Delhi District Court
Smt Shipra Trivedi vs Sardar Avtar Singh on 22 May, 2026
CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030008522014
CS SCJ No. 163/2014 609277/2016
DLWT030008522014
SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI
W/o. Sh. Himanshu Trivedi
R/o B-279, (front Portion)
2nd FLOOR, JANAK PURI
NEW DELHI-58
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH (deceased)
Through legal heirs
(a). Smt DALJIT KAUR (Wife)
9/1 M, Shranpur Road
Kalighat. Kolkata-700026
West Bengal
(b). MANVIDER SINGH (Son)
(c) HARVINDER SINGH(SON) Digitally
signed by
Both R/o, VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
21/1A, Floor No. 3 KUMAR
AGARWAL
Date:
Pratapaditya Road AGARWAL 2026.05.22
18:04:54
+0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),
PAGE 1/39 22.05.2026
CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH
Near Tollygunge Thana, Kalighat S.O.
Kolkata-700026
West Bengal
(d) KANWAL NAIAN KAUR (daughter)
W/o Sh. Mohinder Singh,
R/o Ashok Niwas
Lok Tara Estate
Upper Kaithu, Shimla Urban
Agpo, Shimla - 171003
Himachal Pradesh
2. KAWARPAL SINGH
(also legal heir of deceased Defendant no. 1)
S/o Late Sardar Awtar Singh
R/o B-2/79, Third Floor
Janakpuri, New Delhi
3. KAWALDEEP SINGH
S/o Harvinder Pal Singh
R/o G-7, Vikas Puri
New Delhi-18
4. Harvinder Pal Singh(later impleaded as LR of defendant
No.1)
5. COMMISSIONER SDMC
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Center
Minto Road
New Delhi-02
6. CHAIRMAN OF BSES
BSES Bhawan
Nehru Palace
New Delhi-19 ....DEFENDANTS
Digitally signed
VIVEK by VIVEK
KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date: 2026.05.22
18:05:05 +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),
PAGE 2/39 22.05.2026
CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment of mine shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiff seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants.
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking following reliefs :
Permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, assignees to the extent that the defendants shall not dispossess the plaintiff from their property at 2nd floor, western front side portion of the suit property i.e. B-2/79, Janakpuri, Delhi-110058.
Permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining and injuncting the defendants not to stop the plaintiff entering into the common facility area or to enjoy all the benefits of common facility area of the plaintiff at 2nd floor, western front side portion of the suit property.
Mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants in particular Defendant no. 3 to repair the seepage of the roof of Digitally signed the plaintiff. VIVEK KUMAR by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.05.22 18:05:11 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 3/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH Mandatory injunction against the defendants not to disturb the ingress or egress of the plaintiff from the front side portion of the building including the stilt parking area. Mandatory injunction against the defendants thereby directing them to install the water meter and water motor of the plaintiff at the designated space.
Mandatory injunction against defendant no. 6 thereby directing them to install all the electric panel at their designated space and repair all the twisted and damaged wires.
Mandatory injunction against defendant no. 4 thereby directing them to correct all the deviations in the said building.
Declaration, declaring plaintiff to be lawful owner of the suit premises including joint owner with all the other co-owners of the common area facility in the building.
2.1. As per the plaint, in brief the case of plaintiff is that the plaintiff vide registered sale deed had purchased suit property from Defendant no.3 along with 2 car parking after paying full consideration amount of the same and is in possession of the said property. That Defendant no 3 had purchased the suit property from VIVEK Defendant no. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 03.09.2010 also KUMAR AGARWAL Defendant no. 1, 3 and 4 had entered into irrevocable triparte agreement cum memorandum of understanding dated 27.12.2010 Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.05.22 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 18:05:17 +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 4/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH for reconstruction of suit property as per sanctioned plan of MCD/local authorities. Defendant no 1 & 2 are father and son and stay together at the demised premises. Defendant no 3 & 4 are also son and father and are into construction business. Defendant no. 5 is a state agency and Defendant no. 6 is responsible for supply and distribution of electricity in the locality. That plaintiff vide the said sale deed dated 29.11.2013 in her favour has got right to use all the common facilities including the common drive way area, common rights of staircase and passage, with all uninterrupted rights of ingress and egress from the passage and staircase, with proportionate free hold rights of the land under the said property.
Further it was agreed between the parties that occupants of the building shall not block or damage the common facilities i.e. main gate entrance/exit passage, sewerage and stairs and stairs lights etc and the same shall be maintained by all in equal. That the plaintiff along with her family has not been able to shift and settle in the above mentioned flat because of various mischief committed by respondents. That the roof of the flat of plaintiff has got serious seepage problem because of which her entire POP has been damaged and there has been considerable damage to the structure of the building because of the seepage, as a result the said property is unliveable under the current condition.
2.2 VIVEK It is further stated that the plaintiff has requested KUMAR Defendant no. 1 and Defendant no. 2 to get it rectified as the said AGARWAL Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 5/39 22.05.2026 Date: 2026.05.22 18:05:26 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH seepage is coming out from the toilet of Defendant no. 1 and 2 but all the request of the plaintiff have fallen on deaf erars. 2.3. It is stated that Defendant no. 1 and 2 has not only turned down the requests of plaintiff but has at times acted violently and used abusive language against the plaintiff and her husband, the plaintiff has even made complaint in this regard to the concerned police station on 12.04.2014 and on 05.07.2014. Defendant no. 3 and 4 as per oral agreement in under an obligation to do all the repair work, if needed in the said building till one year from the date of handing over possession of the said building which the said defendants has failed to perform despite repeated reminders. That Defendant no. 1 and 2 in order to disturb the existence of plaintiff has been creating all sorts of mischief so that plaintiff could not settle at the demised premises, they have illegally constructed an iron gate and kept it illegally locked in front of the main parking gate so that plaintiff is unable to use the parking facility from the front side which the plaintiff is legally entitled to use moreover Defendant no.1 and 2 have used the entire space enmarked for putting the name plate, the said space enmarked for putting name plate comes under the common facility space and plaintiff is equally entitled to use the same as lawful owner of the flat at 2 nd floor of the suit premises. The plaintiff is legally entitled to proportionate space at the said place for putting her name plate which the Defendant no.
