for want of
pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit property comprises a 100 sq. yards built-
up area valued at more than Rs. 10,00,000/-, and thus this Court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
2.11 The entire suit of the plaintiff is based on the prayer that the Will
dated 12.02.1971 in favour of Smt. Talian Bai is null and void. However,
the existence of this very Will was specifically pleaded in the written
statement filed before this Court in the year 2007. It was categorically
stated that Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja had executed a Will dated 07.02.1971 in
favour of his wife, which was duly registered on 12.02.1971. Despite being
aware of this fact since 2006 — as even the reply dated 14.07.2006 to the
plaintiff’s legal notice clearly referred to the said Will — the plaintiff
failed to challenge its validity. It was only after liberty was granted by this
Court to amend the plaint that the plaintiff sought to assail the Will.
Digitally signed
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 6 of 40 AYUSH
by AYUSH
SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.20
15:35:02
+0530
Therefore, the relief now sought to declare the Will as null and void is
hopelessly barred by limitation.
2.12 The plaintiff has deliberately and maliciously described his father’s
name as Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, whereas he is the son of Late Sh.
Motan Dass. The defendant asserted that Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja had
only two daughters–defendant No. 1 and Late Smt. Sheelo Devi, mother
of the plaintiff. The defendant denied that Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja had not
executed any Will during his lifetime in favour of Late Smt. Talian Bai. It
was further denied that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Sh. Ram Chand
Ahuja or that he is entitled to any share in the suit property as his legal
heir. According to the defendant, the plaintiff’s claim of adoption is
baseless, as the plaintiff’s school and college records list his father’s name
as Sh. Motan Dass.
2.13 The defendant stated that Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja executed a
registered Will dated 12.02.1971 in favour of his wife, Smt. Talian Bai.
Upon his demise on 16.08.1971, he was survived only by his widow, Smt.
Talian Bai, and his two daughters, who were his sole legal heirs. By virtue
of the registered Will, Smt. Talian Bai became the owner of the suit
property. Additionally, both daughters executed a relinquishment deed in
favour of their mother, which was submitted to the Land & Development
Office (L&DO). The L&DO accepted the documents and mutated the suit
property in favour of Smt. Talian Bai on 14.09.1973. Subsequently, Smt.
Talian Bai, during her lifetime, executed a registered Will dated
31.12.1990, bequeathing the entire suit property to defendant No. 1, Smt.
Wanti Devi. After her death on 26.06.2004, defendant No. 1 became the
absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the said Will.
2.14 The defendant also denied that the suit property had been allotted to
Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja in lieu of family compensation or that the plaintiff
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 7 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:06
+0530
had been residing with his family. Defendant No. 1 claimed that she had
been living in the suit property with Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja and Smt. Talian
Bai for over 40 years, while the plaintiff had never permanently resided
there–except for a brief stay for educational purposes–and has no right,
title, or interest in it.
2.15 Without prejudice to the objection regarding adoption, the defendant
reiterated that Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja had bequeathed the suit property to
his wife by way of a registered Will, and she, in turn, bequeathed it entirely
to defendant No. 1. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff had
performed the last rites of Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja or that he was unaware
of the execution of the Will and the relinquishment deed in favour of Smt.
Talian Bai.
DEFENDANT NO. 2, 2 (A) TO 2 (F)’S CASE
2.16 The defendants denied the assertion that, after the death of Sh. Ram
Chand Ahuja, only defendant No. 1, Smt. Sheelo Devi, and the plaintiff
were his legal heirs. They clarified that, in addition to these three
individuals, Smt. Talian Bai was also a legal heir of the deceased.
2.17 The defendants did not dispute that Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja was the
owner of the suit property. They supported the plaintiff’s claim that he was
the adopted son of Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja and that the ceremony of giving
and taking in adoption had been duly performed. They further stated that
the plaintiff did not receive any share from the property of his natural
father, Sh. Motan Das.
2.18 The defendants also supported the plaintiff’s contention that he
performed the last rites of Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja. They added that Sh.
Motan Das had executed a Will during his lifetime in which the plaintiff’s
name was not mentioned, as he had already been given in adoption to Sh.
Ram Chand Ahuja. The defendants further claimed that they are entitled
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 8 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:10
+0530
to a one-third share in the suit property as legal heirs of Smt. Sheelo Devi.
2.19 They asserted that after the death of Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, Smt.
Wanti Devi (defendant No. 1) and Smt. Sheelo Devi executed
relinquishment deeds in favour of Smt. Talian Bai, on the basis of which
the suit property was mutated in her name. At that time, the plaintiff, being
the adopted son, was neither consulted nor did he execute any
relinquishment deed or provide any no-objection in favour of Smt. Talian
Bai. Lastly, the defendants stated that the value of the suit property exceeds
Rs. 20 lakhs.
DEFENDANT NO.3’S CASE
2.20 Defendant No. 3 admitted that Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja was the
recorded lessee of the suit property. Following the death of Sh. Ram Chand
Ahuja’s, his wife, Smt. Talian Bai, applied for the transfer of the suit
property in her name. This application was based on a registered Will dated
12.02.1971 and a registered relinquishment deed dated 17.07.1972
executed by Smt. Wanti Devi and Smt. Sheelo Devi.
2.21 According to the affidavit submitted by Smt. Talian Bai, she
declared herself to be the wife of Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, while Smt. Wanti
Devi and Smt. Sheelo Devi were identified as the daughters of the
deceased, each holding a one-third share in the suit property.
Consequently, the suit property was transferred in the name of Smt. Talian
Bai on 14.09.1973.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLICATION
2.22 In the replication, the plaintiff asserted that the suit property was
allotted to the entire family as compensation under the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 by defendant No. 3.
Accordingly, Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, being merely the head of the
family, was not competent to bequeath the suit property. The plaintiff
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 9 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:14
+0530
further stated that he has filed an appeal against the order granting probate
of the Will in favour of defendant No. 1, which is currently pending
adjudication. In the remaining paragraphs, the plaintiff reaffirmed the
averments made in the plaint and denied the allegations contained in the
written statement.
RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
3. The plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘) was dismissed by order dated
13.05.2011 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court. The appeal
against this order (RCA No. 3/11) was dismissed by the learned Appellate
Court on 01.12.2012.
4. On 11.02.2013, issues were framed. At the request of counsel for
defendant No. 1, issue No. 6, concerning the maintainability of the suit in
its present form, was taken up as a preliminary issue. By order dated
21.11.2013, the preliminary issue was decided against the plaintiff,
holding that the suit was not maintainable without seeking a declaration
regarding the Will dated 07.02.1971 executed by Late Sh. Ram Chand
Ahuja. The plaintiff was granted 30 days to amend the plaint.
5. The plaintiff filed the amended plaint on 24.01.2014. The order
granting this opportunity was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court,
which stayed the proceedings in the suit vide order dated 25.04.2014. The
petition challenging the order [CM (M) No. 377/2014] was disposed of on
23.09.2014. Defendant No. 1 filed the amended written statement on
18.02.2015.
