The court confirmed the necessity for due process in property disputes and clarified the discretionary nature of legal admissions, emphasizing judicial caution before passing judgments based solely on admissions.

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

CONT.CAS(C) 571/2025

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 /12 and 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , read with Rule 5(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] against the Respondent for wilful disobedience of the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court in RFA(OS) 49/2024 captioned Shumita Sandhu vs. Tani Sandhu Bhargava.

2. Learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner submits that he has instructions not to press the present Contempt Petition, as the same has been purged.

3. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of.

RFA(OS) 49/2024 and RFA(OS) 4/2025

4. The present judgment shall dispose of two connected Appeals, i.e., RFA(OS) 49/2024 and RFA(OS) 4/2025, which are arising from two cross suits.

5. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

6. The Appellant/Smt. Shumita Sandhu is the widow of Sh. Sanjay Singh Sandhu, who passed away on 03.07.2019. Late Sh. Sanjay Singh Sandhu was the brother of Respondent No.1/Smt. Tani Sandhu Bhargava, thereby making the Appellant sister-in-law of Respondent No. 1.

7. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for the possession of mandatory injunction for passing a decree with respect to the Ground Floor of Block No.172, Plot No.202, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 110003 [hereinafter referred to as “suit property”], on the strength of a registered Gift Deed dated 29.01.2008 executed by her mother, Late Smt. Sheila Sandhu, in her favour [hereinafter referred to as “Gift Deed”].

8. The Appellant contested the suit on various grounds, one of the grounds being that the suit property is a Joint Hindu family property. It was also claimed by the Appellant that she is a coparcener in the suit property. It was further alleged by the Appellant that the alleged Gift Deed is forged and fabricated and not a result of the free mind of the executant, i.e., Late Smt. Sheila Sandhu, as she was suffering from Alzheimer’s.

9. Though the expression used in the written statement is Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), however, that is a concept known to the Income Tax law because it is the only taxable unit as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. In Hindu Law, it is either Joint Hindu Family or Joint Hindu Family Property.

10. The second suit was filed by the Appellant to claim the partition of the suit property.

11. Learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2024, decreed the suit in exercise of powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, while observing that the defense put forth by the Appellant is moonshine and the Gift Deed, relied upon by Respondent No. 1, has not been challenged.

12. The second suit filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the ground that the previous judgment passed in the suit filed by Respondent No.1 records that Respondent No.1 is entitled to the possession of the suit property.

13. Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and, with their able assistance, perused the paperbook.

14. Learned counsel representing the Appellant, while referring to the written statement filed by her in the suit filed by Respondent No.1 and various other documents, including the medical record, relied upon in the written statement, submits that the suit filed by Respondent No.1 could not be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. It is further submitted that the opportunity to lead evidence was required to be give