NCT OF DELHI COURT FEE NCT OF DELHI COURT FEE

DLCT1612105E2227K DLCT3132&5H2233M
18-MAY-2022 31-AUG-2022 t3
r. O
DLCT1812105E2227K DLCT3132285H2233M

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 53/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:-

INDUPAL KAUR SEHGAL ... .PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

DR. DAVINDER PAL SINGH

REKHI & ORS ... DEFENDANTS

URGENT APPLICATION
TO
THE REGISTRAR
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
AT NEW DELHI

Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying application as urgent in
accordance with high court rules as matter is coming up before
the Hon'ble Court on 30.11.22.
Hence this application.

New Delhi
Dated: 09.22
SASAN & SASANS
ADVOCATES
Y-13, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-54
9250922672,9212772816
 > 2
NOT OF DELHI COURT FEE NCT OF DELHI COURT FEE
DLCT181211SE2227K DLCT3132300H2233M
18-MAY.2022 3VAUS-3>2*

DLCT1812115E2227K DLCT3132300H2233M

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 53/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:-

INDUPAL KAUR SEHGAL ... .PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

DR. DAVINDER PAL SINGH

REKHI & ORS ... DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE

PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17
R/W SECTION 151 CPC FOR
AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicant is the plaintiff in the present suit
which is filed for partition, possession, rendition of
accounts and permanent injunction in respect of the
suit property i.e. A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi
and against the defendants claiming her 1/4* share in
the suit property being one of the legal heirs/
successors to the estate of Late Sh. Prehlad Singh
Rekhi who had left for heavenly abode on 04.12.2007
intestate.

2. That the defendant no. 1 & 2 filed their written

statement along with an application of condonation of
delay and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to condone
 the said delay and their written statement has been
taken on record on 26.08.2022 and now the case is
fixed for hearing on 30.11.2022.

3. That the defendant no. 1 & 2 in their written statement

have taken various preliminary objections besides
giving scanty details of the litigation filed / faced by
their father i.e. Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi
including the consent decree dated 28.05.1976 by
virtue of which the defendants no. 1 & 2 allege
ownership of the 1st floor and 2nd floor of the suit
property. It is further alleged that the applicant and
defendant no. 3 have received their share in the suit
property and the defendant no. 1 & 2 disclosed the
purchase 2 properties by the father of the parties, Late
Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi in the name of plaintiff and
defendant no. 3 i.e. one property at Shahdara property
and other at Sangam Vihar. All these information I
documents have been concealed deliberately and
intentionally from the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1
& 2.
4. That all these averments are totally false and baseless
as the applicant had no knowledge about the said
properties. The properties are benami properties. The
applicant has neither any document pertaining to the
 said properties nor possessed any of these properties
till date.

5. That it is pertinent to mention here that the father of

the applicant, Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi used to
reside with the defendant no. 1 and after his death all
the documents either pertaining to properties or court
proceedings are in power, possession and custody of
the defendant no.l & 2. The said defendants have
conveniently filed those documents which seem to
deprive the applicant of her share and withheld those
documents which give the true picture.
6. That the defendant no. 1 & 2 are making inadequate
disclosures by concealing the documents pertaining to
Shahdara as well as suit property and trying to deceive
the Hon'ble Court with the sole motive to usurp the
suit property. It is an eye opener as to how, the pure
ocean of justice is polluted with high neck speed of
the events which has taken place in the said matter
giving rise to serious suspicion that there is something
more which meets the eye. It is not out of place to
mention here that the applicant is trying to trace the
details of the litigations with respect to the Shahdara
as well as suit property and the applicant reserve her
right to file the same as and when the applicant is able
to discover the same.
7. That the defendant no. 1 & 2 herein procured the
orders/ judgment dated 28.05.1976 by playing fraud
upon the Court. Now the said order/ judgment dated
28.05.1976 is being agitated in order to deprive the
plaintiff of her legal right of her share and therefore, it
had become incumbent upon the applicant to amend
the plaint and seek the indulgence of the Hon'ble
Court at this juncture to protect the interest of justice.
The defendant no. 1 & 2 failed to explain as to why
they kept quiet for such a long period and did not act
upon the said order/ judgment dated 28.05.1976.

