The Delhi High Court has dismissed two connected appeals in a long-running property dispute over a prime Gulmohar Park residence, ruling against claims raised by a practicing advocate who once represented the deceased defendant in the same case.
The bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while pronouncing the judgment on August 18, 2025, upheld earlier orders that placed the property under court-appointed receivership.
Background
The case has its roots in a suit filed in 2010 by Sarabjit Singh, who claimed ownership of the house located at C-9, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi. Singh relied on documents allegedly executed in 1982 - an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, possession letter, affidavit, receipt, and even a registered Will - through which the original owner, late Surendra Mohan Tarun, was said to have transferred the property to him.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Allows Kamla Devi's Plea, Condones 403-Day Delay in Appeal Filing
The matter escalated after 2009 when Tarun allegedly re-entered and took forcible possession, prompting Singh to seek injunctions and mesne profits. Tarun gave an undertaking in 2011 that he would not create third-party rights or carry out construction. But after his death in 2021, disputes over possession deepened, with three different sets of claimants surfacing, including Tarun's alleged heirs, his domestic help, and surprisingly, his own lawyer, Suraj Saxena.
Court's Observations
During arguments, Saxena asserted that Tarun had executed a registered Will in May 2021, later followed by a codicil, which bequeathed the property to him while movable assets were willed to a charitable trust. His counsel argued that the single judge travelled beyond pleadings when appointing a Receiver and had deprived him of possession.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Orders Husband to Pay ₹2 Lakh Monthly Maintenance to Wife and Son After Matrimonial Dispute
The respondent's lawyers countered that Saxena was never in possession, pointing out that only his name plate had been placed at the property entrance. They also stressed that the forensic report supported Singh’s original ownership documents and highlighted violations of the 2011 undertaking.
The division bench sided with the respondent. The Judges noted:
"It is undisputed that there is a violation of the undertaking dated 02.08.2011, whereby it was expressly agreed that no third-party rights would be created in respect of the property."
The bench further observed that Saxena, being the counsel of the deceased defendant, could not claim such personal interest in the client's property:
"Lawyers practising in the Court are considered officers of the Court… They are not expected to claim the interest in the property left behind by their clients."
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects Rajan’s Plea in 1998 Sirsa Murder Case, Flags Delay in Uploading HC Verdict
The Court also underlined that multiple claimants, including alleged heirs and the domestic help, had staked rights, making receivership necessary to preserve the property.
Decision
Finding no merit in the appeals, the High Court dismissed both FAO(OS) 60/2025 and FAO(OS) 75/2025. The bench upheld the earlier order of appointing a Receiver to safeguard the Gulmohar Park property and closed all pending applications linked to the matter.
With this, the High Court has effectively ensured that possession remains under neutral control until ownership is finally adjudicated.
Case title: Suraj Saxena vs Sarabjit Singh
Case no.: FAO(OS) 75/2025
Judgment Date: 18.08.2025
