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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
M/S BANWARI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
ATUL JAIN & ORS. – Respondent
CM(M)-961/2022



##PAGE1##

$~12

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 23.12.2025

+ CM(M) 961/2022 & CM APPL. 40343/2022

M/S BANWARI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS.

.....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Satya Prakash Sharan, Advocate.

versus

ATUL JAIN & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R (ORAL)

1. Petitioners/judgment debtors have assailed order dated 22.04.2022 of

the learned execution court, whereby application under Section 151 CPC

filed on behalf of petitioners/judgment debtors for appointment of Local

Commissioner for the purposes of demarcation of the subject property was

dismissed because there was no need for the exercise, going by the site plan

filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors themselves before the execution

court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the record.

3. Broadly speaking, it appears that the present petitioners sold property

CM(M) 961/2022 Page 1 of 5 pages

D BSi yig g :Nin taa Elt l Eu y Tr Se Ui g N Nno e Ndt AV Ie Rrified G KAIR TI HSH P ALIADD2ea7s1fD8e,c. 0 5iN a 5 0rg o4 4 ti. 1:4 u ai 5 e 7 7tc el. :=a 6 02 N = 226l 3 9H0I u 60y 9N 8= I fm 2 Ga , 6as,8 5f pio b,H b3g 4 .co= 14 e90n C ns 20H r61e t =O = .f2d a 2Id 8G GdUlcd 3 0Cb 3H 6 IR 8 cR1oy ef T bIb 8C d 8 SG 9 d :O4O e6 H0bI 28 =7R F 7U 2 eK3 9 I 1 :DR7 5S 5 A6H aT 6dE T407 6 L 4O H-5K 0 0H3 1 PAFb 4 85I e3 A,T 0 '2D Cf 0c,H 9 L 2f 4IsE6 ID7 cP t A5L '5 = 46 AH c -f 82 D0LI 76, 7eI A 9ec blha4 6 5c ia 5,d f f

Signing Date:23.12.2025

18:11:02

##PAGE2##

bearing no.1/16 and 1/17, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi but subsequently

filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale documents pertaining

to premises bearing no.1/17, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi, apart from other

reliefs. In the course of that suit, parties arrived at a settlement dated

17.09.2007, on the basis of which a compromise decree was passed. In the

course of execution of that compromise decree, the petitioners/judgment

debtors filed an application seeking appointment of Local Commissioner in

order to carry out demarcation of the subject property, which application

was dismissed by the learned execution court going by the site plan filed by

the petitioners/judgment debtors themselves. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners/judgment debtors contends that the

impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because identity of the

subject property is of crucial issue. Learned counsel for petitioners/judgment

debtors has taken me through paragraph no. 8 of the settlement dated

17.09.2007, submitting that a portion of premises bearing no.1/16, Rani

Jhansi Road, New Delhi is occupied by the tenant who had been inducted in

premises bearing no.1/15 and both premises being adjacent to each other,

there is a need for clear demarcation. It is argued that in case the

respondents/decree holders are given possession of the entire premises

bearing no.1/16, they would get possession of a portion of premises no.1/15

as well and consequently, the premises bearing no.1/15 shall not be

converted into freehold. Learned counsel for petitioners/judgment debtors

also contends that the sale deed in favour of the respondents/decree holders

specifically excludes the portion of premises bearing no.1/15, which was in

CM(M) 961/2022 Page 2 of 5 pages

Signature Not Verified

D Byig :Nita Ell Ey

T

S Uig Nne Nd

AIR

G KAIR TI HSH P ALIADD29Cps9cDe n.a 6oOiN a5 rg f =bs ti. U3:4 ai et 4Gtc 9 aR l. :a 02 N = I6 l 2T Rl C f0I 2 u 08 y IN oO= Sc m 20 s, d H86F 5cio beg 4f b .Db K= 1=e0n dA4 2EH r1 1e 2=8 .L Td 2Id eG H3 d H0

3

b 5 3H I P8 , 1dy C e A6 8C 4 8I3G 9 0LD :O 3 6 0,b I4I A5 7R s 7U -2 0tf 9I :7R =7 2 4S 9 60H a cT 57 D44 47 6 O -e5K 7 8 02 l1AF 6 7hb 86 e 3 9T i '2cD 0,c8 6H af 4E6 ,c 5P 5L '5 fAH caf 80L ,I , 07I o A e 1bu4 e5=a 2dHf 6e 1I fcG 5a4 ,H 5 7 06 9

Signing Date:23.12.2025

18:11:02

##PAGE3##

occupation of the tenant.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/decree holders

strongly supports the impugned order, taking me

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top