Delhi District Court
Ravi Tej Kaur vs Mukesh Kumar Etc on 8 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAINA GUPTA,
ASCJ-JSCC-GJ, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.59967/2016
CNR no. DLNW030000812009
1.Ravi Tej Kaur, W/o Sh. Harjit Singh, r/o H.no. 115, Model Town, Sonepat, Haryana.
......Plaintiff Versus
1.Mukesh Kumar, s/o Sh. Daryao Singh, R/o H.No. 1985, VPO Alipur, Delhi-110036.
2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
...Defendants
Date of Institution : 15.07.2009
Date of Reserving of Order : 25.01.2025
Date of pronouncing Order : 08.04.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
1. The present suit involves a dispute between the parties with respect to a plot of land i.e. land measuring 1200 sq Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 1 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:05
+0530
yards situated out of khasra no. 320, village Siraspur, Delhi, abadi known as khasra no. 320, gali no. 1 and 2 Kushak road, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. Both the plaintiff and the defendant claim ownership over the suit property and source their ownership from the common previous owner namely Sh. Om Prakash.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. The plaintiff's case is that she purchased a land measuring 2340 sq yards situated out of khasra no. 320, village Siraspur, Delhi from Sh. Om Prakash s/o Mam Chand, r/o Village Siraspur, Delhi vide registered sale deed dated 14.10.1986 duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi vide registration no. 8882, book no. I, Volume no. 5014 on pages no. 162 to 164 dated 14.11.1986. After the registration of sale deed the plaintiff entered peaceful and vacant possession of the entire property i.e. 2340 sq yards. Out of 2340 sq yards, about 740 sq yards was acquired for constructing the road by the government and the plaintiff donated a land measuring 400 sq yards to Gurudwara Sh. Guru Singh Sabha (Regd.) on which presently a Gurudwara is existing. Now, the plaintiff is in possession of the land measuring 1200 sq yards and the same is shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff has approached the court as defendant no. 1 has tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property in June, 2009 and is trying to trespass in the property. The plaintiff has made calls at 100 number police in June, 2009 and also on the intervening night of 11.07.2009 and 12.07.2009. On 12.07.2009 plaintiff made written complaint against the defendant no. 1 in the police station.
Digitally signedSuit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 2 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:07 +0530
4. The plaintiff contends that the defendant no. 1 has forged and fabricated documents and has alleged himself to be the owner of the suit property. He is ascertaining his right of ownership on the basis of registered sale deed dated 28.12.2007, therefore the plaintiff has sought the relief of decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 28.12.2007 allegedly executed by Sh. Satyawan in favour of the defendant no. 1 with respect to the suit property is null and void and having no binding effect on the rights of the plaintiff over the suit property and further that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the remaining land measuring 1200 sq yards as duly shown in red colour in the site plan on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 14.10.1986. The plaintiff has also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from interfering into peaceful possession with the plaintiff in the suit property.
5. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction for the relief of declaration at Rs.
200/- each and the relief of injunction at Rs. 130/- only. Total court fees of Rs. 15+ Rs. 30 has been filed by the plaintiff.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT
6. The defendant no.1 also claims to be owner as well as in physical possession of the suit property. The defendant no. 1 submits that he purchased the suit property i.e. land measuring 1200 sq yards or 24/96 share out of khasra no. 320(4-16) situated in the Revenue Estate of village Siraspur, Delhi from one Sh. Satyawan, s/o Sh. Ved Singh, r/o VPO Singhu, Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 4, Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 3 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:58 +0530 40,000/- through a registered sale deed i.e. registration no. 13186 book no. 1 volume no. 1262 at page no. 187 to 191 dated 28.12.2007 with the Sub Registrar North-West at Alipur, Delhi. The mutation in respect of the above sale deed of agricultural land has also been sanctioned in the name of defendant no. 1 in the Revenue record of village Siraspur, Delhi.
7. The defendant no. 1 also traces his ownership from the common owner Sh. Om Prakash s/o Sh.Mam Chand. It is stated that one person namely Sh. Kishan Lal had purchased the land measuring 1200 sq yards from Sh. Om Prakash s/o Mam Chand through a registered sale deed with registration no. 1886 dated 14.11.1986 and accordingly mutation in respect of the said land was also sanctioned in the Revenue record of Village Siraspur, Delhi vide mishal no. 291/NT/N86-87. Thereafter Sh. Ved Singh purchased the same from Sh. Kishan Lal through a registered sale deed vide registration no. 10559, Add. Book no. 2, Volume no. 501 at page no.12 to 18 dated 15.12.1997. The mutation in respect of the land was done in the name of Sh. Ved Singh.
8. After the death of Sh. Ved Singh, his son Sh. Satyawan inherited the suit property from him. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from Sh. Satyawan by virtue of the sale deed mentioned above. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 is the recorded owner as well as in possession of the suit property since its purchase and before that the previous owner was also in possession of the suit property as per the Revenue record. Further it is stated that NOC was also issued by the revenue department Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 4 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:56 +0530 in every sale purchase of the agricultural land in question. Further, it is submitted that an order has been announced in favour of defendant no. 1 regarding construction of the boundary wall upto the height of 3 feet on the suit property and the same was sanctioned only after proper verification regarding the ownership and possession of the suit property of the defendant no. 1. It is stated that in the application filed for obtaining the permission for boundary wall, it is clearly indicated that a Gurudwara is situated in the East side and the remaining land is agricultural land.
9. The defendant has denied the entire case of the plaintiff. It is also contended that there is no entry in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and this creates a doubt about the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is also submitted that the plaintiff in the plaint has stated that she purchased land measuring 2340 sq yards while in the complaint to the SHO of PS Saroop Nagar, she stated that she purchased a plot of 1600 sq yards. The defendant has specifically denied that government had acquired any land out of khasra no. 320 and there is no entry in revenue record regarding the acquisition of the land by the government.
Further there is no compensation paid to the recorded owner as per the revenue record.
10.The defendant no. 1 has also raised objections with respect to maintainability of the suit that the suit property being agricultural land, this court has no jurisdiction and the same is barred under Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is submitted that the plaintiff should have approached the Additional Divisional Magistrate (ADM) for the Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 5 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:14 +0530 demarcation of the land which falls under Khasra no. 320 and therefore the suit is not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act.
11.Objection has also been raised with respect to the valuation of the suit property. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1 has paid the stamp duty on Rs. 4,40,000/- at the time of registration of his sale deed and therefore this court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit.
12. Objection with respect to limitation has also been taken by the defendant and it is contended that the suit is barred by limitation.
REPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
13.In replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the averments made in the plaint and has denied the entire case of the defendant. It is submitted that the entries in the revenue record are meant for the purpose of collection of Land Revenue and that the mutation in favour of the plaintiff does not confer any title upon the plaintiff. It is contended that when the land use is turned from agricultural to residential colony the land does not remain agricultural land and becomes residential land. The colony in which the suit land is situated is thickly populated and more than 85% of the plots have been constructed by the owners. The plaintiff has also constructed a portion of the said plot and she is in the constructive possession since the date of purchase.
14. It is submitted that every khasra comprises of 4840 sq yards and the land of the defendant may be somewhere else. The defendant no. 1 purchased the land on 28.12.2007 much later than the plaintiff. It is contended Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 6 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:09 +0530 that after execution of the sale deed by Sh. Om Prakash s/o Sh. Mam Chand in favour of the plaintiff, he did not have any right,title or interest remaining with him to transfer to the subsequent purchaser.