6. On 08.10.2015, additional issues were framed, and the matter was
listed for plaintiff’s evidence. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s applications for
placing additional documents on record, tendering additional affidavit of
evidence, and placing his Aadhaar card on record were dismissed by order
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 10 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:18
+0530
dated 03.11.2017. The order dated 03.11.2017 was challenged before the
Hon’ble High Court in CM (M) No. 29/2018, and by order dated
11.07.2018, the said order was set aside.
7. On 24.01.2019, the plaintiff again filed an application under Order
VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint. The learned predecessor allowed the
application on 14.10.2019, subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/-, and the
amended plaint was taken on record.
8. On 25.01.2020, defendant No. 1 filed the amended written
statement. Additional issues were framed on 13.03.2020. Meanwhile, the
plaintiff’s application under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 CPC, filed on
28.11.2017, was considered and dismissed on 14.11.2022.
9. The plaintiff then filed an application under Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC seeking review of the 14.11.2022 order. On 24.04.2023, the order
was reviewed to the extent of allowing the plaintiff to lead the evidence of
one, Mr. Shravan Kumar.
10. On 22.07.2024, the plaintiff’s evidence was closed. On 26.10.2024,
the defendant’s evidence was closed.
11. On 20.12.2024, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XVIII
Rule 3 CPC to lead rebuttal evidence and prove documents annexed from
pages 7 to 13 of the application. With the consent of defendant No. 1, the
application was allowed, and the documents were exhibited as PR1 (colly).
The matter was then listed for final arguments.
ISSUES
12. On the basis of pleadings, vide orders dated 11.02.2013, 08.10.2015
and 13.03.2020, following issues were framed viz.,
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration
declaring that the property bearing no. 2/101, Geeta Colony, Delhi
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 11 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:22
+0530
is the property of Ram Chand Ahuja and consequently the mutation
in the name of Talian Bai is null and void? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition of the
suit property? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mesne profits in
favour of plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP
(iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is beyond the pecuniary
jurisdiction of this court? OPD
(v) Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is bad u/s 80 (2) CPC?
OPD
(vi) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its
present form? OPD
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as
prayed in prayer (c) of the plaint? OPP
(viii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is undervalued and proper
court fees has not been paid thereupon? If yes, its effect? OPD
(ix) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time? OPD
(x) Whether the suit property was allotted to Late Sh. Ram Chand
by the office of Settlement Commission, Jam Nagar House, New
Delhi in terms of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954? OPP
(xi) If additional issue no. 10 is decided in favour of the plaintiff,
then whether the suit property was granted to the entire family of
late Sh. Ram Chand? OPP
(xii) Relief
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
13. In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1,
Sh. Bhushan Lal Gandhi, Section Officer, Bureau of Indian Standards as
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 12 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:26
+0530
PW2, Sarita Ahuja (plaintiff’s wife) as PW3, Smt. Harsh Bala, Head Clerk,
Delhi Jal Board as PW4, V.S. Mann, UDC from Election Office as PW5,
Khusvinder Kumar (plaintiff’s family friend) as PW6, Prem Kumar
(plaintiff’s biological brother) as PW7, Ajay Kumar, AERO, Election
Department as PW8, Khushbu Sinha, Welfare Office, District East as
PW9, Bhupender Kumar Sharma, SSA, Property Section-II, Land &
Development Office as PW10 and Sh. Tanmay Vasishtha S/o Shavran
Kumar Sharma (brought the cremation record) as PW11.
14. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavits Ex. PW1/A, Ex.
PW1/A1, Ex. PW1/A2 and Ex. PW1/A3. He relied upon the following
documents viz. Copy of Ration Card Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), Copy of Election
I Card Ex. PW1/2 (OSR), CGHS Card Mark A, Delhi Jal Board bill Mark
B, Legal notice dated 03.07.2006 Mark C, reply dated 14.07.2006 Ex.
PW1/6, Original affidavit of Late Sh. Motan Dass dated 18.02.2011 Ex.
PW1/7, Original affidavit of Late Sh. Motan Dass dated 18.02.2011 Ex.
PW1/8, Copy of affidavit of the plaintiff dated 18.02.2011 Mark A,
Certified copy of the examination-in-chief of Sh. Prem Kumar dated
07.07.2011 Ex. PW1/9, Certified copy of the cross examination of Sh.
Prem Kumar dated 28.07.2016 Ex. PW1/10, Certified copy of order dated
07.02.2017 Ex. PW1/11, Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/12 (OSR), Record of
Pothi Mark A, Photograph of Dharamshala Ex. PW1/13 & Ex. PW1/14,
Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/15.
15. PW2, Sh. Bhushan Lal Gandhi, Section Officer, Bureau of Indian
Standards, appeared as a summoned witness. He produced the attested
record of the Mediclaim, as claimed by the plaintiff’s wife, Ex. PW2/1. He
stated that the original record has been weeded out. He further deposed
that he had earlier produced the original of this record before the probate
court, where it was exhibited as R8W5/1.
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 13 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:31
+0530
16. PW3, Smt. Sarita Ahuja (plaintiff’s wife), tendered her evidence by
way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A and relied on the documents viz. medical
reimbursements Ex. PW2/1 and the CGHS Card Mark A.
17. PW4, Smt. Harsh Bala, Head Clerk, Delhi Jal Board, appeared as a
summoned witness. She produced one letter of Smt. Krishna Devi, Zonal
Revenue Officer (East)- II, Delhi Jal Board, Government of NCT of Delhi,
Shivpuri Ex. PW4/A.
18. PW5, Sh. V.S. Mann, UDC from the Election Office, appeared as a
summoned witness. He produced a letter from the Assistant Electoral
Registration Officer (AERO) dated 15.02.2018, along with the elector’s
details of the same date Ex. PW5/A.
19. PW6, Sh. Khushvinder Kumar, a family friend of the plaintiff,
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW6/A. He stated that the
plaintiff had been residing at the suit property with Late Smt. Leelawati as
her adopted son since he was six months old. He further testified that, in
his presence, Late Sh. Motan Dass executed two affidavits on 18.02.2011.
20. PW7, Sh. Prem Kumar, the plaintiff’s biological brother, tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW7/A. He stated that the suit
property was allotted to Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja against his claim for
the property left behind in Pakistan. He asserted that the suit property was
therefore not the self-acquired property of Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, and
as such, he was not competent to execute any Will. He further testified
regarding the plaintiff’s adoption and stated that the mutation of the suit
property was allegedly carried out on the basis of a Will and a
relinquishment deed executed by Late Smt. Sheelo Devi (his mother) and
Smt. Wanti Bai, both of whom were illiterate and unable to understand
English. He claimed that the contents of the relinquishment deed were
neither read over nor explained in the vernacular to the executants.
