SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DR D K MODI – Appellant
Versus
V K MODI & ORS – Respondent
RFA(OS)-127/2013



##PAGE1##

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 15.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 24.12.2025

Judgment uploaded on: 24.12.2025

+ RFA(OS) 127/2013

DR D K MODI .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra and Mr.

Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Advs. along

with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ms.

Jayashree Shukla Dasgupta,

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Ms. Rishika

and Mr. Shivam Nayyar, Advs.

versus

V K MODI & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Sr.

Adv. along with Mr. Atishi

Dipankar, Adv. for R-1.

Mr. T. K. Ganju, Sr. Adv. along

with Mr. Lakshay Dhamija, Mr.

Atishi Dipanker and Ms.

Vasudha Saini, Advs. for R-2.

Mr. Ravi K. Aggarwal and Mr.

Ishaan Aggarwal, Advs. for R-3

to 6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN

SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the

correctness of the judgment dated 11.09.2013 [hereinafter referred to

as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by the learned Single Judge,

whereby the plaint in CS (OS) No. 974/2007 filed by the Appellant

[Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] was rejected under Order

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:JAI

NARAYAN

Signing Date:24.12.2025RFA(OS) 127/2013 1 of 10

12:22:41

##PAGE2##

VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The learned

Single Judge concluded that the suit was premature and failed to

disclose a valid cause of action.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred

to as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge

3. The plaint filed by the Plaintiff has been rejected by the learned

Single Judge on the following grounds:

i. Amendment application to amend the plaint was filed after a

period of 04 years from the date of filing of the suit;

ii. No rights have fructified in favour of the Plaintiff to enable him

to seek relief as prayed for in prayers (a) and (b) of unamended plaint

or even prayers (da) and (db) of the amended plaint;

iii. The Plaintiff does not seek protection of his possession from

forcible dispossession.

iv. Declaration of title in favour of the Plaintiff cannot be granted

at this stage because as per MoU only the company will get title.

v. Division of Modi group of Companies is yet to be

operationalised, hence, the suit is premature.

vi. The plaint does not disclose cause of action.

4. The Plaintiff is son of Sh. K. N. Modi. While filing the suit, the

Plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against

the Defendants declaring that the Defendant Nos 1 to 2 have been left

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:JAI

NARAYAN

Signing Date:24.12.2025RFA(OS) 127/2013 2 of 10

12:22:41

##PAGE3##

with no right, title or interest in the property bearing No. 15. Friends

Colony (West), New Delhi having total area of 2800 sq. yds.;

(b) Declare that the Plaintiff has exclusive right, title and interest in

the suit property bearing address 15, Friends Colony (West), New

Delhi having total area of 2800 sq yds.;

(C) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant Nos.

1 and 2 restraining them from acting contrary to the terms of the

MOU dated 24.1 1989 and claiming any right, title or interest in the

property bearing address 15, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi

having total area of 2800 sq. yds. contrary to the terms of MOU dated

24.1.1989;

(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant Nos.

3 to 6 restraining them from transferring any right, title or interest in

property bearing address 15, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi in

favour of Defendant No. 1 and 2 or any third party having total area

of 2800 sq. yds:

(d) Award costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Plaintiff

and against the Defendants;”

FACTUAL MATRIX

5. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,

the genealogy of the family and brief facts are required to be noticed.

6. The dispute concerns a residential property admeasuring 2800

sq. yds. located at 15, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi [hereinafter

Signature Not Verified

Sign

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top