Delhi District Court
Shujauddin vs Mrs Laiquan Nisha on 19 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD
DISTRICT JUDGE-01, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
CS NO. 160/2022
CNR NO. DLCT01-002719-2022
SHUJAUDDIN
S/O LATE MOHD. FAROOQ
R/O 404-B, GALI MATIAMAHAL,
JAMA MASJID, DELHI-110006 ....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. MRS. LAIQUAN NISA (Since deceased through LRs)
1 (a) Shama (daughter)
W/o Raziuddin
R/o -1225, Gali Surkh Poshan,
Choori Walan, Delhi-110006
M No 9250235579
1(b) Rukhsana @ Soni (daughter)
W/o Shafiquddin
R/o 2106, Rodgran,
Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006
M No 9811268089
1 (c ) Shagufta (daughter)
W/o Fateh
R/o 4571, 3rd Floor, Gali Shatara,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006
M No 9250913172
CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 1/18
1 (d) Suraiya (daughter)
W/o Rehan
R/o House No 488, Matia Mahal,
Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006
M No 9278089513
1 (e) Nasreen (daughter)
W/o Naeemuddin
R/o Block No 38, Pratap Khand,
Jhilmil Colony, Vishwakaram Nagar,
Delhi-110095
M NO 9210321562
2. MOHD. ANEES
S/O LATE MOHD. ISLAM
R/O 404, GALI MATIA MAHAL,
JAMA MASJID, New DELHI- 110006 ....DEFENDANTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 10.02.2022
DATE OF RESERVING : 25.10.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery possession and damages/mesne profits pleadings inter alia as under :-
a. The present suit is being filed for recovery of possession and damages of part portion of Second Floor and part portion of Third Floor of the property bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi more shown RED in site plan.
b. The Plaintiff is owner of the Suit Property by way of registered Sale deed dated 08.06.1989 registered as document No.3457, in Addl. Book No.I, Vol.
CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 2/18 NO.5 103, on pages 103 to 107 registered before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi.
c. The Defendants were allowed to live there as licencee out of love and affection being relative of the Plaintiff. Due to some unwanted acts and conducts of the Defendants, the Plaintiff is no more interested to continue their licence and are also required the Suit Property for use and occupation for himself and his family members. The Plaintiff terminated the licence of the Defendants w.e.f. 31st October, 2021 vide Notice dated 16.09.2021 sent by registered post.
d. The Defendants failed to vacate and handover peaceful and vacant possession of the Suit Property to the Plaintiff.
e. The Plaintiff being owner of the Suit Property have every right to take possession of the Suit Property from the Defendants, who have no right to continue to stay in the Suit property anymore. The Defendants never have any right, title or interest in the Suit Property, as such they have no right to continue to use and occupy the Suit Property.
f. The Plaintiff till the month of October, 2021 had not claimed any licence fee from the Defendants out of love and affection, but the Plaintiff claims the use and occupation charges from the Defendant at monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- per month with effect from November, 2021, because the possession of the Defendants in the Suit Property is unauthorized and the Defendants are liable to pay the same to the Plaintiff till the date of vacation of the Suit Property.
g. Thus based upon the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff has sought the following reliefs:
CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 3/18 a. Pass decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants in respect of the suit property i.e. bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi more shown RED in the site plan;
b. Pass a decree for recovery of Rs.24,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants as use and occupation charges for the months of Nov. 2021 to January, 2022 for unauthorized and occupation of the suit property i.e. bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi;
c. Pass a decree of damages/mesne profits in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants for recovery of damages/mesne profits @ Rs.8,000/- or at such rate as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper for unauthorized used and occupation of the Suit Premises for the pendente- lite and future till the vacation of the Suit Premises i.e. bearing No. 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
2. The defendants filed their written statement pleadings inter alia as under :-
a. That the present suit is based on concocted, false and fabricated facts and the defendants had never been licensees under the plaintiff and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
b. That the suit is even otherwise barred under section 19 of Slum Area Clearance Act if the version of the plaintiff is read, since the property in question lies in slum area and no suit or petition can be filed without the permission of competent authority.
CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 4/18 c. That the suit is barred by limitation and the defendant are owner of the suit property by virtue of gift deed of late Mohd Sulaiman and even by way of law of adverse possession, since the possession of the defendants is hostile to the plaintiff for the last several decades.
d. That the parties to the present suit are legal heirs of Late Sh. Sulaiman who was father of the late husband of the defendant no.1 and grandfather of defendant no.2 and the plaintiff.
e. That Late Sh. Sulaiman during his lifetime had taken a plot of land from its erstwhile owner somewhere in 1947, and constructed the same out of his own funds. It is submitted that Late Sh. Sulaiman expired in the decade of 1980s and left behind four sons as his legal heirs. The details of whom are given as hereunder:
a. Mohd. Rafiq (expired) survived by one son dead, Mohd. Shakil, Mohd. Hanif, Shameem (daughter).
b. Mohd. Islam (expired) survived by wife Laiqan Begum, Mohd. Anees (son), and 5 daughters .. Shama Parveen, Nasreen Begum, Ruksana Begum, Suraiya, Shagufta.
c. Mohd. Farooq(expired) survived by Shujauddin (Son), 9 daughters. d. Mohd. Taqi (son) Alive.
f. That it is submitted that plaintiff is son of Mohd. Farooq, and his status is not better than that of the defendants herein. It is submitted that Late Mohd. Sulaiman was the owner of the suit property and the entire construction thereon was raised by him.
g. That during his lifetime late Mohd. Sulaiman had made a gift deed qua the suit property, by virtue of which he had divided the suit property in CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 5/18 favour of his legal heirs in the following manner : (a) First floor to Mohd. Farooq and Mohd. Rafiq and (b) Second floor to Mohd. Taqi and Mohd. Islam The roof rights were common.
h. That the said arrangement was made way back in 1980s and it has become final and has stood so, for the last more than 40 years. It is submitted that the said arrangement and gift deed has never been challenged by anyone and hence, the answering defendants are owner of the portion wherein the defendants are residing along with his family members.
i. That the plaintiff who is real nephew of the defendant no.1 and cousin of defendant no.2 has filed the present suit on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It is submitted that the sale deed placed on record by the plaintiff is totally forged. It is submitted that the alleged Mehmood Jahan or her predecessors were never the owner of the suit property. It is submitted that it is quite surprising that the forged and fabricated sale deed is showing the date of registration as 1989, but till date i.e. for the last about 33 years no action was taken by the plaintiff on the basis of the said alleged sale deed. This fact in itself makes the suit barred by limitation, as the answering defendant along with his family members is residing in the suit property as owner thereof.
j. On merits, it has been contended that the present suit is being filed for recovery of possession and damages of part portion of second floor and part portion of third floor of the property bearing no.404, Gali Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi, more shown in Red color in site plan. The site plan is CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 6/18 totally incorrect. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property on the basis of any alleged sale deed.
k. It has been contended that the said sale deed is not only forged but fabricated and also it has been denied that the Defendants were allegedly allowed to live as licensee out of love and affection allegedly being relative of the plaintiff and also that due to some alleged unwanted acts or conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff is allegedly no more interested to continue his alleged license or that also required the suit property for alleged use or occupation for himself or his family members. The defendants have denied that the plaintiff allegedly terminated the license of the defendants w.e.f 31 October, 2021, vide alleged Notice dated 16.09.2021 allegedly sent by registered post. It is submitted that the defendants never received the said notice even otherwise the same is without any legal force. It is submitted that it was Late predecessor of the defendants namely Mohd. Sulaiman who was the owner of the suit property.
l. That since the answering defendant and his family members are the owners of the suit property under their possession there had never been any question of vacation or handing over of the possession to the plaintiff.
m. It has been denied that the plaintiff allegedly being the alleged owner of the suit property have every alleged right to take possession of the said property from the defendants. It is denied that the defendants have no right to continue to stay in the suit property anymore. It is wrong and denied that the defendants never have any right, title or interest in the suit property, or that they have no right to continue to use or occupy the suit property.
CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 7/18 REPLICATION
3. The plaintiff filed his replication denying the averments made by the defendants in their written statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint. It has been stated that the defendant has not filed any document to support his contentions of ownership of the Property in the name of Mohd. Sulaiman, whereas the Plaintiff has already filed his title documents. It has further been contended that the defendant has nowhere claimed his possession of the premises as tenant and further the ownership documents of Late Mohd. Sulaiman are also not in existence and thus Section 19 of the Slum Area Clearance Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been denied that the defendants are owners of the suit property by virtue of Gift Deed of Late Mohd. Sulaiman and even by way of law of adverse possession and the defendants have taken self- contradictory pleas. It has been contended that since Mohd Sulaiman was not the owner of the suit property hence the question of the execution of the gift deed does not arise.