15. It is submitted that the plaintiff is already in possession of suit property, therefore the valuation for the purposes of court fees as per market rate is not needed. ISSUES
16.On completion of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 25.02.2016:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for in prayer no. (i) and (ii) of the amended plaint ? (OPP).
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as sought in prayer clause B ? (OPP) iii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (OPP) iv. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit? (OPD) v. Whether jurisdiction of this Court is barred by virtue of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act ? (OPD) vi. Whether the defendant has better title over the suit land as alleged on the basis of sale document dated 27.12.2007 or 28.12.2007 ? (OPD) vii. Relief.
REPORT OF THE LOCAL COMMISSIONER
17.Before the commencement of the trial, the local commissioner was appointed by the court vide order dated 27.01.2010 to visit the suit property and ascertain as to who is in actual physical possession of the suit property and what is the extent of construction existing there.Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 7 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:08 +0530 Accordingly, a report was filed by Sh. Abdul Gaffar Advocate. In the report he stated that on visit to the suit property on 31.01.2010 at about 10.30 am he recorded the statements of some neighbours and also took photographs of the suit property. Two of the witnesses Sh. Paramjeet Singh and Sh. Gopal Singh stated that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and she often visits the same. On the contrary two of the witnesses namely Mohd. Younus and Sh. Narender Singh stated that they have seen Sh. Mukesh Kumar, defendant sometimes doing cultivation work. However, all the witnesses stated that no construction activity was done ever in the plot and this fact was also personally verified by the local commissioner. It is stated that it is apparent from the pictures of the suit property that no construction activity exists in the suit property. It is an open plot without boundary wall and is not possessed by any of the parties. There is no cultivation activity present nor there is any crop or vegetation except wild greenery.
18.None of the parties have examined the local commissioner in support of their case. Further, no objections to the report of the local commissioner have also been filed. It is not in dispute between the parties that the suit property is an open and vacant plot of land.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
19.In order to prove her case, plaintiff has examined herself as as PW-1. She also examined seven other witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. The PW-1 tendered evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the documents Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/7.Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 8 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:05 +0530 In the affidavit the averments in the plaint have been reiterated. The documents relied upon are as follows:-
i. Ex. PW-1/1 is the site plan ii. Ex. PW-1/2 is the sale deed dated 14.10.1986 iii. Ex. PW-1/3 is the Original complaint dated 12.07.2009 given to the SHO which was duly acknowledged by the police which bears his signature at point C. iv. Ex. PW-1/4 iss the complaint given by the Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha (regd) to the SHO, PS Swaroop nagar (objected to the mode of proof) v. Ex. PW-1/5 is the letter sent by the said gurudwara to the Ld. Civil Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi. vi. Ex. PW-1/6 is the complaint dated 05.02.2015 sent by witness to the SHO and other higher authorities which bears her signature at point D and E. vii. Ex. PW-1/7 are the Postal receipts.
20.PW-1 has been cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
21.PW-2 i.e. Sh. Paramjeet Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A which bears his signatures at point A and B and relied upon documents already exhibited PW-1/4 and Ex. PW-1/5. He stated in his affidavit that he is the neighbour of the plaintiff for about 4-5 years and earlier he has also been the President of Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha Management Committee. He submitted that the plaintiff donated 400 sq yards of land out of Khasra no. 320 village Siraspur to the Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha. The Gurudwara Committee has raised Gurudwara on the said land. He also submitted that out of the 2340 sq yards purchased by the plaintiff, land Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 9 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:08 +0530 measuring 740 sq yards was acquired by the government for construction of roads. He submitted that the suit property is located in thickly populated residential colony where more than 85 % plots were constructed by their owners and there is also a boundary wall around the plot. The plaintiff also got fixed a submersible pump on the plot later on which was illegally removed by the defendant no.
1. During the occasions of Puranmasi and Gurupurav, the suit property in possession of the plaintiff is used by the gurudwara for the purposes of kirtan and langar with the permission of the plaintiff.
22.The witness was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. During cross examination, he stated that in 1986 he alongwith his family were residing in Jahangir Puri but in the year 2000 he shifted to Saroop Nagar and he is well known to the plaintiff because he goes to the shop of the plaintiff to purchase bed sheets and curtains. He saw the title documents of the plaintiff when she donated 400 sq yard land to the Gurudwara Committee. There is gurudwara at the northern side and vacant plot at the southern side. There are residential houses at the eastern and western side. He deposed that no written document was taken from the plaintiff to show donation of land measuring 400 sq yards. There is no written document to show that kirtan or gurupurab were performed at the suit property. He admitted it to be correct that the suit property is lying vacant.
23.PW-3 Sh. Daljeet Singh also tendered his affidavit Ex.
PW-3/1. He also relied upon the document which was already Ex. PW-1/5. In his affidavit, he also deposed on Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 10 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:56 +0530 similar lines as PW-2. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the defendant he stated that he is not a witness to the sale deed dated 14.11.1986. He knows the plaintiff because he used to purchase cloths from her shop. He stated that the property of 400 sq yards was donated to the gurudwara by the plaintiff approximately 20 years back and no documents were executed in his presence with regard to the donation of 400 sq yards for gurudwara. He also stated that he had not seen any document with regard to acquisition of 740 sq yards by the government. The defendant no. 1 started claiming to be the owner of suit property for the last 7-8 years. He also stated that he has not seen any agricultural activities in the suit property as the land is surrounded by residential area. He stated that the plaintiff purchased 2340 sq yards land to reside there and not for agricultural activities.
24.PW-4 Sh. Anoop Singh brought the summoned record i.e. sale deed dated 14.10.1986 executed by Om Prakash in favour Ravi Tej Kaur vide registration no. 8882 in additional book no. 1, Vol. 5014 on pages 162-164, registered on 14.11.1986. Copy of the same was on record, already Ex. PW-1/1. He stated that the same was correct according to the record brought by him. As per his record, no sale deed vide registration no. 8882 dated 14.11.1986 in respect of the suit property was registered.
25.PW-5 Sh. Bijender Singh was also a summoned witness.
He deposed that he remained in PS Swaroop Nagar w.e.f. November 2015 to October 2017. He was Sub Inspector at that time. Since October 2017, he was posted at District Line Ashok Vihar. He stated that the record pertaining to Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 11 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:58 +0530 the complaint dated 12.07.2009 sent by Smt. Ravi Tej Kaur against Sh. Mukesh Kumar acknowledged by the PS Swaroop Nagar has been destroyed. He deposed that he did not have any knowledge regarding the said complaint and there was no record maintained with respect to the same. Another complaint dated 05.02.2015 in continuation of the earlier complaint dated 12.07.2009 as mentioned above was not marked to him. He does not know to whom the said complaint dated 05.02.2015 was assigned for investigation. He had not carried out any investigation on the aforesaid complaint. He later said that he had filed ATR regarding the investigation on the basis of the complaint dated 05.02.2015. He had made investigation only on the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C filed by the complainant against the accused person including the defendant herein from the court of ld. MM. He had recorded the statement of the daughter in law of late Sh.Om Prakash who sold the property in question to the plaintiff. He has not filed the said statement in this case. He had also recorded the statements of Sh. Guru Singh Saheb, Sh. Paramjit Singh and Sh. Parvinder Singh. Sh. Paramjit Singh and Sh. Parvinder Singh have also given the letter dated 18.11.2016 to him which bears their signatures at point B and point A, respectively. The said letter is exhibited as PW-5/1. He had also recorded the statement of Sh. Satyawan, his wife and the mother of Sh. Satyawan. Except that, he had not carried out any investigation on the said complaint of the plaintiff.
