Delhi District Court
Pawan Rana vs Ajmeri on 29 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030018082023
SCJ No.918/23
SH. PAWAN RANA
S/O SH. DAYANAND
R/O KHASRA NO. 774/75, SIRASPUR,
DELHI-110042..
........Plaintiff
Versus
SMT. AJMERI
D/O AEHSAAN
R/O C 78, JJ COLONY,
Bawana, Delhi.
.........Defendant
Date of Institution : 22.08.2023
Date of reservation of judgment : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 29.05.2025
Suit For Permanent Injunction And Recovery Of Damages
JUDGMENT
Factual Background
1. The factual matrix of the present case, as set forth in the plaint, is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of property/plot bearing Property no. 647, Block-C, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi having area measuring approx. 18 Sq. meters and said property may be treated as the suit property which is specifically shown in site plan attached with the plaint as Annexure P-1.
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.05.29
SHARMA 16:54:06 +0530
Suit No.918/23 Pawan Rana Vs Ajmeri Page 1 of 7
2. That the suit property was allotted to Sh. Harfuddin, who sold the property to Shri Mahender and who further sold the property to Shri Mahabeer who further sold the property to the plaintiff.
3. That the plaintiff purchased the property i.e. plot bearing no. 647, Block-C, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi having area measuring approx. 18 sq metres, vide general power of attorney, agreement to sale, possession letter all dated 12-08-2021 and since then the plaintiff has been in possession of the above mentioned property. That the plaintiff has been in possession of the said property since 12-08-2021 and there were no dispute over it regarding the title of the suit property and the plaintiff until recently has been enjoying the possession of the suit property. That the plaintiff was renting out a suit property to an individual for a monthly rent of 5000 rupees, under the condition that plaintiff would provide them with a properly constructed property consisting of four walls and a roof made of tarpaulin.
4. It is averred that when plaintiff was getting construction work done on his plot, a woman named Ajmeri arrived with some other people and started arguing and claiming her rights on the plot, although she did not show any ownership documents despite being asked to.
5. That due to the obstruction caused by Ajmeri and the other individuals with her, plaintiff was unable to complete the promised work and subsequently plaintiff's tenant refused to rent the property as the property was not constructed on time as promised to the plaintiff's tenant. As a result, plaintiff suffered financial loss and his Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.05.29 SHARMA 16:54:12 +0530 Suit No.918/23 Pawan Rana Vs Ajmeri Page 2 of 7 reputation was also negatively affected. Hence, this suit.
Reliefs Sought
2. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:
a) Permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, representatives and associates from encroaching/ dispossessing and further not to create obstruction and hindrance by any manner whatsoever in the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property/plot bearing Property No. 647, Block-C, JJ Colony Bawana, Delhi which is specifically shown in red colour of the attached cursory site plan.
b) A decree of recovery of damages in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants to collectively pay a sum of 25,000 (Twenty Five Thousand).
c) Costs of the suit.
d) Pass an order for the defendant to provide compensation
to the plaintiff for the damage caused to the plaintiff's reputation as a direct result of the defendant's actions.
Proceedings
4. During the course of proceedings, no appearance was entered on behalf of the defendant. Consequently, vide order dated 20.04.2024, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte. The case was NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.05.29 SHARMA 16:54:17 +0530 Suit No.918/23 Pawan Rana Vs Ajmeri Page 3 of 7 thereafter listed for plaintiff's evidence (PE) to substantiate its claims Plaintiff's Evidence
5. In ex-parte PE, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. In his testimony following documents are exhibited:-
1. Copy of GPA Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR)
2. Agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR)
3. Copy of affidavit Ex.PW-1/3 (OSR)
4. Copy of receipt Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR).
5. Copy of Deed of Will Ex. PW 1/5(OSR).
6. Copy of possession letter Ex.PW-1/6(OSR).
7. Site plan as Ex.PW-1/7.
8. Complaint dated 21.05.2023 as Ex.PW-1/8.
6. Thereafter the matter was listed for ex-parte final arguments.
7. I have heard ex-parte final arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for plaintiff as well as perused the record.
Findings and Analysis
8. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff is seeking injunction against the defendant from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and further to restrain the defendant from creating any third party right in the suit property.
9. The basis for seeking such a relief, as per plaintiff, is that he is Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.05.29 SHARMA 16:54:35 +0530 Suit No.918/23 Pawan Rana Vs Ajmeri Page 4 of 7 the owner of the suit property having purchased it from one Mahabeer by way of documents Ex PW1/1 to PW1/6. A perusal of these documents show that the said documents are notarised documents.
Now, the law on this point is very clear. A sale of an immoveable property can not be done without a registered sale deed. A reference in this regard can be made to Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) vs State Of Haryana & Anr 2012(1) SCC 656 wherein it was held as under:
"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 Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:54:41 Date: 2025.05.29 +0530 Suit No.918/23 Pawan Rana Vs Ajmeri Page 5 of 7 be validly transferred only 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."
10. Thus, on the basis of the said documents i.e. GPA, agreement, affidavit, and receipt and which are only notarised documents, the plaintiff can not claim to say he had a lawful title over the suit property. Further, it is also settled law that no one can transfer a better title than his own. In Ratendra Kumar Vs. Karya Nirikshak, Hathras Junction, 2018(6) All. LJ 386 the Hon'ble High Court held that no one can transfer a better title than he himself has and the buyer must be vigilant at the time of purchasing property and must inquire properly about the title of the seller.
11. In the instant case, it is asserted by the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted to one Sh. Harfuddin, however no such document has been placed on record. Thus, there is nothing on record to substantiate the assertion of the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted to Sh. Harfuddin and, who sold the property to Shri Mahender and who further sold the property to Shri Mahabeer.
As regards the possession of the suit property, it is admitted case of the plaintiff that suit property was a plot and he was raising construction when the dispute arose. Now, it is settled that possession of a vacant plot vests in the title holder. As plaintiff failed to prove his title, he can not claim himself to be in possession either.
Conclusion NITISH by Digitally signed NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.29 16:54:46 +0530 Suit No.918/23 Pawan Rana Vs Ajmeri Page 6 of 7
12. In light of the aforesaid, the court is of the view that the plaintiff has vehemently failed to prove the necessary essentials to succeed in a suit for injunction, and thus the suit of the plaintiff is liable to fail. The suit of the plaintiff, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH on 29.05.2025.
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.29 16:54:51 +0530 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/29.05.2025 Suit No.918/23 Pawan Rana Vs Ajmeri Page 7 of 7