Delhi District Court
Suresh Kumar vs Babu Lal on 2 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
CS DJ 610899/16
CNR Number: DLWT01-000060-2009
In the matter of:
1. Suresh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Lokman Ram
R/o WZ-122/2, Meenakshi Garden,
Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
2. Ramesh Chand
S/o Late Sh. Lokman Ram
R/o BF-17, Block A-4,
Shiva Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063 ..... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Babu Lal (Now Deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Lokman Ram
Through his following Legal Heirs
a) Ms. Raj Dulari
Wd/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o B-2/39, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063
Mob - 9910167289
b) Sangpriya Gautam
S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o B-2/39, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063
c) Sheel Priya Gautam
S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o B-2/39, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063
d) Meera
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 1 of 36
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02
17:16:25 +0530
D/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o B-2/39, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063
e) Hema
D/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o B-2/39, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063
2) Delhi Development Authority
C-Block, 3rd Floor,
Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi-110023
Through its Directors ..... Defendants
Date of institution : 17.07.2009
Date of reserved for judgment : 18.04.2026
Date of judgment : 02.05.2026
Suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery of use and
occupation charges
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case
1. The plaintiffs submit that defendant No. 1, their elder brother, is illegally occupying a residential property in Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, which was originally allotted in 1978 and later purchased in 1981 using funds paid by plaintiff No. 2, making the plaintiffs the rightful owners. Although certain documents like GPA were executed in defendant No. 1's name, the plaintiffs claim full ownership and assert that defendant No. 1 has no legal title. Family disputes began around 1991, leading to earlier litigation where defendant No. 1 assured he would not dispossess plaintiff No. 1 without due process, but he allegedly forced him out soon after.
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 2 of 36
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02
17:16:30 +0530
The plaintiffs intermittently lived in the property, constructed additional floors, but were repeatedly compelled to vacate due to defendant No. 1's hostile behavior, while he continued occupying the premises as a licensee without paying agreed license fees of Rs. 50,000/- per month.
2. In 2008, disputes escalated when defendant No. 1 allegedly attempted to sell the property using forged documents and sought conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold in his own name, with alleged collusion from defendant No. 2 (a government authority). Despite objections and submission of ownership documents by the plaintiffs, authorities proceeded in favor of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 later formally transferred his share to plaintiff No. 1 in 2009. The plaintiffs maintain that defendant No. 1 is in illegal possession, has refused to vacate or pay dues, and is attempting to deprive them of their lawful rights.
3. The plaintiffs therefore seek a Court decree for possession of the property, injunctions restraining defendant No. 1 from selling or creating third-party interests and restraining defendant No. 2 from converting the property status, along with recovery of mesne profits (use and occupation charges) at Rs. 50,000/- per month with interest. Written Statement of defendant no.1
4. The defendant contends that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is false, frivolous, and without any valid cause of action, and therefore liable to be dismissed. He denied that the plaintiffs have any ownership right, title, or interest in the suit property and asserted that he alone purchased the plot Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 3 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:16:34 +0530 in 1981 using his own funds after taking responsibility for the family following the death of their parents. He claimed that he supported and settled both plaintiffs in their respective businesses and residences, while they lived independently and did not contribute financially to either the purchase or construction of the property, which he developed over time despite financial constraints.
5. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiffs have a history of attempting to harass him and wrongfully claim the property, including earlier litigation in 1991 which was settled. He denied all allegations of illegal occupation, non-payment of license fees, forgery, or attempts to sell the property using false documents, and maintained that the property rightfully belongs to him. He also asserted that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are either not produced or are in fact in his favor, including an agreement to sell executed in his name.
6. Additionally, the defendant submitted that the plaintiffs have tried to give a criminal color to a purely civil dispute, as noted by a magistrate in earlier proceedings, and have failed to produce any credible documentary evidence to support their claims. He maintained that he is lawfully entitled to seek conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold and that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to object. Consequently, he prayed that the suit be dismissed with exemplary costs, as it is baseless, vexatious, and an abuse of the legal process. Written Statement of defendant no.2
7. The right of defendant no.2 to file the WS was closed vide order Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 4 of 36 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:16:38 +0530 dated 02.12.2009.