Digitally signed
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 14 of 40 AYUSH by AYUSH SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.08.20 15:35:34 +0530
Additionally, he stated that the plaintiff never executed any relinquishment
deed relinquishing his share in favour of Late Smt. Talian Bai. He asserted
that, as the legal heir of Late Smt. Sheelo Devi, he is entitled to a share in
the suit property.
21. PW8, Sh. Ajay Kumar, AERO, Election Department, appeared as a
summoned witness and produced the certified copy of the Electoral Roll,
1998 (covering the period 1994-1998) for Assembly Constituency 040,
Geeta Colony Ex. PW8/1 and certified copies of extracts from the Electoral
Rolls for the years 2005, 2009, and 2018 Ex. PW8/2, Ex. PW8/3 and Ex.
PW8/4 respectively. Additionally, he submitted a photocopy of a
certificate regarding the weeding out of electoral rolls and connected
papers issued by the office Mark A.
22. PW9, Ms. Khushbu Sinha, Welfare Officer, District Office (East),
appeared as a summoned witness and produced the certified copy of the
enquiry report concerning the children of Late Smt. Leela Wati (Senior
Citizen Pensioner (PP) No. 959197), Ex. PW9/1.
23. PW10, Sh. Bhupender Kumar Sharma, SSA, Property Section-II,
L&DO, appeared as a summoned witness and produced file of the suit
property, containing documents of allotment in the name of Late Sh. Ram
Chand Ex. PW10/1.
24. PW11, Sh. Tanmay Vashishtha, appeared as a summoned witness
and produced the cremation record of Late Smt. Talian Bai, dated
06.07.2004 Ex. PW11/1 (OSR).
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
25. In order to substantiate her case, defendant examined herself as
DW1 and Sh. Shailendra Kumar Vasishth, Record Keeper, Record Room
Sessions, Tis Hazari Court as DW2.
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 15 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:38
+0530
26. DW1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and
relied upon the following documents viz. Relinquishment deed dated
13.07.1972 executed by Wanti Bai and Sheelo Devi @ Sheelo Bai in
favour of Smt. Talian Bai Ex. PW1/D2, Certified copy of judgment dated
03.11.2016 passed by the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, then Ld. ADJ, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi Ex. DW1/1 and Certified copy of judgment dated
23.01.2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Ex. DW1/2.
27. DW2, Sh. Shailendra Kumar Vasishth, Record Keeper from the
Record Room (Sessions), Tis Hazari Court, appeared as a summoned
witness and produced the case file of Probate Case No. 133/10/06 (04/07),
titled Smt. Wanti Bai v. State & Ors. The certified copy of the memo of
parties, along with the evidence of witnesses presented on behalf of
defendant no. 1 in the probate case, was exhibited as Ex. DW2/A (Colly).
SUBMISSIONS
28. Mr. Ajit Nair, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, advanced the following
submissions:
28.1 The plaintiff is the adopted son of Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja and
Late Smt. Talian Bai. The adoption took place in Rajpura, Punjab, in
January 1960, with all essential ceremonies, including the giving and
taking, duly performed. To prove his adoption, the plaintiff has produced
the Ration Card (Ex. PW1/1) and Election Card (Ex. PW1/2), showing him
as the adopted son of Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja.
28.2 The plaintiff has also placed on record the Ration Card of Leelawati
@ Talian Bai (Mark B), along with his school certificates and related
documents, to demonstrate that he resided in the suit property with his
adoptive parents and completed his education in Delhi.
28.3 As the adopted son, the plaintiff performed the last rites of Talian
Bai, which were recorded in the Bahikhata book maintained by Hazari
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 16 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:42
+0530
Gulzari Wale, Haveli Pandit Kriparam, Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar. The
relevant entries identifying the plaintiff as Duttak Putra were proved
through PW11.
28.4 Mediclaim reimbursement bills and the CGHS card of the plaintiff’s
wife (PW3) identify Talian Bai @ Leelawati as her mother-in-law. When
Talian Bai suffered a paralytic attack in 2000, she availed of medical
benefits and reimbursements through PW3.
28.5 The suit property was allotted to the family of Late Sh. Ram Chand
under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954. The allotment was for all displaced persons/family members, which
included the plaintiff since his adoption took place in January 1960 and the
lease deed for the suit property was executed in August 1960. Therefore,
Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja had no authority to bequeath the suit property
solely to Late Smt. Talian Bai through Will dated 12.02.1971.
Consequently, no valid title could pass to Talian Bai to further bequeath
the suit property through her own Will executed in 1990.
28.6 Defendant No. 1 claims ownership based on the Will of 1971, a
relinquishment deed, and the Will of 1990. However, she failed to produce
the originals of the Will dated 12.02.1971 and the relinquishment deed of
1972 in this court. Her reliance on probate proceedings to justify non-
production of Will dated 12.02.1971 is misplaced, as her application to
present this document in the probate case was rejected.
28.7 The evidence of DW1 is unreliable. While in chief examination she
claimed to have come to the suit property after her marriage, in cross-
examination she stated that she moved in only after 2-3 years of marriage.
She also initially denied that her son Sanjay ran any business from the suit
property but later admitted to the registration of the firm ‘Indu Cables’
being in his name at that address. Furthermore, she denied that Talian Bai
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 17 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:46
+0530
suffered any illness, despite the fact that Talian Bai had a paralytic attack
in 2000.
28.8 The probate/testamentary proceedings exhibited by defendant No. 1
in this suit are legally invalid and inadmissible. The defendant was obliged
to produce primary witnesses and original documents to prove them.
Moreover, the findings of the probate court do not operate as res judicata.
28.9 In support of these submissions, reliance is placed on the following
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Kamla Rani v. Ram Lalit
Rau & Lalak Rai1; Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v. Kunjikutty
Pillai Meenakshi Pillai & Ors.2; Joginder Pal v. Indian Red Cross
Society & Ors.3; LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen4; H. Siddiqui v. A.
Ramalingam5; J. Ganapathy & Anr. v. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust
Rep. by its Trustees & Ors.6; judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in
Smt. Bainabhai Raghoji Wankhade v. Divisional Manager LIC & Ors.7
and Tippanna Ramchandra Janu v. Somnath Dnyanoba Mahapure 8;
judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in Sitaram Singh v. Bhikhni Devi
& Ors.9; judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Om Prakash Jain v.
Union of India & Ors.10 and Roshan Lal & Ors. v. Samar Nath & Ors.11.
29. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant No.1, principally raised
the following contentions:
1
Civil Appeal No. 9153 of 2017
2
(2000) 6 SCC 301
3
Civil Appeal No. 5664 of 2000
4
(2010) 4 SCC 491
5
AIR 2011 SC 1492
6
2025 INSC 395
7
Civil Revision Application No. 68 of 2015
8
1990 (1) BCR 677
9
AIR 1960 Patna 452
10
2000 (55) DRJ 10
11
ILR Volume XIX Lahore Series 173
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 18 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:50
+0530
29.1 The core basis of the plaintiff’s case is his alleged adoption by Late
Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja and Late Smt. Talian Bai. To establish this, the
plaintiff has produced a ration card (Ex. PW1/1). However, upon close
scrutiny, this ration card pertains to the address 3/19, Geeta Colony and
not the suit property. No ration card relating to the suit property, got issued
in the lifetime of Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, has been produced by the
plaintiff.
