%

04.01.2024

CM APPL. 477/2024 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

RFA 5/2024, CM APPL. 476/2024 (Stay) & CM APPLs. 478-79/2024

(Delay)

1.

The instant regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of appellant seeking the following

reliefs:-

"(a) Set aside the Judgment and Order dated12.04.2023 passed

in Suit no. 982/19 and order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the

Hon’ble Court of LD. ADJ-01, Centra District, Tis Hazari

court, Delhi, titled as “Karishma Devi vs Laxmi & ors.”; and

(b) Pass such further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper in the interest of Justice as well as in the

circumstances of the case."

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that the

case involves a dispute over property ownership after the death of Sh.

Lalman, who owned a property in Delhi. The appellant, Lalman's second

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/01/2024 at 19:50:00

wife, claims ownership based on a Will and Notarized GPA executed by

Lalman in her favor in December 2017. It is submitted that Lalman passed

away in January 2018, leaving behind the appellant and six respondents,

who are his daughters. The respondents, now married and not dependent on

the appellant, were accused of trespassing and unlawfully trying to claim the

property. The appellant filed a suit in September 2019, seeking a declaration

of her ownership rights, possession, and a stake in the deceased husband's

property and assets. It is further submitted that the suit was primarily based

on the Will and GPA executed by Lalman. The respondents did not file a

written statement, and the right to do so was closed in September 2021.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that in

October 2021, the appellant filed an application to amend the prayers of the

suit, which was allowed by the Civil court in July 2022. However, the court

framed a question on the maintainability of the suit based on the Suraj

Lamps judgment. It is submitted that in April 2023, the Civil Court

dismissed the suit as not maintainable in light of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.(II)

v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656. Consequently, the appellant filed

an appeal on November 6, 2023, challenging the dismissal of the suit.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that it is

an admitted case that she was the wife of Sh. Lalman, the property owner,

and the beneficiary in the Will dated 19^th December, 2017. As a Class I

legal heir, she asserts her right to the property. The non-contestation of the

Will by the respondents, who did not file a written statement, is highlighted.

It is submitted that neither the Will nor the GPA was challenged as fake or

illegal. It is contended that in a suit for declaration, especially when the

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/01/2024 at 19:50:00

executor has passed away, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act

allows her to claim ownership rights, and the judgment relied upon by the

learned Trial Court (Suraj Lamps) is inapplicable. It is further submitted that

the appellant asserts that the respondents are trespassers with no legal right

to the property. Their ex-parte status in the suit proceedings is emphasized

as they did not contest at any stage.

5.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that

according to the settled law, a Will in her favor was not required to be

registered. While the GPA post demise of her husband might be considered

inapplicable, her rights under the Will