Delhi District Court
Braham Singh @ Biram Singh vs Rajesh on 8 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH-I, DISTRICT
JUDGE-03, DISTRICT EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
CS No. 142/2023
Braham Singh @ Biram Singh S/o Sh. Rishal
R/o H.No.90, Village Sultanpur,
Sector-128, Noida, UP ..........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Rajesh S/o Sh. Bani Singh,
2. Roshni W/o Sh. Rajesh,
3. Meena D/o Sh. Bani Singh W/o Late Sh. Suresh
All R/o H. No.441, Block-22, Trilok Puri,
Delhi-110091.
Also at T-159, Chand Bibi Camp,
Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi-110013 ..........Defendants
Date of Institution : 23.03.2023
Date of Reserving Order : 02.05.2026
Date of judgment : 08.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for possession, permanent injunction, declaration & mesne profits with respect to property bearing House No. 441, Block 22, Trilok Puri, Delhi (hereinafter referred as suit CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 1 out of 28 property), against the defendants.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this suit are as under:
(a) Plaintiff stated that he is the absolute owner of the suit property as the same was allotted to him by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 26.02.1976, under its removable scheme. Defendant-1 & 3 are son & daughter of his late sister Smt. Bimla Devi, whereas defendant-2 is the wife of defendant-1 and they all reside in the suit property.
(b) Plaintiff further stated that in the year 2019, he was diagnosed with Cancer disease, so on 19.06.2019, he was admitted for his treatment at Dharamshila Narayan Super Specialty Hospital, Vasundhara Enclave, from where he was discharged on 24.06.2019.
Thereafter, he went to the suit property, which is two kilometers away from the said hospital and called his sister namely Smt. Bimla Devi to take care of him. He used to remain at the suit property and some times, he went to his permanent residence in Noida, UP.
(c) Plaintiff further stated that on 23.08.2021, unfortunately his sister expired so, her son & daughter i.e defendant-1 & 3 came to the suit property to perform the last rights of their mother and remained there till her Tehravi.
(d) Plaintiff further stated that after the demise of his sister, relatives were continuously coming to the suit property to attend the different types of last rituals of his sister, so due to the visitation of relatives, he had suffered unusual disturbance and therefore, his treatment was also affected. So, defendant-1 & 3 advised him to go to his permanent CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 2 out of 28 residence at Noida till the completion of the last rights of their mother. So, he left the suit property to Noida for better treatment and allowed them to reside in the suit property till Tehravi of their mother.
(e) Plaintiff further stated that defendant-1 & 2 are illegally residing at second floor whereas defendant-3 is illegally residing at ground and first floor of the suit property since the day of Tehravi of his sister and they have become dishonest with malafide intention to grab the suit property. He requested them on several occasions to vacate the property in question, but they sought time to vacate the same on one pretext or other, as such, he has terminated their permissive license by serving them a legal notice dated 01.03.2023. But the defendants have not vacated the suit property.
(f) Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit.
3. Defendant-1 & 2 appeared on 25.07.2023 and made their statement that they do not wish to file their written statement and further they are ready to vacate and give the vacant & peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Their joint statement was recorded in this regard on that day.
4. Defendant-3 contested the suit by filing a written statement stating therein that plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit as he is not the owner of the suit property. She claimed that her father Sh. Bani Singh was the owner of the suit property as plaintiff along with his brother Surte wrote a letter dated 13.04.1977 to the DDA whereby they gave up their rights in the suit property in favour of Bani Singh S/o Sh. CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 3 out of 28 Maktula. Defendant-3 further stated that the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly as in terms of section 7 Rule iv (c) & (v) of Court Fees Act the relief of possession and declaration has to be valued independently. Further, she claimed that the suit is barred by limitation as the same has not been filed within 12 years in terms of article 64 & 65 of the Limitation Act, so she has perfected her title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. She also claimed that the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC, as plaintiff earlier filed a petition no. 638/2022 for eviction under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act and the said petition was dismissed by District Magistrate, Shastri Nagar, Delhi vide order dated 27.04.2023. Further, on merits she claimed that the facts disclosed in the plaint are not only factually incorrect but also baseless and vexatious as she has water bills, electricity bills, gas receipts and ration card etc. in respect of suit property from the year 2000 onward which shows that she alongwith her daughter is staying in the suit property for the last more than 23 years Further she denied all the other allegations of the plaint and accordingly, she prayed for the the dismissal of the suit with special costs.