29.2 During cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he cannot
produce any document proving his adoption by Late Sh. Ram Chand
Ahuja. In fact, all his educational records, including CBSE and university
documents, list his father’s name as Motan Dass. His income tax returns
for 2005-06 and 2006-07 also reflect Motan Dass as his father. The
plaintiff further admitted that in his passport, his father’s name is stated as
Motan Dass and his mother’s name as Sheelo Devi.
29.3 The plaintiff attempted to alter election records during the pendency
of the suit. Document (Ex. PW5/A), as per the ERMS (Electronic Record
Management System), shows that the plaintiff’s name as the son of Ram
Chand was not registered until 15.02.2018. The plaintiff admitted in cross-
examination that changes were made in the record while the suit was
pending. This undermines his claim of being the adopted son.
29.4 The testimony of PW6 is purely hearsay and must be disregarded,
as the witness was not even born at the time of the alleged adoption.
Significantly, PW7 Prem Kumar, the plaintiff’s biological brother,
admitted in cross-examination that for the alleged adoption no government
document was prepared and no adoption ceremony took place.
29.5 The documents produced by PW2 and relied upon by PW3 (the
plaintiff’s wife) are inadmissible and fraudulent, prepared at her instance
to falsely portray Leelawati@ Talian Bai as her mother-in-law. In cross
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 19 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:54
+0530
examination, PW3 admitted she could not produce any document signed
by Leelawati identifying herself as PW-3’s mother-in-law.
29.6 None of the plaintiff’s witnesses have been able to prove the alleged
adoption convincingly or reliably.
29.7 The plaintiff appears unclear about his own case. The amendment
in the plaint concerning the suit property’s allotment as compensation
under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was
introduced with a specific purpose to challenge the Will dated 12.02.1971
executed by Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja in favour of Late Smt. Talian Bai.
The plaintiff argues that since the property was allotted to the entire family,
Ram Chand lacked authority to execute the Will. This is directly
contradictory to the plaint’s relief, where the plaintiff seeks a declaration
that Ram Chand Ahuja was the absolute owner of the property. On one
hand, the plaintiff claims full ownership rights for Ram Chand; on the
other, he tries to restrict those rights by asserting the property belonged to
the family.
29.8 The definition of “Displaced Persons” does not provide that
property allotted to such persons automatically belongs to the family. After
the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, succession to the suit
property is governed solely by that Act.
29.9 The suit property was allotted well before the plaintiff’s birth,
though the lease deed was formally executed in August 1960. Even then,
the family of Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja consisted only of himself, Late
Smt. Talian Bai, Late Smt. Sheelo Devi, and Wanti Bai. The plaintiff, by
no stretch of interpretation, falls within the definition of a “Displaced
Person.”
29.10 In cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted the legality and validity
of the Will dated 12.02.1971 executed by Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja, as
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 20 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:35:59
+0530
well as the relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1972 (Ex. PW1/D2) executed
by defendant No. 1 and Sheelo Devi in favour of Late Smt. Talian Bai.
This relinquishment was executed by the plaintiff’s biological mother; if
the plaintiff had been adopted, such fact would have been recorded in the
document.
29.11 The defendant has proved the relinquishment deed (Ex. PW1/D2)
and the judgments delivered in probate proceedings by both the District
Court and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2).
29.12 The defendant also produced the evidence of official witnesses
recorded in the probate case, as the proceedings involved the same parties
and the plaintiff’s objections were dismissed therein. It would have caused
undue delay and expense to re-summon these witnesses after nearly 19
years of litigation. Under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, the prior
depositions of witnesses are admissible in subsequent proceedings when
their presence cannot be secured without such delay or expense.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
30. I have heard the submissions of the parties at length and examined
the record, including the written submissions and judgments relied upon
by the parties. Since issues No. (i), (ii), (iii), and (vii) are interrelated and
involve overlapping questions of law and fact, they are taken up together
for consideration.
ISSUES NO. (I), (II), (III), AND (VII) (ON DECLARATION THAT THE SUIT
PROPERTY BELONGS TO RAM CHAND AHUJA & CONSEQUENTIAL INVALIDITY
OF MUTATION IN THE NAME OF TALIAN BAI, ON PARTITION, ON MESNE
PROFITS, AND ON POSSESSION)
31. The onus to prove these issues is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s
claim is founded on the assertion that he was lawfully adopted by Late Sh.
Ram Chand Ahuja and Late Smt. Talian Bai. According to the plaintiff,
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 21 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:03
+0530
the adoption took place in Rajpura, Punjab, in 1960, with all requisite
ceremonies duly performed, including the formal act of giving and taking.
On the basis of this adoption, the plaintiff claims the status of a legal heir
entitled to the suit property.
CLAIM OF ADOPTION
32. Although no specific issue was framed on adoption, it is central to
determining the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The success of the
plaintiff’s claim is inextricably linked to the proof of adoption; failure to
establish the same would render the plaintiff’s case unsustainable. To
prove his adoption, the plaintiff relied on the ration card of 2005 (Ex.
PW1/1) and election card of 2016 (Ex. PW1/2) to show his father’s name
as Late Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja. He also produced the ration card of the year
1987 of Leelawati/Talian Bai (Mark B) to establish residence in the suit
property. He further relied on his Aadhaar card (Ex. PW1/12), affidavits
of his biological father, Late Sh. Motan Das (Ex. PW1/7 & PW1/8),
bahikhata/cremation record of Late Smt. Talian Bai (Ex. PW11/1) and
CGHS/medical reimbursement records (Ex. PW2/1) from his wife’s office
(PW3) to support his claim of adoption.
33. The plaintiff examined his wife, Sarita (PW3), his family friend,
Khushwinder Kumar (PW6) and his biological brother, Prem Singh (PW7)
to support his claim of adoption. The other official witnesses namely Sh.
Bhushan Gandhi from Bureau of Indian Standards (PW2), Smt. Harsh
Bala, Head Clerk, Delhi Jal Board (PW4), V.S Mann & Ajay Kumar from
Election Department (PW5 & PW8), and Tanmay Vasishtha from
Haridwar (PW11) were also examined. A brief summary of the evidence
of plaintiff’s witnesses is outlined below:
a) During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he has no
documentary proof of being the adopted son of Late Sh. Ram Chand
Digitally signed
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 22 of 40 by AYUSH
AYUSH SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.20
15:36:07
+0530
Ahuja. He acknowledged that his father’s name appears as Motan
Das in all his educational records, including CBSE and university
documents, as well as in his PPF account during his employment
with Delight Furniture. He further accepted that in the 33 years
between the deaths of Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja and Smt. Talian Bai,
he never asserted before any forum that he was their adopted son or
claimed a share in the suit property. He also admitted that his
income tax returns for the assessment years 2004-2005 (Ex.
