Dismissed¶25

Gitanjali Khanna v. Tarini Mehta & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Dec 2025FAO(OS)/95/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO(OS) 95/2025, High Court of Delhi, decided 08.12.2025 by Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ. Interim-relief appeal concerning release of keys/possession of half portion of a property (keys lying with the Court) in pending suit CS(OS) No.558/2013, which challenges a sale deed executed by Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 pursuant to the Will of original owner Goverdhan Lal Obhrai; appeal by Gitanjali Khanna (Defendant No.3) dismissed; Suit Property to be preserved. Statutes referenced: Section 10, Delhi High Court Act, 1966; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908. No precedents cited; no monetary amounts.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the Appellant; the appeal and pending applications were dismissed, the keys were not released, and the Suit Property is to be preserved. ¶25

Gitanjali Khanna Vs Tarini Mehta & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 95/2025, CM APPL. 53162/2025 (Ex.) & CM APPL. 53163/2025 (Ex. from filing lengthy synopsis and list of dates)

¶4

GITANJALI KHANNA .....Appellant

¶5

Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat and Ms.Suvarna Swani, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

TARINI MEHTA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Ms. Ragni Vinaik, Ms. Thanglunkim, Mr. Gaikhualung and Ms. Varshita Verma, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Jagdeep Singh Lamba, Advocates for R-3 & R-4.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 08.12.2025

¶11

The present Appeal, under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assails the Order dated 17.07.2025 [“ Impugned Order ”] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 4542 of 2019 in CS(OS) No.558/2013, titled “ Tarini Mehta v. Sanjeev Chhabra & Ors. ”. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge dismissed Defendant No.3/Appellant’s interim application seeking release of the keys to her portion of the Subject Property in favour of the Appellant/Defendant No. 3 therein.

¶12

Hereinafter, for the sake of clarity, the parties shall be referred

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 12/12/2025 at 13:11:06

¶15

to in the same manner as they have been arrayed in CS(OS) No. 558/2013.

¶16

Mr. Goverdhan Lal Obhrai was the original owner of the property. He executed a Will granting life interest in his estate to his wife and two daughters while bequeathing the ultimate estate in favour of his granddaughters. Subsequently, granddaughters, being Defendant Nos. 4 & 5, and one daughter, being the Defendant No.3, sold the property in favour of Mr. Sanjeev Chhabra and Ms. Suman Chhabra, being Defendant Nos. 1 & 2, respectively.

¶17

Ms. Tarini Mehta (Plaintiff No.1) and Ms. Radha Mehta (Plaintiff No.2), being granddaughters and daughter of Mr. Goverdhan Lal Obhrai, respectively, filed the suit being CS(OS) No.558/2013 challenging the sale deed executed by Defendant Nos. 3 to 5, which is pending.

¶18

On 24.05.2018, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was disposed of while making an observation that Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are also free to use their portion of the subject property without obstruction.

¶19

At present, the keys of half portion of the property are with the Court.

¶20

The record reflects that Defendant No. 3 never challenged the correctness of the sale in favour of Mr. Sanjeev Chhabra and Ms. Suman Chhabra, and at present, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is pending.

¶21

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, this court of the considered view that delivery of possession/keys to Defendant No. 3 would create unwarranted complications, which may lead to lingering on the adjudication of issues in the suit, hence, let the Court preserve

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 12/12/2025 at 13:11:06

¶24

the Suit Property.

¶25

With these observations, the present Appeal, along with pending application(s), if any, is dismissed.

¶26

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶27

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. DECEMBER 08, 2025/rk/her

¶28

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 12/12/2025 at 13:11:06

Gitanjali Khanna v. Tarini Mehta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gitanjali Khanna v. Tarini Mehta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Manaktala (Since Deceased and Represented by Lrs) and Ors. Vs Vipin Kumar Manaktala & Ors.

Nakul Manaktala & Ors. Vs Vipin Kumar Manaktala & Ors.

Sanjay Gupta Vs Sonakshi Gupta and Ors.

Awaneesh Chandra Jha Vs Anil Prasad Nanda & Anr.

Gaytri Devi Vs Rajat Joon & Ors.

Sardar Tejinder Singh Vs Sardar Govinder Singh

Dk Jain (Since Deceased Thr His Legal Heirs) Vs Cs Agarwal and Anr.

Mukesh Saini Vs Madan Lal Saini (Since Decd) Thr Lrs and Ors.

Nakul Manaktala & Ors. Vs Vipin Kumar Manaktala & Ors.

Sumit Agarwal Vs Canara Bank

Puneet Gupta Vs Naveen Gulati

Ramdhan Vs Icici Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Santosh Kumar Thakur Vs Rashmi Choudhary

Krishan Kumar Vats Vs Shri Shobha Ram Vats & Ors.