Mona Kalsi vs Vinay Kapur
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 14 October 2026
Pronounced on: 03 November 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010314882019
+ CS(OS) 375/2019
MONA KALSI .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar
Ghawana and Mr. Vikalp
Chandela, Advs.
Versus
VINAY KAPUR .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Bhagat Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
O R D E R
% 03.11.2026
I.A. 9101/2024(under Order XXXIX Rule 4 seeking vacation
of interim order dated 30.07.2019)
1. The defendant has filed the present application under
Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, “CPC”) seeking vacation of the
interim order dated 30.07.2019, insofar as it operates in respect
of the commercial property bearing Unit No. 1114, 11th Floor,
Tower-A, Spaze Corporate Park, Sector 69 & 70, Gurugram,
Haryana (hereinafter, “the Gurugram property”).
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46
2. Vide order dated 30.07.2019, an ex-parte ad interim order
was passed in I.A. 10210/2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
2 CPC directing the parties to maintain status quo as to the title
and possession of the immovable properties mentioned in
Schedule I of the plaint. The Gurugram property was included in
the said schedule. The defendant, by way of the present
application, seeks vacation of the said order only to the extent of
the Gurugram property, asserting that the same is his independent
property and does not form part of the estate of the deceased
father of the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the defendant submits that the
Gurugram property was allotted to defendant in his individual
capacity and that the plaintiff has not placed on record any
document to establish that the said property was ever owned by
their deceased father or that any amount was paid by him towards
its acquisition. In support of this submission, the defendant relied
upon the allotment letter dated 06.12.2022 issued by Spaze
Tower Private Limited, in respect of this property. It is contended
that the plaintiff has sought to include the Gurugram property in
the estate of the deceased father without producing any material
to substantiate such claim. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
interim order dated 30.07.2019 be vacated qua the said property.
4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the
application, submitting that the Gurugram property was
purchased by the father of the parties in January 2011 and that
the initial consideration towards its purchase was paid by him. It
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46
is contended that the defendant cannot claim the property to be
his independent property merely because the allotment letter has
been issued in his name, particularly when, according to the
plaintiff, the funds for acquiring the property were provided by
their deceased father.
5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the
funds utilised by the father of the parties towards the acquisition
of the Gurugram property were derived from the sale of a
parental property situated at Faiz Road in March 2010, from
which a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- had allegedly accrued to the
father of parties share. It is further contended that the father of
the parties received an advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- in December
2010 and the remaining sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- under the
Collaboration Agreement in respect of the property bearing No.
K-6, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. According to the plaintiff, the
amounts received from the aforesaid transactions were utilised by
the father of the parties towards the purchase of the Gurugram
property and, consequently, the said property forms part of his
estate in which the plaintiff claims an equal share.
6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the
allotment letter dated 06.12.2022 does not establish that the
consideration towards the Gurugram property was paid by the
defendant from his individual funds. It is contended that the said
document merely records the allotment of the commercial space
in the defendant's name and does not disclose the source from
which the consideration was paid. The plaintiff has also
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46
questioned the circumstances in which the allotment letter came
to be placed on record, contending that, despite the interim order
having been passed in 2019 and the defendant having filed his
written statement, no document had been produced earlier to
substantiate his claim of independent ownership. It is alleged that
the allotment letter has subsequently been procured in collusion
with the builder to support the defendant's claim.
7. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the
defendant ought to be directed to place on record the complete
details of the payments made towards the Gurugram property.
Alternatively, it is prayed that Spaze Tower Private Limited be
directed to produce the complete payment records, including the
particulars of the person who made the payments and the dates
and amounts of such payments. It is contended that the said
records would assist in ascertaining whether the property was
acquired by the defendant from his own funds or whether the
consideration was provided by the deceased father. Until such
particulars are brought on record and the source of the
consideration is ascertained, learned Counsel for the plaintiff
submits, the interim restraint ought to continue.
8. It is further contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the
question as to whether the Gurugram property is the independent
property of the defendant or forms part of the estate of the
deceased father is a disputed question of fact which can be
determined only after the parties have led evidence at trial. It is
submitted that the defendant cannot seek vacation of the interim
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46
order merely on the basis of the allotment letter, when the source
of funds used for the acquisition remains disputed. On these
grounds, the learned Counsel for plaintiff seeks dismissal of the
present application.
9. Heard the parties and perused the material placed on
record.
10. The present application is confined to the continuation of
the interim restraint only in respect of the Gurugram property.
The order dated 30.07.2019 was passed at the initial stage of the
proceedings, on the basis of the case set up by the plaintiff that
the movable and immovable assets of her parents were liable to
be partitioned between the parties. The inclusion of the
Gurugram property in the schedule of properties forming the
subject matter of the suit, however, does not, by itself, establish
that the said property belonged to the deceased father or that the
plaintiff has a share therein. The question to be examined is
whether the material presently available on record provides a
sufficient basis for continuing the interim restraint over the said
property.