8. That the defendant no. 1 & 2 not only tried to malign

the married life of the plaintiff being their real sister
much younger to them but are playing averse to her
lawful interest and did not hesitate to misrepresent the
facts by playing fraud upon the Hon'ble Court to
obtain the order I judgment dated 28.05.1976. The
said defendants are trying to play mischief with the
plaintiff though the plaintiff have shown tolerance and
restrain not to get dragged into any controversy but
the acts of the said defendants have not only surpass
all norms of social life. The order / judgment dated
28.05.1976 though a sham document is infringing the
right of the applicant / plaintiff and needs to be
 adjudicated upon to completely decide the matters in
issue, hence the present application.

9. That as far as Shahdara property is concerned, it is

stated that the plaintiff was aged about 11 years in the
year 1972 when the property Municipal No. 1/799-800
(eastern portion of building known as Rehman
Building) GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi was alleged
purchased. The father of the plaintiff, Late Sh. Prehlad
Singh Rekhi never divulged anything to the plaintiff
regarding the ownership of the said property.
However, the plaintiff could recall that her father, Late
Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi and defendant no. 1 & 2 used
to attend the Court proceedings in a cases relating a
property at Shahdara and lastly the litigation was lost.
The plaintiff with great efforts could lay hands to the
report published in the newspaper “Times of India”
dated 05.12.2005. though the defendant no. 1 & 2
have all the documents in their possession of the
litigations pertaining to Shahdara property but have
suppressed the same and have not come clean before
this Hon'ble Court.

10. That the plaintiff has also come to know from the
documents filed by the defendant no. 1 & 2 that the
father of the plaintiff, Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi
had purchased another benami property measuring
200 sq. yards out of khasra no. 16/9 at Sangam Vihar
New Delhi in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
has no knowledge about the same however, it is
submitted that neither the said transaction convey any
title on the plaintiff nor the plaintiff has any
whereabouts of the said transaction. It is evident that
father of the plaintiff, Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi
had purchased properties in his name as well as in the
name of the defendant no. 3 as it evident from one of
the document which mentions as under:-
East : Gali no. 8
West : Plot of P S Rekhi
North : Plot of Balwinder Kaur
South : Road 20 ft.
It is not out of place to mention here that the
defendant no. 1 & 2 have not placed on record the
documents of the properties purchased by Late Sh.
Prehlad Singh Rekhi on record vexatiously. It might
be that the father of the parties had purchased other
properties which the defendant no. 1 & 2 are not
disclosing and till such disclosure is made on
affidavit, the proper adjudication of the suit cannot be
made.
11. That for the purpose of the present application, the
applicant is restricting herself to the order/ judgment
dated 28.05.1976 therefore, the applicant wants to add
the following paras in her pleadings i.e. para 16 A to
16 F as:-
16A. That there were six tenants at the
ground floor of the suit property and they were
not vacating the tenanted premises, therefore, to
oust the tenants from the ground floor of the suit
property, Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi in
connivance with the defendant no. 1 & 2 filed a
suit for permanent injunction, suit no. 75/76
titled as “Davinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Ors vs
Prehlad Singh Rekhi & Ors”. It is noteworthy
that Late Smt. Mohinder Kaur Rekhi, the mother
of the parties to the present suit was impleaded
as defendant no. 2.

16B. That though the defendant no. 1 & 2

filed only the photocopy of the order / judgment
dated 28.05.1976 but intentionally and
deliberately withheld the pleadings of the said
suit no. 75/76, decree-sheet and the compromise
deed on the basis of which the order/ judgment
dated 28.05.1976 was passed. It is pertinent to
mention here that the defendant no. 1 & 2
misrepresented the Hon'ble Court by pleading
that the suit property which was allotted to Late
Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi in the year 1960 a Naib
Subedar (Retd.) by the Ministry of
Rehabilitation on lease of 99 years as a Joint
Hindu Family Property.