VIVEK 1 and 2 have illegally encroached. It is pertinent to mention here KUMAR that Defendant no. 1 and 2 have put their locks on the entries to the AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 6/39 22.05.2026 18:05:32 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH stilt parking from the front side restricting the entry of the plaintiff from the back side portion of the demised property because of which the plaintiff is not able to use the front side entry of the said building. That Defendant no. 3 & 4 with the connivance of Defendant no. 5 have illegally constructed a staircase at the front side for approaching the upper ground floor which is against the approved sanctioned plan and the said construction is absolutely illegal and is consuming a substantial portion of the common facility area of the said building. That Defendant no. 1 and 2 in connivance with Defendants no. 3, 4 & 5 have not installed water meter and water motor of the plaintiff inside the building premises and have installed it at the rear portion of the said building on government land inspite there being provision of installing different water motor for different floors and there are compartments enmarked for installing water motors for all the flats but the above named respondents have illegally installed water meter and water motor at the rear portion of the said building. That Defendant no. 1 and 2 have missed no occasion to trouble and harass the plaintiff they have illegally locked the terrace gate though the plaintiff has got no roof rights nevertheless the plaintiff has easementary rights of the terrace and she can approach the roof for accessing her water tank and installation of antena etc. when the plaintiff on 11.08.2014 approached Defendant no. 1 and 2 to get the terrace gate opened so VIVEK that she can get her water tank nob closed for installation of the R.O KUMAR system in her flat the above Defendant started abusing the plaintiff AGARWAL Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 7/39 22.05.2026 Date: 2026.05.22 18:05:41 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH and her husband and Defendant no. 2 even physically assaulted her and tried to outrage her modesty the plaintiff immediately called 100 number and a FIR was registered at PS Harinagar. That the defendants also in order to counter and nullify the complaint registered by the plaintiff, got a counter FIR registered at the said police station. That the Defendant no. 1 has not only playing mischief and creating nuisance with the peaceful enjoyment of the said property but has also put to risk life of all the residents staying in the building including himself.
2.4. It is further stated that defendant no.1 misrepresenting himself to be the owner of the entire building had moved an application before Defendant no.6 for shifting of entire electric panel and paid requisite fee for the said illegal and arbitrary act thereby putting at risk life of all the residents of the building. He has without the consent of other residents/owners of the building removed and reinstalled the entire electricity panel consisting of electricity meters and delicate and sophisticated wires because of which the entire circuit wires has got twisted and many of them have been damaged and there is constant electric current in most of the electrical equipment's used by the plaintiff also it is pertinent to mention here that after shifting of the electric panel Defendant no. 6 has installed it just behind the main entrance door which dashes every time with the electric panel while opening the gate also the VIVEK area has become so dangerous that in emergency everyone shall KUMAR AGARWAL have to be compulsorily locked inside the building because the only Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 18:05:48 +0530 PAGE 8/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH exit of the building has got such twisted and exposed wires. The plaintiff vide her letter dated 14.08.2014 has made a complaint in this regard to Defendant no.6. It is further alleged that the defendants with malafide intentions are harassing the plaintiff and is pressing hard the plaintiff to forgo the suit property and are trying to dispossess the plaintiff out of her flat and not to settle at the suit property which is exclusively owned by the plaintiff. That the defendants are actively pressing hard the plaintiff to forgo the said area and continuous threats are being extended by the respondents to the plaintiff to transfer the ownership of the said area otherwise the plaintiff would be thrown out of the said area and would be implicated in various false and frivolous cases. That evil intention of Defendant no. 1-4 can also be gauged from the fact that when plaintiff sent legal notice to Defendant no.1 to get the seepage problem rectified, Defendant no.1 in his reply besides other contentions has informed plaintiff that he is in process of canceling the irrevocable tiparte agreement entered into between Defendant no. 1,384, thereby he shall cancel the sale deed entered between Defendant no. 3 and plaintiff. The said act of the Defendant is highly illegal and against the settled law. That needless to say the respondents are not only acting in gross illegal and unlawful manner but are acting in criminal manner and are trying to deprive the VIVEK plaintiff from her legal right over the suit property. Hence the KUMAR plaintiff is left with no other remedy except to file the present suit. AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),18:05:56 +0530 PAGE 9/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH VERSION OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 & 2 :-
3. As per WS filed by defendant no. 1 & 2, the preliminary submissions have been submitted that the plaintiff has not disclosed the true and fair facts before this Hon'ble Court and has tried to mislead this Hon'ble Court by false submissions as well as by twisted and concealed facts. That the brief facts of the case are that defendant no.1 was the sole, complete and absolute owner of the property bearing no. bearing no. B-2/79, Built on portion of Plot no. 79, in block B-2, total area of 486 sq mt situated in the layout plan of Janak Puri, New Delhi acquired on lease hold basis from the President of India vide duly registered lease deed. That subsequently the above referred property of the defendant no.1 was converted to and as his free hold property in the policy formulated by the President of India / DDA in the regard and the name of the defendant no.1 was entered in the records as the Free Hold Owner of his above referred property by virtue of the same. That the defendant no.3 & 4 lured and proposed and convinced the defendant no.1 to hand over his property to them for re-construction on mutually agreed terms and conditions between the them and defendant no.1 by luring promises to the defendant no. 1. That the defendant no.1 being an honest and bonafide senior citizen on good faith and believing their words and getting lured by their lucrative VIVEK KUMAR offers agreed to their proposal and handed over his property to the AGARWAL defendant no. 3 & 4 for reconstruction all with the belief that they Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:06:02 +0530 PAGE 10/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH shall fulfill and keep all the promises made to him with regard to his above property. That subsequently a "Collaboration Agreement" was thus entered between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no.3 and 4 along with his father defining the scope of work and other terms and conditions. That thereafter a 