5. Plaintiff filed the replication wherein he denied of giving up of his rights in respect of the suit property in favour of anyone. Further, he reiterated the contents of the plaint and denied that of the written statement of defendant-3.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 4 out of 28 framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 25.07.2023:
I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession in respect of property bearing No. H. No.441, Block-22, Trilok Puri, Delhi, as prayed for? OPP II. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their agent, attorney, legal heirs etc. from selling mortgaging, transferring and creating any third party interest in the entire suit property? OPP III . Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of mesne profits from the defendant as prayed for? OPP V. Whether the defendant proves that present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD VI. Whether the defendant prove that the proper court fee has not been deposited by the plaintiff? OPD VII. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? OPD VIII Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC? OPD IX. Relief.
7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as the only witness as PW1.
8. PW1 led his evidence on affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He generally deposed on the similar lines as that of his plaint and also relied upon his medical documents as Ex.PW1/1; allotment slip as Mark A; his Adhar Card as Ex.PW1/3; MCD letter dt. 09.01.04 & 04.01.05 as Mark B; possession slip as Mark C; his complaint dt. 16.12.2022 as Ex.PW1/6. CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 5 out of 28 Defendant -1 & 2 did not prefer to cross examine PW1, however, defendant-3 cross examined him and during his cross examination, PW1 deposed that he is illiterate. He does not know the contents of his evidence affidavit but at the same time, he denied that the statement of facts stated in the evidence affidavit are false and fabricated. He does not remember the exact year of his retirement but he retired in 2004 from the water supply department where he used to work as a drain sweeper. Defendant Rajesh, his wife and defendant No.3 have been staying at the suit property for the last 2-3 years. He has not filed any complaint when the defendants did not allow him to reside in the suit property. He does not remember due to old age whether he had filed an eviction petition bearing no. 638/2022. He has produced the Delhi Jal Board and Electricity Bills. He admitted that all the Delhi Jal Board bills Ex. PW.1/X1 (Colly) and Electricity bills are in the name of Rajesh/defendant-1 and not in his name. He admitted that his sister Bimla Devi passed away at Trilok Puri, however her husband died at Sarai Kaley Khan. He deposed that the letter dt. 13.04.1977 allegedly written by him and his brother Surte to DDA whereby he had given up his right in the suit property in favour of Sh. Bani Singh, is forged and fabricated. He admitted that his name in his Aadhar card Ex.PW1/3 is Biram Singh and not Bharam Singh and the address mentioned in the Aadhar Card is 128 Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. He admitted that the children of Meena lived with her at suit property but he does not know since when children of Meena are residing at the suit property. CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 6 out of 28
9. It is pertinent to note that after part cross examination of PW1, Learned predecessor observed that an official of Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) has to be examined as suit property belongs to it, so court notice was issued to the DUSIB.
10. Mr. Ashok Kumar, UDC from DUSIB appeared and produced the record pertaining to the suit property i.e. demolition slip No. 9519 dated 25.02.1976 issued from DDA as Ex. C-1; possession slip No. 2492 dated 26.02.1976 issued by DDA regarding allotment of suit property to Brihm Singh S/o Sh. Risal as Ex. C-2 and affidavit submitted by Brihm Singh S/o Sh. Risal dated 06.05.1977 as Ex. C-3. He admitted that the DUSIB property cannot be transferred or sold in the open market however, he has no personal knowledge of the terms and conditions/rules regarding allotment of the DUSIB property. So notice was issued to the senior Officer of DUSIB and thereafter, Mr. Raju Sirsiar, Dy Director, DUSIB appeared and deposed that the property cannot be sold/transferred by the allottee in any manner like gift, sale or rent but, in case of death of an allottee, bonafide legal heirs who are residing in the suit property at the time of death of the allottee can apply for mutation.
