Delhi District Court
Sunit Pal Singh vs Gurmit Kaur And Ors on 28 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-16, CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 18866/2016
CNR No. DLCT010084412016
Sh. Sunit Pal Singh,
S/o S Jaswant Singh
R/o 8/2, Singh Sabha Road,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07 ..............Plaintiff
Versus
1. Gurmit Kaur deceased through LR
a. Neetu Baweja
W/o Tejinder Pal Singh
D/o. Late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh,
R/o. D-278, (Ground Floor), Phase-I,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052
Also at:
8/2 First Floor, Singh Sabha Road,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07
2. Gurvinder Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh Narvinder Pal Singh
R/o 8/2 First Floor, Singh Sabha Road,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07 ...........Defendants
Date of Institution : 28.11.2011
Date of Arguments : 02.12.2025
Date of judgment : 28.01.2026
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AND
MESNE PROFITS
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, recovery of damages and mesne profits.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is rightful and exclusive owner of the first floor of property bearing Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 1/23 no.8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi-110007 (hereinafter referred as 'suit property'). The defendants have been occupying a part of the first floor of the suit property as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/2A, under implied license from the predecessor of the plaintiff namely, Sh. S. Jaswant Singh. Late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh and the defendants were disowned and disinherited by S. Jaswant Singh in the year 2004 on account of former's mental and physical harassment towards S. Jaswant Singh and his wife. S. Jaswant Singh filed multiple complaints with authorities, including the Delhi Police, regarding their conduct. He formally disowned them through a legal notice sent by registered post and UPC, which they refused to accept, and also published public notices in the newspapers 'Rashtriya Sahara' and 'The National Herald' dated 09.03.2004. S. Jaswant Singh had repeatedly asked the defendants to vacate the licensed premises. After the death of Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh on 11.08.2006, the defendants sought additional time. In May 2010, S. Jaswant Singh orally revoked the license and demanded vacant possession, but despite assurances, the defendants failed to vacate. S. Jaswant Singh gifted the entire first floor, including the licensed premises, to the plaintiff, making him the exclusive owner by a registered gift deed dated 04.05.2011. The defendants were informed of this transfer. Subsequently, an unauthorized third party, Ms. Rinki, began occupying the premises with the defendants' connivance. When the plaintiff and S. Jaswant Singh requested the defendants to vacate on 20.09.2011, the Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 2/23 defendants refused, misbehaved, and threatened them with false criminal cases. Complaints were made to the Lt. Governor and police authorities. A legal notice revoking the license was issued on 26.09.2011 expressly revoking/ cancelling/ terminating the permission granted to the defendants to occupy the licensed premises and called upon them to vacate and handover vacant, peaceful possession of the licensed premises within a month, but its service was refused by the defendants. The plaintiff had also called upon the defendants to pay the damages for the use and occupation @ Rs. 50,000/- per month in case of any default. Service of the notice was refused by the defendants on 04.10.2011. As such, the notice period of one month expired on 03.11.2011, the defendants have failed to vacate the licensed premises and have rendered themselves for payment of damages for use and occupation of licensed property @ Rs. 50,000/- per month and continued in illegal occupation. On 02.12.2011, when the plaintiff along with his wife and younger son were busy in St. Stephens Hospital due to accident of his elder son Ajit Singh, the defendants at their back taking benefit of their non-presence from the suit premises forcibly and illegally took over the possession of the part of the suit property as shown in yellow colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/2A, which was under plaintiff's possession and installed channel gate to prevent the plaintiff and his family members from using the part of first floor, which was in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed a written complaint dated 04-12-2011 with Ld. Governor about the same. At the same time, between 28-11-2011 to Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 3/23 03-12-2011, the mother of the plaintiff, aged about 86 years old, was also admitted in St. Stephens Hospital due to which the plaintiff, his wife, his children and parents of plaintiff were not able to visit the first floor of the suit property continuously for a substantial period and taking advantage of the same, the defendants forcibly and illegally took possession of a portion of the suit property earlier in the plaintiff's possession and installed a gate to obstruct access. The plaintiff has prayed for decree for ejectment of possession in respect of suit property at first floor of the property bearing no. 8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007; recovery of damages for use and occupation Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1,65,000/-; recovery of damages for use and occupation w.e.f. 16-11-2011 till recovery of possession of suit property; pendente-lite and future interest on damages/mesne profit along with cost of the suit.
