MANU/DE/4469/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Test. Cas. 58/2021
Decided On: 01.11.2022
Appellants: Sarup Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Manish Makhija, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Achal Gupta, Deepa, Advocates, Pawan Singh Bindra, Sr.
Advocate and Puja Jakhar, Advocate
DECISION
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
I.A. 9530/2022 (U/O XXXIX Rule 4 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
1. The present application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908') has been filed on
behalf of the respondent No. 4, Inderpal Singh seeking recall/modification of the Order
dated 29th November, 2021 thereby vacating the stay granted vide said Order dated
29th November, 2021 in respect of the properties mentioned at serial Nos. 2 and 3 List
B annexed with the additional affidavit dated 03rd August, 2021 filed by the petitioner.
2 . It is submitted in the application that vide Order dated 29th July, 2021 status quo
was granted in respect of the property mentioned at Serial no. 1 of List A of the
Schedule of Assets i.e., Flat No. 1, Adeshwar Apartment, 34 Feroz Shah Road, New
Delhi-110001 and the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit detailing the
specifications of the properties at Serial Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of List A of the
Schedule of Assets as annexed by the petitioner.
3 . The petitioner filed an additional affidavit annexing a new list i.e., List B of the
Schedule of Assets on 03rd August, 2021.
4 . It is submitted that the status quo order was granted vide Order dated 29th
November, 2021 in respect of the properties mentioned at Serial Nos. 3 to 8 in List A of
the Schedule of Properties and for the properties as detailed at Serial No. 1, 2 and 3 of
List B.
5 . The respondent No. 4-Inderpal Singh filed an Application bearing No. I.A.
17419/2021 on 20th December, 2021 seeking recall/modification of the Order dated
29th November, 2021 in respect of Property bearing Plot No. 594, Model Town,
Opposite Sumen Hospital, Ludhiana on the ground that he was the owner of the
property. The Court vide Order dated 29th April, 2022 clarified that the Injunction Order
dated 29th November, 2021 shall not apply in respect of this property i.e., Plot No. 594,

11-02-2023 (Page 1 of 6) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

Model Town, Opposite Sumen Hospital, Ludhiana, in view of the Sale Deeds which
prima facie demonstrated the title of respondent No. 4 to the said properties. It was
also observed that the instant Suit was not to decide the title of any of the properties
mentioned in the Will of which record may be taken to the Civil Court.
6. It is claimed that the status quo in respect of the properties as detailed in List B was
granted without hearing the respondent No. 4. A blanket stay has been granted without
considering the submissions of respondent No. 4 as contained in his reply to I.A. filed
on 28th September, 2021.
7 . It is further claimed that the Second Will dated 22nd August, 2018 is a forged and
fabricated document which is under challenge by the respondent No. 4. The prior Will
dated 29th September, 2015 is a duly executed and registered Will of the deceased-
Raghbir Singh.
8 . The respondent No. 4 has claimed that he has recently come to know that one
Narender Singh who is the witness to the purported Will dated 22nd August, 2018 and
also whose affidavit is annexed with the instant Probate Petition was defrauded by the
petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Mr. Narinder Singh is the son of the
sister of the deceased-Raghbir Singh and he is an illiterate person who does not know
how to read English. However, his signatures are appearing as a witness on the Will
dated 22nd August, 2018 as well as the supporting affidavit annexed to the Probate
Petition and both these documents are in English.
9 . It is asserted that the respondent No. 4 was stressed and disturbed because of the
stay that was granted by this Court vide Order dated 29th July, 2021 and 29th
November, 2021. However, when his application for vacation of stay was allowed in
respect of property i.e., Plot No. 594, Model Town, Opposite Sumen Hospital, Ludhiana
on 29th April, 2022, the respondent No. 4 then set his mind to figure out how the
second Will was forged and by whom. The respondent No. 4 made enquiries from the
relatives and family friends.
10. On 10th May, 2022, the applicant/respondent No. 4 contacted Narinder Singh and
visited him at his house at Ludhiana and was informed by Narinder Singh that the
deceased-Raghbir Singh had not executed any Will in his presence and that he had not
signed any such documents as a witness. Narinder Singh when shown these documents
on which he identified and admitted his signatures, but informed that he was made to
sign these documents as a Family Settlement between the respondent No. 4 and
respondent No. 3. It is stated that when Narinder Singh was told about the true nature
of the documents, he got baffled and retained the copy of the documents to verify and
ascertain what had happened. Narinder Singh further assured respondent No. 4 that in
case what the respondent No. 4 had told was correct, he would take all necessary steps
to set the record straight.
11. On 25th May, 2022, Mr. Narinder Singh contacted the respondent No. 4 and told
him that he has been defrauded by the petitioner and other respondents and was made
to sign these documents on a false representation by the petitioner and other
respondents that the same pertained to a settlement and were to be presented in the
Court to support the settlement. Mr. Narinder Singh also told that he has executed an
affidavit dated 23rd May, 2022 in Punjabi narrating the true state of affairs about the
documents signed by him and that the same may be filed before this Court.
12. The respondent No. 4 has claimed that the signatures of witness Mr. Narinder Singh
were obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation by the petitioner and the