11. The defendant has placed on record the allotment letter
dated 06.12.2022 issued by Spaze Tower Private Limited. The
said document refers to an application dated 24.01.2011, which
mentions the defendant as the applicant to whom Unit No. 1114,
on the 11th Floor, Tower-A, Spaze Corporate Park, was
provisionally identified for allotment. The letter records a sale
consideration of Rs. 25,02,803/- and stipulates that the allotment
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46
is subject to compliance with the terms and conditions contained
therein, including execution of the requisite agreements and
payment of the instalments in accordance with the prescribed
schedule.
12. The allotment letter, therefore, is not a document
evidencing completed title, as the allotment itself is described as
provisional and conditional. The fact that the allotment letter
does not, by itself, establish the source of the consideration does
not render the document irrelevant to the defendant's assertion
that the allotment was made in his individual capacity. The
plaintiff's objection to the defendant's claim, therefore, has to be
examined against the material actually placed on record in
support of her own contention that the property was acquired by
their deceased father.
13. The plaintiff's case rests principally on the assertion that
the deceased father had received amounts from the sale of the
Faiz Road property and under the Collaboration Agreement
relating to suit property K-6 Rajouri Garden property, and that
such amounts were utilised towards the acquisition of the
Gurugram property. Even if the receipt of the aforesaid amounts
by the deceased father is assumed for the purposes of considering
the plaintiff's submission, the receipt of funds from those
transactions does not, in itself, establish that the same very funds
were applied towards the purchase of the Gurugram property.
The plaintiff was required to place some material on record
demonstrating the connection between the alleged source of
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46
funds and the consideration payable to the builder in respect of
the property in question.
14. However, no such connection has been demonstrated by
the plaintiff either in plaint in the reply to the present application.
No payment receipt, bank statement, transaction record or other
contemporaneous document has been placed on record to show
that the amounts allegedly received by the deceased father were
paid to the builder towards the acquisition of the Gurugram
property. Nor has any document been identified to show that the
application for allotment was made by the deceased father or that
the allotment was sought or made in his name. The plaintiff's
submission, therefore, proceeds from the availability of funds
with the deceased father to the conclusion that those funds must
have been utilised for the acquisition of the Gurugram property,
without any material presently establishing the intervening
transaction.
15. Regarding the plaintiff's contention that the allotment letter
does not disclose the source of the consideration also does not
establish that the consideration was paid by the deceased father, I
am of the opinion that the absence of such particulars in the
allotment letter cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence in support
of the plaintiff's assertion. Equally, the allegation that the
allotment letter was procured in collusion with the builder has
been raised without any supporting material. The fact that the
allotment letter was issued in 2022, whereas the interim order
was passed in 2019, has been explained by defendant submitting
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46
that it was not available at the time of passing of the original
order . This fact, however, does not without further material
establish that the document is false or that the property was
acquired by the deceased father.
16. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff’s
interrogatories in respect of source of money used for making
payments towards this property have not been answered by
defendant.
17. I am of the opinion that if the late father of the parties had
made the initial payment for one of his children’s property, that
itself is not enough to show that the said property belongs to the
father. The plea of plaintiff , that the said property has been
purchased by their late father out of the joint family fund, is at
present only a guess work and is not based upon any substantial
material.
18. Plaintiff in its reply to the application has stated that father
of the parties had received Rs. 15 lakh from the sale of parental
property at Faiz Road and Rs. 60 lakh (5 lakh + 55 lakh) under
Collaboration Agreement in respect of suit property K-6 Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi and that defendant had received this amount
from his father towards purchase of Gurugram property.
However, it is noteworthy that none of these facts has been
mentioned in the plaint.
19. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has not been able to
demonstrate a sufficient basis for continuing the interim restraint
over the Gurugram property. The defendant has produced an
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46
allotment letter mentioning him as the applicant for the
commercial space, whereas the plaintiff's assertion that the
consideration was provided by the deceased father remains
unsupported by material establishing the connection between the
funds received by him and the acquisition of the property. The
objections raised by the plaintiff, including the request for
production of payment records and the contention that ownership
must await trial, do not, in the circumstances of the present case
justify continuation of the interim order qua the said property.
20. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The interim order
dated 30.07.2019 stands vacated to the extent it operates in
th
respect of Unit No.1114, 11 Floor, Tower-A, Spaze Corporate
Park, Sector 69&70, Gurugram, Haryana.
21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are
confined to the adjudication of the present application only and
shall not tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
CS(OS) 375/2019
22. List the suit on 17.12.2026 along with pending
applications.
VINOD KUMAR, J
vb/harshit
NOVEMBER 03, 2026 /
I.A. 9101/2024 in CS (OS) 375/2019 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:06.11.2026
13:05:46