3. Thereafter, summons of the suit was served upon the defendants. In response thereto defendants have filed their written statement and contended that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable as it is based on an alleged Gift Deed dated 04.05.2011, which is legally invalid. They submit that a valid family settlement was entered into on 03.08.1990 between Sh. Jaswant Singh and his two sons, including the plaintiff and Late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh, and the settlement was duly accepted and acted upon. Under this settlement, the first floor of property No. 8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, was allotted to Late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh, who renovated and modified it using his own funds and enjoyed exclusive Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 4/23 ownership, possession, and use without interference. Sh. Jaswant Singh and the plaintiff relinquished all their rights in the said portion. Since Sh. Jaswant Singh had no right, title, or interest in the first floor after the 1990 settlement, he could not have gifted it to the plaintiff in 2011. Consequently, the Gift Deed is void, the plaintiff's claims are denied, and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. The defendants assert exclusive ownership and possession of the first floor by virtue of the family settlement.
4. The defendants have also filed a counter-claim to challenge the registered gift deed being relied upon by the defendants. The plaintiff has filed written statement to the said counter-claim wherein the averments made in the counter-claim were denied and the averments made in the plaint were reaffirmed.
5. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed vide Order dated 02.01.2017 as under :
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession of the Ist Floor of the property bearing no.8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed in the plaint, as prayed for in the plaint? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of the portion as shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed in the plaint, of the suit property, which was illegally possessed by the defendants on 02.12.2011, as prayed for in the plaint? OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages/mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit property shown in red colour in the site plan w.e.f. 16.11.2011 till handing over the possession @ Rs.60,000/- p.m., as prayed for in the plaint? OPP iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages/mesne Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 5/23 profit for use and occupation of the suit property shown in yellow colour in the site plan w.e.f., 02.12.2011, till handing over the possession of the same @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m., as prayed for in the plaint? OPP v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs.25,000/-and Rs.1,65,000/, as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite ang interest @ 18% p.a., as prayed for in the plaint? OPP vii. Relief.
6. After the filing of the present suit, a rectification deed dated 21.08.2024 was executed by S. Jaswant Singh in favour of the plaintiff whereby certain clerical/ arithmetical mistakes were rectified in the gift deed which was taken on record vide Order dated 07.02.2019 on the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff stood in witness box as PW1. He tendered his evidence wherein he reiterated and reaffirmed all the contents made in the plaint. He relied upon the documents i.e., certified copy of Gift Deed dated 04.05.2011 as Ex.PW-1/1, certified copy of Rectification Deed dated 21.08.2014 as Ex.PW-1/1-A, Site Plan as Ex.PW-1/2A and Ex.PW-1/2B, letter dated 30.03.1994 as Ex.PW-1/3 (2 pages), letter dated 05.12.2002 as Ex.PW-1/4, letter dated 08.12.2002 as Ex.PW-1/5, letter dated 02.08.2003 as Ex.PW-1/6, letter dated 13.04.2011 as Ex.PW-1/7, copies of newspapers Rashtriya Sahara and National Herald edition both dated 09.03.2004 as Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.), letter dated 22.09.2011 as Ex.PW-1/9, Legal Notice dated 26.09.2011 as Ex.PW-1/10. returned envelopes are Ex.PW-1/11 and Ex.PW-1/12 and letter dated 04.12.2011 Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 6/23 as Ex.PW-1/13. He was cross-examined by the defendants.
8. Thereafter, Sh. Aasheesh Kumar, Data Entry Operator from the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi was examined as PW2. He brought the summoned record i.e., gift deed dated 04.05.2011 executed by Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhatia in favour of Sunit Pal Singh registered as document no.3298, book no.1, Volume no. 3798 on pages 33 to 38 registered on 11.05.2011, Sub-Registrar-I, Delhi which was already exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. He has also brought the rectification deed dated 21.08.2014 executed by Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhatia in favour of Sunit Pal Singh registered as document no.7660, book no.1, volume no. 5454 on pages 54 to 56 registered on 26.08.2014, Sub- Registrar-I, Delhi which was already Ex.PW1/A.
