The Delhi High Court dismissed two connected appeals arising from interlocutory orders passed in a long-standing property dispute involving the premises at C-9, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. The case involved an unusual claim by an advocate, seeking ownership of disputed property that was originally owned by his client (deceased Surendra Mohan Tarun).
The original suit was filed by the respondent in 2010, seeking possession, a permanent injunction, and mesne profits. He claimed to have purchased the property from the defendant (now deceased), in 1982 by way of a series of documents, including an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney, a possession letter, an affidavit, and a registered will, all dated 15 March 1982. The respondent maintained possession until the riots of 1984 and then employed caretakers to maintain the property.
In 2009, the defendant allegedly forcibly took possession of the property, prompting the suit. He, through his counsel Suraj Saxena/ the appellant, denied executing the sale documents and asserted his ownership. During the proceedings, the defendant gave an undertaking in August 2011 not to construct or create any third-party interests, and died in November 2021.
Early in 2022, the respondent discovered that the property displayed the nameplate of the appellant and a charitable trust, alongside evidence of unauthorized construction in violation of the earlier undertaking. Multiple new claimants to the property emerged- class II heirs of the deceased, a domestic help and legatee who claimed residency under a will, and the appellant, who was the advocate representing the defendant but now claimed the property under a will and codicil allegedly executed in his favour by the defendant.
Consequently, the Single Judge ordered the appointment of a Receiver on 9 August 2023 to take possession and management of the property. The appellant sought review of this order, which was dismissed on 7 October 2024. He then appealed both orders.
The main points raised by the appellant were: (i) his alleged entitlement to the property under the will; (ii) the court had exceeded its pleadings and deprived him of de facto possession; (iii) the appointment of the receiver and the application of the established five-fold test (panch sadachar) were invalid.
The Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar found these arguments unconvincing. It noted that the evidence showed he was not in settled possession, and mere display of his nameplate was insufficient proof of possession. Furthermore, the original documents submitted by the respondent had undergone forensic examination and were found authentic. The court also confirmed that the five tests for appointment of a receiver had been properly applied, and in the circumstances of competing claims, especially when the class II heirs did not object, the receiver’s appointment was justified.
The judgment underscores the professional and ethical responsibilities of advocates. The court stated that lawyers are officers of the court with a duty to advance justice, particularly for vulnerable groups. The Bench strongly observed that advocates are not expected to lay claim to property left behind by their clients, highlighting the expectation for lawyers to uphold the dignity, integrity, and reputation of the legal profession.
In conclusion, finding no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the lower court, and exercising appellate restraint in interlocutory matters, the High Court dismissed both appeals and the connected applications. The management of the property was to remain with the receiver.
Appearances:
For the Appellant (LR): Mr. Udit Arora; Mr. Aatreya Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nishant Datta, Mr. Chirag Rathi, Mr. Kunal Sejwal, Mr. Dipesh Kashyap and Mr. Yatharth Rathi, Advocates.