26.PW-6 Sh. Parmod was also a summoned witness who is the son of Late Sh. Om Prakash. He stated that during the Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 12 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:11 +0530 lifetime of his father he had seen him writing and signing etc. His father knew English and Hindi. His father used to sign in Hindi. He identified the signatures of his father on the sale deed dated 14.10.1986 at 3 pages.
27.Initially the plaintiff evidence was closed after examination of the above witnesses, however, the plaintiff moved an application for leading rebuttal evidence u/o XVIII Rule III r/w Section 151 CPC after the closure of evidence of defendant. The same was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2020 and the plaintiff examined two more witnesses PW-7 and PW-8.
28.PW-7 Sh. Naveen Kumar was also a summoned witness who brought the register containing the original registered Will dated 02.11.1998, executed by Ved Singh s/o Sh.
Uday Dayanand in favour of Naresh Kumar, S/o Sh. Daya Nand in respect of Plot no. 6, 8 and 10 measuring 306 sq. yards, out of total land measuring 1200 sq. yard, out of khasra no. 320 situated in the area of village Siraspur, Delhi. He had also brought the copy of the original registered Will and the photocopy of the same was Ex. PW-7/A (objected to mode of proof). He also brought record pertaining to the registered GPA dated 02.11.1998 executed by Ved Singh in favour of Naresh Kumar vide registration no. 62778 volume 1788 pages 174-175, book no. 4, villaged Jatti Khurd, Sonepat, Haryana. He had also brought the photocopy of the said registered GPA and the same is Ex. PW-7/B (objected to mode of proof). He deposed that he had not dealt with this record. He had no knowledge about the present suit as to which property relates to the said suit.
Digitally signedSuit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 13 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:03 +0530
29.PW-8 Sh. Vikas Tushir is son of Sh. Naresh Kumar. He deposed that his father died on 20.08.2012. He does not know what business he was doing. He identified his signatures on the document Mark A at point A. He stated that he gave the statement to the IO after having read the case sheet. He submitted that he does not know anything about the present case and he does not want to be a witness for any of the parties. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff put two documents i.e. Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW- 7/B to the witness and asked the witness to identify the signatures of his father (objected to by Ld. Counsel for defendant). Witness submitted that he was not in a position to appear before the court as he had to take care of his younger brother who was suffering from fourth stage Cancer. His examination was deferred for the next date and on 11.07.2024, the witness further submitted that his statement was recorded on 24.08.2022 in criminal case titled Ravi Tej Kaur vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Complaint case no. 10881/2016 which was pending in the court of Sh. Gaurav Kataria, MM, Rohini Court, Delhi. The witness identified his signatures on the copy of evidence recorded before the Ld. MM earlier marked as A and now Ex. PW 8/1. The witness was questioned that in the said statement, he had identified the signatures of his father on documents Ex. CW 8/1 which are related to property of plot of land measuring 306 sq. yards out of Khasra no. 320, situated in Siraspur, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. The witness answered that no documents were shown to him while recording of evidence.
30.Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 14 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:06 +0530 11.07.2024.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
31.The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and also examined 08 other witnesses. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A wherein the averments made in the written statement have been reiterated. He has also placed reliance on following documents:-
i. Sale deed dt. 28. 12.2007 in affidavit it has marked as PW-1/2 now same is de-exhibited as Ex. DW1/1 (OSR);
ii. Mutation / Revenue record dt. 14.06.2007 in affidavit it has marked as PW1/3 now same is de- exhibited as Ex, DW1/2. In fact it is Khatoni of the year 2003-04:
iii. Sale deed executed by Sh. Kishan Lal in favour of Sh. Ved Singh dt. Nil vide registration no. 10559 registered all dt. 15.1297 marked as Mark A:
iv. Original Khatoni for the year 1990-91 bearing mishal no. M-726/CO97-98 order dt. 30.03.1998 in affidavit it has marked as PW-1/4 now same is de- exhibited as Ex. DW-1/3:
v. Photocopy of certified copy of sale deed dt.
14.10.1986 executed by Sh. Om Prakash in favour of Sh. Kishan Lal marked as Mark B:
vi. Certified copy of report of patwari for the year 1986-87 vide M.No 291/NTN86 87 as Ex. DWI/4; vii. Certified copy of proceeding regarding identification in respect ofKhasra No. 320, Village Siraspur, Delhi as Ex. DW-1/5 viii.Original order dt. 09.06.09 passed by SDM Narela Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 15 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:15 +0530 as Ex. DW-1/6:
ix. Photocopy of report of Patwari dt. 03.06.2009 and photocopy of application for grant of permission regarding boundary wall marked as Mark C and D; x. Original of Khasra Girdawari for the year 2007.08 and 2008-09(two copies) as Ex. DW-1/7 (colly): 6 Photographs as Ex. DW-1/8 (colly):
(AIl the documents which are exhibited and mark Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/8 are objected to regarding the mode of proof and the exhibition of the same)
32.DW-1 has been cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
33.DW-2 Sh. Hukam Singh, Junior Assistant, Sub Registrar office was a summoned witness who had brought the original record of sale deed dated 28.12.2007 and the same is Ex. DW-1/1.
34.DW 3 Sh. Chhattar Pal Singh, Kanungo, Record Room had brought the mutation record vide misal no. M790/2007-08 dated 18.01.2008, Village Saraspur Mukesh Kumar vs Satyawan, the photocopy of the same is Ex. DW-3/A (colly) (26 pages OSR). The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present case.
35.DW 4 Sh. O.P. Sayal, Bailiff brought the summoned record i.e. boundary wall permission dated 09.06.2009 which is Ex. DW-1/6 dated 14.08.2019 from SDM, Alipur Office, Delhi. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present case. During cross Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 16 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:01 +0530 examination, the witness deposed that the area of Siraspur is urbanized and there are several residential buildings and the commercial buildings in the said area. He had not visited any site.
36.DW 5 Sh. Arvind Kumar, Patwari brought the summoned record i.e. O-4 register containing O-4 shumar number 300 of Khata Khatoni no. 497/562 bearing order dated 18.01.2008 in mishal no. 790/2007-08 in respect of Khasra no. 320(4-16) Village Siraspur, Delhi from name of Satyavan s/o Sh.Ved Singh to Sh. Mukesh Kumar s/o Sh. Daryao Singh, having 24/96 share, which comes to 1 bigha 4 bishwa. Copy of the same is Ex. DW-5/1. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present case.
37. DW 6 Sh. Sandeep Kadyan, Patwari from SDM office, Alipur, Delhi brought the register of Khatoni of Village Siraspur of the year 2003-04. The documents Ex. DW-6/1 to Ex. DW-6/3 were exhibited by him (objected to regarding the admissibility as well as the mode of proof). The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present case.
38. DW 7 Sh. S.N. Bagri, Record Keeper, Kanungo, SDM office brought the summoned record i.e. report dated 04.09.2009. He stated that he cannot identified the signature of the person who prepared the report dated 04.09.2009 and the same was marked as mark Y. The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 17 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:09 +0530 of the present case.