8. Plaintiff no. 1 Shri Suresh Kumar admitted sixteen documents and plaintiff no. 2 admitted four documents Ex. D1 to D20 and defendant no. 1 Shri Babu Lal admitted one docment Ex. P1 on 26.02.2010. Issues :-
9. From the pleadings of the parties and material on record, following issues were framed vide order dated 05.05.2011 :-
Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are the owner of property bearing no. B-2/39, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063? OPP Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation? OPD Issue no. 3 Whether the defendants are the owner of suit property? OPD Issue no.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession and permanent injunction? OPP Issue no.5 Relief.
10. The following additional issues were framed vide order dated 01.06.2019 :-
Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mesne profit / damages @ Rs. 50,000/- per month against defendant no.1. If yes, since when? OPP Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for pendentilite and future interest on mesne profits, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP Issue no. 3 Relief Plaintiff Evidence:-
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 5 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:16:42 +0530 PW1/Suresh Kumar
11. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/X and tendered the following documents : site plan Ex.PW1/1, Will dated 03.12.1981 executed by original allottee in favour of plaintiff no. 2 Shri Ramesh Chand Ex.PW1/3, copy of FIR, status report and complaint case proceedings Ex.PW1/4, the original allottee Shri Raghu Nath Singh had executed an affidavit in the form of declaration dated 24.03.2009 in favour of Shri Ramesh Kumar Ex.PW1/5, copies of written request letters (RTI form) Mark B and C, copy of reply/ information required under RTI Act dated 24.10.2008 from defendant no.2/DDA that original allottee Shri Babu Lal had requested DDA to not give any information or document to any other person Mark D, affidavit dated 23.12.1999 filed by defendant no.1 before defendant no. 2 alongwith application for conversion of lease hold rights to free hold rights in respect of the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell dated 03.12.1981 in his favour Ex.PW1/9, letter dated 06.02.2009 written by plaintiff no.1 to Deputy Director DDA for withholding of conversion of lease hold to free hold of the suit property and its postal receipt Ex.PW1/10, complaint dated 01.05.2009 to the SHO PS concerned by plaintiffs against defendant no. 1 Shri Babu Lal for cheating, forgery and using as genuine the forged documents and also against official of DDA for conspricy with Shri Babu Lal Ex.PW1/11, copy of agreement to sell dated 03.12.1981 by original allottee by Shri Raghu Nath Singh in favour of Shri Babu Lal Mark A and GPA dated 09.07.2019 executed by Shri Ramesh Kumar/ plaintiff no. 2 in Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 6 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:16:46 +0530 favour of Shri Suresh Kumar i.e. plaintiff no. 1 with respect to the suit property Ex. PW1/A.
12. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1, PW1/Suresh Kumar stated that he is a 12th pass, residing in Tilak Nagar, Delhi since 1999, and previously lived in Paschim Vihar at different addresses. He deposed on behalf of himself and his brother Ramesh Chand, who is less educated and currently resides in Paschim Vihar. Their father, who ran a footwear business, passed away in the early 1970s, after which the family business was managed by their brother Babu Lal, with PW1 later joining.
13. Regarding the disputed property, PW1 claimed that his brother Ramesh Chand purchased it for Rs. 45,000/- from Raghu Nath Singh, and later in 2009, PW1 himself bought a 50% share from Ramesh Chand for Rs. 5 lakhs through unregistered documents. He admitted that neither he nor his brother signed the original 1981 documents, and that key documents such as GPA and SPA were executed in Babu Lal's name, allegedly for convenience in dealing with authorities. He also acknowledged that utilities like electricity and water connections are in Babu Lal's name.
14. PW1 denied suggestions that Babu Lal solely purchased the property or funded it, asserting instead that the transaction was in his brother's name and funded by him. He also claimed that any discrepancies in documents, including name alterations, were due to manipulation and collusion between Babu Lal and the original seller.
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 7 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:16:51 +0530 Although he stated that he possesses ownership documents, he admitted they have not been filed in Court but could be produced if permitted.