PW1/D4) and 2006-2007 (Ex. PW1/D3) record his father’s name
as M.D. Ahuja, while his PAN card lists Motan Das. When
confronted with the computerized Election Commission record (Ex.
PW1/D5), he accepted that it, also, names Sh. Motan Das as his
father. Regarding the adoption ceremony, the plaintiff stated that he
had only been informed by others that such a ceremony took place.
b) The next material testimony is that of the plaintiff’s wife, Smt.
Sarita (PW3). She admitted that she could not produce any
document signed or issued by Leelawati identifying herself as her
mother-in-law, and further accepted that Leelawati never visited
her office or met any official there. She denied the suggestion that
she had falsely declared Leelawati as her mother-in-law to claim
medical reimbursement. She also acknowledged that the plaintiff’s
school certificates identify him as the son of Late Sh. Motan Das,
but volunteered that this was due to defendant no. 1 deliberately
causing the father’s name to be entered as Motan Das in the school
records. She further stated that her mother-in-law, Late Smt.
Leelawati, had told her that the plaintiff was adopted.
c) During cross-examination, Khushwinder Kumar (PW6) stated that
the plaintiff’s marriage took place in 1984, but he did not know who
Digitally signed
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 23 of 40 AYUSH
by AYUSH
SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.20
15:36:11
+0530
performed the customary milni from the plaintiff’s family. He
further deposed that while he was at the house of Prem Kumar in
Rajpura, Sheelo Devi and Leelawanti informed him that Baldev Raj
was the adopted son of Leelawanti. PW6 denied the suggestion that
the plaintiff had never resided in the suit property and stated that
the affidavit of Late Sh. Motan Das was prepared in his presence.
When questioned about his statement in paragraph 3 of his affidavit
regarding the plaintiff’s residence at the suit property, PW6 stated
that this information was told to him by Late Sh. Motan Das. He
deposed that he did not know from which college the plaintiff had
completed his graduation.
d) Prem Kumar (PW7), during cross-examination, deposed that the
suit property was allotted to Late Sh. Ram Chand. He admitted that,
in relation to the plaintiff’s adoption, neither any official document
was prepared nor any adoption ceremony took place. When
questioned about the contents of paragraph 4 of his affidavit–
wherein it was stated that defendant no. 1 and her husband had
inadvertently recorded the biological father’s name of the plaintiff
as Motan Das, in the school records–he stated that this information
was conveyed to him by his father, Late Sh. Motan Das.
e) Smt. Harsh Bala, Head Clerk, Delhi Jal Board (PW4), during cross-
examination, testified that from the Delhi Jal Board records, she
could not confirm the name of the plaintiff’s father. She further
stated that the office maintained no record indicating in what
capacity the plaintiff had obtained the water connection.
f) V.S Mann from Election Department (PW5), during cross-
examination, stated that any changes in the electoral roll are made
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 24 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:14
+0530
upon the request of the concerned person, who must first fill the
prescribed form for altering particulars.
g) Ajay Kumar, another witness from Election Department (PW8),
during cross-examination, in response to a court query regarding
the plaintiff’s father’s name being recorded as “M.D. Ahuja” in
2005 and as “Ram Chandra” in 1998, 2009, and 2018, explained
that such changes are effected through Form 8, supported by
relevant documents such as Gazette notification. He stated that the
present entry showing the plaintiff’s father’s name as “Ram Chand”
was made in 2017 at the plaintiff’s request. He further informed that
records prior to 2014 have been weeded out. He further deposed
that as per procedure, Form 8 must be filled by the individual
seeking changes in the record.
h) Tanmay Vasishtha (PW11), during cross-examination, stated that
he could not confirm whether the entry regarding the presence of
Sh. Sanjay and Smt. Wanti was made in their presence. He denied
the suggestion that the document in question was forged.
34. Upon an overall evaluation of the evidence led by the plaintiff in
support of his claim of adoption, the claim is found to be untenable. The
following are the reasons for rejecting the claim of adoption:
34.1 All documentary records, including the plaintiff’s educational
certificates from both school and university, identify his father as Mr.
Motan Das. His PPF account, income tax returns prior to the filing of the
suit (Ex. PW1/D3 and Ex. PW1/D4), PAN card, computerized Election
Commission record (Ex. PW1/D5), and passport all record his father’s
name as Motan Das or Motan Das Ahuja.
34.2 The Aadhaar Card and Election record of 2016 (Ex. PW1/2)
produced by the plaintiff were created during the pendency of the suit and
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 25 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:18
+0530
thus carry little evidentiary value to prove adoption. Furthermore, the
election record cannot be regarded as reliable evidence to substantiate the
claim of adoption, as the records from 2005 and 2007 (Ex. PW8/1 and Ex.
PW1/D5) record the plaintiff’s father’s name as Motan Das, whereas the
records of 2009 and 2018 (Ex. PW8/3 and Ex. PW8/4) reflect the father’s
name as Ram Chand.
34.3 Significantly, the plaintiff admitted during cross-examination that in
the 33 years between the deaths of Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja and Smt. Talian
Bai, he never asserted before any forum that he was their adopted son or
claimed any share in the suit property.
34.4 The documents relied upon by PW3–medical reimbursement
records and the CGHS card (Ex. PW2/1) naming Smt. Talian Bai as her
mother-in-law and the bahi khata (Ex. PW11/1) relating to cremation
performed by the plaintiff–cannot be viewed in isolation. These do not
outweigh the substantial documentary evidence consistently naming the
plaintiff’s father as Sh. Motan Das. Notably, the plaint referred only to the
performance of Ram Chand’s last rites, stating that they were conducted at
Haridwar. It made no mention of the last rites of Smt. Talian Bai or any
related records, despite her having also passed away in 2004. As argued
by the defendants, that even if the plaintiff, being the eldest family
member, performed Smt. Talian Bai’s cremation, this alone does not
confer upon him the legal status of an adopted son.
34.5 The testimonies of PW6 and PW7 are purely hearsay and
inadmissible, as both were born after the alleged date of adoption. Reliance
on the affidavits of Late Sh. Motan Das (Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/8) is
also misplaced, since an affidavit cannot by itself be treated as evidence
unless the same has been tested through cross-examination. Furthermore,
paragraph 7 of the affidavit dated 18.02.2011 records that the plaintiff’s
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 26 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:21
+0530
biological father gave his no-objection for changing the plaintiff’s father’s
name in the PAN card, school certificates, and other relevant documents
to Late Sh. Ram Chand. This was an afterthought aimed at sustaining the
purported claim of adoption of plaintiff.
34.6 The plaintiff’s argument that his residence in the suit property and
completion of education in Delhi prove his adoption is misconceived.