9. Defendant stood in witness box as DW1 and relied upon the settlement dated 03.08.1990-is exhibited Ex. DW-1/A, copy of the sale deed dated 15.02.2011 already Ex. PW-1/D13 and copy of sale deed dated 20.04.2007 already Ex. PW-1/D14, Sale deed dated 14.05.1964 already Ex. PW-1/D6, copy of the advance receipt-cum- agreement to sell dated 01.10.2007 as Ex. PW-1/D19, copy of partnership deed dated 03.04.1986 already Ex. PW-1/D1, Copy of complaint by Late Sh. Navinder Pal Singh to SHO, PS Subzi Mandi dated 17.04.2004 already Mark C, Copy of complaint to Sub Registrar dated 17.04.2004 already Mark D, copy of compromise and understanding given by Sh. Sunil Pal on 23.10.2003 already Ex. PW-1/D4 (court observation: this document has been shown to the plaintiff and he admits his signature Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 7/23 on the same), copy of the notice of DCP North dated 08.03.2004 exhibited as Ex. DW-1/12 (OSR), photocopy of death certificate of Late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh exhibited as Ex. DW-1/13 (OSR), photocopy of passport of Smt. Gurmit Kaur as Mark E, copy of residential directory of Block 41, Singh Sabha Road Ex. DW-1/15 (OSR), copy of complaint made by Manleen Kaur to DCP North dated 21.04.2012 Mark F, copy of ration car of Late Sh. Jaswant Singh dated 07.08.1998 as Mark G, Photocopy of the marriage certificate of Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh defendant no. 2 dated 16.10.2010 as Ex. PW-1/18 (OSR), copy of medical record of Jivodaya Hospital dated 19.11.2011 as Mark H, Copy of complaint of Gurvinder Pal Singh defendant no. 1 to PS Roop Nagar dated 01.03.2017 as Mark L. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
10. This Court has heard the arguments and perused the record and written submissions.
11. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the suit property was self-acquired property of Late Sh. Jaswant Singh, who purchased it in his own name by a registered sale deed in 1964. There was never any joint Hindu family in existence, and at the time of acquisition of the property, the plaintiff was less than one year old while the elder son was around fourteen years of age. Therefore, neither of them could have contributed in any manner towards the acquisition of the property. Being the absolute owner, he had full rights to dispose of or transfer the property as he wished. No other family member, including the defendants, had any legal right or interest in the property Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 8/23 during his lifetime. In exercise of his ownership rights, late Sh. Jaswant Singh voluntarily and out of natural love and affection, transferred the first floor of the property to the plaintiff through a duly executed and registered Gift Deed dated 04.05.2011 Ex. PW 1/1 and PW 1/1A. The said gift satisfies all the conditions laid down under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, i.e. (i) a voluntary transfer of property; (ii) without consideration, and (iii) accepted by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. The deed was duly executed, attested, and registered on 04.05.2011 in the office of the Sub-Registrar IV-A, New Delhi. The same is corroborated and confirmed by the testimony of PW-2. The said gift deed was duly acted upon. The plaintiff's name was mutated in municipal records, and he began paying property tax and maintenance charges for the suit property. These acts demonstrate his acceptance and exercise of ownership rights. The occupation of the defendants of the suit property was always permissive in nature and based on a revocable license granted by the plaintiff's father late Sh. Jaswant Singh, purely out of goodwill and familial consideration. At no point did the defendants have any independent ownership rights or vested interest in the suit property. Late Sh. Jaswant Singh willfully and voluntarily transferred the full ownership to the plaintiff, expecting the defendants to vacate the property as they were mere licensees; It is further submitted that due to repeated acts of misbehavior, physical harassment, and serious family discord caused by Late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh and his family, late Sh. Jaswant Singh revoked the Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 9/23 permission/license for occupation around May 2010 and repeatedly requested them to vacate the licensed premises. Later, late Sh. Jaswant Singh publicly disowned and disinherited his elder son and