11-02-2023 (Page 2 of 6) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. The affidavit of Narinder Singh dated 23rd May, 2022 in
Punjabi to this effect has been annexed.
13. It is claimed that the second Will is a forged document which is evidenced by the
affidavit of Mr. Narinder Singh. Moreover, in paragraph 3 of the second unregistered
Will dated 22nd August, 2018 for which a reference has been made to the earlier Will
dated 29th September, 2015 in favour of Shri Inderpal Singh but it is also stated that all
resentment and grief with Mohinderpal Singh has now been settled and the case that
was filed by him against the deceased has been withdrawn unconditionally due to which
he has cancelled his earlier Will dated 29th September, 2015 and executed a fresh Will.
14. The respondent has asserted that the relationship between the respondent No. 3
and the deceased father had gone sour on account of incessant harassment meted out
to the deceased. The respondent No. 3 had lodged an all-out attack on the deceased-
Raghbir Singh owing to his malicious intention of acquiring the family Company i.e.,
HTPPL to the exclusion of the deceased. The respondent No. 3 had filed the petition
bearing CP No. 31/2015 before the Company Law Board, New Delhi on the grounds of
alleged oppression and mismanagement.
1 5 . It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 had maligned the reputation of the
deceased-Raghbir Singh, he went to the extent of raising questions on the character of
the deceased-Raghbir Singh thereby leading to unnecessary divide between the two.
The transcripts of the call records between one Kohli, Deepak Sharma and himself have
been placed on record to point out the absurd and outrageous allegations made out
against the deceased.
16. It is thus asserted that the subsequent Will dated 22nd August, 2018 is a forged
document. Moreover, while in this alleged Will, it was stated that all the matters before
NCLT have been withdrawn, but the petition had been withdrawn only on 22nd April,
2019 and could not have been mentioned in the unregistered Will dated 22nd August,
2018. It is asserted that harassment and the lot of stress and torment was caused to the
deceased-Raghbir Singh which also contributed to the degradation of his health and
eventually led to his demise. The deceased never bequeathed any property to the
respondent No. 3 owing to his own conduct.
1 7 . It is evident that subsequent Will dated 22nd August, 2018 is forged and the
registered Will dated 29th September, 2015 is the last and final Will of the deceased-
Raghbir Singh.
18. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the Order dated 29th November, 2021 be
modified and the stay so granted in respect of the property mentioned at Serial Nos. 1,
3 to 8 of List A of the Schedule of Assets and Serial Nos. 2 and 3 of List B, may be
vacated.
19. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in their Reply have taken the preliminary objection
that the Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 4 had given his "No Objection"
to the grant of status quo order and accordingly, the order was made on 29th April,
2022. It is asserted that the application is highly misconceived and is an attempt to
forum shopping and liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
20. Further, same issues which are being agitated, were duly considered while passing
the interim order initially on 29th July, 2021 and subsequently on 29th December, 2021
while confirming the said order.

11-02-2023 (Page 3 of 6) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

21. The main contention of the applicant is in regard to the NCLT proceedings but the
same was also duly considered by the Court while making the Order dated 29th July,
2021, but the re-agitation of the same issues by way of present application, is nothing
but an apparent and gross misuse of the process of the Court.
22. It is claimed that the conduct of the respondent No. 4 disentitles him from any
relief. He has deliberately sold all the properties belonging to the deceased father
during the pendency of the present petition relying upon the Will dated 29th September,
2015 for which the respondent No. 4 himself had filed a Probate Petition which is still
pending.
23. In utter disregard of the judicial process and pendency of the Probate proceedings
filed by the respondent No. 4, he has been dealing with the estate of deceased-Raghbir
Singh to the exclusion of other legatees in terms of last and final Will dated 22nd
August, 2018. The respondent No. 4 has no exclusive right to deal with the estate of
deceased-Raghbir Singh till the adjudication of the two Probate Petitions.
24. It is claimed that the alleged Will dated 29th September, 2015 was cancelled by the
deceased-Raghbir Singh, vide his Will dated 22nd August, 2018. The misconduct of the
respondent No. 4 is further evident from the fact that he has fraudulently and through
the police exerted pressure on the attesting witness, namely, Narinder Singh for
retracting from being a witness to the Will. Monetary benefits have also been extended
to Narinder Singh in lieu of the false affidavit submitted by him along with the
application. It is claimed that the present application is against the law and is
contradictory and is liable to be dismissed.
25. On merits, the contents of the application are vehemently denied and it is stated
that the application is liable to be dismissed.
26. The petitioner in his Reply has taken the similar defence and has claimed that the
application is liable to be dismissed.
27. The respondent No. 4 in his Rejoinder has reaffirmed his assertions as contained in
the present application.
28. Submissions heard.
29. In the present case, the respondent No. 4 had filed a Probate Petition bearing No.
7/2021 for claiming Probate in respect of Will dated 29th September, 2015 at the Court
at Ludhiana, Punjab, wherein he is the sole beneficiary of the properties of the
deceased-Raghbir Singh. However, the present Probate Petition has been filed in respect
of unregistered Will dated 22nd August, 2018, wherein other Class-I heirs/sons and
daughters of deceased-Raghbir Singh are also the beneficiaries.
30. This Court vide Order dated 29th July, 2021 by way of interim measure restrained
the respondent No. 4 from alienating and creating any third-party rights in respect of
Property bearing No. Flat No. 1, Adeshwar Apartment, 34 Feroz Shah Road, New Delhi-
110001.
31. It was further noted that Property bearing No. Flat No. 55, World Trade Centre,
Connaught Place, New Delhi has already been sold on 15th February, 2021 in relation to
which the documents were placed on record by the respondent No. 4.
32. The petitioner filed an Application bearing No. I.A.9182/2021 under Section 151 of

