Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Ms. Sagarika Kaul, Advs v. HARKIRAT SINGH SODHI AND ANOTHER

Judgment

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails correctness of judgment dated 07.05.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] passed by the Learned Single Judge [hereinafter referred as “LSJ”], wherein an application filed by the Respondents [Defendants before the LSJ] under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟] was allowed and the plaint filed by the Appellant [Plaintiff before LSJ] was rejected.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall be referred to in accordance with their status before the LSJ. Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 1 of 16 FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, it is imperative to cull out the genealogy of the family and the relevant

background facts, which are set forth hereinafter.

4. The genealogy of the family reads as under-

5. The Plaintiff instituted a civil suit being CS(OS) 90/2017 seeking partition of as many as seven properties mentioned below [hereinafter referred to as “suit properties”] from her paternal side. paragraph no.1 of the plaint filed by the Plaintiff reads as under: “1). That by way of the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking partition of the following ancestral family properties by metes and bounds:- (i). Property No. N-8, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048, measuring 200 sq.yds. (ii). Property No. E-2, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065, measuring 500 sq.yds. (iii). Property No. A-22, Neb Sarai, Neb Valley, New Delhi-110068, having been purchased by the defendant No.l out of the sale proceeds of land measuring 16 acres, 1 Bigha 5 Biswas in PunchiGujra, Tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat (Haryana), falling under Khatauni No. 197(56/1, 56/10, 56/1 l)Khatauni No. 793(56/17, 70/4, 71/1), Khatauni No. 1056(57/4, 57/5, 57/6, 57/7, 57/14, 57/15, 57/16, 57/24,57/25), Khatauni No. 1000(56/20, 56/21, 70/5, 70/3) (iv). Property (Haveli, shops, building) in Anandpur Sahib Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 2 of 16 (v). Plot in Anandpur Sahib (vi). Agricultural land in Lodhipur, Anandpur, Chak (vii). House Property and 6 shops in Anandpur Sahib The aforesaid properties are collectively referred to as the "suit properties".”

6. While filing the suit, the Plaintiff has, in brief, asserted as under:

6.1 The suit is with respect to the properties of Plaintiff‟s paternal lineage. Defendant No.1 is the Plaintiff‟s brother, and Defendant No.2 is her father. The Plaintiff/Appellant and the Defendant No.1 are siblings, being the only children of the Defendant No.2 and late Smt. Surinder Kaur (the Plaintiff‟s mother), who unfortunately passed away on 31.12.2013.

6.2 In the year 1984, Defendant No.1 had filed a suit for Partition and Rendition of Accounts in respect of family‟s properties against his parents and grandparents [hereinafter referred as “the 1984 suit”]. However, the Plaintiff was not made a party to the aforesaid suit. Though, the Plaintiff‟s mother, while filing her Written Statement in the aforesaid suit, claimed that the Plaintiff also has a share in the said properties.

6.3 During the pendency of the 1984 suit, the parties arrived at a settlement and the plaintiff alleges that by misrepresentation, her signatures were obtained by the Defendant No.1 on an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. In paragraph no.2 of the said application, it was averred that the Plaintiff relinquishes all her rights, titles and interests in the suit properties and by way of inheritance. Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 3 of 16

6.4 As per the aforesaid settlement, the property nos.(i), (iii), (iv) and (v) fell to the share of the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff‟s mother, during her lifetime, was taking care of the properties and some of the properties jointly fell to the Plaintiff‟s share as well as the Defendant No.1.

6.5 It is claimed that the signature of the Plaintiff was obtained on the last page of the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC under the pretext that her signatures were needed as a witness in the said settlement. Until the death of the plaintiff‟s mother, there was no dispute about the co-ownership of the Plaintiff‟s share in respect of the suit properties. But after the demise of the Plaintiff‟s mother, Defendant No.1 started disputing the Plaintiff‟s share.

6.6 Another testamentary case between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, with respect to property No.210A, Golf Links, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „Golf Links property‟], on the basis of testamentary succession is pending adjudication. The Plaintiff‟s mother revoked her first will dated 13.01.1987 vide a registered revocation deed dated 05.06.2004 and she duly executed a fresh handwritten will and testament dated 07.09.2004 [hereinafter referred to as “the Last Will”]. In the Last Will, she bequeathed the Golf Links property (which was inherited by the Plaintiff‟s mother from her father) jointly to the Appellant and Defendant No.1. However, Defendant No.1 has refused to honour the Last Will executed by the Plaintiff‟s mother. After the death of the Plaintiff‟s mother, when the Plaintiff asked the Defendants for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds, Defendant No.2 admitted her claim. However, Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 4 of 16 Defendant No.1 came out with a plea that he will partition the suit properties, only if the Plaintiff agrees to give up her claim to the Golf Links property, which was refused by the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the suit being C.S.(OS) 90/2017 dated 21.02.2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the 2017 suit”].

7. Defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which was allowed by the LSJ, while recording briefly the following submissions:

7.1 The Plaintiff has failed to challenge the Consent Decree dated

10.09.1985 [hereinafter referred to as „Consent Decree‟], although, she was a signatory to the settlement.

7.2 The Plaintiff has also sought partition of suit properties but failed to explain that in whose name, these properties stand. Moreover, the Plaintiff has failed to give the description/details of the suit properties as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC.

7.3 The Plaintiff has also failed to explain the creation of Hindu Undivided Family („HUF‟). The case of the Plaintiff is based upon a weak plea qua her share in the ancestral properties.

7.4 The Plaint does not disclose any cause of action qua property nos.(ii), (iv), (vi), (vii) and portion of property no.(iv) specified in the suit properties.

7.5 The Plaintiff has failed to file the suit within a period of three years from the date of decree. The Plaintiff‟s right stand extinguished after the period for limitation has lapsed by virtue of Section 27 of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 5 of 16 Limitation Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as „Limitation Act‟].

7.6 LSJ has found that the Plaintiff is an educated lady and that shenot only signed the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC but also sworn an affidavit to this effect. Hence, the Plaintiff cannot claim deception and misrepresentation.

7.7. The Plaintiff has failed to make any of the Class I heirs of Late Shri. Harbhajan Singh Sodhi, i.e. his sons and wife, a party to the suit, thus, the suit is also bad for non-joiner/mis-joinder of the parties.

7.8. The Plaintiff is admittedly not the recorded co-owner of any of the suit properties and has no right to seek any partition whatsoever which is available only to a co-owner. The suit is barred under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

7.9. In order to substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the Defendants placed reliance upon catena of judgements including Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh(D) the LRs & Ors1, R. Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy & Ors.2 and Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh3, wherein the Court has reiterated that “Order 23 Rule 3-A clearly bars a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful…”. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance has perused the paper book along with

background facts, which are set forth hereinafter.

4. The genealogy of the family reads as under-

5. The Plaintiff instituted a civil suit being CS(OS) 90/2017 seeking partition of as many as seven properties mentioned below [hereinafter referred to as “suit properties”] from her paternal side. paragraph no.1 of the plaint filed by the Plaintiff reads as under: “1). That by way of the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking partition of the following ancestral family properties by metes and bounds:- (i). Property No. N-8, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048, measuring 200 sq.yds. (ii). Property No. E-2, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065, measuring 500 sq.yds. (iii). Property No. A-22, Neb Sarai, Neb Valley, New Delhi-110068, having been purchased by the defendant No.l out of the sale proceeds of land measuring 16 acres, 1 Bigha 5 Biswas in PunchiGujra, Tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat (Haryana), falling under Khatauni No. 197(56/1, 56/10, 56/1 l)Khatauni No. 793(56/17, 70/4, 71/1), Khatauni No. 1056(57/4, 57/5, 57/6, 57/7, 57/14, 57/15, 57/16, 57/24,57/25), Khatauni No. 1000(56/20, 56/21, 70/5, 70/3) (iv). Property (Haveli, shops, building) in Anandpur Sahib Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 2 of 16 (v). Plot in Anandpur Sahib (vi). Agricultural land in Lodhipur, Anandpur, Chak (vii). House Property and 6 shops in Anandpur Sahib The aforesaid properties are collectively referred to as the "suit properties".”

6. While filing the suit, the Plaintiff has, in brief, asserted as under:

6.1 The suit is with respect to the properties of Plaintiff‟s paternal lineage. Defendant No.1 is the Plaintiff‟s brother, and Defendant No.2 is her father. The Plaintiff/Appellant and the Defendant No.1 are siblings, being the only children of the Defendant No.2 and late Smt. Surinder Kaur (the Plaintiff‟s mother), who unfortunately passed away on 31.12.2013.

