Delhi District Court
Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir vs Bala Devi on 22 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT
CONTROLLER, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Mohit Sharma, DJS
RCA No: 1/23
In the matter of:
Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir
D.D.A Flats, Pul Prahlad Pur
New Delhi - 110044.
Through it's Secretary Mr. Ajay Pandey .......Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bala Devi
W/o Late Pandit Lakshmi Narayan Sharma
R/o Sanatan Dharma Mandir
DDA, Flats, Near Flat No. 360
Pul Prahladpur, New Delhi - 110044. .......... Respondent
AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI
READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC, 1908 AGAINST
DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SUIT FOR MANDATORY
INJUNCTION BEARING NO. 292/2017 BY JUDGMENT
PASSED BY LD. CIVIL JUDGE-01, (SOUTH-EAST), NEW
DELHI ON 12.09.2022
Date of Filing of Appeal : 25.01.2023
Date of Reserving for Judgment : 12.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide the present first appeal, the appellant assails the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2022 passed by the ld. trial court in CS No. 292 of 2017, whereby the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant was dismissed on twin conclusions, one, that the plaintiff was in effect seeking possession in the garb of an injunction and, two, that the plaintiff RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 1 of 9 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.22 16:01:35 +0530 was not entitled to a mandatory injunction as prayed. Record of the ld. trial court and the judgment in question has been perused which explicitly holds that the suit sought to recover possession and that mandatory injunction was not available in the facts, and the suit was dismissed with parties to bear their own costs.
2. The appeal opens with a recital that the appellant challenges the illegality of the impugned decree and prays for setting aside the dismissal. The memorandum maintains that the ld. trial court misconstrued the nature of the action and failed to appreciate the appellant's documents and testimonies, besides misplacing the burden of proof under Section 102 of the Evidence Act.
3. On factual canvas, the appeal elaborates that residents of DDA Janta Flats formed an RWA, later constituted a Mandir Samiti that was registered under the Societies Registration Act, to manage the temple and to create ancillary facilities, namely, a store room for kirtan instruments, a waiting or rest room, and toilet and bathroom facilities. These, collectively described as the suit property, are asserted to lie within the temple premises and to exclusively belong to the appellant.
4. The appeal further states that Shri Brahm Dutt Pandey was appointed as priest with a salary of Rs. 800/- per month, followed by late Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma in 1997 initially at Rs.500/- per month later enhanced to Rs.800/- per month. Around 2007 to 2008, on humanitarian grounds, the husband of the respondent was permitted to use the rest room, on assurance to vacate when RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 2 of 9 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.22 16:01:41 +0530 asked. During the marriage of the respondent's daughter on 08.12.2010, temporary use of the store room was allowed, which was allegedly not restored. The husband expired on 01.01.2015 and the appeal pleads that the license, if any, stood automatically determined thereafter, yet the respondent continued to occupy and allegedly undertook unauthorized construction.
5. The appeal narrates complaints to authorities, objections to alleged pucca conversion of a temporary shed, and emphasizes that the Mandir Samiti manages the temple and its utilities. It alleges abuse of process and asserts that the respondent claims legal ownership despite being, according to the appellant, only a permissive user through the deceased priest.
6. The appeal also notes that the respondent's separate suit bearing CS SCJ 15 of 2017, Bala Devi versus Ram Ikbal Choudhary and others, was decided on the same date, that both matters were consolidated for evidence, and that the decree in the respondent's suit rested on principles in Anathula Sudhakar regarding when a simplicitor injunction is maintainable, while recording admissions that the land is DDA or Government land and that the appellant was not in possession.
7. As grounds, the appeal asserts non application of mind, misreading of pleadings, overlooking of the built up area and site plan, failure to discuss exhibits of the plaintiff and depositions of PWs, and misplacement of the burden of proof under Section 102, although, according to the appellant, the onus on the framed issue rested on the defendant.
RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 3 of 9 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.22 16:01:49 +0530
8. It is averred, at length, that the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2022 suffers from non application of judicial mind and is liable to be set aside, since the ld. Civil Judge misdirected the inquiry by overlooking the statutory allocation of burden under Section 102 of the Evidence Act, inasmuch as, despite Issue No. 1 casting the onus on the defendant, the ld. trial court assessed and reasoned primarily on depositions of the plaintiff's witnesses under paragraphs 11.1 to 11.1.7 of the impugned judgment, while the defendant failed to discharge the onus that the plaintiff was seeking possession in the garb of injunction; further, the ld. trial court misconstrued the record regarding the built up portion and courtyard, namely one room, kitchen and bathroom, which, as per the appellant, were constructed from the appellant's own funds and handed to the respondent's husband during his lifetime, and the ld. trial court wrongly read paragraph 2.1 by imputing that the respondent's family constructed and occupied from their own funds since 1994; in addition, the ld. trial court ignored that the site plan directions and identification of the built area are incorrect as compared with the appellant's correct plan, thereby overlooking Hon'ble Supreme Court guidance on boundary description and constructive possession; hence, on these foundational errors, the dismissal is unsustainable.
