Delhi District Court
Apjit Singh Ahluwalia vs Gopal Joshi on 12 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS AUNRADHA JINDAL, ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW
DELHI
CS SCJ 284/22
CNR No. DLST03-000452-2022
Arpit Singh Ahluwalia
S/o Late Sh. Gyan Singh
R/o A-9, Upper Ground Floor,
Gupta Apartments, IGNOU Road,
New Delhi-110068.
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Gopal Joshi
R/o A-6 & A-11,
Gupta Apartments, IGNOU Road,
New Delhi-110068.
2. Vidhyadhar Swamy
R/o A-10, Gupta Apartments,
IGNOU Road,
New Delhi-110068.
.....DEFENDANTS
SUIT FOR PERPETUAL AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 15.03.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 02.12.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.12.2024.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.1/54
JUDGMENT
The Case
1. This case revolves around the fundamental rights of an elderly individual, Sh. Apjit Singh Ahluwalia, who has allegedly faced harassment and encroachment upon his property by his neighbors. The plaintiff, an 84-year-old unmarried man, resides alone in Flat No. A-9 at Gupta Apartments, IGNOU Road, New Delhi. Having lived a quiet and solitary life, the plaintiff relied upon the amenities and spaces afforded to him under the General Power of Attorney (GPA) for his flat, which includes access to common areas, passages, and parking.
2. However, in 2019, the defendants, Sh. Gopal Joshi (Defendant No. 1) and Sh. Vidhyadhar Swamy (Defendant No. 2), conspired to block the plaintiff's passage and parking area. They installed iron gates and grills around the space beneath the plaintiff's flat, which had been used by him for ingress, egress, and parking since 2008. These acts, carried out without the plaintiff's consent, deprived him of his rightful use of the property and obstructed his daily life.
3. The plaintiff, having no immediate family to support him and being vulnerable due to his advanced age, sought justice by filing police complaints. However, when no resolution was reached, he approached the Court seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendants. The CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.2/54 defendants, in their written statement, attempted to discredit the plaintiff by alleging misuse of the suit property and extortion by the plaintiff's lawyer. The case now presents a critical opportunity for the court to uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and the protection of vulnerable individuals, ensuring that the plaintiff's rights are restored and safeguarded, if infringed.
The Proceedings: A Chronology
4. On 15.03.2022, a fresh suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff. On 16.03.2022, the court directed summons and notices under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to be issued to the defendants. On 10.06.2022, the defendants appeared through their counsel and submitted their vakalatnama along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff was directed to respond to this application. On 08.08.2022, the plaintiff filed a reply to the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. On 26.09.2022, arguments on the defendants' application were heard. The court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, observing that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action. The defendants were granted time to file their written statement.
5. On 02.11.2022, the defendants filed their written statement along with a reply to the interim injunction application. The plaintiff was directed to file a replication, if any. On 02.12.2022, the court dismissed the interim injunction CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.3/54 application, observing that the relief sought was akin to a mandatory injunction, requiring a stronger prima facie case. Issues were framed, and the plaintiff was directed to file evidence within 15 days.
6. On 06.02.2023, the plaintiff did not file an evidence affidavit. Instead, applications for review of the interim injunction order and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint were filed. The review application was dismissed as withdrawn, and the amendment application was set for arguments. On 23.03.2023, the defendants failed to file a reply to the amendment application.
7. On 23.05.2023, arguments on the plaintiff's amendment application were heard. The court dismissed the application, finding that the amendments sought were an attempt to rectify shortcomings and retract earlier admissions. On 16.09.2023, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of evidence and examined PW1. However, the cross-examination of PW1 was deferred at the defendants' request.
8. On 04.11.2023, the defendants failed to cross-examine PW1, leading to the closure of their opportunity. The plaintiff sought to examine an additional witness from the local police station, which the court allowed. On 30.11.2023, the defendants failed to respond to the plaintiff's application under Section 151 CPC, and their opportunity to cross-examine PW2 was closed. The court CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.4/54 allowed the plaintiff's application to summon the record keeper of the police station.
9. On 06.01.2024, PW3, a police witness, was examined and cross-examined. The plaintiff closed their evidence. Subsequently, the defendants filed an application seeking to recall the orders closing their opportunity to cross-examine PW1 and PW2. The court allowed this, imposing costs of Rs. 6,000/-, and set 07.03.2024 for cross-examination. On 07.03.2024, the defendants cross-examined PW1, but the cross-examination of PW2 was deferred at the plaintiff's request.
10.On 04.06.2024, the defendants cross-examined PW2, and the plaintiff formally closed their evidence. The matter was set for defendants' evidence. On 23.08.2024, the defendants filed their evidence affidavits. Two witnesses were examined and cross-examined, but the cross-examination of DW3 was deferred due to time constraints. On 01.10.2024, DW3 was cross-examined, and the defendants closed their evidence. The matter was then listed for final arguments.
11.This Court has duly considered the final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties. The Court has meticulously examined the entire record, giving careful attention to the pleadings, the evidence presented, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties as well as written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff. Each aspect of the case has been analysed in light of the relevant facts and law, ensuring that all material brought before the Court has been CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.5/54 fully reviewed and assessed in reaching a fair and just decision.
The Plaint
12.The plaintiff, an elderly citizen of India aged 81 years and six months, is a law-abiding, peace-loving individual who has never been involved in any civil or criminal proceedings. He is a cancer survivor and suffers from various age-related ailments. With no immediate family of his own, the plaintiff has led a solitary life, remaining unmarried, and currently resides alone in a flat at Gupta Apartments, IGNOU Road, New Delhi. Since 2008, the flat has been his home, a sanctuary provided to him by his nephew and his nephew's wife, Mr. Bobby Singh Ahluwalia and Mrs. Tisjot Kaur Ahluwalia. While the flat's General Power of Attorney (GPA) is in Mrs. Ahluwalia's name, she and her husband offered the plaintiff this residence as he had no other accommodation. This flat has become the plaintiff's identity, with official documents such as his Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, and Voter ID reflecting this address.
13.From 2008 to 2019, the plaintiff regularly used the parking lot beneath his flat to park his i-10 car. Although the GPA designated this area as a scooter parking space, the residents, including the plaintiff, had a mutual understanding to use it for cars, as none of them owned scooters or motorcycles. This parking lot also doubled as a CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.6/54 shared passage for the flat owners of A-9 (the plaintiff's flat), A-10 (owned by Defendant No. 2, Mr. Vidyadhar Swamy), A-11 (owned by Defendant No. 1, Mr. Gopal Joshi), and A-12 (owned by Mr. Kamal Mukherji).
14.The GPA of the plaintiff's flat explicitly provided him rights to use the common areas, including the passages and parking lot. It also stated that the plaintiff could avail himself of the common facilities associated with the building. This shared understanding allowed all the residents equal access to the parking lot and passage beneath the flats. However, the defendants, Mr. Gopal Joshi and Mr. Vidyadhar Swamy, began to devise plans to seize control of the parking lot and block the passage, taking advantage of the plaintiff's advanced age and frailty.