15. PW1 further admitted that in a previous 1991 suit, he had stated the property was purchased from joint family funds, explaining this inconsistency by claiming he was unaware of the documents at that time.
He confirmed that construction of the ground floor occurred around 1987-88 and denied that it was solely funded by Babu Lal.
16. He stated that disputes arose in 2008 when Babu Lal refused to pay rent, though he never explicitly refused to vacate the property. Legal notices were sent by both plaintiffs in 2008. PW1 also acknowledged filing documents with DDA for conversion of the property to freehold status. He denied allegations of forgery, manipulation of documents, and wrongful possession, maintaining that the plaintiffs are rightful owners and that his testimony is truthful.
17. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for DDA, PW1/Shri Suresh admitted that a dispute between the parties began around 2008- 2009 and confirmed that he informed DDA about it and submitted related documents, though he did not recall the exact date or whether those documents were filed in the present suit. He also stated that he did not remember who paid the ground charges for the property. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or had filed a false affidavit.
18. PW2/Balwant Singh, Jr. Secretariat Assistant from DDA, Vikas Sadan proved the following documents : office note regarding supply of documents to the IO in criminal case and to brothers of Babu Lal Ex.
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 8 of 36
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02
17:16:54 +0530
PW2/1, application submitted by defendant no.1 before DDA along with documents for conversion of lease hold rights into freehold rights in respect of the suit property Ex. PW2/2, perpetual lease of the suit property in the name of Shri Raghu Nath Singh Ex. PW2/3, correspondence between DDA and defendant no.1 Ex. PW2/4, application no. 5582 filed by plaintiffs along with documents and correspondence with DDA Ex. PW2/5.
19. During cross examination, PW2/Balwant Singh stated that he has no personal knowledge of the facts of the present case. He admitted that as per DDA records the ground rent has been paid by Babu Lal, and further acknowledged that according to the DDA note sheets (31N-32N), the documents submitted by Babu Lal, including the SPA and Agreement to Sell, were verified and found to be in order.
After cross examination, the plaintiff evidence was closed vide order dated 10.09.2025.
Defendant Evidence:-
DW1/Meera, D/o Shri Babu Lal
20. DW1/Meera tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following documents : Death Certificate of Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/1, General Power of Attorney dated 03.12.1981 already exhibited Ex.D-11, Special Power of Attorney dated 03.12.1981 already exhibited Ex.D-12, Special Power of Attorney dated 03.12.1981 already exhibited Ex.D-13, Special Power of Attorney dated 03.12.1981 already exhibited Ex.D-14, Affidavit of Sh. Raghu Nath Singh executed in favour Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 9 of 36 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:16:58 +0530 of Sh. Babu Lal already Ex.D-15, perpetual lease deed dated 05.06.1978 already Ex.D-16, possession letter dated 15.09.1976 issued by DDA in favour of Sh. Raghu Nath Singh already exhibited Ex.D-17, site plan of suit property already exhibited Ex.D-18, House Tax Receipt No. 1119832 for the year 2004-2005 in the name of Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/10, House Tax Receipt No. 2135032 for the year 2005-2006 in the name of Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/11, House Tax Receipt No. 0539098 for the year 2006-2007 in the name of Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/12, House Tax Receipt No. 634018 in the name of Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/13, House Tax Receipt No. 68006 for the year 2008-2009 in the name of Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/14, House Tax Receipt No. 582028 for the year 2009-2010 in the name of Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/15, copy of application form for conversion of leasehold property into a freehold property in respect of the suit property submitted with DDA Mark A, Receipt No. 23549 in respect to the application for conversion of the suit property submitted with DDA Ex.DW1/16, the Challan bearing No. 011605 dated 27.12.1999 of the Central Bank of India Ex.DW1/17, the Challan bearing