Pardeep Dewan And Others vs Rishi Jindal And Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 07 October 2026
Pronounced on: 03 November 2026
+ CS(OS) 838/2022, CRL.M.A. 21376/2023, I.A.
22482/2022, I.A. 22483/2022, I.A. 22485/2022,I.A.
1542/2023, I.A. 15519/2023, I.A. 9535/2025, I.A.
12557/2025, I.A. 32933/2025, I.A. 662/2026, I.A.
663/2026, I.A. 13073/2026, I.A. 26039/2026, I.A.
27095/2026
PARDEEP DEWAN AND OTHERS .....Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Mr.
Shivam Takiar, Mr. Prateek Dhir
and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs.
versus
RISHI JINDAL AND ORS. .....Defendants
Through: None for D-1
Mr. Sarim Naved and Mr.
Saurabh Sagar, Advs. for D-2
Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Anmol
Ghai and Mr. Deepanshu Ruhal,
Advs. for D-3
Mr. Udit Guptya & Mr. Manan
Aggarwal, Advs. for applicant in
Crl. M.A. No.21376/2023 & I.A.
No. 1542/2023 & I.A. No.
12557/2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
O R D E R
% 03.11.2026
I.A.No. 23476/2026 (Directions for safe custody and
temporary shifting of artefacts before repair/ renovation in
suit property)
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
1. For the disposal of present application, first it is necessary
to state briefly the averments in the plaint in CS (OS) 838/2022.
2. As per plaint, the suit property bearing No. 134, Sundar
Nagar, New Delhi-110003 consists of ground floor, first floor
and terrace. Initially, it was owned by late Ramji Dass Jindal, the
grandfather of the parties. He died on 23.11.1958 leaving behind
him three sons viz Mr. Amrit Lal Jindal, Mr. Ramesh Jindal, Mr.
Suresh Jindal and two daughters viz Mrs. Bimla Devi and Mrs.
Rishwa Aggarwal, and also his wife. On death of Mr. Ramji Dass
Jindal, his estate was divided vide Arbitration Award dated
14.08.1959, which was made Rule of the Court on 18.02.1963,
whereby the suit property came to the share of his youngest son,
namely, Mr. Suresh Jindal.
3. Mr. Suresh Jindal passed away on 24.11.2022. He was a
bachelor and died intestate. He left behind him sons and
daughters of his brothers and sisters as his surviving legal heirs
as follows:
Sl.
No.
Name Relation Heirs
1 Bimla Dewan
(died)
Sister Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, sons of
deceased sister
2 Amrit Lal Jindal
(died)
Brother Defendant no.2, daughter of
deceased brother
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
3 Ramesh Jindal
(died)
Brother Defendant no.1, son of
deceased brother
4 Rishwa
Aggarwal (died)
Sister Plaintiff nos. 3 to 6, sons and
daughters of deceased sister
4. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is a
residential property and the ground floor of the suit property had
been given on rent to Indiabulls Finance Ltd.
5. In para 8 of the plaint, it is further mentioned that
Mr.Suresh Jindal owned following movable properties also,
which are described as under:
a) Art Collections as per the documents filed along with
list of documents;
b) The rights of his three films, viz. Rajnigandha, Shatranj
Ke Khilari and Katha;
c) Collection of the costumes of Shatranj Ke Khilari;
d) Crown of Wajid Ali Shah;
e) Rights of all books written by him and books lying in
his library;
f) Cash, balances and fixed deposits lying in following
banks to the knowledge of the plaintiffs:
i) Citibank Account no. - 5502946228;
ii) HDFC Bank account no. – 50100174993396; and
iii) Mutual Fund IDFC Folio no. 1832867/38
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
g) All other shares, mutual funds, gold bonds with Citi
Bank; and
h) All jewellery and gold etc.
6. From the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are
the sons of late Mrs. Bimla Dewan, the deceased sister of late
Mr. Suresh Jindal. Plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 are the sons and daughters
of late Mrs. Rishwa Aggarwal, the another sister of late Suresh
Jindal. The defendant no.1 is the son of late Mr. Ramesh Jindal
and the defendant no.2 is daughter of late Mr. Amrit Lal Jindal.
Thus, plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 are cousins claiming
share in the suit property as well as the movable properties
described above. Accordingly, in the main suit, the plaintiffs
have prayed for a preliminary decree of partition apart from other
reliefs.
AVERMENTS IN THE APPLICATION
7. In back drop of the said averments of plaint, the present
application has to be considered. The plaintiffs had filed this
application submitting that late Mr. Suresh Jindal was absolute
owner of the entire property bearing No. 134, Sundar Nagar,
New Delhi-110003. He had let out the ground floor portion of the
said property to Indiabulls Real Estate (in short the ‘Lessee’)
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
under a valid lease agreement. The case of the plaintiffs is that
the Lessee was not paying any rent to the plaintiffs and therefore,
the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 45044/2024 praying for impleadment
of the said occupant/Lessee. This application was disposed of
vide order dated 08.10.2025. It is averred that without seeing any
lease documents, the plaintiff prayed for impleadment of Dhani
Services Ltd. as defendant, which is an offshoot of Indiabulls
group. Thus, Dhani Services was impleaded as a defendant and
court directed it to deposit arrears of rent within six weeks and
directed it to give details of the tenancy as well as rent paid till
date alongwith a copy of lease deed. This court also permitted
Dhani Services to carry out repairs in the demised premises at its
own costs.
8. It is averred in the application that pursuant to the order
dated 08.10.2025, lease documents were produced by Dhani
Services Ltd. These documents reflected that Dhani Services Ltd.
was not the tenant under any valid subsisting lease, rather it was
an unauthorized occupant in respect of the ground floor of the
suit property. It is averred that the lease in question in favour of
Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd. (the Lessee), expired by afflux of time
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
under Section 111 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and
they have no subsisting right, title or interest to continue in
possession of the suit property. Consequently, the present
occupant being unauthorized is also liable to vacate the suit
property and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiffs being the
legal heirs of deceased owner.