15.In 2019, Mr. Sandeep Joshi, the son of Defendant No. 1, informed the plaintiff about their intention to install iron grills and gates around the parking lot. The plaintiff voiced his concerns, pointing out that this space was not just a parking area but also a passage for the residents of Flats A-9 to A-12. He emphasized that such a move would infringe upon the rights of the residents. However, his objections were ignored. The defendants assured him that the gates would remain open during the daytime and that the passage would not be blocked. Yet, the plaintiff, already vulnerable due to his old age and declining health, felt powerless to resist their plans.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.7/54
16.Subsequently, the defendants installed iron grills and gates on both open sides of the parking lot, thereby completely blocking the passage. One side of the parking lot, which previously opened onto the common staircase, and the other side, leading to the road, were now inaccessible. The defendants' scheme became evident when Mr. Gopal Joshi persuaded Mr. Mukherji, the owner of Flat No. A-12, to relocate his parking space to another spot owned by him. This maneuver allowed the defendants to take complete control of the parking lot.
17.The plaintiff, who had been using this parking lot and passage for over a decade, suddenly found himself deprived of his rights. His attempts to reason with the defendants were met with evasion and hostility. On 20.07.2019, the plaintiff made a desperate plea to Defendant No. 1, requesting keys to the locked gates. The defendants refused outright, brazenly dismissing any concerns about police or legal action.
18.Left with no choice, the plaintiff filed a police complaint on 26.07.2019 at Neb Sarai Police Station. While a head constable intervened and warned the defendants of potential legal consequences, they only offered empty promises to restore the plaintiff's access. Despite repeated requests, the defendants continued their illegal occupation of the parking lot and maintained the blockage of the passage.
19.The situation worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the plaintiff, isolated due to his age and health CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.8/54 vulnerabilities, found it increasingly difficult to navigate the alternate passage on the other side of the building. On 21.02.2022, upon returning from a visit to his nephew's home, the plaintiff discovered that the alternate passage was flooded with sewage overflow, making it impassable. Once again, he approached the defendants, pleading for access through the locked gates. Instead of assistance, he was met with abuse and threats from Mr. Sandeep Joshi, the son of Defendant No. 1.
20.The plaintiff called the police for help, but even the police intervention failed to yield any results. Although a police officer advised the plaintiff to pursue a civil suit, the plaintiff, already overwhelmed by his physical and emotional challenges Written Statement on Behalf of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2
21.The defendants, namely Mr. Gopal Joshi (Defendant No. 1) and Mr. Vidyadhar Swamy (Defendant No. 2), respectfully submit their response to the suit filed by the plaintiff, Mr. Apjit Singh. The defendants categorically deny the allegations made in the plaint, save for admissions made herein. This suit is an attempt to misrepresent facts, abuse the judicial process, and harass the defendants for ulterior motives. The defendants seek dismissal of this suit with exemplary costs.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.9/54
22.The plaintiff has willfully suppressed crucial facts from this Court. A detailed perusal of this written statement will reveal the plaintiff's intent to mislead the Court and distort the truth. The plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands, distorting facts to present a case in his favor. This suit is nothing more than a calculated attempt to harass the defendants and misuse the legal process. The plaintiff, by his own admission, is neither the rightful owner nor the authorized representative of Flat No. A-9. The lawful owner of the flat, Mrs. Tisjot Kaur Ahluwalia, has not authorized the plaintiff to file this suit. The plaintiff is merely residing in the flat as a caretaker, and as such, he lacks the legal standing to institute this suit.
23.There exists no valid cause of action for the plaintiff to institute this suit. The plaintiff's lack of ownership or authorization further undermines the maintainability of this case. The suit is defective as it fails to implead all necessary parties, particularly the rightful owners of Flat Nos. A-9 and A-12. The absence of these stakeholders renders the suit incomplete and untenable. The plaintiff's primary intent is to harass the defendants and extort money under the pretense of this litigation. This frivolous suit is devoid of any legal merit and should be dismissed with heavy costs. Gupta Apartments, located at IGNOU Road, New Delhi, comprises 12 flats (A-1 to A-12), divided into three parts. Each part (Part I: A-1 to A-4, Part II: A-5 to A-8, and Part III:
A-9 to A-12) has its own parking arrangements. Flats in Part III (A-9 to A-12) have stilt parking that accommodates two CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.10/54 cars and two two-wheelers, along with a separate common passage adjacent to the parking area.
24.Defendant No. 1 is the rightful owner of Flat No. A-11, purchased along with a car parking space through a registered GPA dated 30.08.2003. Defendant No. 2's late wife, Mrs. Chinnama Joseph, owned Flat No. A-10, which was purchased along with a car parking space via a GPA dated 01.01.2001. Flats A-9 and A-12 were allotted parking spaces for two-wheelers, as documented in the respective GPAs.
25.In 2018, the stilt parking for Part III was enclosed with iron grills and gates for security reasons. This decision was made with the mutual consent of all flat owners, including the plaintiff, to protect vehicles from theft and damage. Keys to the gates were distributed to all stakeholders, ensuring equitable access. The owner of Flat No. A-9, Mrs. Tisjot Kaur Ahluwalia, has never resided in the flat, which remained vacant for years. The plaintiff, claiming to be a relative, resides in the flat as a caretaker.
26.In 2018, Defendant No. 1's car was damaged in the open parking area. To prevent further incidents, all stakeholders agreed to enclose the parking area with grills and gates. Contrary to the plaintiff's claims, the parking area was never used as a passage, as a 3.1-foot-wide common passage adjacent to the parking area serves this purpose.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.11/54
27.The plaintiff, influenced by Mr. Pankaj Tyagi (owner of Flat No. A-5), began creating disputes over the parking area. The plaintiff and Mr. Tyagi encroached on the parking space by placing waste items and attempting to use it as a personal storeroom. When objections were raised, the plaintiff resorted to filing baseless complaints to harass the defendants. In 2019 and again in 2022, the plaintiff, with Mr. Tyagi's connivance, made false allegations against the defendants, demanding removal of the grills and even monetary compensation. These baseless demands were outrightly rejected by the defendants.
28.The plaintiff's claim of using the parking area for a car since 2008 is baseless. The plaintiff never parked a car in the designated space, which has been used exclusively by the defendants in accordance with their ownership rights. The enclosure of the parking area was a mutually agreed decision for the safety of all stakeholders. The plaintiff's claim of opposition is false, as he was provided with a key to access his designated space.
29.The parking area was never intended as a passage. The common passage adjacent to the parking area serves as the designated route for all flat owners. The plaintiff's complaints to the police were baseless and aimed at harassing the defendants. Despite the plaintiff's attempts to influence the police, no action was taken as the matter was civil in nature. The plaintiff's allegations of threats and harassment are fabrications. The defendants have acted CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.12/54 within their rights and have never engaged in any conduct to intimidate or harm the plaintiff.
30.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the defendants respectfully pray that this Court:
o Dismiss the present suit filed by the plaintiff with exemplary costs, as it is devoid of merit, lacks legal standing, and is an abuse of the judicial process. o Grant any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Replication on Behalf of the Plaintiff
31.The plaintiff submits this replication to address the misrepresentations and baseless allegations raised by the defendants in their written statement. At the outset, the plaintiff emphasizes a critical inconsistency in the defendants' affidavits that casts serious doubts on their credibility. Defendant No. 1 disclosed three different ages in the same year, 2022, in three separate affidavits, while Defendant No. 2 disclosed two different ages in two affidavits from the same year and omitted his age altogether in a third affidavit. These discrepancies strongly suggest that the affidavits lack authenticity and raise concerns about the defendants' actual presence before the Oath Commissioner during attestation. Such inconsistencies further undermine the reliability of their statements.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.13/54
32.Addressing the preliminary objections, the plaintiff emphasizes that this Court has already dismissed the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 on 26.09.2022. In that order, the Court had duly considered and rejected the defendants' objections concerning ownership, locus standi, and cause of action. Despite this, the defendants have deliberately concealed this fact in their written statement, demonstrating their intent to mislead. It is reiterated that the plaintiff is not a mere caretaker of Flat No. A-9 but has been residing there since 2008. The flat belongs to the plaintiff's family, as the GPA is in the name of his nephew's wife. Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to bring the present suit.