Mere residence or education at a location does not establish adoption; it
must be proved by clear and cogent evidence. In Sitaram Singh (supra),
the Hon’ble Patna High Court, on the question of burden of proof in the
case of an old adoption held that a very grave and serious onus rests upon
any person who seeks to displace the natural succession of property by
alleging an adoption.
34.7 The issue of adoption was earlier raised before the probate court and
consistently rejected by both the District Court and the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in FAO proceedings. While it is correct that findings of a probate
court do not operate as res judicata due to the summary nature of such
proceedings, they remain relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v. Hardayal Singh Dhillon & Ors. 12 in the
context of findings of probate court held:
“11. …It is true that the probate of the Will
granted by the competent probate court would be
admitted into evidence that may be taken into
consideration by the civil court while deciding the suit
for title but grant of probate cannot be decisive for
declaration of title and injunction whether at all the
testator had any title to the suit properties or not.”
(underlining added)
12
(2007) 11 SCC 357
Digitally signed
by AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 27 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.20
15:36:25
+0530
The same evidence was led in those proceedings between the same parties,
and the Hon’ble High Court, in paragraph 20 of its FAO judgment 13,
specifically recorded observations on the plaintiff’s adoption claim and
held:
“20. The entire fulcrum of the appellant’s challenge
to the authenticity and genuineness of the Will is
premised on the claim that despite being the adopted
son of the testatrix and late Shri Ram Chand, he is not
named as a beneficiary under the Will. Further, no
reason has been assigned for his exclusion from the
estate of the testatrix. In this regard. It is noted that
though the appellant claims to have been adopted by
the testatrix and late Shri Ram Chand at a very young
age, the relevant school records, identity documents
and residential/income tax records identify him as son
of M.D. Ahuja. In none of the documents, he has been
identified as son of late Shri Ram Chand. Note is also
taken of the fact that even in the joint relinquishment
deed executed in favour of testatrix by Shello Devi,
who was the biological mother of the appellant, the
aspect of adoption was not mentioned. Except for the
self-serving statement of the appellant, neither any
material nor any evidence has come on the record to
prove the factum of adoption. This Court finds force
in the submission made on behalf of the respondent
that once the appellant’s mother had herself executed
the relinquishment deed qua the subject property in
favour of the testatrix; there was no need to assign any
reason for appellant’s exclusion as a beneficiary in
the Will”.
13
Neutral Citation 2023/DHC/000495
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 28 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:29
+0530
34.8 The relinquishment deed (Ex. PW1/D2), executed by the plaintiff’s
biological mother–which is undisputed and admitted by the plaintiff
during cross-examination–clearly records that Late Sh. Ram Chand
Ahuja was survived only by two daughters, Sheelo Devi and Wanti Bai
(defendant no. 1), along with his widow, Talian Bai. The relevance of this
document will be discussed further at a later part in this judgment.
However, it is significant to note that the plaintiff’s biological mother
makes no mention whatsoever of his alleged adoption by Late Sh. Ram
Chand Ahuja and his wife. In such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot
sustain the claim of adoption in contradiction to her own statement.
Likewise, the Will dated 31.12.1990, executed by Late Smt. Talian Bai
and duly probated, explicitly states, “I have no son but one elder daughter,
Smt. Shello Devi, W/o Sh. Motan Das.” This statement conclusively
demonstrates that the claim of adoption is false and unsustainable.
34.9 The plaintiff’s counsel has relied on Kamla Rani (supra) to argue
that, in the absence of direct evidence, significant weight should be given
to the long-standing treatment of a person as an adopted child. Notably, in
that case, considerable reliance was placed on school records and other
documents that consistently recorded the father’s name as Sh. Sadhu Ram,
as entered by the adoptive father himself. The judgment in Roshan Lal
(supra) was cited to establish that, under Hindu law, a daughter’s son can
be adopted–a proposition not disputed by the defendants, whose
challenge is limited to the fact of adoption itself. However, these
judgments, in all fairness, are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
35. In view of the foregoing discussion, the plaintiff’s claim of being
the adopted son is held to be untenable and unsustainable. Consequently,
he lacks the locus to challenge the validity of the 1971 Will or to seek
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 29 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:32
+0530
partition, possession, and other ancillary reliefs. The issues are, therefore,
decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUES NO. (X) & (XI) (WHETHER THE SUIT PROPERTY WAS ALLOTTED
UNDER THE DISPLACED PERSONS (REHABILITATION & COMPENSATION) ACT,1954, AND, IF SO, WHETHER SUCH ALLOTMENT WAS MADE FOR THE ENTIRE
FAMILY)
36. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. Since the preceding
paragraphs of the judgment have already held the plaintiff’s claim of
adoption to be untenable, the issues under consideration lose their
relevance. However, arguendo, if the plaintiff’s adoption was to be
accepted, the issue would have been material since the Will executed by
Ram Chand on 12.02.1971 stood in the way of the plaintiff claiming a
share in the suit property. In 2019, the plaint was amended to introduce the
contention that the suit property had been allotted under the Displaced
Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act, 1954. This amendment
was intended to challenge Ram Chand’s Will by contending that the
property was allotted to Displaced Persons, including the plaintiff, and
therefore Ram Chand lacked the competence to execute the Will. The
underlying objective/purpose in mind was that, even if the adoption claim
was accepted, the Will would still impede the plaintiff’s claim, and thus it
had to be undermined.
37. Interestingly, even after the amendment, no issue regarding the
validity of the Will dated 12.02.1971 was framed, despite such relief being
sought in the suit. The following paragraphs of this judgment address the
plaintiff’s contentions sequentially.
ALLOTMENT FOR THE FAMILY AND THE WILL DATED 12.02.1971
38. The plaintiff’s case lacks clarity and consistency. The plaintiff
contended that the suit property was allotted to the entire family, and
Digitally signed
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 30 of 40 AYUSH by AYUSH
SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.20
15:36:36
+0530
therefore, Ram Chand lacked the authority to execute the Will dated
12.02.1971. However, this assertion is contradictory to the relief sought
for declaring Ram Chand as the absolute owner of the suit property. On
one hand, the plaintiff claims that Ram Chand had full ownership rights;
on the other, he seeks to limit those rights by alleging that the property
belonged to the entire family.
39. Section 2(b) of the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and
Compensation) Act, 1954 defines a “Displaced Person” as any person who,
on account of the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan, or on
account of civil disturbances or fear of such disturbances in any area now
forming part of West Pakistan, has after the first day of March, 1947, left,
or been displaced from, his place of residence in such area and who has
been subsequently residing in India, and includes any person who is
resident in any place now forming part of India and who for that reason is
unable or has been rendered unable to manage, supervise or control any
immovable property belonging to him in West Pakistan, and also includes
the successors- in- interest of any such person. Relying on the phrase
“successors-in-interest”, the plaintiff argued that the property was allotted
to the entire family. This interpretation is erroneous. The term “successors-
in-interest” refers to those legally entitled to claim compensation for the
verified claim of a displaced person and does not restrict the allottee’s right
to transfer or bequeath the property. PW10, Bhupender Kumar Sharma,
SSA from L&DO, testified that the allotment documents were issued in
the name of Late Sh. Ram Chand and that the plot was allotted for four
family members. He further confirmed that the allotment took place well
before December 1959 and was made specifically against Ram Chand’s
own verified claims. Therefore, as the suit property was allotted against
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 31 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:40
+0530
the own claims of Ram Chand as compensation under the Act, his right to
bequeath it was in no way restricted.