his family by way of newspaper publications in March 2004 (Ex. PW 1/8). Late Sardar Jaswant Singh, on multiple occasions between 1994 and 2011, approached and made complaints/representations against the defendants to the concerned SHO, Joint Commissioner of Police, Lieutenant Governor, and Home Minister vide Ex. PW1/3, PW1/6, PW1/7, and PW1/13 etc. The conduct of the parties over the years further disproves the existence of any binding family settlement in 1990. The defendants never asserted ownership based on Ex. DW1/A for over two decades. They did not seek mutation of the first floor in their names, not did they record any claim its municipal or revenue records. On the contrary, late Sh. Jaswant Sings continued to deal with the property as its absolute owner. He sold another portion of the property to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed in 2004 and 2007. Later, in 2011, he gifted the suit property to the plaintiff by a registered gift deed. Both these transactions were conducted openly, without any objection from the defendants then; It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the defendants rely upon a single-page unregistered and unstamped document dated 03.08.1990 Ex. DW1/A, written in Urdu, which they describe as a "family settlement. The alleged document is inherently suspicious, was never acted upon, and as inadmissible in evidence due to non registration and non-stamping. It has not been Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 10/23 proved in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. Most importantly, it creates no legal right or binding obligation upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has consistently denied any knowledge of this alleged document or any participation in a settlement of 1990. It bears only the signature of Late Sh. Jaswant Singh and the elder son, nor the plaintiff nor any other family member, including the four elder sisters and mother signed it. A unilateral writing by one person cannot amount to a binding family settlement. The absence of the plaintiff's participation is fatal because he was a necessary party to any such arrangement. Although, the defendants have consistently sought to lead secondary evidence as per the mandate of Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act and claimed that the original document is in the possession of the plaintiff, DW1, in his testimony, has clearly admitted that the original is in his possession and was handed over to him by his father in the presence of his mother and sister; Secondary evidence, such as a photocopy, is permissible only when the original is shown to be lost or otherwise unobtainable, and only after strict compliance with the requirements of Section 65. The plaintiff is a senior citizen aged about 60 years, who has been forced and constrained to reside in rented accommodation along with his wife, while the defendants have been in illegal occupation of the suit premises for the last 14 years.
12. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following authorities:-
Narender Kumar Vs. MGMT of M/s Maman Chand Ramji Das, 2023 SCC Online Del 693;
Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 11/23 Renikuntla Rajamma (D) through LRs Vs. K. Sarwanamma (2014) 9 SCC 445;
Kale & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 119;
Roshan Singh & Ors. Vs. Zile Singh & ors. (2018) 14 SCC 814; J. Yashoda Vs. K. Shobha Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730; H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam, CA no. 6956/2004;
Ashok Dulichand Vs. Madahavlal Dube and Anr. (1975) 2 SCC 664;
Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama, (2018) 15 SCC 130; Sunil Ahuja & Anr. Vs. Prem Ahuja & Ors; CS(OS) 251/2022 and CRL. MA 25148/22;
Tek Bahadur Bhujil Vs. Debt Singh Bhujil and Ors. 1963 SCC Online SC 197;
Defendant's submissions:
13. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendants that in the cross-examination, the plaintiff has duly admitted this fact that in the registered gift deed dated 04.05.2011, there was certain mistakes regarding the name and the address of the property and as such, after filing of the present suit a rectification deed was executed on 21.08.2014. During the lifetime, S. Jaswant Singh had never claimed that Narvinder Pal Singh is not the owner of the first floor since S. Jaswant Singh father had already given and relinquished the said portion to Narvinder Pal Singh his elder son which was duly accepted by the plaintiff also.
