D1&2 WS

L
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS (OS) No. 53 OF 202t
IN TFIE MATTER OF:
Indupal Karn Sehgal ...Plaintiff
VERSUS
Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Others ...Defendants

NDOH: 23.02.2022
INDEX-I
S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE No.
1 Index-I T
2 V/ritten Statement of Defendants No. 1 &2 2- \7
alongwith supporting affidavit
a
J Address Form of Defendants No. 1 8.2 q&
4 List of Reliance
h1
5 Affrdavits of Defendants No. I &, 2 for
5o- 55
Admission Denial of PlaintifPs Documents
6 Affidavit of Advance Service with proof 5L-ç+
NOTE: Application seeking condonation of delay in filing Written
Statement is being separately filed.
Through
Kamal Bansal & Associates, Solicitors & Advocates

H-34, LGF, South Extension Part-I, ND-49
Ph. +9 I 1146014821-22; +9 1 98 109 I 17 43
Email: kba@kbaa.in
NEW DELHI
DATED: 04.02.2022
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEV/ DELHI

CS (oS) No. 53 oF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Indupal Kaur Sehgal ...Plaintiff
VERSUS

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS No. 1 & 2
At the outset the Answering Defendants refutes each and every

allegations levelled by the Plaintiff in the plaint against Answering
Defendants as if traversed expressly and independently unless
specifically admitted hereinunder.

PRELIMINARY OB JECTIONS :
1. The plaint is liable to be rejected since the Plaintiff has approached

the Hon'ble Court with unclean hands and malafide intentions
while suppressing material facts and has not disclosed to this
Hon'ble Court that the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 were duly
given share in shape of other immovable properties having been
purchased in the names of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 by the
funds ofthe joint family comprising ofPrehlad Singh Rekhi (since
deceased), Dr. DPS Rekhi and Mr. KS Rekhi. The Plaintiff has
further not disclosed to the Hon'ble Court that since inception, the
parents of parties hereto have desired and wished that all their
children be given immovable to create a balance befween them and
accordingly, the deceased father of parties hereto had purchased

two properties in the names of sisters being the Plaintiff and
\D'i
3
Defendant No. 3, which being immoveable properties at Shahdara

and Sangam Vihar. The details of said properties are:
A. Immovable Property bearing Municipal No. 11799-800 (Eastern

portion of Building Known as Rehman Building), GT Road,
Shahdara, Delhi vide Sale Deed dated 03.03.1972 registered in
the Office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi as Document No. 2504 in

Book No. I in Volume No. 532 on Pages 160-163 in favour of
Ms. Balvinder Kaur and Ms. Inder Pal Kaur @ Indu Pal Kaur
both daughters of Sh. S. Prehlad Singh Rekhi (hereinafter
referred to as SHAHDARA PROPERTY); and the proof of
payment having been made by S. Prehlad Singh Rekhi from
joint family funds; and
B. Immovable Property admeasuring 300 sq. yds., out of Khasra
No. 1619 situated at Sangam Vihar, New Delhi vide GPA
notarized on 18.09.1989, Agreement to Sell notarized on
18.09.1989, Affidavit notarized on 18.09.1989 and payment
Receipt in favour of Ms. Balvinder Kaur (hereinafter referred
to as SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-I); and
C. Immovable Property admeasuring 200 sq. yds., out of Khasra
No. 1619 situated at Sangam Vihar, New Delhi vide GPA
notarized on 18.09.1989, Agreement to Sell notarized on
18.09.1989, Affidavit notarized on 18.09.1989 and payment
Receipt in favour of Ms. Indupal Kaur (hereinafter referred to
as SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-2); and
2 Additionally, the Plaintiff despite being in knowledge, has chosen
to not disclose about the partition of entire Suit Properfy having
\0.'
4
been affected by judicial order as way back as in 1976 by a decree
of Hon'ble Court at Delhi partitioning the Suit Property whereby

the ground floor vested in the parents and First Floor in favour of
Dr. DPS Rekhi and Second Floor in favour of Kuldeep Singh
Rekhi. The partition was affected via judicial pronouncement in
1976 since by that time, the funds of joint family were attributed
in purchase of SHAHDARA PROPERTY in 1972 in favour of the
Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3. Furthermore, while acting upon the
aforesaid judicial partition of Suit Properfy, the jointly family
funds were again utilized to purchase SANGAM VIHAR
PROPERY- 1 in favour Defendant No. 3 and SANGAM VIHAR
PROPERY-2 in favour of Plaintiff, whereafter, it was mutually
decided that remaining ground floor of the Suit Property shall
exclusively vest with the Answering Defendants, since all parties

were equally given share by means of immovable properties.
-t
J In terms aforesaid that parents of the parties hereto made a balance
between the parties hereto by purchasing immovable properties in
the names of the daughters and accordingly, the ground floor of

the Suit Property was to come to equal share of the Answering
Defendants alone without any share of the sisters who were given
SHAHDARA PROPERTY ANd SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-
1 & SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-2. These material facts and
supporting documents have been deliberately concealed by the
Plaintiff in order to misguide the Hon'ble Court and play fraud
upon Hon'ble Court.
5
4 The suit is barred by limitation since the date of death of father,

Sh. Prahlad Singh Rekhi, on 04.12.2007 coupled with factum of
Suit Property having been partitioned way back in 1976 by a court
decree coupled with factor of the sisters having received their

share in shape of SHAHDARA PROPERTY ( 1972) fprior to
marriage of sistersl and SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY- I ( 1989)
& SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-2 (1989) fafter marriage of
sisters] followed by death of mother, Smt. Mohinder Kaur, on
03.10.2017. Admittedly, neither of the sisters are in physical or
symbolic possession of any portion of the Suit Property and since
long have settled peacefully with their share received from the
father in shape of SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972) and
SANGAM VrHAR PROPERTY-I (1989) & SANGAM VIHAR

PROPER-|Y-2 (1989), accordingly, the present suit, which has
been instituted in2020 to satiate the greed; is beyond the stipulated
period of lirnitation.
5 The Plaintiff is estopped in law to seek partition of entire Suit
Property when the same already stood partitioned on the basis of
court decree in 1976 and having been duly acted upon.
Furthermore, the sisters having received their share in shape of
SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972) and SANGAM VIHAR
pRopERTY-l (1989) &, SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-2
(1989) and furthennore as per mutual decision the ground floor of
the Suit Properly became vested exclusive to share of the
Answering Defendants. Even in terms of Hindu Succession Act,

the rights of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 have been enshrined
$s.--
6
subject to prior disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary
disposition having taken place before the date on which the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) BiIl,2004 was introduced and on said
score also the Suit Properfy is not liable to be partitioned further
after having been partitioned by way ofjudicial decree.

