Delhi District Court
Suneel Sodhi And Ors vs M. L. Sodhi And Ors on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE 02/WAQF TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 20/2016
CNR No. DLND01-013014-2016
In the matter of :
1. Mrs. Suneel Sodhi
W/o Late Shri A.K. Sodhi
2. Mr. Dhruv Sodhi
S/o Late Sh A.K. Sodhi
3. Ms. Bhawna Sodhi
D/o late Sh A.K. Sodhi
All R/o B-3/4, (First Floor),
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110 057 ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. M.L Sodhi ( since deceased)
Through Legal heir:
Mrs. Nalini Lall
W/o Sh. M.M. Lall
R/o KJ-10, New Kavi Nagar
Ghaziabad (UP),
Both as LR of
Mr. M.L. Sodhi and Mrs. Raj Sodhi.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 1 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:52:44
+0530
2. Col V.K. Sodhi (Retd.) (Since deceased)
through his legal heirs:
I. Smt Manjula Sodhi
W/o Late Col. V.K. Sodhi
II Sh. Keshav Sodhi
S/o Late col. V.K. Sodhi
III Sh. Arjun Sodhi
S/o Late Col. V.K. Sodhi
All R/o B-3/4, (First Floor),
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110 057 ....Defendants
Appearances:
Ms. Zubeda Begum and Sh. Ayush Gandhi, Learned Counsels
for plaintiffs.
Sh. Aditya Malhotra, Ms. Tripti Kapoor and Ms. Eshita Gupta,
Learned Counsels for defendant no. 1 (a).
Sh. Jeevesh Nagrath, Learned Senior Advocate, Sh. Dheeresh
K. Dwivedi, Ms. Sanam Tripathi, Sh. Apaan Mittal and
Sh.Harjeet Singh, Learned Counsels for defendant no.2(i) to
(iii).
Date of institution of the suit : 21.12.1988
Final Arguments Heard on : 17.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 18.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs
for seeking declaration that House no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi is a Joint Family Property of the joint family
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally
2 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:52:46
+0530
constituted by the plaintiffs and defendants and that the
plaintiffs are in occupancy of the entire first floor of the
property in the exercise of their right of residence and are not
liable to be disturbed in their occupation and the joint family is
liable for maintenance, of the plaintiffs and the education and
marriage expenses of plaintiffs no.2 and 3 and for injunction
restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of
the plaintiffs of the first floor and in the alternative for
partition of the Joint family property. For the purpose of this
suit, the property house no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is
referred to as suit property.
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as under:-
2.1 It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff no.1 was
married to defendant no.4 on 16.02.1975 and plaintiff no.2 and
3 were born from the said wedlock on 03.09.1976 and
10.12.1980 respectively. The defendant no.1 is the father of
defendant no.3 and 4 and defendant no.2 is the wife of
defendant no.1. The plaintiff and the defendant constitute a
Joint Hindu Family of which defendant no.1 being the eldest
male member, is the Karta. The joint Hindu Family owns the
suit property i.e. no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The plot
underneath the property was allotted in 1962 (and paid for
during 1962-68) and later on given on perpetual sub-lease to
defendant no.1 by Government Servants Co-operative House
Building Society Ltd., vide perpetual sub-lease dated
10.03.1970 in consideration of payment of Rs.3,948.00 as the
price of the land and Rs.6,800/- as development charges i.e.
CS No. 20/2016 3 /101
Digitally signed
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:52:48
+0530
total amounting to Rs.10,748.00. It is averred that in the year
1968-69, defendant no.1 retired from his post as Deputy
Director (Inspection), Directorate of Civil Aviation, New
Delhi. One drawing-dining room, one bed room with attached
bathroom, kitchen and study with verandas in front and in the
rear a garage with two servant quarters above it, an open
drive-way and lawn and back courtyard on the ground floor, a
stair leading to two bed rooms with attached bathrooms and
one store on the first floor and constructed in May, 1971. This
constituted the first phase of the construction. The property
was acquired and constructed at a cost of about Rs.77,000/-
entirely with the joint family funds (H.U.F. was blessed with
funds of declaration made by defendant no.1 on 01.12.1969).
It is further averred that property was mentioned as joint
family property in the Income Tax Return filed by defendant
no.1 for the assessment year 1973-1974 as Karta of the H.U.F
and was assessed by the order of Shri U.C. Malhotra, Income
Tax Officer, Distt. VIII(A), New Delhi.
2.2 It is further averred that defendant no.4 in 1967
done Chemical Engineer from Banaras Hindu University and
before his marriage on 16.02.1975, he took up employment
with various organization including Indofil chemical Ltd.,
Bombay Chika Ltd., Delhi. After marriage, he worked with
M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi M/s Inalsa ltd. D.C.M
Group company and also worked as Import Manager, East
India Hotels, Delhi from 1979 to 1983. It is further averred
that he was drawing handsome salary in all these
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 4 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:52:50
+0530
employments. It is further averred that plaintiff no.1 got her
Indian School Certification in 1964 from Lawrence School
Sanowar and graduated from Daulat Ram College, Delhi in the
year 1968 and she got her Master Degree in Business
Administration from Delhi University in the year 1970 and
after her marriage, she took up employment with Capital
Radio Company and was drawing handsome salary, almost the
same as of defendant no.4.
2.3 It is further averred that in the year 1975, plaintiff
no.1 joined defendant no.4 as a Joint Account holder in his
existing Saving Bank Account no. 2411 with Indian Bank,
Shanti Niketan, New Delhi. It is further averred that plaintiff
no.1 had started drawing her salary from Capital Radio
Company from April, 1975. It is further averred that salary of
both the plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4 were deposited in
account no. 2411 till its closure in 1978. It is further averred
that in the year 1975, defendant no.4 and plaintiff no.1 opened
another joint saving bank account no. 4273 with Syndicate
Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and in the year 1978, another
joint saving bank account no. 6999 was opened in the name of
plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4 with Syndicate Bank, Vasant
Vihar, New Delhi. It is further averred that account no. 4273
was mostly operated by defendant no.4, where he used to
deposit his salary and only sometime, it was operated by
plaintiff no.1 and account no. 6999 was operated solely by
plaintiff no.1 and her salary used to be deposited in this
account. It is further averred that both plaintiff no.1 and Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 5 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:52:52
+0530
defendant no.4 were, however, entitled to operate both the
accounts singly.
2.4 It is further averred that in March, 1980 the Joint
Family desired to raise further construction on the suit
property to make it a rent viable unit and this offer was made
by defendant no.1 to both defendants no.3 and 4 to pool
resources for the construction. However, defendant no.3
refused to contribute on the ground that he had booked a flat in
Som Vihar and was negotiating for purchase of a farm land for
commercial farming near Pathankot. It is further averred that
defendant no.4 agreed to contribute funds from his wife and
his son’s F.D.Rs on the offer of the promise extended by all
the other members of the HUF and accepted by defendant
no.4 and his family that the ownership of the property so
constructed would be ultimately given to defendant no.4 and
his son plaintiff no.2 while the ground floor would be kept by
defendant no.1 to 3. It is further averred that this agreement
of construction and transfer of ownership was oral and on the
basis of this agreement, defendant no. 4 agreed to contribute. It
is further averred that agreement was acted upon and acting
on this agreement, FDRs (1) CWSC-132-133 of plaintiff no.2
for Rs.2,207.6, (2) CWSC-72-76 of plaintiff no.2 was
Rs.6,174.30, (3) SSD of plaintiff no.2 for Rs.7,200/- (4)
GJC-317 of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4 for Rs.5,462/-
were got pre-maturely encashed and transferred to account no.
4273. Further 1200 units of the Unit Trust of India, which
were in the name of defendant 4, (purchased with the funds of
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 6 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:52:54
+0530
plaintiff no.1) were also pre-maturally encashed for
Rs.13,800/- and the amount was credited into the account no.
4273 and these amounts were transferred from account no.
4273 to the HUF,C. Account no. 595 with Syndicate Bank,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is further averred that another sum
of Rs.2,000/- was transferred from account no. 6999 of
plaintiff no.1 to account no. 595 of the HUF and another
amount of Rs.5,000/- was transferred from account no.6999,
firstly to account no. 4273 and then transferred to account no.
595. Account no. 595 was operated by defendant no.1 as Karta
of the HUF. It is further averred that payments due to various
parties on account of construction were paid out from account
no. 595. It is further averred that by December, 1980, the
second phase or the construction was completed and it
consisted of one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, one
T.V lounge on the first floor and on the second floor one
drawing-dining, one bed room with attached bath, kitchen and
two open terraces. It is further averred that besides the
existing staircase, another independent staircase was provided
for the first and second floor.
2.5 It is further averred that since the completion of
the first phase of construction till about March,1976 the entire
house (then consisting of the ground floor and the two bed
rooms on the first floor-first phase construction) was let out to
West German Embassy. It is further averred that in March,
1976, Sh M.L. Sodhi, defendant no.1 and Shri A.K. Sodhi,
defendant no.4 and their respective wives shifted to the house
Digitally
signed by
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 7 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:52:55
+0530
from the rented premises no D-6/35, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
It is further averred that in December 1980 when the
construction of the second phase was completed, the entire
first floor (except one bed room with attached bath room and
T.V lounge) was let to various tenants one after the other and
the last tenant was M/s Market Advertising & Associates of
Bombay. It is further averred that the entire second floor was
also rented to Col. Arquay, Military attached of the philipine
Embassy. It is further averred that in June, 1983, the Philipine
Embassy vacated the second floor and thereafter M/s
Marketing Advertising & Associates shifted to the second
floor. It is further averred that on the vacation the same was
occupied by defendant no. 4 and his family (the plaintiffs)
and on 23.09.1983 and it constituted the matrimonial home of
plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4. Besides the occupation of
the first floor by the plaintiffs was as member of the Joint
Hindu Family entitled to residence.
2.6 It is further averred that defendant no.4 is a
psychic patient every since 1972. It is further averred that
plaintiff no.1 came to know in the year 1984 that defendant
no.4 was under psychic treatment since 1972 and he suffers
from recurring fits of depression. He throws up his
remunerative existing job and sits idle at home, gets into
abnormal/irrational and indecent behaviour towards himself,
children and his wife. It is further averred that he started
taking unnecessary risks like driving a car with other
occupants, without his specs when he was very weak
Digitally
eyesight.
signed by
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 8 /101
PANKAJ SHARMA
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:52:58
+0530
On such period of depression, he was very abusive and violent
towards the plaintiffs. It is further averred that he threatened
and lift his hand to strike plaintiff no.1 and has to be prevented
from carrying out the threats. It is further averred that on
17.07.1988, there was a theft of Rs.700/- from the almirah of
plaintiff no.1, while she was away with the children and
nobody was in the house except defendant no.4 and there was
no domestic servant employed by the family at that time. It is
further averred that defendant no.4 sensing that he may be
accused of having committed theft and had violent emotional
outburst. Thereafter on 19.07.1988, he suffered a heart attack
and was admitted to the Intensive Coronary Care Unit of Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital from where he was discharged after
10 days with instructions not to climb stairs. It is further
averred that defendant no.4 thereafter began to live on the
ground floor and since then is living there and he was under
the treatment of Dr. S.C Malik, Professor of Psychiatry in
Lady Harding Medical College and head of the department of
Psychiatry in Sucheta Kriplani Hospital.
2.7 It is further averred that defendant no.1 and his
wife, defendant no.2 have started harassing the plaintiffs with
a view to compel plaintiff no.1 to obtain more funds from her
mother and brother for the medical treatment of defendant
no.4 and they were joined in this action by defendant no.3. It
is further averred that this harassment became a habit with
them every 2-3 years when defendant no.4 suffers from
psychiatric trouble. It is further averred that plaintiff no.1
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 9 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:00
+0530
protested against this harassment and she stated that it was
the sole responsibility of the Joint Hindu Family to incur
necessary expenses for the treatment of defendant no.4 and
this has greatly annoyed defendant no.1 to defendant no.3. It
is further averred that they were not taking proper care of
defendant no.4 and on the contrary provoke and instigate him
against medical advice, to take improper steps and to disobey
the instructions given by Dr. S.C Malik, Psychiatrist and Dr.
Arun Joshi, Cardiologist, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and
they compelled him to climb stairs and also to make a
nuisance of himself towards the plaintiffs and deal harshly
with them. It is further averred that this act of defendant no.1
and 3 endangers the life and mental safety of defendant no.4
and also threatened to disrupt the peace of matrimonial home
of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.4.
2.8 It is further averred that Joint Hindu Family is
responsible for the maintenance of the plaintiffs and for the
education of plaintiff nos 2 and 3 and for their proper
education as also for the marriage expenses of plaintiff no.2
and plaintiff no.3. It is further averred that this obligation
towards them arises from mere relationship, they being
members of the Joint Hindu Family, irrespective of the fact
whether defendant no.4 earns or not earning. It is further
averred that their maintenance constitutes a change on the
Joint family property. It is further averred that Plaintiff no.2
was 12 years old and was a student of Class VII, Lawrence
School Sonawar at the time of filing of the plaint and plaintiff
Digitally
signed by
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 10 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:02
+0530
no.3 was 8 years old and was the student class III, Modern
School, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi at the time of filing of the
plaint. It is further averred that the Joint Hindu Family is
responsible for their proper education and marriage expenses
as also the maintenance of plaintiff no.1 and both the children
were entitled to receive education in good schools keeping the
educational upbringing of both the parents and the standard of
life to which they have been used to till now. It is further
averred that defendants no.1 to 3 insisted that education and all
other expenses regarding plaintiffs and also defendant no.4
should be borne by plaintiff no.1 by any means i.e. either from
her own income or by provision from her mother and brother.
It is further averred that defendant no.4 has failed to provide
any maintenance to the plaintiffs whenever he suffers from the
periodic fits of depression and the other defendants have also
failed to provide for the same. It is further averred that
defendant no.4 by holding out threats of physical violence and
endangered the personal safety of the plaintiffs and have
compelled them to live separately in the first floor of the
house, while he lives on the ground floor. It is further averred
that demand for maintenance and expenses of treatment on
plaintiff no.1 and her mother and brother is a wholly illegal
and an extortionate demand and the plaintiffs are entitled to
restrain the defendants from making any such demand.
2.9 It is further averred that the educational and
marriage expenses of plaintiffs no.2 and plaintiff no.3 are the
liability of the Joint Hindu Family and is not the responsibility
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 11 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:04
+0530
of Plaintiff no.1 and her mother or brother. It is further
averred that the defendants are also liable not to instigate,
compel or provoke defendant no.4 to come to the first floor as
that Will endangered his life and lives of the plaintiffs. It is
further averred that defendant no.4, provocated by defendants
no.1 to defendant no.3, once physically assaulted plaintiff
no.1.
2.10 It is further averred that in the alternative, it is
claimed that the Joint Hindu Family property no. B-3/4, Vasant
Vihar, New Delhi is liable to be partitioned amongst the co-
parceners and divided according to the shares in the co-
parcenary and the plaintiffs and defendant no.4 are jointly
entitled to ¼th share in property while defendant no.1 to
defendant no.3 are entitled to ¼th share each.
2.11 It is further averred that the cause of action arose
on various occasions and same has been detailed. Further the
cause of action is continuous and is arising on day-to-day
basis. It is submitted that the suit is valued appropriately for
the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.
2.12 Accordingly, the plaintiffs have made following
prayers:
a) to pass a decree for declaration may be passed in favour
of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect
that suit property is the Joint Hindu Family constituted
of the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 12 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:07
+0530
b) a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs
are in occupation of the first floor of the suit property in
exercise of their right of residence as member of the co-
parcenary and also in their right under the agreement of
construction.
c) It is further prayed to pass a decree for permanent
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants to the effect that the defendants are
restrained from disturbing the possession of the
plaintiff of first floor of the suit property.
d) Further prayer is made in the alternative to pass a decree
for partition of the Joint Family property no. B-3/4
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and be partitioned the
property amongst the shares in the property alongwith
cost of the suit.
3. Joint Written Statement was filed on behalf of
defendants no.1 to 4. It is interalia submitted in the written
statement that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the
present suit. It is submitted that suit has not been filed by
competent person as plaintiff no.1 has not furnished any
authority to file the suit on behalf of the minors. It is
submitted that plaintiff no.1 is neither natural guardian and the
not the guardian ad-litem of the minor plaintiffs. It is
submitted that defendant no.4 i.e. father of the minors
plaintiffs is alive and he is fit person to be guardian. It is
submitted that there is no legal right of the plaintiffs
independently of the defendant no.4. It is submitted that
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally
signed by
13 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:09
+0530
plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration of the relief of
possession as there is no priority or an agreement. It is
submitted that plaintiffs have set an oral agreement with
respect to the suit property and same is no enforceable as
beyond the scope of Section 34 Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is
submitted that the prayer for perpetual injunction is not
maintainable as same is not covered by the provisions Section
38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is submitted that there is no
Joint Hindu Family and plaintiffs are nothing to do with the
suit property and have no right to remain in the part of the suit
property, which is only permissive through defendant no.4.