33.The defendants' argument concerning non-joinder of necessary parties is misplaced and irrelevant, as the issue at hand pertains solely to the defendants' illegal actions in blocking the plaintiff's passage. No other parties are involved in this specific act, rendering their objection baseless. Moreover, the vague and unsubstantiated allegations made by the defendants lack any supporting evidence and appear to be fabricated merely to detract from their own unlawful conduct.
34.Regarding the preliminary submissions made by the defendants, the plaintiff refutes their claim that Flat Nos. A-9 to A-12 have a common passage adjacent to the staircase. The defendants have attempted to arbitrarily create a site plan that does not align with the provisions of their GPAs. The plaintiff's GPA explicitly provides for a CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.14/54 passage underneath his flat, which has been unlawfully blocked by the defendants. The so-called common passage referred to by the defendants does not exist in their GPAs and appears to be a fabrication to justify their actions.
35.The plaintiff further denies the defendants' claim that the parking area was gated with iron grills for security reasons. The defendants have not provided any evidence of theft or vandalism that would justify such measures. The alleged installation of iron grills was merely a pretext to seize control of the parking area and block the plaintiff's rightful passage. The plaintiff did not consent to the installation of these grills, and his repeated requests for keys to access the gates were denied by the defendants. The defendants' claim that a 3.1-foot-wide common passage exists adjacent to the parking area is also baseless, as no such provision is mentioned in their GPAs.
36.The plaintiff firmly denies the defendants' assertion that he has been residing in the flat only for a few years. The plaintiff has lived in Flat No. A-9 since 2008 and possesses supporting documents, including his Aadhaar card, Election Voter ID, and PAN card, to substantiate his continuous residence. The plaintiff also rejects the defendants' claim that their car was damaged in 2016, as they have provided no evidence such as a police complaint, insurance claim, or photographs to support this allegation. Furthermore, the installation of iron grills in 2018--two years after the alleged incident--undermines their argument and exposes CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.15/54 their ulterior motive of encroaching on the plaintiff's passage.
37.The defendants' claim that the parking area has never been used as a passage is unequivocally false. The plaintiff and other residents of Flat Nos. A-9 to A-12 have consistently used the parking area as a passage, as explicitly provided in the plaintiff's GPA. The defendants' assertion that there is a separate common passage adjacent to the parking area is misleading and unsupported by their own GPAs.
38.The allegations against the plaintiff's lawyer, Mr. Pankaj Tyagi, are equally unfounded and appear to be a deliberate attempt to malign his reputation. The defendants have accused him of influencing the plaintiff and encroaching on the parking area, but they have failed to provide any evidence, such as photographs, police complaints, or witness statements, to substantiate these claims. These baseless allegations are a transparent attempt to divert attention from the defendants' illegal actions.
39.The plaintiff also rejects the defendants' unfounded accusation that he, along with Mr. Tyagi, threatened and attempted to extort money from them. The defendants have not provided any details, such as the amount allegedly demanded or the dates of these supposed incidents. They have also failed to submit any supporting evidence, such as police complaints, further exposing the falsity of their claims.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.16/54
40.The plaintiff reiterates that on 21.02.2022, he returned home to find the passage adjacent to Flat Nos. A-5 to A-8 flooded with sewer water. Unable to use this path, the plaintiff requested the defendants to unblock his passage through the parking area, but they refused. Left with no other option, the plaintiff filed a police complaint, which is on record. The police advised both parties to approach the Court, but the defendants made no counter-complaints, further highlighting their lack of any legitimate grievance. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' actions in blocking his passage were illegal and motivated by malice.
41.The defendants' claim that they are being harassed by the plaintiff under the influence of Mr. Tyagi is baseless and unsupported by any evidence. The defendants are attempting to distract from their unlawful actions by making defamatory allegations against the plaintiff's lawyer. Their conduct is unethical and intended to intimidate the plaintiff and his legal counsel.
42.In conclusion, the defendants' written statement is riddled with inconsistencies, falsehoods, and baseless allegations. The plaintiff reiterates his lawful right to access the passage underneath his flat and to use the parking area as provided in his GPA. The defendants' illegal actions in blocking the passage must be remedied by this Court. The plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court dismiss the defendants' baseless contentions and grant the relief sought in the plaint.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.17/54 Determination of Issues
43.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were identified:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction for restraining defendants from blocking passage of plaintiff through parking underneath his flat, as prayed for in prayer clause (1)? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to remove iron grills from both sides of the parking underneath his flat, as prayed for in prayer clause (2)? OPP.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to leave the parking space of plaintiff from their illegal occupation, as prayed for in prayer clause (3)? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD.
5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
6. Whether present suit has been filed without any cause of action? OPD CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.18/54
7. Whether present suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPD
8. Relief Plaintiff's Evidence PW-1/Plaintiff, Sh. Apjit Singh Ahluwalia
44.PW-1, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and bore his signatures at points A and B. In support of his testimony, PW-1 relied upon several documents, including his Aadhaar card (Ex. PW1/1, OSR), the General Power of Attorney executed on 11.08.2008 in favor of Ms. Tisjot Kaur Ahluwalia (Ex. PW1/2, OSR), and police complaints dated 26.07.2019 (Mark A) and 21.02.2022, vide DD No. 115A (Mark B). He also relied upon photographs of the balcony (Mark C), staircase (Mark D), one side of the staircase (Mark E), and the façade of the suit property (Mark F). A site plan of the suit property was exhibited as Ex. PW1/3.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-1
45.The plaintiff, Sh. Apjit Singh Ahluwalia, an 83-year-old resident of Flat No. A-9, Upper Ground Floor, Gupta Apartments, New Delhi, submitted his affidavit detailing the facts of the case. He stated that he has been living in the flat since 2008, which is registered in the name of his CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.19/54 nephew's wife, Ms. Tisjot Kaur Ahluwalia. The plaintiff emphasized his peaceful nature and lack of prior involvement in legal proceedings.
46.The plaintiff claimed that from 2008 to 2019, he used the parking space underneath his flat for his car and utilized the same area for ingress and egress. As per the GPA of his flat, he is entitled to the use of "passages" and a scooter parking space. He identified the four flats in Block A, Gupta Apartments, including his own, and noted that the parking area underneath his flat was shared by the residents for parking and access.
47.In 2019, the defendants, Mr. Gopal Joshi and Mr. Vidyadhar Swamy, blocked the parking area with iron grills and gates, effectively restricting the plaintiff's access. Despite his objections, the defendants assured him that the gates would remain open, but later denied him keys and access. The plaintiff alleged that this action was a deliberate attempt to deprive him of his lawful passage and parking rights.
