Page 1 of 11 $~ 11 & 12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 + FAO 502/2017 , CM APL. 9474/2020 & CM APL. 37253/2022 SUDARSHAN KUM AR SHARM A & ANR . ...Appellant s Through: M r. Aayush Agarwala and M s. Mallika Luthra, Advs. M : 9309523696 M s. Varsha Sharma, daughter of A - 1(i) (Through VC) M rs. Suman Lata Sharma wife of A - 1(i) M r. Gulzar Rai Sharma, A -1(iii) versus RAJENDER KUM AR SHARM A & ANR . ...Respondent s Through: M r. Raj Kumar, Adv. M : 9958031223 12 + RFA 368/2016 SUDARSHAN KUM AR SHARM A ...Appellant Through: M r. Aayush Agarwala and M s. M allika Luthra, Advs. M : 9309523696 M s. Varsha Sharma, daughter of A - 1(i) (Through VC) M rs . Suman Lata Sharma wife of A - 1(i) M r. Gulzar Rai Sharma, A -1(iii) versus RAJENDER KUM AR SHARM A & ANR. ...Respondents Through: M r. Raj Kumar, Adv. M : 9958031223 Page 2 of 11 CORAM : HON'BLE M S. JUSTICE M INI PUSHKARNA M INI P USHKARNA, J: ( ORAL ) 1. In the prese nt appeals, the original suit was filed by the parents of the parties seking a decre 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 propert y bearing No. IX/1653, M ain Road, Dakshini Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031 ³6XLW3URSHUW\´ , ocupied 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 plaintifs 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 acount of which, the suit was dismissed as a bated . 3. Before this Co urt, the appellants have based their claims on the will dated 4 th M ay, 2011 executed by the mother of the parties, Late Smt. Kailash W a nti in favour of father of the parties, i.e., Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Sharma . During the course of the present appeal, father of the parties has also expired and appellants thus, also rely on the will dated 22 nd December, 2017, executed by the father of the parties, i.e., Late Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Sharma. However, both the wills were not placed before the learned Trial Court. 4. Th us, when the matter was listed for hearing on 1 3th August, 2025, this Court passed the folowing order: ³1. In the present apeals, the original suit was filed by the parents of the parties seeking a decree of posesion in respect of the portion consistin g of two roms on the second flor and shop no.1 on the ground flor of the property bearing No. IX/1653, M ain Road, Dakshini Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, occupied by one of the sons of the parents of the parties, Page 3 of 11 i.e., respondent no.1 and his wife. 2. The prope rty in question was owned by the mother, i.e., Late Smt. Kailash W anti. She died during the course of the suit proceedings, which fact was not brought before the learned Trial Court. Thus, vide the impugned judgment dated 1 th December, 2015, the learned T rial Court disposed of the said suit and held that the suit had abated, since the fact of the death of the mother of the parties was not brought before this Court. 3. Learned counsel apearing for the apelants submits that the father of the parties, i. e., Sh. Sudhershan Kumar Sharma was the sole owner by way of the W ill dated 04 th M ay, 201 executed by the mother of the parties, i.e., Late Smt. Kailashwanti. The said will is reproduced as under: Page 4 of 11