3.1 It is denied that Joint Hindu Family owns the suit
property. The suit property is a self acquired property of
defendant no.1, who purchased the land from his own sources
and raised construction in his own capacity as an individual
owner. A perpetual lease was executed in the name of
defendant no.1 as such he is the absolute owner of the
property. No other person than the defendant no.1 has any
right title or interest in the suit property, which was neither
acquired at the cost and funds of other persons nor the
construction was carried out of the funds of Joint Hindu
Family. It is submitted that there is no nucleus, there is no
common hotch-potch. It is submitted that the land was
acquired and purchased by defendant no.1, the defendant no.4
was not even earning as such the question of contributing any
amount towards the construction of house did not arise. It is
submitted that the first phase of construction was from the
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 14 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:11
+0530
funds of defendant no.1 and the cost was 97,000/- and same
was managed by defendant no.1 through all his retirement
benefits. It is submitted that mere fact of assessment in Income
Tax makes no difference in the status of the property, which is
self acquired property as Revenue Authority are concerned
only for the purpose of revenue. It is submitted that each
defendant was separate from the other as a different unit. It is
denied that defendant no.4 contributed any funds for the
construction of the suit property. It is also denied that an offer
was made to the plaintiff that the ownership of the property so
constructed would be given to defendant no.4 and plaintiff
no.2. It is denied that there was any oral agreement regarding
the transfer of ownership.
3.2 It is denied that defendant no.3 ever booked any
flat in Som Vihar. It is submitted that defendant no.1 on his
own constructed second Phase of construction. The first phase
of construction was completed in the year 1971 and defendant
no.1 and 4 shifted in the house in the year 1976 and stayed
there together from March 1976 to December, 1983 and during
this period no demand of funds was made by defendant no.1.
to defendant no.4. Defendant no.4 and plaintiffs were living
separately since 1973. It is submitted that plaintiffs have made
false averments regarding the mental state of defendant no.4
as in I.A no. 9388, she stated that she came to know of the
illness of defendant no.4 in 1984, whereas in the plaint, she
stated that defendant no.4 was a psychic patient since 1972.
Plaintiff no.1 also made a false accusation of theft against her
Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 15 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:53:13
+0530
husband and also tortured him to the extreme limits leading to
him suffering a heart attack. Plaintiff no.1 neglected the
defendant no.4 completely and while the condition of
defendant no.4 improved he was helped by other family
members but not by plaintiff no.1. The defendant no.4 was
completely neglected by plaintiff no.1 with the result that
other defendants had to look after and provide for defendant
no.4 with all necessary care to save him from the effect of the
heart attack. It is submitted that since there is no Joint Hindu
Family, the question of responsibility of maintenance and
education of the plaintiffs does not arise. It is denied that
maintenance constituted a charge on the Joint Hindu Family.
The plaintiff no.1 caused obstruction in the way of defendant
no.4 in the use, enjoyment, occupation and possession of the
apartment by threatening him of police. Defendant no.4 being
the husband has given permissive use to plaintiff for living in
the house being the wife and children of the said defendant
without having any independent right, title or stand to stay in
the suit property independently of the defendant no.4. It is
submitted that in the absence of any Joint Hindu Family, the
question of Partition does not arise.
3.3 Vide order dated 20.07.1990, LRs (i), (iii) and
(iv) and Mrs. Nalini Lal LR no. (ii) brought on record in
addition to the other defendants, who are already on record.
3.4 Written statement of Smt. Nalini Lal, defendant
no.1(a) has been filed. It is averred in the written statement
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by
PANKAJ
16 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:15
+0530
that the suit has been under valued and the court fees paid
thereon is insufficient. It is averred that the valuation of the
suit property is Rs.30,00,000/- alleged by the plaintiff, the
court fees should have been paid on the valuation of
Rs.30,00,000/-, whereas the valuation of property is not less
then Rs.60,00,000/-. It is further averred that the suit is also
under valued as regards the relief of declaration to the effect
that plaintiffs are in possession of first floor of the disputed
property and the valuation of the first floor is not less than
Rs.20,00,000/-. It is further averred that the suit is also under
valued in regard to the relief of injunction as the court fees for
this relief should have been paid ad-valorem on the total value
of suit property i.e. Rs.60,00,000/-. It is further averred that
plaint is liable to be rejected U/O VII rule 11 CPC as the suit
has been under valued as stated above and the court fees paid
thereon is insufficient. It is further averred that the plaintiffs
have no locus standi to file the suit and as per the statement
given in the plaint, Sh. A.K. Sodhi, S/o Sh. M.L.Sodhi being
coparcener of the alleged HUF property has the only right to
file the suit during the life time of the husband, wife has no
right to initiate legal proceedings and the suit is liable to be
dismissed on this ground. It is further averred that plaintiffs
are not entitled to the relief as declaration as they have neither
any legal character nor any right as to the said property nor
any interest in the property, therefore, the suit is liable to be
dismissed with costs. It is further averred that suit is barred by
Section 34 and Section 41 clause (j) of Specific Relief Act. It
is further averred that plaint is also liable to be rejected
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 17 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:17
+0530
because the plaint has not been amended by the plaintiff after
the application U/o 22 rule 4 CPC and Section 151 CPC was
allowed.
3.5 In the para-wise reply, all the averments made in
the plaint are denied by the defendant no. 1 (a) Smt. Nalini lal.
It is submitted that defendant no.1 was the Head of the family,
who died intestate on 18.11.1989 and the property has to be
divided as per Hindu Succession Act. It is denied that the
construction on the property was raised on Joint Hindu Family
funds. The property has to be divided in equal share of the all
the members according to Hindu Succession Act. It is denied
that defendant no.4 by a psychic patient. It is submitted that
there is no obligation upon the defendants to take
responsibility of the maintenance of the plaintiffs.
4. The plaintiff have filed the replication to the
Written Statement filed by defendant no.1 to 4. The plaintiff
have denied the averments in the Written Statement and re-
asserted their claim of existence of Joint Hindu Family and the
suit property being thrown in the hotch-potch of the Joint
Hindu Family by defendant no.1 on the basis of declaration
made by defendant no.1 before Income Tax Deptt. It was
reiterated by throwing the property in common hotch-potch
the property was impressed with the character of Joint Hindu
Property and the said character can not be destroyed by the
unilateral act of defendant no.4.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally
signed by 18 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:20
+0530
5. Plaintiff’s plea to treat his replication filed by him
to the written statement of defendant no.1 and 4 be treated qua
written statement filed by Nalini Lal was allowed vide order
dated 14.07.1992.
6. In replication the plaintiffs have denied the
averments in the Written Statement and re-asserted their claim
of existence of Joint Hindu Family and the suit property being
thrown in the hotch-potch of the Joint Hindu Family by
defendant no.1 on the basis of declaration made by defendant
no.1 before Income Tax Department. It was reiterated by
throwing the property in common hotch-potch the property
was impressed with the character of Joint Hindu Property and
the said character can not be destroyed by the unilateral act of
defendant no.4.
7. Vide order dated 22.07.2002, the name of
defendant no.2 i.e. Raj Sodhi was deleted as her legal
representatives were already on record, Col. V.K. Sodhi
became defendant no.2.
8. Amended Written Statement was filed on behalf
of defendant no.2 wherein it is averred that the suit as framed
is not maintainable and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the
relief claimed as envisaged at law. It is averred that plaintiffs
have no locus-standi to file the present suit. It is averred that
suit is otherwise not maintainable as the same has not been
filed by the competent person as it the present suit has been
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 19 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:22
+0530
filed by the plaintiff no.1 but no averments regarding her
authority to the file the suit on behalf of the minors. It is
further averred that in case she is not fit to be the guardian ad-
litem of the minors and as such she has no right or authority
to file the suit on behalf of the minors when the father of the
minor plaintiffs i.e. defendant no.4 is alive and is a fit person
to be the guardian in his capacity as the natural guardian. It is
further averred that the suit is otherwise against the provisions
of Order 32 Cr.P.C and as such the suit is liable to be
dismissed on that account. It is further averred that the suit is
not maintainable for the relief of declaration regarding the
status of the plaintiff to the effect that the property is a Joint
Hindu Property constituting the plaintiffs and the defendants
and there is no legal right of the plaintiffs independently of the
defendant no.4 and that the relief claimed is thus not available.
8.1 It is further averred that the plaintiffs are
otherwise also not entitled to the declaration of the relief of
possession as claimed. It is further averred that there is no
privity nor an agreement at all. It is further averred that
plaintiffs have set an oral agreement is not enforceable at law
and the case does not come within the ambit of Section 34 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and such the suit is liable to the
dismissed on this ground.
8.2 It is further averred that the suit for perpetual
injunction is otherwise not maintainable as the case is not
covered under the provisions of Section 38 of the Specific
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 20 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:24
+0530
Relief Act, 1963 and there is no legal right or equity in favour
of the plaintiffs. It is further averred that plaintiffs have come
to the Court on the basis of false averments, distorted facts and
by concealing material facts and as such they are not entitled
to the equitable relief of injunction. It is further averred that
there is no Joint Hindu Family nor the plaintiffs have anything
to do with the property under the circumstances the relief of
partition is not available to the plaintiffs. It is averred that the
plaintiffs have no right to remain in the part of the premises
which is only permissive through the defendant no.4 who also
on the other hand is living with the permission of defendant
no.1 and as such the plaintiffs are required under law to pay
court fee ad-valorem on the market value which is about
Rs.8,00,000/- for the partition of the first floor of the said
property. It is further averred that suit is bad for misjoinder of
causes of action and parties and that the plaint discloses no
cause of action and is liable to be rejected.
8.3 In the para-wise reply, all the averments made in
the plaint are denied. It is further stated that during the
pendency of the present case, the original defendant no.1 Sh.
M.L. Sodhi died on 18.11.1989 and the original defendant no.4
also expired on 04.1.1996 and further during the pendency of
the present suit, the original defendant no.2 Smt. Raj Sodhi
expired on 07.01.2002.It is further stated that deceased
defendant no.1 left behind a Will dated 18.09.1989, whereby
the deceased M.L. Sodhi bequeathed his properties movable
and immovable including the suit property bearing no. H. No.
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 21 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:26
+0530
B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi in favour of the original
defendant no.2 being his wife to the exclusion of everyone else
and during her life time, the original defendant no.2 further
executed a registered Will dated 01.05.1996 in favour of the
present defendant no.2, whereby she bequeathed the entire
property including the suit property bearing no. B-3/4, Vasant
Vihar, New Delhi in favour of present defendant no.2.
Accordingly a prayer is made that suit of the plaintiff is liable
to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
9. Plaintiff has filed the replication to the amended
written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.2.
9.1 Plaintiffs filed replication denying the contention
made in the amended written statement of defendant no.2 and
reiterated the contents of the plaint. Plaintiffs further stated
that suit is maintainable and has been filed by a competent
person. Plaintiff no.1 has filed the suit as the next friend of the
minors and it is not necessary that the plaintiff be the natural
guardian or guardian at-litem of the minor plaintiffs. Further
she has no interest hostile to the minors. It is further stated that
defendant no.4 is a psychic patient and is not able to properly
watch the interests of the minor plaintiffs and also the interest
in the property of defendant no.4 denied by defendant no.1 to
3 and by joining them is not even safeguarding his own right.
It is further stated that it was thrown in the hotch-potch of the
Joint Hindu Family by defendant no.4 and is so evidence from
the declaration made by him before the Income Tax
Department. Further by throwing the property in the common
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 22 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:28
+0530
hotch-potch the property was impressed with the character of
Joint Hindu Family property and that character can not be
destroyed by defendant no.1 by any unilateral act. It is further
denied that it is false to allege that the declaration made by
defendant no.1 before the income tax authority is matter of no
consequence and it amounts to an admission against his own
interests. He is estopped from denying the truth of the
declaration on the basis of which he obtained relief. The
declaration was only evidence of the throwing of the property
in the common hotch-potch of the joint family property and
impressing it with a character of the joint family property
which character can not be destroyed. It is denied that
defendant no.1 left behind a Will dated 18.09.1999
bequeathing his movable and immovable property No. B-3/4
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to defendant no.2 his wife to the
exclusion of everyone else. It is submitted that besides the fact
that deceased M.L. Sodhi had no right to execute any Will, the
alleged Will is a forged and fabricated documents and has
been set up with an attempt to deny the legitimate rights of
the plaintiffs. It is denied that defendant no.2 executed any
Will 01.05.1996 in favour of present defendant no.2 ( col. V.K.
sodhi) bequeathing the property in favour of said defendant . It
is submitted that the said Will is forged and fabricated
document beside the fact that Smt Raj Sodhi had no right to
execute any such Will. The alleged Wills conferred no right
on Co. V.K. sodhi or his LRs.
10. Vide order 26.10.1995, plaintiff no.1 Sh Sunil
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by
PANKAJ
23 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:30
+0530
Sodhi was discharged as next friend and guardian ad-litem of
plaintiff no.2 on his attaining majority.
11. Vide order dated 25.03.1996, as defendant no.4
was expired, therefore, the name of defendant no.4 was
deleted from the arrays of parties upon his death and his LRs
was already on record which are plaintiff no.1 to 3.
12. Vide order dated 10.05.1991 of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, it is recorded that defendant no.4 has sent a
registered letter to Learned Counsel of defendant no.2 and 3
advising them not to represent him in any shape or form in the
present suit. Ld. Counsel appearing for defendant no.4, who
was appearing for defendant no.2 and 3 and was discharged as
counsel for defendant no.4.
13. Vide order 26.10.1995, plaintiff no.1 Sh Sunil
Sodhi was discharged as next friend and guardian ad-litem of
plaintiff no.2 on his attaining majority.
14. Thereafter vide order dated 20.10.2003, the LRs
of defendant no.2 was impleaded namely Manjula Sodhi,
Keshav Sodhi and Arjun Sodhi upon application U/O XXII
Rule 4 CPC.
ISSUES
15. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were
framed by the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on
Digitally
signed by
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 24 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:32
+0530
06.09.1999 as follows:
1) Whether the suit property, B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi is the Joint Hindu Family property, which had
been put in the common hotch potch by late Sh. M.L.
Sodhi? OPP
2) Whether the suit property was a self acquired property
belonging to late Sh M.L Sodhi?OPD
3) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the first floor
of the suit property in the exercise of right to residence
as a member of co-parcenery and also in accordance with
the agreement of construction set out in para 4 of the
plaint?OPP
4) Whether there was a HUF of which late Sh M.L. Sodhi
was the Karta and the other parties were its members?
OPP
5) What are the shares of the parties in the suit property?
OPP
6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction prayed
for?OPP
7) Whether the oral agreement for construction is not
enforceable?OPD
8) Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff no.1 as mother
and the next friend of the minors was competent and
maintainable in view of the natural guardian and father
being then alive?OPP
9) What would be the effect, if law, of the demise of Sh.
A.K. Sodhi husband of plaintiff no.3 on issue no.8 ?OPD
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by
PANKAJ
25 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:35
+0530
10) Relief?
16. Vide order dated 12.09.2003, the application filed
U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by LRs of defendant no.3 for
seeking amendment in the plaint to propound Wills dated
18.09.1989 and another registered Will dated 01.05.1996
executed by Sh M.L. Sodhi and Smt. Raj Sodhi respectively
was allowed.
17. Upon the amended written statement by
defendant no.2 and the replication filed by the plaintiff,
following the additional issues were framed, vide order dated
03.03.2004:
1) Whether the Will dated 18.09.1989 allegedly executed
by M.L. Sodhi in favour of the original defendant No.2 is
legal and valid and if so, its effect? OPD
2) Whether the Will dated 01.05.1996 allegedly executed
by Smt. Raj Sodhi is legal and valid and if so, its effect?
OPD
EVIDENCE
18. Upon After framing of additional issues, vide
order dated 03.03.2004, Sh. Vikas Chopra, Advocate was
appointed as the Local Commissioner to record the evidence in
the present case. Plaintiff no.1 as examined as PW 1 on
17.09.2002 and cross-examined on multiple dates.
19. Plaintiff/Smt. Suneel Sodhi examined herself as
PW-1. She supported the contents of the plaint by filing her
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 26 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:37
+0530
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied on the
following documents:-
(1) Ex PW-1/1; Copy of pass book of the account no. 4273
(2) Ex PW-1/2; Copy of pass book of the account no. 6999
(3) Ex PW-1/3; certificate issued by the Syndicate Bank
certifying the opening of HUF account no. 595.
(4) Ex PW-1/4; The prescription of Dr. H.S Sethi, whotreated husband of plaintiff
(5) Ex PW-1/5; Copy of certificate dated 18.07.1988 of Dr.A.L. Behl
(6) Ex PW-1/6; Copy of discharge summary of RamManohar Lohia Hospital
(7) Ex PW-1/7; Copy of outdoor ticket no.1184/86 dated01.09.1988 of Lady Harding Medical College of
Sucheta Kriplani Hospital for the period 19.09.1988 to
06.12.1988.
(During the exhibition of documents, the objections was raised
by the learned Counsel for defendant regarding Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex.
PW-1/7 that plaintiff is not the author of these documents nor they have
been executed by her. Further Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/3 have to be
proved under the provisions of amended Banker’s Act and all exhibits
have not been proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. To this
objection, it is observed that Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/3 are filed in
original and even if the author is not called as witness, if there is no
doubt in the authenticity, they can be proved. Further regarding Ex.
Pw-1/4 to Ex. Pw-1/7, they are seemingly created during the regular
course of treatment as such are authentic.)
In the cross-examination dated 29.05.2004, by
Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2, it is stated by the
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally
signed by
27 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:39
+0530
PW1 that she did not remember the day of week falling on
17.09.2002.
(The objection raised on behalf of her counsel that visits
to various places on 17.09.2002, when the affidavit was prepared has no
bearing to the controversy in the suit is upheld.)
She stated that her affidavit was completed on
17.09.2002 and her signature appears on all the pages of
affidavit. She stated that she signed the affidavit after
satisfying herself about its contents and veracity. She stated
that she is an MBA L.L.B and also registered advocate with
Bar Council of India. She stated that her affidavit was
prepared by her lawyer upon her instructions and same was
prepared in her presence.