6 The facts in brief are that:
A. Sh. Prahlad Singh Rekhi and Smt. Mohinder Kaur were
blessed with four children:
NAME DOB STATUS

Smt. Balwinder Kaur Sachdeva 18.11.1954 Married on
04.09.1977
Dr. Devinder Pal Singh Rekhi 10.07.1957 Married on
27 .01.1986
Sh. Kuldeep Singh Rekhi 30.1 I .1959 Married on
03.10.1987
Smt. Indupal Kaur Sehgal 02.09.1961 Married on
11.03.1983
B. Sh. Prahlad Singh Rekhi was allotted a piece of land being
A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 admeasuring

281.66 sq. yds., vide a Perpetual Lease Deed dated
21.11.1960 duly registered on 28.11.1960 before the Office
of Sub-Registrar, New Delhi as Document No. 5761 in
Additional Book No. I in Volume No. 598 on pages 63 to 65.
C. In 1968, a three storeyed building / superstructure comprising
of ground floor, first floor and second floor was erected on
said plot of land. The family comprising of aforesaid
members resided in the said Suit Property. During said time,
immovable Properfy bearing Municipal No. 11799-800
Ñe;
7
(Eastern portion of Building Known as Rehman Building),
GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi vide Sale Deed dated 03.03.1972

registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi as Document
No. 2504 in Book No. I in Volume No. 532 on Pages 160-
163 in favour of Ms. Balvinder Kaur and Ms. Inder Pal Kaur
@ Indu Pal Kaur both daughters of Sh. S.Prehlad Singh

Rekhi (hereinafter referred to as SHAHDARA PROPERTY);
and the proof of payment having been made by S. Prehlad
Singh Rekhi from joint family funds.
D. Once the SHAHDARA PROPERTY was purchased in

exclusive names of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3,
accordingly, the Answering Defendants requested their

parents that the Suit Properly be given exclusively to the
Answering Defendants. Resultantly, legal dispute arose
between Sh. Prahlad Singh Rekhi with the Answering
Defendants being his sons, DPS Rekhi and minor KS Rekhi
(represented through DPS Rekhi) qua the Suit Property
leading to institution of Civil Suit No. 75 of 1976 titled as
"Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Kuldeep Singh Rekhi (minor)

versus Sh. Prahlad Singh Rekhi & Mohinder Kaur". During
the pendency of said Suit No. 75176, the parties thereto
arrived at a compromise, which was reduced to writing and
consequentially the aforesaid Suit No. 75 of 1976 was
decreed vide order / judgment dated 28.05.1976 by Hon'ble
Court of Sh. B.B. Chaudhary, the then Sub-Judg€, I't Class,

Delhi, inter alia, partitioning the Suit Property whereby the
\
\É
8
Ground Floor of Suit Property became exclusively owned /

possessed by Sh. Prahlad Singh Rekhi and his wife
Smt. Mohinder Kaur whereas Sh. DPS Rekhi was declared as
exclusive owner in possession of the first floor of Suit
Property and Sh. KS Rekhi (minor atthattime) was declared
as exclusive owner in possession of the second floor of Suit
Property. Accordingly, on pronouncement of aforesaid
judgment / decree, the said suit file was consigned to record
room and marked Goshwara No. 89/ New Delhi.
E. It is evident and apparent that as on 28.05.1976, the Suit
Property stood partitioned by metes and bounds by a court
decree, which was acted upon and has since then attained
finality. It is evident that as on 28.05.1976, the parties hereto

were living in same house as siblings and the sisters did not
ever raise any objection in respect thereof, especially when
the Plaintiff attained majority or even when she got married.
The sisters since 1976 were well aware of the act of

partitioning of Suit Property by metes and bounds and that
the parents were left with ownership / possession of ground
floor alone out of Suit Property and no other portion. This
fact has been conveniently concealed by the Plaintiff to play
fraud upon the Hon'ble Court to act on the misleading
pleadings of the Plaintiff.
F. In the interregnum, Sh. Prahlad Singh Rekhi on 20.03.1986
had also executed another document by incorporating the
relevant contents of aforesaid order/ judgment dated
9
28.05 .1976 passed in Civil Suit No. 7511976 to reaffirm that
Sh. DPS Rekhi became exclusive owner in possession of the
first floor of Suit Property and Sh. KS Rekhi became
exclusive owner in possession of the second floor of Suit

Property and further declared that share of Sh. Prahlad Singh
Rekhi in Suit Properfy stood diminished to said extent.
G. The sisters were married with all pomp and posh and the
father of the parties including the Defendant No. I made
various contributions for the well-being of the sisters. In

1983, when the Plaintiff was married, unfortunately, it was
subsequently found that the Plaintiffls husband was of very

demanding nature. The Defendants No. 1 &.2 alongwith their
father pooled in resources and monetary fund so that
Plaintifls husband was happy but could not satiate the greed
of Plaintiffls husband who despite being a qualified doctor.
H. Soon, after marriage, Plaintiffs husband came to known
about the aforesaid partition having been affected by virtue
of court decree and coerced the Plaintiff to demand share in
the ground floor of Suit Property, which the Plaintiff
admittedly conveyed to her parents. The father of the parties
instead of creating any rights in the ground floor of the Suit
Property though wise to purchase separate immovable

properties directly in the names of the sisters, which was
conveyed to them. Willingly, the sisters and their respective
husbands accepted said proposal and agreed to waive any
claim to ground floor of Suit Property.
\9,.-
10
I. Accordingly, Immovable Properfy admeasuring 300 sq. yds.,

out of KhasraNo. 1619 situated at Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
vide GPA notarized on 18.09.1989, Agreement to Sell

notarized on 18.09.1989, Affidavit notarized on 18.09.1989
and payment Receipt in favour of Ms. Balvinder Kaur
(hereinafter referred to as SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-
1); and Immovable Properly admeasuring 200 sq. yds., out of
Khasra No. 1619 situated at Sangam Vihar, New Delhi vide
GPA notarized on 18.09.1989, Agreement to Sell notarized
on 18.09.1989, Affidavit notarized on 18.09.1989 and
payment Receipt in favour of Ms. Indupal Kaur (hereinafter
referred to as SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-2).
J. Thereafter, the family mutually decided that since the sisters
were given considerable immovable properties in their
respective names accordingly, the sisters were left with no
interest in the ground floor portion of the Suit Property,
which was to be possessed and owned exclusively by the
brothers.
K. The parents thought that this fair family settlement would

bring peace and harmony in the family, but was wronged
since things did not go well in the married life of the Plaintiff
since Plaintiffls husband always eyed on the ground floor of
the Suit Properly. Guided by sheer jealousy and greed, the
husband of the started torturing the Plaintiff causing immense
mental, physical and physiological, psychological torture that
resulted in matrimonial dispute. As per recollection, a

