Disposed

Satya Bhushan Jain v. Puneet Jain & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Nov 2025CS(OS)/618/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in a partition suit where the final decree directs defendants to execute a sale deed transferring their 50% share to the plaintiff and vacating possession.

What did the court decide?

Final decree passed directing defendants to execute sale deed transferring 50% share to plaintiff; defendants handed over keys.

Satya Bhushan Jain Vs Puneet Jain & Ors. — Partition | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~27

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CS(OS) 618/2022 with CCP(O) 18/2023, I.A. 7981/2023, CCP(O) 33/2024, I.A. 2974/2024, I.A. 36063/2024, I.A. 10833/2025, I.A. 20463/2025, I.A. 20476/2025, I.A. 20490/2025 & I.A. 26337/2025

¶4

SATYA BHUSHAN JAIN .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sahil Munjal and Ms. Rhea Gandhi, Advocates along with plaintiff in person. versus

¶5

PUNEET JAIN & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Arjun Anand, Ms. Isha Shukla, Advocates for D-1 & D-2. Mr. Kumar Kshitij and Mr. Sahil Munjal, Advocates for D-3.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 18.11.2025

¶9

This present suit involves a dispute between the plaintiff-father (Mr. Satya Bhushan Jain) and defendants-children (two sons – Mr. Puneet Jain and Mr. Vikas Jain and a daughter – Mrs. Abhilasha Agarwal) in respect of the property bearing no. 68, Veer Nagar (Jain Colony), New Delhi-110007 (hereinafter ‘suit property’).

¶10

The plaintiff is over 85 years old.

¶11

As per the order dated 10^th October, 2022, status quo was directed in respect of title and possession of the suit property.

¶12

A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 11^th March, 2024

¶13

CS(OS) 618/2022

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/11/2025 at 12:20:00

¶16

directing that the plaintiff and the defendants are each entitled to 1/4^th share in the suit property.

¶17

The preliminary decree was challenged by the defendants no.1 and 2 before the Division Bench by way of an appeal being RFA (OS) 16/2024. The said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 25^th September, 2024. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order was also dismissed on 2^nd January, 2025.

¶18

Vide order dated 26^th November, 2024, this Court allowed private sale of the suit property to be completed within three months, failing which the Court Auctioneer was directed to proceed with public auction of the suit property through the process of proclamation. 7. In the order passed by this Court on 7^th August, 2025, it was noted that no third-party bids were received in the auction of the suit property and the only two bidders were the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. Accordingly, the Court directed a fresh inter-se bidding between the parties. 8. In the order dated 1^st September, 2025, this Court noted that the plaintiff was the successful bidder with a bid amount of Rs.11.26 crores. The plaintiff deposited 50% of the bid amount, i.e. , Rs.5.63 crores before the Court. Accordingly, the bid of the plaintiff was approved. 9. On the same date, the Registry was directed to refund the amount of Rs.2 crores deposited by the defendant no.1 along with accrued interest towards the bid amount. Further, time was granted to the defendants to vacate the suit property till 15^th November, 2025.

¶19

Subsequently, vide order dated 14^th November, 2025, the Registry was directed to release the amount of Rs.5.63 crores deposited by the plaintiff along with up-to-date interest in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2.

CS(OS) 618/2022

Page 2 of 3

Today, the defendants have handed over the keys of the suit property to the plaintiff and the defendants no.3, who are present in Court in person. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that the defendants no.1 and 2 shall execute a sale deed in respect of their 50% share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and shall cooperate with the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered. 13. Needless to state, all expenses towards execution of the sale deed, including stamp duty, shall be paid by the plaintiff.

¶24

In view of the above, a final decree of partition is passed in the suit in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

The order passed today shall form part of the decree.

¶26

The Registry shall pass the decree in an expeditious manner.

¶27

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶28

NOVEMBER 18, 2025

Vivek/-

CS(OS) 618/2022

Page 3 of 3

Satya Bhushan Jain v. Puneet Jain & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Bhushan Jain v. Puneet Jain & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Vs Subhash Chand & Ors.

Manish Khurana & Anr. Vs Smt. Simmi Kundra & Ors.

Mr Pavanjit Korotania Vs Mr Amit Jatana

Subhash Garg & Ors. Vs Lala Ram Sharma & Ors.

Sag Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjay Goel & Anr.

Jaspal Kaur Vs Parminder Singh Bhasin & Anr.

Sadhna Verma & Ors. Vs Bhagmal Singh & Ors.

Mrs. Jaspal Kaur Vs Parminder Singh Bhasin & Anr.

Mg Tools Vs Govt of NCT Delhi through Executive Engineer (E), North Electrical Division & Anr.

Arun Kumar Vs Subhash Chand & Ors.

Manish Khurana & Anr. Vs Smt. Simmi Kundra & Ors.

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Growia Facility Services Private Limited through Its Directors and Ors.

Bwl Limited. (Formerly Known as Bhilai Wires Ltd.) Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Sh Nathu Ram Goyal & Anr. Vs M/S Palm Infrahomes Pvt. Ltd. ., & Ors.