6.2 In the year 1984, Defendant No.1 had filed a suit for Partition and Rendition of Accounts in respect of family‟s properties against his parents and grandparents [hereinafter referred as “the 1984 suit”]. However, the Plaintiff was not made a party to the aforesaid suit. Though, the Plaintiff‟s mother, while filing her Written Statement in the aforesaid suit, claimed that the Plaintiff also has a share in the said properties.

6.3 During the pendency of the 1984 suit, the parties arrived at a settlement and the plaintiff alleges that by misrepresentation, her signatures were obtained by the Defendant No.1 on an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. In paragraph no.2 of the said application, it was averred that the Plaintiff relinquishes all her rights, titles and interests in the suit properties and by way of inheritance. Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 3 of 16

6.4 As per the aforesaid settlement, the property nos.(i), (iii), (iv) and (v) fell to the share of the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff‟s mother, during her lifetime, was taking care of the properties and some of the properties jointly fell to the Plaintiff‟s share as well as the Defendant No.1.

6.5 It is claimed that the signature of the Plaintiff was obtained on the last page of the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC under the pretext that her signatures were needed as a witness in the said settlement. Until the death of the plaintiff‟s mother, there was no dispute about the co-ownership of the Plaintiff‟s share in respect of the suit properties. But after the demise of the Plaintiff‟s mother, Defendant No.1 started disputing the Plaintiff‟s share.

6.6 Another testamentary case between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, with respect to property No.210A, Golf Links, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „Golf Links property‟], on the basis of testamentary succession is pending adjudication. The Plaintiff‟s mother revoked her first will dated 13.01.1987 vide a registered revocation deed dated 05.06.2004 and she duly executed a fresh handwritten will and testament dated 07.09.2004 [hereinafter referred to as “the Last Will”]. In the Last Will, she bequeathed the Golf Links property (which was inherited by the Plaintiff‟s mother from her father) jointly to the Appellant and Defendant No.1. However, Defendant No.1 has refused to honour the Last Will executed by the Plaintiff‟s mother. After the death of the Plaintiff‟s mother, when the Plaintiff asked the Defendants for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds, Defendant No.2 admitted her claim. However, Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 4 of 16 Defendant No.1 came out with a plea that he will partition the suit properties, only if the Plaintiff agrees to give up her claim to the Golf Links property, which was refused by the Plaintiff. Hence, the Plaintiff filed the suit being C.S.(OS) 90/2017 dated 21.02.2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the 2017 suit”].

7. Defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which was allowed by the LSJ, while recording briefly the following submissions:

7.1 The Plaintiff has failed to challenge the Consent Decree dated

10.09.1985 [hereinafter referred to as „Consent Decree‟], although, she was a signatory to the settlement.

7.2 The Plaintiff has also sought partition of suit properties but failed to explain that in whose name, these properties stand. Moreover, the Plaintiff has failed to give the description/details of the suit properties as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC.

7.3 The Plaintiff has also failed to explain the creation of Hindu Undivided Family („HUF‟). The case of the Plaintiff is based upon a weak plea qua her share in the ancestral properties.

7.4 The Plaint does not disclose any cause of action qua property nos.(ii), (iv), (vi), (vii) and portion of property no.(iv) specified in the suit properties.

7.5 The Plaintiff has failed to file the suit within a period of three years from the date of decree. The Plaintiff‟s right stand extinguished after the period for limitation has lapsed by virtue of Section 27 of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:20.11.2025 17:06:23 RFA(OS) 25/2024 Page 5 of 16 Limitation Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as „Limitation Act‟].

7.6 LSJ has found that the Plaintiff is an educated lady and that shenot only signed the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC but also sworn an affidavit to this effect. Hence, the Plaintiff cannot claim deception and misrepresentation.

7.7. The Plaintiff has failed to make any of the Class I heirs of Late Shri. Harbhajan Singh Sodhi, i.e. his sons and wife, a party to the suit, thus, the suit is also bad for non-joiner/mis-joinder of the parties.

7.8. The Plaintiff is admittedly not the recorded co-owner of any of the suit properties and has no right to seek any partition whatsoever which is available only to a co-owner. The suit is barred under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

7.9. In order to substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the Defendants placed reliance upon catena of judgements including Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh(D) the LRs & Ors1, R. Rajanna v. S.R. Venkataswamy & Ors.2 and Pushpa Devi Bhagat v. Rajinder Singh3, wherein the Court has reiterated that “Order 23 Rule 3-A clearly bars a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful…”. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance has perused the paper book along with