(The objection regarding the duration and the exact date and
month of preparation of affidavit by the Ld. counsel of the witness are
reasonable and upheld.)
She mentioned that she signed the affidavit in
front of the oath commissioner in High Court prior to its
submission.
(The objection regarding the question to give specific chamber
number is reasonable as generally same is not left in memory and
upheld.)
She stated that she was satisfied that her affidavit
contained her entire case before she signed it. She stated that
she came to the High Court premises on 17.09.2002 and she
denied the suggestion that she never personally appeared
before Oath Commissioner for attesting her affidavit of
evidence. She stated that her marriage with A.K. Sodhi was an
arrange marriage and she came to matrimonial home on
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 28 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:40
+0530
16.02.1975 for the first time after the marriage. She stated that
she visited the Sodhi’s family before 16.02.1975. She affirmed
that she had no knowledge of the Sodhi’s family and their
affairs prior to August, 1974. She stated that she came to know
about Joint Hindu Family from her father-in-law late Sh M.L.
Sodhi. She stated that her father-in-law told her that he
alongwith his wife and two sons had a joint Hindu Family
account with Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar and he filed his
Income Tax Return as a Karta of HUF and also in his
individual capacity. She stated that she standby the contents of
the affidavit dated 17.09.2002. She further stated that the
members of the Joint Hindu Family are the components of
Joint Hindu Family, which are a husband his wife and
children. She stated that all the children of husband and wife
are members of Joint Hindu Family and Joint Hindu Family
starts from marriage. She stated that Karta is a Head of family,
which was her father-in-law. She stated that her father-in-law
Sh. M.L. Sodhi was common ancestor of her marital family.
She stated that M.L.Sodhi was having ancestral property
besides Vasant Vihar property. She stated that paragraph no.2
of her plaint, mentions that “HUF” was blessed with funds of
declaration made by defendand no.1 M.L. on 01.12.1969.
She stated that at serial no.4 at the list of reliance
dated 20.12.1988, the record of the ancestral property inherited
by M.L. Sodhi has been mentioned.
In the further cross-examination of witness on
24.07.2004 by the Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2,
She stated that she did not know that at the time of allotment
Digitally
signed by
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 29 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:43
+0530
of suit property in 1962, M.L. Sodhi was only the single
earning member of the family. She stated that she did not
know or had the personal knowledge that M.L. Sodhi paid for
the allotted suit property out of his own salary. She stated that
she did not know whether the payment of allotment money of
the suit property was made in the name of M.L. Sodhi as an
individual or the payment was made from M.L. Sodhi’s
individual account. She affirmed that the suit property was
constructed in two phases. She stated that she has no personal
knowledge as to the construction of first phase of the suit
premises from M.L. Sodhi’s individual fund. She stated that on
16.02.1973, her husband was gainfully employed prior to her
marriage. However, she had no record to show that her
husband A.K. Sodhi was gainfully employed prior to her
marriage. She stated that she did not know whether there was
any contribution of funds made by her husband, A.K. Sodhi
towards the construction of the first phase of the suit property
prior to her marriage. She stated that she does not understand
the meaning of “Joint Family Nucleus” as mentioned in
paragraph 7 of her affidavit. She stated that she has no
knowledge of “Nucleus” in the family’s of Sodhi’s prior to her
marriage. She stated that she did not know if M.L. Sodhi was
paying house tax of the suit property in his name from the
personal funds. She stated that she has no documentary proof
regarding the earning of her husband. She indicated Ex
PW-1/1 regarding records relating to earning of her husband.
(The objection regarding the certificate from the bank accounts
as required by Banker’s Book Evidence Act is dismissed as the
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 30 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:45
+0530
document Ex Pw-1/1 to Ex Pw-1/5 are the bank records filed in original
and there is no evidence which can contradict their genuineness.)
She stated that her husband was a psychic patient
since 1972 till his death and he used to be in constant fits of
depression. She stated that in 1984, her husband refused to
take up any remunerative job and then she was told by her in-
laws that he was psychic patient since 1972 and she
discovered the same in 1984. She stated that her husband used
to sit ideal at home when he got fits of depression and during
this he used to get into violence, irrational and abnormal
behaviour and also used to be abusive during the fits of
depression. She stated that when her husband used to throw
up his lucrative job, she had to support not only him but also
her in-laws since they were living jointly.
In the further cross-examination on 06.08.2004
by the Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2, she stated that
in 1984, V.K. Sodhi told him that he got her husband treated
for phychartic problems in 1972 by his friend and colleague
Col. Baggiana. Col. Baggina contacted by V.k. Sodhi once
again for the treatment of her husband till middle of 1986.
She stated that Dr. S.C Malik treated him till his death in
January, 1996. She stated that her husband was taking
medicines like “Mezetol”, “Trinicalm” and ” “Lithium” for his
psychiatric treatment.
She stated that her husband resided with her in-
laws as a joint family in the suit premises. She stated that in
1984, she were shocked to learn that her husband was being a
psychiatric patient even before her marriage and she took all
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 31 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:47
+0530
the care as per the doctor instructions including finding him
jobs to keep him away from depression. She stated that her
husband suffered a heart attack on 18.07.1988 and he was
taken to OPD and formally admitted on 19.07.1988 in
Wellington Hospital. She stated that she and her young
daughter attended A.K. Sodhi regularly in December 1988
when the suit was filed and thereafter she was stopped by his
parents and Col. V.K. Sodhi and his family to keep away from
him. She stated that they have separate kitchen on the first
floor since they are shifting in September, 1983, however,
previously there was joint kitchen with her in-laws on ground
floor. The separate kitchen on the first floor continues till date.
Two other kitchens are in the ground floor and on the second
floor barsati. She denied the suggestion that there is separate
place of worship on the first floor but there was a specific Puja
room on the ground floor adjacent to the kitchen, where all
used to worship together on occasions like Diwali etc. She
stated that since the filing of this suit, she has not been
allowed access to ground floor and second floor as such she
does not know about the rooms utilization as of now. She
stated that between 1983 to 1988, her in-laws shifted the Puja
Place to the landing of the internal staircase leading to the first
floor but sealed ever since they shifted to the first floor in
September, 1983. She denied that A.K. Sodhi her husband
workship separately always since 1988. She stated that A.K.
Sodhi with his wife and children were living jointly with his
parents on the ground floor and first floor till 1988. She stated
that A.K. Sodhi from the date of their marriage, he gave his
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 32 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:50
+0530
salary to his father and mother for running of the joint house
hold even though there were two kitchens being run from 1983
onwards for the sake of convenience. She denied the
suggestion that A.K. Sodhi was living separately on first floor
after its construction from 1983. The ground and first floor
continued to be run jointly despite there being two
independent kitchens. She denied the suggestion that ground
floor and first floor being run as two separate units. She stated
that hers’ was a joint family in which her father-in-aw had
blended his personal funds and property with the joint family
funds which he had received from a partial partition in 1940 of
his joint family.
In the further cross-examination on 18.08.2004
by the Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2, She stated that
joint family pre-existed before her marriage into the family.
She stated that her father-in-law had a Joint Hindu Family
with the father and brother. She stated that there was a partial
partition in the year 1940 of this Joint Hindu Family in which
his father-in-law received funds and he merged the funds into
his M.L. Sodhi joint family vide declaration dated 01.12.1969
and into which he also merged suit property mainly B-3/4
Vasant Vihar. The said declaration is mentioned in M.L. Sodhi
(HUF) income tax assessment order of 1976 and the suit
property remained so assessed in the income tax department in
the life time of her father-in-law. She stated that the partial
partition means that same was not complete and she does not
know about the assets and time of it. She stated that her father-
in-law had mentioned in his declaration of 01.12.1969
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 33 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:57
+0530
submitted to the IT authorities the word “Partial Partition
only”. She stated that her knowledge of merger and blending is
limited to the declaration dated 01.12.1969.
In the further cross-examination on 05.11.2004 by
the Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2, She denied the
suggestion that she had no personal knowledge of the family
funds of Sh M.L. Sodhi on 01.12.1969. She also denied the
suggestion that there was no blending of personal and family
funds of M.L. Sodhi on 01.12.1969. She stated that she was
notified by her father-in-law of the existence of the Joint
Family Funds and also other family members and he showed
all the rent coming from the property in the HUF account no.
595 with the Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar and declaring his
rental income in his ITR titled as M.L. Sodhi (HUF). She
stated that her husband through his saving account no. 4273 of
syndicate bank, Vasant Vihar transferred contribution to M.L.
Sodhi HUF account no. 595 of Syndicate bank, Vasant Vihar
during the period 1980 to 1981 in order to finance the project
wholly of second phase construction of the suit property. She
admitted that A.K. Sodhi did not show any HUF transaction in
any income tax return or assessments after 1981-1982 till his
death.
In the further cross-examination on 22.11.2004 by
the Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2, She stated that
since her marriage, there have been contributions to the Joint
Hindu family in her ITRs in the financial year 1980-81 and
1981-82 only. She stated that she never received any income
from Joint Hindu Family as such not stated in her ITR. She
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by
PANKAJ 34 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:53:59
+0530
stated that neither she nor her husband ever received any part
of the rentals from all the tenants in the suit property ever. She
stated that Dhruv Sodhi has not received any rental income or
other income from Joint Hindu Family and therefore, same is
not reflected in his ITR. She stated that Bhavna Sodhi never
shown any income or contribution to any Joint Hindu Family
in all her income tax returns and assessments till date. She
submitted that all documents pertaining to the suit property
have been issued by DDA in the name of M.L. Sodhi from the
beginning, however, she denied that all house tax papers and
payments regarding the suit property have been issued in the
name of M.L. Sodhi by Municipal Authority from the
beginning till date.
In the further cross-examination on 06.12.2004
by the Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2, She denied
that prior to 1980, all rental income from the suit premises
came to and was deposited with the personal account of M.L.
Sodhi as an individual. She affirmed that rental income of
ground and first floor of the suit premises received from
German Embassy came to the personal account of M.L. Sodhi
as an individual. She affirmed that no payments were made
from the account no. 2411 as mentioned in paragraph no.11 of
her affidavit to the so called Sodhi Joint Hindu Family. She
stated that on 18th March 1980 at 10.00a.m M.L. Sodhi called
upon her husband to pool in resources and at that time, she and
her mother-in-law were present with them. She stated that at
that meeting, her father-in-law requested her husband to
transfer funds from her personal account to M.L. Sodhi andDigitally
signed by
PANKAJ
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 35 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:02
+0530
family HUF so that construction could be started and her
husband transferred the amount to account no. 595 on the
same day. She stated that after that their remittances were
made to account no. 595 till the construction was completed.
She denied any meeting being taken place between M.L.
Sodhi, A.K. Sodhi and V.K. Sodhi after 18.03.1980.
She stated that in 1969 her father-in-law Mr. M.L.
Sodhi made an affidavit dated 01.12.1969 admitting that he
had received family funds from a partial partition of his joint
family in the year 1940 with which he blended his personal
funds as well as property B-3/4 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. She
denied that suggestion that she had no personal knowledge
about the family funds of M.L. Sodhi on 01.12.1969. She also
denied the suggestion that there was no blending of personal
and family funds of M.L. Sodhi on 01.12.1969. She stated
that her father-in-law notified to all the members of the family
and showed all the rent coming from the property in the HUF
account no.595 with Syndicate Bank and declared this rental
income in his Income Tax ITR titled M.L. Sodhi HUF. She
stated that her husband was assessed to Income Tax when she
got married on 16.02.1975. She stated that her husband from
his saving account no. 4273 of Syndicate bank transferred
contributions to M.L. Sodhi, HUF account no. 595 of
Syndicate bank in the period 1980-1981 in order to wholly,
solely financed the project of second Phase construction of the
suit property. She stated that A.K. Sodhi showed HUF
transactions in his income tax return or assessment in the year
1981-82 only. She admitted that bill no. 133 of Rashtriya
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 36 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:04
+0530
Timber Store dated 29.10.1970 is issued to M.L. Sodhi but she
had no idea about the signatures on it. She admitted that
document dated 05.09.1995, issued by Syndicate Bank is not
issued to her but to her husband Ajay Kumar Sodhi.
In the further cross-examination on 27.01.2005
by the Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2, She affirmed
that Col V.K. Sodhi was not in station on 18.03.1980. She
stated that there was no understanding and arrangement
between A.K. Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi. Her husband has reduced
the oral understanding in writing and it was conveyed to his
father in 1988 and on the basis of same, Second Phase
construction was started and the said document was filed with
the plaint, which is handwriting note addressed to Sehgal
Uncle. She stated that V.K. Sodhi had agreed to the
arrangement, though he was not in Delhi in March, 1980 and
when her father-in-law asked him to contribute the Joint
Family Funds to fund the construction then V.K. Sodhi made
the excuse that he had already booked a flat through Army
Quota in Som Vihar and had also negotiated to purchase
through Army Quota, farming land in Pathankot and all the
family members agreed that whatever V.K. Sodhi had
independently purchased would be only his and similarly the
funds that A.K. Sodhi is raising to make second phase
construction complete and rent would be treated as his
exclusive ownership. She stated that the facts of FDRs being
broken and fund mobilization for second phase construction is
evidence of the agreement and arrangement being acted upon.
She denied that second phase of the construction was done by
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 37 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:06
+0530
M.L. Sodhi on his own in his capacity of absolute owner to the
exclusion of any other person. She stated that approx. Rs.
1,40,000/- was a total cost of construction of the second phase
and the billing was done in the name of M.L. Sodhi. She
stated that all the cheques payment were made from the HUF
account no. 595 and not from M.L. Sodhi’s individual account
while cash payments made by her and her husband. She stated
that out of Rs.1,40,000/- approximate about Rs.65,000/- were
paid by cheque through HUF account no. 595 and balance was
paid in cash, however she stated that she and her husband did
not take any receipt. She stated that she did not show the said
amount paid in cash in the ITR of year 1979-80 and 1980-81
as the money was given to her by her mother and brother
during construction. She stated that she used to advance the
money received from her mother and brother to her husband to
meet the expenses on the second phase construction. She
stated that records of payment in cash of bills were maintained
by her father-in-law. She stated that she filed a suit as a natural
guardian and next friend of her children with full concurrence
of her husband.
In the further cross-examination on 11.02.2005
by the Ld. Counsel for LR’s of defendant no.2, She stated that
her husband had filed written statement at the instance of his
parents and brother while he was still under her medical
treatment but he withdrew from the written statement by
information through registered AD to the registrar of Hon’ble
High Court as well as to the counsel of defendant. She stated
that Kamal Nanda used to file Income Tax return of her father
Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 38 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:54:16
+0530
in law for HUF and as well as in his individual capacity. She
denied the suggestion that there is no legal right of the plaintiff
independently of A.K. Sodhi. She denied the suggestion that
there was any oral agreement in respect of the suit property.
She denied the suggestion that there is no Joint Hindu Family
of M.L. Sodhi. She admitted that suit property is a self
acquired property of Sh M.L. Sodhi if partially correct and
partially incorrect. She stated that suit property’s land was
purchased by M.L. Sodhi from his own resources, however,
she denied the suggestion that M.L. Sodhi raised construction
in his own capacity as an individual owner. She denied the
suggestion that M.L. Sodhi was absolute owner of the suit
property and he was in the possession of the suit property to
the exclusion of any other person. She denied the suggestion
that no other person except M.L. Sodhi has any right, title or
interest in the suit property. She denied the suggestion that
there was no Joint Hindu Family as such coercion of any funds
coming from that source did not arise. She denied the
suggestion there was no nucleus or joint family nucleus. She
denied the suggest that there is no common hotch-potch. She
denied the suggestion there was no blending of funds. She
denied the suggestion that M.L. Sodhi did not have an
intention to blend personal funds. She denied the suggestion
that taxation assessments do not have bearing upon title and
legal status of any property. She denied the suggestion that
each defendant was separate from other as a different unit.
She denied the suggestion that there was not any oral
agreement of transfer of ownership and the question of acting
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 39 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:29
+0530
upon the same did not arise. She denied the suggestion that
from March 1976 to December 1983, no demand of funds
were made by defendant no.1 on defendant no.4. She denied
the suggestion that no meeting in March, 1980 ever took place
between M.L. Sodhi, A.K. Sodhi and herself. She denied the
suggestion that there was never any unequivocal
understanding or arrangement regarding construction between
all the members of HUF and HUF never existed. She denied
the suggestion that the oral understanding and arrangement
was never accepted by all the parties living in the suit
premises. She denied the suggestion that defendant no.4 and
plaintiff have been living separately since 1983. She denied
the suggestion that A.K. Sodhi was fit person of normal
prudence. She denied the suggestion that defendants were
under no obligation to maintain the plaintiffs or provide for
their education She denied the suggestion that she had no basis
to claim the entire construction on the first and second floor to
be declared as exclusive property of plaintiff no.1 and
defendant no.4 A.K. Sodhi. She denied the suggestion that
there was never any share of the plaintiff in the suit property.
PW1 recalled for re-examination by virtue of
order of Hon’ble High Court dated 21.11.2006.