LL
criminal case U/s 4984 IPC was initiated at the instance of

the Plaintiff against her husband, which court files and orders
are within the personal knowledge of the Plaintiff, and such

material fact has been deliberately from the Hon'ble Court.
During said period of matrimonial dispute, the Plaintiff
alongwith her minor daughter came under the protection,
love and affection of her parents, and family of Defendant
No. 1 and started residing alongwith parents. After few years,
when the Plaintiffls husbandrealized that serious legal action
of imprisonment might ensue against him, he again
manipulated the Plaintiff resulting in compromise of the
matrimonial case. The Plaintiff s husband took said
compromise as an act to avenge, resulting in institution of

present false and frivolous case, which has been instituted on
instigation of Plaintiff s husband.
L. It will be relevant to state that the father of the parties retired

as Subedar and for earnings, he had tenanted various portions
out of ground floor to tenants, who are statutory tenants under
the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act. During his lifetime,
the father of the parties succeeded in seeking eviction of few
tenants, which litigation went upto the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India. Express reliance on order / judgment dated
28.05 .1976 passed in Civil Suit No. 7511976 partitioning the
Suit Property was made to claim exclusive rights in the

ground floor portion alone by the father of the parties.
fuþ.:
L2
M. In the interregnum, on 21.05.2011, the certified copy of

decree and order dated 28.05.1976 as passed in said Suit
No. 7511976 was applied but it was reported that the entire
file of said suit No. 7511976 was not retrievable as on
23.05.2011 after Fire incident on 16.03.1996 at Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi.
N. Since the ground floor came to exclusive share of the
Answering Defendants in equal share accordingly, the

Answering Defendant No. 1 is using part out of ground floor
of Suit Property as his clinic. Two shops out of ground floor
is still under the possession and occupation of statutory
tenants. The remaining portion is being used as Baithak by
the Answering Defendants in joint possession without any

intervention of the Plaintiff or the Defendant No. 3.
O. The Defendants also came to know that their deceased father
had left behind a written \Mill bequeathing the share in the

Suit Property. The Defendants made every possible effort to
trace the same and considerable time ldays were utilized in
said process. Ultimately, the Defendants also tried to get the
index registers of Sub-Registrars of Delhi to see if any such

Will was got registered by their deceased father.
WI REPLY:
1 In reply to contents of para 7 of the plaint as alleged by the
Plaintiff, it is reiterated that vide judgment dated 28.05.1976

passed in aforesaid Civil Suit No. 75176, the Suit Property stood
partitioned whereby the Answering Defendants were declared as
W*
13
owners in possession of first floor and second floor of the Suit

Property coupled with mutual decision that ownership of ground
floor of Suit Properfy would vest with Answering Defendants in
equal share, since in lieu thereof the sisters were given aforesaid
SHAHDARA PROPERTY (t972), SANGAM VrHAR
PROPERTY-I (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-2
(1989). In view thereof, it is stated that at the time of death of
parents of the parties hereto, the deceased parents of parties hereto
occupied the ground floor portion only. As per mutual decision the
ground floor of the Suit Property also came to the share of the
Answering Defendants on the death of the parents. Accordingly,
the Suit Property or any part thereof is no longer liable to partition.
It is wrong and denied thatLate Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi owned
any portion out of the Suit Property after 1976 or at time of his
death. It is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff and lor Defendant
No. 3 is entitled to any share to any extent in the Suit Property or
any part thereof, as alleged. The Answering Defendants refer and
rely upon the contents of the Preliminary Objections supra, which

are not repeated herein for sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
2 In reply to the contents of para 2 of the plaint as alleged by the


floor of Suit Property would vest with Answering Defendants in
t4
SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972), SANGAM VIHAR
(1989). The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon the
contents of the Preliminary Objections supra, which are not
repeated herein for sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
J In reply to the contertts of para 3 of the plaint as alleged by the


floor of Suit Propefy would vest with Answering Defendants in
SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972), SANGAM VrHAR
(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that the
deceased father of the parties got erected a superstructure upon the
same upto 3 floors i.e. ground floor, first floor and second floor.
The Answering Defendant and especially Defendant No. I
contributed funds for said purpose. It is reiterated that entire Suit

Properly is in the continuous and exclusive possession of the
Answering Defendants, especially, first floor possessed by
Defendant No. 1 and second floor possessed by Defendant No. 2

and ground floor possessed by Answering Defendants. It is further
reiterated that the two shops on ground floor portion is being
{ei
L5
possessed and occupied by statutory tenants under DRC Act. One
of the shop operating under name and style Morning Stores is

paying monthly rent @ Rs. 1,400.00, which has been paid till
February 2021 and remains unpaid thereafter; whereas the other
shop operating under name and style Ramesh Stores is paying
monthly rent @ Rs.250.00, which has been paid till February
2021 and remains unpaid thereafter. Prior to 06.10.2017, the
Answering Defendants allowed their father and on his demise the
mother to receive and appropriate the monthly rent so received
from those statutory tenants. Since their demise, the Answering
Defendant in capacity of owner of ground floor is collecting the
rent from said two tenants on behalf of Answering Defendants
without any protest or demur. Accordingly, from October 2017,
l, has been receiving the monthly rent from
the Defendant No.
said shops from Oct 2017 to Feb 202I@ Rs. 1,400.00 and
Rs. 250.00, respectively, which totals to Rs. 67,650.00 for and on
behalf of the as owners / lessors / landlords, being the Answering

Defendants. It is wrong and denied that ground floor portion out
of said entire property is commercial in nature. The Answering
Defendants refer and rely upon the contents of the Preliminary
Objections supra, which are not repeated herein for sake of brevity
and to avoid repetition.

s-+
L6

Defendant No. 2 was required to seek permission of the Plaintiff
to shift to his own exclusive portion, i.e., second floor out of said
entire property. It is wrong and denied that the Defendant No. 2
asked the Plaintiff whether the Defendant No. 2 can shift to the
second floor out of the entire said properfy. It is wrong and denied
that any other siblings, being the parties hereto, were legally
entitled to raise any objection against Defendant No. 2 occupying
his own exclusive properly being the second floor out of Suit
Property. Therefore, no question of legal heirs having no objection
arose. It is wrong and denied that after obtaining the permission /
consent of the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 2 started residing in
second floor out of the said entire property. It is wrong and denied
that the First Floor out of the said entire property was given on
rent. It is reiterated that Defendant No. 1 is the sole and exclusive
owner of the entire first floor out of said entire property and he
requires no permission from any other sibling as to the use /
enjoyment of said first floor. Since the Suit Property already fell
to the exclusive share of the Answering Defendants as stated
supra, therefore, it is wrong and denied that Sh. Prehlad Singh
-[Þi
L7
Rekhi or Smt. Mohinder Kaur died intestate qua the entire said
property or any part thereof. It is reiterated that neither Sh. Prehlad
Singh Rekhi nor Smt. Mohinder Kaur had any legal right I title I
entitlement qua any portion out of the Suit Property as stated
above. In order to create a flimsy cause of action, the Plaintiff has
maliciously chosen to allege facts during the period of June-July

2020, while being aware that no such facts ever transpired. As per
the belief of the Answering Defendants and as informed to them

by their parents prior to their death about execution of their
respective Wills. The Answering Defendants apprehend and
suspect foul play at the instance of Plaintiff who must have stolen
said documents when she was residing with the Answering

Defendant No. 1 and mother during her matrimonial dispute. The
Answering Defendants refer and rely upon the contents of the
Preliminary Objections supra, which are not repeated herein for
sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