11. In order to establish her defence, the defendant-3 examined as many as seven witnesses i.e. her daughter Ms. Parineta as D3W1; Pawan Kumar official from BSES as D3W2, Mahanand Sharma official from Election Commission as D3W3, Arun Dutt official from food & CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 7 out of 28 supply department as D3W4, Chander Prakash sharma & Amit Rawat officials from Delhi Jal Board as D3W5, and sister of defendant -1 & 3 Mrs. Rajni- as D3W6 and defendant-3 herself as DW3.
12 D3W1- led her evidence on affidavit Ex. DW3/A. She deposed that she was born in the suit property and has been residing therein for the last 35 years along with her mother/defendant-3. She also deposed that plaintiff is the maternal uncle of her mother and he never resided in the suit property. Further, she relied upon her Aadhar card as Ex. DW3/1 and ration card as DW3/2.
During her cross examination, D3W1 deposed that the suit property is in the name of her maternal grandparents (nana & nani Bani Singh and Bimla Devi). Her marriage was solemnized in the year 2008 and after her divorce in the year 2011, she is residing at the suit property. Prior to her grandparents, no one was the owner of the suit property as it was allotted to her nana only. She deposed that apart from DW3W1/D-1, no document is available on file to show the ownership of her maternal grandparents over the suit property. She alongwith her son, mother and sister are residing in the suit property. She does not remember when the ration card was issued to her, however, the same was generated after her marriage.
13. D3W2 produced the record with respect to CA No. 101076896, which was in the name of Sh. Bani Singh bearing energization date as 05.05.1981 and also the record regarding request No. 8002143543 for CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 8 out of 28 new K.Number in the name of applicant Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Late Sh. Bani Singh dated 28.11.2015 with electricity Bill dated 20.11.2021 in her name as Ex. DW3W2/A (colly) During his cross examination, nothing came on record to discredit his testimony.
14. D3W3 produced the record pertaining to electoral roll 2025 of Ward No. 191 Trillok Puri, Delhi showing the name of Smt. Bimla Devi at Sr. No. 803, KND0864199 as Ex. DW3W3/A (colly).
During his cross examination, nothing came on record to discredit his testimony.
15. D3W4 produced the record with respect to ration card no. APL37390150 having the family members details of Smt. Bimla Devi as Ex. DW3W4/A. During his cross examination, nothing came on record to discredit his testimony .
16. D3W5 deposed that the requisite details of K. No. 9121120000, in the name of Sh. Bani Singh, is not available in the office of Delhi Jal Board, however, bills dated 21.12.2020, 17.06.2002 29.01.2008, 19.02.2005, 22.06.2004, 13.06.2006, 30.09.2003, 14.03.2008 and 29.08.2014 are issued by Delhi Jal Board. He also deposed that he can produce the details of the person to whom earlier the aforesaid K. Number was allotted. But before producing the record D3W5 retired, so, another official Sh. Amit Rawat produced the letter of ZRO (W) CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 9 out of 28 East-1 as Ex. D3W5/A (colly) disclosing therein that old water connection number 25321 is having new K. No. 9121120000 which is in the name of Sh.Bani Singh.
During his cross examination, D3W5 deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the present case. He admitted that the relevant record is not traceable presently.
17. D3W6- led her evidence on affidavit Ex. D3W6/A. She deposed that plaintiff is her real Mama Ji and she was living in the suit property prior to her marriage but after her marriage on 15.11.2002, she shifted to her matrimonial house. She further deposed that plaintiff never resided in the suit property since the day of her birth.
During her cross examination, D3W6 deposed that she was born in the suit property on 09.03.1984, but she has not placed on record her birth certificate. She passed her 12 th standard from Government School situated at Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi in the year 2000. She has her Aadhar card but she has not placed it on record. She deposed that the suit property belongs to her father who had purchased it prior to her birth. She does not have any adequate knowledge regarding the sale and purchase of the suit property but her mother told her that the property was purchased from Mamaji namely Surte and Braham Singh. She does not know whether Surte or Braham Singh was the owner of the suit property. Her mother had shown her the title documents of the suit property i.e. Ex. DW3/D-1. She does not know whether her brother and sister studied in Government school situated at Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi. CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 10 out of 28 She does not know the distance between Trilok Puri and her school situated at Sarai Kale Khan. They have a house T-169 Sarai Kale Khan Delhi in the name of their mother Smt. Bimla Devi who gave it to defendant-3. Her sister Meena Devi is presently residing at the said address.
