Delhi District Court
Ram Kishore vs Baij Nath Yadav on 7 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRUTI CHAUDHARY
JSCC-ASCJ-GUARDIAN JUDGE, NORTH-EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNE030005282014
SUIT No.:- 5419/2015
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Ram Kishore
(Deceased through LRs.)
a) Smt. Jagrani (Widow)
b) Sh. Amit Kumar Yadav (Son)
c) Sh. Amrit Kumar Yadav (Son)
d) Ms. Poonam Yadav (Daughter)
All R/o H-18, (New No. B-110),
Majdoor Janta Colony, Subhash Park,
Naveen Shahdara, Delhi.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Baij Nath Yadav,
S/o Sh. Muder Lal.
2. Smt. Ramawati,
W/o Sh. Baij Nath Yadav,
Both R/o C-1/760, Gali No. 12,
Som Bazar, Third Pusta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094.
..Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of Institution: 10.11.2014
Date of judgment: 07.06.2024
CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 1 of 18
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the property bearing no. C-1/760, Gali No. 12, Som Bazar, 3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094 measuring 60 Square yards from Sh. Jag Murtha, S/o Sh. Surja on 05.07.1985. It is further stated that at the time of purchase, it was an empty plot and the plaintiff had raised the construction on the said plot. It is also stated that defendant no. 1 is the real brother of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 was the wife of defendant no. 1. It is stated that the plaintiff has been residing in Delhi since 1965 and had borne the expenses towards schooling and education of defendant no. 1 in the village and had later called defendant no. 1 to Delhi in 1978 when defendant no. 1 was only 21 years old and got the latter to learn embroidery work and later also bore the expenses towards marriage of defendants no. 1 & 2.
2. It is stated by the plaintiff that his family alongwith defendants were residing at another property i.e. H. No. H-18 (New No. B-110), Majdoor Janta Colony, Subhash Park, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi which was alloted to the plaintiff by DDA under JJ Scheme but the said property was only 20 square yards and therefore the defendants were allowed by the plaintiff to reside in the suit property in the year 1991 and the defendants were told that they may reside there as licencees until they can arrange alternative accommodation for themselves. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff found out in the month of September, 2014 that the defendant no. 2 had got electricity connection at the CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 2 of 18 suit property in her own name without having obtained the written consent of the plaintiff based on forged and fabricated documents. Thereafter, it is stated that the plaintiff terminated the licence of the defendants vide legal notice dt. 25.09.2014 and sent the same to the defendants through speed post, which was duly received by the defendants but the defendants failed to comply with the said notice. Therefore, by way of the present suit the plaintiff has asked for the following reliefs:-
I) Decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants to handover the physical, peaceful possession of suit property i.e. C-1/760, Gali No. 12, Som Bazar, 3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi- 110094 shown in site plan.
II) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, nominees, successors, heirs, etc. to create any third party interest in the suit property C-1/760, Gali No. 12, Som Bazar, 3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094 as shown in site plan.
III) Money decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants @ Rs. 15,000/- per month towards use and occupation charges of the suit property till the handing over of the possession of the suit property, alongwith interest.
IV) Any other relief.
3. Summons of the suit was sent to the defendants vide order dt. 11.11.2014 and reply was filed by the defendants on 12.03.2015. In the said WS, the defendants have challenged the title of the plaintiff and have stated that the suit property i.e. C-
1/760, Gali No. 12, Som Bazar, 3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-
CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 3 of 18 110094 was a vacant plot measuring 80 square yards which was purchased by the defendant no. 1 from Sh. Jag Murtha, S/o Suraj by executing GPA, agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit, etc. all dt. 21.08.1980, all in favour of defendant no. 1 and the said documents were duly attested by Notary Public. It is stated that on the basis of said documents defendant no. 1 became the sole, exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property and raised construction over the same and has been residing there alongwith his children and family. It is further stated that the defendant no. 1 transferred the suit property to his wife i.e. defendant no. 2 Ram Wati by way of registered GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt and deed of will all dt. 07.12.2006 and on the basis of said documents, electricity connection was installed in the name of defendant no. 2 at the suit property. It is further stated by the defendant that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit property and therefore has no cause of action for filing the present suit. It is also stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed for non-valuation and for being a blatant abuse of process of law. Apart from this, the defendants have specifically denied all the averments made by the plaintiff in the present case and have prayed for dismissal of the plaint with exemplary costs.
