Delhi District Court
Girdhar Gopal vs Manisha Bera on 12 May, 2026
In the Court of Sh. Deepanker Mohan
District Judge-04, Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS 57/20
GIRDHAR GOPAL Vs. MANISHA BERA
JUDGMENT
12.05.2026
1. By this judgment, this Court hereby dispose of the application under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC and application under Order XV-A, Order XXXIX Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff on 15/10/2025. Replies to the said applications were filed on behalf of defendant on 28/03/2026.
2. Arguments on the said applications were heard on 02.05.2026.
AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT
3. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the reliefs of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages/occupation charges and permanent injunction against defendant on 28.01.2020.
4. As per plaint, plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the built-up property bearing No.14-A-1, area measuring 138.79 sq. mtrs. consisting of one drawing room-cum-dining room, three bed rooms, one kitchen, two toilets/baths on second floor, common passage, stairs, main gate, one car and one two wheeler parking set at ground floor, forming part of property bearing No.14-A-1, out of Khasra No.1047/824/1, situated in the area of Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:18:55 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 1 of 24 Village Chandrawali, Abadi of East Krishna Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-110051 by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 04/09/2018 (registered on 06/09/2018).
5. Defendant approached the plaintiff for letting out the suit property. Vide registered lease deed dated 20/09/2018 (registered on 24/09/2018), plaintiff had let out the suit property to defendant for a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- excluding electricity and water charges, for residential purpose. Defendant was agreed to pay the rent to plaintiff on 25 th day of each calender month. It was further agreed that defendant will directly pay the electricity and water charges as per their consumption to the concerned authorities.
6. Defendant had paid monthly rent @ Rs.25,000/- for only one month i.e. for the period commencing from 20/09/2018 to 19/10/2018 and thereafter, defendant had not paid a single penny towards monthly rent to plaintiff despite various requests and demands.
7. Plaintiff through her counsel has got issued a legal notice dated 16.08.2019 whereby the tenancy of defendant in respect to the suit property was terminated with immediate effect and she was called to hand over vacant and peaceful physical possession of the suit property on or before 19/09/2019. Despite service of notice, defendant neither replied the same nor vacated the suit property. An amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is outstanding towards arrears of rent for the period 20.10.2018 to 19.12.2019. Plaintiff has also claimed damages/mesne profit @ Rs.2,000/- per day DEEPANKER Digitally signed by DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:00 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 2 of 24 from defendant towards usage/occupation charges. Thus, the present suit.
AVERMENTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. Family of plaintiff and defendant are known to each other since long time as they have business relation with each other. Plaintiff's family is into the business of jewellery in Delhi and defendant's family is doing the business of designing and making jewellery items for various jewellers against the labour charges.
9. Defendant's family used to get orders from the jewellers for making various gold jewellery items as per orders placed by them from time to time. Plaintiff's family also used to assign jewellery making work to the defendant's family and in this regard, they also used to provide gold for making the jewellery against the order placed.
10. At the time of handing over the gold items, plaintiff's family used to obtain various blank cheques and also used to get various blank papers, stamp papers, agreements etc. signed from the family members of defendant as a security against the gold provided by plaintiff's family to defendant's family.
11. Family members of defendant used to sign the blank papers, stamp papers, agreements and cheques as and when demanded by plaintiff's family without raising any question no/or concern.
12. In the year 2017, some disputes took place between plaintiff's family and defendant's family pertaining to the Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:05 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 3 of 24 quantity of gold supplied to defendant's family and also about the labour charges payable by plaintiff's family to the defendant's family.
13. Plaintiff's family had fraudulently filled the blank cheques issued by the mother-in-law of defendant and produced them for encashment but the same were dishonoured. Since the family of defendant was not under legal obligation to pay any such alleged amount to plaintiff's family. Family of defendant were not maintaining the sufficient balance in those bank accounts, therefore, the said cheques were dishonoured.