'Triparte Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding' dated 27.12.2010, copy enclosed by the plaintiff herself was entered between the defendant no.1 and 3 & 4 the contents of which may kindly be referred to and read as part and parcel of this para which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. That the clause 5 of said the 'Triparte Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding' filed by the plaintiff herself reads as "5. That the first party shall have full and exclusive rights of the Stilt Parking Area as well as all other open areas/set back areas including front and area court yards of the property bearing no. B- 2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi -110058". That further the clause 7 of the said agreement dated 27.12.2010 reads "7. That the FIRST PARTY shall also only allow to the occupant residents of the SECOND FLOOR additional parking for two cars as per marked plan (With Green Colour) in ANENXURE 'B" at the rear portion of the stilt plan portion property bearing no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058". That also further the clause 9 of the said agreement dated 27.12.2010 reads in favour of the defendant no.1 as "9. That in case the SECOND AND THE THIRD PARTY does nodoesnot VIVEK KUMAR have any car(s) to park at the rear portion of the stilt plan portion AGARWAL property bearing no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058, the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:06:09 +0530 PAGE 11/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH FIRST PARTY shall be at full liberty to use the said area in whatsoever manner it may feel right.". That the said admitted agreement dated 27.12.2010 filed by the plaintiff herself is clear cut proof of the undisputed and exclusive right of the defendant over the stilt area. That the clause 14 of the said agreement 27.12.2010 also put the onus on parties to disclose this Agreement to their tenants / occupants / subsequent buyers etc. at the time of parting with their portion of property and/or their title documents. That it is thus apparently clear that the defendant no.1 never created any rights/title/ interest in favour of the defendant no. 3 & 4 by virtue of the said agreement dated 27.12.2010 with regard to stilt parking area and at the most the defendant no.1 granted permission to use the part of stilt parking for parking second car that two in case the occupant of the Second Floor had two cars.
3.1. It is further stated that even the construction raised by the defendant no. 3 & 4 was not in parity with the agreed terms and conditions and there were large no. of deviations and variations and non-performance on part of the defendant no.3 & 4 for which the defendant no.1 is also in the process of taking separate legal recourse. That the defendant no.1 subsequently also entered into a duly Registered Sale Deed dated 03.09.2010 with the defendant no.3 for sale of front side portion on the II Floor of his property bearing no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 selling Front VIVEK Side portion along with One Car Parking at the common driveway KUMAR area at right side of the building and other common rights as AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 12/39 22.05.2026 18:06:29 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH mentioned in the sale deed, copy of which is already enclosed by the plaintiff herself, the contents of which may kindly be referred to and read as part and parcel of this para which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. That the defendant no.3 further sold the said property to the plaintiff with a duly registered sale deed dated 29.11.2013. It is stated that the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 & 4 in connivance with each other and with malafide intentions and ill eyes on the property of the defendant no. 1, unlawfully and illegally traded in the stilt parking area as well which is the sole and absolute property of the defendant no. 1 stating that the defendant no. 3 had obtained the rights in the same from the defendant no.1, which is totally false and incorrect. That the defendant no. 3 vide para 14 of the sale deed executed with the plaintiff, had illegally sold the stilt parking area to the plaintiff along with rights of the common passage to go to lift and stair case. That it is pertinent to mention that the defendant no.3 had no rights, powers and titles to sale the said stilt parking to the plaintiff. That it is a settled law that the one who does not have good title cannot give good title to the other. That as per agreement dated 27.12.2010, the plaintiff and subsequent occupants/buyers were given permission to park their second car in the stilt portion and that too in case they had their second car and not otherwise. That however after buying the 2 nd floor property by the plaintiff from the defendant no.3, the plaintiff VIVEK admittedly did not shift immediately and occasionally used to visit KUMAR AGARWAL her 2nd Floor property. That the plaintiff also started complaining all Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 13/39 22.05.2026 18:06:58 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH sorts of construction defects to the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 clearly told her that the he had no parity of contract with her and neither he constructed the same and defects (if any) were due to poor construction on part of the defendant no.3 & 4 and she should approach them. That the defendant no.1 also told the plaintiff that even his construction quality and scope has also not been adhered by the defendant no.3 and 4 and they too are very upset about it. That the plaintiff also sent a letter as well as legal notice in this regard which was duly admittedly replied by the defendant no.1. That the plaintiff and her husband started having repeated quarrels with the defendant no.1 and 2 claiming her exclusive right over the car park in the stilt area, which the defendant no.1 denied and still denies. That the defendant no.1 also visited the local police station and gave various complaints to the police in this regard. 3.2. It is further stated that on 11.08.2014 the husband of the plaintiff came to the house of the defendant no. 1 and attacked the aged defendant no.1 in anger so that the defendant no. 1 does not ask for his property back which had been illegally sold to the plaintiff. That the husband of the plaintiff also attacked the daughter in law of the defendant no.1 in the most ugliest manner and tried to molest her and tore her cloths as well. That the police came to the spot and an FIR was also registered against the husband of the VIVEK plaintiff, the copy of which is already enclosed by the plaintiff with KUMAR her suit. That by misusing their resources and contacts the plaintiff AGARWAL also got a false cross FIR registered against the defendant no.2 Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 14/39 22.05.2026 18:07:07 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH making false allegations. That the defendant no.1 also sent a legal notice to the plaintiff as well as defendant no.3 & 4 on various counts including challenging / opposing /objecting the illegal sale of the stilt parking amongst them. That however the defendant no.3 & 4 avoided to receive the same while the plaintiff admits the same to be received but yet she never replied to it. That the defendant no.1 also sent a legal notice to the bank and it was replied that that they would examine the same. That it is crystal clear from the admitted copies of the title papers as well as Memorandum of understanding as well as the site plan to the written statement which is the correct site plan unlike the site plan of the plaintiff which is false and incorrect, the defendant no.1 never sold the part of the property i.e. the portion of stilt parking of the property bearing no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, Delhi which is more clearly marked in red, to the defendant no. 3 and thus the sale of the same by the defendant no.3 to the plaintiff is without any rights, tile and interest thereof in favour of the defendant no.3. That the entire stilt parking of the property bearing no. B-2/79. Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 is the sole and absolute property of the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 is in sole and exclusive possession of the same and the plaintiff was merely given permission to park the second car incase she had two cars. That despite legal notice the plaintiff and the defending no.3 VIVEK did not rectify /cancel / amend the sale deed executed between them KUMAR which again shows that the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 & 4 are AGARWAL in connivance with each other with malafide intentions against the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:07:16 +0530 PAGE 15/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH property portion i.e. the stilt parking of the defendant no.1. That even otherwise the defendant no.1 had withdrawn the permission to allow additional car park for the plaintiff due to her illegal acts and conduct. That the plaintiff has now recently shifted on the Second Floor (Front Side) in the property bearing no B-2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi and despite her owned car park being vacant, intentionally and deliberately parks her car in the stilt area some- times despite the fact that she has only one car. That the defendant no. 1 has also proceeding legally challenging the sale deed sale deed executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3 and against other parties as well seeking various reliefs besides challenging the sale deed.
3.3. As per WS filed by defendant no. 1 & 2, the preliminary objections have been submitted that the present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the plaintiff has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court. That the present suit is again not maintainable as the same is based upon cooked up stories and concocted facts which are far from reality. That the present suit is without any cause of action as well. That the present suit is further liable to be dismissed due to non joinder / misjoinder of the proper parties since the plaintiff seeks the relief of shifting the electric panel of all the dwelling units / flats in the property bearing VIVEK no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, Delhi-58 and also seeks the relief to rectify KUMAR the deviations in the said property, but the plaintiff has not made the AGARWAL other effected owners in the suit property as the party to the present Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 18:07:25 +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 16/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH suit. That the present suit is again not maintainable as the site plan filed by the plaintiff is false, incorrect and mismatches with the true and factual position of the property bearing no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, Delhi-110058.
3.4. In reply on merits, that the plaintiff has illegally entered into sale and purchase of the 2nd parking in the stilt area in connivance with the defendant no. 3 & 4, which infactt is the sole and absolute property of the answering defendant no.1 only and the same is not in sole possession of the plaintiff. That further vide para 5 of her own suit the plaintiff has herself admitted that she had not shifted in the premises and hence the question of having the possession of the second parking i.e. in the stilt area is totally ruled out and contradictory to her own stand. It is submitted that firstly the plaintiff is stranger to the triparte agreement between the defendant no. 1, 3 and 4. It is further stated that the defendant no. 1 also visits Kolkata where his other son is staying, to stay with them during some part of the year. It is submitted that there is no contract between the plaintiff and the answering defendant no.1 and 2 and hence there is no such agreement between the plaintiff and the answering defendant .That it is pertinent to mention that other families are also living in the said premises and even a fitness center is also operating therein which clearly nullifies the false stand of the plaintiff. That the further it is pertinent to mention here that without VIVEK KUMAR even seeing the actual seepage (if any) the defendant no.1 and 2 AGARWAL earlier also permitted to the plaintiff to the access of their house and Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 18:07:31 +0530 PAGE 17/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH always cooperate in all the manner. That the answering defendants even gave the letter to the plaintiff that there is problem in their house too, which was constructed by the defendant no.3 and 4 and further there was no parity of any contract or service or construction between them and the plaintiff. That even as per the plaintiff's own admission in the current para itself, the defendant no.3 and 4 were under obligation to do all the repair work till one year of possession which they failed to perform. It is further stated that as per the sale deed of the Plaintiff herself, filed on records, the water meter and motor had been there since her purchase. That infact they were there even before she purchased her flat and when she must have visited her property before purchase must have seen the same. That the plaintiff also cannot ask the defendant no. 1 to put her water motor and her water meter inside the sole and absolute property of the defendant no.1. That as regards the plaintiff's stand of her meter and, motor being illegally on government land, the answering defendant has no objection and neither anything else restrains the to remove it from there and have it installed on the second floor in her property. That the panel was shifted by the BSES since there were safety risk and needed immediate change in the direction and also because there was lot of inconvenience for taking meter readings as since the door remained locked. That further the charges of the shifting were to the respective meters/consumers which have been paid respectively by the concerned parties and the even the has also VIVEK KUMAR paid the same. That the defendant no.1 also gave a legal notice to AGARWAL Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 18/39 22.05.2026 18:07:41 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH the electric company on 22.09.2014 stating not to act illegally. All the other allegations of the plaint are denied while reiterating the averments of preliminary submissions with the prayer for dismissal of suit.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT NO. 5/MCD:-
4. As per WS filed by defendant no. 5 , the preliminary submissions have been submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 477/478 of the D.M.C. Act, 1957 for want of service of statutory notice upon the defendant SDMC and as such the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the answering defendant hence the same be rejected U/O 7 Rule 11 of CPC. That suit of the plaintiff is just misuse and abuse of process of Law, the same has been filed to settle personal score.