On 12.12.2006 Pw-1 was re-examined. The
following documents were exhibited during the cross-
examination by defendant on 11.02.2005 :
(1) Ex PW-1/DXA18 dated 11.02.2005
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ 40 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:54:31
+0530
(2) Ex PW-1/DXA2 dated 11.02.2005
(3) Ex PW-1/DXA3 dated 11.02.2005
(4) Ex PW-1/DXA4 dated 11.02.2005
(5) Ex PW-1/DXA5 dated 11.02.2005
(6) Ex PW-1/DXA6 dated 11.02.2005
(7) Ex DW1A/P2
(8) Ex DW1A/P3 dated 10.08.2006
(9) Ex DW1A/P4 dated 10.08.2006
(10) Ex PW-1/DXA7 dated 11.02.2005
(11) Ex PW-1/DXA8 dated 11.02.2005
(12) Ex PW-1/DXA9 dated 11.02.2005
(13) EX PW1/X dated 06.12.2004
(14) Ex PW-1/DXA10 dated 11.02.2005
(15) Ex PW-1/DXA11 dated 11.02.2005
(16) Ex PW-1/DXA12 dated 11.02.2005
(17) Ex PW-1/DXA13 dated 11.02.2005
(18) Ex PW-1/DXA14 dated 11.02.2005
(19) Ex PW-1/DXA15 dated 11.02.2005
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 41 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:33
+0530
(20) Ex PW-1/DXA16 dated 11.02.2005
(21) Ex PW-1/DXA17 dated 11.02.2005
(22) Ex PW-1/DXA18 dated 11.02.2005
The earlier exhibits number put on the documents
was retained by cancelling the other endorsement qua the
exhibit number of the same very documents given later in
2006 so that there would not be any confusion qua the exhibit
numbers of the documents.
In cross-examination, PW-1 stated that
Ex.PW-1/DXA6 was put before her by the counsel of the
defendant during her cross-examination on 11.02.2005. She
stated that the item no. 6 as shown in paragraph no.3 of her
application IA no. 13827/2006 is disputed as per her reading.
(The objection was raised by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
regarding the question put to PW-1 qua lay out plan of Vasant Vihar, Ex
Pw-1/DXA6. The objection is sustained as the said question is vague
and beyond the scope of controversy.)
Vide order dated 27.05.2005, Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi observed that PW Kamal Nanda did not appear
despite service upon him and directed registry to issue
warrants against him on the date to be fixed by Ld. Local
Commissioner. The order dated 27.05.2005 is re-produced as
under:-
” I, accordingly, allow the application and
direct issue of dasti summons to the
plaintiff no.1 for service upon Sh KamalCS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
42 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:54:35
+0530
Nanda, Advocate. It is made clear that the
responsibility to serve the witness shall vest
entirely on plaintiff no.1. It is also made
clear that in case the summons are not
served for the appearance of the witness
before the Local Commissioner on 26th July,
2005, the evidence of the witness shall
stand closed and the affidavit filed on his
behalf taken off the record. It is further
made clear that in case the witness does not
appear despite service of summons upon
him, the Registry shall issue appropriate
warrants for his appearance on the date to
be fixed by the Local Commissioner”
However, vide order dated 23.09.2005, the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi ordered that the affidavit of
evidence filed by Kamal Nanda be struck off the record and
not be treated as an evidence. Therefore, his affidavit is not
considered for the purpose of evidence.
Vide order dated 08.10.2007, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi declined to tender in the evidence the
ordinary copy of the assessment order dated 02.03.1976,
however, allowed the copy of assessment order dated
15.10.1977 of Sh. M.L. Sodhi, which is certified copy bearing
the stamp of Income Tax Office, which is for the assessment
year 1976-1977 as Ex X1. The said order of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi was challenged by defendant Manjula Sodhi &
Ors, however, the Hon’ble high Court of Delhi vide order
dated 02.09.2008 dismissed the said petition observing that the
assessment order dated 15.10.1977 was a certified copy
bearing the stamp of Income Tax Officer, which is signed in
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 43 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA
Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:38
+0530
original, while certifying the same and is public document
more than 30 years old. Further the defendants did not dispute
the said assessment in written statement.
Since evidence of PW2 Kamal Nanda was struck
off the record. Evidence of Sh A.S. Dagar Inspector Income
tax is considered as PW2. Since one other witness Sh Rahul
Gautam was also examined as PW 2 on 08.03.2006, his
evidence would be read as PW-2A.
19.1 PW-2 Sh. A.S Dagar, Inspector, Income Tax
Office, Ward No. 24/4, New Delhi, have been deputed by the
Department to depose in the matter and have brought the
letter No. 24/(4)/2005/06/303/12.01.2006 and the same is
marked as Ex PW-2/1. He further deposed that since the
requisite record is very old so it could not be traced out,
therefore, the Department can not produce the same.
19.2 PW 2A Sh. Rahul Gautam, tendered his affidavit
dated 05.07.2005, exhibited as Ex. PW-2/32.
20. Vide separate statement recorded of Ms. Iram
Majid, Ld. counsel for plaintiff, plaintiff evidence was closed
vide order dated 13.01.2006.
21. In defendant evidence, Dr. P.K Ghosh was
examined as DW-1. He deposed that he was Cardiologist in
Apollo Hospital and he had seen the original Will dated
18.09.1989 from the judicial record executed by Mr. M.L.
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 44 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:40
+0530
Sodhi in favour of his wife Mrs. Raj Sodhi, which bears his
signature at point A. Witness further deposed that he can
identify the signature of Mr M.L. Sodhi, which is at point B.
Witness further deposed that the third person, who has been
giving dictation to the typist for typing the Will in question
was having dark complexion and tall. He did not know him
personally because the same person was not introduced to him.
Witness further deposed that after typing out the Will, it was
handed to Mr. M.L. Sodhi and the same was read over by
Mr.M.L. Sodhi and given to the person, who had given
dictation. Witness again said that matter was got typed after
approval of the rough draft. Witness further deposed that then
Mr. M.L. Sodhi signed the Will after going through the same.
Thereafter witness was asked to sign the Will. Witness signed
the same after cursory reading. Thereafter two other persons
signed the Will in his presence after the signing of Mr. M.L.
Sodhi. The Will is Marked as Ex DW-1/1. Witness further
deposed that Mr. M.L. Sodhi was of sound disposing mind at
the time of the execution of the Will.
In the cross-examination on 31.03.2009, he stated
that he is MBBS, MD and DM (Cardiologist). He stated that
he started his carrier as a doctor in Army Hospital in 1972 till
September 1994. He stated that he was working with Army
Hospital, Delhi Cantt. from January 1989. He stated that he
got in touch with M.L. Sodhi, as he used to come to
cardiology OPD of Army hospital. He stated that M.L.Sodhi
visited the cardiology OPD of Army hospital from January
1989 till July 1989 for a number of times.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 45 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:42
+0530
(Objection was raised by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff regarding
the question, the said objection is over ruled.)
He denied that M.L. Sodhi never visited to him
prior to September, 1989 for the purpose of any ailment. He
stated that in the beginning of 1989 , he got in touch with M.L.
Sodhi after joining the Army Hospital. He stated that he is
unable to produce the record of visits of M.L. Sodhi as in the
Army hospital, doctor never keeps the record of their patient.
He stated that he did not receive any court summons for
appearing in the court today and Mr. Duggal, Advocate asked
him to appear through phone today in the court. He stated
that in the year 1989, he was staying in Mall Road, Delhi
Cantt. Area.
In the further cross-examination on 30.04.2009,
he stated that he does not remember the exact date when Col
V.K. Sodhi expired but he died in Apollo Hospital. He stated
that he died due to coronary artery disease. He stated that he
used to treat M.L. Sodhi as Out-patient for Hypertension and
he died in Army Hospital, while he was admitted. He stated
that till the time he attended M.L. Sodhi, he had no cirebro
vascular disease.
(Regarding objection related to funeral of Mr M.L. Sodhi and
bypass surgery of Col. V.K. Sodhi, the said objections are over ruled.)
He stated that last time, he saw M.L. Sodhi in the
month of September, 1989, when he asked him to sign the
Will. He stated that he does not know when M.L. Sodhi had
expired. He stated that he the Will dated 18.09.1989 was
executed in the house of Mr. M.L. Sodhi in Vasant Vihar on a
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 46 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:45
+0530
working day in evening hours at sunset time. He stated that
Will was drafted in the house of M.L. Sodhi. One was the
rough copy and one was the final copy. He stated that during
his visit in the army hospital, he asked him whether he would
sign as a witness to his Will, to which he said yes and told him
that he Will phone him and tell him when he has arranged for
signing and on the day of signing, he called him up to tell
whether I could come for signing and he said that he could
come in the evening. He stated that somewhere between 10-15
days, before 18.09.1989, M.L. Sodhi had talked to him to be
an attesting witness to his Will.
He stated that when he reached on 18.09.1989 at
the house of M.L. Sodhi, one dark man, whose name later on
revealed as Mr. Sanon and one Sardarji and a typist with a
typewriter were there. He stated that the Will dated 18.09.1989
was drafted in his presence and dictation was given in his
presence. He heard the drafting of the Will dated 18.09.1989.
He stated that he had never been in social terms with M.L.
Sodhi as he was his patient only. He denied knowing Mrs. Raj
Sodhi or ever attending her as a patient.
While DW-1 was shown paragraph no. 6 of page
11 of Written statement in CS(OS) no. 2793/1993 filed by Raj
Sodhi, Col. V.K. Sodhi through their counsel and asked
whether the same is the Will dated 18.09.1989, which was
signed by him, as a witness, to which the witness replied in
negative and stated that he attested as a witness to the Will,
which was in one page and he was seeing multiple pages.
During this question, objection was raised by the Ld. Counsel
CS No. 20/2016 47 /101
Digitally signed
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:47 +0530
for plaintiff regarding confrontation of this document to the
witness, the objection is devoid of any merit and same is
dismissed.
In the further cross-examination on 20.08.2009,
he stated that he is treating patient with heart ailments. He
stated that he became an attesting witness only once in this
case. He stated that no other patient has ever requested him to
become a witness to their Wills. He stated that M.L. Sodhi had
two sons and he met him number of times after 18.04.1989 in
the hospital as a patient as a doctor not as a friend. He stated
that the said Will was typed out, given to him and he signed.
He stated that M.L. Sodhi signed first on the Will dated
18.09.1989 and thereafter he signed and thereafter two more
people signed it. He stated that as far as he remember, there
was place for two witnesses to sign and he did not remember
who signed as a second witness and who signed as a drafter of
the Will. He stated that he is not aware whether M.L. Sodhi
made a Will prior to 18.09.1989. He stated that out of two
persons, he met only 18.09.1989, he met Mr. Sanon in court
while coming as a witness for this case. He stated that Keshav
Sodhi and Arjun Sodhi had talked to him over a phone every
time on the date of hearing. He stated that the execution of
Will took place in the first room, where M.L. Sodhi was
present and they entered through the verandah. He stated that
the said room must be a sitting room and M.L. Sodhi was
sitting on a chair and sometime, he was standing. He stated
that he had a cursory look at the Will before signing. He stated
that only thing he remember about the Will is that M.L. Sodhi
CS No. 20/2016 48 /101
Digitally signed
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:54:49
+0530
had given his property to his wife. He stated that while treating
M.L. Sodhi, he never find any signs of slurr. He stated that as
a habit he always right his name below his signature and he
supposed that he must have written his name while signing on
the Will. He stated that he treated Col. V.K. Sodhi, who was in
the Army. He stated that he did not remember when V.K.
Sodhi personally accompanied Mrs. Raj Sodhi in November
1989 and he attended upon her. He stated that Amrik Singh
was Sardarji in his 30s or 40s. He denied the suggestion that
Will in question is a forged and fabricated documents. He
denied that the incident, he deposed regarding 18.09.1989
never happened and is a cooked up story. He denied that M.L.
Sodhi never stated the Will in question21.1 Smt Manjula Sodhi was examined as DW-1/A.
DW1/A Mrs. Manjula Sodhi has tendered her affidavit, Ex
DW1A/A on 10.08.2006 and she also filed her amended
affidavit on 02.01.2007, which is Marked as Ex DW-1/A/B.
She has relied upon the following documents:-
i. The copy of the share certificate Ex DW-1A/1
ii. The letter from the Society regarding the share
certificate and charges thereof as Ex DW-1/2
iii. letter dated 22.06.1970 vide which society allotted a
piece of land bearing plot no.4 on street no. B-3, Vasant
Vihar, DW-1/3.
iv. Possession letter dated 16.08.1970 issued to M.L. Sodhi
Ex.DW-1/4
v. Sh M.L. Sodhi applied for sanction on 03.06.1970,
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 49 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:51
+0530
Ex.DW-1/5 and got the sanction vide letter dated
24.06.1970, Ex.DW-1/6.
vi. The Sub-lease in respect of the property bearing No.
B-3/4, Vasant Vihar was duly executed in the name of
Sh.M.L. Sodhi, as Ex DW-1/7.
vii. The pension payment order of Sh M.L. Sodhi is
Ex.DW-1/8
viii.Hand writing note of Sh M.L. Sodhi for the Income Tax
Return, Assessment year 1983-84 is already
Ex.PW-1/DXA1 dated 11.02.2005.
ix. The letter dated 14.08.1987 of Mr. M.L. Sodhi is
already Ex.PW-1/DXA2 dated 11.02.2005.
x. The Income Tax Assessment for the year 1985-86,
Ex.DW-1/11 and the challan for the same year is already
Ex.PW-1/DXA3 dated 11.02.2005
xi. The letter of I.T.O regarding Income Tax assessment for
the year 1984-85 of Sh. M.L. Sodhi, Ex DW-1/13.
xii. The statement giving the working of the taxable income
tax of Sh M.LO. Sodhi for the year ending 31.03.1978
and the assessment year 1978-79 is already
Ex.PW-1/DXA4 dated 11.02.2005
xiii.The PAN of Sh. M.L. Sodhi’s letter dated 19.06.1972,
Ex.DW-1/15.
xiv. The letter from DGCA Civil Aviation Deptt, Govt of
India dated 17.02.1976 is Ex DW-1/16
xv. The letter of AGCR, New Delhi to the Treasury officer,
Delhi regarding pension payment of Sh M.L. Sodhi,
Ex.DW-1/17
Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 50 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:54:53
+0530
xvi.The certificates issued by Bharat Air dated 18.12.72 and
22.5.1975 are Ex DW-1/18 to DW-1/19.
xvii. The occupancy certificate issued by DDA on
05.08.1971, Ex.DW-1/20.
xviii. The letter dated 07.06.68 of the Government Co-op
Housing Society is Ex DW-1/21.
xix. The receipts issued by DDA dated 06.01.1971 and
04.05.1971 of the DDA are Ex DW-1/22 and DW-1/23.
xx.The handwritten application of Sh M.L. Sodhi for filter
water connection and the bills are already
Ex.PW-1/DXA5 dated 11.02.2005, DW-1/25, DW-1/26
& DW-1/27.
xxi.The bills of construction or in connection with the
construction like Pest Control, Ex.PW-1/DXA7,
Ex.PW-1/DXA8 and Ex.PW-1/DXA9, Ex.PW-1/X,
Ex.PW-1/DXA10, Ex.PW-1/DXA11, Ex.PW-1/DXA12,
Ex.PW-1/DXA13, Ex.PW-1/DXA14, Ex.PW-1/DXA15,
Ex.PW-1/DXA16, Ex.PW-1/DXA17, Ex.PW-1/DXA18,
& Ex.DW-1/28(colly.)
xxii. The passbooks maintained by Sh M.L. Sodhi vide
passbooks are Ex. DW-1/29 to Ex.DW-1/30 and
Ex.DW-1/1AP3 and Ex.DW-1A/P4
xxiii. The MCD inspection report dated 27.07.1971, is
Ex.DW-2/1.
xxiv. Notice U/s 126 of DMC Act issued to M.L. Sodhi is
Ex.DW-2/2.
xxv. The certificate issued by German Embassy dated
07.04.1973 is Ex.DW-2/3
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 51 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:55
+0530
xxvi. The lease agreement with the German embassy is
Ex.DW-2/4
xxvii. The perpetual sub-lease dated 10.03.1970 issued in
favour of M.L. Sodhi is Ex.DW-2/5.
(During the tendering of evidence by DW-1/A, the objection was
raised by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff regarding putting the exhibits,
marks on the documents on account of mode of proof.
The objection is overruled as marking exhibit on a document
does not dispense the proof of the same.)In her cross-examination on 10.08.2006, she
stated that B.A (ENG) (Hons) from Bombay University. She
stated that she was married to V.K. Sodhi on 16.02.1968 and
after marriage she started residing with Mr. M.L. Sodhi, Raj
Sodhi at C-2/65, Moti Bagh, New Delhi. She has stated that
A.K. Sodhi also resided with them. The said premises was
govt. accommodation, which was allotted to M.L. Sodhi, after
the retirement of M.L. Sodhi, the whole family shifted to 6/4,
Shanti Niketan, which was rented accommodation. She stated
that A.K. Sodhi used to reside with his father, whenever he
used to come to Delhi wherever his father stayed. A.K. Sodhi
married on 16.02.1975 and resided in B Block, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi. M.L. Sodhi and Raj Sodhi also stayed in the same
property. She stated that suit property was leased out to West
German Embassy during 1972-76. She stated that the rent
realized from West German Embassy was deposited in
individual account of M.L. Sodhi as he has accounts in
National City bank and he had account in PNB and firstDigitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 52 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:54:58
+0530
National & Grindlays. She stated that all her individual
accounts were at Connaught Place.
She stated that Mr. M.L. Sodhi might have
deposited the rent realized from West German Embassy in any
one account mentioned by her. She stated that the rent paid by
West German Embassy at the relevant time was Rs.1,000/- or
Rs.1,500/- per month.
