$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 04.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 15.12.2025

Judgment uploaded on: 15.12.2025

+ RFA(OS) 69/2025& CM APPL. 69948/2025, CM APPL.

69949/2025, CM APPL. 69950/2025 and CM APPL.

69951/2025

JAIRAJ DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. ANKUR ARORA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Sr.

Adv. along with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Arun Vohra, Mr. Jatin Julia, Mr. Mrutunjay Mishra, Ms. Kanchan Semwal,

Ms. Sonya Gupta, Advs.

versus

MR VARENDHISHAKT PRDHIESUBHAAG ALIAS BABA SAHIB & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Shashank Rai and Mr.

Anshul Rampal, Advs. for

Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. Gurmeet Bindra and Ms. Sarah Haque, Advs. for R-

2 and 3.

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 order dated 07.07.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Single Judge [hereinafter

referred to as ‘LSJ’], while allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’]

2. For sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall be referred to in accordance with their status before the LSJ.

COMMON FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. For a comprehensive consideration of the issues involved, requiring adjudication, it is apposite to first delineate the family genealogy and the attendant factual matrix, which are set out in the ensuing paragraphs.

4. The genealogy of the family reads as under:

5. While instituting the suit and the interim applications, the Plaintiff, in brief, asserted as under:

5.1 That the present suit has been instituted on 14.09.2023 through its partner Mr. Ankur Arora, who has been duly authorised vide Resolution dated 01.09.2023. The suit seeks, inter alia, a decree for specific performance qua the ½ share of Defendant No.1 in immovable property bearing no. D-38 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024, admeasuring 333.33 Sq. Yds [hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’].

5.2 The Suit Property was originally the self-acquired property of Smt. Harbans Kaur, through a registered Sale Deed dated 03.11.1962. 5.3 It is stated that Smt. Harbans Kaur executed a Will dated 22.07.1987 bequeathing the Suit Property exclusively in favour of her son, Sh. Jagmohan Singh, to the exclusion of her other legal heirs. Upon her demise on 02.01.1992, Sh. Jagmohan Singh is stated to have become the absolute owner of the Suit Property.

5.4 Sh. Jagmohan Singh died intestate, unmarried and issueless on 25.01.2017, whereupon the Suit Property devolved under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘HSA’] upon his surviving Class-II legal heirs, namely his two sisters i.e. Smt. Kamal Kumar and Smt. Mohinder Kaur. The Plaintiff asserts that, by operation of law, each of the two surviving sisters inherited an undivided ½ share in the Suit Property.

5.5 Subsequently, Maninder Singh [herein the Defendant No.2], son of pre-deceased sister Smt. Joginder Bedi instituted a partition suit bearing No. CS (OS) No. 281/2017, claiming that the Suit Property formed part of the estate of late Smt. Harbans Kaur, who, according to him, had died intestate. On this basis, he claimed a 1/3^rd share therein under Section 15 of the HSA.

5.6 The Court vide order dated 05.06.2017, granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in the said suit, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the title and possession of the Suit Property. 5.7 The Defendant No.2 disputed the genuineness of the alleged will dated 22.07.1987, which was referred by Late Smt. Kamal Kumar in her Written Statement. However, she failed to produce the original of the said will before this Court.

5.8 The Plaintiff asserts that during the pendency of the said proceedings, late Smt. Kamal Kumar approached the Plaintiff for sale of the Suit Property and executed an undated Advance-Paymen