Plaintift it is reiterated that vide judgment dated 28.05.1976

PROPERTY-I (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR
\PROPERTY-2
'l.Sç.-'
\-,
L8
( 1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that after
the death of the parents the said entire Suit Property being A-389,
Defence Colony, New Delhi became liable to division. It is wrong
and denied that after the death of the parents, the Plaintiff and
Defendants hereto became co-owners of the said entire A-389,
Defence Colony, New Delhi entitled to any share to any extent, as
alleged. It is wrong and denied that after the death of the parents
of the parties hereto, the Plaintiff and Defendants hereto became
successors in any share to any extent qua the said entire A-389,
Defence Colony, New Delhi. It is wrong and denied that
Smt. Mohinder Kaur during her lifetime was entitled to llsth
undivided share out of entire A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi,
or any other share to any other extent. It is wrong and denied that
on death, the alleged share of Smt. Mohinder Kaur became liable
to division in any share to any extent amongst the Plaintiff and
Defendants. A person can give what such person has and nothing
else, at the time of death of each of the parent, none vested with
any ownership right in any portion of the Suit Property therefore,

no portion was liable to division amongst the parties hereto. The
Answering Defendants refrains from reiterating the statements
made supra. The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon the

Plaintift it is reiterated that vide judgment dated 28.05.1976
W'-
L9

SHAHDARA PROPERTY (t972), SANGAM VIHAR
( 1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that after
in her matrimonial home. This

marriage, the Plaintiff resided
statement per se is a false statement made on oath and an
intentional act to commit perjury / contempt with impunity. It is
reiterated that after maniage, there was marital discord between
the Plaintiff and her husband leading to legal case of cruelty,
dowry harassment, etc. and which has per recollection of the
Answering Defendant continued for nearly more than five years.
During said period of marital discord, the Plaintiff alongwith her
minor daughter came under the protection, love and affection of
her parents, and family of Defendant No. I and started residing
alongwith parents. After few years, when the Plaintiff s husband
realized that serious legal action of imprisonment might ensue
against him, he again manipulated the Plaintiff resulting in

compromise of the matrimonial case. The Plaintiff s husband took
said compromise as an act to avenge, resulting in institution of

present false and frivolous case, which has been instituted on
instigation of Plaintiff s husband. The Plaintiff is an educated lady
who was very well aware at the time of her marriage that after
@;
20
receiving the SHAHDARA PROPERTY, the entire A-389,

Defence Colony, New Delhi stood partitioned by judicial order.
Thereafter SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-2 (1989) was also
purchased in favour of Plaintiff and since then the Plaintiff was
well aware that the entire Suit Property came to be vested
exclusively in the Answering Defendants without any share of the
sisters in Suit Property to any extent. It is wrong and denied that
the Plaintiff was very close to her parents. It is wrong and denied
that the Plaintiff had any right title entitlement qua the Suit
Property to any share to any extent. Therefore, it is also wrong and
denied that she was entitled to show any interest in the
management of the Suit Property either prior or after the death of
the parents. It is wrong and denied that after the death of the father,
the Answering Defendants used to ask the Plaintiff to show some

interest in the management of the Suit Property. It is wrong and
denied that the Plaintiff was i is shareholder qua the Suit Property
or part thereof to any extent. Since Plaintiff had / has no right title
entitlement share in the Suit Property, the question of the Plaintiff
giving free hand to Answering Defendants to maintain the Suit
Property never arose. Since the Plaintiffls husband always
maintained to seek revenge against the Answering Defendants due
to compromise of his matrimonial discord, it is wrong and denied
that the Plaintiff had full faith on the Defendants No. 1 & 2 or that
she maintained cordial relations with the Defendants. The present
suit is being contested as proxy by Plaintifls husband and the

Plaintiff has no iota of any right to deal with present suit who.
t
\s*
2T
wants to entangle the parties in litigation by taking undue
advantage of the fact that litigation in India take ages to culminate.
The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon the contents of the



Properly coupled with mutual decision that ownership of ground
SHAHDARA pROpERTy (t972), SANGAM VIHAR
(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that
during the lifetime of the mother of the parties, the Suit Properfy
was not partitioned. It is wrong and denied that the after the death
of the mother on 03. I0.2017 , the Plaintiff sought partition of Suit

Property to claim her alleged ll|lh undivided share. It is wrong and
denied that the Plaintiff and lor Defendant No. 3 is entitled to any
share to any extent in any part of the Suit Property. It is wrong and
It is wrong and
denied that the Suit Property remain undivided.
denied that the Plaintiff is one of the co-owners of the Suit
Property or any part thereof. It is wrong and denied that the
Plaintiff and lor Defendant No. 3 in any capacity was / is having
22
any joint or constructive possession of the Suit Property or any

part thereof. The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon the


Properfy coupled with mutual decision that ownership of ground
(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it wrong and denied that in
December 2019 or in any other month of 2019 or any time prior
thereto, the Plaintiff had approached the Defendant No. I for
partition of the Suit Property. It is reiterated that since the Plaintiff
and /or Defendant No. 3 has no right / interest in the Suit Property,
therefore, it is wrong and denied that the Defendant No. 1 avoided
to indulge in any discussion or reference to the matter in absence

of other legal heirs. It is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff asked
other Defendants for a meeting to discuss as to how the Suit
Properly should be partitioned. Remaining portion pertains to
Defendant No. 3 and as such the Answering Defendants are not
competent to render any answer / reply to allegations against
ùD'i
23
Defendant No. 3. It is reiterated that it is wrong and denied that

either of the Plaintiff or the Defendant No. 3 has any legal right /
title or interest to any extent or share in the Suit Property or part
thereof, which requires them to relinquish. The Answering
9 In reply to the contents of para 9 of the plaint, as alleged by the


(19S9). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that in
January 2020 or on any othermonth/ day of 2020 or any date prior,
the Plaintiff and the Answering Defendants met and discussed the
modalities of partition. It is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff told

the Answering Defendants that either the Answering Defendants
give her equal share of ll4lh or opt for reconstruction of the Suit
Property for amicable division amongst the legal heirs or in the
alternative sell the Suit Property and sale proceeds be divided
equally amongst all the legal heirs. It is wrong and denied that the
'-7
24
Answering Defendants intended / intend to rebuilt the Suit

Property. It is wrong and denied that the Answering Defendants
asked for 2 months' time to check if the said alleged options could
be worked out. The facts alleged in para under reply never
transpired and the same are fig of imagination of the Plaintiff to
create illusory reasons to institute the present suit despite being
aware that Plaintiff is not entitled to anything out of the Suit
Properfy. The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon the
repeated herein for sake of brevify and to avoid repetition.
10. In reply to the contents of para l0 of the plaint as alleged by the

Plaintiff, it is reiterated that since the entire property stood
partitioned vide judgment dated 28.05.1976, therefore, partition is

restricted to only ground floor portion out of said entire property.
Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that in the first
week of March 2020 or at any other time I day lmonth/ year, the
Plaintiff called the Defendant No. 2 to ask about the outcome, who
responded that because of third party occupiers in the two shops
on the ground floor portion out of the said entire property, the
Defendants needed time to settle with such occupiers for receiving
back the possession of said shops before reconstruction / sale.