No. 023549 dated 27.12.1999 for remittance of money with respect to the conversion of suit property from leasehold into freehold Ex.DW1/18, letter bearing No. 23(8)75/LAB(R) DDA/11752 dated 03.07.2000 sent by DDA to Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/19, reminder Letter bearing No. 23(8)75/LAB(R)DDA/1046 dated 16.01.2001 sent by DDA to Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/20, reminder Letter bearing No. F.23(8)75/LAB(R)DDA/12082 dated 01.06.2001 sent by DDA to Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/21, the final reminder letter bearing No. 23(8)75LAB(R)DDA/13592 dated 05.07.2001 sent by DDA to Sh. Babu Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 10 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:17:06 +0530 Lal Ex.DW1/22, the letter bearing No. 022804 dated 19.07.2001 sent by DDA to Lease Administration Officer Ex.DW1/23, the letter bearing No. 23(8)75/LAB(Res.)/17002 dated 18.09.2001 sent by DDA to Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/24, the Challan Receipt dated 04.12.2001 with respect to the amount paid by Sh. Babu Lal Mark B, the acknowledgment receipt dated 03.01.2002 addressed to PA Ex.DW1/25, copy of Conveyance Deed with respect to the suit property submitted to the Collector Stamp, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi Mark C, the letter bearing No. F23(8)75/LAB(R)/DDA /3200 dated 29.03.2004 written by DDA to Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/26, the letter bearing No. F23(8)75/LAB(R)/DDA/3506 dated 01.04.2005 written by DDA to Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/27, the show cause notice U/s 345A of DMC Act, 1957 bearing DC/WZ/06/1044 dated 23.08.2006 with respect to unauthorized construction of the suit property Ex.DW1/28, the letter (reply to show cause notice) dated 28.08.2006 sent to Dy. Commissioner (West Zone) by Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/29, copy of notice U/s 435 of the DMC Act bearing No. DO/2467/EE(B)/WZ/06 dated 14.12.2006 Mark D, the letter No. EE(B)WZ/2007/6114 dated 15.05.2007 asking for demolition charges Ex.DW1/30, the letter bearing No. TAX/WEST/ 2007/3379 dated 31.07.2007 for demolition charges of the suit property Ex.DW1/31, the General Receipt No. 346082 of the deposit of demolition charges Ex.DW1/32, the letter sent by Sh. Babu Lal to the Executive Engineer for regularization of the suit property Ex.DW1/33, the receipt bearing No. 262059 dated 03.05.2007 with respect to deposit of regularization charges Ex.DW1/34, the regularized sanction plan of the suit property Mark E, the electricity bill of the suit property for the month Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 11 of 36 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02
17:17:10
+0530
of March 2009 Ex.DW1/35, the notice dated 28.03.1988 with respect to Final Inspection of sanitary water supply Ex.DW1/36, the letter bearing No. 74(110)85Bldg/6724 dated 28.10.1985 Ex.DW1/37 issued by DDA to Sh. Raghu Nath, the acknowledgment receipt No. REC/LD/08/45007 dated 01.09.2008 addressed to DDA Ex.DW1/38, Challan No. 033302 dated 29.08.2008 of Central Bank, Branch East Patel Nagar, New Delhi Ex.DW1/39, the Letter seeking attendance for execution of the Conveyance Deed No. F23(8)75/LAB(Res)/882 dated 09.02.2009 written by DDA to Sh. Babu Lal Ex.DW1/40, certificate of Sh. Deepak Gautam S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar dated 24.08.2009 issued by Hans Raj Model School already exhibited Ex.D-1, the Character Certificate of Ms Chander Kanta D/o Sh. Ramesh Chand dated 19.08.2009 issued by N. C. Jindal Public School already exhibited Ex.D-2, fees Receipt bearing No. 121176 dated 07.07.1983 issued by N. C. Jindal Public School Ex.D-5, the Conveyance Deed dated 26.04.2003 issued by DDA in favour of plaintiff no. 1 Ex.D-7, certified copy of Sale Deed dated 29.10.2007 executed by plaintiff no. 1 in favour of Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Ex.D-10, ration Card of plaintiff no. 1 Ex.D-9, ration Card of plaintiff no. 2 Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4, certified copy of General Power of Attorney with respect to property bearing No. 1-B, Pocket-II, Janta Flats, Paschim Puri, Double Storey executed by Sh. Ram Ji Lal in favour of plaintiff no. 2 Mark F, order dated 08.02.1991 along with the statement of the parties in case of 'Sh. Suresh Kumar Vs. Babu Lal' bearing CS No. 24/91 along with site plan of the ground floor of the suit property Ex D-19 and D-20 respectively.