40. This is further supported by the lease deed dated 26.08.1960,
forming part of Ex. PW10/1 (Colly). Paragraph (c) of the deed expressly
entitles the lessee to transfer or assign the land, subject only to obtaining
the lessor’s permission. Additionally, clause I (ix) requires the lessee to
register any change in possession of the land or any building erected
thereon–whether by transfer, succession, or otherwise–with the local
authority. Notably, the lease deed contains no provision/term prescribing
that the suit property was allotted to any family member of Late Sh. Ram
Chand. This clearly establishes that, as the lessee, Ram Chand was fully
entitled to bequeath or transfer the suit property.
ORIGINAL WILL OF RAM CHAND WAS NEVER PRODUCED
41. The plaintiff’s second ground for challenging the Will of Ram
Chand is that the original document was never produced. It is well-settled
that a Will must be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. However, during cross-examination, the plaintiff
admitted that Sh. Ram Chand Ahuja had executed a Will in favour of his
wife, Smt. Talian Bai, and did not dispute its genuineness. The L&DO
records also contain this Will, on the basis of which mutation was effected
in favour of Smt. Talian Bai. Being a registered document, the Will carries
a presumption of genuineness. The plaintiff has not pleaded any suspicious
circumstances except lack of knowledge being a minor.
42. Even if it is accepted that the Will dated 12.02.1971 was not proved
in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the
provisions of the Indian Succession Act, the fact remains that, irrespective
of the Will, title to the property can still be traced to Late Smt. Talian Bai
by virtue of the registered relinquishment deed jointly executed in her
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 32 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:44
+0530
favour by defendant No. 1 and Late Smt. Sheelo Devi, the plaintiff’s
biological mother.
RELINQUISHMENT DEED DATED 13.07.1972
43. The plaintiff has not challenged the legality, validity, or execution
of the registered relinquishment deed dated 13.07.1972. His grievance as
reflected from the relief sought in clause (a) and paragraph 11 of the plaint
is that the mutation dated 14.09.1973 is null and void because he did not
execute any relinquishment deed in favour of Late Smt. Talian Bai, being
the adopted son. It is pertinent to note that, during cross-examination, the
plaintiff expressly admitted the relinquishment deed (Ex. PW1/D2),
acknowledging it as the very document executed by Smt. Sheelo Devi and
defendant no. 1 in favour of their mother, Smt. Talian Bai.
44. PW7, Prem Kumar, the plaintiff’s biological brother, stated in
paragraph 7 of his affidavit of evidence that the contents of the deed were
not read or explained to the executants in the vernacular and that no
relinquishment or no-objection was given on behalf of the plaintiff as the
adopted son. Significantly, the plaintiff’s counsel, during cross-
examination in the present case, produced the testimony of defendant No.
1 from the probate case (Ex. DW1/X4). Interestingly, in that cross-
examination, counsel for the plaintiff himself suggested to defendant No.
1 that she and her sister, Smt. Sheelo Devi, executed a relinquishment deed
in favour of their mother, Smt. Talian Bai, after which the L&DO mutated
the property in Talian Bai’s name. The relevant portion read as:
“It is correct that myself and my sister Smt. Sheelo
Devi executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Smt.
Talian Bai and then only mutation was effected in her
favour by L&DO”.
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 33 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:47
+0530
45. The plaintiff’s counsel further asked the question– is it correct the
plaintiff was a minor at the time of defendant No. 1’s father’s death and
therefore, no relinquishment deed was obtained from him for mutation
purposes. Defendant No. 1 replied that there was no question of obtaining
it from the plaintiff, as he was the son of her sister, Smt. Sheelo Devi, who
had already relinquished her share.
46. PW10, Bhupender Kumar Sharma from L&DO, proved all relevant
records, including the registered relinquishment deed (Ex. PW1/D2),
which formed part of the documents submitted by Late Smt. Talian Bai to
effect mutation in her name. The document was also produced in the
probate case by Sh. Rakesh Sharma, UDC, L&DO Office (PW2), and
Munesh Kumar, Record Clerk, Sub-Registrar, Seelampur (PW3), where it
was exhibited as Ex. PW2/1 and Ex. PW3/A respectively and forming part
of Ex. DW2/A (Colly) in this case.
47. It is further important to highlight that during the entire cross-
examination of DW1 no question or suggestion has been put forth by the
plaintiff challenging the validity of the relinquishment deeds. Thus, on
consideration of the overall material on record, the relinquishment deed
(Ex. PW1/D2) stands proved. Being a registered document, it carries a
presumption of genuineness. The judgments cited by the plaintiff’s counsel
in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) and H. Siddiqui (supra)
relate to their own specific facts and are not applicable to the present case,
particularly since the plaintiff has not disputed the relinquishment deed.
Interestingly, in the application filed by the plaintiff on 26.10.2024
challenging the exhibition of documents, objections were raised only
against Ex. DW1/1, Ex. DW1/2, and Ex. DW2/A, with no objection
whatsoever to the relinquishment deed, Ex. PW1/D2.
48. Therefore, irrespective of the Will of Ram Chand Ahuja, Talian Bai
Digitally signed
by AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 34 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.08.20
15:36:51
+0530
became the absolute owner of the suit property through the relinquishment
deed executed by defendant No. 1 and Late Smt. Sheelo Devi, with full
authority to execute the 1990 Will–probate of which has been granted.
49. Importantly, in the relinquishment deed, the plaintiff’s biological
mother, Late Smt. Sheelo Devi, made no reference of his alleged adoption
and expressly stated that Late Sh. Ram Chand was survived only by his
two daughters and widow, Talian Bai. Had the adoption claim been true,
she would have mentioned it. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot now
contradict the contents of this document to stake a claim over the suit
property.
50. The defendant’s case is airtight, and even after exploring every
possibility and examining the matter from all fours, the plaintiff’s claim
remains unsustainable.
MOULDING OF RELIEF
51. In an attempt to salvage his case, the plaintiff cited J. Ganapathy
(supra) in order to invoke the concept of moulding of relief and to adjust
the remedies as the circumstances require. However, having failed to
establish his adoption claim, the plaintiff cannot now shift ground to claim
a share in the suit property as the legal heir of Smt. Sheelo Devi. This is a
futile attempt, as his case is based on an independent claim of adoption and
not inheritance through his biological mother. Even otherwise, any such
inheritance claim would be untenable in the light of the relinquishment
deed.