18. DW3 led her evidence on an affidavit Ex.D3W-7A. She generally deposed on the similar lines as that of her written statement and also relied upon the documents i.e order dated 27.04.2023 passed in petition no.638/2022 as Ex.D3W7/1; letter dated 13.04.1977 written by Sh. Braham Singh & Surte to D.D.A as Ex.DW3/D-1; receipt dated 13.01.1984 issued in the name of Sh. Bani Singh as Ex.D3W7/2; Ration Card in the name of Parineta as DW-3/2; Pan Card of Parineta as Ex. D3W7/3; Driving License of Parineta as Mark-1; Aadhar Card of Parineta as Ex.DW-3/1; Ration Card issued to her mother on 13.07.2005 as Mark-2; Gas receipts dated 06.02.2016, 11.05.2022, 22.03.2022, 20.09.2018 as Mark-3; Gas connection receipt dated 18.10.2013 as Ex.D3W7/6; Election I-Card of Smt. Bimla Devi as Mark-4; Various water bills from 27.11.2001 to 30.11.2018 are Ex.D3W7/7 (colly).
During her cross examination, DW3 deposed that she studied upto 5th standard from Trilopuri School but she has not placed on record her school certificate. She was married in 1988 at Trilokpuri and after two years, she shifted to the suit property from her matrimonial home in the year 1990 along with her husband and daughter aged about 1 year. She was also blessed with three daughters during her stay at suit CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 11 out of 28 property. She had not obtained any birth certificate of her three daughters namely, Pareenita, Moni, Shilpa, Sneha. Her real sister Rajni was married in the year 2002 till then her sister also resided with them at Trilokpuri. Her sister has been residing at her matrimonial home since the day of her marriage. She knew that the plaintiff filed a case before the Court of District Magistrate Ex.D3W7/1 which was dismissed as no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant. Further, she deposed that the plaintiff was the owner and allottee of the suit property prior to her father who had purchased the same from him in the year 1965 / 1966 but she does not know the amount of consideration. However, the title document in favour of her father was only an affidavit signed by her maternal uncle namely Surte and plaintiff as Ex.DW-3/D1/ Mark-5. Her daughter Parineeta's marriage was solemnized in the year 2008 at Trilkpuri and she has been residing with her since 2012 due to matrimonial dispute. She does not remember in which year Ex.DW-3/2, Ex.D3W7/3, DW3/A and Mark-1 were issued in favour of her daughter Parineeta. Her husband expired in the year 2012 and till then he used to visit her residence but he never resided there permanently. Her daughter Moni was born in 1989. Parineeta was born in 1983, Shilpa was born in 1995 and Sneha was born in 2004. She admitted that the names of her four daughters have not been mentioned in Mark-2. Gas connection and receipts are in the name of her mother Smt. Bimla Devi after the death of her father. She deposed that the property bearing no- T-169, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi belongs to her Parents. She admitted that she has not CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 12 out of 28 placed any document regarding her ownership of the suit property. She denied that she had deliberately not filed her Aadhar card, voter card and other related documents in her name as she is not residing in the suit property.
19. I have heard the arguments of Sh. Satish Kumar Sansi Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Bakshi Tejeshwar Singh Ld. Counsel for the defendant-3 and have perused the material placed on record and the written submissions of the plaintiff as well as defendant-3.
20. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla,183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that "A civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities.
21. Further, in Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
'' 8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis a vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 13 out of 28 civil suit " preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
22. The facts which are admitted and not in dispute are that
(i) DDA allotted plot 22/441 Trilok puri vide allotment receipt 2492 dated 26.02.1976 to the plaintiff Bhram Singh @ Brihm Singh ;
(ii) plaintiff and Late Smt. Bimla Devi- the mother of defendant-1 & 3 were, the real brother and sister;
(iii) Late Sh. Bani Singh was the husband of Late Smt Bimla Devi;
(iv) Smt. Bimla Devi expired in suit property on 23.08.2021.