That the suit property i.e. B-2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi was inspected by the area official on 09.02.2015 and during the inspection it has been notice the property consist of stilt, GF, FF, SF & Third Floor. The property is occupied and being used for the residential purposes except at ground floor. As per record unauthorized construction stands booked vide file n. EE(B) 1/WZ/UC/2014/228 dated 19.05.2014 for unauthorized construction VIVEK KUMAR in the shape of devotions/ excess coverage against sanction building AGARWAL plan no. 5710/B/HQ/10 dated 28.01.2011 in setbacks and open Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:07:48 +0530 PAGE 19/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH shafts. Unauthorized construction in the shape of front balcony covering at ground floor, number of toilets is less (as commercial) at ground floor. After following the due process of law as per the provisions as contained u/s 343-344 of the DMC Act, demolition order was also passed on 10.06.2014. As such unauthorized construction booked is actionable and shall be demolished in due course of time as per policy of answering defendant.
In reply on merits all allegations of the plaint are denied with the prayer for dismissal of suit.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT NO. 6/BSES :-
5. As per WS filed by defendant no. 6, the preliminary submissions have been submitted that as per the averments in the plaint the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from defendant No. 3 and that the other defendants No. 1 to 4 are harassing the plaintiff for reason or the other just to dispossess her from the suit property. Therefore, from the averments in the plaint, it seems that there is interse dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 in respect of the suit premises. In the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that at the instance of defendant No. 1, the answering defendant has shifted the electricity panel at the exit of the building and has sought mandatory injunction against the answering VIVEK defendant directing answering defendant to install all the electric KUMAR panel at their designated space and repair all the twisted and AGARWAL damaged wires. It is submitted that as per record Avtar Singh Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:07:55 +0530 PAGE 20/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH /defendant No. 1 had applied for shifting of electric panel on dated 28.05.2014 by submitting that twice there were short circuits in the Panel and the said shifting will provide easy access for meter reading and down loading. Therefore, on his requests, the panels have been shifted on the place provided by the consumers at the Ground Floor which also provide easy access for meter reading and down loading as per Rules. Therefore, the suit as filed by the plaintiff against the answering defendant is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed.
5.1. In reply on merits, it is admitted that the answering defendant is the licensee distributing and supply the electricity in the area as per provisions of DERC Regulations and Electricity Act, 2003. It is submitted that the answering defendant has connected the service line upto the meter and after the meter the responsibility to maintain the internal wiring is of the respective consumer and the answering defendant has nothing to do with the maintenance of the wiring of the consumer. It is submitted that the plaintiff has leveled the general allegations against all the defendants without specifying the role of each of the defendants. All allegations of the plaint are denied with the prayer for dismissal of suit.
PROCEEDINGS OF COURT:-
VIVEK
6. It is pertinent to mention that despite being duly served,KUMAR AGARWAL defendant no. 3 and 4 failed to appear in the present suit and no WS Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),18:08:03 +0530 PAGE 21/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH was filed on their behalf and accordingly, they were proceeded exparte vod. 13.02.2015. It is further pertinent to mention that defendant no. 1 in the present suit expired during the pendency of the suit and thereafter his LRs including the defendant no. 2 were impleaded vod. 17.05.2024.
ISSUES :-
7. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 18.08.2015 :-
Issue no.1:- Whether the suit of plaintiff has been filed without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD 1, 2 and
6.
Issue no.2:- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 1 to 4 Issue no. 3:- Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants no. 1 to 4 from illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from property of plaintiff at second floor, western front side portion of property no. B-2/79, Janakpuri, Delhi-
Digitally
110058? OPP signed by
VIVEK KUMAR
VIVEK AGARWAL
Issue no.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief KUMAR
AGARWAL
Date:
2026.05.22
18:08:20
+0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 22/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH of permanent injunction restraining the defendants no. 1 to 4 from stopping the plaintiff from entering into common facility area and from using and enjoying the common area at second floor, western front side portion of property no. B-2/79, Janakpuri, Delhi- 110058? OPP Issue no.5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants no. 1 to 4 and specifically defendant no. 3 to repair seepage of the roof of plaintiff? OPP Issue no.6:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants no. 1 to 4 not to disturb his ingress or egress from front side portion of the building including the stilt parking area? OPP Issue no.7:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants no. 1 to 4 to install the water meter and water motor of plaintiff at the designated place? OPP Issue no.8:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant no.6 directing them to install all the electric penal at the Digitally signed by designated place and repair all the twisted and VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR damaged wires? OPP KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2026.05.22 Issue no.9:- Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of 18:08:26 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 23/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH mandatory injunction against the defendant no.5 directing it to correct all the deviation in the building/suit property? OPP Issue no.10:- Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration declaring plaintiff to be lawful owner of the suit premises including joint owner with all the other co-owners of the common area facility in the building?OPP Issue no.11:- Relief.
Evidence of Plaintiff:-
8. In plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff1 examined himself as PW1, who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and he relied on the following documents:-
Copies of Sale Deed - Ex.PW1/1(OSR).