16C. That from the bare perusal of the

order/judgment dated 28.05.1976, It is
apparently clear that suit was filed in a
preplanned manner. The defendant no.l & 2
herein managed to get a decree for partition in a
suit for permanent injunction by paying the
court fee of Rs. 13/-. It is purely a misuse of the
process of law wherein the authority of the
institution is being undermined by playing fraud
upon the Hon'ble Court. It is not out of place to
mention here that in the year 1976, the
defendant no. 1 was aged about 20 years and
defendant no. 2 was 17 years, a minor. Both the
defendants were students and dependent upon
Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi, their father.
16 D. That the suit was filed on 17.02.1976
and on 18.05.1976, the order/ judgment was
passed. However, the defendant no. 1 & 2 did
not act upon the said order/ judgment dated
28.05.1976 till date as the suit property still
stands in the name of the parents of the parties
and even the House Tax is being paid on their
name.

16 E. That the defendant no. 1 & 2 do not have

the certified copies of the order/judgment or the
decree sheet. The acts of the defendant no. 1 & 2,
who were the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit are
not only collusive but deceptive as fraud has
been played upon the Hon'ble Court for
procuring the said order/ judgment. Therefore,
the order/judgment dated 28.05.1976 needs to
be set aside and a decree of declaration be
passed declaring the said order/ judgment, a
sham document being an act of fraud and
cohersive / strict action being taken against the
defendant no. 1 & 2.

16 F. That Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi

filed various litigations against the tenants for
 eviction of their tenancy which is apparent from
the documents placed on record by the
defendant no. 1 & 2 and in some of the
litigations, the father of the plaintiff, Late Sh.
Prehlad Singh Rekhi appeared in person and
even the pleadings are hand written. All the
documents pertaining to the litigations filed/
defended by Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi were
in his safe custody which are now in the custody
and possession of the defendant no. 1 & 2.

12. That the applicant seeks the leave of the Hon'ble Court
to amend the para 25 of the suit as follows:-

25. That plaintiff values the suit and pays the court
fee on the reliefs as follows:-

i. The plaintiff values the suit for the relief of

partition and possession of the suit property i.e.
property no. A-389, Defence Colony, New
Delhi @ Rs. 20,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Crores Only) and the 1 /4th share of the plaintiff
comes to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores
Only) however, the plaintiff being in joint /
constructive possession of the suit property
 being the co-sharer/ co-owner of the suit
property is affixing a fixed court fee of Rs. 20/-
as per article 17 (vi) Schedule II, of the Court
Fee Act;

ii. The plaintiff values the suit for the relief of

rendition of account @ Rs. 200/- and is paying
the fixed court fee of Rs. 20/- as the plaintiff is
not aware of the rental being received the
defendant no 1 & 2 and undertakes to the pay
the ad-velorum court fee on the rental income
for the last 3 years and future rent (rental
income after filing of the present suit) once the
rental income is disclosed by the defendants no
1 & 2;

iii. The plaintiff value the suit for the relief of

permanent injunction @ 130/- on which the
plaintiff have affixed a court fee of Rs. 13/-.

iv. The plaintiff value the suit for the relief of

declaration @ 200/- on which the plaintiff
affixes a court fee of Rs. 20/-
 However, the plaintiff undertakes to pay the deficient
court fee, if any as and when directed by the Hon'ble
Court.

13. That the applicant seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to

amend / add the prayer clause in suit/ plaint as
follows:-

PRAYER
It is, therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to pass:

a. A decree of partition be passed in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant thereby
declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants have
1 /4th share each in the suit property i.e. property no.
A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi;

b. A decree of possession of be passed in favour of

the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby
directing that the suit property i.e. property no. A-
389, Defence Colony, New Delhi be partitioned by
metes and bounds and the vacant and peaceful
possession of the l/4th share in the suit property be
given to the plaintiff;
 Or 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 officer appointed by the court and l/4th
share of the plaintiff be given to the plaintiff as per
the decree;

c. A decree of rendition of accounts be passed in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
thereby directing that the defendant no. 1 & 2 to
account for the rental income for the last 3 years
from the 2 shops and first floor of the suit property
and deposit the same either in the Hon'ble Court or
to the plaintiffs account;

or/and Direct the defendant no. 1 & 2 be to deposit

the l/4th of the share 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
plaintiffs account;

d. A decree of declaration be passed in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendants thereby
declaring that the order/ judgment passed in suit
no. 75/76 titled as Devinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Ors
 vs Prehlad Singh Rekhi & Ors dated 28.05.1976
and decree passed in the said suit as nullity and a
sham document being an act of fraud been played
by the defendant no. 1 & 2 in collusion with the
father of the parties on the grounds mentioned in
the plaint;

e. A decree of permanent injunction may be passed in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
thereby directing the defendants not to alienate,
sell, create any encumbrance, part with possession,
or create any third party interest in the suit property
i.e. property no. A-389, Defence Colony, New
Delhi in respect of the share of the plaintiff.

f. 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 of justice.

