SUDARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA & ANR vs RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~11 & 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 + FAO 502/2017, CM APPL. 9474/2020 & CM APPL. 37253/2022 SUDARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Ms. Mallika Luthra, Advs. M: 9309523696 Ms. Varsha Sharma, daughter of A- 1(i) (Through VC) Mrs. Suman Lata Sharma wife of A- 1(i) Mr. Gulzar Rai Sharma, A-1(iii) versus RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv. M: 9958031223 12 + RFA 368/2016 SUDARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aayush Agarwala and Ms. Mallika Luthra, Advs. M: 9309523696 Ms. Varsha Sharma, daughter of A- 1(i) (Through VC) Mrs. Suman Lata Sharma wife of A- 1(i) Mr. Gulzar Rai Sharma, A-1(iii) versus RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv. M: 9958031223 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Page 1 of 11 Signing Date:26.08.2025 19:08:16 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL) 1. In the present appeals, the original suit was filed by the parents of the parties seeking a decree of possession in respect of the portion consisting of two rooms on the second floor, and shop no. 1 on the ground floor of the property bearing No. IX/1653, Main Road, Dakshini Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 110031 (“Suit Property”), occupied by one of the sons of the parents of the parties, i.e., respondent no.1 and his wife. The said suit was filed by the original plaintiffs on the basis of their ownership. 2. The suit property was owned by the mother of the parties, who died during the pendency of the suit. However, this fact was not brought forth before the learned Trial Court, on account of which, the suit was dismissed as abated. 3. Before this Court, the appellants have based their claims on the