Copy of complaint against Sardar Avtar Singh to SHO dated 12.04.2014 - Ex.PW1/2(OSR) Photographs i.e. Ex.PW1/4(colly) Copy of FIR No. 854 dt. 11.08.2014 - Ex.PW1/5 Copy of complaint to the electricity officer dt. 14.08.2014 - Ex.PW1/6(OSR).Digitally signed by VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
Date:
AGARWAL 2026.05.22
18:08:33 +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 24/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH 8.1. Thereafter witness has been cross-examined on behalf of defendants accordingly and then PE has been closed vide order dated 11.12.2025.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT NO. 2 :-
9. In defendant evidence, the defendant no. 2 examined himself as D2W1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. D2W1/A who relied on the following documents:-
Copy of the lease deed dt. 07.10.1971 i.e.
Ex.D2W1/1(OSR).
Copy of conveyance deed dt. 05.02.2002 i.e.
Ex.D2W1/2(OSR).
Copy of collaboration agreement document dt.
30.08.2010 i.e. Mark D2W1/M1.
Copy of police complaints i.e. Mark D2W1/M2(colly).
Copy of FIR No. 855/2014 dt. 11.08.2014 i.e. Mark D2W1/M3.
9.1. Thereafter witness has been cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff. In his cross-examination, some documents including photographs, copy of sanction plans and site plan were taken on record as Ex. D2W1/X1 to Ex. D2W1/X7. Thereafter, DE has been VIVEK closed by defendant no. 2 vide separate statement of defendant no. 2 KUMAR dated 04.02.2026. AGARWAL Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 25/39 22.05.2026 Date: 2026.05.22 18:08:41 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH No evidence was led on behalf of other defendants and same was closed vod. 04.02.2026.
FINDINGS
10. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the parties have been heard at length and file has been carefully and minutely perused including the written submissions filed by counsel for plaintiff as well as counsel for defendant no. 2 and my issues wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 111. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1, 2 and 6. It is observed that when matter is being decided on merits after completion of evidence, no question arises for rejection of plaint at the final stage. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is hereby disposed off being infructuous.
ISSUE NO. 212. The onus to prove this issue was upon to defendant no. 1 to 4. Except the vague averments made in the WS in this regard, VIVEK nothing has been specified on behalf of contesting defendant no. 1 KUMAR AGARWAL and 2 that which were the necessary parties, who were not Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 18:08:51 +0530 PAGE 26/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH impleaded by the plaintiff. Nothing is specified how the other residents of the building, if any were necessary party in the suit, when the relief is being sought against the defendants of the suit only. Even at the final stage, counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2 failed to press the said issue. Accordingly, present issue is decided in negative against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 3 and 4
13. Both the issues being inter-connected are taken together for consideration. The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff only, however as reflected from the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff, it is submitted that these issues do not survive as entire controversy was revolving in and around the use of stilt floor and accordingly, it was stated that these issues do not need any adjudication in the present suit. Even otherwise, during the oral arguments also, the ld. Counsel for plaintiff did not press these issues in any manner. Accordingly, both the said issues are hereby disposed off as not pressed on behalf of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 5:-
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. VIVEK KUMAR It has been argued on behalf of plaintiff that the defendants no. 1 AGARWAL and 2 have not denied the averments in para 5 of the plaint Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 27/39 22.05.2026 18:09:01 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH regarding the damage in the property of plaintiff due to the seepage problem. That the defendants have only denied their obligations and have cast the onus of repair on defendant no. 3. That said damage has been proved by the plaintiff by way of photographs Ex. PW1/4 (colly) and on the other hand, the defendants no. 1 and 2 have not led any evidence in this regard.
14.1. Heard. It is observed that as reflected from the prayer clause of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction for repair of seepage against defendant no. 3 only and therefore, no question arises for such directions to be passed against defendant no. 1 and 2, as pressed in the final arguments. 14.2. It is further observed that plaintiff has also failed to prove if the alleged damage in her property as seen in the photographs Ex. PW1/4 was caused due to the negligence of defendant no. 3. Moreover, the said photographs themselves have not been proved in accordance with law, as no certificate under Section 63 of BSA was filed in support of the said photographs, which are the print out of electronic record. 14.3. Going one step further, it is observed that even if for sake of arguments, it is taken that it was liability of defendant no. 3 for repair in the property of plaintiff, the plaintiff has the alternate efficacious remedy to seek damages from defendant no. 3 and I do not find any ground to grant relief of mandatory injunction with VIVEK respect to the cause, which is not very much specified and which KUMAR AGARWAL would require the minute supervision by the court, as there is Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 18:09:11 +0530 PAGE 28/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH nothing on record to ascertain the status of the roof of the plaintiff, which was there before the alleged damage.
Accordingly, issue no. 5 is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 615. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. It has been argued by counsel for plaintiff that with respect to her right in the common area and with respect to her right in the stilt parking area, the plaintiff has relied upon her sale deed Ex. PW1/1, which is to be read with the document Ex. PW1/DX2 i.e. irrevocable triparte agreement-cum-MoU. It is argued that as per the said MoU, defendant no. 1 had confirmed with defendant no. 3 and 4 the transfer of parking rights for two cars including one car each for defendant no. 3 and 4 on the front portion drive way area and additionally one car parking space in the stilt area for the each of the flat owners. That the right of the additional parking in the stilt area was created for benefits of residents/ occupants. It is further argued that under law, the stilt area is the common area for benefit of all the occupants of the building and again, the plaintiff had also the right in the stilt area under the law of easement. It has been further argued that even though the ownership was not transferred in the stilt area, however the fact remained that the stilt area was common and again, VIVEK KUMAR defendant no. 1 and 2 themselves had put the said MoU in the cross- AGARWAL examination of plaintiff, in which it was specified that the right of Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 29/39 22.05.2026 18:09:26 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH the additional parking was operable to the successors as well. That as the plaintiff is the owner of entire 2 nd floor by way of two sale deeds dated 29.11.2013 and 14.11.2024, he is entitled for additional two car parking in the stilt area along with the two car parking on the drive way.