Since there was no occasion to meet to discuss the partition of the
Suit Property, which already vested in the Answering Defendants,
as stated supra; therefore, it is wrong and denied that due to

lockdown no further meeting could take place. The Answering
lr
&->
25
I 1. In reply to the contents of para 1 1 of the plaint as alleged by the


(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that on
19.07 .2020 or on any other date I month I year, the Plaintiff asked
the Answering Defendants either to give her ll4th share or else the
Plaintiff would approach the court law. It is wrong and denied that
the Answering Defendants ever assured the Plaintiff about her
alleged share of ll|rh or any other share to any extent in any part
of the Suit Property. It is wrong and denied that the Answering
Defendants sought to make amicable settlement. It is wrong and
denied that the Answering Defendants ever assured the Plaintiff
that any alleged share to any extent in any part of the Suit Property
is safe and secure. It is wrong and denied that the Answering

Defendants asked for some time to reach a conclusive decision. It
is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff never wanted to indulge in
litigation and always wanted to preserve the cordial relations. The
ì
26

12. In reply to the contents of para 12 of the plaint as alleged by the


floor of Suit Properly would vest with Answering Defendants in
30.08.2020 or on any other date I month I year, the Plaintiff
realized that the attitude of the Answering Defendants have
changed. It is wrong and denied that whenever the Plaintiff tried
to talk about partition, the Answering Defendants avoided on one

or the other pretext with intentions to prolong the matter. The

\\T r\..
{\b=\7
27

Plaintiff came to know that the House Tax of the property is being
paid in the name of the mother, Late Mohinder Kaur even after the
death of the mother of the parties. It is wrong and denied that the
Answering Defendants are liable to to Plaintiffs
answer
satisfaction to avoid confrontation or when confronted. It is
reiterated that the Suit Property is still a leasehold property and is
yet to be freehold. The mere submission of house tax does not
confer proprietary rights against the judicial judgment I decree
dated 28.05.1976. All possible efforts to explain the Plaintiff fell
to deaf ears since the Plaintiff has been guided by her greedy
husband who has least respect for family unity. The Plaintiff has
been repeatedly explained to her satisfaction but orrce she used to
talk to her greedy husband, the situation used to get further

worsened. The present case is outcome of such greed and act to
usurp the Suit Property of the Answering Defendants by the
husband of the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff. The Answering
and to avoid repetition fuh--:
.5.-
28


(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that
intention of the Answering Defendants was bad since the
Defendant No. 1 did not reply to query of the when the Plaintiff
about the rental income from the Suit Property. It is wrong and
denied that the Plaintiff has filed any application with the Assistant
Assessor & Collector, SDMC, Central Zone, New Delhi and

Ministry of House and Urban Affairs, Land and Development
Office, Moulana Azad Road, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
requesting for mutation / transfer the Suit Property. The


,\
.-[Þv-
29

PROPERTY-I (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-?
(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, the Answering Defendants are
in possession of the Suit Property but as its owner and in capacity
thereof are enjoying the rental income from the Suit Property and
relishing all the benefits therefrom. Since the Suit Property stood
partitioned as stated above coupled with ground floor being given
to Answering Defendants in lieu of Plaintiff receiving SANGAM
VIHAR PROPERTY-2 and DefendantNo. 3 receiving SANGAM
VIHAR PROPERTY- 1, therefore, neither the Plaintiff nor the
Defendant No. 3 has any right title or interest to any share to any
of any portion of Suit Property. Accordingly, the
extent out
Answering Defendants see no reason to advance excuse to
postpone the matter indefinitely to avoid any amicable settlement
of take place between the parties. It is wrong and denied that there
is any interest of the family involved except that the Answering
Defendants are owners in possession of entire Suit Property. The

\-.\
30

05.01 .2021or on any other dúe lmonth I year, the Plaintiff came
to know that the Answering Defendants are in the process of
creating encumbrance, third party interest in the Suit Property on
'as is where is' basis. It is wrong and denied that the Answering
Defendants are dealing in the Suit Property to the detriment of
Plaintiff and lor Defendant No. 3 hereto. It is wrong and denied
that Answering Defendants intend to create multiplicity of
litigations or trying to prolong so that the Plaintiff and lor
Defendant No. 3 is indulged in long drawn litigations. The present
suit is an evident example of abuse of process of law where the
Plaintiff being aware of the realities choses to maliciously
prosecute for Suit Properly to the detriment of the Answering
Defendants who have now been engaged in long drawn litigation.

I
\D
3L
I7. In reply to the contents of para 17 of the plaint as alleged by the


Suit Property has not been transferred / panitioned. It is wrong and
denied that there is no impediment to partition of the Suit Property.
It is wrong and denied that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant
No. 3 is entitled to any share to any extent out of any portion of
the Suit Property muchless fhe ll4th alleged share. It is wrong and
denied that the Suit Properly is liable to be partitioned by metes
and bounds or by sale through public auction and accordingly,
distribution of sale proceeds. The Answering Defendants refer and

-[0,--
32

SHAHDARA PROPERTY (t972), SANGAM VIHAR
PROPERTY-I (1939) and SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-|
Plaintiff has been compelled under any circumstance to approach
this Hon'ble Court to seek partitioning of the Suit Property by
meets and bounds in equal share of ll4th each amongst parties
hereto or to any share to any extent out of any portion of the Suit
Property. It is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff and or Defendant

No. 3 as co-owner or otherwise is in joint / constructive possession
of the Suit Property. The Answering Defendants refer and rely
upon the contents of the Preliminary Objections supra, which are
not repeated herein for sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

. floor of Suit Property would vest with Answering Defendants in
PROPERTY-I (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-Z
\
M'
33
Plaintiff is entitled to restrain orders against the Answering

Defendants restraining the Answering Defendants from creating
any encumbrance or third party interest in the Suit Property. The
Answering Defendants are occupying and possessing the Suit
Property as its lawful owners. The Answering Defendants are
entitled to use and possess the Suit Property as per their discretion
without any intervention of the Plaintiff and /or Defendant No. 3.
The present suit infact as resulted in grave prejudice to the legal
right of the Answering Defendants having been crystallized by
judicial pronouncement. As owner of the Suit Property, the
Answering Defendants are in custody and possession of the

original title deed being the Lease Deed of the Suit Property. The
20. In reply to the contents of para 2l of the plaint as alleged by the


SHAHDARA PROPERTY (T972), SANGAM VIHAR
b,.-
34
fwo shops situated at the ground floor portion out of Suit Property
are commercial in nature. It is wrong and denied that the first floor
out of the said entire property is let-out on rent. The Answering
Defendants as lawful owners are receiving the rent from the
statutory tenants in the said ¡wo shops out of ground floor portions,
as stated above. The Answering Defendants are not liable to

disclose the rental income derived from said t'wo shops to the
Plaintiff and /or Defendant No. 3 who have already received their
share in shape of SHAHDARA PROPERTY ( 1972), SANGAM
VIHAR PROPERTY-1 (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR
PROPERTY-2 (1989). It is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff is
entitled to any relief of rendition of accounts against the
Answering Defendants of the rental income for last 3 years or any
other period from any date or from the date of filing of the present
suit. It is further reiterated that out of the two shops on ground

floor portion one of the shop operating under name and style
Morning Stores is paying monthly rent @Rs. 1,400.00, which has
been paid till February 2021 and remains unpaid thereafter;
whereas the other shop operating under name and style Ramesh
Stores is paying monthly rent @ Rs. 250.00, which has been paid
till February 2021 and remains unpaid thereafter. The Defendant

