$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 12.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 18.12.2025

Judgment uploaded on: 18.12.2025

+ FAO(OS) 101/2024

ARYA ORPHANAGE THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT SH SUDHIR KUMAR GUPTA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Archit Mishra, Mr. Digvijay Rai, Kunal Kalra & Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advs. with

Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry (AR)

versus

MUKTI DUTTA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr.

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Poonam Shukla, Ms. Reba

Jena Mishra, Advs.

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

REVIEW PET. 626/2025[Seeking review of the Judgment dated

29.08.2025]

1. By way of the present review application, the Review Applicant/Appellant in FAO (OS) 101/2024 seeks review of the judgment dated 29.08.2025 passed by this Court. Vide the said judgment, this Court dismissed FAO (OS) 59/2018, filed by the Appellant, challenging the dismissal of its application under Order VII

Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’]. Additionally, the said judgment also disposed of FAO (OS) 101/2024, which was filed assailing the order passed on an application under Order XII Rule 1A of the CPC, whereby the LSJ permitted the transposition of Mr. Amit Bhushan, Defendant No. 2(iii) (Respondent No.2(iii) before this Court), as a Plaintiff in the civil suit.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the Review Applicant [hereinafter referred to as ‘RA’] at length.

3. Learned senior counsel for the RA has made the following submissions:

3.1 It is argued that Late Mr. Lala Narain Dass, also known as Narain Dutta, was a perpetual leaseholder of the suit property and passed away intestate on 07.11.1950. During the lifetime of his widow, Mrs. Karma Devi, who died in 1964, the entire suit property got mutated in the name of their son, Mr. Krishan Dutta. However, the said mutation was never challenged by her during her lifetime.

3.2 Thereafter the Plaintiff, granddaughter of Mr. Krishan Dutta, filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, asserting that she is satisfied with the Letter of Administration granted on 18.11.1978 with respect of the Will dated 07.06.1976 executed by Mr. Krishan Dutta, and, accordingly, sought withdrawal of the suit. Learned senior counsel while placing reliance upon paragraph no.4 of the said application and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. vs. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (Dead) Through LRs and Ors, (2013) 4 SCC 404., submits that transposition of the Defendant no. 2(iii) should not have been allowed. 3.3 It is further argued that the power to revoke or annul a Letter of Administration vests exclusively in the court under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1925’].

Hence, the civil suit itself was not maintainable.

3.4 The civil suit was instituted by the original Plaintiff in her capacity as the great granddaughter of late Sh. Lala Narain Dutta, seeking reliefs of declaration, partition, and permanent as well as mandatory injunction. Mr. Amit Bhushan, son of Sh. Vijay Bhushan, who in turn was the great grandson of late Mr. Lala Narain Dutta, filed an application seeking his transposition as a Plaintiff, which was allowed, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the suit by the original Plaintiff.

4. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the RA. However, this Court does not find itself in agreement with the submissions advanced, for the reasons elaborated hereinafter.

5. It is well settled that mutation entries of properties in the revenue records are primarily maintained for fiscal and administrative purposes and do not confer, extinguish, or determine ownership or title over such an immoveable property. It is also to be noted that, while a perpetual lease may not be construed as conferring absolute title or ownership, neve