A New York Grandson Sued for His Share of 44 Pusa Road. The Delhi High Court Sent the Family Deal to Trial.

On 29 September 2026 the Delhi High Court refused a decree on admission to Hardeep Sawhney, who lives in Melville, New York, and is suing his uncles to partition 44 Pusa Road, New Delhi. He said the uncles had admitted in a 2011 suit that the house belonged to his grandmother. The court held those old pleadings are not a clear admission, and that the uncles' 1963 family settlement, which leaves out his father's branch, must be proved or disproved by evidence.

The house, the heirs and the 1963 paper

The order is I.A. 42623/2024 in CS(OS) 669/2022, Hardeep Sawhney v. Swinder Singh Satara & Ors., decided by Justice Subramonium Prasad on 29 September 2026. It runs to 18 pages and carries a digital signature dated 5 October 2026.

Paragraph 2 sets out the plaintiff's case. He gives his address in Melville, New York, USA. The property is No. 44 Pusa Road, 1,466.67 square yards, bought by his grandmother Daler Kaur from Chandu Lall by a registered sale deed of 15 April 1953. His grandfather Harnam Singh died on 13 March 1977, and Daler Kaur died intestate on 25 January 1978. His father, Pritam Singh Satara, died on 10 November 2010 and left a registered Will of 22 September 2005 giving his 1/6th share to the plaintiff. After a legal notice of 29 August 2022, and word on 7 September 2022 that two uncles had talked of selling, he filed the suit when the two uncles did not come forward for partition in October 2022.

The uncles tell a different story (paragraphs 4 to 6). They say four sons paid to build the house between 1959 and 1962 under an oral family settlement, confirmed by a written "Agreement of Confirmation" of 14 August 1963 between six people: the parents and those four sons. The other two sons, the plaintiff's father and Sohan Singh Satara, "were settled and residing in Iran" and, on the uncles' case, took no share. Two of Sohan Singh's heirs and the three heirs of the daughter Prakash Kaur back the plaintiff's case that the house was Daler Kaur's own property (paragraph 3).

What the plaintiff asked for

He applied under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for judgment on admissions. His grounds, in paragraphs 9 to 12 and 24: in an earlier suit, CS(OS) No. 1726/2011, the uncles had pleaded that their mother bought the house by the 1953 deed, and never mentioned the 1963 agreement. A settlement signed by six members does not bind those who did not sign it, and a document that moves title has to be registered. The plaint claims 1/6th; the application asks for 1/8th, on the footing that all eight children inherit in equal shares (paragraph 24).

What the court held

The court said there is "no absolute proposition" that earlier pleadings can never be used under Order XII Rule 6 (paragraph 29). It then found these did not reach the bar.

• Defendant No. 2 had marked the 2011 pleadings "Matter of record". The court held that, at the highest, this acknowledges that the proceedings exist, not that every averment in them is true (paragraph 30).
• The legal effect of the family settlement and whether it needed registration "will be decided only in trial and not at this stage" (paragraph 31). The court noted the Supreme Court's rule in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) that a memorandum recording a completed family settlement does not need registration, and said it was not ruling on the point.
• "Whether the pleadings in an earlier Suit will amount to admission or not can be decided only during the trial" (paragraph 32).
• Leaving the settlement out of the 2011 suit is a circumstance for the evidence stage. It "cannot, by itself, be elevated into a categorical admission that the opposite position is true" (paragraph 33).

The application was dismissed (paragraph 37) and the suit was listed on 28 October 2026 (paragraph 38). The order does not decide who owns the house or what share anyone has.

What it means for an NRI heir

The order never uses the word NRI. It records that the plaintiff lives in the United States, and that the uncles' defence rests on his father's branch having lived in Iran when the house was built.

For an heir abroad, the order shows two limits on a fast decree. A co-owner's earlier pleadings in a different suit will be read against that suit's cause of action (paragraph 32). And an unregistered family paper, signed by some members and not others, is a question of evidence, not a point a court will strike out on an application. Our guides on inheriting property in India as an NRI and on a co-heir deadlock over inherited property set out how partition works.

FAQ

What did the Delhi High Court decide on 29 September 2026? It dismissed an application for judgment on admissions in a partition suit over 44 Pusa Road, New Delhi. It held that the defendants' pleadings in a 2011 suit were not clear and unequivocal admissions, and that the 1963 family settlement must be tested at trial.

Did the court rule on the 1963 family settlement? No. It said the settlement's legal effect and whether it needed registration will be decided at trial (paragraph 31).

Does the order say the plaintiff is an NRI? No. It records his address in Melville, New York, USA. The word NRI does not appear in the order.

Can a co-owner's pleadings in an earlier suit be used as an admission in a partition suit? The court said there is "no absolute proposition" that they never can (paragraph 29). Here it held that whether the 2011 pleadings amount to an admission can be decided only at trial (paragraph 32).

When is the suit next listed? The order lists the suit on 28 October 2026 (paragraph 38).

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• Hardeep Sawhney v. Swinder Singh Satara & Ors., I.A. 42623/2024 in CS(OS) 669/2022, CNR DLHC010402422022, Delhi High Court, Subramonium Prasad J, date of decision 29 September 2026, 18 pages, digital signature dated 5 October 2026. Full text read on 7 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114833127/
• The order quotes Pushpa v. Dayawati, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1013, on Order XII Rule 6. We have not read that judgment and rely only on the extract in paragraph 22. The Delhi High Court's own copy was not pulled.