14. That the present amendments are necessary to

adjudicate and decide the disputed questions on
merits.
15. That the suit is at the initial stage and pleadings are
yet to be completed, therefore, there is no delay in
filing the present application.

16. That the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and

injury if the present application is not considered and
allowed at this juncture.

17. That the interest of justice demands that the applicant

be protected from exploitation and more so when the
said amendments are necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between
the parties.

18. That the amendment does not in any way prejudice the
interest of the defendants rather parties to the suit
should not hesitate from the merits of the case.

19. That the present amendment is neither to delay the

present proceedings nor a deliberate act to cause
hindrance to the present proceedings.

20. That the present amendment does not change the

character of the suit.
 PRAYER

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present

application be allowed and the plaintiff / applicant be allowed to
make the necessary amendments keeping in view of the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice. The
amended plaint is annexed and be taken on record.

It is prayed accordingly.

\ Applicant
New Delhi
Dated: *2-3 •

SASAN & SASANS

ADVOCATES
Y13, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi-110054
9250922672,9212772816
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 53/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:-
INDUPAL KAUR SEHGAL ... .PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DR. DAVINDER PAL SINGH
REKHI & ORS ... DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I Smt. Indupal Kaur Sehgal aged about 61 years W/O
Dr. R. D. S. Sehgal R/O WZ- 10, Street No. -18, Sant Garh, Tilak
Nagar, New Delhi-110018 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
—asjinder :-
S/;>- x
, 1. That the deponent is the plaintiff in the present suit filed
A •■)
Cjl^efore the Delhi High Court at New Delhi as such am well
conversant with the facts of the case and hence competent to
swear this affidavit.
That the accompanying application has been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions which have been read over and
explained to me and the contents therein are true and correct
and therefore are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

/ : < Deponent
^VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this day of September 2022 that
the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed.

Deponent
SA I

R-g
L-- -*■ V

f <■
C"
—% SEP -zCZZ ' \ '
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 53 / 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:-

INDUPAL KAUR SEHGAL PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

DR. DAVINDER PAL SINGH

REKHI & ORS ... DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR PARTITION, POSSESSION,

RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff is the sister of the defendants i.e.

defendant no. I & 2 are brothers wile the defendant
no.3 is her sister, thus all are the siblings of Late Sh.
Prehlad Singh Rekhi who left for heavenly abode on
04.12.2007 intestate. The plaintiff by way of the
present suit claims her l/4th share in the property
owned by her deceased father, Late Sh. Prehlad Singh
Rekhi.

2. That Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi was allotted a

piece of land/plot i.e. property no. A-389, Defence
 Colony, New Delhi by the Govt, of India as the father
of the plaintiff was in defence services. The same was
allotted by the Ministry of Defence, Government of
India on 21.11.1960. The photocopy of the lease is
enclosed with the plaint. The property no. A-389,
Defence Colony, New Delhi shall hereinafter be
referred to as ‘the suit property’.

3. That the suit property is a land measuring 281.66 sq.

yds and the father of the parties built the same upto 3
floors i.e. ground, first and second floor. The ground
floor of the property is commercial in nature having 3
shops in total wherein one shop is occupied by the
defendant no. 1, and the other two shops are occupied
by tenants and rent from the said tenanted shops was
collected by Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi, father of
the parties and after the death of the father, Late Smt.
Mohinder Kaur, mother of the parties used to take the
rent but after her demise, the same is now taken by the
defendants.