14. After dishonourment of the said cheques, plaintiff's family had filed several civil and criminal cases against the defendant's mother-in-law. After intervention of common acquaintances, plaintiff's family assured the defendant's family that they will withdraw the cases and the defendant's family is not required to appear before the Court. Defendant's family had believed upon the representation/assurance of plaintiff's family and therefore, they had not appeared before the Court on the belief that plaintiff's family will withdraw the case.
15. However, defendant's family had received the warrants from the court and after that they again approached the plaintiff's family. Upon visiting the plaintiff's family, they had informed that since the cases have been filed, therefore, the Court want their appearance in order to record the statement of settlement for withdrawing the cases. Thereafter, defendant's family member appeared before the Court along with plaintiff's family member.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12
18:19:10 +0530
CS No.57/2020 Page no. 4 of 24
Defendant's mother-in-law and husband are not much educated and they do not know English language and therefore, they were not able to understand what was written in the settlement and they had signed the said settlement under the assurance of plaintiff and plaintiff's advocate. Even, the copy of said settlement was not provided to the defendant's family.
16. Plaintiff's family also informed that certain documents are required to be registered in order to finalize the settlement and to file the same before the Court for withdrawing the cases. On the asking of plaintiff's family, defendant's family accompanied them to the registrar office and got certain documents registered which were not within the knowledge of defendant's family at that time.
17. Plaintiff's family had also got a bank account of defendant's mother-in-law opened in their own in IDBI Bank and the same was managed, controlled and operated by the plaintiff's family only. Plaintiff's family had given their own mobile number for the said bank account of defendant's mother-in-law and retained all accounts documents with them. Plaintiff's family had operated the internet banking for the said bank account by misusing the same.
18. After registration of various documents and management of bank transactions, plaintiff's family had withdrawn the cases filed against the defendant's family.
19. Ms. Sandhya Bera is the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. The sale deed dated 04.09.2018 has Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:15 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 5 of 24 been obtained by plaintiff from Ms. Sandhya Bera by playing fraud and undue influence. Ms. Sandhya Bera has never handed over possession of the suit property to plaintiff. Ms. Sandhya Bera is a necessary as well as proper party to the present suit. Defendant is not the tenant in the suit property.
20. Plaintiff in connivance with her family plays a fraud upon defendant's family and obtained the sale deed. The sale consideration mentioned under the sale deed was never paid to Ms. Sandhya Bera by plaintiff. Plaintiff had also got executed the lease deed by playing fraud and on the pretext of mutual understanding and financial arrangements. Since Ms. Sandhya Bera is residing in the suit property, therefore, electricity and water charges are being paid by her only.
21. Plaintiff's family had used two blank cheques of the defendant for receiving payment of Rs.25,000/- against each cheque towards the settlement amount agreed with them. The said payment was never made towards the lease rental and it was against the settlement amount only. Defendant has not received any notice. Defendant is not the tenant in the suit property, therefore, defendant is not liable to pay any rent, charges and damages to plaintiff.
AVERMENTS OF THE REPLICATION
22. Plaintiff has filed the replication on 22.10.2022 wherein he specifically denied the averments of the written statement and reiterated the contentions made in the plaint. He further pleaded that signatures were never obtained on blank papers at any point Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:19 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 6 of 24 of time. He further pleaded that the business relations only between plaintiff's wife and mother-in-law of defendant and parties to the present lis have nothing to do with the same. He further submitted that the terms of the settlement were agreed between the parties out of their own will in the presence of mediator and said settlement was signed after the terms were read over to them. He further pleaded that the settlement has nothing to do with the present suit and defendant is trying to mix- up the two separate transactions for confusing this Court and to secure favourable orders in her favour.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC AND APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XV-A, ORDER XXXIX RULE 10 r/w SECTION 151 CPC.
