$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 29^th July, 2025 + RFA 39/2021 INDER SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Mohit Kumar and Mr. D. K.

Panchal, Advocates Mob: 9873624008 Email: k.mohit1986@gmail.com versus MEERA KUMARI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vishakha and Mr. Jitender Singh, Advocates for Respondent nos. 1 to 3 Email: jitumukesh@yahoo.in Mob: 7838888619 Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate for MCD Mob: 9810288545 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and preliminary decree of partition dated 14^th May, 2019 and final decree dated 24^th December, 2019 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge-01, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit No.

20/2012 (516704/2016).

2. A suit for partition, permanent and mandatory injunction had been filed by the respondents herein in District Court, Dwarka qua property bearing No. RZ-26-P/111, Part of Khasra No. 305, Indira Park, West Signature Not Verified RFA 39/2021 Page 1 of 8 Digitally Signed Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046, measuring 62 sq. yds. Respondent no.1, who was plaintiff no.1 in the suit, is the wife of Late Bhura Singh @ Bhairo Singh, who was the younger brother of the appellant, i.e., Inder Singh. The suit was filed on the premise that Late Bhura Singh @ Bhairo Singh, husband of respondent no.1, had half share in the suit property along with Inder Singh, the appellant herein.

3. Issues were framed in the suit vide order dated 07^th February, 2013, in the following manner:

“xxx xxx xxx Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs do not have any right, title or interest in the suit property, as they were given possession of another property bearing no.

RZ-26-P/192, Indira Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of partition, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

5. Relief.

xxx xxx xxx”

4. Additional issues were framed in the suit vide order dated 09^th March, 2015, in the following manner:

“xxx xxx xxx

1. Whether the suit is barred U/s 477/478 of the D.M.C. Act? OPD-2

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable qua prayer „c‟, in view of the preliminary objection no. 4 of the written statement? OPD-2

3. Relief.

xxx xxx xxx”

Signature Not Verified RFA 39/2021 Page 2 of 8 Digitally Signed

5. By way of the impugned judgment and decree dated 14^th May, 2019, preliminary decree was passed in the following manner:

“xxx xxx xxx (a) Preliminary decree of partition is passed whereby plaintiff and defendant are entitled to half share each in the suit property i.e. property i.e. RZ-26-P/111, Part of khasra No. 305, Indira Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046, measuring 62 sq. yards, (b) Decree of permanent injunction with respect to half share in the suit property i.e. property i.e. RZ26-P/111, Part of khasra No. 305, Indira Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046, measuring 62 sq. yards, is passed in favour of the plaintiff (c) Decree of mandatory injunction to half share of the suit property i.e. property i.e. RZ-26-P/111, Part of khasra No. 305, Indira Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046, measuring 62 sq. yards, is passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(d) Plaintiff is also entitled to cost.

xxx xxx xxx”

6. Subsequently, final decree of partition was passed vide order dated

24^th December, 2019, as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition, possession and permanent injunction of the suit property bearing no. RZ-26-P/111, Part of khasra No. 305, Indira Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi 110046, measuring 62 sq. yards, (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).

Preliminary decree was passed in the matter, whereby, plaintiff and defendant are entitled to half share each in the suit property. Parties were directed to suggest ways and