2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BIRINDER KAUR – Appellant
Versus
BALTEJ SRA & ANR. – Respondent
CS(OS)-570/2019
$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17th MARCH, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CS(OS) 570/2019 BIRINDER KAUR .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ms. Hardeep Kaur Advs.
versus BALTEJ SRA .....Defendant Through: Mr. Ashok Chhabra and Mr. Kunal Jaggi (Advocates)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD JUDGMENT (ORAL)
I.A. 3248/2025
1. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for amendment of pleadings.
2. The instant suit has been filed with the following prayers:-
“A. Decree of declaration cancelling the alleged relinquishment dated 23.2.2018 registered by Sub Registrar SR VII A Sarojini Nagar may please be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 be directed to cancel the same in its officials records.
B. The defendant no.1 may please be restrained by permanent injunction from selling, alienating handing over possession and other mode of transfer the title of the above said property bearing no. Flat SFS FLAT NO.4110, Pocket -4, Sector -C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 C. The defendant no.2 be directed to cancel the registration of the said relinquished seed dated 23.2.2018 registered with him vide documents N0.925, dated 23.02,2018 with his office Sub-registrar SR-VIII. D. Any other or further relief which deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may be granted to the plaintiff against the Defendants.”
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she is aged about 74 years of age and is a cancer survivor and owner of Flat No.4110, Pocket-4, Sector-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (“property”). She states that she is the owner of the property and had purchased it vide registered Sale Deed dated
12.07.2013 and took over possession of the same.
4. Defendant is the son of the Plaintiff. The husband of the Plaintiff is no more. It is stated by the Plaintiff that out of love and affection and because of her ill health, transferred the property in favour of one Smt. Satwant Kaur Grewal through a Gift Deed dated 16.12.2014 registered with the Sub- Registrar-XI, Delhi. Smt. Satwant Kaur Grewal passed away on 17.12.2017. 5. On the death of Smt. Satwant Kaur Grewal, who had become the absolute owner of the property, was survived by two legal heirs, i.e., the Plaintiff and Defendant and therefore after her death, the Plaintiff became
50% owner of the said property.
6. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant, her own son, started taking advantage of her illness and started harassing her. It is stated that Defendant registered a Relinquishment Deed dated 23.02.2018 for her half share in the Suit property in his favour. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she was not made aware of the contents of the said Relinquishment Deed which she was lured to enter into. It is stated that only after coming to know that the Defendant was dealing with the property, the Plaintiff came to know of the Relinquishment Deed and therefore the present Suit has been filed alleging that the Relinquishment Deed is completely void.
7. The instant Suit has been filed for declaration and for cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed dated 23.02.2018 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar SR VII A, Sarojini Nagar and for consequential injunction.
8. The written statement has been filed by the Defendant. Replication thereto has also been filed. The Plaintiff now wants to amend the plaint by incorporating the following paragraphs:-
9. Reply has been filed by the Defendant to the said Application for amendment of pleadings.
10. It is the case of the Defendant that all these allegations/averments are part of the pleadings in the Replication. He states that the present Application seeking amendment to the plaint are only explanatory in nature and amendments only explaining the paragraphs of the plaint are not permitted.
11. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the present suit is based on fraud and therefore, th