$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 09th December, 2025 Pronounced on: 28th January, 2026 + RFA 748/2018 ANAND VERSHA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Jai Wadhwa and Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates Mob: 9599651116 Email: A1lawrooms@gmail.com versus NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Namita Roy and Ms. Gopa Biswas, Advocates Mob: 9810748178 Email: namitaroy11@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

JUDGMENT

Background of Appeal

1. Through the present Regular First Appeal, the appellants (defendant nos. 3 and 4 before the Trial Court) assail the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 05^th May, 2018 (“impugned judgment”) passed by the Additional District Judge – 05 (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 724/2017, captioned “Sh. Narender Kumar Sharma (Deceased) through LRs Versus Devender Kumar & Others”, whereby, the suit instituted by the respondent no. 1 (plaintiff before the Trial Court) was decreed.

2. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff had filed CS No. 724/2017 seeking possession of a property admeasuring 60 sq. yds, bearing No. RZ-35A, Khasra No. 9/5, Village Asalatpur (now known as Indra Park), Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 (“suit property”) and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property. There was further prayer for award of damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month from July, 2017 till handing over of possession of the suit property, along with 18% interest thereon.

3. By way of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff (who passed away during the course of hearing before the Trial Court) in favour of his Legal Representatives (“LRs”), holding them entitled to possession of the suit property and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect thereof. As per the findings of the Trial Court, the defendants did not have any right, title or interest in the suit property as they had failed to prove the „sale documents‟

relied upon by them.

Proceedings before this Court

4. While issuing notice in the present appeal on 07^th September, 2018, this Court had ordered a stay on the operation of the impugned judgment, based upon the submission of the appellants that the signatures of respondent no.1 on the „sale documents‟ dated 15 ^th December, 2015, exhibited by the appellants, had not been disputed by respondent no. 1, or his LRs, in the replication filed before the Trial Court. The said interim order was made absolute vide order dated 17^th December, 2018.

5. During the course of the present appeal, the respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 1 before the Trial Court) passed away on 18^th January, 2023. This Court was informed on 25^th August, 2025 that out of respondent no. 2‟s two LRs, one (his wife) had also expired on 03^rd April, 2025, and thus, the appeal stood abated against respondent no. 2/defendant no. 1.

Factual Matrix

6. The facts, leading up to the filing of this appeal and relevant for the present adjudication, are as follows:

Pre-filing of suit

6.1 The suit property belonged to one Late Smt. Chander Wati, who was the mother of respondent nos. 1 to 3, the mother-in-law of appellant no. 1 and grandmother of appellant no. 2. Smt. Chander Wati passed away intestate in the year 2001. Thereafter, one of the sons of Smt. Chander Wati, i.e., Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma (husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellant no. 2) passed away in the year 2006, leaving behind the appellants as his legal heirs.

6.2 On 30^th November, 2015, a Relinquishment Deed, bearing Registration No. 17488, registered in Book No. I, Vol. No. 994 on Page Nos. 129 to 134, before the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, Delhi (marked as Ex. PW1/2), was executed amongst the parties before this Court, along with other co-sharers of the suit property, in favour of the respondent no.

1/plaintiff, making him the absolute owner of the suit