No. I has received rent from said shops for the period from Oct
2017 to Feb 202I@ Rr. 1,400.00 and Rs. 250.00, respectively,
which totals to Rs. 67,650.00. Prior to 06.10.2017, the monthly
rent was received and appropriated by the mother of parties hereto
and after her death, the Defendant No. t has been receiving the
&'
t
35
said amounts from 06.I0.2017 onwards till February 2021, i.e., for
a period of 41 months [(41 X 1,400.00: 57,400.00) + (41 X 250.00

: 10250) : Rs. 67,650.00], as stated above. The Answering
2I. In reply to the contents of para 20 of the plaint as alleged by the


Answering Defendants have some malafide intention in their mind
causing Plaintiff to apprehend of some illegal and unlawful acts
by the Answering Defendants in order to devoid the legal share of
the Plaintiff in the Suit Property. It is reiteratedthatthe sisters after
having received aforesaid SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972),

SANGAM VIHARPROPERTY-I (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR
PROPERTY-2 (1989) neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant
No. 3 is left with any share to any extent in any portion of the Suit
Property, which is exclusively vested in Answering Defendants,
36
as stated above. The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon
the contents of the Preliminary Objections supra, which are not



SHAHDARA pROpERTy (t972), SANGAM VIHAR
(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that in
case the Answering Defendants succeed in alienating I
encumbering I parting with the Suit Properly or interest of the
Plaintiff in the Suit Property then the Plaintiff shall suffer an
irreparable loss and injuries and the same may not be compensated
in terms of money. It is reiterated that the sisters after having
received aforesaid SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972), SANGAM
VIHAR PROPERTY-1 (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR
PROPERTY-2 (1989) neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant
No. 3 is left with any share to any extent in any portion of the Suit
Property, which is exclusively vested in Answering Defendants,
as stated above. The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon
s" \-?
37
the contents of the Preliminary Objections supra, which are not



SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972), SANGAM VrHAR
Plaintiff has any legal right to restrain the Answering Defendants

from selling, alienating, creating any encumbrance or parting with
the Suit Property to anyone without making partition thereof with
meets and bounds. It is wrong and denied that the Suit Property or
any portion thereof is liable to be partitioned by metes and bounds.


{b';
38

(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that any
cause of action ever arose in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Answering Defendants, as alleged. It is wrong and denied that it

firstly arose on 21. 1 1.1960 when the Suit Property was allotted to
the father of the parties hereto. It is wrong and denied that it again
arose on 04.12.2007 when the father of the plaintiff died intestate.
It is wrong and denied that it again arose on various dates when
the Plaintiff asked for partition of the Suit Property including

19.07.2020. It is wrong and denied that it further arose on
30.08.2020 when the Plaintiff started smelling rat as the
Answering Defendants started avoiding any discussion on
partition of the suit propeffy. It is wrong and denied that it again
arose on 05.0I.2021 when the Plaintiff came to know that the
Answering Defendants are in the process of creating encumbrance

/ third parry interest in the Suit Propefy. It is wrong and denied
that it is continuing and still subsisting. It is wrong and denied that
the site plan filed is true and correct. The Answering Defendants
refer and rely upon the contents of the Preliminary Objections
supra, which are not repeated herein for sake of brevity and to
avoid repetition.
s \>
I
39
25. In reply to the contents of para 25 and its sub-paras of the plaint as
alleged by the Plaintiff, it is reiterated that vide judgment dated
28.05.1976 passed in aforesaid Civil Suit No.75176, the Suit

Property stood partitioned whereby the Answering Defendants
were declared as owners in possession of first floor and second
floor of the Suit Property coupled with mutual decision that
ownership of ground floor of Suit Property would vest with
Answering Defendants in equal share, since in lieu thereof the
sisters were given aforesaid SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972),
SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-I (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR
PROPERTY-2 (1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and
denied that the Plaintiff has correctly valued the suit for the
purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and accordingly paid the
requisite court fee. It is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff has
correctly valued the suit for the purposes of partition @ Rs. 20.00
Crore and assessed her share at Rs. 5.00 Crore. It is wrong and
denied that Plaintiff is in joint or constructive possession of any
part of Suit Property. Invocation of Article 17 (vi) Schedule II of
the Court Fees Act is misplaced. It is wrong and denied that the
Plaintiff has correctly valued the suit for the relief of rendition of
accounts and permanent injunction and paid the requisite court
fees. The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon the contents
of the Preliminary Objections supra, which are not repeated herein

for sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
N;
40

PROPERTY-I (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-?
total valuation of the property is within the pecuniary jurisdiction
of this Hon'ble Court and as such the Hon'ble Court is well within
its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Answering Defendants refer and


Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and
.b
41,
adjudicate upon the matter. The Answering Defendants refer and



Properly coupled with mutual decision that ownership of ground
SHAHDARA pROpERTy (t972), SANGAM VrHAR
PROPERTY-I (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-}
(1989). Therefore, in view thereof it is stated that the Answering
Defendants are not in receipt of any court notice from any other
court regarding the subject matter involved in present suit or
touching upon the subject matter of present suit. The Answering


ua
42

(1989). Therefore, in view thereof, it is stated that the present
matter is not a commercial in nature. The Answering Defendants
refer and rely upon the contents of the Preliminary Objections
supra, which are not repeated herein for sake of brevity and to
avoid repetition.

documents filed with the suit are either original or are true copies
of its original. The Answering Defendants refer and rely upon the
In reply to the contents of last unnumbered para and its sub-paras being
the prayer clause of the plaint as alleged by the Plaintifl it is reiterated
ls)-l
43
that vide judgment dated 28.05.1976 passed in aforesaid Civil Suit

No. 75176, the Suit Properly stood partitioned whereby the Answering
Defendants were declared as owners in possession of first floor and
second floor of the Suit Property coupled with mutual decision that
ownership of ground floor of Suit Property would vest with Answering
Defendants in equal share, since in lieu thereof the sisters were given
aforesaid SHAHDARA PROPERTY (1972), SANGAM VIHAR
PROPERTY-i (1989) and SANGAM VIHAR PROPERTY-? (1989).
Therefore, in view thereof, it is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff is
entitled to a decree of partition declaring that the Plaintiff and the
Defendants each have 1/4th undivided share or any share to any extent
in any part of suit property i.e. A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi; it
is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
possession thereby directing that the suit properly i.e. property no.A-
389, Defence Colony, New Delhi be partitioned by metes and bounds

and the vacant and peaceful possession of the ll4th share or any share
to any extent in any part of the suit property be given to the plaintiff; or
it is wrong and denied that in the alternatively if the suit property cannot
be divided amongst the plaintiff and defendants by metes and bounds,
the same may be put to sale through an offrcer appointed by the court
and Plaintiff be given 1/4th share or any other share to any extent in any
part of Suit Property as per the decree; it is wrong and denied that the
Suit Property is liable to partition by metes and bounds or otherwise or
through process of sale for distribution of sale proceeds; it is wrong and
denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts
thereby directing that the Answering Defendants to accounts for the