48.The plaintiff filed a police complaint on 26.07.2019, following which the police intervened and warned the defendants. However, they did not fulfill their promises to unblock the passage or vacate the parking area. The plaintiff continued to face issues, and in 2022, he filed another complaint after encountering further difficulties due to an overflowing sewer that blocked the alternate passage. Despite police intervention, the defendants refused to CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.20/54 comply, prompting the plaintiff to approach the court for relief.
49.The plaintiff submitted multiple documents, including his Aadhaar card, the GPA of the flat, police complaints, site plans, and photographs illustrating the blocked passage and parking space. He emphasized that the defendants have no legal right to obstruct his access or occupy the parking area, which is clearly outlined in the GPA. The plaintiff stated that the police failed to take effective action, leaving him no choice but to seek legal recourse.
Cross Examination of PW-1
50.During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he was an undergraduate and could read and write English. He confirmed reading the plaint before it was filed. PW-1 had been residing at the suit property since 2008 and had previously lived as a tenant in the same locality.
51.PW-1 stated that his nephew, Mr. Bobby Singh Ahluwalia, purchased the suit property in 2008, with the title documents being in the name of his wife, Ms. Tisjot Kaur Ahluwalia. PW-1 confirmed that his nephew had permitted him to file the present suit. He acknowledged that the ground/stilt floor passage was shared by all residents of the building, which consisted of four flats.
52.PW-1 admitted that he had not made Mr. Kamal Mukherjee, another resident of the building, a party to the suit, as he had CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.21/54 no grievances against him. He also stated that he had not seen the title documents of the defendants' properties before the filing of their written statement.
53.When asked about paragraph 3 of the plaint, where it was stated that the defendants were entitled to park only scooters, PW-1 clarified that he had never claimed that the defendants could not park cars. He described the parking arrangement as consisting of space for two cars and two scooters, with half the area allocated to him and Defendant No. 2, and the other half to Defendant No. 1 and Mr. Kamal Mukherjee. PW-1 confirmed that his GPA entitled him to park a scooter.
54.PW-1 acknowledged that Defendant No. 2's flat had been in the name of his late wife, Lt. Ms. Chinamma Joseph, who had also left behind a daughter. However, he initially believed that the flat belonged directly to Defendant No. 2. Although PW-1 was entitled only to scooter parking as per his GPA, he had been parking his car from 2008 to 2019 with the consent of Defendant No. 2. He stated that this arrangement was based on mutual understanding and that Defendant No. 2 had not objected to it. PW-1 admitted that he did not have a formal right to park a car.
55.PW-1 stated that his advocate, Mr. Pankaj Tyagi, resided in Flat No. A-5 of the same building, while Defendant No. 1 owned Flat No. A-6. Both Mr. Tyagi and Defendant No. 1 had designated parking spaces for their vehicles. PW-1 confirmed that the passage mentioned in the police CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.22/54 complaint dated 21.02.2022 (Mark B), which was waterlogged, was used by all residents of the building for ingress and egress. He admitted that he did not currently own any vehicle in his name.
56.PW-1 denied the suggestion that he had no rights as claimed in the suit or that the suit was filed at the instigation of a third party. He further denied that the parking space was covered with the consent of all stakeholders, including himself. PW-1 also refuted allegations that the suit arose from ego issues or that there was no cause of action in his favor. He firmly denied that he was deposing falsely.
PW-2/ Sh. Ajay Singhal, acquaintance of the plaintiff
57.PW-2 tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signature at points A and B. Evidence Affidavit of PW-2
58.PW-2, affirmed that he has known the plaintiff, Mr. Apjit Singh Ahluwalia, for over 10 years. He stated that the space beneath the plaintiff's flat (A-9) at Gupta Apartments was open on two sides--facing the adjacent gali and the stairs of the 'A' Block. Until four years ago, this space was used as a passage for ingress and egress by residents, including the plaintiff, and also served as a parking area where the plaintiff would park his car.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.23/54
59.Four years ago, defendants Sh. Gopal Joshi and Sh. Vidyadhar Swamy installed iron gates on both open sides of the said space, completely blocking the passage. Sh. Ajay Singhal testified that he discussed this with the plaintiff, who confirmed that his passage and parking rights were obstructed by the defendants. PW-2 further mentioned that he later heard about a police complaint filed by the plaintiff regarding the matter but was not present when the police intervened.
Cross examination of PW-2
60.During cross-examination, PW-2 affirmed his graduate education and awareness of the legal consequences of false deposition. He stated that while he primarily resides at Devli Village, his family owns a flat in Gupta Apartments, Saidulajab Extension. He confirmed reading and understanding the contents of his affidavit Ex. PW2/A before signing it.
61.PW-2 acknowledged that he had no knowledge of any authorization granted to the plaintiff to file the case and admitted he was unaware of the ownership of Flat No. A-9, Gupta Apartments. He denied the suggestion that he signed the affidavit without understanding its contents or did so at the behest of the plaintiff's counsel.
62.Upon being shown paragraph 2 of his affidavit, PW-2 testified that he had seen the plaintiff parking his car at the CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.24/54 property in question around 7-8 years ago. He identified the cars as a Hyundai i-10 and a Honda City, though he could not recall the color of the Honda City or the registration numbers of either car. He remembered the Hyundai i-10 as being white. PW-2 denied the suggestion that he was unaware of these details and only deposed on behalf of the plaintiff's counsel. He confirmed that the plaintiff personally drove his cars.
63.While PW-2 acknowledged recognizing defendant no. 1, he stated he had no knowledge of whether defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff's counsel owned flats in the same block or whether there was a shared parking area dispute between the plaintiff's counsel and defendant no. 1. PW-2 also stated he was unaware of whether the present suit was filed without proper title or authorization, merely to seek a remedy against the rightful owner. He firmly denied all allegations of false deposition or undue influence from the plaintiff's counsel.
PW-3/ Head Constable Anil from Police Station Neb Sarai, South Delhi, a summoned witness
64.On January 6, 2024, PW-3, Head Constable Anil from Police Station Neb Sarai, South Delhi, appeared as a summoned witness. PW-3 confirmed bringing relevant records as directed. He stated that, per official records, all complaint registers, filed complaints, and other complaints up to December 31, 2019, were destroyed following an CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.25/54 order dated May 24, 2023, issued by the Additional DCP, South District, Delhi Police. The said order was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A.
65.PW-3 further presented the action taken report concerning DD No. 115A, dated February 21, 2022, linked to complaint number 366/LC dated February 21, 2022, filed by the plaintiff, Mr. Apjit Singh Ahluwalia. The report was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/B. Cross-examination of PW-3
66.During cross-examination by counsel for the defendants, PW-3 clarified that he had no personal knowledge regarding the documents presented in court on that day.
Defendant's Evidence DW-1/ Mr. Gopal Joshi
67.DW-1 tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/A, which bore his signature at points A and B. The witness relied upon the following documents:
o Ex. DW1/1: Site plan of the suit property. o Ex. DW1/2 (OSR): Copy of General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated August 30, 2003.