4. That in June -July 2020, the defendant no. 2 was

employed with Hindustan Petroleum and was lived at
various cities in India and lastly lived at Mumbai.
After retirement, the defendant no. 2 shown his
intentions to shift to the suit property and asked the
 plaintiff whether the defendant no. 2 can shift to the
second floor of the suit property as other legal heirs of
the suit property had no objection, the plaintiff
discussed the same in her family and told the
defendant no. 2 that she had no hesitation to allow the
defendant no. 2 to shift to the suit property and since
then, the defendant no. 2 started residing in second
floor of the suit property. The first floor of the suit
property is partly given on rent. It is pertinent to
mention here that, father of the plaintiff expired on
04.12.2007 intestate i.e. without leaving any Will or
Codicil thus leaving behind the plaintiff, defendants
and his wife, Late Smt. Mohinder Kaur as his Legal
heirs to the suit property. The death certificate is
enclosed with the plaint.

5. That after the death of Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi,

the suit property remained undivided and all the Legal
heirs being co-owners of the suit property inherited
equal shares in the suit property i.e. l/5th share.
However, the mother of the plaintiff, Late Smt.
Mohinder Kaur left for heavenly abode on 03.10.2017.
Therefore the plaintiff and the defendants are the only
class 1 legal heirs of Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi
and rightful successors to the suit property and their
share in the suit property is 1 /4th after the death of the
 mother of the parties. The death certificate is enclosed
with the plaint.

6. That the plaintiff was married on 11.03.1983 and after

the marriage of the plaintiff, the plaintiff resided in the
matrimonial home. The plaintiff was very close to her
parents but never shown any interest in management
of the property either prior to the death of her parents
or after their demise however, after the demise of the
father of the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 & 2 used to
ask the plaintiff to show some interest in the
management of the suit property being equal share
holder but the plaintiff gave them the free hand to
maintain the same. The plaintiff had full faith on the
defendant no. 1 & 2 and maintained cordial relations
with the defendants. The plaintiff and the defendants
used to enjoy and cherish every occasion, family
functions and gatherings.

7. That during the lifetime of the mother of the parties,

the plaintiff never thought of partition of the suit
property as the mother was residing in the suit
property. However, after her death, the plaintiff
wanted that the suit property be partitioned and her
1 /4th share in the suit property be given to her. The suit
property remained undivided and the plaintiff being
 one of the co-owners is having joint/constructive
possession of the suit property till date.

8. That in December 2019, the plaintiff approached the

defendant no. 1 for partition of the suit property but
the defendant no. 1 avoided to indulge in any
discussion or reference to the matter in absence of
other legal heirs thus the plaintiff asked the other
defendants for a meeting to discuss as to how the suit
property should be partitioned, but on that the
defendant no. 3 showed her reluctance to join any
such meeting and left it to the plaintiff and the
defendant no. 1 & 2 to make suitable arrangements
though made it clear that the defendant no. 3 would
not relinquish her share in favour of any of the other
legal heirs of Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi.

9. That in January 2020, the plaintiff and the defendant

no. 1 & 2 met and discussed the modalities of
partition, the plaintiff told the defendant no. 1 & 2 that
either the said defendants can give the 1/4* share of
the plaintiff or can opt for reconstruction of the suit
property and dividing among the legal heirs amicably
or in the alternative, the suit property be sold out and
that the proceeds be equally divided among all the
legal heirs. However, the defendant no. 1 & 2 intended
 to rebuilt the suit property. The said defendants asked
for 2 months time to check if the said options could be
worked out.

10. That in the first week of March 2020, the plaintiff

called the defendant no. 2 to ask about the outcome,
the defendant no. 2 told the plaintiff that because there
are tenants in the suit property and they need some
time to settle with them before the suit property can be
sold out or reconstructed so some more time is
required to get possession from the tenants. Thereafter
the lockdown was imposed and the no meeting could
take place till June 2020.

11. That on 19th July 2020, the plaintiff asked the

defendant no. 1 & 2 either to give the 1 /4th share of the
plaintiff else the plaintiff would approach the court of
law. The defendant no. 1 & 2 assured the plaintiff to
make amicable settlement among the family members/
legal heirs of Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi and
promised the plaintiff that her l/4th share in the suit
property is safe and secure. The defendant no. 1 & 2
asked for some more time to come to reach to a
conclusive decision, the plaintiff also never wanted to
indulge in litigation and always wanted to preserve the
cordial relations.
12. That on 30.08.2020, the plaintiff realized that the
attitude of the defendant no. 1 & 2 has changed as
whenever the plaintiff tried to talk about the partition
of the suit, the defendant no. 1 & 2 avoided the same
on one or the other pretext and intended to prolong the
matter as they could.