In her cross-examination on 10.01.2007, she
stated that the construction of plot in question was commenced
somewhere in the month of 1970 and completed in the month
of June, 1971. She stated that some construction was raised at
later stage, when Mr. M.L. Sodhi, occupied the suit property in
1976. She stated that sanction for additional construction of
the suit property was given in 1982 or 1983 but she was not
sure. The additional construction completed somewhere in
1983. She stated that M.L. Sodhi has several individual saving
accounts in many banks and he had no HUF account. She
denied account no. 595 of M.L. Sodhi and family HUF in
Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar. She stated that M.L. Sodhi was
filing his individual tax returns. She denied that rent received
from West German Embassy reflected in the returns of M.L.
Sodhi as Karta, HUF.
In her cross-examination on 20.02.2007,
DW-1/A stated that Barasti consisted of one dining room, a
drawing room, a bathroom, a bed room, a kitchen, two terraces
and a verandah and the construction was completed in 1983
and same was occupied by Col. V.K. Sodhi and his family,
who was living on the ground floor prior to that. She
CS No. 20/2016 53 /101
Digitally signed
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:00
+0530
affirmed that M.L. Sodhi was filing property tax returns.
(The objection was raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant, while
the witness is shown attested copy of lease deed dated 01.08.1985 (Mark
AX). The said objection is baseless as the said document is already part
of the record and the questions from the witness could be asked only by
showing it to her.
After seeing document Mark AX, she stated that she does not
recognise the signature at the place of lessor on the said document.)
She stated that she knows Ms. Nalini Lal. She
stated that Ms. Nalini Lal has filed a suit for Partition against
Mrs. Raj Sodhi, her husband, Col. V.K. Sodhi and Mr. A.K.
Sodhi after the demise of M.L. Sodhi. She stated that her
husband Col V.K. Sodhi found the Will dated 18.09.1989 of
Sh M.L. Sodhi. She stated that her husband did not disclose to
her about the execution of Will by Sh M.L. Sodhi with respect
to the suit property during 18.11.1989 to 07.01.2002.
In her cross-examination dated 03.10.2007, She
stated that all the construction details given in three
handwritten sheets in her affidavit pertains to year 1970-71
and all the bills are filed for the same period.
(The objection raised on behalf of the defendant regarding the
said question is overruled.)
She stated that construction in 1980’s was started
in 1976 to 1982 and was solely done by the individual and
personal funds of M.L. Sodhi without any contribution by any
family members and there was no system of consolidating the
bills. She stated that she was staying with Col. Sodhi,
whenever he was having army accommodation and rest of the
time she used to come and stay with her in-laws. She stated
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 54 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:03
+0530
that between 1980-81 Col. Sodhi was posted in Pathankot and
in 1982, he was posted in Firozpur and in 1983-1985 in
Ahmednagar. She denied the knowledge that plaintiffs were
shown as members in the ration card of M.L. Sodhi as head of
the family from 1975-1976 onwards till 1983-1984. She
denied that she has deliberately not produced documents in her
possession for the second phase of construction because they
showed that funds were spent from Joint Hindu Family
Account. She stated that for the time of construction of second
floor, her family was occupying the same and it was not rent to
anybody.
(While the question regarding renting out of the entire second
floor to Col. Arquay, military attache of Philippine embassy from 1980
to June 1983 was asked she replied that at the time of construction of
second floor, she was occupying with her family and it was not rented to
anybody. The objection raised on behalf of defendant that the question is
frivolous is dismissed.)
In her cross-examination on 23.11.2007, she
stated that her husband was not posted in the year 1980 in
Delhi but she was well aware that M.L. Sodhi was keeping
good health as she used to visit her in-laws for four months in
a year at least.The objection to this question raised by the
defendant is that it is beyond pleadings is dismissed.
(She denied that her mother till her death was residing at
Dehrudun and her father till his death was residing in Madhya Pradesh.
The objection raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the question is
frivolous and irrelevant is sustained.
The objections raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant regarding the
question of delivery of her children and place is sustained.)Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 55 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:07
+0530
In her cross-examination on 03.05.2008, she
stated that the whole property was rented out to German
embassy and not a portion and there was no joint account in
the name of Col. V.K. Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi. She stated that
she does not remember the bank from which payments were
made and Sh. M.L. Sodhi was operating many individual
accounts.
(The objection regarding document Ex DW-1/A/X1 is sustained.
She stated that whole property was rented out to German Embassy and
not a portion and there was no joint account of M.L. Sodhi and V.K.
Sodhi. While the letters dated 05.09.1999, issued by the bank certifying
the account opened on 04.07.1972 bearing no. 595, jointly held by M.L.
Sodhi and V.K. Sodhi, she stated that both the document Ex DW-1/A/X2
and Ex DW-1/AX3 are false. The objection of the defendant regarding
putting the said documents to her is dismissed.)
She stated that the assessment order in 1983-
1984, which is filed with her affidavit does not mention the
construction or the amount spent pursuant to sanction of
20.03.1980. She stated that there was no HUF or no account
having no. 595 of Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar. She stated
that M.L. Sodhi has been depositing house tax in respect of the
suit property. She stated that no bank account of V.K. Sodhi
with his father M.L. Sodhi. She stated that V.K. Sodhi has no
interest in any of the property than suit property. She stated
that while her husband was posted in Delhi in 1988, he started
living with her while she was already residing at the second
floor of the suit property. She stated that plaintiff and her
family were having a separate kitchen from the time they have
shifted to suit property in the year 1976. She stated that study
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 56 /101
by PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors.
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:15
+0530
room on the first floor was converted into kitchen as soon as
the plaintiff and her family shifted to the suit property. She
denied the suggestion that the Wills mentioned by her in
affidavit are forged and fabricated.
21.2 DW-2 Shri Chander Mohan Sanon has tendered
his affidavit by way of evidence as Ex DW-2/A. He stated that
Will is Ex DW-1/1. M.L. Sodhi signed the Will at Mark A
over the word executant. Col. P.K. Ghosh signed at Mark B.
Amrik Singh signed at Mark C and he signed at Mark D as
drafter of the Will.
In his cross-examination dated 11.03.2010, he
stated that he joined legal profession on 19.08.1966. He
started his profession as an associate of Sh J.D Bagga,
Advocate and thereafter started practicing independently. He
stated that he never practiced with Mr. P.K. Duggal, Advocate
and he came in contact with him when he received summons
from the court in this case. He stated that he came in contact
with M.L. Sodhi on 18.09.1989 as on that day, he came to his
seat at about 11.00a.m. He stated that M.L. Sodhi told him that
he wanted to execute a Will and also stated that he can not
discuss the same here and hence asked him to come to his
house situated at Vasant Vihar, Delhi in the evening. He stated
that in the evening, he accompanied by typist reached at his
house at about 5.00-5.30p.m. He stated that Will was executed
between 7.00p.m and he was free by 8.30p.m. He stated that
when he reached at the house of Mr M.L. Sodhi at 5.30 p.m.
on 18.09.1989, Mr. M.L. Sodhi was present there and there
CS No. 20/2016 57 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:18
+0530
was one sikh gentlemen, they were sitting in the Hall room
and there was a dining table on the side and some chairs on
the other side. In between the dining table and chairs, there
was a table. He stated that there was only one rough draft of
the Will. He Volunteered that M.L. Sodhi told him the
material, which is to be written in the Will and on the basis of
the same, he drafted the Will and showed the same to M.L.
Sodhi and after reading the same, he made certain corrections
and on the basis of the same, he took out a fair draft. Mr. M.L.
Sodhi read the contents of the fair draft and thereafter signed
the same. He stated that M.L. Sodhi first told the material to
him and thereafter he got it drafted through the typist. He
stated that typist was not his regular typist. He said that he
never met Mr. M.L. Sodhi after 18.09.1989. He stated that he
never appeared in the case of M.L. Sodhi. He denied the
suggestion that in the criminal complaint filed by Sunil Sodhi,
he appeared on behalf of M.L. Sodhi alongwith Mr.
P.K.Duggal and on behalf of P.K. Duggal, he stated that M.L.
Sodhi must be 65-66 years old on 18.09.1989. He volunteered
that he was an old man. He stated that sikh gentlemen was
already present in the house of M.L. Sodhi, when he reached
there. He denied the suggestion that Will Ex DW-1/1 was not
executed on 18.09.1989. He stated that M.L. Sodhi had three
children, Ajay Sodhi, Col.V.K. Sodhi and Daughter Nalini Lal.
He stated that he knows about the three children of M.L. Sodhi
as he told him on 18.09.1989. He stated that except the present
case he never appeared before any court as a witness to any
Will or as a drafter. He volunteered that he never drafted any
CS No. 20/2016 58 /101
Digitally signed
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors.
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18
15:55:20 +0530
other Will. He stated that he does not remember what was
stated by M.L.Sodhi to him on 18.09.1989 but only
remembered that he has executed the Will in favour of his
wife. He denied the suggestion that he did not remember
about the Will as he was not present on 18.09.1989 at the time
of execution of the Will. He denied the suggestion that he did
not draft the Will in question. He stated that he has come to the
court on his own. He stated that as an advocate after drafting a
plaint or WS, he only writes his designation and not his
address. He stated that Will was signed first by M.L. Sodhi
from his own pen and he signed in the last. After M.L. Sodhi,
it was signed by P.K. Ghosh and Amrik Singh. He stated that
he never met P.K. Ghosh and Amrik Singh after 18.09.1989.
He stated that he never visited M.L. Sodhi after 18.09.1989.
He knows about the death of M.L. Sodhi but not the date of
death.
In his further cross-examination on 08.12.2010,
he stated that he met M.L. Sodhi on 18.09.1989 only and
never before and never after. He stated that he gave oral
instructions for the purpose of drafting of the Will. He stated
that he entered straight into the house of M.L. Sodhi. He stated
that he did not notice that there is a gate in the middle of the
house. He denied that M.L. Sodhi was not in a fit state of mind
to give any instructions after his heart attack. He stated that his
speech was coherent and at no stage he was stammering. He
stated that he was in perfect health when he met him. He
denied that M.L. Sodhi never visited Tis Hazari Court on
18.09.1989. He stated that he drafted the Will and signed as
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 59 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:22
+0530
drafter and thereafter wrote his name. He stated that when he
reached M.L. Sodhi’s house, he was sitting on a chair near the
table. He stated that about 45 minutes to one hour was taken
for the first draft of the Will and the second draft was ready
within 45 minutes. He left the house of M.L. Sodhi at
18.50p.m. with his typist. He stated that he can even go now to
the house of M.L. Sodhi at Vasant Vihar. He stated that when
he was dictated to the typist on 18.09.1989, M.L. Sodhi was
there and after Ghosh came when Mr. Sodhi was giving him
instructions and also Amrik Singh was there. He denied that he
was in touch of family of M.L. Sodhi. He denied knowledge
about Keshav Sodhi, Manujla Sodhi. She stated that at the
time of instructions Mr. Sodhi told him that Raj Sodhi was his
wife. He stated that he received the summons in this case once
and thereafter, he is appearing in this case as his duty. He
denied that on 18.09.1989 M.L. Sodhi was week, feeble and
sick because of the heart attack and he was accompanied by
his wife all the time. He denied the suggestion that Will in
question was forged and fabricated documents. He denied the
suggestion that he knew about the incident which took place
on 18.09.1989. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Sodhi never
executed the Will on 18.09.1989. He denied the suggestion
he deposed falsely to help to interest some people.
While he was cross-examined on behalf of Ms.
Nalini lal, he stated that M.l. Sodhi gave him instructions and
he drafted accordingly and he told that he wanted to give
property to his wife. He did not ask him the reason for the
same. Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ SHARMA 60 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:25
+0530
21.3 Since Sh Chander Mohan sanon has been
examined as DW-2, therefore, the evidence of Sh Ram Kishan
is re-numbered as DW2A.
DW-2A Ram Kishan deposed that he has brought
the summoned record. The property in question is assessed in
the name of M.L. Sodhi in their record. Suit property was
inspected by their official on 02.07.1971 and M.L. Sodhi was
found owner. Photocopy of the inspection report dated
02.07.1971 is Ex DW-2/1, notice U/s 126 DMC Act was
issued to Mr. M.L. Sodhi, Photocopy of same is Mark Ex
DW-2/2, photocopy of the certificate issued by tenant,
Embassy of Republic of Germany in favour of owner Sh M.L.
Sodhi dated 07.04.1973 in their record in original, photocopy
of same is Ex DW-2/3, their file have two pages of the original
lease agreement between M.L. Sodhi and the Embassy of
Republic of Germany, Photostate copy of the pages no.2 & 3
of the said lease agreement is Ex DW-2/4, while the original
tenancy agreement is also on record. Photocopy of the
perpetual sub-lease dated 10.03.1970 issued by Delhi
Administration ( Land & Building Deptt.) in favour of Mr.
M.L. Sodhi S/o Br. R. Sodhi R/o C-II/65, Moti Bagh, New
Delhi alongwith the Sanction letter of DDA( Deptt. Of Bldg.),
photocopy of the perpetual sub lease as well as sanction letter
are marked as Ex DW2/5 (objected to being incomplete)
respectively. He stated that he has seen the original notice
under Section dated 11.11.1980 from the judicial record,
which was Ex DW-2/6.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally
signed by 61 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:27
+0530
(The objection regarding incomplete record is dismissed being
vague.)
Vide order dated 29.07.2010, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi permitted the defendants to lead evidence of
Smt Veena Anand, Sh. Manu Gurbaxani as DW-3 and DW-4
respectively and also summoned to officers described in item
no. 20 and 29 of the list of witnesses filed by them.
21.4 DW3 Sh. Manu Gurbuxani examined on
11.08.2011, he has tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex
DW-3/1. Witness identified the signature of Smt. Raj Sodhi at
Mark A, A1 and A2 and the signature of other witness namely
Mrs. Veena Anand is Mark C.
However, cross-examination could not be
conducted as Manjula Sodi and Arjun Sodhi stated that they do
not want his examination. No cross-examination was
conducted of this witness.
21.5 Since Manuburbaxani has been examined as
DW-3 pursuant to the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
the evidence of Bal Kishan Yadav is re-numbered as DW-3A
DW-3A Sh Balkishan Yadav examined on
25.04.2006 Government Servant, Co-operative House
Building Society, Vasant Vihar, has brought the summoned
record pertaining to Government Servant’s Co-operative
House Building Society Building, Kalyan kendra, Paschimi
Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Witness deposed that Sh M.L.
Sodhi had applied for society membership on 30.03.1960,
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 62 /101
by PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors.
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:29
+0530
proved the photostate copy of the same is Ex DW3/1.
Admission form duly signed by Mr. M.L. Sodhi and duly
admitted by the President of the society on 17.03.1962 is
available in the file, photocopy of same is Marked A. Witness
has also brought the two solemn declaration of Mr. M.L.
Sodhi, photocopy of same are Mark B and C. Witness has also
brought the following documents:
1. Letter dated 13.05.1966 of Mr. M.L. Sodhi for payment
of first installment for the plot, Mark D;
2. Letter dated 15.10.1966 concerning payment of second
installment for the plot, Mark E;
3. Letter dated 03.01.1968 of Mr. M.L. Sodhi concerning
development charges, Mark F
4. Handwritten letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 16.08.1970
requesting physical possession of the plot, Mark G;
5. Letter dated 16.08.1970 of the Secretary of the
Government Servant’s Co-operative House building
society Limited regarding handing over the suit plot,
Mark H;
6. Letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 30.08.1968 concerning
payment of Rs.646/-, Mark I;
7. Handwritten letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 05.12.1968
concerning payment of Rs.1,000/- towards balance due
for the price of the plot, Mark J;
8. Handwritten letter of M.L. Sodhi dated 05.08.1968,
Mark K;
9. Handwritten letter of M.L. Sodhi dated 22.03.1976
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 63 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:32
+0530
concerning installation of unfiltered water supply,
Mark-L;
10.Letter dated 22.03.1976 regarding sanction for
unfiltered water supply, Mark M;
11.Application dated 15.03.1976 for electric plumbing of
Mr. M.L. Sodhi, Mark N;
12.Hand Written letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi concerning
unfiltered water supply for additional construction dated
20.06.1980, Mark O;
13.Hand written letter of Mr M.L. Sodhi concerning
disconnection of water supply for additional
construction dated 30.08.1980, Mark P;
14.Letter dated 16.03.1990 of Smt. Raj Sodhi, Mark Q;
15.Notices of the society dated 24.05.1995 and 01.04.2001,
Mark R;
Proved the photocopies of the above said documents are
Marked as D to R respectively.
In the cross-examination, he stated he might have
seen M.L. Sodhi, 15 years back but he unable to recollect his
face. He stated that he can identify his signature.
21.6 DW-4 Smt. Veena Anand had tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit as Ex DW-4/1. She stated that
the Will of Smt. Raj Sodhi is already exhibited as
Ex DW-3/A, however, in her affidavit, same is mentioned as
DW-5/1. She stated that the Will bears the signature of Smt.
Raj Sodhi at Mark A, A1 and A2 and her signature at Mark C.
The signature of other witness namely Mr. Manu Gurbuxani is
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 64 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:34
+0530
at Mark B.
She was cross-examined on 20.12.2011, she
stated that her date of birth is 30.01.1946 and her mother and
Mrs. Raj Sodhi were neighbours in Lahore. She stated that her
mother resided in Nagpur after partition from 1948 till date.
She stated that she studied in Bombay from Sophia College.
She stated that she was on visiting terms with Mrs. Raj Sodhi
and in 1973 she moved to Delhi and after that she visited her
socially. She stated that she did not know Manjula Sodhi in
college but she believed that they were in same college. She
denied the suggestion that she knew Manjula Sodhi in college
or that they were sharing the same hostel in Bombay. She
stated that she does not think Manjula Sodhi did her
graduation in English (Hons.). She stated that she was in
college from 1961 to 1964 and she did her graduation in
English( Hons.). She stated that Mrs. Raj Sodhi was the age of
her mother. She stated that on and average, she met them 3-4
times in a year.