9. It is stated in the application that the defendant no.1, after
demise of Mr. Suresh Jindal, started stealing Artefacts from the
suit property. Therefore, vide order dated 02.01.2023 the court
had appointed Ms. Geetika Kapur, Advocate as a Local
Commissioner to enter the property in question and make an
inventory of Art collections and costumes of movie “ Shatranj Ke
Khilari” which was owned by late Mr. Suresh Jindal. Vide order
dated 23.07.2026, the said Learned Local Commissioner was also
directed to access first floor and second floor (barsaati
floor/terrace) of the property in question so as to permit
defendant no.3 (Indiabulls Ltd.) to carry out the necessary repair
works.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that
the proposed repair work is likely to involve breaking of walls
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
dismantling of fixtures, movement of construction material etc.
which poses imminent threat to the safety and preserve all
Artefacts. It is, therefore, prayed by the plaintiffs that:
a) To permit and direct the temporary shifting of the
valuable artifacts and movable articles listed in Document
no. 2 as available from the suit property to safe place,
before commencement of the repair/renovation work;
b) direct that the artefacts be kept in safe custody and not
be sold, transferred, pledged, altered, repaired, disposed of
or removed from the approved place without prior
permission of this Hon’ble Court;
c) direct the defendant no. 1 and 2 to cooperate in the
preparation and signing of a comprehensive inventory of
all artifacts;
d) Pass an order restraining the unauthorised occupant
from using the ground floor portion of the suit property for
commercial/office purposes pending final adjudication of
the suit;
e) Pass any other further order or direction as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS
11. Learned Counsel for the defendant no. 3 has no objection
if prayers (a), (b) and (c) above are allowed. Learned Counsel for
the defendant no.2 has made additional request that many
properties, jewelleries etc. belonging to the film “ Shatranj Ke
Khilari” should be given to Film Heritage Foundation, which
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
maintain archives of the films. Learned Counsel for defendant
no. 2 and Learned Senior Counsel for plaintiffs fully agree to this
suggestion.
12. However, learned Counsel for the defendant no.3 i.e.
Indiabulls Ltd. has strong objection to the prayer (d) and submits
that this prayer has been cleverly worded to oust the defendant
no.3 from the tenanted premises i.e. the ground floor of the suit
property.
13. It is necessary to mention here that defendant no. 1 is not
appearing in the present case nor has come forward to oppose
this application.
OPINION OF THE COURT
14. I have considered the submission of the parties. I am of the
opinion that prayer ‘d’ of the application is out of preview of
Order XXXIX CPC, under which only interim order can be
passed.
15. I also find that some of averments in this application are
not in consonance with record. Therefore, the correct facts are
required to be recorded. This court, in order dated 23.07.2026,
has noted that ground floor of the suit property was leased by Mr.
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
Suresh Jindal to Mr. Gurbans Singh, the then Joint Managing
Director of Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd., under a lease agreement
dated 30.10.2021 for a period of two years. Pursuant to an
internal corporate arrangement, Mr. Gurbans Singh joined Dhani
Services Ltd., which subsequently merged with Yaari Digital
Integrated Services Ltd. in terms of the order dated 29.08.2025
passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh.
Thereafter, the name of Yaari Digital Integrated Services Ltd.
was changed to Indiabulls Ltd.
16. Noting that vide order dated 08.10.2025, Dhani Services
Ltd. was impleaded as defendant, this court observed that entire
interest in the ground floor of the suit property held by Dhani
Services Ltd. is now devolved in favour of Indiabulls Ltd.
Therefore, this court held that Indiabulls Ltd. is now the
successor in interest of Dhani Services Ltd.
17. Thus practically prayer ‘d’ amounts to a prayer for
recovery of possession of ground floor of the suit property from
Indiabulls Ltd. (i.e. defendant no.3). Now, whether or not
defendant no.3 can stay in the property, be decided in this
application under Order XXXIX CPC. Hence, this prayer cannot
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
be allowed in this application.
18. Regarding the suggestion for Learned Counsel for
defendant no. 2, it would be appropriate for the parties to contact
Film Heritage Foundation for preservation of the articles of
movie “ Shatranj Ke Khilari” .
19. Therefore, it is directed that learned Local Commissioner
shall make inventory of all the articles and thereafter the
plaintiffs can remove the same, to a place, which shall be
intimated by the plaintiffs to this Court. After removal of the
articles, the defendant no.3 can carry out repairs as permitted in
order dated 23.07.2026.
20. So far as permission to sell these artefacts are concerned,
the same shall be carried out by a Court auctioneer, for which the
parties will have to move a separate application.
21. One oral prayer has been made on behalf of the plaintiffs
that Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short ‘MCD’) may be
directed to file a report about the condition of the building.
Learned counsel for defendant no. 3 has opposed this prayer
submitting that neither MCD is party to the suit nor any report of
MCD is required for deciding the issue of partition. Learned
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59
Counsel for the defendant no.3 submits that by making this
prayer, the plaintiff wants to get the building declared dangerous
in order to oust them. This court can offer no opinion on this
issue. However, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to make any
application in this regard to the MCD, who shall consider such
application in accordance with law and rules.
22. The application is disposed of, accordingly.
I.A. No.9535/2025 (filed by applicant under order I Rule 10
CPC seeking impleadment).
23. List before the Joint Registrar on 19.11.2026.
VINOD KUMAR, J
NOVEMBER 03, 2026 / vb / Avneet
I.A.No. 23476/2026 in CS (OS) 838/2022 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:11:59