52. In view of the above discussion, issue No. (x) is decided in favour
of the plaintiff, and issue No. (xi) is decided against him. The issues are
accordingly decided.
ISSUE NO. (IX) (ON LIMITATION)
53. The onus of proving this issue rests on the defendant. The plaintiff
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 35 of 40 AYUSH SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:55
+0530
seeks a declaration that the Will dated 12.02.1971, executed by Sh. Ram
Chand Ahuja in favour of Smt. Talian Bai, is null and void. In paragraph
10 of the plaint, the plaintiff states that the cause of action arose when he
sent a legal notice on 03.07.2006 to the defendant, who replied on
14.07.2006, disclosing the existence of Will dated 12.02.1971 and a
relinquishment deed executed by the legal heirs in favour of Smt. Talian
Bai. During cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he first learned of
the mutation in favour of Smt. Talian Bai in 2006 from the L & DO. The
defendant has produced no evidence or material to show that the cause of
action accrued earlier or at any previous point of time so as to render the
suit barred by limitation.
54. The counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that the Will dated
12.02.1971 was expressly referred to in the written statement filed in 2007.
He argued that the plaintiff, being aware of this fact since 2006–as the
reply dated 14.07.2006 to his legal notice also referred to the Will and in
any case from 2007 when the written statement was filed–failed to
challenge its validity. It was only after liberty was granted by the Court to
amend the plaint in 2013, the plaintiff sought to assail the Will dated
12.02.1971. He contended that the relief now sought is time-barred.
55. At the first blush, the argument may appear to be rational but I find
it difficult to agree with it. The reason being that though the court, by order
dated 21.11.2013, held the suit to be not maintainable and allowed the
plaintiff to file an amended plaint challenging the will dated 07.02.1971
(registered on 12.02.1971) of Late Sh. Ram Chand as null and void, it did
not direct that the amendment would be deemed to have been brought on
record from the date the application for amendment was filed. Thus, the
amendment will relate back to the date of the suit. In Sampath Kumar v.
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 36 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:36:59
+0530
Ayyakannu & Anr.14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“An amendment once incorporated relates back to the
date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation back
in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of
universal application and in appropriate cases the
court is competent while permitting an amendment to
direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not
relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent
permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought
before the Court on the date of which the application
seeking the amendment was filed.”
56. Further, paragraph 1 of the plaint shows that the plaintiff from filing
of the original plaint asserted that Ram Chand was the absolute owner of
the suit property and had not executed any Will during his lifetime. It is
trite that pleadings must be construed liberally and thus, it cannot be said
that the later inclusion of the relief of declaration in 2013 was not based
on facts already pleaded from the outset. As the suit was filed within three
years from the date of knowledge of the documents received through the
reply of the defendant, it is not barred by limitation.
57. It is well settled that when there are several reliefs claimed in a suit,
the limitation period would be that of the main relief, the limitation for
ancillary relief being ignored15. Here, the relief of partition is
consequential to, and dependent upon, the substantive relief of declaration,
and therefore shall also be within limitation.
58. The counsel for the defendant next submitted that in paragraph 7 of
the plaint, the plaintiff stated he was denied entry into the suit property in
1988 when he returned after completing his transfer in Chandigarh, and
14
(2002) 7 SCC 559
15
Mallavva & Anr. v. Kalsammanavara Kalama (Since Dead) by Legal Heirs & Ors. 2024 INSC 1021
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 37 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:37:04
+0530
that PW3, during cross-examination, deposed that they began living
separately from 1989. On this basis, he contended that the relief of
partition, sought in the year 2006, is barred by the 12-year limitation period
prescribed under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This argument is
misplaced. In Mangla Uraon (Died) through LRs. & Ors. v. Hazari
Uraon (Died) through LRs. & Ors.16, the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High
Court observed:
“The legislature has not prescribed any period of
limitation for filing a suit for partition because
partition is an incident attached to the property, and
there is always a running cause of action for seeking
partition by one of the co-sharers whenever he
decides not to keep his share joint with the others.
Since filing of such a suit depends entirely on the will
of the co-sharer, the legislature could not have
prescribed a specific period of limitation, particularly
a fixed date or time from which such period would
commence. (See Vidya Devi @ Vidyavati (dead) by
LRs. v. Prem Prakash & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 496).”
59. In any case, there was no clear act of ouster/exclusion of the plaintiff
from his claimed share, as the defendant has not brought any
material/evidence on record to show that she asserted her ownership
openly on the basis of the documents in her favour and the plaintiff was
aware of it prior to receiving her reply dated 14.07.2006, wherein she
denied his entitlement to a share in the property. Accordingly, this issue is
decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
16
Second Appeal 41of 2009
Digitally
signed by
AYUSH
AYUSH SHARMA
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 38 of 40 SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:37:07
+0530
ISSUE NO. (IV & VIII) (ON PECUNIARY JURISDICTION, ON UNDERVALUATION
AND PROPER COURT FEES)
60. The onus of proving these issues is upon the defendant. The
defendant challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, contending
that the value of the suit property exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, thereby ousting
this Court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendant also disputed the
plaintiff’s valuation of the property at Rs. 2.5 lakhs. However, during
cross-examination, defendant no. 1 admitted that in the probate
proceedings, she herself had declared the value of the suit property as Rs.
2.5 lakhs. The certified copy of the cross-examination (Ex. DW1/X4) has
been placed on record. Thus, the valuation adopted by the defendant in the
probate case is identical to that adopted by the plaintiff for the purposes of
jurisdiction and court fees in the present suit. The plaintiff has duly paid
the ad valorem court fees. The defendant has failed to produce any material
to substantiate her objection. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. (V) (ON SECTION BEING BARRED UNDER 80 CPC)
61. The onus to prove this issue was on defendant no.3. The record
shows that the plaintiff, along with the plaint, filed an application under
Section 80 (2) CPC seeking exemption from issuing notice. This
application was not opposed by defendant no. 3, resulting in the notice
being deemed waived off. Once the defendant has contested the suit on
merits, it cannot be dismissed on a mere technical ground 17. Accordingly,
this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. (VI) (ON MAINTAINABILITY)
62. This issue had already been adjudicated as a preliminary issue and
17
Col. A.B. Singh (through LRs) v. Shri Chunnilal Sawhney & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4289
Digitally
signed by
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 39 of 40 AYUSH
AYUSH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
15:37:11
+0530
decided by the learned predecessor vide order dated 21.11.2013.
Therefore, it no longer holds any significance.
RELIEF
63. In view of the foregoing discussions and findings on the issues, the
suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Decree sheet be drawn. Parties shall
bear their respective costs of litigation. File be consigned to record room
after due compliance.
Digitally signed
AYUSH by AYUSH
SHARMA
Pronounced in open court SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20
15:37:15 +0530
On August 20th 2025 (AYUSH SHARMA)
CJ/EAST/KARKARDOOMA
DELHI/20.08.2025
This judgment contains 40 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Suit No 8746/16 Pg 40 of 40