\n.*l
\Ly-l
44
rental income for the last 3 year from the 2 shops and first floor of the
suit property and deposit the same either in the Hon'ble Court or to the
plaintiffls account orland Direct the Answering Defendants to deposit
the ll4th of the share or any share to any extent of the rental income
which they are pocketing currently i.e. after the filing of the present suit
either in the Hon'ble Court or to the Plaintiff s account: it is wrong and
denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction
may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the Answering

Defendants thereby directing the Answering Defendants not to alienate,
sell create any encumbrance, part with possession, or create any third
party interest in the Suit Properly in respect of the alleged share of the
plaintiff; it is wrong and denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to any other
relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the
plaintiff, in the interest ofjustice.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs in favour of

Defendants.
It is prayed accordingly.
þfiw'lN;
Defendants No. | &,2
Through
Kamal --
& Associatesl'Solicitors & Advocates
Ph. +9 I I 146014821-22; +9 I 98 109 I 17 43
Email: kba@kbaa.in
New Delhi
Dated: 04.02.2022
45
VERIFICATION:
Verified by Defendant No. 1 at New Delhi on this 04.02.2022 that the
contents of paragraphs 1 to 19 of Reply on Merits of Written Statement
are true and correct to best of my personal knowledge and belief and
based on available documents and those ofparagraphs 20 to 31 of Reply
on Merits and paras 1 to 13 of Preliminary Objections in aforesaid

Written Statement are based on information/ legal advice received from
the counsel and believed to be true. The last para is the humble prayer
to this Hon'ble Court.
VENFICATION:
Verified by Defendant No. 2 at New Delhi on this 04.02.2022 thatthe
contents of paragraphs I to 19 of Reply on Merits of Written Statement
are true and correct to best of my personal knowledge and belief and
based on available documents and those ofparagraphs 20 to 31 of Reply
on Merits and paras 1 to 13 of Preliminary Objections in aforesaid

V/ritten Statement are based on informationllegal advice received from
the counsel and believed to be true. The last para is the humble prayer
to this Hon'ble Court.
trß)';
Defendant No. 2
46
IN THE HIGH COI.IRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS (OS) No. 53 OF 2021
Indupal Kaur Sehgal Plaintiff

VERSUS

AFFIDAVIT
I, Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi aged about 63 years S/o Late Sh. P.S.
Rekhi R/o A-389, First Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. I say that I am the Defendant No. 1 in the aforesaid matter and I
am well conversant with the facts of the present case and am
competent to depose by way of the present affidavit.
2. I say that my counsel under fny instructions has drafted
accompanying V/ritten Statement and I have read and understood
its contents, which are based upon my personal knowledge and
beliet available documents and legal advice received believed to
be true and correct and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom are being accepted as true and correct. The contents
thereof are referred and relied herein but are not repeated herein
the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. t
þl I
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this the 04.02.2022 that the contents of my
.-"s$t' above affidavit are true and correct to best of my personal knowledge
and belief nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
'\ ¡i
sîEb
årKW-
Deponent
I\T T
* (',1 -¡r
(tndia)
Notary Public, Delhi
'ìrtl'
Û I tth
f} 4 FÊE ?O??
47
IN THE HIGH COI.IRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS (OS) No. 53 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Others ..Defendants

AFFIDAVIT
I, Kuldeep Singh Rekhi aged about 61 years S/o Late Sh. P.S. Rekhi
R/o A-389, Second Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024, do
1. I say that I am the Defendant No. 2 in the aforesaid matter and I
2. I say that my counsel under my instructions has drafted
accompanying Written Statement and I have read and understood
its contents, which are based upon my personal knowledge and
belief, available documents and legal advice received believed to
be true and correct and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom are being accepted as true and correct. The contents
.$*
ATTESTED Deponent
Notary Public. Delhi(tndia)
Y' t'
202'¿
0 4 çee
48

CS (oS) No. 53 OF 2021

T/ERSUS
I Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi aged about 63 years

S/o Late Sh. P.S. Rekhi
R/o A-389, First Floor,
Defence Colony,
New Delhi- 110024 ...Defendant No. I
2 Kuldeep Singh Rekhi aged about 61 years

S/o Late Sh. P.S. Rekhi
R/o A-389, Second Floor,
Defence Colony,
New Delhi-l10024 ...Defendant No. 2
Through
{o'*

Ph. +9 1 1146014821-22; +9 I 98 109 I 17 43
Email: kba@kbaa.in
NEW DELHI
DATED: 04.02.2022
49

CS (OS) No. 53 OF 2021

VERSUS
I Documents that may be produced by witnesses appearing on

behalf of the Defendants.
2 Documents that may be presented to witnesses at the time of
evidence.
a
J Originals of documents that are in custody of the Defendants.
Through

Ph. +9 1 1 1460 14821-22; +9 198 109117 43
Email: kba@kbaa.in
NEW DELHI
DATED: 04.02.2022
50

CS (OS) No. 53 OF 2021
Indupal Kaur Sehgal Plaintiff

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT No. 1 FOR ADMISSION DENIAL
I, Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi aged about 63 years S/o Late Sh. P.S.
Rekhi R/o A-389, First Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024, do
I I say that I am the Defendant No. I in the aforesaid matter and I

2 I am sufficiently conversant with the facts of the case and have

also examined all relevant documents and record in relation
thereto.
a
J I say that documents as filed by the Plaintifß, the Defendants,
subject to mode of proof, hereby submits the instant affidavit for
admission/denial of Plaintifß' documents and served upon the
Defendants, as under:
S. Particulars Page Correctnes Existence Executio Issuance Custody of

No as stated in No. as sof of nof or receipt document
-:....
t the index per contents of documen document of [Order XI
1:..
.of index of document t and [Order XI document Rule

\ "'ðocuments Plaintif [Order XI contents Rule [Order XI aQ)@) of
Ij. i'j ¡ì r,rll flrûed by f Rule stated a(2Xc) of Rule CPC]
*. I tL-r
u ! i.
l
l
fhintiff
j
aQ)@) of therein cPCl a(2Xd) of
t{u. I
!, cPCI [Order XI cPCl
Rule
of
()F it\',
a(2)(b)
CPCI
-1
Photocopy ) Unaware if Unaware Unaware Unaware Plaintiff
of the GOI has if GOI if GOI if Plaintiff
Aadhar has has is in
51
Card of the rightly rightly rightly possesslo