ISSUES
4. The court vide order dated 20.09.2022 had framed the following issues for adjudication :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of suit property as per prayer Clause (a)? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 24,000/- as per prayer Clause (b)? OPP CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 8/18
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 8,000/-
as per prayer Clause (c)? OPP
4. Whether Late Mohd Sulaiman was owner of the suit property? OPD
5. Whether the gift dated 03.01.1974 executed by Late Mohd. Sulaiman is legal and valid in the eyes of law? OPD
6. Relief, if any.
EVIDENCE
5. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case had examined himself as PW-1 and entered into the witness box as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :-
S.No. Exhibits Documents
1. PW1/1 Site plan
2. PW1/2 (OSR) (Colly) The copy of the sale deed
dated 08.06.1989
3. PW1/3 (Colly) Legal notice dated 16.09.2021
and original postal receipts.
6. The said witness was duly cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants on subsequent dates and vide order dated 08.05.2024, PE was closed.
7. The defendant, in order to prove her case had examined one Mr. Mohd.
Anees who entered into the witness box as DW1/A and relied upon the following documents :-
S.No. Exhibits Documents
1. DW1/1 Photocopy of the gift deed
2. DW1/2 (OSR) Photocopy of the passport of Mohd. Islam
3. DW1/3 (OSR) Photocopy of ration card of defendant no. 2
CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 9/18
4. DW1/4 (OSR) Copy of cash memo
5. DW1/5 (OSR) Copy of electricity bill
6. DW1/6 Photocopy of Nikahnama
8. DW-1 was duly cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff on subsequent dates and vide order dated 02.06.2025, DE was closed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
9. I have heard the arguments from both the sides and perused the records carefully and my issue wise findings are as under:
10. ISSUE no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of suit property as per prayer Clause (a)? OPP
11. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that he became the owner of the suit property by virtue of Ex PW 1/2 i.e. sale deed dt 08.06.1989. As per the plaintiff, the defendants were allowed to live there as licensees out of love and affection being the relatives of the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the license as granted to the defendants was terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2021 vide Ex PW 1/3 i.e. legal notice dt 16.09.2021. Thus as per the plaintiff, consequent upon the termination of the license, the defendants have no right to continue to stay in the suit property and as such the plaintiff has sought a decree of possession with respect to the suit property as shown in Red in the site plan i.e. Ex PW 1/1.
12. It is the case of the defendants in the written statement that the defendants are the owner of the suit property by virtue of gift deed of late Mohd Sulaiman and also by adverse possession since the possession of the CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 10/18 defendants is hostile to the plaintiff for the last several years. The defendants have further stated that they are the legal heirs of late Mohd Sulaiman who was the father of the late husband of defendant no 1 and the grandfather of defendant no 2. Late Mohd Sulaiman during his lifetime has taken a plot of land from its erstwhile owner somewhere in 1947 and constructed the same out of his own funds. It is further the defence of defendant that late Mohd Sulaiman had made a gift deed and had divided the suit property whereby the father of the plaintiff and Mohd Rafiq was given the first floor and the second floor was given to Mohd Taqi and Mohd Islam. It is further the stand of the defendants that the sale deed as filed by the plaintiff is forged and that the vendor from which (Smt Mehmood Jahan) the plaintiff has purchased the suit property was never the owner of the said property. The defendants have also questioned the site plan of the suit property as filed by the plaintiff.
13. In order to prove this issue the plaintiff has relied upon the testimony of PW-1 who has duly proved on record the sale deed dt 08.06.1989 and also Ex PW 1/3 i.e. the notice terminating the license granted to the defendants w.e.f. 31.10.2021.
14. PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld counsel for the defendant who has testified that the suit property is divided into two parts Eastern side (Right side) & Western side (Left side) who has stated that he is the owner of the portion on the Eastern side. PW-1 in his cross examination has stated that his father (Mohd Farooq) was a tenant and that his grandfather had brought all his children at the suit property. PW-1 has also proved the site plan which was prepared at the time of execution of sale deed i.e. Ex PW1/D1 CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 11/18 and has denied the suggestion that Ex PW 1/1 does not pertain to the suit property. PW-1 has clearly stated that there are no changes in Ex PW 1/D1 & Ex PW 1/1 (site plan). PW-1 has clearly explained that prior to his purchasing the suit property the entire suit property was known as 404 however since he purchased a portion of the suit property the same was demarcated as 404/A & 404/B who has further stated that such a demarcation has not been recorded in any statutory authority.
15. Thus, the plaintiff on the basis of the documents placed on record was able to prove that vide sale deed dt 08.06.1989 the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property i.e. the first floor and the second floor including the terrace. No suggestion or question has been put to PW-1 that the vendor ie. (Smt Mehmood Jahan Begum W/o Sh Abdul Khaliq) from which the plaintiff had purchased the suit property was not the owner of the property bearing no 404/B as shown in Red in Ex PW 1/D1.