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 12 of 36 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:17:14 +0530
21. During cross examination, DW1/Meera stated that she was born on 22.07.1974 and described the family's residential history, beginning from a rented house in Pahar Ganj, followed by shifting to Janta Flats in Paschim Puri in 1977, then to a rented property at A4/134, Paschim Vihar, and later to the suit property purchased on 03.12.1981 from Raghunath Singh. She confirmed that the family, including the plaintiffs, resided together at different stages and that only the ground floor of the suit property existed initially, while denying that construction was solely funded by the plaintiffs. She provided limited knowledge about the execution of title documents, admitting she was not present at the time, but stated that documents such as GPA, SPA, and agreement to sell were executed and later shown by her father Babu Lal to DDA for conveyance purposes.
22. DW1 repeatedly expressed lack of knowledge regarding key facts, including possession of original documents, details of transactions, payment of consideration, criminal proceedings, and rental value, though she acknowledged that certain documents were filed with DDA by her father and that official notices were received and responded to. She claimed that the original agreement to sell was taken by plaintiff no. 1 but is unsure about other documents. She denied allegations that the plaintiffs exclusively purchased or own the property. She denied claims regarding payment of rent or demands made by the plaintiffs, and disputed suggestions that the plaintiffs funded construction or that the defendant is an unauthorized occupant.
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 13 of 36
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02
17:17:18 +0530
23. She further denied knowledge of FIR and related criminal proceedings against her father and Raghunath Singh, though she admitted living separately since 2008 and having limited awareness. She acknowledged identifying her father's signatures on one document but not her handwriting, and stated that a family settlement was never acted upon. Throughout her testimony, she denied suggestions that her statements are false or that the plaintiffs' case is genuine, while maintaining limited personal knowledge of many material facts.
After cross examination, the defence evidence was closed. Final arguments
24. I have heard Ms Uma Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, Shri Parinay Deep Shah, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and Sh. Indu Shekhar, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2/DDA and perused the record.
25. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following case laws in support of her arguments : Gafuria masjid Malakhpur Chungi, Roorkee, District Haridwar through its Mutawalli Fayyaz Ali v. State of Uttarakhand and others Writ Petition (M/B) No. 126 of 2023 decided on 09.07.2023 Arguments by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
26. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of use and occupation charges in respect of property No. B-2/39, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The property was originally allotted by DDA to Shri Raghunath as a leasehold property, and due to restrictions on Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 14 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:17:21 +0530 transfer, ownership rights were commonly transferred through documents such as Agreement to Sell, GPA, SPA, Will, and receipt. The plaintiffs assert that plaintiff No. 2 purchased the property on 03.12.1981 for Rs. 45,000/- from the original allottee through such documents, while defendant No. 1 was only given a GPA/SPA for management purposes and was allowed to reside in the property as a permissive user without ownership rights.
27. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant's possession became illegal in 2008 when he refused to vacate the premises or pay license charges and instead attempted to sell the property by forging documents. It is alleged that the defendant manipulated the Agreement to Sell by removing the name of plaintiff No. 2 and inserting his own name, which led to criminal proceedings under IPC provisions for cheating and forgery. The plaintiffs further rely on a declaration made by the original allottee confirming the sale in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and denying execution of any document in favour of the defendant.
28. The plaintiffs also submit that their title has been further strengthened by a registered Will dated 03.12.1981 executed by the original allottee in favour of plaintiff No. 2. Upon the death of the testator in 2023, all rights in the property devolved upon plaintiff No. 2, making him the absolute owner. The defendant, not being a legal heir of the testator, has no locus to challenge the Will or claim ownership.
29. With respect to evidence, the plaintiffs rely on multiple documents including receipt, Will, declaration deed, DDA records, and Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 15 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:17:25 +0530 correspondence, along with consistent oral testimony of PW-1. They argue that the defendant has failed to rebut their claims or produce any valid title documents. The plaintiffs further highlight that the defendant's reliance on a tampered Agreement to Sell has already been questioned in criminal proceedings, where forensic findings indicated alterations and manipulation.