Evidence Affidavit of DW-1 CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.26/54
68.The affidavit of Defendant No. 1, Gopal Joshi, a 55-year-old resident of A-11, Gupta Apartments, IGNOU Road, New Delhi, presented a detailed defense against the allegations in the suit. He described himself as a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record and emphasized his deep ties to the community. The affidavit began with a description of Gupta Apartments, which comprises twelve residential flats divided into three parts. Flats A-1 to A-4 (Part I) have separate parking for four cars, Flats A-5 to A-8 (Part II) have separate parking for four cars, and Flats A-9 to A-12 (Part III) have a shared parking arrangement for two cars and two two-wheelers. While Flats A-1 to A-4 have a separate staircase and passage, Flats A-5 to A-8 and A-9 to A-12 share a common staircase and a 3.1 ft-wide passage adjacent to the parking area.
69.DW-1stated that he purchased Flat A-11 and its designated parking space through a registered General Power of Attorney in 2001. He noted that Defendant No. 2, Vidyaadhar Swamy, is the husband of the owner of Flat A-10, while the plaintiff, Sh. Apjit Singh, is not the lawful owner of Flat A-9. Instead, the plaintiff resides in the flat as a relative of its owner. Turning to the events that led to the suit, Mr. Joshi recounted an incident in 2016 when his car, parked in the open stilt parking area, was damaged. Concerned about further incidents, he proposed installing iron grills and gates to secure the parking space. This proposal was agreed upon by all the flat owners of Part III.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.27/54
70.In 2018, the parking area was secured with iron grills and gates. Mr. Joshi stated that keys to the gates were provided to all flat owners, including the plaintiff. He emphasized that the parking space was never used as a passage, as a 3.1 ft-wide common passage adjacent to the parking area served that purpose. In 2019, Mr. Joshi alleged that Pankaj Tyagi, the owner of Flat A-5 and the plaintiff's advocate, began placing waste items in the parking area of Flats A-9 to A-12, turning it into a personal storage space. This encroachment led to objections from Mr. Joshi, Defendant No. 2, and other residents, who found their parking spaces restricted.
71.In 2021, DW-1 alleged that the plaintiff, in connivance with Mr. Tyagi, demanded money to remove the iron grills and gates, threatening legal action if the demands were not met. Mr. Joshi denied paying any money, accusing the plaintiff and his advocate of attempting to extort him and Defendant No. 2. In February 2022, the plaintiff filed a police complaint accusing the defendants of illegally blocking the passage and occupying the parking space. Mr. Joshi stated that the police deemed the matter a civil dispute and advised the parties to seek legal recourse.
72.Mr. Joshi further alleged that the plaintiff and Mr. Tyagi were exploiting the plaintiff's advanced age and Mr. Tyagi's position as an advocate to harass and extort money from the defendants. He accused Mr. Tyagi of eyeing the plaintiff's unused parking space for his personal benefit. Concluding his affidavit, Mr. Joshi requested the court to dismiss the suit, asserting that it lacked merit, was filed with malafide CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.28/54 intent, and sought to misuse the legal system. He also sought exemplary costs against the plaintiff for what he described as an abuse of process.
Cross-Examination of DW-1
73.During cross-examination, when asked whether his GPA conferred upon him the right to create a 3.1-foot-wide passage and block other passages, DW-1 admitted that his GPA did not contain such a provision. He clarified that no such provision was present in the GPA of any other owner either. Upon being questioned about the alleged damage to his car in 2016, DW-1 stated that his car was never damaged, though he added voluntarily that the water motor was stolen.
74.When confronted with the plaintiff's claim that no consent was taken before installing the iron grill and gate and that no keys were provided to the plaintiff, DW-1 denied the allegations. He maintained that the plaintiff's consent was obtained and refuted the suggestion that the pleadings in the written statement regarding this fact were false.
75.Regarding the alleged waste items placed by the plaintiff's counsel, DW-1 admitted that he did not take photographs of the articles lying in the suit property. However, he voluntarily asserted that the items were indeed put there by the plaintiff's counsel. He also confirmed that no police complaint was filed regarding this alleged conduct. He CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.29/54 denied the suggestion that these allegations were made solely because the present suit was filed by the plaintiff.
76.When asked if the police authorities from PS Neb Sarai took any action against him in February 2022 for allegedly occupying the parking space and blocking the passage by locking the gate, DW-1 categorically denied any action being taken against him. The witness was confronted with a Kalandra under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C., exhibited as Ex. PW3/B, and was asked if it was filed against him. He denied that it was filed against him.
77.DW-1 affirmed that he signed his evidence affidavit, Ex.
DW1/A, after reading its contents. When confronted about an error in his affidavit regarding his age, which was stated as 55 years at point A, DW-1 clarified that it was a clerical error and that his correct age was 63 years. He denied the suggestion that he had not read the contents of his affidavit before signing it.
78.He also denied allegations that he had illegally occupied the plaintiff's parking space or blocked the plaintiff's passage, claiming that such accusations were baseless and intended to depict him in a negative light. DW-1 firmly refuted the suggestion that he took advantage of the plaintiff's old age and loneliness or that he was testifying falsely.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.30/54 DW-2/ Defendant No.2
79.DW-2 appeared before the court and testified under solemn affirmation. He submitted his evidence through an affidavit, exhibited as Exhibit DW2/A, which bore his signature. He also relied upon a General Power of Attorney dated January 1, 2001, exhibited as Exhibit DW2/1 (OSR).
Evidence Affidavit of DW-2
80.DW-2, deposed as Defendant No. 2 in this case. He stated that his wife is the lawful owner of Flat No. A-10, purchased with a stilt parking space for one car through a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 01.01.2001, exhibited as Ex. DW2/1. He emphasized that the plaintiff, Apjit Singh, is not the lawful owner of Flat No. A-9 but a relative of its owner, and has been residing in the flat for a few years.
81.DW-2 described the layout of Gupta Apartments, which consists of 12 residential flats divided into three parts. Flats A-9 to A-12 (Part III) share a common staircase and a 3.1- foot-wide passage adjacent to the parking area. In 2016, following an incident where Defendant No. 1's car parked in the stilt parking area was damaged, Defendant No. 1 suggested installing iron grills and gates for security. The installation was carried out in 2018 with the consent of all flat owners of Part III, and keys were distributed to ensure access to the parking area.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.31/54
82.DW-2 alleged that in 2019, the plaintiff's counsel, Pankaj Tyagi, began storing waste materials in the parking area allotted to Flats A-9 to A-12, using it as a personal storage space. The defendants, along with other residents, protested this encroachment. In 2021, the plaintiff and Pankaj Tyagi allegedly threatened the defendants, demanding money or the removal of the iron grills. DW-2 denied these demands, considering them attempts to harass and extort the defendants.
83.He further claimed that in February 2022, the plaintiff again asked for the removal of the grills, creating a ruckus and filing a police complaint. Police officials advised both parties to seek legal recourse as the matter was civil in nature. DW-2 accused the plaintiff of exploiting his age to harass the defendants and alleged that Pankaj Tyagi, in connivance with the plaintiff, aimed to occupy the parking space, knowing that the plaintiff did not have a vehicle. DW-2 concluded by asserting that the suit was baseless, motivated by malice, and should be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Cross examination of DW-2
84.During cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that no document existed to prove the alleged 3.1 ft. wide passage in the suit property or to support the claim that the suit property was designated solely for parking without any provision for a passage. He refuted the suggestion that he CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.32/54 had fabricated his claims regarding the 3.1 ft. passage in order to illegally occupy the plaintiff's parking space or block his access.