23. Ld. counsel for plaintiff argued that defendant in her written statement has admitted the execution of sale deed dated 04.09.2018 and lease deed dated 20.09.2018, however, she has falsely taken the ground that the said documents are forged and fabricated. He further argued that the sale deed and lease deed are duly registered documents and carries the presumption under the law of being valid, legal and genuine. He further argued that defendant, being a stranger/third party to the sale deed dated 04.09.2018, has no right or locus to challenge the said sale deed. He further argued that the mother-in-law of the defendant has executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff after receiving valuable consideration, in respect to the suit property. He further argued that till date, the mother-in-law of defendant has not challenged the said sale deed, therefore, defendant has no right to Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:25 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 7 of 24 question the said sale deed. He further argued that till date, defendant has not filed any suit or counter claim to challenge the registered lease deed dated 20.09.2018. He further argued that defendant is occupying the suit property without any right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever herein, therefore, she is liable to hand over the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property to plaintiff forthwith. He further argued that defendant is also liable to pay arrears of rent/usage charges @ Rs.25,000/- per month w.e.f. 20.10.2018 till the date vacant and physical possession of the suit property is not handed over to plaintiff because defendant is using/occupying the suit property despite receipt of legal notice dated 16.08.2019 and summons of the present suit. He relied upon the following judgments which are mentioned as under:-
(i) 'Karan Madaan Vs. Nageshwar Pandey, 2014 SCC Online Del 1277.
(ii) 'Hemalatha Vs. Tukarm, 2026 SCC Online SC 106.
(iii) 'Raghubir Rai Vs. Prem Lata', 2014 SCC Online Del 3045.
24. On the other side, Ld. counsel for defendant argued that plaintiff in connivance with her wife and daughter-in-law has played fraud upon the mother-in-law of defendant as well as defendant. He further argued that fraud vitiates everything. He further argued that execution of sale deed dated 04.09.2018 and lease deed dated 20.09.2018 is result of fraud. He further argued that mother-in-law of defendant has never handed over physical possession of the suit property to plaintiff nor received any consideration amount from plaintiff. He further argued that as Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:30 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 8 of 24 defendant has not admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. He further argued that defendant has not admitted the case of plaintiff and the suit cannot be decreed at this stage on the basis of admission. He further argued that defendant is not liable to pay Rs.25,000/- per month w.e.f. 20.10.2018 to plaintiff in any manner whatsoever because plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. He further argued that the present applications are liable to be dismissed.
25. File perused.
ADJUDICATION OF THE APPLICATIONS AND FINDINGS.
26. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 94 of BSA, 2023), inter-alia, stipulates that when the terms of a contract or of a grant or of any other disposition of the property had been reduced to the form of a written document- as in the present case sale deed dated 04.09.2018 has been registered on 05.09.2018, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of the property, except the document itself. Therefore, if there is a sale deed executed and registered in respect of an immovable property- registration whereof is compulsory under the law, neither party can claim that the term of sale- such as the consideration, or the nature of transaction/disposition is, in fact different from that contained in the document itself.
27. In Ramaswamy (Dead) By LRs Vs. M. Lobo (Dead) By LRs., (2001) 10 SCC 176, the defendant/appellant was the owner Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:35 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 9 of 24 of the suit property. He transferred the property in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by a registered sale deed. The property was leased on the same day to the defendant/appellant. On account of default in payment of rent, the plaintiff/respondent initiated a suit for recovery of rent. One of the defences taken by the defendant/appellant was that the sale deed was in fact a security for the loan advanced by the respondent to the defendant/appellant and, therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Supreme Court rejected this argument by observing that- this argument is noticed only to be rejected. It is not disputed that the sale deed is a registered document and, therefore, no oral evidence could be adduced to show that no title passed on to the respondent under the sale deed.
28. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through Its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kumar & Another, (2004) 2 SCC 283 - a case relating to land acquisition, the respondent disputed the reliance placed by the land acquisition officer on the rate/price disclosed in a sale deed by which the respondent purchased a portion of the acquired land. While rejecting this submission of the respondent, the Supreme Court observed: - Section 92 of the Evidence Act precludes a party from leading evidence contrary to the terms of a written document. It was, therefore, not open to the respondent to urge that, even though his sale deed showed a price of Rs.15.40 per sq yard the real market value was Rs.120 per sq. yard. To permit a party to so urge would be to give a premium to dishonesty.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12
18:19:41 +0530
CS No.57/2020 Page no. 10 of 24
Parties who undervalue their documents, for purpose of payment of stamp duty, cannot be allowed to then claim that their own documents do not reflect the correct market value.
29. In Abhey Dewan & Ors. V. Manoj Sethi & Ors., 202 (2013) DLT 392, the case of the plaintiff was that the defendant had approached the plaintiff to sell his plot of land for Rs.13,15,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that Rs.4 lacs were paid as earnest money/bayana to the defendant. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant took approximately Rs.12 lacs from the plaintiff under two other agreements cum bayana receipts for two other plots. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to fulfill his obligations under the agreements despite the plaintiff being ready and willing to conclude the transactions. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant represented, that he would get the plaintiff compensated for the losses suffered by the plaintiff by betting on cricket matches. Accordingly, the plaintiff resorted to betting on cricket games on the advice of the defendant, who turned out to be a bookie. The plaintiff claimed that though, initially, he made profits, eventually he lost heavily. He claimed that he gave some jewellery to the defendant and also executed documents for transfer of property in the name of the brother-in- law of defendant no.1 without receiving any consideration therefor. He also issued a blank cheque from the account of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff filed a suit to seek cancellation of documents executed and got registered by him, recovery of Rs.25 lacs and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from selling or alienating their properties. After assessing the DEEPANKER Digitally signed by DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:47 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 11 of 24 documents relied upon by the plaintiff, the court posed the question - whether the court should allow its time to be wasted when the plaintiff had not produced material documents and had not given any explanation for their non-production. The court answered the said question in the negative. The court observed that, "The Court will not allow its time to be wasted for trial of suits which are bound to abort. The monetary claim of Rs.25 lacs made by the plaintiff was also rejected as being barred on the principles of in pari delicto. The court observed that it would not allow its process to be used in enforcement of a transaction which steeps in illegality. Betting in cricket, or for that matter in any sport, is illegal and no claim before a court of law for loss suffered, or made to suffer on that account, would lie. In para 12 of the said judgment, the court observed as follows:-
"12. The principle of public policy is, ex dolo malo non-oritur action i.e. no court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the litigant's own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa or in transgression of a positive law of the country, the Court will refuse to render its assistance to such a litigant. The Supreme Court in Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander AIR 1968 SC 1165 held that in a case in which a litigant must rely upon his own illegality, the Court may refuse him assistance. Similarly in Smt. Surasaibalini Debi Vs. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar AIR 1965 SC 1364 also it was held that if the litigant seeks the assistance of the Court to effectuate an illegal transaction, the Court will refuse to assist him. In Sita Ram Vs. Radha Bai AIR 1968 SC 534 it was held that the principle that the Courts will refuse to enforce an illegal agreement at the instance of a person who is himself a party to an illegality or fraud is expressed in the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis. Similarly in Kedar Nath Motani Vs. Prahlad Rai AIR 1960 SC 213 it was held that where a party rests its case upon an illegality, then public policy demands that it should not be allowed to take advantage of the position. Mention in this context may also be made of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 holding that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties; that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court and can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. It was also noted that the process of the court is being abused - property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. I am also tempted to refer to Ram Sewak Vs. Ram Charan AIR 1982 Allahabad 177. It was a case of concealment of profits; the parties had been keeping double set of accounts for evading payment of Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:52 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 12 of 24 income tax and sales tax. The Lower court reported the matter to the Taxation Authority. The High Court held that the Courts should have refused to entertain the suit on the ground of public policy, as it involved directing the recovery of an amount found to be due to either party as a share of the profits which had been deliberately concealed by the parties from the books of account in order to evade the payment of taxes. It was held that no Court can countenance a deliberate evasion of tax laws of the country and to lend the aid of the court for recovering an amount which had been deliberately kept concealed by the parties in order to evade payment of taxes due thereon. It was further held that if the courts were to do so, it would amount to aiding and abetting evasion of the laws by the court itself. It was further held that since the object of the parties was found to be that the profits will be earned in such a way or retained in such a manner as to evade the payment of taxes which was forbidden by law and which defeats the provision of the tax laws, therefore the object of the agreement was forbidden by law and is opposed to public policy. The agreement between the parties to earn concealed profits being void, it was held that the court could not enforce the agreement by directing an inquiry into that amount or the destination of the concealed profits in order to enforce the recovery of the share therein of one party from another. Reference may also be made to the Full Bench decision in Ghulam Ahmed v. Mohd. Iqbal AIR 1970 J&K 165 where a partnership which entailed transfer of truck and its route permit to the partnership business, in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act was held to be void in entirety."