30. On the issue of limitation, the plaintiffs submit that the cause of action arose in 2008 when the defendant refused to vacate, and the suit is within limitation. They also point out that the issue of limitation has already been decided in their favour by the Court in an earlier order, and therefore cannot be raised again.
31. Regarding ownership, the plaintiffs argue that the defendant has failed to discharge his burden of proof. They emphasize that a GPA does not confer ownership and that any agency created through such documents stands terminated upon the death of the principal or agent. The defendant's possession is described as permissive and revocable, and his failure to produce original documents or provide consistent explanations invites adverse inference.
32. The plaintiffs further submit that utility bills, tax receipts, and similar documents relied upon by the defendant do not establish ownership but merely indicate possession or usage. They argue that such documents have no evidentiary value in proving title.
33. Finally, the plaintiffs claim entitlement to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month from 2008 onwards, as the defendant continued Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 16 of 36 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:17:29 +0530 in unauthorized occupation after withdrawal of permission. Based on the facts, evidence, and legal submissions, the plaintiffs pray for a decree of possession, permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating third-party rights, recovery of mesne profits with interest and costs of the suit.
34. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 has filed written synopsis of his arguments alongwith following case laws in support of his arguments :
Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand and Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1879, Mohan Hirachand Shah v. Geeta Kumarchand and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 4077, Suman Sharma v. Naresh Kumar Bansal and others, CR No. 5866 of 2017 (O&M) (High Court of Punjab and Haryana), Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, 1978 SCC Online SC 312, Shashi v. Sudershan Sharma & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 5167, Umesh Bondre v. Wilfred Fernandes, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 930, Acksay Jain v. Yogesh, Misc. Petition No. 3701 of 2024 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh), Surendra Nayak v. A.M. Mohammed Safi MANU/KA/2090/2016, Smriti Debbarma (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC, K. Venkatasubba Reddy v. Bairagi Ramaiah (died) by L.Rs., 1999 SCC OnLine AP 8, R. Padmanabhan v. K. Shanmugam, MANU/TN/0298/2018145-153 and Rajeev Gupta and Others v. Prashant Garg and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 889.
Arguments by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1
35. It is submitted on behalf of defendant no. 1 that the central issue is Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 17 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:17:36 +0530 whether the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of property bearing No. B-2/39, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The plaintiffs claim ownership based on four documents: a Will dated 03.12.1981, an Agreement to Sell of the same date, a receipt of Rs. 45,000/-, and a declaration dated 24.03.2009. However, none of these documents legally transfers title or creates any valid right in their favor. It is argued that no document on record bears the name or signature of either plaintiff, which plaintiff no. 1 himself admitted during cross-examination. Thus, the plaintiffs have approached the Court without any documentary proof of title.
36. The Will relied upon by the plaintiffs is legally ineffective because a Will operates only after the death of the testator and creates no rights during his lifetime. The plaintiffs wrongly claim that title passed on the date of execution. Moreover, the Will was revoked by a registered cancellation deed dated 10.12.2012, which was not denied by plaintiff no.
1. Additionally, the Will has not been proved as required by law, as no attesting witness was examined, rendering it inadmissible and incapable of conferring any title.
37. The Agreement to Sell also does not support the plaintiffs' case because it is executed only between Raghunath Singh and defendant no. 1, and does not mention either plaintiff. Allegations of alteration were raised without pleadings and are legally impermissible. Even otherwise, an unregistered Agreement to Sell does not confer ownership but only a right to seek specific performance, which has not been claimed in this suit.
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 18 of 36
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.05.02
DAGAR 17:17:42
+0530
38. The receipt relied upon by the plaintiffs is unreliable as it does not mention the suit property and contains incorrect details such as the address of the original allottee. In any case, a receipt alone cannot transfer ownership of immovable property.
39. The declaration dated 24.03.2009 is merely an unproved affidavit and cannot confer any right or title. The maker of the document was never examined, making it inadmissible hearsay. Further, it stands contradicted by the subsequent registered cancellation deed of 2012. The alleged family settlement of 1982 is also of no help because it was neither pleaded as a source of title nor acted upon, as admitted by plaintiff no. 1. An unimplemented family settlement cannot create ownership rights.