39.DW 8 Sh. Vikas Kumar, Data Entry Operator, office of Sub Registrar VI-A, Pitampura brought the certified copy of sale deed executed by Sh. Kishan Lal in favour of Sh. Ved Singh registered on 15.12.1997 vide registration no. 10559 additional book no 1, pages 12 to 18 and the same was Ex. DW-8/1 (objected to regarding the mode of proof and admissibility of the document). The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present case.
40.DW 9 Sh. Hira Lal, Preservation Assistant, Department of Delhi Archives brought the summoned record i.e. Sale Deed dated 14.10.1986 alleged to executed by Om Prakash in favour of Kishan Lal. The same was Ex. DW-9/1 (objected to regarding mode of proof as original of the alleged sale deed has not been filed or shown to the witness). The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present case.
41.Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed on 28.02.2020.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
42. Detailed arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties and written arguments have also been filed.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 3:- Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (OPP)
43. This issue is taken up first being preliminary in nature.
44.To decide this issue, it is necessary to give a brief history Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 18 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:03
+0530
of the proceedings that took place before the court. Initially, on 15.07.2009, the plaintiff had filed a suit for seeking simplicitor permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The defendant filed written statement on 02.09.2009 wherein he also claimed ownership over the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 28.12.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application U/o 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint on 18.09.2012 and sought the relief of declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit property and the sale deed dated 28.12.2007 alleged to have been executed by Satyawan in favour of Defendant no.1 in respect of the suit property is null and void.
45.The defendant no. 1 has taken the objection that the information regarding the registration of Sale Deed and the claim of ownership was given to the plaintiff by filing written statement on 02.09.2009 but the application for amendment was filed on 18.09.2012 and therefore, the relief of declaration has become time barred. It is contended that as per the mandate of article 56/58 of First schedule of the Limitation Act 1963, the limitation to file a suit for declaration is 3 years from the date of knowledge to the plaintiff. After filing of the written statement by the defendant on 02.09.2009 the plaintiff had knowledge of the claim of ownership as well as the sale deed in favour of the defendant no.1. Therefore the plaintiff was obliged to move an application under order 6 rule 17 CPC within 3 years from 02.09.2009, however the same application was moved only on 24.09.2012 making the relief of declaration Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 19 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:02
+0530
claimed by the plaintiff as time barred. It is further argued that if the plaintiff had filed a fresh suit for declaration in the same nature the suit would have been barred by limitation therefore the plaintiff could not have sought the same relief indirectly by way of an application under order 6 rule 17 CPC. Further, it is argued that the plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that the suit is not barred by limitation.
46.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has advanced arguments that the application under order 6 rule 17 CPC has already been allowed vide order dated 14.10.2014 and the same order has not been challenged. It is contended that the cause of action is continuing and therefore the suit is not barred by limitation.
47. At the time of adjudication of the application u/o 6 rule 17 CPC, the defendant had taken the above objections as well. The court in the order dated 14.10.2014 while allowing the application U/o 6 rule 17 CPC observed that the question of limitation was not required to be decided at the stage of amendment and parties can raise the same during trial. According, an issue on the question of limitation was framed by the court on 25.02.2016 and the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the suit is within limitation.
48. The present suit is for seeking declaration of ownership as well as for seeking declaration that the sale deed in favour of the defendant executed by Sh. Satywan is null and void. The limitation for filing a suit for declaration is given under article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and the same is three years from the time when the right to sue first accrues. Further, under article 56 to declare the Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 20 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:01 +0530 forgery of an instrument issued or registered, the limitation is three years from the time when the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff under article 56 of the Limitation Act. Further, the limitation to cancel or set aside an instrument is also three years from the time when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside, first become known to him under article 59 of the Limitation Act. Though in the present case, the plaintiff is seeking declaration that the sale deed/instrument in favour of the defendant be declared as null and void, the declaration is in the nature of cancellation of the instrument or declaration that the instrument is forged, covered under article 56 or article 59 of the schedule to the Limitation Act. In both the scenarios the limitation is three years from the date when the existence of the sale deed came into the knowledge of the plaintiff. Further the right to sue for relief of declaration arose in favour of the plaintiff as soon as a cloud was cast upon the title of the plaintiff on the filing of the written statement by the defendant and the limitation for the same is also three years. Thus, filing of the application for amendment of plaint after a period of three years from the date of filing of written statement was time barred.
49.Generally, the doctrine of relation back is applicable to the amendments allowed by the court as per which it shall be deemed that once the amendment is allowed, the amendment in the plaint was there on the date of institution of the suit itself. However, the general principle is not applicable universally and has exceptions. No party can introduce a fresh relief by way of amendment which Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 21 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:02 +0530 he or she cannot do independently by filing a separate suit because of the reason of bar of limitation. Thus, in the present case although the amendment has been allowed, the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that the reliefs sought by him were within limitation.
50.The Ld. Counsel for the defendant in his written arguments has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Visham Bhar vs Lakminarayana, AIR 2001 S.C. 2607, (2001) 6 SCC
163. In this case, the suit was originally filed for seeking declaration that the sale by the mother of the plaintiffs of their property while they were minor was void ab initio, however, later by an amendment a prayer was made that the sales are voidable and the same be set aside. The trial court applied the doctrine of relation back and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as if such a prayer was there on the date of the institution of suit. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and held that the suit for setting aside the transfer could be taken to have been filed on the date the amendment of the plaint was allowed and not earlier than that. Relevant excerpts from the judgment are reproduced for ready reference:-
"Regarding the suit filed by Vishwambhar it was filed within the prescribed period of limitation but without the prayer for setting aside the sale deeds. Since the claim for recovery of possession of the properties alienated could not have been made without setting aside the sale deeds the suit as initially filed was not maintainable. By the date the defect was rectified (December, 1985) by introducing such a prayer by amendment of the plaint the prescribed period of limitation for seeking such a relief had elapsed. In the circumstances the amendment of the plaint could not come to the rescue of the plaintiff.
From the averments of the plaint it cannot be said that all the necessary averments for setting aside the sale deeds executed Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 22 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:06 +0530 by Laxmibai were contained in the plaint and adding specific prayer for setting aside the sale deeds was a mere formality. As noted earlier, the basis of the suit as it stood before the amendment of the plaint was that the sale transactions made by Laxmibai as guardian of the minors were ab initio void and, therefore, liable to be ignored. By introducing the prayer for setting aside the sale deeds the basis of the suit was changed to one seeking setting aside the alienations of the property by the guardian. In such circumstance the suit for setting aside the transfers could be taken to have been filed on the date the amendment of the plaint was allowed and not earlier than that."
51.Another landmark judgment on this subject is in the case of Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu and Anr, AIR 2002 S.C. 3369, (2002) 7 SCC 559. In this case, the plaintiff had originally filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging possession over the suit property. However, once the defendant pleaded that he was in possession, the plaintiff after a period of 11 years after the filing of the suit sought to amend the suit and also seek relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of recovery of possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the amendment incorporating the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession only from the date of application for amendment and not on the date of filing of the suit.