4. Thereafter pleadings were complete and the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 29.05.2017:-
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 4 of 18 mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages / mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till the handing over of the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as prayed for ? OPP
iv) Relief ?
5. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence. Amit Yadav, son of plaintiff examined himself as PW1, relying upon the following documents:-
i) Legal notice dt. 25.09.2014 Ex. PW1/1. ii) Two postal receipt Ex. PW1/2 & Ex. PW1/3. iii) Copy of his voter ID card Ex. PW1/4. iv) Copy of allotment by DDA Ex. PW1/5 (OSR, 02 pages). v) Copy of Aadhar card of his deceased father Ex. PW1/6. vi) Site plan Ex. PW1/7.
vii) Copy of GPA, agreement to sell and payment receipt Ex.
PW1/8 (Colly., OSR).
In his cross-examination, PW1 has stated that he has two brothers and one sister and his father had told him about the present case in September, 2014. He submits that his father had purchased the suit property on 05.07.1985 and his father had told him about the purchase of the suit property in the year 2004 at the time of his marriage. He denied the suggestion that his father had not purchased the suit property in the year 1985 or that the document Ex. PW1/7 relied upon by him was false. He has submitted that the suit property was a plot measuring 60 square CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 5 of 18 yards and 07 members of his family including his mother were residing at another property i.e. H-18 (new no. B-110), Majdoor Janta Colony, Subhash Park, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi which was 20 square yards since 1983. He has stated that defendant no. 1 has been residing in the suit property since 1991 as a licencee allowed by his father and his father had incurred all expenses of the suit property when the same was constructed in the year 1987. He has stated that his father had told him that the latter had borne all expenses towards the schooling and education of defendant no. 1. He also states that he had requested his father various times that he wanted to shift into the suit property with his family as the current accommodation was having paucity of space but his father had declined his requests stating that the defendant no. 1 was residing there. Further, he has denied the suggestions put forward by Ld. Counsel for the defendants and has also denied that he did not have any personal knowledge regarding the present case. Thereafter, he was discharged.
6. Sh. Jag Murtha was examined as PW2 as a summoned witness. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he had sold a piece of land measuring 60 square yards to the plaintiff in the month of August 1985 for a total consideration amount of Rs. 4900/- and had given the possession of the same to the plaintiff right then. He has admitted his signatures at points A, B, C, D & E on the documents Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) and has clearly stated that he never sold any property to any person in the year 1980. He denied his signatures at points A to G on documents of the defendants Mark P-1 to Mark P-4. He clearly states that he never CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 6 of 18 sold any piece of land to Baij Nath i.e. defendant no. 1. He relied upon his Aadhar card Ex. PW2/A (OSR).
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had studied upto 8th standard. He has further stated that he used to sign in Hindi language but later started signing in English language when he started to sell his properties in the year 1982. He states that he used to sign in Hindi language in documents pertaining to his bank account. He submits that since 2000 he has been residing at Jhajjar. He states that in May, 1985, plaintiff had paid him a sum of Rs. 100/- towards agreement to sell the suit property but no documents were executed and thereafter the plaintiff paid the remandor of the sale consideration to him in cash at his house during the time of execution of the documents. He submits that the sale documents were executed at Krishna Nagar, Delhi but he did not appear before any government authority / Sub-Registrar for registration of documents. He stated that he did not measure the suit property personally and the measurement was done by the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that the suit property measured 80 square yards and not 60 square yards. He denied the suggestion that he had sold the suit property to the defendant no. 1 and that the title documents relied by defendant no. 1 were executed by him or that he ever handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of suit property to the defendant no. 1 or that he has connived with the plaintiff in preparing forged documents Ex. PW1/8 (Colly., OSR) by forging his signatures at points A to E on the said documents. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately denying his signature on documents Mark P-1 to Mark P-4 which CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 7 of 18 were in Hindi and he voluntarily stated that he never signed in Hindi. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately signed in English on the property documents in order to defraud the purchasers. He denied the other suggestions made by Ld. Counsel for the defendants and has denied the he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, PE stood closed.
7. Defendant no. 1 examined himself as DW1 and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of GPA dated 21.08.1980 Ex.DW1/1 (OSR).
(objected to as the document is incomplete).
(ii) Copy of agreement to sell dated 21.08.1980 Ex.DW1/2 (OSR). (objected to as the document is incomplete).