30. In S. Saktivel (dead) by LRs vs. M. Venugopal Pillai & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 104 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where under the law a contract or disposition is required by law to be in writing, its terms cannot be modified, altered or substituted by an oral contract, or disposition. Under Section 92(4) of the Evidence Act no parol evidence is admissible to substantiate such oral contract or disposition. Where a document for its validity or effectiveness is required by law to be given in writing, no modification or alteration or substitution of such written document is permissible by parol evidence and it is only by another written document that the terms of the earlier document can be altered, rescinded or substituted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that parol evidence cannot be permitted to substantiate the subsequent oral agreement where the original agreement is contained in a registered document. This is not permitted by Section 92(4) of the Evidence Act. The terms of a DEEPANKER Digitally signed by DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:19:57 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 13 of 24 registered document can be altered, rescinded or varied only by subsequent registered document and not otherwise. If the oral arrangement is allowed to be substantiated by parol evidence it would mean re-writing of the registered document which is not permissible".
31. It is settled law that a registered sale deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere a procedural formalities but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. The person alleging that a registered deed is a sham must satisfy a rigorous standards of pleadings by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars in the pleading. The provision of Order VI Rule 4 CPC is applicable to such a pleadings and clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action or defence would not be permitted and a clear right to sue or defence would have to be shown in plaint or written statement.
32. It is not in dispute that mother-in-law of defendant namely Ms. Sandhya Bera has executed the sale deed dated 04.09.2018 in favour of plaintiff in respect to the suit property. It is also not in dispute that the said sale deed has been got registered before the Office of Sub-registrar-IV-B, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi vide document No.7543 in Book No.1, Vol. No.1603, on pages 61 to 72 on 06.09.2018. The signatures of Smt. Sandhya Bera on the sale deed dated 04.09.2018 has not been disputed by defendant in her written statement.
Digitally signed by
DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12
18:20:03 +0530
CS No.57/2020 Page no. 14 of 24
33. It is also not in dispute that a lease deed dated 20.09.2018 has been executed between plaintiff and defendant which was also got registered before the Office of SR-IV-B, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi vide document No.8078, in Book No.1, Vol. No.1624, on pages 96 to 102 on 24.09.2018. Defendant has also not specifically denied her signatures on the said registered lease deed dated 20.09.2018. Defendant has also not disputed her photograph affixed on first page of the lease deed dated 20.09.2018 and photograph taken in the Office of SR-IV-B, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi at the time of registration of the lease deed.
34. The defendant in her written statement has taken the defence and pleaded that the aforesaid sale deed dated 04.09.2018 and lease deed dated 20.09.2018 have been executed by fraud.
35. Defendant has filed the certified copies of the mediation settlement dated 27.09.2018 arrived between Ms. Sunita Garg (plaintiff's wife) and Ms. Sandhya Bera (mother-in-law of defendant). As per the terms recorded in the said settlement, the parties to the said settlement has settled their dispute for total amount of Rs.52,75,000/-. Plaintiff's wife has acknowledged in the said settlement that she has received that settlement amount of Rs.52,75,000/- from mother-in-law of defendant through cheques which have already been encashed/honoured. On the basis of the mediation settlement dated 27.09.2018, plaintiff's wife has withdrawn four complaint cases under Section 138 of Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:20:08 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 15 of 24 NI Act and three Civil Suits filed against mother-in-law of defendant.
