$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28^th JANUARY, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

+ I.A. No. 9218/2025 IN CS(OS) 651/2019 HARBIR SINGH YADAV .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Arun Baali and Ms. Arisha Ahmad, Advocates versus SUMAN & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. S.S.Parasher, Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate for Defendant No.1 to 5 Mr. Anish Dhingra, Mr. ArihantNowlkha, Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advs for D-7 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD JUDGMENT (ORAL)

I.A. No. 9218/2025

1. This Application under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC has been filed by the Plaintiff for a direction to the Defendants to lead evidence before the Plaintiff.

2. The instant Suit is one for partition of a property bearing Plot No. 143, Pocket-B, Sector-26, Rohini, Delhi, admeasuring 335 square metres (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Suit Property’).

3. The case set up by the Plaintiff is that the Suit Property was allotted by the Delhi Development Authority/Defendant No.7 herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DDA’) to Late Shri Ram Mehar Yadav, who was father of the Plaintiff. It is stated that the Suit Property was mutated in the name of the father of the Plaintiff by the DDA. Thereafter,Shri Ram Mehar Yadav died intestate on 01.06.2010, leaving behind three legal heirs, namely the Plaintiff herein, another son - Late Satish Yadav, and daughter - Urmila Yadav (Defendant No.6 herein). It is stated that since Satish Yadav also passed away, his legal heirs, who are Defendants No.1 to 5 herein, have been impleaded in the array of parties.

4. It is stated that on the death of Late Shri Ram Mehar Yadav, his legal heirs, namely, the Plaintiff herein, Late Satish Yadav and Urmila Yadav/Defendant No. 6, were entitled to an undivided 1/3^rd share in the Suit Property. It is stated that on the death of Late Satish Yadav his 1/3^rd undivided share devolved upon his widow and children, who are Defendants No. 1 to 5 herein. It is stated that during his lifetime, Late Satish Yadav allegedly attempted to fraudulently secure exclusive rights over the Suit Property by procuring an illegal mutation in his favour in collusion with certain officials of the DDA on the basis of fabricated documents.However, upon objections raised by the Plaintiff, the attempt at illegal mutation was cancelled, the Suit Property was reverted back and presently, continues to stand mutated in the name of Late Shri Ram Mehar Yadav in DDA records.

5. It is stated that the Suit Property has never been partitioned by metes and bounds and has at all times remained joint and undivided among the co-

owners.

6. In the third week of February 2018, the Plaintiff came to know through a property dealer that Defendants No. 1 to 5 were negotiating to sell and transfer the entire Suit Property to third parties without the Plaintiff’s consent, by falsely claiming exclusive ownership over the Suit Property. Resultantly, the Plaintiff objected to this act and proceeded to lodge complaints in February 2018 with the DDA and concerned Sub-Registrar offices, requesting that no sale, transfer, or mutation documents be entertained. However, the authorities expressed their inability to intervene in the absence of a court order. On 25.02.2018, the Plaintiff again requested Defendant No. 1 not to deal with the Suit Property, but they refused and allegedly threatened to create third-party rights over the Suit Property. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Suit, being Suit No. 274/2018 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rohini, Delhi,seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, wherein DDA admitted the ownership of Late Shri Ram Mehar Yadav, and the Plaintiff also sought leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC to file a separate partition suit. Consequently, the present Suit was filed seeking partition of the Suit Property by metes and bounds, declaration of respective shares, and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from creating third-party interests in the joint property.

7. Summon