13. That the plaintiff came to know that the house tax of
the suit property is being paid in the name of the
mother, Late Mohinder Kaur even after the death of
the mother of the parties, however on confrontation
the plaintiff did not get any satisfactory reply from the
defendant no. 2.

14. That the plaintiff smelt some rat in the intention of the
defendant no. 1 & 2 when the plaintiff asked the
defendant no. 1 about the rental income from the suit
property and the defendant no. 1 did not reply to the
said query. The plaintiff approached the Assistant
Assessor & Collector, SDMC, Central Zone, New
Delhi and Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,
Land and Development Office, Moulana Azad Road,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi with an application with
respect to the mutation/transfer of the suit property.
The application dated 03.09.2020 and the
 acknowledgement dated 23.09.2020 is enclosed with
the plaint.

15. That the defendant no. 1 & 2 are in occupation of the

suit property and also enjoying the rental income from
ground floor and first floor of the suit property more
specifically after the death of the mother of the parties,
thus are relishing all the benefits out of the suit
property and therefore, are not interested to share the
suit property and are advancing excuses to postpone
the matter indefinitely to avoid any amicable
settlement to take place between the parties. It is
pertinent to mention here that the defendant no.3,
sister of the plaintiff does not dispute anything and is
ready to join any settlement in the mater in the interest
of the family.

16. That on 05.01.2021, the plaintiff came to know that

the defendants are in the process of creating
encumbrance I third party interest in the suit property
on ‘as is where’ basis and in case the defendants are
successful in their design then the plaintiff shall be put
to multiplicity of litigations and the defendants would
try to prolong it as far as they can so that the plaintiff
is indulged in litigations throughout her life, hence the
present suit before this Hon'ble Court.
16A. That there were six tenants at the ground floor of
the suit property and they were not vacating the
tenanted premises, therefore, to oust the tenants
from the ground floor of the suit property, Late Sh.
Prehlad Singh Rekhi in connivance with the
defendant no. 1 & 2 filed a suit for permanent
injunction, suit no. 75/76 titled as “Davinder Pal
Singh Rekhi & Ors vs Prehlad Singh Rekhi & Ors”.
It is noteworthy that Late Smt. Mohinder Kaur
Rekhi, the mother of the parties to the present suit
was impleaded as defendant no. 2.

16B. That though the defendant no. 1 & 2 filed only the
photocopy of the order / judgment dated 28.05.1976
but intentionally and deliberately withheld the
pleadings of the said suit no. 75/76, decree-sheet
and the compromise deed on the basis of which the
order/judgment dated 28.05.1976 was passed. It is
pertinent to mention here that the defendant no. 1 &
2 misrepresented the Hon'ble Court by pleading that
the suit property which was allotted to Late Sh.
Prehlad Singh Rekhi in the year 1960 a Naib
Subedar (Retd.) by the Ministry of Rehabilitation
 on lease of 99 years as a Joint Hindu Family
Property.

16C. That from the bare perusal of the order/judgment

dated 28.05.1976, It is apparently clear that suit was
filed in a preplanned manner. The defendant no.l
& 2 herein managed to get a decree for partition in
a suit for permanent injunction by paying the court
fee of Rs. 13/-. It is purely a misuse of the process
of law wherein the authority of the institution is
being undermined by playing fraud upon the
Hon'ble Court. It is not out of place to mention here
that in the year 1976, the defendant no. 1 was aged
about 20 years and defendant no. 2 was 17 years, a
minor. Both the defendants were students and
dependent upon Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi, their
father.

16 D. That the suit was filed on 17.02.1976 and on

18.05.1976, the order/ judgment was passed.
However, the defendant no. 1 & 2 did not act upon
the said order/ judgment dated 28.05.1976 till date
as the suit property still stands in the name of the
 parents of the parties and even the House Tax is
being paid on their name.

