The Delhi High Court has temporarily stayed the sale and transfer of a disputed property in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, after the only son of the original owner challenged the validity of a will and subsequent sale deeds that led to the property passing through several hands. The court’s interim order preserves the status quo on title and possession of the property until the matter is finally decided at trial.
The dispute centres on a 160 square yard residential property in Rajouri Garden that originally belonged to the late Mr. Madhok, who acquired it through a registered sale deed in 1964. Mr. Madhok died in July 1981. His only son, identified in court records as Mr. Kumar, lived with his parents at this property until January 1986. At that time, a tenant named Mr. Nayyar moved into the first floor of the property.
Mr. Kumar and his wife subsequently left the property and moved to rented accommodation. When Mr. Kumar later sought to sell the Rajouri Garden property during the COVID-19 pandemic, he discovered a purported sale deed dated September 19, 1986, showing that his mother allegedly sold the property to the tenant on the basis of a will executed by Mr. Madhok in favour of his wife.
The will referred to by the defendants stated that Mr. Madhok had no children from his marriage, a claim that Mr. Kumar disputes because he was born to his parents and lived in the property. Mr. Kumar alleges that the will is invalid and was executed under suspicious circumstances. The High Court took note of this discrepancy and questioned the authenticity of the document.
A key legal issue raised before the court was the validity of the will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The statute requires a legally valid will to be attested by at least two witnesses. In the present case, the will relied upon for transferring title to the mother had only one attesting witness and was unregistered, both circumstances that the court noted could undermine its legitimacy.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, observed that the will’s content was factually inaccurate and prima facie gave rise to serious doubt about its genuineness. The court noted that if the will is not valid, then the sale deed executed by the mother in favour of the tenant in 1986 would have no legitimate basis, and subsequent sales to other parties might also be tainted.
Proceedings in the case indicate that Mr. Nayyar, the original tenant, died in 1987. Later transactions saw parts of the property sold by Nayyar’s heirs or through instruments such as a general power of attorney and agreements to sell. These transfers eventually led to a woman who claimed to have bought the property from the family of the original tenant and later sought to sell it again after constructing on the site.
During the hearing, the court rejected an offer by the current buyer to submit an indemnity bond as a condition for allowing further sale. The court noted that issuing an indemnity bond could lead to the creation of third-party rights that would prejudice Mr. Kumar if his claim over the property ultimately succeeds.
On this basis, the High Court ordered that status quo on title and possession be maintained until the final adjudication of the suit is completed. The stay includes a prohibition on transferring or creating rights in the property that could affect the son’s potential legal interest.
Legal experts say the case highlights the complexity of property rights when wills and succession issues intersect with sales involving tenants and third parties. The court’s order reflects a cautious approach to prevent irreparable harm to someone who claims a rightful inheritance until the facts are fully examined. The case remains pending and is expected to be taken up for further hearing later in 2026.
Reference - https://share.google/3fcGga6lX5GO2IqFT