(iii) Copy of affidavit of Mr. Jag Murta Ex.DW1/3 (OSR).
(objected to as the document is incomplete).
(iv) Copy of receipt dated 21.08.1980 is Ex.DW1/4 (OSR).
(v) Site plan Ex. DW1/5 (objected to mode of proof).
(vi) Copy of GPA dated 07.12.2006 Ex.DW1/6 (OSR).
(objected to as the document is incomplete).
(vii) Copy of agreement to sell dated 07.12.2006 Ex.DW1/7 (OSR). (objected to as the document is incomplete).
(viii) Copy of affidavit of Mr. Baij Nath Yadav Ex.DW1/8 (OSR). (objected to as the document is incomplete).
(ix) Copy of receipt dated 07.12.2006 Ex.DW1/9 (OSR).
(x) Copy of deed of will dated 07.12.2006 Ex.DW1/10 (OSR).
(xi) Copy of electricity bill dated 05.1.2015 Ex.DW1/11 (OSR). (objected to as mode of proof).
(xii) Copy of receipts issued by welfare association Ex.DW1/12 CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 8 of 18 (Colly) respectively (OSR). (objected to as mode of proof).
(xiii) Copy of adhar card of defendant no. 1 Ex.DW1/13 (OSR).
(xiv) Copy of bank account detail, ration cards, gas receipts Mark A (colly) respectively (7 pages).
(xv) Copy of acknowledgment receipt issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi Ex.DW1/14 (OSR). (objected to as mode of proof).
(xvi) Copies of certificate of birth, OBC certificate, PAN card and other educational certificates of children of defendants Ex.DW1/15 (OSR running into 16 pages). (objected to as mode of proof).
In his cross-examination, he deposed that he came to Delhi on 04.04.1977 and could not say whether the plaintiff was residing in Delhi before 1977 as he was not on talking terms with the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff funded his education till class 12th or that the plaintiff had called him to Delhi in 1978. He submits that he first met Mr. Jag Murtha on 15.08.1980 and on the same day entered into a written agreement / bayana and paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money to said Jag Murtha and the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/- was remaining to be paid but no specific date was fixed for payment of balance amount. He stated that the sale documents were registered on 21.08.1980 and he alongwith Jag Murtha had signed the bayana agreement. He submitted that he did not know where the sale documents Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/4 were executed and voluntarily stated that Jag Murtha himself got the same executed but he could not recall the date of the same. He CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 9 of 18 admitted that there was no witness when Mr. Jag Murtha handed over the property documents to him and has denied the suggestion that the documents Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/4 relied upon by him were false and fabricated or were forged by him. He also denied the suggestion that he did not confront the said documents to Sh. Jag Murtha as the same were forged and fabricated which is why he had not filed the copy of back side of the stamp papers. He denied the suggestion that the notary seal on the said documents were also forged by him. He admits that he never had any money transaction with his wife pertaining to the suit property and denied that documents Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/10 were false, forged and fabricated. He submitted that two neighbour namely Sukhram and Hira Lal had accompanied them as witnesses for execution of the said documents and the stamp paper was purchased by his advocate but no entry in any register was made in their presence. He has admitted that no serial number of notary has been mentioned in documents Ex. DW1/6 to Ex. DW1/10. He confirmed his address on the legal notice dt. 25.09.2014 i.e. Ex. PW1/1 and denied the suggestion that he received the same but had lied before the court that he did not received the said notice. He had stated that he did not file any complaint against Mr. Jag Murtha in any court or that he was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the plaintiff since the termination of his permissive use of the suit property vide legal demand notice dt. 25.09.2014. He denied the suggestions put to him by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and also denied that he had filed a wrong site plan Ex. DW1/5 or that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, DE stood closed and matter CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 10 of 18 was listed for final arguments.
8. Final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties which were heard at length. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgments titled as Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh 2008 (2) SCC 728, Bharat Bhushan Gupta Vs. Pratap Narain Verma 2022 AIR SC 2867, Mulak Raj Khullar Vs. Anil Kapur & Ors. 2013 (139) DRJ 303, Sanjeev Kapoor & Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar 2016 (1) CLJ 532 (Delhi), Bharat Mal @ Bharat Kumamr vs. Ram Avtar (2019) 1 RCR (Civil) 693 and M/s Sangat Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Wimpy International Ltd.