15.1. Regarding the stilt area being common, reliance has been placed on behalf of plaintiff on the judgment of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. In civil Appeal no. 2544 of 2010, dated 31.08.2010. 15.2. It has been further argued that in the cross-examination of D2W1/defendant no. 2 has duly admitted that there was no distinction between the area sold and transferred by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 3 and then by defendant no. 3 to plaintiff and further attention is drawn to the cross-examination dated 13.01.2026 as well as to the admission of photographs Ex. D2W1/X1. 15.3. On the other hand, it has been argued by ld. Counsel for LRs of defendant no. 1 as well as counsel for defendant no. 2 that as per the averments of plaint, the plaintiff herself had not shifted to the suit property and therefore, there was no question of parking of any vehicles by her in the suit property. It is further submitted that during her cross-examination, plaintiff/PW1 duly admitted that defendant no. 3 was not given any right of parking in the stilt area by way of sale deed Ex. PW1/DX1 and accordingly, the defendant VIVEK no. 3 also has no right to grant any such right to the plaintiff in the KUMAR sale deed Ex. PW1/1 by mentioning the same in para 14 of the sale AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 30/39 22.05.2026 Date: 2026.05.22 18:09:36 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH deed. It is further argued that the MoU Ex. PW1/DX2 was not a registered document and accordingly, no ownership could be transferred by way of said document and the defendant no. 1 and 2 had already filed the suit seeking rectification/cancellation of the sale deed executed by defendant no. 3 and 4 in favour of plaintiff with respect to the said parking right.
15.4. It is further argued that even in the said document, no absolute right was given to defendant no. 3 with respect to parking in the stilt floor and the occupants of flat on the 2 nd floor were only allowed for additional parking for two cars at the rear portion of the stilt plan portion property and again per clause 9 of the said agreement dated 27.12.2010, it was further made clear that in case the second and the third party does not have any car(s) to park at the rear portion of the stilt plan portion property the first party shall be at full liberty to use the said area in whatsoever manner it may feel right. It is further submitted that plaintiff has failed to prove if she was having four cars so as to be parked in the drive way as well as in the stilt area and accordingly, there was no further question to allow her to park the cars in the stilt area, as per the said MoU. 15.5. Heard. It is observed that the plaintiff has claimed her right in the stilt area on the basis of the MoU as well as an easementary right. Regarding the claim of easementary right, it is observed that plaintiff has failed to prove, if she had acquired the VIVEK said alleged right of way by way of prescription, as it is not the case KUMAR AGARWAL that plaintiff was using the stilt area for last 20 years, as provided Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 31/39 22.05.2026 18:09:43 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH under Section 15 of Easement Act. Again, it is also not the case of easement by necessity, as provided under Section 13 of the Act. Moreover, it is the case of plaintiff herself that she could park her vehicles in the driveway of the suit property. 15.6. Regarding the claim of plaintiff on the basis of MoU, it is observed that admittedly the said MoU was not a registered document and therefore, it was not the case that any ownership right had devolved in favour of defendant no. 3 on the basis of said MoU. Admittedly, said MoU was executed between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 after execution of registered sale deed and therefore, any modification/rectification in the terms of the registered sale deed could be done by way of a subsequent registered document only and the said MoU could not replace or modify or even add any terms of the said sale deed. Even in the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff, it has been admitted that there was no question of ownership in the stilt floor in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, I do not find any difficulty to hold that when no ownership had devolved in the stilt area in favour defendant no. 3, he also had no right to transfer the same in favour of plaintiff, as mentioned in the clause 14 of the sale deed Ex. PW1/1. The law is very well settled that one cannot transfer what he himself does not have. Consequently, the plaintiff has no right to lay any claim in the VIVEK stilt parking area as a matter of entitlement on the basis of sale deed KUMAR AGARWAL Ex. PW1/1 read with the MoU Ex. PW1/DX2.
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 18:09:50 +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 32/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH 15.7. It is further observed that as the MoU Ex. PW1/DX2 is an admitted document, the effect of the same also needs to be appreciated. The relevant clauses of the said MoU are reproduced herein:
......5. That the first party shall have full and exclusive rights of the Stilt Parking Area as well as all other open areas/set back areas including front and area court yards of the property bearing no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110058".
7. That the FIRST PARTY shall also only allow to the occupant residents of the SECOND FLOOR additional parking for two cars as per marked plan (With Green Colour) in ANENXURE 'B" at the rear portion of the stilt plan portion property bearing no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058".
9. That in case the SECOND AND THE THIRD PARTY doesnot have any car(s) to park at the rear portion of the stilt plan portion property bearing no. B-2/79, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058, the FIRST PARTY shall be at full liberty to use the said area in whatsoever manner it may feel right."......
