Petitioner Unable to Show Any Document or Lead Any Evidence: Delhi High Court Dismisses Ancestral Property Claim

February 29, 2024

110

national woman tax minor Evidence Copy maintenance police Landlord landlord claim Eviction ground Email Promotions judicial civil disclosure constable probate matrimonial relationship protection delhi cbse justice government automatic judiciary recovery government police view bail bail framing medical Rajya Sabha marriage matrimonial bank scale marriage bail wife decision national 67 copyright divorce plea under divorce fraud global documentsdocumentsvideo divorce sexual bail divorce validity sexual month friendlyfriendly suit disciplinary personal election case acquittal contract notice drug major day divorce teacher jewellers work honorable voluntary principle judgment Bail ordering wrestling remarks bail death criminal Cross- rape validity mother judicial wilful police daughters bail v eviction broad Examination wife land sexual marriage Delhi senior framing bail delhi guilty nationals bail

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.

Legal Point of the Judgment

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.

Facts and Issues Arising in the Judgment

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.

Court’s Assessment and Decision

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

Download Judgment