(The objections raised regarding her mother’s meeting with Raj
Sodhi and the age of her mother are dismissed.)
She met them in Vasant Vihar residence after
Shanti Niketan residence. She denied that she never used to
visit Raj Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi 3-4 times in a year and that is
why she is unable to tell their residences before shifting to
D-3/4 Vasant Vihar.
(The objection regarding the place of residence of Raj Sodhi and
M.L. Sodhi, 1975 is dismissed.)
She stated that she did not know what were the
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 65 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:37
+0530
family nick name of A.K. Sodhi. V.K. Sodhi, Nalini Lal. She
stated that A.K. Sodhi was sometimes referred to as “Poles”.
She denied that Manjula Sodhi was referred to as ” Poles”. She
stated that A.K. Sodhi nick name in Punjabi was said ” Phola”.
She attended the marriage of Vijay Sodhi and also of A.K.
Sodhi and Sunil Sodhi. She stated that she does not know in
which year M.L. Sodhi had died but she attended his
cremation. She stated that V.K. sodhi died one year after his
mother.
She was cross-examined on 08.08.2013. She
stated that she has no personal knowledge as to how educated
was Mrs. Raj Sodhi. She stated that Mrs. Raj Sodhi informed
her telephonically that she wanted to execute a Will sometime
in April 1996. She stated that on 07.05.1996, she was present
at the Registrar office when the Will was being registered.
Mrs. Raj Sodhi, Manu Gurbaxni, Advocate and she was
present. She stated that Raj Sodhi was not accompanied by
any family member. She stated that when she reached Raj
Sodhi was already present. She stated that on 01.05.1996, she
went to the house of Mrs. Raj Sodhi in the morning
11.00/11.30a.m. When she reached her house, Mrs. Raj Sodhi
and one another gentlemen was present. She did not remember
as to which day of the week it was but stated that it may be
Wednesday. She affirmed that her husband used to travel very
frequently during 1973-1980. She denied the suggestion that
on 01.05.1996, she was not in Delhi and was travelling. She
denied the suggestion that on 07.05.1996, she was not in Delhi
and not present before the office of Sub-Registrar. She stated
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 66 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:40
+0530
that no one read out the Will to Mrs. Raj Sodhi either on
01.05.1996 or 07.05.1996. However, she volunteered that it
was she who read out the Will. She denied the suggestion that
Mrs. Raj Sodhi was not conversant with English and therefore,
he could not have read out the Will. She stated that Mrs. Raj
Sodhi signed the Will on the ground floor on 01.05.1996 in the
drawing-cum-dining room. She stated that there were about
three pages in the Will and she signed all the three pages. She
stated that she did not put her name while affixing her
signatures as the names were already typed. Manu Gurubaxmi
reached the residence of Raj Sodhi first and then she reached,
she stated that no one reached after her. She stated that she
was present there for almost an hour and a half. She stated that
she did not sign all the pages of the Will. She stated that Manu
Gurubaxni is the other witness and she does not know him.
She met him once after 01.05.1996 and 07.05.1996 in the
court. She stated that she did not visit Raj Sodhi frequently
between 1980-1996. She stated that she was asked by Mr.
Duggal, counsel for LRs of deceased defendant no.2 to depose
in the present matter. She stated that she knows Mrs. Nalini
Lal. She did not attend her wedding and she never met and
spoken to Mrs. Nalini Lal after the death of Mrs. Raj Sodhi.
She stated that she aware that Mrs. Raj Sodhi was executed
another Will and she mentioned about the said Will in Will
dated 01.05.1996. She stated that photograph of Mrs. Raj
Sodhi was not affixed on the Will dated 01.05.1996. She stated
that Will of Mrs. Raj Sodhi 01.05.1996 was shown to her by
counsel on 23.05.2006 when her affidavit was sworn. She
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
67 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:42
+0530
denied the suggestion that she did not have the occasion to see
Mrs. Raj Sodhi signing between 01.05.1996 to 23.05.2006.
She volunteered that she had seen her signing on
07.05.1996. She stated that she did not disclose about the Will
to Mrs. Manjula Sodhi. She denied the suggestion that Will
dated 01.05.1996 is forged and fabricated document. She
denied the suggestion that the incidents of 01.05.1996 were
concocted and she is deposing at the behest of Mrs. Manjula
Sodhi. She denied the suggestion that she was not present on
01.05.1996 and 07.05.1996 when the Will was executed.
In her cross-examination on behalf of deceased
LRs of defendant no.1, she stated that she was not aware, if
Mrs. Raj Sodhi was suffering from any ailment on 01.05.1996.
She volunteered that she was hale and hearty. She stated that
Will was signed at the residence of Raj Sodhi on 01.05.1996.
Her affidavit Ex PW-4/1 was prepared by Mr. Duggal on her
instructions.
21.7 DW-5 Mr.Deepak Mandal, (08.08.2013)
Manager, Government Servants Co-operative House Building
Society have brought the summoned record which is letter of
Mr. M.L. Sodhi received by the society on 30.03.1960,
Admission Form dated 09.03.1962, Solemn declaration of Mr.
M.L. Sodhi dated 13.05.1966, letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated
15.10.1966 and 03.01.1968, hand written letter of Mr. M.L.
Sodhi dated 16.08.1970, letter dated 16.08.1970 of
Government Servants Cooperative House Building Society,
Letter of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 30.08.1968, handwritten letters
CS No. 20/2016 68 /101
Digitally signed
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:44
+0530
of Mr. M.L. Sodhi dated 05.12.1968 and 22.03.1976. Letter
from Government servants Cooperative House Building
society dated 22.03.1976 and 15.03.1976 alongwith receipt
dated 15.03.1976 hand written letter of M.L. Sodhi dated
20.06.1980 and 30.08.1983, letter of Government Servants
Cooperative House Building society dated 24.05.1995 and
01.04.2001, layout plan of Vasant Vihar, B Block signed by
Mr. M.L. Sodhi, Solemn declaration by the signatories of the
society, same are Ex DW-5/1 to Ex DW-5/21(colly.)(OS&R)Witness was cross-examined on 30.04.2014, he
stated that he is in employment of Government servants
Cooperative House Building society since 2007. He was
appointed as a record keeper in the society. He stated that as a
manager, his duty is to look after the day to day affairs of the
society. He stated that as a manager he has no role in
preparation of record of the society. He affirmed that the
summoned file contained all the documents pertaining to the
suit property B-3/4 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He affirmed that
as and when society received any documents pertaining to the
suit property, it is recorded serial wise in the file. He affirmed
that he has no information whether Sunil Sodhi has been
writing to the society as co-owner of the suit property. He
stated that he is not aware whether Manjula Sodhi or V.K.
Sodhi had been writing letters to the society in this regard.
Witness was cross-examined on 26.08.2015 and
he stated that he is working in the Government Servant Co-op
House building Society from 2007. He stated that in the record
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 69 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:47
+0530
of the society, the property is in the name of M.L. Sodhi. He
produced the original of Ex DW-5/21. He denied the
suggestion that Ex DW-5/21 was not in possession of the
society earlier or that it has been obtained by the society from
somewhere else. He admits letter Ex DW-5/PX1 in the record
of the society. The reply of the society to this letter is Ex
DW-5/PX2. He admitted letter Ex DW-5/PX3.
21.7 On 28.04.2017, Smt. Nalini Lal was examined
as DW-1, however as per the defendant’s evidence, DW-1 was
Dr. P. Ghosh. Therefore, for the sake of record and
convenience, the evidence of Smt. Nalini Lal is renumbered
as DW-6
DW-6 Smt. Nalini Lal has tendered her evidence
by way of affidavit, Ex DW-1/A and she relied on the
document, copy of her mother’s Smt Raj Sodhi Will dated
07.06.1991 and death certificate of Smt Raj Sodhi, Mark B.
Witness was cross-examined on 28.04.2017, she
stated that she was not aware, if her father Sh M.L. Sodhi died
intestate without leaving a Will. She stated that she had filed a
Written Statement bearing her signature duly verified on
24.07.1991. She affirmed that in her WS, she has mentioned
that her father died intestate. She affirmed that her father died
intestate and there is no question of Will. She stated that she
understand the meaning of word “intestate”. She affirmed that
paragraph 4 of Will dated 07.06.1991 Mark A, there is a
mention of Will dated 09.09.1989 of her father. She stated that
there is no Will dated 09.09.1989 of her father and as such
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by
PANKAJ
70 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:50
+0530
same is not filed by her. She stated that her mother said that
she had the Will dated 09.09.1989 of her father and informed
her that her father bequeathed the suit property in her favour.
Witness was cross-examined on 05.09.2017, She
stated that she does not recollect, who are the witnesses of the
Will, however, it may be V.N Puri and Dr. Indira Behl. She
denied that in the said Will of Mr. M.L. Sodhi, his wife Raj
Sodhi had only lifetime interest and after her death, it was
equally divided between their two sons only. She stated that
her claim as per suit no. 2793/1993, for a share in the property
was upon the instance of her mother because her two brothers
were fighting for the second floor and mother decided to give
it to her. She stated that her mother had asked her to file the
suit and take her to registration office to a Will. She affirmed
that in paragraph no.6 of her affidavit, that her father left the
Will dated 18.12.1989. However, she has not filed the same on
record. She stated that her father passed away on 18.11.1989
as such he would not have executed a Will on 18.12.1989. She
stated that her father must have made the Will before he was
expired. She stated that the witnesses of first Will 09.09.1989
of M.L. Sodhi were Indira Behl and V.N Puri, however, she
could not recollect, who were the witnesses of the second Will
dated 18.09.1989. She denied that the Will dated 07.06.1991,
Mark A of her mother is forged and fabricated documents. She
stated that the construction of the suit property were not done
in two phases and same was completed on 1970 only. She
denied that her father had ever HUF. She stated that all Wills
of Smt Raj Sodhi after 07.06.1991 are forged and fabricated.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 71 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:52
+0530
Witness was cross-examined on 12.09.2017, she
stated that M.L. Sodhi was member of the Defence Housing
Society and he was leased out property vide lease dated
10.03.1970. She stated that her brother A.K. Sodhi was under
depression but a psychic patient. She denied that A.K. Sodhi
and his wife were not in goods terms. She stated that Sunil
Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi lived separately only for sometime and
not always. She stated that both my brothers V.K. Sodhi and
A.K. Sodhi living separately and not as a part of M.L. Sodhi.
She stated that her father said that A.K. Sodhi and his family
Will stay at first floor and V.K. Sodhi Will stay at second floor,
till he get accommodation.
Witness was cross-examined on 09.02.2018, She
stated that M.M Lal was the attesting witness of Will dated
07.06.1991. She admitted her signature on Ex D1W1/R1. She
admitted that WS was filed by her in the court after 47 days of
execution of the Will.
Witness was cross-examined on 24.02.2018, She
stated that her mother and her husband told her about the Will
dated 07.06.1991. Her mother told her that her father left a
Will in her favour.
Witness was cross-examined on 23.10.2018, she
stated that she was pressurized to withdraw her Partition suit
by her brother, mother and P.K. Duggal. She stated that she
withdrew the said suit unconditionally because her mother
promised her to look after her interest in the property. She
denied the suggestion that she voluntarily relinquished her
right and claim in the suit property.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
72 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:55:55
+0530
21.8 Since Sh Chander Mohan Sanon has been
examined as DW-2, the evidence of DW-2 Sh Sushil Kumar is
renumbered
as DW-7.
DW-7 Sh. Sushil Kumar Kala (24.02.2018),
Judicial Assistant, RKD (original) Branch, Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, have brought the summoned record i.e. CD
pertaining to CS (OS) No. 2793-1993, titled Mr. Nalini Lal Vs.
Mrs. Raj Sodhi and ors. Witness has also brought the
Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dated
11.09.2017 and also the Certificate U/s 65B(4) © of the
Indian Evidence Act, dated 21.09.2017 is Ex DW-2/3. Ex
DW-2/2 and Ex DW-2/3 have been signed by Ms. Naveen
Kathpal, Assistant Registrar, RKD ( O), Branch, High Court of
Delhi. Witness identified her signature at point A and B and
deposed that she has seen her signing during the court of his
duty.
22. Defendant evidence stands closed vide order
dated 23.10.2018.
23. I have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties
and perused the record. Both the parties have filed judgment in
support of their contentions.
Plaintiffs have relied upon the following
judgments:
Digitally
signed by
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 73 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:55:58
+0530
MANU/SC/0057/1976 AIR 1977 SCC 409;
MANU/MP/0520/2015 W.P. NO. 7860 OF 2014
decided on 19.03.2015 by Hon’ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench);
3. Muddasani Ventaka Narsaiah (Dead) Vs. Muddasani
Sarojana, MANU/SC/0524/2016, 2016 (12) SCC
288(4) Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre Vs. Pathankhan & Ors.
MANU/SC/0516/1970: (1970) 2CC 717;
4. Ved Prakash vs. Om Prakash and Ors.
MANU/DE/5183/201;
5. Suraj Bhan Vs. State and Ors. MANU/DE/0255/2008;
6. Reeta Ramesh Vs. State MANU/DE/9084/2006; and
7. Lilian Coelho and Ors. Vs. Myra Philomena Coalho
MANU/SC/0004/2025.
Defendants have relied upon the following
judgments:
1. Sunny(Minor) & Anr. vs. Raj Singh & Ors, 2015 SCC
OnLine Del 13446;
2. Sh. Surender Kumar vs. Dhani Ram & Ors., 2016 SCC
On Line Del 333;
3. Jai Narain Mathur & Ors. vs. Jai Prakash Mathur
(deceased) through LRs 2016, SCC OnLine Del986;
4. Dayanand Rajan & Anr. vs. Ram Lal Khattar, 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 6402;
5. Aarshiya Gulati (Minor) Through Next friend & Ors vs.
Kuldeep Singh & Ors, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6867;
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 74 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:00
+0530
6. Justice Shanti Sarup Dewan, Chief Justice ( Retired) &
Anr. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., 2013 SCC
On Line P&H 20369;
7. Jupudi Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar v. Jupudi Keshava Rao
(died) & Ors. AIR 1994 AP 134;
8. Jupudi Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar v. Jupudi Keshava Rao
(died) & Ors. 2003 (8) SCC 282;
9. G. Narayana Raju (dead) by his legal Representative
V.H. Chamaraju and Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1276;
10. Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Anr. (2008) 17
SCC 491;
11. D.D.A v. Krishna Construction Co. 2011 SCC OnLine
Del 4134;
12. Lalsa Prasad Singh vs. Chanderwala, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 10961;
13. Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148;
14. Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust v. Chandran,
(2017) 3 SCC 702;
15. Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah vs. Muddasani Sarojana,
(2016) 12 SCC 299;
16. Rishab Kumar Jain vs. Roopwati Jain, 2011 SCC
OnLine Del 4600;
17. Dayanand Rajan & Anr. Vs. Ram Khattar, RFA
1064/2017 &CM Nos 47059-60/2017 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; and
18. Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi and others Vs.
Lakkireddi Lakshmama 1963 SCC On Line SC 221:
(1964)2 SCR 172:AIR 1963 SC 1601.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
by PANKAJ 75 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:56:03
+0530
ISSUE-WISE FINDING
24. My issue-wise findings are as under:
24.1 ISSUE NO.1: Whether the suit property, B-3/4,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is the Joint Hindu Family property,
which had been put in the common hotch potch by late Sh.
M.L. Sodhi? OPP
ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit property was a self
acquired property belonging to late Sh M.L Sodhi?OPD
ISSUE NO.4: Whether there was a HUF of which
late Sh M.L. Sodhi was the Karta and the other parties were its
members?OPP
(Issue nos. 1, 2 & 4 are interconnected and they are decided
together.)
The plaintiff has asserted that suit property i.e.
B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was a Joint Hindu Family
property consisting of plaintiff and defendants, where Mr. M.L.