85.When questioned about alleged damage to Defendant No. 1's car in 2016, the witness stated that Defendant No. 1 had not informed him of any such incident, nor was he aware of any police complaint or insurance claim related to the damage. Regarding the installation of the iron gate and iron grill in the suit property, he admitted that no written consent from the plaintiff was obtained. However, he denied the suggestion that the plaintiff had not provided consent at all or that his claims about the installation were false.
86.The defendant also acknowledged that he did not file any police complaint regarding alleged extortion of money by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's counsel, Sh. Pankaj Tyagi. He conceded that he had no photographic evidence to show that Sh. Pankaj Tyagi placed waste materials in the suit property or used the area as a storage space.
87.Upon further questioning, the witness categorically denied that Sh. Pankaj Tyagi had placed any waste articles in the suit property or used it as a storage area. When pressed on his allegations against Sh. Pankaj Tyagi, he clarified that he had never stated that Sh. Pankaj Tyagi attempted to extort money from him. The court, observing a potential discrepancy, sought clarification on whether the witness maintained that no articles of Sh. Pankaj Tyagi were lying in CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.33/54 the suit property. The witness reiterated that no such articles were present.
88.The witness denied the suggestion that his allegations regarding Sh. Pankaj Tyagi or the plaintiff were false or made out of malice. He firmly rejected the assertion that his testimony was false.
DW-3/ Sh. Kamal Mukherjee
89.DW-3 began with his affirmation on submitting an evidence affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW3/A, bearing his signatures. He also relied upon a document exhibited as Ex. DW3/1, which was a copy of the GPA executed on April 10, 2006.
Evidence Affidavit of DW-3
90.DW-3, the owner of Flat No. A-12 in Gupta Apartments, New Delhi, affirmed his residency and ownership of the property purchased through a registered GPA. He described the layout of Gupta Apartments, noting that Flats A-1 to A-4 have separate parking and passage, while Flats A-5 to A-8 and A-9 to A-12 share a common passage and staircase. He highlighted the shared 3.1 feet wide passage adjacent to the stilt parking, which serves as access for Flats A-9 to A-12.
91.He stated that Defendant No. 1, Gopal Joshi, began parking a second-hand car in the shared stilt parking area in 2011. In 2016, after the car was reportedly damaged, Defendant No. CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.34/54 1 proposed securing the parking area with iron grills and gates for safety. With the oral consent of all residents of Part III, including DW-3, the parking area was enclosed in 2018, and keys to the gate were distributed to all relevant flat owners. DW-3 emphasized that this parking area was never intended as a passage and was limited in space, with the common 3.1 feet passage being used for ingress and egress.
92.He alleged that in 2019, the owner of Flat A-5, Pankaj Tyagi, in connivance with the plaintiff, began storing waste materials in the parking area, causing obstruction and inconvenience. The defendants and other residents raised objections to this encroachment. DW-3 also claimed that in 2021, the plaintiff, allegedly influenced by Pankaj Tyagi, demanded the removal of the iron grills or payment of money. The plaintiff purportedly caused disruptions in February 2022 concerning the secured parking area, which DW-3 noted all residents of Flats A-9 to A-12 had been accessing without issue until the plaintiff's actions.
93.DW-3 denied any allegations of wrongful conduct and emphasized that the parking area was designated solely for parking and not as a passage. He concluded by attributing the issues to the plaintiff and Pankaj Tyagi's actions.
Cross examination of DW-3
94.In his cross-examination, DW-3 stated that he had no knowledge about whether the car of Defendant No. 1 was damaged. However, when confronted with para no. 5 of his CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.35/54 affidavit, he clarified that while he had mentioned the car being damaged, he was unsure of its ownership. He reiterated that he did not know to whom the car belonged.
95.DW-3 admitted that he had not filed any complaint alleging extortion of money by the plaintiff or his counsel, nor was there any demand or extortion against him. When para no. 12 of his affidavit was referred to, he stated that he had seen goods lying in the suit property but did not know their owner. He affirmed that prior to the installation of the iron gate and grill beneath the plaintiff's flat, the area was open for access. However, there was no document to confirm that the area beneath the plaintiff's flat was exclusively meant for parking and not for passage. Nonetheless, he volunteered that the said area was intended for parking only.
96.Upon being confronted with para no. 11 of his affidavit, DW-3 admitted that the statements made there were incorrect. He denied allegations that he was providing false testimony and concluded by asserting that he was not deposing falsely.
Final Arguments Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff (Written Arguments)
97.Learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff, an 84-year-old unmarried individual living alone, brought this case to address the illegal occupation of his passage-cum-
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.36/54 parking area by the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, particularly Defendant No. 1, installed iron gates and grills on the property underneath the plaintiff's flat and locked it, thereby obstructing his legal right to passage and parking. The plaintiff has sought permanent and mandatory injunctions for the removal of the obstruction and restoration of his access.
98.The General Power of Attorney (GPA) for the plaintiff's flat explicitly grants him the right to use common areas, including passages. This establishes that there are multiple passages, contrary to the defendants' claims of only one passage. The defendants' GPAs do not state that the area underneath the plaintiff's flat is exclusively for parking, leaving their claims unsubstantiated.
99.The defendants admitted to installing the iron gates and grills but failed to provide evidence of the plaintiff's consent or possession of keys to the locks. Police complaints filed by the plaintiff corroborate his claims, while the defendants could not substantiate allegations of extortion or misuse of the suit property by the plaintiff or his lawyer.
100. Testimonies of DW-1, DW-2, and DW-3 contained contradictions and inconsistencies, such as differing accounts about the existence of a 3.1-foot-wide passage and the alleged damage to Defendant No. 1's car. DW-2 and DW-3 denied allegations of extortion and misuse of the property, discrediting the defense's claims. The court CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.37/54 previously ruled that the plaintiff, despite not being the owner, has standing to file the suit as he has been in settled possession of the property since 2008.
101. The court also recognized a clear cause of action, affirming that the defendants' actions infringed upon the plaintiff's rights to passage and parking. The plaintiff did not implead Mr. Kamal Mukherji (DW-3), the owner of another flat, as he had no role in obstructing the plaintiff's passage or parking. The defendants' claim of mis-joinder or non-joinder is unfounded. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from blocking his passage and parking area and a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the iron grills and gates from the suit property and vacate their illegal occupation.
102. The plaintiff has established his legal entitlement to the passage and parking beneath his flat as per the GPA. The defendants' actions were motivated by the plaintiff's advanced age and solitary status, making him an easy target. The defendants' lack of evidence and contradictory testimonies underscore their wrongful occupation. The plaintiff has approached the court with clean hands and is entitled to the reliefs sought, including exemplary costs.
Submissions on behalf of defendant
103. The present case revolves around baseless allegations by the plaintiff, Mr. Apjit Singh Ahluwalia, claiming illegal occupation of the parking-cum-passage area beneath his flat CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.38/54 by the defendants, Mr. Gopal Joshi (Defendant No. 1) and Mr. Vidhyadhar Swamy (Defendant No. 2). The defendants maintain that the disputed area is designated as stilt parking, as per the original layout of Gupta Apartments and the GPAs of the respective flat owners. The plaintiff's GPA does not confer any rights over the parking area as a passage, and his claims are unsupported by evidence.
