-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a landmark judgment on ancestral property dispute, the Delhi High Court today dismissed a Civil Revision Petition, stating, “The petitioner/defendant has been unable to show any document or lead any evidence.” This decision upholds the trial court’s ruling in the contentious case of Smt. Kamlesh vs. Smt. Sunita Sharma.
The legal crux of the judgment revolved around the possession of property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The petitioner challenged the trial court’s decree which favored the respondent for possession of the ancestral property.
The property in question, originally owned by the petitioner’s father-in-law, Mr. Rampal, became the subject of inheritance disputes among legal heirs. The petitioner alleged forgery in the sale documents used by other legal heirs to transfer property portions to the respondent. The trial court had dismissed these claims, leading to the current revision petition.
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and testimony presented in the trial court. The judgment noted, “It is brought on the record that in earlier Suit No. 51544/16 decided vide judgment dated 10.01.2018 between the same set of parties, the petitioner/defendant was held to be in possession of only the first floor of the suit property.”
The court further stated, "She has miserably failed to substantiate her defense to the suit, which otherwise too is outside the scope of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.” The High Court found no substantial evidence supporting the petitioner’s claims of illegal dispossession and fraud, thereby upholding the trial court’s decision.
The appeals of the petitioner were dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment was upheld. The High Court dismissed the revision petition and vacated the interim order dated 09.02.2023.
Date of Decision: February 20, 2024
SMT. KAMLESH vs. SMT. SUNITA SHARMA