Sodhi was the Karta. The suit property was Joint Hindu Family
property before the marriage of plaintiff with defendant no.4 on
16.02.1975. The suit property was allotted in 1962 (and paid up
for during 1962-1968) and later on given on perpetual sub-
lease to defendant no.1 Sh M.L. Sodhi by Government Servants
Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. vide perpetual Sub-
lease dated 10.03.1970 in consideration of payment of
Rs.3,948.00/- as the price of the land and Rs.6,800/- as
development charges i.e. in all for Rs.10,748/-. Since defendant
no.1 had retired in the year 1968-69 as such the suit property
had been allotted to him much prior to his retirement. The first
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 76 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:05
+0530
phase of construction was completed in May 1971, which
included one drawing-dining room, one bed room with attached
bathroom, kitchen and study with verandahs in front and in the
rear a garage with two servant quarters above it, an open
driveway and lawn and back courtyard on the ground floor, a
stair leading to two bed rooms with attached bathrooms and one
store on the first floor. The plaintiff has pleaded that the
acquisition of property and construction cost was about
Rs.77,000/- entirely with the Joint Family funds as HUF was
blessed with funds of declaration made by the defendant no.1
on 01.12.1969. The said declaration was not denied by the
defendant no. 1 either specifically or categorically while he
filed his written statement in the present suit as such existence
of the same is established. Further, the claim of the plaintiff that
HUF was blessed with the funds while the suit property was
acquired and constructed by the defendant no.1 i.e. Karta has
been established by other documentary evidence. In this regard,
Ex X1 is relevant as the said Assessment Order dated
15.10.1977 depicts suit property as HUF having declared total
income of Rs.14,913/- as on 24.07.1976 with subsequent
income of Rs.8,125/- as on 29.07.1976. This declaration of the
property as HUF in the Income Tax Return has been made by
defendant no.1 and the same was not denied too by him while
he filed his Written Statement. This declaration is made by
defendant no.1 M.L. Sodhi to the Income Tax Authorities and
the same has legal sanctity and which also shows the intention
of Mr. M.L. Sodhi regarding the status of the suit property as
HUF. Infact it is a admission on the part of M.L. Sodhi
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by
PANKAJ
77 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:07
+0530
regarding the status of suit property as HUF property. Further
the Income Tax Return Ex X1 shows the status of the suit
property as HUF in the Assessment year 1976-1977 and income
from the suit property as Rs. 12,329/-. The said income in Ex
X1 tallies with the income shown in the Mark-BX, which is
House Tax Return. Also, the House Tax Returns Ex
DW-1/A/X4 filed by defendant no.1 before MCD for
assessment of House Tax shows suit property as HUF. These
documents are filed by defendant no.1 before the statutory
authorities declaring the suit property as HUF, as such there is
no doubt over their genuineness and the declaration made
therein. Although defendants have denied existence of HUF
and having ancestral funds but they have not led any cogent
evidence to rebut the said claim of the plaintiffs’ regarding use
of ancestral HUF funds by the defendant no.1 for purchase of
the suit property. The defendants have relied upon the
transaction entries made by M.L. Sodhi from his account,
however, same are not sufficient to decipher that the suit
property was not Joint Hindu Family asset as the intention of
M.L. Sodhi is important to decipher its status which can be
gathered from the declaration made by him before the statutory
authorities. Thus, the pre-existence of HUF has been proved
and it can be safely deciphered that HUF was blessed with the
funds of previous partition and the said corpus of funds was
infact utilized for acquisition of suit property. The volition and
intention of M.L. Sodhi is clearly discernible from his
declaration made before Income Tax and MCD regarding the
status of the suit property as HUF property.
Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 78 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:56:09
+0530
Defendant no. 2 (i) to (iii) have argued that PW-1
stated in her cross-examination that there was no nucleus in the
Sodhi’s family prior to her marriage and she was having no
knowledge of any nucleus in the family prior to her marriage.
Further, the defendants have argued that PW-1 replied that she
had no knowledge of any ancestral funds or ancestral property
owned by Sh M.L. Sodhi. It is argued by defendants that there
was no nucleus or ancestral funds in the Sodhi family, however,
as per the documents produced on record, the said contention is
seemingly misconceived. The nucleus and the ancestral funds
in the Sodhi’s family is well established by the uncontested
averments and the documents filed before concerned
authorities. It seems from the backdrop of declaration of
defendant no.1 the source of funds for purchase of the suit
property is the corpus of the ancestral HUF funds and not from
the retirement benefits.
On behalf of LRs of defendant no.1/ Ms. Nalini
Lal, it is argued that suit property was a separate property of
M.L. Sodhi, which is established by the evidence on record. As
such plea of the plaintiff that it was HUF property is baseless.
However, it is pointed out that plaintiff has failed to establish as
to when HUF was created and if at all HUF existed when the
suit property was thrown into hotch potch by abandoning or
surrendering of his rights by M.L. Sodhi in the suit property. It
was contended that mere declaration while filing ITRs and
with House Tax and Municipal Authorities is not sufficient to
assume that suit property was impressed with a character of
HUF. On behalf of other defendants, it was argued that no
Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 79 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:56:12
+0530
HUF existed when the said property was acquired. However,
the said pleas are not tenable as there is clear evidence of
ancestral funds/HUF and joint family nucleus. The suit property
was purchased from the ancestral funds and Karta i.e. defendant
no.1 has thrown it in the HUF voluntarilly by subsequent acts,
which is substantiated by the documentary evidence adduced by
the plaintiff. The ancestral funds of HUF had contributed
towards purchase of suit property and first phase of
construction. Therefore, the same formed the corpus / nucleus
of joint family as such plea of the defendants that the suit
property was purchased out of his own funds of defendant no.1
is not tenable. It is noteworthy that defendant no.1 M.L. Sodhi
was allotted a plot by the Government Servants Co-operative
House Building Society Ltd as he was a government servant
and same could not have been allotted to an HUF, however, the
subsequent act and conduct of M.L. Sodhi shows that he thrown
the property in hotch-potch. The plaintiffs have established
factual substratum of existence of Joint Hindu Family and
ancestral funds/ nucleus before purchase of the suit property.
The income tax returns of M.L. Sodhi, the
declaration before municipal authorities shows that the suit
property was claimed as HUF asset. Further, the account no.
595 with Syndicate Bank was opened in the name of HUF.
There is no document which could otherwise shows that
defendant no.1 Sh M.L. Sodhi ever shown this property as his
own. Evidence also shows that M.L. Sodhi had surrendered all
his rights in the suit property and, therefore, the suit property
has taken the colour and characteristic of HUF. Accordingly,
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 80 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:14
+0530
the stand of the plaintiff that the suit property partakes the
colour of HUF because same was acquired and constructed
from the ancestral fund/ nucleus is well founded. It is
established by the plaintiff that nucleus of Joint Hindu Family
was available and the suit property had been purchased from
the said nucleus. The defendant no.1 declared the suit property
as HUF and thrown the same into common hotch-potch of the
family. The declaration of defendant no.1 before the Income
Tax return of the property tax authorities clearly shows his act
of wavering and surrendering his special rights over the
property.
PW-1 categorically stated that from the date of her
marriage with A.K. Sodhi, her husband gave his salary to his
father and mother for running the joint household even though
there were two kitchens being run from 1983 onward for the
sake of convenience. PW-1 also stated that her father-in-law
had blended her personal funds and property from the joint
family funds, which she had received from partial partition in
1962 of his Joint family. She also asserted that Joint family pre-
existed before her marriage consisting of her father-in-law with
his father and brother and the said preposition was remained
unrebutted during the evidence. As such, it is forthcoming that
declarations reflect the funds received from the HUF by M.L.
Sodhi and same were merged with his funds and eventually
merged in suit property. This substantiates the blending of HUF
funds from a previous nucleus into the suit property. The
continuance of the HUF is substantiated from the fact that rent
coming from the property was credited in HUF account no.
Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 81 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:17 +0530
595, Syndicate Bank, which was declared by M.L. Sodhi in ITR
as HUF fund. Although the documents pertaining to suit
property have been issued by DDA in the name of M.L. Sodhi
but the declaration by M.L. Sodhi before House Tax Office,
Income Tax Return made his intention clear regarding the status
of the property as HUF. Further from the evidence of PW-1 it is
forthcoming that M.L. Sodhi notified to all the members of the
family, the rent coming from the property in HUF account
no.595 was declared as rental income in his ITR titled as M.L.
Sodhi (HUF). It is noteworthy that account no. 595 was duly
verified by a certificate issued by the bank, Ex DW-1/A/X2 and
its running statement Ex DW-1/A/X3. However, defendants
failed to rebut the ITR of 1973-1974 and account no. 595.
DW-1/A, Manjula Sodhi admitted that suit property was rented
out to West German Embassy and fetching monthly rent of
Rs.1,000/- or Rs.1,500/- per month but no document evidencing
the same was produced the same despite directions. Further the
documents filed by Manjula Sodhi are self-serving and they are
unable to cast shadow on the status of the suit property as HUF.
Her denial about existence of account no. 595 of M.L. Sodhi
and filing of individual tax returns by M.L. Sodhi is without
any evidence and also about rent received from West German
Embassy in the account of M.L. Sodhi as Karta (HUF). Further
she remained conveniently silent about the question regarding
the status of the plaintiffs and the Head of the family in the
ration card. Also she did not produce any document pertaining
to second phase of construction, PAN of HUF of M.L. Sodhi,
though she produced documents pertaining to the first phase of
Digitally
signed by
CS No. 20/2016 PANKAJ 82 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:19
+0530
construction. She remained conspicuously silent about the PAN
of HUF of M.L. Sodhi despite being confronted with its details
during cross-examination. Further her assertion that second
phase of construction was solely done by individual and
personal funds of M.L. Sodhi without any contribution from
other family members is devoid of any merit as abundant
evidence is on record to substantiate that funds were
infused/mobilized by plaintiff and defendant no.4 in the HUF
account for the said purpose and no document has been
produced by her to support her position from her possession.
She handpicked only those documents which serves her interest
and nothing more nothing less. This contribution by plaintiff
no. 1 and her husband to the HUF account of M.L. Sodhi is an
evidence of blending of funds for the construction of the second
phase of the suit property.
On behalf of defendant, it was argued that PW-1
in her cross-examination admitted that suit property was
purchased by M.L. Sodhi from his own funds, however, the
said admission has to be seen in proper perspective as in a later
suggestion, she denied the same. The said admission by PW-1
can not alter the status of the suit property, which has been
declared by M.L. Sodhi showing his manifested intent
regarding its status.
After passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the
person inheriting the property from the parental / ancestral
funds, the said property is not HUF in his hand and property is
to be taken as self-acquired property. After inheriting the same,
however, where said person throws the said property into
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 83 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:21
+0530
common hotch-potch, then such property becomes HUF/ Joint
Hindu Family property. The facts in the present case clearly
shows that defendant no.1 Sh. M.L. Sodhi, who acquired and
constructed the first phase construction from the ancestral
funds/ nucleus with blending his own funds and had thrown the
same property into common hotch-potch, thereby same would
become Joint Hindu Property/HUF property.
While evaluating the evidence in civil case, the
court has to satisfy itself about the existence of the fact which is
more probable than its non-existence. The standard of prudent
person is determined while considering the facts on record in
support of the claim. The more probable scenario is taken after
evaluating conflicting probabilities of the case.
By way of documents produced by the plaintiff, it
is manifestly clear that M.L. Sodhi had thrown the suit property
into common hotch-potch, whereby characterized its status of
an HUF property in unequivocal terms. Thus, all the children of
M.L. Sodhi are entitled to the share of the suit property equally
being HUF property. The judgments filed on behalf of the
parties have been carefully perused and the legal point
embodied therein has been considered. This issue is decided in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.1 ISSUE NO.3: Whether the plaintiffs are in
possession of the first floor of the suit property in the exercise
of right to residence as a member of co-parcenary and also in
accordance with the agreement of construction set out in para 4
of the plaint?OPP
CS No. 20/2016 84 /101
Digitally signed
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:56:24
+0530
As per the evidence of PW-1 after her marriage,
there have been contribution to Joint Hindu Family, which is
reflecting in the ITRs of financial year 1980-1981 and 1981-
1982. On 18.03.1980, M.L. Sodhi called upon her husband to
pool in resources and at that time she and her mother-in-law
were present, so that construction of the second phase could be
started. Her husband transferred the amount to account no. 595
on the same day and remittances continued in the said account
till construction was completed. As per evidence, A.K. Sodhi
through his saving account no.4273 of Syndicate Bank
transferred contribution to M.L. Sodhi HUF account no. 595 of
Syndicate Bank during the year 1980-1981 to finance second
phase of construction of the suit property and same is well
documented.
The assertion of PW-1 that her husband A.K.
Sodhi wholly and solely financed the second phase construction
of suit property was based on the contribution by her husband
made from his saving account no. 4273, Syndicate bank to M.L.
Sodhi ( HUF) to account no. 595, Syndicate Bank, in 1980-
1981. The phrase wholly and solely refers to the contribution
made by her husband only as the other brother did not make
any contribution towards the second phase.
PW-1 affirmed that Col. V.K. Sodhi was not in station on
18.03.1980 and he had agreed to the arrangement while his
father asked him to contribute for the second phase, he took an
excuse of having booked a flat from Army quota in Somvihar
and also negotiating to purchase a farming land in Pathankot.
As such the averment of oral understanding between M.L.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed
85 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:56:27
+0530
Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi regarding contribution of funds for
second phase of construction and same would be treated as his
exclusive ownership appears to be existed and acted upon.
Record substantiates that FDRs were broken and fund
mobilization was done by plaintiff and A.K. Sodhi for second
phase of construction upon the said agreement and
arrangement. While cheque payments were made from HUF
account no.595 and some cash payments were made by PW-1
and her husband. PW-1 stated that the said cash was given to
her by her mother and brother and was not shown in the ITR
nor receipts were taken. The same appears to be reasonable as
often parents and family members help financially for
construction of home and for which no documents/receipts are
executed. The fact that Col. V.K. Sodhi agreed to the said oral
agreement and arrangement between M.L.Sodhi and A.K.Sodhi
is substantiated as no payment has been paid by him or any
evidence to the contrary has been adduced by the defendants.
The second phase of construction included one
drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, one T.V lounge on the
first floor and on the second floor one drawing-dining, one bed
room with attached bath, kitchen and two open terraces and
besides the existing staircase, another independent staircase was
provided for the first and second floor. The entire second floor
was rented to Col. Arquay, military attache of Philippine
embassy and in June 1983, the same was vacated by the said
embassy and thereafter M/s Marketting Advertising &
associates shifted to second floor and upon their vacation same
was occupied by A.K. Sodhi and his family 23.09.1983 and
Digitally signed
CS No. 20/2016 by PANKAJ 86 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:56:29
+0530
since then it constituted the plaintiff no.1 matrimonial home.
From the testimony of DW-1/A Smt Manjula Sodhi, it is
forthcoming that defendant no.4 A.K. Sodhi after marriage
resided in B-Block, Vasant Vihar with M.L. Sodhi and Raj
Sodhi. DW-1/A further admitted that sanction for additional
construction of the suit property was given in 1982 or 1983.
Although, she was not sure about the said years but from the
evidence, it is clear that she was referring to second phase of
construction which started and completed also in 1980. She
admitted in Ex. DW-1A/P1 that plaintiffs were in possession of
first floor of the suit property. She also admitted that after
shifting to first floor of the suit property, first floor was
converted into kitchen. The said admissions proves the
assertion of the plaintiff that she was occupying first floor as a
member of Joint Hindu Family. Since the suit property has been
held as Joint Hindu Family property as such plaintiff was in
possession of the first floor of the suit property in exercise of
right of residence as a member of co-parcenary and also in
accordance with the agreement of construction set out in
paragraph no.4 of the plaint. This issue is decided in favour of
the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.2 ISSUE NO.5 : What are the shares of the parties in
the suit property?OPP
As it has been observed that the suit property was
Joint Hindu Family Property of the HUF created by M.L.
Sodhi. Sh. M.L. Sodhi was survived by their three children and
wife. However, during the course of time his wife and two sons
CS No. 20/2016 87 /101
Digitally signed
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:31 +0530
passed away, therefore, each children of M.L. Sodhi is entitled
for 1/3rd share. The grand children would be entitled from the
share of their father/mother (being son and daughter of M.L.
Sodhi). Since it has been established by the evidence that
second phase of construction was done from the pooled
resources of plaintiff and A.K. Sodhi and M.L. Sodhi, therefore,
the said construction has become a part of the suit property.
However, all the siblings of M.L. Sodhi are entitled to equal
share in the suit property and the actual share of them would be
crystallized after partition of the suit property. This issue is
decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.3 ISSUE NO.6:Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to
injunction prayed for?OPP
Since it has been observed that suit property is
Joint Hindu Family property, where the plaintiffs have equal
rights with other family members as such plaintiffs’ right to
remain in the property is duly protected and defendants are
restrained from dispossessing from the suit property, till such
time the actual partition is effected between them. This issue is
decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.4 ISSUE NO.7:Whether the oral agreement for
construction is not enforceable?OPD
The defendants have argued that oral agreement is not
enforceable in view of Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
However, the said plea is not legally tenable as a written contract
is not strictly required if an implied legal obligation existed. The
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 88 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:34
+0530
said implied legal obligation can be deciphered from the
agreement and the subsequent act and conduct of the parties. As
per the facts, in March 1980 M.L. Sodhi offered to defendant nos.
3 and 4 to pool resources for making suit property rent viable
unit. However, defendant no.3 refused to contribute on the pretext
that he had booked a flat in Somvihar and also negotiating for
purchasing a farm land for commercial farming near Pathankot.
But defendant no.4 agreed to contribute funds from his, his wife
and son’s FDRs on the said offer of M.L. Sodhi and other
members of HUF. It is pertinent to note that plaintiffs have filed
plenty of documents showing transfer of funds from their account
to the account of M.L. Sodhi (HUF) by premature encashment of
FDRs and Units of Unit Trust of India. The said oral agreement
was premised on transfer of ownership of the second phase to the
defendant no.4 upon contribution of funds. Only defendant no.4
and his family contributed for the said construction and therefore,
the said oral agreement is enforceable as the agreement was acted
upon by the parties. The judgments filed on behalf of the parties
have been carefully perused and the legal point embodied therein
has been considered. This issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.5 ISSUE NO.8: Whether the suit instituted by the
plaintiff no.1 as mother and the next friend of the minors was
competent and maintainable in view of the natural guardian and
father being then alive?OPP
The facts show that defendant no.2 A.K. Sodhi was
incapable of protecting the interest of the minor children at the
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 89 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:36
+0530
time of filing of the suit owing to his illness as such the mother
i.e. plaintiff no.1 was constrained to file the suit on behalf of the
minor children. In this background, the mother can act as a
natural guardian of the minor children for protecting the interest
of minors. However, during the course of time, children became
major and vide order dated 26.10.1995, plaintiff no.1 was
discharged as next friend and guardian ad-litem of the minors on
their attaining majority. Therefore, plaintiff no.1 being mother
was competent to institute a suit as next friend of the minors
being natural guardian. This issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
24.6 ISSUE NO.9:What would be the effect, if law, of
the demise of Sh. A.K. Sodhi husband of plaintiff no.3 on issue
no.8 ?OPD
In issue no.8 the maintainability of the suit was
upheld which was filed by plaintiff no.1 being guardian of the
minor children as defendant no.4, her husband was incapable of
looking after the interest of the affairs of the minor children
owing to his physic condition and depression. There is enough
evidence on record in support of the said illness and physic
condition of the defendant no.4. Since plaintiff no.1 was
competent to pursue the present plaint on behalf of minor
children as next friend, therefore, there could be no effect on
the said aspect upon the demise of A.K. Sodhi, i.e. defendant
no.4. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against
the defendants.
