* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:15.07.2024 Pronounced on:01.08.2024 + CS(OS) 452/2019 TANI SANDHU BHARGAVA .....Plaintiff Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. and Mr.Y.P. Narula, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Laksh Khanna, Ms.Smriti Maheshwari, Ms.Ayushi Kumar and Ms.Diksha Suri, Advs.

versus SHUMITA DIDI SANDHU .....Defendant Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, Sr. Adv.

with Mr.Hukam Chand Sukhija, Ms.Anurag Vashishtt, Mr.Vishal Kumar, Mr.Shyam Kumar, Mr.Aniket Bose, Mr.Anmol Mishra, Ms.Mansi Purohit and Ms.Iqra Khan, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

JUDGMENT

I.A. 11742/2020

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), praying for a decree of possession of the Ground Floor of Block No. 172, Plot No. 202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’) against the defendant.

Signature Not Verified CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 1 of 27 Digitally Signed Case of the plaintiff

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Suit Property was purchased by her mother- Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, vide the registered Sale Deed dated 06.05.2005. Subsequently, Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu gifted the said property by way of a Registered Gift Deed dated 29.01.2008 to the plaintiff, giving her the absolute right of ownership of the Suit Property.

3. The plaintiff further claims that on 19.08.2018, the defendant, who is the wife of the deceased brother of the plaintiff, without taking prior permission from the plaintiff, moved into the Suit Property and since then residing there.

4. The plaintiff claims that as her brother Late Sh.Sanjay Singh Sandhu was unwell and the defendant was taking care of him during this period, the plaintiff out of kindness allowed the defendant to reside into the Suit Property. Late Sh.Sanjay Singh Sandhu passed away on 03.07.2019, thereafter, the defendant refused to vacate the Suit Property when requested by the plaintiff and instead was hostile towards the plaintiff and her family when they came to visit Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, the mother of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff further pleads that, earlier also, the defendant had occupied another property belonging to Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu, that is, property bearing no. 18A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar. She also filed a Suit, being CS(OS) 41/2005 titled Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors., praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu from evicting her from the said property. The said Suit was filed on the basis that the said property Signature Not Verified CS(OS) 452/2019 Page 2 of 27 Digitally Signed belongs exclusively to Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu. Later, the defendant tried to plead, by way of an amendment application, that the said property belongs to a Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) of Late Sh.Jhanda Singh (great grandfather of Late Sh.Sanjay Singh Sandhu). This Court, however, dismissed the said application vide its Judgment dated 03.09.2012 reported as (2012) SCC OnLine Del 4600, holding that this was a new case being set out by the defendant.

6. The plaintiff pleads that Late Mrs.Sheila Sandhu on selling the property at Lajpat Nagar, purchased the Suit Property in her own name and, therefore, was fully competent to gift the same to the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff claims that as the defendant is a mere licensee, she is liable to be evicted from the Suit Premises on the termination of the license.

Case of the defendant:

8. On the other hand, the defendant in the written statement, has pleaded that the Suit Property is a HUF property and was purchased from the HUF funds in form of Rs. 1 lakh that was received against the ancestral property left behind by the family in Pakistan under the Order dated 17.01.1952 passed by the Claims Commissioner. The defendant pleads that the amount of compensation so received constituted the corpus of the HUF though it was received in the name of Smt.Harnam Kaur, the grandmother of the late husband of the de