11-02-2023 (Page 4 of 6) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

CPC, 1908 for interim directions against the respondent No. 4 to maintain the status quo
order in respect of title and possession of the properties which are the subject matter of
the Will as are detailed in the Schedule. The Court vide Order dated 29th November,
2021 noted that Ms. Achal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and Mr.
S.K. Jain, Advocate for respondent No. 4 had "No Objection" to the application being
allowed. Accordingly, the parties were directed to maintain the status quo in respect of
the properties mentioned at Serial Nos. 3 to 8 and also in respect of the properties
detailed at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at page No. 5 of the affidavit dated 03rd August,
2021.
3 3 . The respondent No. 4, who is the applicant herein, had thereafter moved an
Application bearing No. 17419/2021 under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking vacation
of the order in respect of the Flat No. 1, Adeshwar Apartment, 34 Feroz Shah Road, New
Delhi-110001. The Court considered the title documents and held the prima facie that
the Sale Deeds would show the title of the property in favour of the respondent No. 4
and thus, vacated the status quo order in respect of Property bearing Plot No. 594,
Model Town, Opp. Sumen Hospital, Ludhiana. Vde Order dated 29th April, 2022, Order
dated 29th November, 2021 was modified and status quo in respect of Property bearing
Plot No. 594, Model Town, Opp. Sumen Hospital, Ludhiana was vacated.
34. It is evident from the Orders as detailed above that there are two Wills which have
been propagated, one by the petitioner in the present case which is Will dated 22nd
August, 2018, while the respondent No. 4 has filed a Probate Petition in respect of a
registered Will dated 29th September, 2015 of deceased-Raghbir Singh, his father.
While the matters are under adjudication, on the submissions and concessions given on
behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as well as respondent No. 4, the status quo
orders have been granted in respect of the properties as mentioned in the various
Orders.
35. The respondent No. 4 has essentially sought the vacation of the status quo Order
vis-Ã -vis him on the ground that the witness, namely, Narinder Singh has now
clarified that he had signed the alleged Will dated 22nd August, 2018 as he was given
to understand that it pertained to a settlement between the parties and he was not
aware of the true nature of the said document and an affidavit of this effect has also
been given. Merely because one of the attesting witness, who has admitted his
signatures on the subsequent Will dated 22nd August, 2018, has now taken a stand that
he had signed the document under a misconception, is a matter of evidence and at this
stage, it cannot be a basis for vacating the status quo Orders in respect of the
properties as granted by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 151 of
CPC, 1908. The status quo Orders had been made on the basis of the submissions made
on behalf of the respondent No. 4 by the learned counsel. There is no ground or basis
for vacating the status quo Orders as has been claimed by the respondent No. 4.
3 6 . It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that while considering the
proceedings for grant of Probate in respect of a Will, the Application under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908 is not maintainable and the Court would ordinarily not be
entitled to give any interim order in relation to the protection of the property unless
there are peculiar facts and circumstances that warrant grant of temporary injunction.
For this, a reference has been to Ajay Malhotra vs. State MANU/DE/1653/2019 : (2019)
260 DLT 488 decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein it was observed
that where there is any dispute and challenge to the Will, the only remedy available to
the petitioner is to safeguard his rights in the properties by way of other proceedings
and not by way of Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, 1908.

11-02-2023 (Page 5 of 6) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College

37. It may be noted that while the Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC,
1908 may not be maintainable in the proceedings for grant of Probate, since it does not
concern with the determination of the title of the parties in the suit properties but is
only confined to determination of the genuineness of the Will. However, the inherent
jurisdiction of the Court under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 to make appropriate orders in
the interest of justice, is not taken away.
38. In the present case, the status quo Orders have been made in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 and also on the basis of consent given by
the respondent No. 4, this claim that his objections have not been considered, is clearly
beyond the record.
TEST.CAS.58/2021
39. There is no merit in the present application and no ground is made out for vacating
the status quo order as has been granted by the Court.
40. Accordingly, the present application is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
TEST.CAS. 58/2021
List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 24th January,
2023.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

11-02-2023 (Page 6 of 6) www.manupatra.com Bharti Vidyapeeth New law College