$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 1148/2025 JAYADITTA PALIT & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, Mr. Shrey Gupta, Mr. Lokesh Chopra and Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates.

versus PRAMOD ANAND DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Dhruv Chawla and Mr. Pranay Aggarwal, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025 CM APPL. 79697/2025 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed-of.

CM APPL. 79698/2025 By way of the present application filed under Order XX Rule

6 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellants seek exemption from filing the decree sheet.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the application is allowed.

3. Let trial court record be requisitioned in electronic form; and copy of TCR be supplied to counsel on request.

4. Application stands disposed-of.

RFA 1148/2025 & CM APPL. 79696/2025 (stay)

5. By way of the regular first appeal filed under section 96 read with Order XLI CPC, the appellants impugn judgment and decree dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-04, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in suit bearing CS DJ No.10887/2016.

6. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits, that the appellants were holding the suit property bearing No. C-423, 02^nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi, based on a ‘customary’ set of documents comprising a registered general power of attorney, an unregistered agreement to sell, a registered Will and other ancilliary documents, which were executed in their favour by the original owner, for consideration.

7. Learned counsel submits, that thereafter the appellants transferred their rights in the property to a third party by way of a registered sale deed, which third party is presently in use and occupation of the suit property.

8. Mr. Mehta however argues, that on a misunderstanding of the effect and operation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.,¹ the (2012)1SCC656 learned trial court has dismissed the suit as being not maintainable, on a preliminary issue framed to that effect.

9. Mr. Mehta argues, that the documents in question date back to 1988;

and that therefore the unamended section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 entitles the appellants (or their successors-in-

interest) to at least protect their possession of the suit property.

10. It is also argued that the learned trial court has proceeded without considering the enunciation of the law on this point by the Supreme Court in M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. vs. J. Manjula Etc.

11. All other things apart, Mr. Mehta points-out, that vide order dated

08.11.2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8481/2019 arising from the same suit, in connection with an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the present transferee/occupant, the Supreme Court has inter-alia observed as follows :

“We may note that there is an injunction in favour of the original plaintiff qua the suit property and thus the plaintiff or any one claiming under him as a purchaser or otherwise is entitled to enjoythepropertyduringthependencyof thesuit.”

12. Mr. Mehta submits, that even though the aforesaid order was directed to continue during the pendency of the suit, subsequently in another connected suit bearing CS DJ No.315/2024 filed by the son of respondent, vide order dated 03.10.2024, the learned trial court has directed as follows: 2025SCCOnLineSC448 “In view of the same, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to title and possession in respect of the suit property till NDOH. Let reply to the application, if any be filed at least 10 days prior to the NDOH with advance copy to oppositeparty.”

13. In the circumstances, Mr. Mehta s