16. DW-1 i.e. Sh Mohd Anees in his cross examination has clearly admitted that there exist no document showing that the suit property was purchased by Late Mohd Sulaiman i.e. the father of Mohd Islam and the plaintiff. He has clearly stated that he heard from his elders that the suit property was purchased by Late Mohd Sulaiman. DW-1 failed to disclose as to who was the original owner of the suit property from whom Late Mohd Sulaiman has allegedly purchased the same and has neither admitted nor denied that the vendor (Smt Mehmood Jahan Begum) from whom the plaintiff has purchased the suit property was the owner of the suit property. He has clearly shown his ignorance and has stated that he do not know if the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Smt Mehmood Jahan Begum CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 12/18 vide sale deed dt 08.06.1989 (Ex PW 1/ 2). During the cross examination DW-1 when confronted with the original rent receipts for the years 1968, 1971, 1979 & 1986 (Mark A to Mark G) which show that Mohd Farooq was a tenant under Sayyeda Mehmood Jahan Begum w/o Sh Abdul Khaliq has stated that he cannot read the contents of the same since he is not having his spectacles. He has also denied the knowledge as to when the first floor and the second floor of the suit property was constructed and also as to who had constructed the same. He has clearly admitted that he never paid any house tax of the suit property. He has also stated that he do not remember whether the legal notice was received by him prior to filing of the present suit.
17. Thus from the aforesaid documents placed on record by the plaintiff and the testimonies of PW-1 and DW-1 this court has no hesitation to say that it is the plaintiff who is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same vide Ex PW 1/ 2 i.e. sale deed dt 08.06.1989 from Smt Mehmood Jahan Begum W/o Abdul Khaliq. The defendants have failed to establish and prove on record that either Late Mohd Sulaiman became the owner of the suit property in the year 1947 including the fact that Late Mohd Sulaiman had constructed the suit property. The defendants have further failed to establish that the defendants were holding the suit property hostile to the title of the plaintiff since DW-1 in clear terms has denied the suggestion that he is residing in the suit property against the wishes of the plaintiff. The defendants have further failed to prove that Smt Mehmood Jahan Begum was not the owner of the suit property or that except the plaintiff, the suit property vested in any other person. Thus the defendants CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 13/18 have failed to prove that either Late Mohd Sulaiman was the owner of the suit property or had any right, title or interest in the same or that the defendants are occupying the suit property in any other capacity other than the licensees. The plaintiffs have duly proved on record Ex PW 1/3 vide which the license as granted by the plaintiff to the defendants stood terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2021 by duly placing on record the postal receipts of the dispatch and the delivery of Ex PW 1/3. The factum of the non receipt of Ex PW 1/3 has not been denied by DW-1 who has never disputed that the address mentioned in Ex PW 1/3 is not his address. Moreover, the defendants have failed to prove that Ex PW 1/1 or Ex PW 1/D1 does not pertain to the suit property or is incorrect in any manner.
18. The defendants in their written statement have taken a plea that the suit is barred u/s 19 of Slum Area Clearance Act since the property in question lies in a slum area. No evidence whatsoever has been led by the defendant to prove that the property in question is situated in a slum area. Besides the aforesaid, the defendants in the present matter have not claimed themselves to be the tenants with respect to the suit property who have claimed ownership thereof by virtue of the gift deed executed by Late Mohd Sulaiman and also by virtue of adverse possession.
19. Ld counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Satender Jain vs Satya Narain Sanjiv Gupta HUF (RSA 139/2019) whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the full bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Punna Ram & ors Vs Chiranji Lal Gupta & ors AIR 1982 CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 14/18 Delhi 431 and also in the matter of Giri Raj (since deceased) through LRs vs Deepak Gupta and others RSA 151/2012 vide para 29 has held as follows:
"29. on the basis of the above legal position especially in view of the decision in Punna Ram (Supra), it is concluded that the provisions of Section 19 of the Slums Act would be applicable only to tenants in law and not to occupiers generally. The heirs of the original tenant would thus not be entitled to protection under Section 19."