23. Ld. Counsel for the defendant-3 argued that plaintiff has left the suit property in the year 1977 and since then defendant-1 & 3 along with their parents were residing therein and even today defendants have been residing therein. So, defendant-3 along with her daughter & granddaughters has perfected her title in the suit property for more than 25 years along with her parents.
24. According to plaintiff/PW1, DDA allotted him the plot in respect of suit property vide allotment receipt 2492 dated 26.02.1976 Ex. C-2. He was diagnosed with cancer disease in the year 2019 and admitted for his treatment in Dharamshila Hospital on 19.06.19 and discharged on 24.06.19 so as his house i.e. the suit property was just 2 kilometers away, he went there after his discharge. He called his sister Smt. Bimla Devi to look after him for the treatment. But unfortunately, his sister expired on 23.08.2021, so her children defendants -1 & 3 came there to perform funeral rights and they remained there till the Tehravi of his sister. Thereafter, despite his several requests to the defendants to vacate CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 14 out of 28 the suit property, they have not vacated it, hence he terminated their permissive license. The aforesaid testimony of PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted as there is no cross examination of PW1 on this aspect.
25. Defendant-3 claimed that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property as he along with his brother Sh. Surte gave up their rights in the suit property in favour of her father Bani Singh vide their letter dated 13.04.1977 Ex. DW3/D-1 written to DDA as such, her father became the owner of the property. But, during her cross examination, defendant-3/DW3 and her sister/D3W6 testified that their father purchased the suit property from the plaintiff and his brother Sh. Surte, so they have given a letter Ex. DW3/D-1 to this effect to DDA. The Letter Ex. DW3/D-1 is read as under:-
Seva Main, Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran (J.J.Cell), Delhi Vikas Bhawan, Mahodya, Main apna plot jiska number 22/441 ha tatha jo mujhe Delhi Vikas Pradhikaran ne diya ha, jiski slip no. 2492 tatha book number N-1 ha ko main apne nikat ke sambandhi Bani Singh suputra maktula ko dena chahta hun. Ateh, yeh slip uske naam transfer kar di jaye. Apki ati kripa hogi.
Aapka Brahm Singh suputra Risal Surte CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 15 out of 28
26. Plaintiff/PW1 claimed that the letter Ex. DW3/D-1 is forged and fabricated. Admittedly, Ex. DW3/D-1 does not bear any date, however, the stamp paper on which the same was written, was purchased on 13.04.1977 and that too by Bani Singh. It is pertinent to note that the letter Ex. DW3/D-1 shows the mere intention of Brahm Singh to transfer the suit property in the name of Bani Singh. However, there is nothing on record which suggests that the said letter Ex. DW3/D-1 was ever given to the DDA/DUSIB. Even, otherwise the official who appeared from DUSIB deposed that the property of DUSIB cannot be sold or transferred to anyone. As such, there is no evidence on record which suggests that the plaintiff ever gave up or transferred his rights in the suit property in favour of Bani Singh/father of defendant-1 & 3.
27. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff by DDA vide receipt Ex. C-2 and the same has not been transferred in the name of Bani Singh- father of defendant-1 & 3 vide letter Ex. DW3/D-1. Hence, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property.
28. Ld. Counsel for the defendant-3 further argued that plaintiff allowed parents of defendant-1 & 3 to reside in the property 22/441 Trilok puri in which they have raised the construction by their own funds, so the license was irrevocable as contemplated by Section 60 (b) of The Easements Act, hence plaintiff cannot revoke their license in terms of Section 60 (b) of The Easement Act. In support of his argument CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 16 out of 28 he relied upon Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Others AIR 1987 SC 1242; Abdul Latheef and Others Vs. T.T. Joy & Others 2017 Legal Eagle 891; M/s P.J Appalanarasayya and Sons Vs. General Manager, S.E Railway & Others AIR 1993 Orissa 40; Jai Narain Vs. Sri Ram Narayan AIR 1989 Allahabad 182; Himmatrao Marotrao Dhobale and Others Vs. Arun Gulabrao Jichkar 214 Legal Eagle 1236.