9. It is further urged that the ld. trial court erred in refusing to acknowledge continuing community use of temple utilities and storage by devotees and members, namely toilets, bathroom, kitchen and store rooms adjacent to the temple, and that, consequent to the impugned decree, devotees and members have been constrained to seek public facilities outside, which, RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 4 of 9 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.22 16:01:57 +0530 according to the appellant, offends equity and natural justice; the appellant also points to minutes of 15.08.1995, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3, recording the formation of the Mandir Samiti and written support of the respondent's husband to work as priest, which, read with surrounding circumstances, the appellant treats as establishing at least a permissive license for limited occupation aligned with priestly duties, a facet the ld. trial court failed to evaluate; the grievance extends to the ld. trial court's treatment of boundaries and surrounding area, since, as pleaded, the respondent was never in absolute possession of two rooms, bathroom, kitchen and common passage, and the true site plan and photographs filed as Annexures 7 and 8, according to the appellant, demonstrate that only one room with a courtyard was in the respondent's dwelling use and the remainder continued for temple and common purposes.
10. The appellant lastly objects that the impugned decision was passed in concurrence with findings in the connected suit CS SCJ 15 of 2017 without independent appreciation of exhibits, particularly Ex. CW-1/3 to Ex. CW-1/13, which the appellant says support its version of a licensor licensee arrangement, and that, by leaning on the connected decision, the ld. trial court failed to address the appellant's documents and submissions on their own merits, thereby culminating in an erroneous refusal of reliefs in a suit that, in the appellant's view, sought restoration of spaces permissively given and not a recovery of possession simpliciter.
11. The ld. trial court summarized the reliefs as a prayer to RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 5 of 9 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.22 16:02:03 +0530 direct the defendant to remove her belongings and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property, and it treated the suit as one to recover possession through injunctive relief. On appreciation of evidence, the ld. trial court recorded that the plaintiff did not prove a licensor licensee grant referable to occupation of the suit property, that the plaintiff's witnesses made categorical admissions about the land being DDA or Government land, and that, in such circumstances, the plaintiff did not possess a better title than the defendant already in possession. These findings are explicit in the judgment. The suit was dismissed with a clear holding that mandatory injunction could not be used as a substitute for a more efficacious remedy of possession in the facts, there being no obligation owed by the defendant to the plaintiff that could be enforced by a mandatory injunction.
12. Arguments on appeal were heard at length. Appeal record as well as trial court record has been perused carefully.
13. The true nature of an action is determined by the reliefs claimed and the proved facts. The prayer here required the defendant to remove belongings and hand over vacant and peaceful possession. The ld. trial court rightly examined whether a licensor licensee relationship was proved so that an injunction could be the vehicle of recovery upon determination of license. The plaintiff's documents show the management of the temple, engagement and payment to priests, and existence of temple utilities. They do not, however, constitute a contemporaneous grant to occupy the suit property referable to a license.
RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 6 of 9 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.22 16:02:10 +0530
14. The admissions by the plaintiff's witnesses are decisive. Multiple witnesses accepted in cross examination that the temple and the suit property stand on DDA land, that there is no title document with the appellant to show allotment or ownership, and that the temple is on Government land. The ld. trial court captured these admissions verbatim and treated them as undermining any assertion of better title by the plaintiff vis a vis the respondent in possession. This approach is unimpeachable.
15. The appellant's insistence on onus is misplaced. Even if the formal onus on a particular issue lay on the defendant, an issue can be decided on the totality of evidence, including admissions emerging from the plaintiff's own witnesses. The ld. trial court's reliance on those admissions, while noting that no license grant was proved, cannot be faulted.
16. The connected decree in CS SCJ 15 of 2017 was relied upon by the ld. trial court as corroborative context, not as res judicata on title. The appeal itself recounts that both matters were consolidated for evidence and that the injunction decree in the respondent's suit drew from Anathula Sudhakar to hold that a simplicitor injunction lies where a plaintiff is in possession and is threatened. That background reinforces the finding that the present plaintiff was not in possession and that the appropriate route was a suit for possession.
17. As to the appellant's narrative on unauthorized construction and conversion of sheds to pucca structure, those allegations explain the need felt by the appellant to recover the RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 7 of 9 Digitally signed by MOHIT MOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.22 16:02:18 +0530 area. They do not supply the missing juristic link. In the absence of a proved license or other legal duty owed by the respondent to the appellant, a final mandatory injunction could not be decreed to deliver possession.
18. The ld. trial court's reasons expressly record that there is no obligation owed by the respondent that could be enforced by mandatory injunction, and that the efficacious remedy of possession was not pursued. This Court concurs.
19. The grievance that the ld. trial court overlooked the built up portion or the site plan particulars does not carry the appellant over the legal threshold. Even perfect site demarcation would not convert an out of possession plaintiff, lacking proof of a subsisting jural tie, into an entitled party for a possession oriented injunction. The law insists on the correct remedy and foundation.
20. On a holistic reappraisal, therefore, the ld. trial court's twin conclusions are sustainable. One, the suit was in effect for recovery of possession. Two, mandatory injunction could not be granted in the facts, there being no obligation to enforce and there being an efficacious remedy otherwise. The dismissal of the suit follows as a natural consequence.
21. The impugned judgment and decree dated 12.09.2022 are sound, reasoned, and firmly rooted in the record. No case for appellate interference is made out under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.
RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 8 of 9 Digitally signed by MOHITMOHIT SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.22 16:02:26 +0530
22. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 12.09.2022 passed by the ld. Civil Judge 01, South East, in CS No. 292 of 2017 are affirmed. No order as to costs.
23. Trial court record be returned with a copy of this judgment.
24. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the Open Court
on 22.09.2025 MOHIT by MOHIT
SHARMA
Digitally signed
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.22
16:02:32 +0530
(Mohit Sharma)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
RCA SCJ 1/23 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Mandir Vs. Bala Devi Page 9 of 9