20. Thus in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Satender Jain vs Satya Narain Sanjiv Gupta HUF since the defendants in the present matter are claiming ownership in themselves by virtue of the gift deed of Late Mohd Suliaman and even by way of adverse possession they are not entitled to the protection afforded to the tenants u/s 19 of the Slums Act. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
21. ISSUE No 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 24,000/-
as per prayer Clause (b)? OPP & ISSUE No 3:Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 8,000/- as per prayer Clause (c)? OPP
22. The plaintiff has not examined any witness besides PW-1 to prove that the use and occupation charges of the suit property were Rs 8,000/-. PW-1 has clearly stated that he is not aware as to the prevailing rent in the vicinity of the suit property. However DW-1 in his cross examination has admitted the fact that there is a possibility of rent of the equivalent premises under his occupation in the vicinity to the tune of Rs 8,000/- per month. Thus, consequent upon the termination of the license as granted to the defendants, CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 15/18 the defendants who are the unauthorized occupants w.e.f. 31.10.2021 based upon the admission made by DW-1 are held liable to pay use and occupation charges @ Rs 8,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.2021 till the date of the handing over the possession of the suit property. Hence, both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
23. ISSUE no 4: Whether Late Mohd Sulaiman was owner of the suit property? OPD & ISSUE No 5: Whether the gift dated 03.01.1974 executed by Late Mohd. Sulaiman is legal and valid in the eyes of law? OPD
24. Both the issues being interconnected are being decided together. The onus to prove these issues are upon the defendants. It is the case of the defendants in the written statement that the defendants are the owner of the suit property by virtue of gift deed of late Mohd Sulaiman and also by adverse possession since the possession of the defendants is hostile to the plaintiff for the last several years. The defendants have further stated that they are the legal heirs of late Mohd Sulaiman who was the father of the late husband of defendant no 1 and the grandfather of defendant no 2. Late Mohd Sulaiman during his lifetime has taken a plot of land from its erstwhile owner somewhere in 1947 and constructed the same out of his own funds. It is further the defence of defendant that late Mohd Sulaiman had made a gift deed and had divided the suit property whereby the father of the plaintiff and Mohd Rafiq was given the first floor and the second floor was given to Mohd Taqi and Mohd Islam. DW-1 i.e. Sh Mohd Anees in his cross examination has clearly admitted that there exist no document CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 16/18 showing that the suit property was purchased by Late Mohd Sulaiman i.e. the father of Mohd Islam and the plaintiff. He has clearly stated that he heard from his elders that the suit property was purchased by Late Mohd Sulaiman. DW-1 failed to disclose as to who was the original owner of the suit property from whom Late Mohd Sulaiman has allegedly purchased the same. He has also denied the knowledge as to when the first floor and the second floor of the suit property was constructed and also as to who had constructed the same. He has clearly admitted that he never paid any house tax of the suit property. The defendants have placed on record Hibanama with respect to the suit property executed by Late Mohd Sulaiman which is an unregistered document. The defendants have also filed on record the copy of the passport of Mohd Islam, Liaqun Nisa, ration card of Mohd Anees, cement construction receipt, copy of electricity bill in the name of Mohd Islam and Nikahnama. From the documents placed on record and by the testimonies of DW-1, the defendants have failed to prove that Late Mohd Sulaiman had any right, title or interest in the suit property which was taken on lease by the father of the plaintiff as is evident from the rent receipts (Mark A to Mark G) and the same was thereafter purchased by the plaintiff from Smt Mehmood Jahan Bagum. The defendants who have claimed ownership of Late Mohd Sulaiman have failed to disclose as to how and from whom Late Mohd Sulaiman had purchased the suit property and the ownership thereof is being claimed merely on the basis of hearsay. Moreover DW-1 has clearly denied his knowledge as to when the suit property was constructed and by whom it was constructed. DW-1 has stated that he cannot say whether Late Mohd Sulaiman had any right or not to CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 17/18 execute the gift deed. Thus from the aforesaid it can safely be concluded that the defendants have failed to prove any right, title or interest in the suit property having been acquired by Late Mohd Sulaiman in the suit property and in the absence of the same Late Mohd Sulaiman was ill suited/incapable of executing any gift deed with respect to suit property. Hence, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF:
25. In view of the discussion herein made above, the plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of possession in respect of suit property bearing no 404, Gali Matiamahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi as shown in Red in Ex PW 1/1 i.e. the site plan which shall form part of the decree. The plaintiff is also held entitled to a decree of mense profits @ Rs 8,000/- w.e.f. 01.11.2021 till the handing over of the actual possession of the suit premises.
26. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared only after payment of the deficient court fees.
27. File be consigned to record room, after necessary legal formalities.
Digitally signed by SACHINAnnounced in the open court (Sachin Sood)
SACHIN SOOD
SOOD
Date:
2025.11.19
18:29:23
on 19.11.2025. DJ-01 (Central)
+0530
THC, Delhi.
CS No. 160/2022 Shujauddin vs. Mrs. Laiquan Nisa Page no. 18/18