Plaintiff issued issued issued nof
original
) Photocopy 4-9 Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Defendant
of the No. I
lease deed
of A-389,
Defence
Colony,
New
Delhi-24
Death l0-l I Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Plaintiff /
cerlificates Defendants
ofparents
of Plaintiff
and
Defendant
S
4. Site plan 12-14 Denied Denied Denied Denied Plaintiff

of A-389,
Defence
Colony,
New
Delhi-24
5. Copy of l5 Denied Denied Denied Denied Plaintiff
the
application
dated
03.09.2020
6. Copy of t6 Denied Denied Denied Denied Plaintiff
the receipt
dated
23.09.2020
issued by
Ministry of
Housing &
Urban
Affairs
7 Copy of l7-18 Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Plaintiff /
the house Defendants
Tax
Receipt SDMC
4 I say that my counsel under my instructions has drafted the

instant affidavit, and I have read its contents and accept the same
as true and correct based upon my personal knowledge,
documents available, and legal advice received, believed to be
r1
;\ true and and nothing material has been concealed
l-\ I
.correct,
* ( D
\: ì{
I
Mrt&D
DEPONENT
\ tr 1.{
o !
52
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this day of 04 .02.2022 that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my personal
knowledge and belief and available documents and nothing has been
concealed therefrom.
þ2rftØ
DEPONENT
K..,,""tS
"*$$t""' AT T ESTË'Þ
Delhi (hdia)
NCItary Public'
*
(R
l,'
?0??
0lçEs
53

CS (OS) No. 53 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Others ..Defendants
No. 2
OF PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENTS
I, Kuldeep Singh Rekhi aged about 6l years S/o Late Sh. P.S. Rekhi
R/o A-389, Second Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi-l10024, do
hereby splemnly affirm and declare as under:
\
1. I I
am the Defendant No. 2 in the aforesaid matter and I
say that
2 I am sufficiently
conversant with the facts of the case and have
also examined all relevant documents and record in relation
thereto.
a
J I say that documents as filed by the Plaintifß, the Defendants,
subject to mode of proof, hereby submits the instant affidavit for
admission/denial of Plaintiffs' documents and served upon the
as under:
S. Particulars Page Correctnes Existence Executio Issuance Custody of
No as stated in No. as sof of nof or receipt document
the index per contents of documen document of [Order XI
of index of document t and [Order XI document Rule
documents Plaintif [Order XI contents Rule [Order XI a(2)(e) of
filed by f Rule stated a(2)(c) of Rule cPCl
Plaintiff aQ)@) of therein cPCl a(2)(d) of
cPcl [Order XI cPCl
Rule
a(2)(b) of
CPCI
\l:. Photocopy J Unaware if Unaware Unaware Unaware Plaintiff
of the GOI has if GOI if GOI if Plaintiff
Aadhar rightly has has is in
l*i issued possessio
54
Card of the rightly rightly n of

Plaintiff issued issued orieinal
2 Photocopy 4-9 Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Defendant
of the No. I
lease deed
of A-389,
Defence
Colony,
New
Delhi-24
J Death 10-l I Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Plaintiff /
certificates Defendants
of parents
of Plaintiff
and
Defendant
S
4. Site plan 12-14 Denied Denied Denied Denied Plaintiff

of A-389,
Defence
Colony,
New
Delhi-24
5 Copy of l5 Denied Denied Denied Denied Plaintiff
the
application
dated
03.09.2020
6. Copy of t6 Denied Denied Denied Denied Plaintiff
the receipt
dated
23.09.2020
issued by
Ministry of
Housing &
Urban
Affairs
7. Copy of 17-18 Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Plaintiffi
the house Defendants
Tax
Receipt SDMC
4 I say that my counsel under my instructions has drafted the instant

affrdavit, and I have read its contents and accept the same as true
and correct based upon my personal knowledge, documents
available, and legal advice received, believed to be true and
correct, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
*
N'
DEPONENT
OF
..f
Å
55
"\o*.+s
.tl'^)'
.os***lt' '
VERIFICATION:
^ùo''Þr
Ìs- Verified at New Delhi on this day of 04 .02.2022that the contents of the
iff;i:ï:"i-*:, ni ;*iË ffJi"åi

mg;:r,r**ffii
.bi
DEPONENT
ATT STED
+( I
Notarv Public, Delhi (lndia)

n ,? .¿
t 4 Fcs hïn

D1&amp;2 WS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D1&amp;2 WS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

L

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Others ...Defendants

Kamal Bansal & Associates, Solicitors & Advocates

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEV/ DELHI

Dr. Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Others ...Defendants

At the outset the Answering Defendants refutes each and every

specifically admitted hereinunder.

1. The plaint is liable to be rejected since the Plaintiff has approached

funds ofthe joint family comprising ofPrehlad Singh Rekhi (since

accordingly, the deceased father of parties hereto had purchased

Defendant No. 3, which being immoveable properties at Shahdara

A. Immovable Property bearing Municipal No. 11799-800 (Eastern

the Office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi as Document No. 2504 in

been affected by judicial order as way back as in 1976 by a decree

of Hon'ble Court at Delhi partitioning the Suit Property whereby

exclusively vest with the Answering Defendants, since all parties

the names of the daughters and accordingly, the ground floor of

4 The suit is barred by limitation since the date of death of father,

decree coupled with factor of the sisters having received their

SANGAM VrHAR PROPERTY-I (1989) & SANGAM VIHAR

Answering Defendants. Even in terms of Hindu Succession Act,

subject to prior disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary

after having been partitioned by way ofjudicial decree.

NAME DOB STATUS

B. Sh. Prahlad Singh Rekhi was allotted a piece of land being

A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 admeasuring

members resided in the said Suit Property. During said time,

immovable Properfy bearing Municipal No. 11799-800

(Eastern portion of Building Known as Rehman Building),

GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi vide Sale Deed dated 03.03.1972

@ Indu Pal Kaur both daughters of Sh. S.Prehlad Singh

D. Once the SHAHDARA PROPERTY was purchased in

accordingly, the Answering Defendants requested their

"Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Kuldeep Singh Rekhi (minor)

Court of Sh. B.B. Chaudhary, the then Sub-Judg€, I't Class,

Ground Floor of Suit Property became exclusively owned /

finality. It is evident that as on 28.05.1976, the parties hereto

The sisters since 1976 were well aware of the act of

28.05 .1976 passed in Civil Suit No. 7511976 to reaffirm that

Sh. DPS Rekhi became exclusive owner in possession of the

first floor of Suit Property and Sh. KS Rekhi became

exclusive owner in possession of the second floor of Suit

various contributions for the well-being of the sisters. In

subsequently found that the Plaintiffls husband was of very

Property though wise to purchase separate immovable

I. Accordingly, Immovable Properfy admeasuring 300 sq. yds.,

vide GPA notarized on 18.09.1989, Agreement to Sell

K. The parents thought that this fair family settlement would

mental, physical and physiological, psychological torture that

resulted in matrimonial dispute. As per recollection, a

criminal case U/s 4984 IPC was initiated at the instance of

are within the personal knowledge of the Plaintiff, and such

of imprisonment might ensue against him, he again

manipulated the Plaintiff resulting in compromise of the

matrimonial case. The Plaintiff s husband took said

compromise as an act to avenge, resulting in institution of

instigation of Plaintiff s husband.

L. It will be relevant to state that the father of the parties retired

the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act. During his lifetime,

the father of the parties succeeded in seeking eviction of few

tenants, which litigation went upto the Hon'ble Supreme

Suit Property was made to claim exclusive rights in the

M. In the interregnum, on 21.05.2011, the certified copy of

D1&2 WS

D1&2 WS