36. It is noted that the sale deed dated 04.09.2018 has been executed by mother-in-law of defendant in favour of plaintiff prior to mediation settlement arrived between her and plaintiff's wife. Sale deed reflects that plaintiff has paid consideration of Rs.34 lakhs to the mother-in-law of defendant through cheques. As per sale deed, physical possession of the suit property has also been delivered to plaintiff by the mother-in-law of the defendant.
37. During the course of argument on the applications, Ld. counsel for defendant, on instructions submitted that Ms. Sandhya Bera, mother-in-law of defendant, is alive and she has not filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 04.09.2018 against plaintiff before competent Court of law. He further on instructions submitted that defendant is having no matrimonial dispute with her husband or in-laws and she has a cordial relations with her husband and in-laws including mother- in-law.
38. Admittedly, till date, mother-in-law of defendant namely Ms. Sandhya Bera has not challenged the sale deed dated 04.09.2018 before competent Court of law thereby alleging fraud. As per averments of the written statement, fraud has been played upon the mother-in-law of defendant but till date, she has not approached the competent Court of law seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 04.09.2018 purportedly on the ground of fraud or for non-payment of consideration amount as mentioned in the Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:20:13 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 16 of 24 sale deed. In the absence of any challenge of the sale deed dated 04.09.2018 by the mother-in-law of defendant or when defendant has no matrimonial dispute with her in-laws including mother-in- law, defendant has no right to question the validity and genuineness of the sale deed dated 04.09.2018.
39. The sale deed dated 04.09.2018 had been registered on 06.09.2018 in the Office of SR-IV-B, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi and as per it, physical possession had also been delivered to plaintiff by the mother-in-law of defendant. The lease deed dated 20.09.2018 reflects that tenancy has commenced from 20.09.2018 which means that during the period from 04.09.2018 till 20.09.2018, the physical possession of the suit property was with the plaintiff. It is noted that defendant has not specifically disputed her signatures on the said lease deed dated 20.09.2018 in her written statement. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for defendant admits that the signatures on the lease deed dated 20.09.2018 belong to defendant.
40. Mere mentioning of 'fraud' in a pleading is not sufficient. A party pleading fraud is obliged under Order VI Rule 4 CPC to give particulars of the pleaded fraud - with dates and items, in the pleading. The pleadings of the defendant in her written statement do not even make out a case of fraud especially when her mother-in-law has not challenged the sale deed dated 04.09.2018 alleging fraud.
41. As discussed above, defendant has no right to challenge the sale deed dated 04.09.2018 on the ground of fraud and the Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:20:18 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 17 of 24 defence set up by defendant in her written statement is barred under Section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act (Section 94 and 95 of BSA, 2023), therefore, this Court is of the considered view that plaintiff is the lawful and registered owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 04.09.2018 and defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property in any manner whatsoever.
42. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Parivar Seva Sansthan Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kalra', 2000 (54) DRJ (DB) has held that once the execution of the document has been admitted, Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act comes into play. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court has rejected the plea of the appellant against the contents of the lease deed are barred by Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act. It was further held that such pleas can be ignored by the Court while adjudicating an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, if otherwise the Court finds, either on an application of any party or on its own motion that the admission made in the pleadings or otherwise taken as a whole justify the passing of decree thereon. The relevant para No.9 and 10 of the judgment are hereby reproduced herewith:-
9. Bare perusal of the above rule shows, that it confers very wide powers on the court, to pronounce judgment on admission at any stage of the proceedings. The admission may have been made either in pleadings, or otherwise. The admission may have been made orally or in writing. The court can act on such admission, either on an application of any party or on its own motion without determining the other questions. This provision is discretionary, which has to be exercised on well established principles. Admission must be clear and unequivocal; it must be taken as a whole and it is not permissible to rely on a part of the admission ignoring the other part; even a constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis. Any plea raised against the contents of the documents only for delaying trial being barred by the section 91 and 92 of Evidence Act or other statutory provisions, can be ignored. These principles are well settled by catena of decisions. Reference in this regard be made to the decisions in Dudh Nath Pandey (dead by L.R's) Vs. Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:20:23 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 18 of 24 Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (dead by L.R's) MANU/SC/0382/1986 :
AIR1986SC1509 ; Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Air India MANU/DE/1151/1996 : 65(1997)DLT533 ; Surjit Sachdev Vs. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. 1997 2 AD (Del) 518; Abdul Hamid Vs. Charanjit Lal & Ors. 1998 2 DLT 476 and Lakshmikant Shreekant Vs. M N Dastur & Co. MANU/DE/0524/1998 : 71(1998)DLT564 .
10. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Learned counsel for the appellant, next argued that there was no clear and unequivocal admission in the written statements and no finding on the issues framed could be recorded without trial. Reiterating the above principles in a recent decision, the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja & Anr. Vs Sunil Madan & Anr.
MANU/SC/0551/1999 : AIR1999SC3381, while considering the scope and ambit of the provisions of rule 6 of order 12 CPC observed:
"23. Under this rule, the court can, at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings, pass a Judgment on the basis of admissions made by the defendant. But before the court can act upon the admission , it has to be shown that the admission is unequivocal, clear and positive. This rule empowers the court to pass Judgment and decree in respect of admitted claims pending adjudication of the disputed claims in the suit.
24. In Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum it was held that Order 12 Rule 6 has to be read along with the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8. That is to say, notwithstanding the admission made by the defendant in his pleading, the court may still require the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the plaint.
25. Thus, in spite of admission of a fact having been made by a party to the suit, the court may still require the plaintiff to prove the fact which has been admitted by the defendant. This is also in consonance with the provisions of Section 58 of the Evidence Act which provides as under:
"58. Facts admitted need not be proved.-No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission."
26. The proviso to this section specifically gives a discretion to the court to require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. The proviso corresponds to the proviso to Rule 5(1) Order 8 CPC.
27. In view of the above, it is clear that the court, at no stage, can act blindly or mechanically. While enabling the court to pronounce Judgment in a situation where no written statement is filed by the defendant, the court has also been given the discretion to pass such order as it may think fit as an alternative . This is also the position under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC where the court can either pronounce Judgment against the defendant or pass such order as it may think fit .
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12
18:20:28 +0530
CS No.57/2020 Page no. 19 of 24
43. The Hon'ble High Court in 'Karan Madan and Ors. Vs. Negeshwar Pandey', 2014 SCC Online Delhi 1277 has held that once the title of the plaintiff stands established on the basis of the sale deed executed by the defendant, is that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession. It was further held that there is no purpose of dragging the matter further into trial, so far as, the relief of possession is concerned, since the title of the plaintiff in respect to the suit property stands established and the only consequence thereof, in law, can be that the suit of the plaintiff for possession has to succeed. It was further held that defendant has failed to establish any right or title in the suit property and at the highest, the defendant may have occupied the suit property for some durations after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as a licensee. The said licence clearly stands terminated, if not earlier, upon receipt of the summons in the suit, inter-alia, for possession.