16 E. That the defendant no. 1 & 2 do not have the

certified copies of the order/ judgment or the decree
sheet. The acts of the defendant no. 1 & 2, who were
the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit are not only
collusive but deceptive as fraud has been played
upon the Hon'ble Court for procuring the said
order/ judgment. Therefore, the order/ judgment
dated 28.05.1976 needs to be set aside and a decree
of declaration be passed declaring the said order/
judgment, a sham document being an act of fraud
and cohersive / strict action being taken against the
defendant no. 1 & 2.

16 F. That Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi filed various

litigations against the tenants for eviction of their
tenancy which is apparent from the documents
placed on record by the defendant no. 1 & 2 and in
some of the litigations, the father of the plaintiff, Late
Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi appeared in person and even
the pleadings are hand written. All the documents
pertaining to the litigations filed/ defended by Late Sh.
Prehlad Singh Rekhi were in his safe custody which
 are now in the custody and possession of the
defendant no. 1 & 2.

17. That the suit property is in the name of the father of

the plaintiff, Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi and the suit
property has not been transferred thereafter, thus,
there is no impediment to partition of the suit property
and grant the l/4th share of the plaintiff either by
metes n bounds or by selling the suit property in
auction and rendering the due share to the plaintiff.

18. That the plaintiff is thus compelled under the

circumstances to approach this Hon’ble Court and
seek its indulgence at this juncture to make a partition
of the suit properties by meets and bounds among the
plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff is in
joint/constructive possession of the suit property being
the co-sharer in the suit property.

19. That the plaintiff also pray that the defendants be

restrained from creating any encumbrance or third
party interest in the suit property in possession and use
of the defendant no. 1 & 2 during the pendency of the
suit otherwise, it shall lead to multiplicity of
litigations. The original documents of the suit
properties are held with the defendants, they be called
 upon to place on record for securing the status of the
suit property.

20. That there are 2 shops at the ground floor which are
commercial in nature and the first floor of the suit
property is given on rent and the defendant no. 1 & 2
are pocketing the rental income and the defendants
have refused to disclose the rental income, therefore,
the plaintiff prays for rendition of accounts of the said
rental income for the last 3 years from the date of
filing of the present suit from the defendant no. 1 & 2.

21. That defendants have some malafide intention in their

mind as such the plaintiff is apprehensive of some
illegal and unlawful acts by the defendants in order to
devoid the legal share of the plaintiff in the suit
property.

22. That in case the defendants succeed in alienating /

encumbering / parting with the suit property 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.

23. That the plaintiff has legal right to restrain the

defendants from selling, alienating, creating any
encumbrance or parting with the suit property to
 anyone without making a partition thereof with meets
and bounds.

24. That the cause of action arose firstly arose when the
suit property was allotted to the father of the plaintiff
on 21.11.1960 and the cause of action again arose on
04.12.2007 when the father of the plaintiff expired
intestate. The cause of action arose on various dates
when the plaintiff asked for partition of the suit
property including 19.07.2020. The cause of action
further arose on 30.08.2020 when the plaintiff started
smelling a rat as the defendants started avoiding any
discussion on partition of the suit property. The cause
of action arose on 05.01.2021 when the plaintiff came
to know that the defendants are in the process of
creating encumbrance/ third party interest in the suit
property. The cause of action is continuing and still
subsisting. The suit property i.e. property no. A-389,
Defence Colony, New Delhi is shown in the site plan
enclosed with the plaint.
25. That plaintiff values the suit and pays the court fee on
the reliefs as follows:-

i. The plaintiff values the suit for the relief of

partition and possession of the suit property
i.e. property no. A-389, Defence Colony, New
 Delhi @ Rs. 20,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Crores Only) and the l/4th share of the
plaintiff comes to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Crores Only) however, the plaintiff being
in joint / constructive possession of the suit
property being the co-sharer/ co-owner of the
suit property is affixing a fixed court fee of
Rs. 20/- as per article 17 (vi) Schedule II, of
the Court Fee Act;
ii. The plaintiff values the suit for the relief of
rendition of account @ Rs. 200/- and is paying
the fixed court fee of Rs. 20/- as the plaintiff
is not aware of the rental being received the
defendant no 1 & 2 and undertakes to the pay
the ad-velorum court fee on the rental income
for the last 3 years and future rent (rental
income after filing of the present suit) once
the rental income is disclosed by the
defendants no 1 & 2;
iii. The plaintiff value the suit for the relief of
permanent injunction @ 130/- on which the
plaintiff have affixed a court fee of Rs. 13/-.
iv. The plaintiff value the suit for the relief of
declaration @ 200/- on which the plaintiff
affixes a court fee of Rs. 20/-.
 However, the plaintiff undertakes to pay the deficient
court fee, if any as and when directed by the Hon'ble
Court.