CS No. 20/2016 90 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:38 +0530
24.7 ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1: Whether the Will
dated 18.09.1989 allegedly executed by M.L. Sodhi in favour
of the original defendant No.2 is legal and valid and if so, its
effect? OPD
The burden to prove this issue was on the
defendant. DW-1/A, Manjula Sodhi filed her affidavit and
asserted that M.L. Sodhi executed a Will on 18.09.1989 and
passed away on 18.11.1989. However, the said Will is denied
by the plaintiff. Also she stated that Smt.Raj Sodhi, original
defendant no.1 executed her last registered Will on 01.05.1996
and died on 07.01.2002. The said Will was registered after the
death of A.K. Sodhi i.e. on 04.01.1996. As per the Will dated
18.09.1989 Ex DW-1/1 of M.L. Sodhi, he bequeathed the
entire suit property to Smt. Raj Sodhi(defendant no.2).
However, in the Written statement filed on 18.09.1995 by
defendants in suit no. 2793/1993, EX DW1/A/P-1, it is averred
that M.L. Sodhi bequeathed the property in different shares to
the defendants. The defendants in that suit were Raj Sodhi,
Col. V.K. Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi. Further, in the said Written
Statement, defendant no.1 Raj Sodhi and defendant no.2 Col.
V.K. Sodhi averred that deceased M.L. Sodhi had bequeathed
the suit property to Raj Sodhi and after her the property would
devolve upon Col. V.K. Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi. Manjula Sodhi
duly admitted document Ex. DW1/A/P-1, in IA No. 5193 of
2009. If the averment in affidavit of DW-1/A regarding the
Will of M.L. Sodhi executed on 18.09.1989 Ex DW-1/1 qua
bequeathment is juxtaposed with the averment in Ex.
DW1/A/P-1, then the same provides two contradictory
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally signed 91 /101
by PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:41 +0530
versions of the Will dated 18.09.1989. The Ex. DW1/A/P-1
was filed on 18.09.1995 as such Col. V.K. Sodhi was
cognizant of the Will of M.L. Sodhi dated 18.09.1989 Ex
DW-1/1 and in that case, he could not have averred that
bequeathment of the property by the said Will is in different
shares to the defendants, if the said Will bequeathed the suit
property to Raj Sodhi alone. There can not be two
contradictory versions of a single Will. In this backdrop the
Will Ex. DW1/1 give rise to rational presumption that either
same is replaced or forged.
The contention raised on behalf of the defendant
that Smt. Raj Sodhi in her Will dated 01.05.1996, Ex DW-3/A
excluded plaintiff due to mis-treatment, harassment and legal
cases filed by her. However, in Will Ex DW-3/A, the Testator
has not given any reason for excluding his younger son A.K.
Sodhi. If at all the younger son pre-deceased her, there should
have been some cogent reason for excluding his children, who
were minor at that time. Death of A.K. Sodhi was all the more
reason for protecting the interest of his minor children. If at all
the plaintiff being daughter-in-law had some estranged
relationship with father-in-law but same is not a reason enough
to exclude the children of a son, who was having cordial
relationship with the parents. There is no evidence, which can
substantiate that A.K. Sodhi had some troublesome
relationship with his parents.
It is noteworthy that the Will Ex DW-1/1 of M.L.
Sodhi though relied upon in Ex. DW-1/A/P-1 but not filed
therein and for the first time produced in the present suit after
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 92 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:43
+0530
about 14 years of the death of M.L. Sodhi. The said Will was
filed with the amended Written Statement of defendant no.2
(Col. V.K. Sodhi) on 08.10.2002 and also the Will of Raj
Sodhi executed on 01.05.1996 in favour of Col. V.K. Sodhi
(defendant no.2 after the death of Raj Sodhi). There is no
plausible explanation for not filing the same earlier despite
having knowledge of the Will of M.L. Sodhi in the year 1995
and the explanation furnished that it was found in clothes in
2002 makes the version highly doubtful and suspicious.
Further, there is no explanation as to why probate petition was
not filed regarding the said Wills as such shows clandestine
conduct of the defendant.
Regarding the execution of Ex DW1/1, two
witnesses namely Dr. P.K. Ghosh, DW-1 and C.M. Sanon,
DW-2 were examined. It is pertinent to note that DW-1 was
attesting witness to the Will of M.L. Sodhi and DW-2 was
drafter/scribe of the Will.
The contention of the plaintiff that the Will, Ex
DW-1/1 has not been proved in accordance with law is
reasonable on the premise that the account of defendant no.3
in Written statement filed in suit no. CS(OS) no. 2793/1993
and of DW-1/A regarding the last Will of M.L. Sodhi is
shrouded with suspicion. Further, the evidence of Dr. P.K.
Ghosh, DW-1 shows several facts which makes him unreliable
witness. His account during his cross-examination exposes
that its truthfulness and makes its doubtful. DW-1 was in
Army hospital in 1989 while Col. V.K. Sodhi was posted there
and he was attending Col. V.K. Sodhi for his heart ailments.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 93 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:45
+0530
He knew about the surgery underwent by Col. V.K. Sodhi in
Batra Hospital too which shows his close connection with him.
It is not out of place to mention that Col. V.K. Sodhi is the
ultimate beneficiary of the bequeathment through Wills.
Further it is unusual that M.L. Sodhi would be seeking
treatment for Hypertension and High BP from a Cardiologist
in Army hospital despite having entitled for CGHS facility.
DW-1 deposed that he always writes his name below his
signature but same is not appearing on Ex DW-1/1. Despite no
contact details like contact number and address on Ex DW-1/1
and after having retired in 1994, it is not forthcoming from the
facts that how he was contacted in the year 2006 for his
testimony in the present case. The testimony of this witness do
not qualify the test of uninterested attesting witness of the Will
of M.L. Sodhi. These facts seen in totality does not inspire
confidence of his testimony and makes him an unreliable
witness.
So far as DW-2 C.M Sanon is concerned, he was
an Advocate and was drafter/scribe of Ex DW-1/1. His cross-
examination would reveal that he never practiced with Mr.P.K.
Duggal, Advocate and he came in contact with Mr. P.K.
Duggal, Advocate, when he received the summons from court
in this case. However, both the counts have been belied by the
evidence. He signed reply in IA no. 1451/89 with advocate
Sh.P.K.Duggal and as per the record, no summons were issued
to him. His reply in the cross-examination that he came in
contact with M.L. Sodhi on 18.09.1989 as on that day, he has
come to his seat at about 11.00a.m. conveys the sense that he
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally
signed by
94 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:48
+0530
met him for the first time on that day, which is however,
contrary to record as he filed reply in IA No. 1451/89 for him
with Advocate Mr. P.K. Duggal. Further, he testified that he
only writes his designation as an advocate after putting his
name but do not write his address. Also he has not given his
seat number and contact number on Ex DW-1/1. As such it is
not clear that how he was informed about his evidence when
no court summons were issued to him. Since this witness has
failed to establish trustworthiness of his testimony by giving
misleading answers on the basic questions as such, his
testimony is deserves to be discredited and the remaining
portion is discarded from the zone of consideration.
The contradictions as discussed hereinabove
introduced an element of doubt and suspicion regarding the
validity of execution of Ex DW-1/1 as the last Will and
Testament of the departed Testator. There can not be two
different and legal declaration of the intent of the Testator with
respect to the suit property by the same Will. If the execution
of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the
court must sift the evidence of the attesting witness for
removal of legitimate suspicious circumstances before
accepting the Will of the Testator. However, a careful reading
of the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 with attending facts and
circumstances is unable to remove the suspicious
circumstances which have cropped during the proceedings.
The propounder of the Will has to lead cogent evidence for
removal of doubts for satisfying the conscious of the court.
The propounder has not led cogent evidence to establish the
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 95 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:50
+0530
legal validity of the Will of M.L. Sodhi Ex. DW-1/1. As such
the Will so propounded fails the legal test. Therefore, this
issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
24.8 ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2: Whether the Will
dated 01.05.1996 allegedly executed by Smt. Raj Sodhi is legal
and valid and if so, its effect?OPD
The burden to prove this issue was on defendant.
DW-1/A Manjula Sodhi in her affidavit had asserted the
execution of Will by M.L. Sodhi on 18.09.1989. By virtue of
said Will Ex DW-1/1, M.L. Sodhi bequeathed the entire
property to Smt. Raj Sodhi (original defendant no.2). However,
the said fact got contradicted by document Ex DW-1/A/P1,
wherein it is averred by the defendants namely Raj Sodhi and
Col. V.K. Sodhi that M.L.Sodhi bequeathed the property in
different shares to defendants. Further, the averment in the said
Written statement that M.L. Sodhi bequeathed the suit property
to Raj Sodhi and after her devolution of the same upon
Col.V.K. Sodhi and A.K. Sodhi is contrary to Ex DW-1/1. The
Will of Raj Sodhi dated 01.05.1996 is predicated on the Will
Ex.DW-1/1. However, the legal validity of Ex. DW-1/1 could
not be established as same is shrouded in suspicion. Thus, the
Will of Raj Sodhi Ex. DW-3/A could not be proved. Therefore,
the Will dated 01.09.1999 of Col. V.K. Sodhi claiming entire
ownership on the suit property by virtue of Will of Raj Sodhi,
Ex. DW-3/A also looses its sanctity as the very premise of Ex.
DW-3/A has been shaken.
Digitally
CS No. 20/2016 signed by 96 /101
PANKAJ
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:52
+0530
Further, the testimony of attesting witness DW-4
creates doubts and suspicion as she was the daughter of friend of
Raj Sodhi and her husband is a witness of Will dated 01.09.1999
of Col. V.K. Sodhi (the beneficiary). Both husband and wife are
witness to two consecutive Wills creating a doubt regarding their
valid execution. Further, no evidence is there which could
suggest that DW-4 was confidant of the deceased Testator. The
reason for exclusion of minor sons of A.K. Sodhi is not
convincing in the Will of Raj Sodhi. It is pertinent to note that
Veena Anand DW-4 who was an attesting witness to the Will of
Raj Sodhi Ex. DW-3/A stated in her cross-examination that on
07.05.1996 at Registrar office when the Will was registered, Raj
Sodhi was not accompanied by any family member, however, the
said fact got contradicted from the Will Ex. DW-3/A as
signatures of Col. V.K. Sodhi appeared on the rear side of the
Will. This exposes the falsity of her testimony. Thus, it is clear
that Col.V.K. Sodhi was present when the Will was registered on
07.05.1996 as his signature are appearing thereon. Since at the
time of execution of Will Smt. Raj Sodhi was with Col. V.K.
Sodhi as such the influencing factor can not be ruled out. The
influencing factor seems to be the reason behind the
bequeathment to Col. V.K. Sodhi alone. In such scenario, it is
forthcoming that Col. V.K. Sodhi took a prominent part while
execution of the Will and therefore, if the propounder himself
take a prominent part in the execution of Will, which confers a
substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be
taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove
the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. However, no such
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 97 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:54
+0530
satisfactory evidence has been produced by the defendants to
satisfy the conscious of the court. Further, a careful comparison
of Ex. DW-3/A and Ex. R2W3/1(in Test case) would show that
the contents of the Wills regarding the execution are different.
In rear side of Ex. DW-3/A, the signatures of Raj Sodhi are
appearing at different place, the names of the witnesses are
different as in Ex. DW-3/A, L.D. Malik and R.K. Kaushik are
appearing, however, in Ex. R2W3/1, the names of Veena Anand
and R.K. Kaushik are appearing. If at all Ex. R2W3/1 is a true
and certified copy of Ex. DW-3/A, then such a contradiction can
not appear. This contradiction and inconsistency renders
Ex.DW-3/A unproved. So the Will of Raj Sodhi looses its legal
sanctity. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants.
24.9 Relief: From the foregoing discussion, this Court
is of considered view that plaintiffs have established their case
and proved that suit property no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi is a Joint Hindu Family Property of the HUF created by
M.L. Sodhi. Their existed a nucleus and further blending of
funds was done by the plaintiff and her husband A.K. Sodhi,
thereby made second phase of construction also a part of Joint
Hindu Family Property. M.L. Sodhi through his manifested
intent thrown the suit property into hotch-potch making it a
Joint Hindu Family Property of HUF. M.L. Sodhi was survived
by three children namely Col. V.K. Sodhi, A.K. Sodhi and
Nalini Lal. Since wife of M.L. Sodhi had already passed away,
the suit property would devolve upon all the children of M.L.
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 98 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:56
+0530
Sodhi. It is noteworthy that two of his sons have already passed
away and they are survived by their children. Col. V.K. Sodhi is
survived by his two children namely Sh. Keshav Sodhi and
Sh.Arjun Sodhi. A.K. Sodhi is survived by Mr. Dhruv Sodhi
and Ms. Bhawna Sodhi. The children of deceased sons of M.L.
Sodhi are entitled to the share of their father in equal
proportion. All the siblings of M.L. Sodhi are entitled to 1/3rd
share each of the suit property. Therefore, a preliminary decree
of partition of the suit property is being passed in favour of the
existing LR i.e. Nalini Lal and children of the deceased sons of
M.L. Sodhi. In this regard, reliance is placed upon K.N. Khanna
vs. B.K Khanna, 2000 (87) DLT 286(DB): (2000) 55 DRJ 544: 2000 SCC
OnLine Del 512, it is held that:
“43. There is no manner of doubt that in a suit for
partition after a preliminary decree is passed
declaring rights, title or interest of the parties, which
decree makes a provision for partition of the suit
property by metes and bounds and of separate
possession in terms of the rights declared under the
said decree, which has to be treated as preliminary,
further inquiry is required to be held to enable the
Court to finally and conclusively determine rights of
the parties by actually partitioning the said property
by metes and bounds. In order to do so, usually the
task is assigned to a Commissioner to suggest mode
of partition, who usually suggests the mode and
manner of dividing the property. On receipt of such a
report and deciding objections of the parties, if any,
the Court then proceeds to pass a final decree
declaring the persons entitled to separate shares,
which enable the parties thereafter to hold and enjoy
the property separately. Such a division of the
property has the effect of creation of an exclusive
right of a person in that portion of the property,
which falls to his share and extinguishes his right,
title or interest in those portions, which fall the
exclusive shares of the others. This decree of course
would be covered by the definition of ―”instrument
of partition”, as defined in clause (15) of Section 2
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 99 /101
signed by
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:56:59
+0530
of Indian Stamp Act. ―”Instrument of partition‖ is
defined therein to mean any instrument whereby co-
owners of any property divide or agree to divide
such property in severalty, and include also a final
order for effecting a partition passed by any Revenue
Authority or any Civil Court and an award by an
Arbitrator directing partition. In case partition is
effected of a property even by an Arbitrator by his
award, the same would fall in the definition of
―instrument of partition. So also a decree of Civil
Court affecting partition of the property would fall in
the said definition and the same would be required to
be stamped according to the provisions of Indian
Stamp Act.
44. But it is not that every decree in a partition suit
would be required to be drawn up on a stamp paper.
Only those decrees Will be required to be drawn up
on a stamp paper, which divide any property in
severalty amongst co-owners. In the instant case
neither by award made by C.K. Daphtary nor by
order dated 15-4-1983 the property has been
ordered to be divided or agreed to be divided in
severalty. Only a tentative arrangement was made
for enjoying the property separately, which was
only a temporary measure whereby the parties
continued to be the joint owners of each and every
part of the property though separately enjoying
separate portions. The decree nowhere provided for
separation or division of the property in severalty
since it was held that the property is incapable of
being divided in two equal shares or that the
division by metes and bounds was not possible.
Therefore, the mode suggested was to sell the
property and then divide sale proceeds in equal
shares. Such an award or a decree would not come
within the definition of ―instrument of partition.”
Pursuant to the said decree passed in the suit, in
case the property is sold, the rights, title and
interest of the appellant and the respondents would
come to an end, on sale deed being drawn and
executed on a stamp paper, after the sale is
confirmed by the Court. …”.
Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it
would be expedient to appoint a Local Commissioner to
suggest the mode and manner of partition by visiting the
CS No. 20/2016 Digitally 100 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors. signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.18
15:57:01
+0530
property and in consultation with all the stakeholders.
Ms.Pallavi, Enrl. No. D/2164/2011, Office At : 16/11, 3 rd
Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060, Ph. No.
8709623440, 8877210438, is appointed as Local
Commissioner to visit the suit property after due notice to all
the parties on an early convenient date and file his report
regarding the suggestion of the mode and manner of the
partition of the suit property no. B-3/4, Vasant Vihar, New
Delhi, for his division amongst the decree holders in equal
shares. The fees of Ld. Local Commissioner is fixed as
Rs.90,000/- which shall be borne by the parties equally.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
Announced in the open Court SHARMA 2026.04.18
15:57:04
on 18.04.2026 +0530
(Dr. Pankaj Sharma)
District Judge-02 & Waqf Tribunal
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,
New DelhiCS No. 20/2016 101 /101
Suneel Sodhi & Ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi & Ors.