29. PW1 admitted that Water Bills issued by Delhi Jal Board Bills Ex. PW1/X-1 and electricity bills regarding suit property are in the name of defendant-1 and not in his name. Further, according to DW3W2 electricity connection vide C.A No. 101076894 was in the name of Sh. Bani Singh. But later on, the same was changed in the name of Smt. Bimla Devi vide her request dated 28.11.2015 Ex.DW3W2/A. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Bimla Devi had given the application for change of electricity connection and was supported by her Aadhar Card which shows her address as T-159, Harijan Basti, Sarai Kale Khan, Nizamuddin, Delhi. It is noted that the electoral rolls Ex. DW3W3/A is for the year 2025 wherein the name of Smt. Bimla Devi find mentions, who has expired on 23.08.2021
30. D3W4 produced the record pertaining to the family details of Smt. Bimla Devi as Ex.DW3W4/A. DW3 produced ration card for Smt. Bimla Devi issued on 13.07.2005 Mark-2. It is noted that neither in the Family members details of Smt. Bimla Ex.DW3W4/A nor in the ration CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 17 out of 28 card of Smt. Bimla Devi Mark 2 has the details of either defendant-3 or her daughter/D3W1 or her sister/D3W6. It is pertinent that there is no pleading of defendant-3 that her mother Smt. Bimla Devi was residing with her or that she was residing with her mother. Defendant-3 has not placed on record her Aadhar card, voter card and other related documents in her name to show that she is residing in the suit property. Her daughter deposed that she is residing in the suit property for the last 35 years along with her mother/defendant-3 but her Driving License Mark-1 which was issued to her on 02.07.2012 shows her residential address T-159 Sarai Kale Khan Delhi. In view of this, it is clear that defendant-3 or her daughter/D3W1 or her sister/D3W6 were not residing with Smt. Bimla Devi at the relevant time.
31. Now, it is to be seen whether the license of parents of defendant-1 & 3 was irrevocable as contemplated by Section 60 (b) of Easements Act.
32. Admittedly, defendant- 3 in her written statement has not pleaded that her parents have made any construction over the suit property. Further, there is no pleadings of defendant-3 that her mother was residing with her. Further, there is no pleading of defendant- 3 that her case falls within the ambit of Section 60 (b) of the Easements Act as her parents had raised the construction of a permanent character in the suit property. It is pertinent that defendant-3 has not even put any question or suggestion in this regard to PW1 during his cross examination.
CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 18 out of 28
33. In Ram Sarup Gupta (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held :-
The question which falls for consideration is whether the respondents in their written statement have raised the necessary pleading that the license was irrevocable as contemplated by Section 60(b) of the Act and, if so, is there any evidence on record to support that plea. It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that the other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair split- ting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the inquiry should not be so much about the form of the pleadings, instead; the court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal.
34. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (supra) also held as under:
... Section 60 enumerates the conditions under which a license is irrevocable. Firstly, the license is irrevocable if it is coupled with transfer of property and such right is enforced and secondly, if the licensee acting upon the license executes work of permanent character and incurs expenses in execution. Section 60 is not exhaustive. There CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 19 out of 28 may be a case where the grantor of the license may enter into agreement with the licensee making the license irrevocable, even though, none of the two clauses as specified under section 60 are fulfilled. Similarly, even if the two clauses of section 60 are fulfilled to render the license irrevocable yet it may not be so if the parties agree to the contrary....
35. In M/s P.J Appalanarasayya and Sons (supra), Hon'ble High Court held that:-
"Under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act when the licensee acting upon the licence has executed a work of permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution, the licence cannot be revoked by the grantor. The expression 'acting upon the licence' assumes great significance in deciding the question of irrevocability of a licence under Section 60(b)Section 60(b) of the Act. This Rule of irrevocability is, in fact, based on the principle of an implied grant arising from the conduct of the licensor which estopped him from claiming his right of revocation. There has been no material or any finding arrived at by any of the forums below to come to a conclusion that the petitioner acting upon the licence granted to him has executed a work of permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. In that view of the matter, it is difficult for us to hold that on the materials a case of irrevocability of licence has been made out by the petitioner. In our considered opinion, such a contention is wholly misconceived and we have no hesitation to reject the contention raised by Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner."