26. The total valuation of the suit property is within the

pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as such
the Hon'ble Court is well within its pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition.

27. That the parties to the suit are residing at Delhi. The
suit property is situated at Delhi, Hence the Hon’ble
Court has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain
and adjudicate upon the matter.
28. That no other suit in respect of the suit property for
partition has been filed in any District court in Delhi
or in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
29. That the present matter is not a commercial in nature.
30. That the documents filed with the suit are either
original or are true copies of its original.

PRAYER
It is, therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to pass:

a. A decree of partition be passed in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declaring
 that the plaintiff and the defendants have 1 /4th share
each in the suit property i.e. property no. A-389,
Defence Colony, New Delhi;

b. A decree of possession of be passed in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing
that the suit property i.e. property no. A-389,
Defence Colony, New Delhi be partitioned by
metes and bounds and the vacant and peaceful
possession of the 1/4 share in the suit property be
given to the plaintiff;

Or 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 officer appointed by the court and IM01
share of the plaintiff be given to the plaintiff as per
the decree;

c. A decree of rendition of accounts be passed in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
thereby directing that the defendant no. 1 & 2 to
account for the rental income for the last 3 years
from the 2 shops and first floor of the suit property
and deposit the same either in the Hon'ble Court or
to the plaintiffs account;
 or/and Direct the defendant no. 1 & 2 be to deposit
the l/4th of the share 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
plaintiffs account;

d. A decree of declaration be passed in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendants thereby
declaring that the order/ judgment passed in suit no.
75/76 titled as Devinder Pal Singh Rekhi & Ors vs
Prehlad Singh Rekhi & Ors dated 28.05.1976 and
decree passed in the said suit as nullity and a sham
document being an act of fraud been played by the
defendant no. 1 & 2 in collusion with the father of
the parties on the grounds mentioned in the plaint;

e. A decree of permanent injunction may be passed in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
thereby directing the defendants not to alienate, sell,
create any encumbrance, part with possession, or
create any third party interest in the suit property
i.e. property no. A-389, Defence Colony, New
Delhi in respect of the share of the plaintiff.
 f. 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 of justice.

Delhi
Dated: & 09.2022
Through

SASAN & SASANS

ADVOCATES
Y-13, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
9250922672,9212772816
Raminders_sasan@yahoo.co.in

VERIFICATION

Verified at Delhi on this 2% day of September 2022 that the

contents of paras 1 to 23 of the above plaint are true and correct
to my knowledge and those of paras 24 to 30 are correct to
information received and believed to be true . Last para is prayer
to this Hon’ble Court.

Plaintiff
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 53/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:-
INDUP AL KAUR SEHGAL .... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DR. DAVINDER PAL SINGH
REKHI & ORS ... DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I Smt. Indupal Kaur Sehgal aged about 61 years W/O
Dr. R. D. S. Sehgal R/O WZ- 10, Street No. -18, Sant Garh, Tilak
Nagar, New Delhi-110018 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:-
•4-^That the deponent is the plaintiff in the present suit filed
before the Delhi High Court at New Delhi as such am well
■ conversant with the facts of the case and hence competent to
'.y <'
Gy'swear this affidavit.
2. That the amended plaint has been drafted by my counsel under
my instructions which have been read over and explained to
me and the contents therein are true and correct and therefore
are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

Deponent
'VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this day of September 2022 that
the contents of the aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my
&ERTIF1ED THAT THS DEPONENT
ha^sJje^Ltgncealed.
S’c. V'Aq. D’q
E/a ......... /TO.
J r. Deponent
f'o.SiV,. . ■
C

• ■ ■ ' .-’jf

Si On-’C

...