SMT. SUDESH RANI vs SMT USHA RANI DECEASED THROUGH LRS & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22nd May, 2025 + CM(M) 339/2021 & CM APPL. 14975/2021 SMT. SUDESH RANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Mr. Vivek Kumar Karn and Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocates. versus SMT USHA RANI DECEASED THROUGH LRS & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Mr. Vishal Soni, Ms. Gurman Kaur Dua and Ms. Megha, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and has filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, injunction and possession. 2. In her such suit, in para 4, she mentioned about execution of one agreement between her and defendant-Ms. Usha Rani (since deceased) and it was also mentioned that defendant No.1 executed agreement to sell, GP, affidavit, Will and acknowledgment on 18.02.2008. 3. When the written statement was filed by Ms. Usha Rani herself, in corresponding reply, she, however, averred that husband of the plaintiff had taken her signatures and thumb impressions on certain stamp papers and blank papers with the assurance that these would be used for getting the suit property mutated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 339/2021 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:24.05.2025 12:55:55 4. Thus, according to her the though abovesaid documents were forged and fabricated, she did not, specifically, disown her signatures. 5. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the abovesaid suit, defendant-Ms. Usha Rani expired and her legal heirs were, accordingly, brought on record. 6. The stand taken by her one such LR i.e. her son is to the effect that these documents do not even bear the signatures of her mother. 7. It was in the abovesaid backdrop that, after the recording of the defendant’s