104. The defendants assert that the area was secured with iron grills and gates in 2018 with mutual consent from all stakeholders, including the plaintiff, for the safety of their vehicles. Keys to the gates were provided to all flat owners, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff's assertions of being denied access are unfounded. Furthermore, the plaintiff's own evidence and testimonies reveal contradictions regarding his rights over the disputed area, and his reliance on police complaints lacks merit as no adverse action was taken against the defendants.
105. The defendants also contend that the plaintiff, in collusion with his lawyer and neighbor, Mr. Pankaj Tyagi, filed this suit with ulterior motives to harass the defendants. Allegations of extortion and misuse of the parking area are baseless and have been denied by both defense witnesses and documentary evidence. Notably, the plaintiff himself has no vehicle to park in the area, further undermining his claims. The defendants' GPAs establish their legal right to use the parking area, which was never intended for passage. The plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to prove CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.39/54 otherwise. This case, therefore, lacks merit and is an abuse of the judicial process, filed to harass and extract undue benefits from the defendants.
106. In light of the evidence, the defendants respectfully pray that the Court dismiss the suit with exemplary costs and recognize their rightful use of the parking area as per the terms of their GPAs, while restraining the plaintiff from further interference or baseless allegations.
Analysis and Findings Issue No. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from blocking the passage of the plaintiff through the parking underneath his flat, as prayed for in prayer clause (1)? OPP
107. The plaintiff has based his claim on the General Power of Attorney (GPA) of his flat, marked as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR). The GPA grants the plaintiff rights to use the "passages" within the property but does not specifically designate the parking area underneath his flat as a passage for ingress and egress. While the plaintiff has asserted that he used the parking area as a passage between 2008 and 2019, this assertion remains unsupported by any explicit language in Ex. PW1/2. The document makes a general reference to the right to use common areas, including CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.40/54 "passages," but does not mention the disputed parking area as a designated passage.
108. On the other hand, the defendants have relied on their GPAs--marked as Ex. DW1/2 (OSR) and Ex. DW2/1 (OSR)--which clearly designate the disputed area for parking purposes. These GPAs do not mention the area as a passage. Furthermore, the defendants' contention that a 3.1 feet-wide common passage adjacent to the disputed parking area serves as the designated ingress and egress for the residents is substantiated by the site plan exhibited as Ex. DW1/1. The site plan corroborates the defendants' assertion that the adjacent passage serves the ingress and egress needs of all residents of Block A, including the plaintiff.
109. During cross-examination, the plaintiff was unable to provide any documentary or photographic evidence to support his claim that the disputed area was historically used as a passage. The plaintiff did, however, rely on photographs marked as Mark C and Mark D, showing the disputed area. While these photographs illustrate the open nature of the area, they do not establish its status as a designated passage, as no such use is documented in Ex. PW1/2. Furthermore, the plaintiff's reliance on police complaints (Ex. PW3/B and Mark B) primarily highlights his grievances but does not establish a legal right to use the area as a passage.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.41/54
110. The defendants have admitted in their written statement and testimony that they installed iron grills and gates in 2018 to secure the parking area following an incident of alleged vehicle damage. This security measure is reflected in their testimony. The defendants also assert that the keys to the gate were provided to all stakeholders, including the plaintiff, though this was disputed during trial. Importantly, the defendants established that the adjacent 3.1 feet-wide common passage remains available to the plaintiff, negating his claim of being deprived of a legitimate route for ingress and egress.
111. The plaintiff's reliance on his GPA (Ex. PW1/2) does not override the clear designation of the disputed area for parking purposes in the defendants' GPAs (Ex. DW1/2 and Ex. DW2/1). Additionally, the absence of any specific reference to the disputed parking area as a passage in the plaintiff's GPA undermines his claim.
112. Given the documentary evidence and the practical availability of an adjacent passage as per the site plan, the plaintiff has failed to establish his entitlement to a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from blocking the disputed parking area. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove iron grills from both CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.42/54 sides of the parking underneath his flat, as prayed for in prayer clause (2)? OPP
113. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
114. The defendants have admitted to installing iron grills and gates on the disputed parking area, stating that this measure was undertaken for security purposes. The defendants contend that this security measure was undertaken with the consent of all stakeholders, including the plaintiff, and that keys to the gates were provided to him.
115. The plaintiff, on the other hand, denies having given consent to the installation of the grills and asserts that he was not provided with the keys. However, this assertion is unsubstantiated. The plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence, independent witness testimony, or corroborative material to support his claim that the installation was unauthorized or done against his will. His allegations remain uncorroborated, especially when viewed in light of the defendants' testimony, which consistently states that the installation was done in good faith and with the knowledge of all stakeholders.
116. Moreover, the defendants' actions do not appear to violate the terms of their respective GPAs. Neither Ex. DW1/2 nor Ex. DW2/1 restricts the defendants from taking measures to secure the parking area for its intended use. The installation of the grills aligns with the use of the space as CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.43/54 stilt parking. The defendants' stated rationale for the installation--to prevent theft or damage to vehicles parked in the area--further supports the necessity of the measure.
117. Additionally, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the installation of the grills has caused him any legal injury or infringed upon his rights. His claim that the area was used as a passage has already been dismissed under Issue No. 1. Furthermore, no evidence has been presented to show that the installation of the grills and gates has obstructed or deprived the plaintiff of lawful access to his flat or any other facility.
118. The plaintiff's reliance on the General Power of Attorney for his flat (Ex. PW1/2) does not override the defendants' legal entitlement to use and secure the parking area as per their own GPAs. Moreover, the absence of any explicit prohibition against such measures in the plaintiff's GPA further weakens his case.
119. In light of the above analysis, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the installation of iron grills and gates was unauthorized or that it infringed upon his legal rights. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to the mandatory injunction sought for the removal of the grills and gates. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.44/54 Issue No. 3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to leave the parking space of the plaintiff from their illegal occupation, as prayed for in prayer clause (3)? OPP
120. The plaintiff relies on the General Power of Attorney (GPA) of his flat (Ex. PW1/2), which grants him the right to park a scooter in the disputed parking area. However, the language of the GPA does not confer exclusive possession or ownership of the parking space to the plaintiff. Instead, it acknowledges the plaintiff's limited entitlement to park a scooter, subject to the rights of other residents and stakeholders within the shared space of the stilt parking area.
121. The defendants' rights over the disputed area are substantiated by their respective GPAs (Ex. DW1/2 and Ex. DW2/1), which specifically entitle them to park cars in the designated parking space. The site plan (Ex. DW1/1), which delineates the area's use, further supports the defendants' claim that the space in question is meant for stilt parking and not for exclusive possession by any single resident. The defendants' parking arrangements, therefore, fall within the scope of their lawful entitlements, as established by their title documents.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.45/54
122. The plaintiff has neither produced any document nor provided credible evidence to demonstrate that the defendants' occupation of the parking space is illegal. His assertions that the defendants' use of the area infringes upon his rights are unsupported by evidence. Importantly, the plaintiff's claim for exclusive possession of the space is further undermined by the fact that he does not currently own a vehicle, as admitted during the proceedings. This absence of necessity weakens the plaintiff's argument for exclusive possession and demonstrates that his rights have not been materially infringed upon.
123. Additionally, the plaintiff has failed to establish any specific act of encroachment or illegality by the defendants concerning their use of the parking area. The defendants have consistently maintained that their actions are in accordance with their GPAs, and the plaintiff has not provided any material evidence to refute this claim. The lack of corroborative evidence, combined with the plaintiff's failure to substantiate his allegations, significantly diminishes the credibility of his claims.