52.Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Nawal Kishore Mehta @ Nawal Mehta vs. Shashi Bansal @ Babli, 2014 IV AD(Delhi) 409. The facts of the case were that a suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of arrears of rent was filed by the plaintiff and plea was taken that relief of declaration that the documents of the defendant were forged and fabricated was time barred. Prior to filing of civil suit, proceedings before the Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 23 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:57 +0530 Additional Rent Controller took place wherein the defendant had filed a written statement but the final order of the court of Additional Rent Controller was passed later. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the limitation to seek declaration that the documents relied upon by the defendant were forged and fabricated began to run only when the final judgment of the Additional Rent Controller was passed and not from the date of the filing of the written statement. It was held that until the conclusion of the proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller, the cause of action in favour of the plaintiff was continuing. The facts of this case are distinguishable from the instant case. Herein there is no on-going previous proceedings and the cause of action to sue arose when cloud was cast upon the title of the plaintiff by filing of the written statement by the defendant on 02.09.2009.
53.The facts of the case in Sampath Kumar (Supra) are similar to the facts of the instant case. In this case also the original suit was filed on 15.07.2009 and despite taking of defence of ownership and possession in the written statement filed on 02.09.2009, the plaintiff sought amendment to the suit through an application u/o 6 rule 17 CPC only on 24.09.2012 which was beyond the period of three years from the date of knowledge of the sale deed in favour of the defendant as well as knowledge of the cloud being cast on the title of the plaintiff.
54.The rights of the defendant acquired under law of limitation cannot be extinguished through an amendment. If on 24.09.2012 the plaintiff could not have filed a suit for seeking declaration of ownership and that the sale deed in Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 24 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:00 +0530 favour of the defendant is null and void for the reason that the same was barred by limitation, he cannot seek the same relief through an amendment in the existing suit. In such a case, the amendment must be taken to be from the date of amendment and not prior to that. In view of the discussion above this court is of the view that the doctrine of relation back cannot apply to the amendment allowed vide order dated 14.10.2014 and the same must be treated as if the relief was sought only on 24.09.2012 on which date it was barred by limitation.
55.For the reasons stated above, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the relief of declaration is claimed within limitation. Further without claiming the relief of declaration, the original suit filed for simplicitor injunction was not maintainable. Therefore, issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. ISSUE NO. 4:- Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? (OPD)
56. The onus of proving this issue is on the defendant. The defendant has contended that he purchased the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 28.12.2007 and has paid the stamp duty on Rs. 4,40,000/-. It is argued that the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration that the said Sale Deed be declared as Null and Void and further the plaintiff be declared an owner of the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff was required to value the suit property on the market value which is not less than Rs. 4,40,000/.
57.The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and for the relief of declaration at Rs.
Digitally signedSuit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 25 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:55 +0530 200/- each and for the relief of injunction at Rs. 130/-.
58.Arguments on the issue of valuation of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction as well as court fees have been heard on behalf of both the parties. In this regard, it is submitted on behalf of defendant that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is in physical possession of the suit property and therefore she was obliged to seek the consequential relief of possession and value the suit accordingly. Further it is argued that the plaintiff is seeking declaration that the sale deed in favour of the defendant be declared as null and void. The sale deed dated 18.12.2007 is for a consideration amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- and the plaintiff was required to value the suit for the purposes of court fees as well as jurisdiction at the said amount in the plaint. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has advanced arguments that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff was not required to value the suit at the market value of the suit property for the purposes of jurisdiction as well as court fees.
59.At the cost of reiteration it is necessary to state the reliefs being sought by the plaintiff: -
"A. Pass a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; i. Thereby declaring/holding that the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the remaining piece of land measuring 1200 sq yards.
ii. Thereby declaring/holding that the sale deed dated 28.12.2007 alleged to have been executed by Sh. Satyawan in favour of the defendant in respect Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 26 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:08 +0530 of the suit property is null and void and has no binding effect on the rights of ownership of plaintiff over the said land.
B. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property".
60.The court fees in a case for a declaratory decree and consequential relief is determined by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act is reproduced for ready reference:-
"Section 7 (iv) (c): to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed; According to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.
Provided further that in suits coming under sub clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is in with reference to any property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for sub clause
(v) of this Section."
61.The present suit is for seeking declaration that the plaintiff be declared as owner of the suit property and that the documents i.e. the sale deed covering immovable property are void and consequential reliefs are being sought. Therefore, the present suit is with reference to property and therefore, the valuation for the purposes of court fees shall not be less than the value calculated under section 7 Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 27 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:10 +0530
(v) of the Court Fees Act. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Purshottam Dass and Ors. Vs. Har Narain and Anr, AIR 1978 Delhi 114. In this case, a suit for declaration that a Will was null and void was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, and it was held that the relief being sought was in essence in relation to an immovable property.
62.Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced for ready reference:
"53. The question arises as to what are those properties and whether they are covered within the meaning of word "property" as stated in the proviso. As noticed earlier, in the averments in the plaint, the property covered by the will relates to immovable property of Ramdwara and the properties attached thereto as well as agricultural land and cash. It is the title to these properties which the defendants claim by virtue of the will which is being disputed by the plaintiffs. The immovable property and the agricultural land are certainly properties within the meaning of the second proviso and their valuation can be calculated in the manner provided by clause (v) of Section 7. The title of the defendants to the cash covered by the will is not within the purview of the expression "any property" in the second proviso but that does not mean that the said proviso would cease to be applicable completely because "cash" is the part of the property in relation to the relief sought.
54. The question then arises how the suit will be valued where part of the relief sought is with reference to the expression "any property" covered by the second proviso and partly not covered by it. The second proviso would be applicable to the extent where the relief sought is with reference to "any property" within the meaning of the second proviso and the valuation of the suit in relation to "any property" not covered by the proviso will be governed by the substantive part of this statutory provision, namely Section 7(iv)(c) but it cannot be said that the second proviso would be totally inapplicable. It would still be applicable to the extent the relief sought is with reference to any property within the meaning of the second provision"
63.In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors Supra also it has been held that when a consequential Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 28 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:59 +0530 relief alongwith relief of declaration is sought, the court fee shall be computed accordingly to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint u/s 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. The proviso to it makes it clear that when the declaration with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.
64.In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking decree of declaration alongwith relief of permanent injunction. The relief of permanent injunction is consequential to the relief of declaration as the same cannot be sought independently and flows directly from the decree of declaration. Therefore, the present case is covered by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act.
65.Further, even if the relief of declaration is taken to be independent and it is considered that the relief of permanent injunction is not consequential, then also the plaintiff was required to value the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the suit property. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Rules in Volume I, Chaper III, Part C wherein Rule no.7 is as follows:
"Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for a mere declaration without any consequential relief in respect of property other than assessed to land revenue.
Value - (a) For the purposes of the Court-fees Act, 1887, as determined by the Act.
(b) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act, Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 29 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:04 +0530 1887, and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - the market value of the property in dispute, at the date of institution of the suit, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the rules in force under the said Part, so far as those provisions are applicable".
66. Therefore, even when only relief of declaration is sought, the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction is at the market value of the suit property only. In such a scenario when only declaration is sought without any consequential relief, the plaintiff may pay fixed court fees but still the suit is to be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the suit property only. But the facts of this case are different, the plaintiff is also seeking consequential reliefs which flow from the primary relief of declaration.