15.8. On reading of the said clauses of the MoU along with the other contents, it is clearly reflected that the defendant no. 1 namely Avtar Singh had full and exclusive rights of the stilt area and that he had agreed to 'allow the occupant residents of the 2 nd floor' additional parking for two cars and the defendant no. 1 had again full liberty to use the said area, as per his wishes, if the occupants VIVEK did not have any car to park at the rear portion of the stilt floor. It is KUMAR observed that the word 'additional' clearly conveyed that occupants AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 33/39 22.05.2026 18:09:57 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH of 2nd floor were allowed to park their cars in the stilt floor, apart from the parking of vehicles in the driveway and it was subject to the condition that there should be additional cars so as to be parked in the stilt floor. At no point of time, any entitlement of parking of cars in the stilt floor was given to the occupants of 2 nd floor and accordingly, at the best, the defendant no. 3 could have conveyed to the plaintiff about the said MoU with respect to parking of cars in the stilt floor, if the plaintiff had additional cars and certainly in no manner the defendant no. 3 had any right to provide any right to the plaintiff of parking of vehicles in the stilt floor, as discussed above. 15.9. It is also pertinent to mention that plaintiff has clearly failed to prove, if she was having four cars, which were required to be parked by her in the driveway as well as in the stilt floor and consequently, on the basis of said MoU, the plaintiff has no right to seek the parking of her vehicles in the stilt floor. 15.10. Regarding the argument on behalf of plaintiff that stilt floor is a common area, it is observed that counsel of plaintiff has failed to cite any law in support of said submission. The judgment of Nahalchand (supra) is certainly not applicable in the given facts, as said judgment dealt with the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and the observation regarding the stilt floor being a common area were given with respect to the provisions of said Act only. VIVEK 15.11. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that KUMAR AGARWAL plaintiff is not entitled to the permanent injunction with respect to Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:10:12 +0530 PAGE 34/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH the stilt area in any manner and consequently, Issue no. 6 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2.ISSUE NO. 7
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only.
It has been argued by the counsel of plaintiff that it is an admitted position that water connection and water meters are installed on the rear land outside of walls of the property on the public area, however all the connections other than the connection of plaintiff are inside the property at the side rear setback. That only plaintiff cannot be compelled to have her water connection outside the property.
16.1. Heard. Even if it is assumed that the water connection of defendant no. 1 and 2 is inside the suit premises, it cannot be taken that the plaintiff also has right for her water connection being inside the suit premises. The plaintiff has failed to satisfy the court, if she has any statutory right in this regard and moreover, in her cross-examination as PW1, she has duly admitted that said water meter was already there, when she had purchased her flats in the suit property. Again, she has further stated that she herself had installed the water motors. Accordingly, it is not the case that the defendant no. 1 to 4 had removed her water meter or water motor VIVEK from inside the suit premises and therefore, the plaintiff has no right KUMAR AGARWAL to seek any injunction in this regard against the defendants.
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.05.22 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:10:29 +0530 PAGE 35/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH According, issue no. 7 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE NO. 817. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. It has been argued by the counsel of plaintiff that it is an admitted position, as reflected from cross-examination of D2W1 and the photograph Ex. D2W1/X5 that the electric panel was previously in the stilt area and not the common lift lobby. That defendant no. 6 had also admitted that they were shifted on being asked by defendant no. 1 and NOC was not taken from the other owners in this regard. That the said electric panel in the lift lobby area are dangerous to any person ingressing or egressing from the lift. 17.1. On the other hand, it has been argued by counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff/PW1 has clearly admitted in her cross- examination that said electric panels were already shifted, when she had purchase her floors in the suit property and therefore, she was very well aware of the position of said electric panels. 17.2. Heard. It is observed that as reflected from the WS of defendant no. 6/BSES, the electric panels were shifted on the application moved by defendant no. 1 regarding the short circuits in the panel and for purpose of easy access of meter reading and VIVEK downloading. The allegations regarding the said panels being KUMAR dangerous have been specifically denied. Undoubtedly the AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 36/39 22.05.2026 18:10:40 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH defendant no. 6 is the best entity to decide the location/position of electric panels and therefore, I do not find any ground in the submissions on behalf of plaintiff. There is nothing on record to conclude that the present location of electric panel was dangerous in any manner. Accordingly, Issue no. 8 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE No. 918. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. It has been argued by the counsel of plaintiff that as the MCD had already booked the property, there was no requirement of further evidence on behalf of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and 2 were liable to restore the property as per the sanction plan. 18.1. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of defendant no. 1 and 2 that plaintiff has failed to prove that what was the deviation in the suit property from the sanction site plan. 18.2. Heard. It is observed that as per the WS filed by the MCD, it is certainly reflected that unauthorized construction in the suit property was booked and demolition order was passed. The MCD is certainly at liberty to take further action in this regard, if not yet taken, however, I do not find any ground to pass directions to the defendant no. 5 to this effect, as plaintiff has failed to prove VIVEK that what were the alleged deviations and again what right of KUMAR AGARWAL plaintiff was affected by way of such alleged illegal construction.
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.05.22 PAGE 37/39 22.05.2026 18:11:13 +0530 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH 18.3. It is further observed that mere illegal construction does not given any right to a neighbour and in this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Rajender Motwani & Ors. Vs. MCD 2017 SCC Online Del 11050, wherein it was observed as follows:-
"...that an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbor. An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but, a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbor...".
Accordingly, issue no. 9 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE NO. 1019. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only, however in the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff and even during the final arguments, relief of declaration has not been pressed on behalf of plaintiff. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has failed to prove that qua which premises of the common area, she was seeking the declaration of ownership, which allegedly was denied on behalf of defendant no. 1 to 4. Accordingly, issue no. 10 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
Digitally
signed by
VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
AGARWAL
KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2026.05.22
18:11:22
+0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 38/39 22.05.2026 CS SCJ 163/2014 9277/16 SMT SHIPRA TRIVEDI VS. SARDAR AVTAR SINGH ISSUE NO. 11 Relief:-
20. In view of above findings of issue no. 1 to 10, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room Digitally signed after due compliance. VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2026.05.22
18:11:30 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC,
Delhi/22.05.2026
(Announced in open court
On 22.05.2026).
Note: This judgement contains 39 pages and all the Digitally pagessigned have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK KUMAR by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.05.22 18:11:37 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/22.05.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 39/39 22.05.2026