36. In view of the above, I find no force in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the defendant-3 that the license of parents of defendant-3 to reside in the suit property, was irrevocable as contemplated by Section 60 (b) of The Easements Act, which plaintiff cannot revoke.
37. Further, Ld. Counsel for the defendant-3 argued that defendant-3 is the owner of the suit property on the strength of a letter dated CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 20 out of 28 13.04.1977 which was given by the plaintiff and his brother Sh. Surte to the DDA in favour of father of defendant-3 as such, she has perfected her title of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession being hostile and not questionable for the last about 23 years. So, the suit is barred under article 64 & 65 of Limitation Act as the plaintiff has not filed the suit within 12 years.
38. Admittedly, defendant- 3 on one hand claimed that her father was the licensee on the strength of letter dated 13.04.1977 and through him she claimed her possession in the suit property and on the other hand she claimed that her title in the suit property by way of adverse possession being hostile as not questionable for last 23 years.
39. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf V/s Govt. of India (2004)10 SCC 779 held as under:
A person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC
40. Further in T. Anjanappa & ors V/s Somalingappa anrs (2006)7 SCC 370 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
It is a well recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily means that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 21 out of 28 order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action.
41. Further, in Gaya Parshad Dikshit vs Dr. Nirmal Chander & Anr AIR 1984 SC 930, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
It is not merely unauthorised possession on termination of his licence that enables the licensee to claim title by adverse possession but there must be some overt act on the part of the licensee to show that he is claiming adverse title. It is possible that the licensor may not file an action for the purpose of recovering possession of the premises from the licensee after terminating his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licensee to claim title by adverse possession. There must be some overt act on the part of the licensee indicating assertion of hostile title. Mere continuance of unauthorised possession even for a period of more than 12 years is not enough. Here in the present case there is nothing to show that at any time after termination of his licence by Dr. Rama Shanker or by the first respondent the appellant asserted hostile title in himself. The High Court was, therefore, right in taking the view that the appellant had not established any title by adverse possession and in that view of the matter, the suit of the first respondent for recovery of possession of the premises from the appellant was not barred under article 65 which is the only article of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable in the present case. We accordingly confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal.
42. In view of the above, it is settled law that a person, who is a tenant or licensee is always a tenant or licensee and he/she cannot claim possession by way of adverse possession. Further, it is pertinent that CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 22 out of 28 defendant-3 has not disclosed from when her possession became adverse to the plaintiff, so I find no force in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the defendant-3 that defendant-3 is the owner of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession being hostile and not questionable for the last about 23 years.
43. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No.-1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession in respect of property bearing No.H. No.441, Block-22, Trilok Puri, Delhi, as prayed for ? OPP
44. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that despite several requests of the plaintiff, defendants have not vacated the suit property as such the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession in respect of suit property. Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.-II Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their agent, attorney, legal heirs etc. from selling, mortgaging, transferring and creating a third party interest in the entire suit property ? OPP
45. It is admitted that all the defendants are in possession of the suit property. So if they will create any kind of third party interest in the suit property, resulting in the multiplicity of litigation, so to avoid the same, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants to create any third party interest in the suit property. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff. CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 23 out of 28 ISSUE No.-III Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property ? OPP
46. It is clear from aforesaid discussion that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff as the same was allotted to him vide possession slip Ex. C-2/Mark A by DDA. The official from DUSIB testified that suit property cannot be sold/transferred by an allottee in any manner like gift and sale but, in case of death of an allottee, bonafide legal heirs who are residing in the suit property at the time of death of the allottee can apply for mutation. As such, the plaintiff is having possessory rights in respect of suit property.