67. Further, the relief of declaration that the sale deed be declared null and void is in the nature of relief of cancellation of sale deed and in this regard Rule 10 of Part C, Chapter III of the Delhi High Court rules is applicable and the valuation for the purposes of the jurisdiction is at the value of the subject matter of the suit. In this case, the consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed dated 28.12.2007 (Ex. DW-1/1) is Rs. 4,40,000/- and the plaintiff was required to value the suit for the purposes of court fees as well as jurisdiction at the said amount.
68. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not valued the suit for the relief of declaration as well as consequential reliefs correctly and the calculation of the plaintiff of the valuation of the suit Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 30 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:11 +0530 for the purposes of jurisdiction as well as court fees is grossly inadequate. If the plaintiff had valued the suit correctly for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 4,40,000/-, the same would have been beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/-. The plaintiff was in knowledge of this defence taken by the defendant and an issue regarding the same was also framed by the court. But she did not take any steps to correct the valuation.
69. In view of the discussion above, defendant has successfully proved that this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 5:- Whether jurisdiction of this court is barred by virtue of section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act? (OPD)
70. The Defendant has raised preliminary objection that the present suit is not maintainable before the civil court as the suit property is an agricultural land and the plaintiff ought to apply for demarcation to the Revenue Authorities. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has advanced arguments that the suit property ceased to be a rural area vide notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi dated 23.04.1982. Copy of the notification has been placed on record and it is submitted that the area falls in Revenue Estate, Badli, North Zone. Further, vide notification dated 16.05.2017 at Sr. no. 46, Village Siraspur ceased to be a rural area. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has placed reliance upon several judgments wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 31 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:11 +0530 has held that once the land has been urbanized, proceedings under Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 would not be maintainable.
71. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has advanced the arguments that at the time of filing of the suit, the village Siraspur was not urbanized. He submitted that in the notifications placed on record by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff itself, it is clear that the name of village Siraspur is not mentioned in the notification dated 23.04.1982 and as per the notification date 16.05.2017, the area was urbanized only in 2017. It is contended that if village Siraspur was already urbanized in 1982, there was no requirement for the government to issue another notification for urbanization of the same in 2017. In this regard, he has placed on record a copy of an Unstarred question no. 678 taken up in the Lok Sabha with respect to urbanization of villages which was answered on 05.03.2002 that village Siraspur has been recommended for urbanization, however Government of Delhi is yet to approve the proposal. Therefore, it is contended that at the time of filing of the suit, there was no notification with respect to urbanization of the suit property.
72. In the written arguments filed on behalf of defendant, it is submitted that the present suit is with respect to the declaration of Plaintiff's Bhumidari rights which issue can be decided only by the revenue authorities and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred u/s 185 r/w schedule I, Article 4/18/19 of DLR Act.
73. The case of the plaintiff has been that the suit property is not an agricultural land, and no cultivation has been carried Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 32 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:13 +0530 out on the land for last many years. Witnesses PW 2, PW 3 as well as DW 4 deposed before the court that there are residential houses around the suit property and there is one Gurudwara on one side. DW 4 deposed that the area of Siraspur is urbanized. When the notification with respect to urbanization of village Siraspur had already been passed, whether in the year 1982 or in the year 2017, at present no revenue authority has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present issue. It is only a civil court which can decide upon the issue of ownership on the basis of title of the parties. The present suit is filed based on sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and this court has the jurisdiction to decide the same being not expressly barred by any law.
74. Further, it is important to note that the suit property has lost the character of an agricultural land for the last several years. All the witnesses who have been questioned upon the aspect of existence of residential properties except the defendant himself have unanimously answered that there are residences in existence in the vicinity of the suit property. Therefore, it is evident that the user of the land is as residential and not agricultural. It is the defendant alone who has stated before the court that the land was being used for cultivation of jowar however no evidence has been led by the defendant in support of his submission. Further in the sale deed Ex. DW1/1 in favour of the defendant it has been mentioned that the defendant has purchased the land for residential purpose. Therefore, in view of the current user of the land as residential and also existence of a notification urbanising the suit property this court holds that provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act are not Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 33 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:05 +0530 applicable, and the jurisdiction of this court is not barred. Accordingly, issue no. 5 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for in prayer no. (i) and (ii) of the amended plaint? (OPP).
75. Although the suit for the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view of the findings on issue no. 3 and 4, however, in view of rule 2 order XIV, the court must pronounce judgment on all the issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue.
76. The plaintiff has successfully proved the sale deed Ex. PW-1/2(OSR) executed in his favour by Sh. Om Prakash on 14.10.1986 registered on 14.11.1986 in respect of a piece of land measuring 2340 sq yards out of khasra no. 320 of village Siraspur, Delhi by producing the original sale deed as well as by examining PW4, the Registrar and PW-6 Sh. Pramod, the son of the vendor Sh. Omprakash who identified the signatures of his father on the sale deed Ex. PW-1/2.
77. The plaintiff's case is that out of 2340 sq yards she donated 400 sq yards of property to the gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha (Reg) and 740 sq yards was acquired by the Government for construction of road. The plaintiff has not led any documentary evidence to prove the same. PW- 2 and PW-3 officials on behalf of the gurudwara committee have been examined who stated that the plaintiff had donated land measuring 400 sq yards to the gurudwara however no details regarding the mode of donation have been mentioned. Further, PW-1, PW-2 and Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 34 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:07 +0530 PW-3 unanimously deposed that there are no documents evidencing the said donation of land. Further no document regarding acquiring of any portion of the plaintiff's land by the government has been placed on record. Under section 122 and Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift of immovable property must be affected by registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. Therefore, no gift with respect to an immovable property can be made orally and requires registration and attestation by at least two witnesses. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff that she donated/gifted land measuring 400 sq yards to the gurudwara cannot be accepted in the eyes of law.
78. Further, the acquisition of land measuring 740 sq yards without any kind of documents, cannot be believed.
Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that land measuring 400 sq yards was donated to the gurudwara and that land measuring 740 sq yards was acquired by the government.
79. In the sale deed of the plaintiff, Ex. PW-1/2 it is stated that the property measuring 2340 sq yards under sale is bounded as under:-
North- property of Budhan, South- Property of Surender Kumar, West-Road, East- Property of Bodhan Singh.
80.Ever since the purchase of the land measuring 2340 sq yards in 1986 the plaintiff has not constructed the same and there is no demarcation of the land of the plaintiff. Further, there is not a single revenue entry in favour of the Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 35 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:59 +0530 plaintiff. Now the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration of ownership with respect to a portion of 1200 sq yards out of 2340 sq yards. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to prove that she is in possession of the portion shown in red in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1. In the site plan the cardinal directions are not given. Assuming that top is north, the red portion is bounded by the following properties: -
North- Others built up plots, South- Road 20 feet wide, West- Built up gurudwara East- Road 30 feet wide.
81. There is no evidence led on behalf of plaintiff to ascertain that in the khasra no. 320 the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land as shown in red in the site plan and it is the same property which the plaintiff had acquired vide sale deed Ex. PW-1/2. The boundaries of the properties as mentioned in the sale deed and the site plan do not match. The plaintiff has failed to prove that her property was acquired by the Government for construction of the road or that the gurudwara shown on the West side of the suit property is constructed on land originally owned by her. Further, it is not stated who is the owner of the adjoining plot in the north of the suit property.
