Order 21

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16 CS 198/21
PRIYANKA TANWAR AND ANR. Vs. NEELAM TANWAR
28.10.2025
Present: Ms. Bhawna, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
1) Present order shall dispose off the application under Order
I Rule 10 CPC filed by Nemi Kumar Goyal and Himanshu Goyal
whereby they seek to be impleaded as plaintiff in the present suit.
2) The present suit is filed by one Priyanka Tanwar along
with her minor son namely Rishi Tanwar for declaration,
permanent injunction, possession and mesne profit. It is stated by
plaintiff in her plaint that her husband namely, Jatin Tanwar was
owner of property bearing no. WZ-1656, B, Nangal Raya, New
Delhi by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.07.2002. It is
further stated that Sh. Jatin Tanwar expired intestate on
21.09.2020 leaving behind both the plaintiffs and after his death
all his movable and immovable property vested upon the
plaintiffs herein.
3) It is further stated that defendant no. 1 is widow of late Sh.
Sachin Tanwar (expired on 21.11.2016) who was elder brother of
Sh. Jatin Tanwar. It is further alleged that in December 2016,
defendant no. 1 approached Jatin Tanwar seeking temporary
accommodation in the suit property and Jatin Tanwar permtited
her to reside on second floor of the suit property. It is further
stated that since June 2018, Jatin Tanwar continued to remain ill
and bedridden due to brain-stroke and finally he expired on
-- 1 of 6 --
21.09.2020. That thereafter plaintiff went to her maternal home
temporarily.
4) It is further stated that during the said period, plaintiff
could not take care of the suit property and defendant no. 1
illegally and unlawfully gave the front portion of the second floor
of the property to defendant no. 2 on rent. It is further stated that
defendants are illegal and unauthorized occupation of the suit
property and plaintiff has also issued legal notice upon the
defendants, however despite the same, the defendants failed to
handover the possession of the property to the plaintiff. By way
of present suit, apart from other relief of declaration and
injunction, plaintiff has sought possession of back portion of
Second Floor of property bearing no. WZ-1656 B, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi.
5) In reply to the said suit, written statement was filed by the
defendant wherein beside denying the averments made by the
plaintiff in his plaint, it is stated that the suit property is an
ancestral property and defendant no. 1 is entitled to share in the
same. It is further alleged that the sale deed so relied by the
plaintiff is a forged document. Defendant no. 1 further admitted
being in possession of first floor and second floor of the suit
property.
6) In the present application so filed by the applicants Nemi
Chand and Himanshu Goyal, it is alleged that they have
purchased the property in question from plaintiffs Priyanka
Tanwar and Master Rishi Tanwar vide registered sale deed dated
07.10.2022 and thereby they are necessary party, since they have
-- 2 of 6 --
stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff. Applicant further produced
copy of sale deed executed in their favour.
7) Counsel for plaintiff does not oppose to the said
application and further admitted to the fact that the property in
question was sold by plaintiffs Priyanka Tanwar and Master
Rishi Tanwar in favour of applicants Nemi Chand Goyal and
Himanshu Goyal by virtue of registered sale deed dated
07.10.2022.
8) Reply to the said application was filed by the defendant no.
1 wherein it is stated that the said transaction between Priyanka
Tanwar and applicants is an eyewash and no transactions had
taken place between the parties. It is further stated that the
plaintiff no. 1 has admitted in writing to the defendant that the
applicants have coerced the plaintiff to execute the sale deed
without consideration and it is further admitted that plaintiff no.
1 has no exclusive right, title or interest in the property in
question. It is further stated that the said deed so executed is
void-ab-initio.
9) I have heard the argued so led by the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff and applicants, however, none has appeared on behalf of
defendant to lead arguments and thereby, this court is proceeding
further with the material available on record.
10) It is settled proposition of law that a necessary party is a
person whose presence is essential for effectively and
conclusively adjudicate the dispute and is directly affected by the
outcome of the case.
-- 3 of 6 --
11) In the present case in hand, the plaintiff no.1 claimed
herself to be the owner of the property in question, after the
demise of her husband namely, Jatin Tanwar. The plaintiff has
also placed on record sale deed dated 16.07.2002 executed in
favour of Jatin Tanwar with respect to property in question, in
order to show her right, title and interest in the property in
question.
12) Further the applicants have placed on record copy of
registered sale deed dated 07.10.2022, whereby both Priyanka
Tanwar and Master Rishi Tanwar (after permission from court)
have transferred the property in question in favour of the
applicants herein. Execution of said sale deed is further admitted
by plaintiffs Priyanka Tanwar and Master Rishi Tanwar.
13) As such, since the applicants claimed themselves to be the
owners of the property in question on the strength of sale deed
dated 07.10.2022 and further considering that the present suit is
filed seeking possession of property in question from the
defendants herein (who are stated to be unauthorized occupants
of the same), the applicants herein are necessary party to the
present suit.
14) With respect to the defence so raised by the defendants,
sane is a subject matter of evidence and same cannot be
considered at the stage of dealing with the application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
15) It is further pertinent to mention herein that issues are yet
to be framed in the present matter and trial is yet to begun and
-- 4 of 6 --
thereby no prejudice shall be caused to the other party in case the
present application stands allowed at this stage. Furthermore,
plaintiff who is master of the suit does not oppose to the said
application and further admitted transferring of right, title and
interest in the suit property in favour of applicants herein.
16) In view of the same, application under Order 1 Rule 10
CPC so filed by the applicants, namely, Nemi Chand Goyal and
Himanshu Goyal stands allowed. Plaintiffs are directed to take
appropriate steps to further proceed with the matter.
17) Perusal of record further reveals that the plaintiff has filed
two other applications i.e. application under Section 340 Cr.PC
and application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC.
18) With respect to application under Section 340 Cr.PC,
Ahlmad is directed to register the same separately.
19) With regards to application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC,
it is pertinent to note in herein that a similar application with
similar relief is filed by the plaintiff in another similar suit
bearing No. 197/2021 and the said application is partly allowed
vide order dated 28.10.2025. As such, since the original
documents are already directed to be produced in another similar
matter, no purpose will be achieved by again seeking the same
documents in the present matter and the plaintiff shall be at
liberty to file certified copy if required of the said document in
the present case.
-- 5 of 6 --
20) In view of the same, application under Order XI Rule 12
CPC filed by the plaintiff stands disposed off accordingly.
21) Now to come up for further proceedings on 03.02.2026.
(Anubhav Jain)
District Judge -05, NDD,
PHC/ND/28.10.2025
-- 6 of 6 --