Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
SURENDRA MOHAN TARUN (DECEASED) THR LR SURAJ SAXENA – Appellant
Versus
SARABJIT SINGH – Respondent
FAO(OS) 75/2025 | FAO(OS) 60/2025 | CS (OS) No. 1418/2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Udit Arora, Mr. Aatreya Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Nishant Datta, Mr. Chirag Rathi, Mr. Kunal Sejwal, Mr. Dipesh Kashyap, Mr. Yatharth Rathi
The court upheld the appointment of a Receiver as justified based on violations of prior court orders and lack of proof of possession by the Appellant.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 104 - Appointment of a Receiver - The Appellant challenges appointments of a Receiver alleging violation of a prior undertaking and lack of possession; however, the Court finds no merit in this and dismisses the appeal, affirming previous Orders based on material record and legal procedure. (Paras 2-17)
(B) Interlocutory Orders - The appellate court refrains from interfering with discretionary orders unless a material irregularity or injustice is found.
Findings of Court:
The appeals lack merit as the Appellant could not establish settled possession or ownership.
Issues: Main issues included the rights claimed over the suit property, the alleged possession, and the validity of appointments made by the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that receiving orders must be verified against established facts and legal standings, not merely assertions.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, Signature Not Verified FAO(OS)75/2025 & Connected matter Page 1 of 8 Signed By:JAI two appeals, being FAO(OS) 60/2025 and FAO(OS)75/2025, which arise from two interlocutory orders in CS (OS) No. 1418/2010 captioned as Sarabjit Singh vs Surendra Mohan Tarun, shall stand disposed of by this Judgement.
2. In FAO (OS) 60/2025, the Appellant has filed the appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 1 assailing the Order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge appointing a Receiver to take over possession and management of the property being C-9, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi-110049, [2Hereinafter referred to as “Suit property”] particularly in view of the fact that name plate of the counsel representing the deceased Defendant, namely, Sh. Suraj Saxena (Appellant herein) was found at the entrance of the suit property. Additionally, there was a violation of the undertaking by the Defendant, who had promised not to carry out any construction or part with possession of the suit property.
3. In FAO (OS) 75/2025, the Appellant assails the Order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in R.A. No. 314/2023, wherein review filed by the Appellant against the Order dated
09.08.2023, was dismissed.
4. The cause title of FAO (OS) 75/2025 shows Late Sh. Surendra Mohan Tarun through Sh. Suraj Saxena as Appellant. However, the learned Counsel representing the Appellant submits that Sh. Suraj Saxena, a practising advocate, is himself the Appellant, and he has filed an application seeking permission to amend the cause title.
Signature Not Verified FAO(OS)75/2025 & Connected matter Page 2 of 8
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. Be that as it may, in order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.
5.1 The Respondent/Sh. Sarabjit Singh filed a suit, being CS (OS) No. 1418/2010, as a Plaintiff for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits in the year 2010. He claims that the Defendant/Late Sh. Surendra Mohan Tarun sold the suit property on receipt of valuable consideration in his favour, in the year 1982. On 15.03.1982, the Defendant/Sh. Surendra Mohan Tarun, accordingly, executed an Agreement to Sell, a General Power of Attorney, a Possession Letter, an affidavit, a receipt and a registered Will, all dated 15.03.1982, in his favour, besides handing over the original title documents.
5.2 Up until the riots of 1984, the Plaintiff/Respondent herein used to reside/visit the suit property frequently; however, subsequent thereto, the Plaintiff/Respondent herein appointed two caretakers for the suit property. The caretakers were permitted to use the property along with their family members and to take care and clean the property.
5.3 In the year 2009, the deceased Defendant/Late Sh. Surendra Mohan Tarun forcibly took possession of the suit property in the absence of the Plaintiff, compelling the Plaintiff to file the suit. The Defendant claimed that he did not execute the documents and continues to be the owner of the property.
5.4 On 02.08.2011, while an application under Order XXXIX, Rule Signature Not Verified FAO(OS)75/2025 & Connected matter Page 3 of 8 Signed By:JAI
1 and 2 of the CPC filed by the Plaintiff was under consideration, the Defendant undertook not to carry out any construction on the suit property or part with the possession to create a third-party interest. However, on 16.11.2021, the Defendant/Sh. Surendra Mohan Tarun passed away.
5.5 In January 2022, the Plaintiff/Respondent noticed that the suit premises had a name plate of the Defendant’s counsel, namely, Sh. Suraj Saxena, and of a Trust, namely, Basant Ram Shanti Devi Charitable Trust. It was also noticed that construction had been carried out in violation of the undertaking.
5.6 Consequently, two applications, being I.A. No. 3209/2022 and I.A. No. 3210/20