82. The cross examination of PW 1 dated 26.04.2016 is relevant in this regard and important excerpts are reproduced for ready reference:-
"I did not get the demarcation of the said plot done from the said authorities. Till date, I have not made enquiry regarding the aforesaid facts. The land which Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 36 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:04 +0530 is acquired by the government was from my plot. I did not file any document regarding this. I did not write any letter to the authority for issuance of land acquisition letter in my favour. There is no gift deed of the land regarding the donation of the land to the Gurudwara. I did not receive any compensation in respect of the land acquired by the government. I have not filed any case against the government to claim compensation for the land acquired by the government. I do not have any document to show that I donated 400 sq yards land to gurudwara. I cannot tell month and year of donation of land. At this stage, site plan Ex. PW-1/1 is shown to the witness and she is asked whose property is behind the suit property to which the witness replied that she does not know....
I applied to the Revenue Department for mutation. The mutation of the property was done in our name. I do not know whether documents regarding mutation of the suit property have been filed or not. It is wrong to suggest that our mutation application was rejected and that is the reason for not filing mutation document in the court record".
83. From the cross examination of the plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiff is not aware as to who is the owner of the adjoining plot and she could not give satisfactory answer with respect to either the gift made to the gurudwara or acquisition of property by government for construction of road. As per the sale deed Ex. PW-1/2 the area of 2340 sq yards was bounded by road on only one side and was Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 37 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:15 +0530 bound by properties of other persons on other sides. The property shown in the site plan is bounded by roads on two sides and others properties on two sides. Plaintiff has not proved that the property i.e. one of the roads and the gurudwara are built upon the property originally owned by her. Without any identification of the property to be the same property which has been acquired by the plaintiff under the sale deed, no decree of declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the portion shown in red in the site plan Ex. PW1/1 can be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
84. The plaintiff has also sought declaration that the sale deed in favour of the defendant dated 28.12.2007 be declared as null and void. From the perusal of the record as well as the evidence led by the parties, it appears that Sh. Om Prakash, the common previous owner from whom both the parties derive title had executed two sale deeds with respect to two portions of land out of khasra no. 320, village Siraspur on the same day. The defendant has produced on record the certified copy of the original sale deed dated 14.10.1986 executed by Sh.Om Prakash in favour of Kishan Lal Ex. DW-9/1. The said sale deed is of the same date as in the favour of the plaintiff i.e. 14.10.1986 and the same was also registered on the same date i.e. 14.11.1986. This sale deed is pertaining to 1200 sq yards of land out of khasra no. 320 of village Siraspur and is stated to be bounded as under:-
North-Property of Nand Lal South-Property of Usha Rani West- Road East-Property of Budhan Singh Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 38 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:12 +0530
85. From the description of the boundaries itself, it is apparent that the sale deed is with respect to a different property than which is described in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Originally, the plaintiff had taken the stance that the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the defendant i.e. Sh. Kishan Lal is of a date subsequent to the date of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the same was void. It was argued that after the sale in favour of the plaintiff, the original owner Sh. Om Prakash was not left with any interest in the property to transfer the same in favour of the defendant. However, after leading of evidence by both the parties it is clear that the sale deeds in favour of plaintiff and Sh. Kishan Lal were executed on the same date by Sh. Om Prakash and they pertain to different portions of land out of Khasra no.
320.
86. At the stage of cross examination of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, DW-1 i.e. the defendant, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has put suggestion to him that it is correct that Sh. Om Prakash owned a plot of land measuring 4840 sq yards i.e. 4 bigha 16 biswa in khasra no. 320 situated in village Siraspur and the defendant admitted it to be correct. The defendant deposed that after getting the certified copies of the sale deeds he came to know that on 14.11.1986 two sale deeds got registered before the Sub Registrar i.e. one sale deed related to one plot land measuring 2340 sq yards which was sold by Sh. Om Prakash to Ms. Ravi Tej Kaur i.e. the plaintiff and another sale deed relating to 1200 sq yards sold by Sh. Om Prakash to Kishan Lal. He further deposed that it is apparent from the revenue record that Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 39 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:14 +0530 after selling the land to the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 the previous owner still had a share of 1260 sq yards available with him.
87.Thus, from the cross examination of the defendant, it is clear that it is an admitted case of both parties that Sh. Om Prakash was owner of a land measuring 4840 sq yards out of khasra no. 320, village Siraspur and it is legally and factually possible that he executed two sale deeds, one for a plot of land measuring 2340 sq yards in favour of the plaintiff and one for a plot of land measuring 1200 sq yards in favour of Sh. Kishan Lal. Therefore, both the sale deeds can stand in law and it cannot be said that one is void because the same was executed subsequently.
88.The defendant has further produced on record the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.12.1997 executed by Sh.
Kishan Lal in favour of Sh. Ved Singh and the same is exhibited by the witness on behalf of the Registrar DW-8 as exhibit DW-8/1. Further, it is the case of the defendant that Sh. Satyawan s/o Sh. Ved Singh inherited the suit property from his father and he purchased the same from Sh. Satyawan through a sale deed Ex. DW-1/1 dated 28.12.2007. The original of the sale deed was produced by the defendant during his examination and the registration of the same was proved by DW-2 who brought the original record of registration of the same.
89.The counsel for the defendant has advanced arguments that it is not explained by the defendant how Sh. Satyawan inherited the property of his father Sh. Ved Singh. It is contended that no Will in favour of Satyawan or any kind of relinquishment by other family members in favour of Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 40 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:14 +0530 Satyawan has been placed on record. Further, it has been argued that Sh. Ved Singh during his lifetime has already sold some portions of the land measuring 1200 sq yards to different persons and therefore Sh. Satyawan could not have inherited the 1200 sq yards of land.
90.In this regard the plaintiff has summoned the record of registration of a Will (Ex. PW-7/A) dated 02.11.1988 executed by Sh. Ved Singh in favour of Naresh Kumar in respect of plot no. 6, 8 and 10 measuring 306 sq yards out of total land measuring 1200 sq yards out of khasra no. 320 situated in the area of village Siraspur. On the same date, there was registry of GPA(Ex. PW-7/B) executed by Sh. Ved Singh in favour of Naresh Kumar. Thus, on the basis of the alleged registration of GPA and Will by Sh. Ved Singh in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar it is argued that Sh. Ved Singh was not left with the entire portion of 1200 sq yards which Sh. Satyawan could have inherited from his father.
91.It is a settled law that mere execution of Will and GPA with respect to a property is not a valid transfer of property. But it is argued that now that Sh. Ved Singh has expired the Will executed by him in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar has taken effect. The plaintiff never averred in his plaint about the existence of these documents and there was no opportunity for the defendant to specifically deny the same. However, during the exhibition of the documents they have been objected to on mode of proof. It was upon the plaintiff to prove the Will allegedly executed by Sh. Ved Singh in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar. Apart from the witness who proved the registration of the Will, the Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 41 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:59 +0530 plaintiff has examined the son of Sh. Naresh Kumar namely Sh. Vikas Tushir who was examined as PW-8. During his examination in chief, the witness did not identify the signatures of his father Sh. Naresh Kumar on the documents Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B. Further the witness was shown his earlier statement recorded in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate wherein he had earlier identified the signatures of his father on the said documents but the witness deposed that at the time of recording of statement before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, no documents were shown to him and he stated that he did not identify the signatures of his father on any document. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove conclusively that Sh. Ved Singh had executed the Will dated 02.11.1988 in favour of Naresh Kumar.