47. In view of the above, plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property with no right to sell or gift the suit property. Accordingly, the aforesaid issue is decided. ISSUE No.-IV Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of mesne profits from the defendant as prayed for ? OPP
48. It is clear from the evidence on record that defendant -3 is occupying ground and first floor whereas defendants-1 & 2 are occupying the second floor of the suit property. PW1 deposed that the defendants have not vacated the suit property, despite his several requests so he had terminated their permissive license. He also served legal notice dated 01.03.2023 to vacate the suit property but they failed to do so, hence defendants are in illegal possession of the suit property. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not placed on record the said legal notice. CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 24 out of 28 But the facts remain that defendants are occupying the suit property which they have not vacated in spite of repeated persuasion of PW1 or even after service of summons of the suit. So, now they cannot use /occupy the suit property without paying any charge for the same.
49. Admittedly, no license fee was fixed for the suit property. Further there is no evidence on record what license fees/rent can be fetched by the suit property. So, considering the facts and the circumstance of the case, it is deemed fit and proper to fix Rs.3,000/- per month for per floor of the suit property as damages/ mesne profits which defendants are liable to pay w.e.f from date of passing of this judgment till the handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. ISSUE No.-V Whether the defendant proves that present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
50. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has no locus to file the present suit. As such, this issue is decided against the defendant. ISSUE No.-VI Whether the defendant proves that the proper court fee has not been deposited by the plaintiff ? OPD
51. Ld. Counsel for the defendant-3 argued that the suit is hit by section 7 Rule iv (c) & (e) of Court Fees Act where the relief of declaration and possession has to be independently valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, so the suit is liable to be rejected.
52. Plaintiff in paragraph -16 of his plaint disclosed about court fees CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 25 out of 28 and jurisdiction of the suit. The said paragraph of the suit is read as under:-
That the value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction for the relief of possession and permanent injunction and declaration court fees of Rs. 15,000/- for the said reliefs the suit is accordingly, valued.
53. In reply to the aforesaid paragraphs defendant-3 in her written statement stated as under:
That the contents of para no.16 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction as stated in preliminary objection no.2.
54. Further, defendant-3 in her preliminary objection-2 stated as under:-
That the present suit is also hit by Section 7 (IV) (c) & (e) of the Court Fees Act whereby the relief of declaration and possession has to be independently valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.
55. It is pertinent that the plaintiff has not disclosed the value of the suit property, however, he has paid court fees of Rs. 15,000/- in aggregate for all the reliefs. Admittedly, defendant-3 has not disclosed the value of the suit property in her pleading. Further, she has not disclosed the court fees which are required to be paid by the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the suit property is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. There is no pleading of the defendant-3 that this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Further, there is no cross examination of PW1 qua valuation of the suit property and court fees.
CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 26 out of 28
56. In view of above, the aforesaid issue is decided against the defendant-3.
ISSUE No.-VII Whether the present suit is barred by limitation ? OPD
57. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the suit is not barred by limitation. As such, this issue is decided against the defendant.
ISSUE No.-VIII Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC ? OPD
58. Neither any evidence has been adduced nor any arguments has been advanced as to how the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. Accordingly this issue is decided against the defendant. Relief.
59. In view of findings recorded issue no. I, II, III & IV, the suit is decreed and therefore, a decree of declaration is passed thereby declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing House No. 441, Block 22, Trilok Puri, Delhi with no right to sell/transfer it in any form. Further, a decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to suit property and against the defendants who are restrained from creating any kind of third party interest in the suit property. Further, a decree is also passed against defendants to pay Rs.3,000/- per month for per floor of the suit property (defendant-1 & 2 to pay Rs.3,000/- per month for second floor whereas defendant-3 to pay Rs.6,000/- per month for ground and first floors) as CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 27 out of 28 damages/ mesne profits w.e.f from date of passing of this judgment till the handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff.
60. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in the open Court (Ravinder Singh-I)
th
on 08 Day of May, 2026 District Judge-03, Court No.206, N/B,
East District, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi
RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2026.05.11 14:45:23
+0530
CS No. 142/2023 Braham Singh @ Biram Singh Vs. Rajesh & Others Page No. 28 out of 28