44. In view of the above discussions, this Court concludes that defendant has no right to occupy the suit property because she has no right, title or interest in the suit property and thus, she is liable to hand over vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property to plaintiff forthwith. Thus, a decree of possession in respect to the suit property i.e. property bearing No.14-A-1, area measuring 138.79 sq. mtrs. consisting of one drawing room-cum-dining room, three bed rooms, one kitchen, two toilets/baths on second floor, common passage, stairs, main gate, one car and one two wheeler parking set at ground floor, forming part of property bearing No.14-A-1, out of Khasra Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:20:32 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 20 of 24 No.1047/824/1, situated in the area of Village Chandrawali, Abadi of East Krishna Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-110051 is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
45. As this Court has concluded that plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property against defendant, therefore, in order to preserve the suit property and avoid multiplicity of litigation, defendant, her heirs, her successors, her nominee, her assignee, her agent, her representative or any other person acting on her behalf are hereby restrained from selling, alienating, mortgaging, transferring, creating third party or interest or parting with possession of the suit property in any manner whatsoever till the time vacant and physical possession of the suit property is handed over to plaintiff. Decree of permanent injunction is also accordingly passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. As the decree of permanent injunction has been passed, therefore, application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC is disposed of being infructuous.
46. The lease deed dated 20.09.2018 records that the suit property has been let out to defendant by plaintiff for monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- excluding electricity and water charges. The signatures of the defendant on the lease deed dated 20.09.2018 are not disputed. The lease deed dated 20.09.2018 is a registered document. As per plaintiff, defendant has paid rent of Rs.25,000/- to her for the period of September, 2018 i.e. for one month only. Defendant in her written statement has admitted that she has paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- through cheque to plaintiff, however, she has stated that plaintiff's family had used two blank cheques DEEPANKER Digitally signed by DEEPANKER MOHAN MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:20:37 +0530 CS No.57/2020 Page no. 21 of 24 of the defendant for receiving payment of Rs.25,000/- against each cheque towards the settlement amount agreed between them. It is noted that defendant has not filed any criminal complaint against plaintiff or his family members for misusing the cheques as alleged in her written statement. The defence/plea taken by defendant in respect to lease deed dated 20.09.2018 is barred by Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act (Section 94 and 95 of BSA, 2023), therefore, this Court concludes that defendant is liable to pay mesne profit/usage charges @ Rs.25,000/- per month (excluding water and electricity charges) w.e.f. 20.10.2018 till the date vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property is handed over to plaintiff. Decree of mesne profit/usage charges is accordingly passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
47. Application under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
48. As this Court has also granted decree of mesne profit/usage charges in favour of plaintiff and against defendant as claimed by plaintiff in the application under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC and entire suit has been decreed, therefore, application under Order XV-A, Order XXXIX Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC has become infructuous and accordingly disposed of.
49. FINAL JUDGMENT I. A decree of possession in respect to the suit property i.e. i.e. property bearing No.14-A-1, area measuring 138.79 sq. mtrs.
DEEPANKER Digitally signed by
DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12 18:20:43
+0530
CS No.57/2020 Page no. 22 of 24
consisting of one drawing room-cum-dining room, three bed rooms, one kitchen, two toilets/baths on second floor, common passage, stairs, main gate, one car and one two wheeler parking set at ground floor, forming part of property bearing No.14-A-1, out of Khasra No.1047/824/1, situated in the area of Village Chandrawali, Abadi of East Krishna Nagar Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-110051 is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant and defendant is directed to hand over vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property to plaintiff forthwith. II. A decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant thereby restraining her, her heirs, her successors, her nominee, her assignee, her agent, her representative or any other person acting on her behalf are hereby restrained from selling, alienating, mortgaging, transferring, creating third party or interest or parting with possession of the suit property in any manner whatsoever till the time vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property is handed over to plaintiff.
III. A money decree for recovery of mesne profit/usage charges @ Rs.25,000/- per month (excluding water and electricity charges) w.e.f. 20.10.2018 till the date vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property is handed over to plaintiff, is also passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
IV. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12
18:20:48 +0530
CS No.57/2020 Page no. 23 of 24
50. Present suit is accordingly decree and disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
51. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPANKER DEEPANKER MOHAN
Announced in the open Court MOHAN Date: 2026.05.12
18:20:54 +0530
on 12th May, 2026
(Deepanker Mohan)
District Judge-04
Shahdara District/KKD Courts/Delhi
CS No.57/2020 Page no. 24 of 24