Ld. Counsel for defendants has relied upon the judgment titled as Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRS. & Ors.
I have perused the court file thoroughly.
9. Coming to issue no. 1 i.e. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP, the plaintiff has sought relief of permanent injunction on basic assertion that he is absolute owner of the suit property C-1/760, Gali No. 12, Som Bazar, 3rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094 and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. To claim ownership of the suit property, the plaintiff has relied upon documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell and payment receipt, Ex. PW1/8 (Colly.).
10. It is pertinent to mention that GPA /Agreement to Sell / CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 11 of 18 Deed of Will transactions neither convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. In the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., SLP (C) No. 13917 of 2009, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank
- 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of 'GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 12 of 18 under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales."
11. Since the documents Ex. PW1/8 (colly.) are only notarized and not registered, they are not admissible in evidence. Reliance is placed upon the case of Balram Singh Versus Kelo Devi Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022 (date of decision: 23.09.2022), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence and a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable on the basis of the same. It has been noted in the above case as follows:-
"5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original plaintiff instituted a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction only, which was claimed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996. However, it is required to be noted that the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996 was an unregistered document/agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper. Therefore, as such, such an unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence.
6. Having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 13 of 18 on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter- claim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get the relief by clever drafting."
12. Contrary to the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants also claim ownership of the suit property, relying upon the documents i.e. copy of GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt all dt. 21.08.1980, Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/4 (OSR). It is settled law that a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable where title of a person to an immovable property is under cloud and he is not in possession of the property. In such cases, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title, possession and the consequential relief of injunction.
13. In Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors. Civil Appeal No.6191/2001(decided on 25.03.2008), Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the general principles regarding suit for permanent injunction, declaration and/or possession. It has been observed:
"11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 14 of 18 briefly.
11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction".
14. In the said case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained when a cloud is said to be raised over a person's title and remedy therefor. It has been observed:
"12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 15 of 18 property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title."
15. Coming to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff and defendants have both claimed ownership of the suit property based on documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell and payment receipts. The question that now arises is whether a "cloud" has been raised by the defendants upon the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendants have stated in their pleadings that the suit property was measuring 80 square yards and not 60 square yards as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint. Further, it is settled law that when some "apparent defect" over the title to a property of the plaintiff is shown by the defendant, it amounts to CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 16 of 18 raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff. The only remedy available to the plaintiff then is to remove the said cloud on his title. Further still, in case the court deems it fit to form an opinion upon the legitimacy of title of the plaintiff, an issue in this regard is sought to be framed by the court and same can only be done once appropriate steps are taken by the plaintiff. The said "appropriate steps" for the plaintiff is to either amend his suit seeking bare injunction and to seek declaration of title alongwith consequential relief or withdraw his suit seeking bare injunction with permission of Court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. None of the said steps have been taken by the plaintiff in the present case, which is why no issue pertaining to the title of the plaintiff over the suit property was framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 29.05.2017. Now, when both the parties have laid rival claims of ownership, no remedy can be given unless the factum of ownership and title over the suit property is adjudicated upon and same cannot be adjudicated at this stage as no corresponding issue to that effect has been framed. The appropriate remedy for the plaintiff was to seek declaration of title along with the relief of injunction and possession on the basis of documents which are admissible in evidence and which convey title and confer rights and interest in the property under dispute, which he has failed to do.
16. Therefore, on the basis of above discussed facts and expositions of law, it is held that in light of omissions of the plaintiff and a clear cloud being raised over the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of simplicitor CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 17 of 18 injunction, as prayed. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
17. Coming to issue no. 2 i.e. whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP, since Issue No.1 has been decided against the plaintiff, no relief is made out in his favour.
18. Coming to issue no. 3 i.e. whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages / mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till the handing over of the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff as prayed for ? OPP, since issues no. 1 & 2 have been decided against the plaintiff, no relief is made out in favour of the plaintiff here as well.
19. In light of the above, the suit is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Announced in open court on this 07th June, 2024, this judgment consists of 18 pages.
Digitally signed by SHRUTI SHRUTI CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date: 2024.06.07
20:33:39 +0530
Shruti Chaudhary
JSCC/ASCJ/G. Judge(N/E)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No: 5419/2015 Ram Kishore vs. Baij Nath Yadav & Anr. 18 of 18