40. The plaintiffs failed to examine Raghunath Singh, the key person behind all documents, which is fatal to their case. On the contrary, records show that he executed documents in favor of defendant no. 1 and even acknowledged selling the property to defendant no. 1.
41. None of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs have been proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act. Mere production of documents does not amount to proof, and failure to examine relevant witnesses renders the documents inadmissible. Plaintiff No. 2 did not present himself for cross-examination, and plaintiff no. 1 attempted to depose on his behalf, which is legally impermissible. This results in adverse inference against the plaintiffs.
42. The plaintiffs' own admissions show that plaintiff No. 1 had no role in the alleged 1981 transaction and only claims a later contribution Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 19 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:17:46 +0530 towards construction, which does not confer title under law. Moreover, no evidence of construction or financial contribution has been produced.
43. Further, the plaintiffs have taken contradictory stands. In a 1991 suit, plaintiff No. 1 had stated that the property was purchased by defendant No. 1 and that all documents were in his name. In the present suit, the plaintiffs claim the opposite. Such contradictory positions are barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
44. In conclusion, the plaintiffs have failed to prove ownership through any valid, admissible, or legally effective document. Their case is unsupported by pleadings, evidence, and law, while their own admissions and prior statements undermine their claim. Therefore, they have no right, title, or interest in the suit property.
45. The law on burden of proof requires that in a suit for title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case by producing clear and convincing evidence of ownership, and cannot rely on weaknesses in the defendant's case, as affirmed in Smriti Debbarma (supra) and other precedents. In the present matter, the plaintiffs have failed to establish any valid title or subsisting right in the suit property, and any alleged transfer from plaintiff No. 2 to plaintiff No. 1 is void because plaintiff No. 2 himself had no valid title to convey.
46. Additionally, the suit is barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the defendant has been in continuous, open, and adverse possession since at least 1991, and in the case of plaintiff no. 2, since 1981, resulting in extinguishment of their rights under Section 27 Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 20 of 36 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:17:50 +0530 long before the suit was filed in 2009. The plaintiffs' attempt to characterize the defendant as a licensee and create a fresh cause of action in 2008 is unsupported by evidence, legally untenable, and contradicted by their own pleadings and admissions.
47. Further, even on merits, the defendant's ownership and possession are supported by documentary evidence such as agreement to sell, GPA, tax payments, utility records, and dealings with statutory authorities, all demonstrating acts of ownership, whereas the plaintiffs have neither possession nor proof of title.
48. The plaintiffs' claim for possession and injunction is also legally unsustainable because they failed to seek declaratory relief despite their title being under serious dispute, and their claim for mesne profits is unsupported by valuation or evidence. Accordingly, the suit lacks merit, is barred by limitation, fails on evidence, and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Court observation and findings Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of property bearing No. B-2/39, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi? OPP
49. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. It is a settled principle of law that in a suit based on title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendant's case. The burden lies squarely on the plaintiffs to establish a clear, valid, and legally recognizable title to the suit property.
50. The plaintiffs have claimed ownership primarily on the basis of (i) Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 21 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:17:54 +0530 an alleged Agreement to Sell dated 03.12.1981, (ii) a Will of the same date, (iii) a receipt of Rs. 45,000/-, and (iv) a declaration dated 24.03.2009. It is their case that though certain documents were executed in the name of defendant No. 1, the real purchaser was plaintiff no. 2.
51. It is pertinent to examine the nature and legal effect of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 206 has categorically held that transactions based on Agreement to Sell, GPA, and Will do not convey title nor create any interest in immovable property. Such documents may at best create a right to seek specific performance but do not confer ownership.
52. In the present case, admittedly, the alleged Agreement to Sell has not been proved in accordance with law. PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that neither he nor plaintiff no. 2 was a signatory to the said document. Further, the document does not reflect the name of the plaintiffs as purchasers. In such circumstances, even if the document is taken at face value, it does not advance the case of the plaintiffs.
