RFA 780/2018 $~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC011819962018 + RFA 780/2018 BALWANT SINGH ( SINCE DECEASED ) THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal & Mr. Parth Mahajan, Advocates. versus SARDAR NAGENDER SINGH ( SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Smita Maan, Mr. Vishal Maan, Mr. Kartik Dabas & Ms. Shweta Chaudhary, Advocates for R-1(b-e). Mr. Jagjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Preet Singh & Mr. Rahul Khan, Advocates for R-4-6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th April, 2018, passed by ADJ-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. 2. By way of the impugned judgment, a final decree of partition and rendition of accounts has been passed in the suit. 3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are as follows: 3.1. Late Sardar Sham Singh was the father of the plaintiffs and Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:25.08.2026 15:07:18 Signature Not Verified RFA 780/2018 defendants no.1 and 2 and grandfather of defendants no.3 to 6, except plaintiff no.3, who is the daughter-in-law of late Sardar Sham Singh. Late Sham Singh died intestate and thus all his sons and daughters inherited 1/9th share each in the entire estate left by him. 3.2. The properties which were the subject matter of the partition suit from which the present appeal arises are as under: i. Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, III/4/1 to 11, III/4/10A, III/4/16 to 18, III/4/23, III/4/24, III/4/24A, III/4/25, III/4/26, III/4/26A, III/4/27, 27A, 27B, 27C, III/4/28, III/4/31, III/4/32, III/4/50, III/4/51, III/4/57 to 59, III/4/35 to III/4/37. (hereinafter ‘Gopinath Bazar property’) ii. Nangal Rai, New Delhi, Khasra no. 185, H. No. WZ-446 to 520. (hereinafter ‘Nangal Rai property’) 3.3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs before this Court on 20th December, 2001 and was subsequently transferred to the District Court. 3.4. A preliminary decree of partition was passed by this Court on 26th November, 2007, holding that each of the parties, i.e. the plaintiffs and the defendants, is entitled to 1/9th share each in the aforesaid properties. 3.5. Thereafter, the parties were referred for mediation to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. However, no settlement could be arrived at. 3.6. Vide order dated 17th April, 2009, a Local Commissioner was appointed to suggest whether the properties are capable of division by metes and bounds and, if so, the modalities thereof. 3.7. The Local Commissioner submitted his report on 19th April, 2017. Both the appellants as well as the respondents filed their objections to the Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:25.08.2026 15:07:18 Signature Not Verified RFA 780/2018 report of the Local Commissioner. 3.8. After considering the report of the Local Commissioner and the objections of the parties, the Trial Court held that it is not possible to divide the properties by metes and bounds and hence passed a final decree of partition by sale of the subject properties. The operative part of the judgment of the Trial Court is set out below: Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:25.08.2026 15:07:18 Signature Not Verified RFA 780/2018 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Notice in the appeal was issued vide order dated 14th September 2018. 6. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 23rd September 2024. 7. At the outset, Mr. Singhal, counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no objection to the sale of the property located at Nangal Rai, New Delhi. The scope of the present appeal is limited to the final partition of shops at Gopi Nath Bazar property. 8. He assails the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court by submitting that the Trial Court has failed to accept the report of the Local Commissioner without giving any cogent reasons. The Local Commissioner, in his report, had given a viable method of dividing the properties between the parties. However, the Trial Court has failed to accept the same. He further submits that the properties at Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, are leasehold properties and the lease of the said property expired in 2022. Writ petitions are pending with regard to the same, where status quo orders have been passed. Hence, the aforesaid properties cannot be sold. Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:25.08.2026 15:07:18 Signature Not Verified RFA 780/2018 9. Ms. Maan and Mr. Singh, counsel for the respondents, defend the judgment passed by the Trial Court and submit that it is a well-reasoned judgment and the same has been passed after giving due consideration to the report of the Local Commissioner and the objections filed by the parties. It is submitted that the appellants are resisting the sale of the properties as they are in occupation of the majority of the properties. 10. Ms. Maan submits that the Local Commissioner in his report had assigned to the respondents’ shops and residential units at Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, which were in the occupation of old tenants and drawing meagre rents to the respondents. Hence, the objections were filed by the respondents before the Trial Court, which have been accepted by the Trial Court. 11. I have heard the counsel for the parties and examined the judgment of the Trial Court. 12. In the present case, the Local Commissioner’s report, as considered by the Trial Court, shows that the properties comprise a number of shops and residential portions, some of which are in occupation of the parties while others are occupied by old tenants and are yielding comparatively meagre rents. There are also portions which constitute common/open areas and cannot conveniently be allotted exclusively to any one co-sharer. Consequently, merely allotting one shop to each co-sharer, as suggested by the appellants, would not by itself result in an equal or equitable division of the properties corresponding to the respective 1/9th shares. In these circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in considering whether the proposed mode of allocation was capable of bringing about a practical and equitable partition of the properties between the parties. Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:25.08.2026 15:07:18 Signature Not Verified RFA 780/2018 13. The Trial Court has also considered the objection of the appellants/plaintiffs that some of the properties are leasehold properties and the leases are about to expire. The Trial Court considered the submission of the respondents that they have been allocated rented portions, whereas self- occupied portions have been given to the appellants. Taking into account the aforesaid factors, the Trial Court concluded that the subject properties are incapable of division by metes and bounds and sale auction is the only viable option. 14. The relevant findings of the Trial Court in paragraph 13 are set out below: Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:25.08.2026 15:07:18 Signature Not Verified RFA 780/2018 15. The Trial Court also noted that the suit had been pending for 17 years and ample opportunities had been granted to the parties to explore the settlement and divide properties among themselves by metes and bounds. Despite the same, no consensus could be reached. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded to pass a final decree of partition. Paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Trial Court is set out below: 16. The objection regarding the leasehold nature of the properties at Gopi Nath Bazar and the expiry of the lease in 2022 does not warrant setting aside of the final decree. The effect of the pending proceedings concerning the leasehold rights can appropriately be considered at the stage when the decree Digitally Signed By:AARZOO Signing Date:25.08.2026 15:07:18 Signature Not Verified RFA 780/2018 is sought to be executed. 17. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court, which requires interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 19. As noted by the Trial Court, the exact modalities for the auction sale of the properties would be considered in the execution proceedings. 20. Needless to state, the Execution Court would also consider the effect of the pending writ petitions and status quo orders, if any, passed by this Court. AMIT BANSAL, J AUGUST 21, 2026 at By:AARZOO Signing Date:25.08.2026 15:07:18