92.The defendant has produced his original sale deed Ex. DW-1/1 and has summoned the record of registration of previous sale deeds in the chain through which he is claiming to be the owner. Further, the defendant has brought on record the entire history of revenue entries made in favour of firstly Sh. Kishan Lal on purchase of the property measuring 1200 sq yards out of khasra no. 320 in village Siraspur in 1986, then in favour of Sh. Ved Singh after execution of sale deed dated 15.12.1997, then in favour of Sh. Satyawan after death of Sh. Ved Singh dated 14.06.2007 and lastly entry in favour of Sh. Mukesh Kumar i.e. the defendant dated 14.07.2009.
93.It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has not conclusively proved the entire chain of documents in his favour as he failed to Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 42 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:10 +0530 produce the originals and also examine witnesses to prove the same. Further, it is argued that the existence of revenue entries in favour of the defendant does not prove the title of the defendant.
94.While appreciating evidence led by both the parties it is important to keep in mind that the initial onus to prove her case is upon the plaintiff. Firstly the plaintiff was required to lead conclusive evidence that she is owner in possession of the suit property. Any lack of evidence led on behalf of the defendant cannot come to the rescue of the plaintiff in proving her case as the plaintiff is required to stand on her own legs. Therefore, in my view the defendant was not required to prove the entire chain of documents through which he is claiming ownership since 1986. It was for the plaintiff to bring some cogent evidence on record to prove that the sale deed Ex. DW-1/1 is forged and fabricated.
95.It is settled position of law that revenue entries are only a prima facie proof of possession and do not confer any title on the defendant merely on the basis of the same. In this case, the defendant has also successfully proved the registered sale deed in his favour Ex. DW-1/1. If the evidence led on behalf of both the parties is weighed, the balance is in favour of the defendant.
96.Therefore, in this case to seek decree of declaration of ownership of the suit property as well as the decree that the sale deed in favour of the defendant is null and void, the plaintiff was required to lead positive evidence and discharge the burden of proof on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs this court is of the view that the Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 43 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:13 +0530 plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the owner of the portion marked in red as shown in the site plan Ex. PW- 1/1. Further, the plaintiff also failed to make out a case why the sale deed in favour of the defendant must be declared null and void. Therefore, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as sought in prayer clause B ? (OPP)
97.The relief of permanent injunction is consequential to the relief of declaration. In view of the finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration, the plaintiff is also not entitled to relief of permanent injunction. Before parting with this issue, it is also necessary to note that the present suit is with respect to an open plot of land. The possession as well as title of the plaintiff has been denied by the defendant and the defendant has also raised the claim that he is owner in possession of the suit property. In such a case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathulla Sudhakar vs P. Buchhi Reddi, AIR 2008, Supreme Court, 2033 that if two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession as against the person who is not able to establish title. In cases of vacant plot of lands, possession always follows title. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove title over the suit property, she cannot be said to be in possession of the same.
98.Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Digitally signedSuit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 44 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:00 +0530 ISSUE NO. 6 Whether the defendant has better title over the suit land as alleged on the basis of sale document dated 27.12.2007 or 28.12.2007 ? (OPD)
99.In view of the discussion on the issue no. 1, it is evident that the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff as well as the defendant are permissible factually as well as legally. To say that the defendant has better title over the suit property, the defendant was also required to prove that the land mentioned in his sale deed is the same land as shown in the site plan of the plaintiff Ex. PW-1/1. In this case, the defendant has not filed any site plan on record and from the pleadings of the parties as well as report of the local commissioner, it is clear that the property in question is an open plot of land which is bound by roads on two sides and built up portion on other two sides.
100. In the sale deed in favour of the defendant Ex. DW-1/1 the property under sale is described as 24/96 share agricultural land measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas out of khasra no. 320(4/16) situated in the revenue estate of village Siraspur, Delhi-110042 as per the revenue record. In the sale deed there is no description of the boundaries of the suit property and there is no site plan attached alongwith the same. Therefore, just by the perusal of the sale deed it cannot be said that it is the suit property which is under sale in the same.
101. In a case when there is a dispute with respect to a vacant plot of land, demarcation of the suit property was necessary. The defendant has placed on record one demarcation report dated 04.09.2009 Ex. DW-1/5 showing that the corner plot in the map in the report bounded by Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 45 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:12 +0530 roads on two sides is owned and possessed by the defendant. However, the demarcation report Ex. DW-1/5 has not been proved by the defendant as per law. The defendant was required to either examine the author of the report or a person who identifies the signatures or handwriting of the person who prepared the report. Witness DW-7 was examined to prove the report however during his examination he stated that he cannot identify the signatures of the person who prepared the report dated 04.09.2009. Therefore, in my view the defendant could not prove the demarcation report.
102. Further, the defendant has also adduced evidence to prove that he was allowed to construct a boundary wall on land in khasra no. 320(1-4) situated in the village Siraspur vide order of the SDM, Narela Delhi dated 09.06.2009 Ex. DW- 1/6. This order has been duly proved by the defendant by examining witness DW-4. However, alongwith this order also there is no site plan to ascertain on which portion of land in the entire khasra 320, the permission to construct a boundary wall has been granted in favour of the defendant. Admittedly at present no boundary wall exists on the suit property.
103. After considering the evidence led by the defendant, I am of the view that the defendant has also failed to lead conclusive evidence to prove that the suit property as shown in red in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1 is the same property which is purchased by him through sale deed Ex. DW-1/1. First and foremost reason is that in the sale deed executed by Sh. Om Prakash in favour of Sh. Kishan Chand Ex. DW-9/1, the land measuring 1200 sq yards is Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 46 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:55 +0530 stated to be bound by road on the west side and properties of other persons on the other three sides. Further, in the sale deed executed by Sh. Kishan Chand in favour of Sh. Ved Singh Ex. DW-8/1, also the land measuring 1200 sq yards is stated to be bound by road on the West side and others property on the remaining three sides. Now, in the sale deed in favour of the defendant, no description of the boundaries of the properties has been given. The suit property is two side open plot of land i.e. there is road on the two sides and there is others built up property on the other two sides. Thus, the description does not match with the description of the property in the previous sale deeds in the chain through which the defendant claims to be owner. During his cross examination on 14.08.2019 the defendant has clearly identified that a plot of land having two sides open was shown to him for purchase. Therefore, it is clear that it is an admitted position that the suit property is having two sides open.
104. Therefore, in my view the defendant has also failed to prove that the suit property is the same property which is under sale in his sale deed Ex. DW-1/1. In a case of an open plot of land it was necessary for the defendant to prove the demarcation of the suit property in his favour which he has failed to prove. In view of the discussion above, in my view, it cannot be said that the defendant has a better title over the suit property on the basis of the sale document dated 27.12.2007. Therefore, issue no. 6 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Digitally signedSuit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 47 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:26:02 +0530 ISSUE NO. 7:-Relief
105. Considering the findings on issue no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Due to lack of cogent evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof required to establish her entitlement to the relief sought in the suit. Therefore, the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, namely, declaration and permanent injunction cannot be granted.
106. In view thereof, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA 2025.04.09 Date:
13:30:07 +0530 (Announced in the open Court) (NAINA GUPTA) th on 08 April, 2025 ASCJ-JSCC-GJ (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS DELHI Digitally signed Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 48 of 48 by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09 13:25:57 +0530