$~4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 2^nd June, 2021

+

RSA 55/2007

RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY ..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. J.K. Singh, Advocate.

versus

SHANTI DEVI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through:

Dr. M.K. Gahlaut, Advocate.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 17914/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 17913/2021 (for stay) in RSA 55/2007 and Review Petition

256/2019

3. The present application is for stay and suspension of the operation of

judgment dated 13^th March, 2015 passed in RSA 55/2007 titled Rajesh

Kumar Pandey v. Shanti Devi & Anr.

4. The ground on which suspension is sought is that the Executing Court

has passed an order on 5^th April, 2021 that unless and until there is a stay on

the order granted by this Court, the Court would proceed as per law. Thus,

there is a likelihood of the suit property, being property No. 223/22-E, Gali

No. 8, Railway Colony, Mandawali, Delhi - 110092 (hereinafter, “suit

property”), being either disposed of, partitioned or sold as per the final

judgment dated 13^th March, 2015.

5. The Respondent is duly represented before the Court. The next date

2021:DHC:1780

before the Executing Court is stated to be 16^th June, 2021. Considering that

the decree which was originally passed was dated 25^th November, 2005 and

the judgment passed by this Court, of which review is sought, is dated 13^th

March, 2015, instead of hearing the application for stay, this Court

proceeded to hear the review petition itself on merits.

6. The brief background to this litigation is that Mr. Jagdish Prashad

Pandey, who was the owner of the suit property, had two sons - Mr. Rajesh

Kumar Pandey and Mr. Ram Milan Pandey. Mr. Jagdish Prashad Pandey

passed away in 1996. Following his death, a suit for partition and permanent

injunction was filed by the Plaintiff - Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey against his

brother, Mr. Ram Milan Pandey and his wife, Mrs. Shanti Devi. The Trial

Court, vide judgment dated 25^th November, 2005, passed a decree for

partition in the following terms:

“RELIEF:-

2021:DHC:1780

Preliminary decree be drawn accordingly.”

7. The reasoning given by the Trial Court was that Defendant No.2 i.e.,

Ms. Shanti Devi - the daughter-in-law, was not able to prove any right or

title in the suit property. Moreover, the documents which were the basis of

the claim of Defendant No.2 i.e., the General Power of Attorney, Will etc.,

were found to be doubtful and accordingly, the Trial Court held that there

would be no ownership recognised in favour of Defendant No.2.

8. This judgment was carried in appeal by the Appellant. The Appellate

Court, vide judgment dated 18^th November, 2006, modified the order of the

Trial Court in the following terms:

2021:DHC:1780

2021:DHC:1780

2021:DHC:1780

14. No other point has been argued.”

9. Thus, the Appellate Court modified the decree declaring that in

respect of the 42 sq. yards, Defendant No.2 i.e. the daughter-in-law is the

owner and in respect of the remaining 20 sq. yards, the same would be

divided between the two brothers.

10. This order of the Appellate Court was considered by the ld. Single

Judge of this Court in the present appeal, which was disposed of vide

judgment dated 13^th March, 2015. The ld. Single Judge clearly disbelieves

the version of the Appellant. Owing to the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1

SCC 656, which was passed during the pendency of this appeal, the Court

held that the Trial Court’s decree is liable to be upheld. Thus, the Appellate

Court’s order was set aside. The operative portion of the order und