The court established that rights in property are determined by the sequence of valid legal documents executed, invalidating subsequent contracts executed in contravention of prior judicial orders.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Brief Factual Matrix:

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed. Late Sh. Lakhi Ram Gupta [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. L.R. Gupta’] acquired the property admeasuring 267 sq. yds., bearing No. 8/289, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Suit Property’], vide perpetual Lease Deed dated 28.07.1977. Thereafter, late Sh. L.R. Gupta passed away intestate, leaving behind the following Class-I legal heirs:

i. Smt. Basanti Gupta, wife of Sh. L.R. Gupta;

ii. Sh. Rajiv Gupta, son of Sh. L.R. Gupta - Respondent No.3 in RFA(OS) 117/2015 and Appellant in RFA(OS) 21/2016 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. Rajiv’];

iii. Smt. Usha Sharma, daughter of Sh. L.R. Gupta [hereinafter referred to as ‘Smt. Usha’]; and

iv. Smt. Anita Ranjan, daughter of Sh. L.R. Gupta [hereinafter referred to as ‘Smt. Anita’].

4. In order to understand the inter-se relationship between the parties, it is appropriate to draw a small pedigree table on the basis of the suit filed by the Respondents herein:

5. Smt. Basanti Gupta, wife of Sh. L.R. Gupta, died intestate on 09.10.1991. Thus, the property was inherited by Sh. Rajiv, Smt. Usha, and Smt. Amita in equal shares. Though Smt. Usha and Smt. Anita filed a suit for partition bearing Suit No. 1961/2000 before this Court, in which an order of status quo was passed but thereafter both Smt. Usha and Smt. Anita relinquished their shares in favour of their brother, Sh. Rajiv, on 03.09.2004, and the suit for partition filed by them was accordingly disposed of. During the pendency of the suit for partition, Sh. Rajiv executed a set of documents in favour of Sh. Judge Chawla [hereinafter referred to as ‘Judge Chawla’], including a registered General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) and an Agreement to Sell (‘ATS’) on 12.05.2004. On the strength of the registered GPA, Judge Chawla executed a set of documents, including GPA in favour of Arun Khanna and ATS, registered Will, possession letter, receipt, and affidavit, in favour of Smt. Vaneeta Khanna - Respondent No. 1 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Smt. Vaneeta’]. On the strength of the said GPA, Sh. Arun executed a registered ATS in favour of his wife, Smt. Vaneeta, on 16.06.2004.

6. On the other hand, Sh. Rajiv executed a registered GPA and a registered Will on 22.03.2004 with respect to the Suit Property in favour of Sh. Anuj Chopra [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. Anuj’]. On 19.08.2004, Sh. Rajiv revoked the said GPA given in favour of Judge Chawla. Subsequently, Sh. Rajiv Gupta executed a registered ATS in favour of Sh. Anuj, Smt. Sushma Chopra, and Sh. S.S. Chopra. Judge Chawla also cancelled the GPA executed by him in favour of Sh. Arun. Thereafter, Smt. Vaneeta and Sh. Arun filed a civil suit bearing CS(OS) 393/2004 under Sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act , 1963 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SRA’] before the District Court, Delhi, seeking various reliefs, including restoration of possession and specific performance of the ATS. The said suit, as filed by Smt. Vaneeta and Sh. Arun, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. A Regular First Appeal [hereinafter referred to as ‘RFA’] was thereafter filed by them, which was also dismissed on 02.03.2006. However, the Supreme Court, in a Special Leave Petition [hereinafter referre