124. In view of the above, it is evident that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any illegality or unauthorized occupation by the defendants with respect to the parking space. The rights of all parties over the shared parking area are governed by their respective GPAs, and there is no evidence to suggest that the defendants have exceeded or violated their lawful entitlements.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.46/54
125. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to the mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to vacate the parking space. This issue is therefore decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 4:
Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD
126. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendants.
127. The defendants have alleged that the plaintiff, in collusion with his counsel, filed the present suit with ulterior motives, accusing them of extortion and improper use of the parking area. The defendants assert that the plaintiff's lawyer misused the parking space and demanded money, which formed the basis for the filing of the suit. However, the defendants have not provided any substantial or credible evidence to substantiate these serious allegations. There is no documentary proof, such as police complaints or other corroborative materials, to back the defendants' claims of extortion or misconduct by the plaintiff's counsel.
128. The defendants' case rests on vague and unsubstantiated accusations, primarily directed at the plaintiff and his counsel, but these claims have not been CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.47/54 proven. They have failed to present any admissible evidence or compelling testimony that would support their allegations of extortion or any form of dishonest conduct by the plaintiff. The defendants' reliance on such unsupported accusations does not satisfy the burden of proof placed upon them to demonstrate that the plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands.
129. While it is true that the plaintiff may have exaggerated some of his grievances, exaggeration in claims does not necessarily equate to suppression of material facts or bad faith in approaching the court. The plaintiff has provided his evidence, including the General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/2) and the site plan (Ex. PW1/3), which supports his right to the disputed parking area and passage. These documents were exhibited and duly considered during the course of the trial.
130. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the plaintiff intentionally withheld or concealed any material facts that would have altered the outcome of the case. The burden of proving suppression of material facts lies with the defendants, and they have not fulfilled this burden in the present case.
131. Thus, in the absence of any credible evidence or compelling testimony to support the defendants' allegations, it is concluded that the defendants have not proven that the plaintiff approached the court with unclean CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.48/54 hands or suppressed any material facts. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants.
Issue No. 5:
Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
132. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant.
133. The issue of locus standi, which concerns the plaintiff's right to initiate a suit, has been raised by the defendants, who contend that the plaintiff is not the lawful owner of the suit property and therefore lacks the standing to file the present suit. However, this argument does not take into account the settled legal position that a person in settled possession of a property, even without formal ownership, may file a suit to protect their rights if those rights are being infringed upon.
134. In the present case, the plaintiff has been residing in Flat No. A-9 of Gupta Apartments since 2008. His long-term possession of the flat is not disputed by the defendants. The plaintiff's right to the use of the parking and passage area, which is part of the property he occupies, has been asserted and supported by the evidence presented, including the General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/2) and other relevant documents. The plaintiff has been using the parking space and passage for egress and ingress, and his possession has CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.49/54 remained undisturbed for several years prior to the defendants' actions in 2019.
135. The Court, in its earlier order dated 26.09.2022, considered the question of locus standi and held that a person in settled possession of a property has the legal right to initiate civil proceedings in the event of an infringement of their rights, irrespective of ownership. This principle is well-established in law and has been consistently applied by courts, acknowledging that possession, in many circumstances, is a sufficient basis for bringing a suit to protect one's rights.
136. Given the established legal principle and the plaintiff's undisputed possession, the argument that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to file the suit is unfounded. The plaintiff's right to file the suit has been recognized and confirmed by the court, which has already dismissed the defendants' application challenging his standing to bring the case.
137. Therefore, this issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff, affirming his right to maintain the present suit.
Issue No. 6:
Whether the present suit has been filed without any cause of action? OPD CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.50/54
138. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendants.
139. The concept of a "cause of action" refers to the set of facts or circumstances that give rise to a legal claim and entitle a party to seek judicial relief. For a suit to be maintainable, it must be based on a legitimate grievance where the plaintiff has suffered a legal injury or has the potential to suffer one. The plaintiff must show that there is an infringement of their rights for which legal remedy is sought.
140. In the present case, the plaintiff asserts that the defendants unlawfully blocked his access to the parking and passage beneath his flat, which is a claim concerning the infringement of his right to use and enjoy the property in his possession. The plaintiff contends that his passage through the disputed parking area was obstructed by the installation of iron grills and gates by the defendants. This claim, though disputed by the defendants, represents a legitimate grievance.
141. The plaintiff's claim that his passage was wrongfully blocked, and his right to access the space was infringed, is sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Even if the allegations made by the plaintiff were not ultimately proven in their entirety, the existence of a dispute about the use and access to the disputed area itself establishes the existence of a cause of action. In the context of civil law, a cause of CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.51/54 action is not required to be based on irrefutable evidence at the time of filing; rather, it suffices that there is a legitimate issue or dispute between the parties that warrants judicial intervention. Therefore, the suit has been filed on the basis of an actionable grievance and not without a cause of action.
142. Consequently, this issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff, as the mere existence of a dispute regarding the blockage of the plaintiff's passage and parking area is sufficient to establish a cause of action for the present suit.
Issue No. 7:
Whether the present suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
143. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendants.
144. In civil litigation, the principles of mis-joinder and non-joinder pertain to the inclusion or exclusion of parties who may have a direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute. Non-joinder refers to the omission of a party who should have been included in the suit, whereas mis-joinder refers to the inclusion of a party who should not have been part of the case. For a suit to be valid, it is essential that all necessary parties who have a direct stake in the outcome of the case are included, while unnecessary parties should be excluded.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.52/54
145. In this case, the defendants have raised the argument that Mr. Kamal Mukherjee (DW-3), the owner of Flat A-12, should have been made a party to the suit, as he is an alleged stakeholder in the disputed property. The defendants claim that, as a resident with a stake in the same parking area, Mr. Mukherjee's non-joinder renders the suit defective.
146. The primary grievance of the plaintiff is against the actions of the two defendants, namely Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, who allegedly blocked the plaintiff's access to the parking and passage area by installing iron grills and gates. As Mr. Mukherjee is not implicated in any wrongful acts concerning the plaintiff's claim, his inclusion as a party to the suit is neither necessary nor relevant.
147. The purpose of impleading necessary parties is to ensure that all individuals whose rights or interests may be affected by the judgment are properly represented in the suit. However, as Mr. Mukherjee has no involvement in the alleged obstruction and has not participated in the events leading to the dispute, his non-joinder does not render the suit defective.
148. Therefore, the suit is not bad for non-joinder or mis-
joinder of parties, as the plaintiff's grievance is solely directed against the actions of the defendants. The absence of Mr. Mukherjee as a party does not affect the maintainability of the suit, nor does it hinder the proper adjudication of the issues raised.
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.53/54
149. Consequently, this issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff, as the suit is not defective due to non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties.
Relief:
150. Based on the findings above, the suit is hereby dismissed. The plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities, and as such, the prayer for permanent and mandatory injunctions is declined. Parties shall bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court
on 12.12.2024. (ANURADHA JINDAL)
ASCJ-cum-JSCC-CUM-GJ (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Digitally signed
by ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date: 2024.12.12
16:36:28 +0530
CS SCJ 284/22 APJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. GOPAL JOSHI & ANR PAGE NO.54/54