Since the plaintiff has sold the other portion i.e. the second and third floor above the first floor to third person by getting NOC from the defendants. Thereafter, he had also sold the ground floor where earlier the plaintiff was residing on the basis of the sale deed which the plaintiff Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 12/23 has got executed by his father in his favour. However, all the sale deeds were sham documents and no monetary transaction was made by the plaintiff to his father for execution of the sale deed, which is evident from the sale deed itself. The defendant never raised any objection in respect of the aforesaid sale deeds as the plaintiff had always being admitting that the first floor is owned by the defendants as owner on the basis of the family settlement and the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest on the suit property. Sh. Jaswant Singh was 93 years of age in the year 2011 and was suffering from various old age ailments nor was mentally unfit and unsound to understand the contents and execution of the documents. The defendant under coercion by mischief and fraud had got the alleged gift deed from his father by forgery and misrepresenting. The signatures on the gift deed also differ from the various signatures of S. Jaswant Singh which has been duly admitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination also. The father of the parties never had any intention to execute any gift deed in respect of the first floor as the first floor has already been given on the basis of the family settlement to Narvinder Pal Singh, elder brother of the plaintiff on 03.08.1990. The defendant is the owner of the suit premises and has exclusive and independent possession even before the year 1990. Therefore, there is no question or occasion of executing of any gift deed by the deceased father S. Jaswant Singh in favour of the plaintiff. The license, as alleged by the plaintiff, has never been created by the deceased Jaswant Singh during his lifetime nor claimed by the plaintiff prior Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 13/23 to filing of the present suit. The plaintiff has got no right, title or interest in the suit premises as the same is under the ownership of the defendant which has been given by the father to his elder son by way of family arrangement dated 09.08.1990. It is further submitted that it is a well settled law that the family arrangement can also be verbal may be even oral and therefore, no registration is required as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Kale & Others Vs. Deputy Director of Custodian" that "The family settlement must be a bonafide one so as to resolve family dispute and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family." It is argued that the family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary, only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing here also a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation in such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in the movable property and is therefore not compulsory registrable." The same was held in Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Anr. Vs. Korukonda Anwapurna Sampath Kumar, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 wherein it was held that the registration of a family settlement is not required.; The defendants are also protected by the provision of section 60 of Easement Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 14/23 Act. The licensee acting upon the license has executed a work of a permanent corrector and incurred expenses in the execution. The plaintiff in his cross-examination has duly admitted that his elder brother deceased Narvinder Pal Singh was doing the family business and has started living at the first floor with his family in 1980. The plaintiff also admitted that at the time of construction of first floor was 03 years of age and he was not aware who had constructed the first floor or invested the money. The plaintiff has also admitted in his cross examination that the plaintiff got two sale deeds executed from his father in respect of the second floor and third floor and also for the ground floor where he was living and it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has sold these properties in the market and has received the entire sale consideration without anything being paid to the defendant. The malafide and fraud on the part of the plaintiff is proved in evidence that how he has manipulated the entire property and has failed to explain the reason as to why separate sale deeds have been executed by the father and why a alleged gift deed has got been prepared by him in respect of the first floor.; The gift deed is forged and fabricated and the defendant had denied the execution of the same by the deceased father S. Jaswant Singh in favour of the plaintiff. The signatures on the gift deed and the rectification deed differs as can be seen from the naked eye, therefore, the gift deed has not been executed by S. Jaswant Singh nor was having any knowledge or understanding about the execution of the alleged gift deed, it was under the coercion and by misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 15/23 who has forged and fabricated the said gift deed.; In the entire cross examination of DW-1 not even a single suggestion has been put regarding creation of license or when the license was invoke by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendants has relied upon the following authorities:-
Kale & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors, AIR 1976, Supreme Court 807;
Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1242;
Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Anr. Vs. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, CA no. 6141/21;
Pradeep Oil Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1869;
Babu Fazal Haq and Ors. Vs. Lala Data Ram and Anr, AIR 1975 Allahabad 373;
Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (D) through LRs & Anr. CA no. 7818-19/2009;
Bhupesh Agrawal & Anr. Vs. S.M. Chaudhary & Anr. Misc. Petition no. 5168/23;
C. Kamalakkannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl. Appeal no. 2025; Bheri Nageswara Rao Vs. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao & Ors., AIR 2006 AP 314;
14. Issue wise findings of this Court are as under:
Issue no.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession of the Ist Floor of the property bearing no.8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed in the plaint, as prayed for in the plaint? OPP.
and Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 16/23 Issue no.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of the portion as shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed in the plaint, of the suit property, which was illegally possessed by the defendants on 02.12.2011, as prayed for in the plaint? OPP Both these issues are taken up together as they are interconnected. Plaintiff is claiming possession of different portions of the suit property, as shown in red colour and yellow colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/2A, on the strength of registered gift deed Ex.PW1/1 in his favour which is in respect of entire suit property. Onus to prove both these issues is upon the plaintiff. Indisputably, the property bearing no.8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi-110007, inter-alia comprising the suit property, was earlier registered in the name of Smt. Jaswant Kaur which was subsequently transferred in the name of S. Jaswant Singh on execution of sale deed dated 14.05.1964. It is stated by the plaintiff that vide registered Gift Deed dated 04.05.2011 Ex.PW1/1 r/w. Rectification deed dated 21.08.2015 Ex.PW1/1A, right, title or interest in the suit property was transferred to the plaintiff. In this manner, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property.
15. On the other hand, it is claimed by the defendant that S. Jaswant Singh has been left with no right, title or interest in the suit property in view of a mutual family settlement dated 03.08.1990 which was arrived at between S. Jaswan Singh and his two sons i.e., the plaintiff herein and Sh.
Narender Pal Singh, father of both the defendants whereby Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 17/23 the entire suit property was given to Late Sh. Narender Pal Singh. Sh. Narender Pal Singh got the suit property renovated, made additions and alterations out of his own earnings. S. Jawant Singh and the plaintiff have duly relinquished their right, title or interest in the suit property in favour of Sh. Narender Pal Singh in the family settlement Ex.DW1/A. Since it is the claim of the defendant that S. Jaswant Singh had left with no right, title or interest in the suit property by virtue of family settlement dated 03.08.1990 Ex.DW1/A, burden to prove this fact is upon the defendants. Indisputably, defendants have only produced the photocopy of the above stated family settlement. Neither in the WS nor in the evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/AA nor in the counter-claim, defendants have revealed as to in whose possession the said family settlement is lying. It is only after the commencement of trial and subsequent to the recording of examination in chief of PW Sh. Sunit Pal Singh, the defendants had served a notice u/O. 12 Rule 8 Ex.PW1/D3 upon the plaintiff, calling upon the plaintiff to produce certain documents which includes the original family settlement dated 03.08.1990. During cross-examination dated 25.07.2018, a question was asked from the plaintiff regarding receipt of notice u/Sec.12 Rule 8 CPC (u/O.12 Rule 8 CPC), the plaintiff has admitted having receiving the said notice Ex.PW1/D3 and added that the same was duly replied by him. Thereafter, no further question pertaining to the said notice u/O. 12 Rule 8 CPC or reply thereto was asked from the plaintiff in his cross- examination. In the said reply, the plaintiff has Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 18/23 categorically denied execution of said family settlement and stated that the defendants have forged the said documents and placed a photocopy thereof in the present suit.
16. It is argued that the defendants are also protected u/Sec.60 of Easement Act, as the father of the defendants had executed work of 'Permanent Character' in the suit premises, subsequent to family settlement dated 09.08.1990. Perusal of the record reveals that neither in the WS nor in the evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/AA, the defendants have revealed as to what was the work of 'Permanent Character' got performed by his father Sh. Narender Pal Singh in the suit property. Nor there is any document to show as to how that construction work was funded. In the WS, defendants have specifically denied the fact that they had been permitted to occupy the suit premises as licensee. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, a contradictory stand has been taken by Ld. Counsel for the defendants while addressing final arguments to the effect that defendants are protected u/Sec. 60 of the Easement Act and is, therefore, misconceived. Vide detailed judgment in the counter claim bearing no.56/25, it has been held that the defendants have failed to prove the fact that the registered gift deed dated 04.05.2011 is null and void and they have also failed to prove the fact that the suit property has already been partitioned vide family settlement dated 03.08.1990. It is claimed by the defendant in the counter-claim that the plaintiff has duly acted upon the family settlement dated 03.08.1990and has sold his share above the first floor of suit property by Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 19/23 executing and registering the sale deed dated 15.02.2011 (Ex.PW1/D13). Perusal of registered sale deed Ex.PW1/D13 reveals that the plaintiff has sold third floor with roof right of property bearing no. 8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Sabzi Mandi, Kamala Nagar, Delhi-110007 to one Mr. Parveen Ahuja by claiming his ownership on the basis of one registered sale deed dated 20.04.2007 executed by his father Mr. Jaswant Singh Bhatia in his favour and not on the basis of family settlement dated 03.08.1990. There is no reference of family settlement dated 03.08.1990 in registered sale deed Ex.PW1/D13. No independent evidence has been led by the defendant regarding the existence of the family settlement dated 03.08.1990. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the defendant has failed to prove the mutual family settlement dated 03.08.1990 whereby it is claimed that Sh. Narender Pal Singh became the absolute owner of the suit property. No evidence has been led by the defendant to show that the plaintiff was in a position to dominate the Will of his old aged father S. Jaswant Singh who had executed the Gift Deed Ex.PW1/1 in favour of the plaintiff whereby the possession of entire first floor of property bearing no. Ex.PW-1/1 has been transferred. It is not the case of defendant that the photographs of S. Jaswant Singh appearing in gift deed Ex.PW1/1 and rectification deed Ex.PW1/A are not that of as S. Jaswant Singh. Admittedly, S. Jaswant Singh was the grandfather of the defendants and therefore, they must be in possession of admitted signatures of S. Jaswant Singh. No efforts have been made to get the signatures of S. Jaswant Singh appearing in Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/A Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 20/23 examined through the handwriting expert. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, there is no force in the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the signatures of S. Jaswant Singh appearing in document Ex.PW1/1 are forged. In other words, the defendant has failed to challenge the execution of Registered Gift Deed Ex.PW1/1 and rectification deed Ex.PW1/A, which were executed in favour of the plaintiff. No evidence has been led by the defendant to show that S. Jaswant Singh was not mentally fit to execute the gift deed Ex.PW1/1 in favour of plaintiff. Nor the defendants have challenged the competency of S. Jaswant Singh to execute the said documents. Vide these documents, S. Jaswant Singh had transferred the ownership of the entire suit property to the plaintiff being the owner of suit property, the plaintiff is also entitled to recover the possession thereof from the defendants. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues no. 1 and 2 have been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue no. 3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages/mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit property shown in red colour in the site plan w.e.f. 16.11.2011 till handing over the possession @ Rs.60,000/-
p.m., as prayed for in the plaint? OPP and Issue no. 4:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages/mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit property shown in yellow colour in the site plan w.e.f., Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 21/23 02.12.2011, till handing over the possession of the same @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m., as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
17. Both these issues are taken up together. Onus to prove these issues is upon the plaintiff. These issues are only based upon the bald averment that the defendants are liable to pay damages with regard to the use and occupation of the portion being shown in red and yellow colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/2A @ Rs.50,000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- per month respectively. No evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show how much profit/rent is being derived from the suit property or any other property of similar nature situated in the same locality. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the damages/mesne profit as prayed for in the plaint. Accordingly, these issues have been decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 5:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of Rs.25,000/-and Rs.1,65,000/-, as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP
18. Onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Neither in the body of the plaint nor in the evidence affidavit of plaintiff, it is revealed as to on what basis, for what purpose, and how the claim of amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,65,000/- has been raised in the prayer clause of the plaint. In the opinion of this Court, the claim of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,65,000/- is arbitrary. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 22/23 Issue no. 6:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pendente-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a., as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
19. While adjudicating upon the issues no. 4 and 5, this Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages/mesne profit qua the suit property.
Therefore, question of claiming pendente-lite and future interest thereupon doesn't arise. This issue is also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Relief
20. In view of the findings of this Court upon issue no. 1 and 2, suit of the plaintiff is decreed and plaintiff is hereby entitled for the decree of possession of suit property i.e., first floor of the suit property bearing no.8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi-110007 from the defendants.
21. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ ARORA Announced in the open Court ARORA Date: 2026.01.28 on 28.01.2026. 16:00:30 +0530 (PANKAJ ARORA) DISTRICT JUDGE-16/ CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI/28.01.2026 Suit No. 18866/2016 Sunit Pal Singh Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors. Page no. 23/23