53. The Will dated 03.12.1981 relied upon by the plaintiffs also does not assist them. A Will operates only after the death of the testator and must be proved in terms of Section 67 BSA by examining at least one attesting witness. In the present case, no attesting witness has been examined. Therefore, the Will remains unproved and cannot be read in evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma 1959 SCR SUPL. (1) 426 has held that strict Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 22 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:17:58 +0530 compliance with proof of execution and attestation is mandatory for a Will to be relied upon.
54. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs' own case is inconsistent. During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that in earlier litigation in 1991, he had taken a stand that the property was purchased from joint family funds. In the present suit, however, he claims exclusive ownership through plaintiff no. 2. Such contradictory stands materially affect the credibility of the plaintiffs' case and invite adverse inference.
55. The receipt relied upon by the plaintiffs is also of no evidentiary value as it neither clearly identifies the suit property nor establishes transfer of ownership. It is settled law that title in immovable property can be transferred only by a registered instrument as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A mere receipt cannot confer ownership rights. The declaration dated 24.03.2009 is also not proved in accordance with law, as its executant has not been examined. The same, therefore, remains a self-serving document and cannot be relied upon to establish title.
56. It is further significant that PW-1 has admitted in his cross- examination that the original documents such as GPA and SPA were executed in the name of defendant no. 1 and that utility connections and official records stand in his name. PW-2, an official from DDA, has also deposed that as per official records, documents submitted by defendant no. 1 were found to be in order and ground rent was paid by him. These facts lend support to the possession and assertion of rights by defendant Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 23 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:18:02 +0530 no. 1 rather than the plaintiffs.
57. The plaintiffs have also failed to produce the best evidence available. Despite claiming possession of ownership documents, PW-1 admitted that such documents were not filed before the Court. Non- production of best evidence gives rise to an adverse inference under Section 119(g) BSA.
58. The law is equally clear that where title is seriously disputed, the plaintiff must establish a clear legal right. In Smriti Debbarma (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the plaintiff must prove his title by cogent and admissible evidence and cannot rely upon deficiencies in the defendant's case.
59. In the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish any legally valid title. Their entire case rests upon unproved, inadmissible, or legally ineffective documents. No registered conveyance deed exists in their favour. The oral testimony of PW-1, in the absence of documentary corroboration, is insufficient to establish ownership, particularly in light of material contradictions and admissions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon them. They have not been able to establish that they are the owners of the suit property. Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant no. 1.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation? OPD
60. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no. 1. It is a settled principle that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 24 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:18:06 +0530 the burden lies upon the party asserting the bar of limitation to establish the same by cogent evidence.
61. The present suit is one for possession based on alleged title. Such suits are governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a limitation period of 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
62. The primary contention of defendant no. 1 is that he has been in continuous, open, and hostile possession of the suit property since 1981 or at least since 1991, and therefore, the plaintiffs' rights, if any, stand extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act.
63. At this stage, it is necessary to examine whether the possession of defendant No. 1 can be said to be "adverse" to the plaintiffs. The law relating to adverse possession is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India Appeal Civil 16899 of 1996 decided on 16.04.2004 has held that a person claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner, to the knowledge of the latter. Mere long possession does not constitute adverse possession unless it is accompanied by animus possidendi (intention to possess as owner against the true owner).
64. In the present case, the stand of the plaintiffs is that defendant no. 1 was initially inducted into the property as a permissive user or licensee and that his possession became unauthorized only in the year 2008 when he refused to vacate and started asserting hostile title. It is a settled Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 25 of 36 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:18:10 +0530 proposition that possession which is permissive in origin cannot become adverse unless there is a clear, unequivocal, and hostile assertion of title brought to the knowledge of the true owner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma AIR 2007 SC 1753 has emphasized that the starting point of limitation in such cases is when the possession becomes hostile and not when it initially commenced.
65. In the present matter, defendant no. 1 has failed to establish any specific overt act prior to 2008 by which he clearly and unequivocally denied the title of the plaintiffs and asserted his own hostile title to their knowledge. Mere reliance on documents such as payment of house tax, electricity bills, or correspondence with authorities does not ipso facto establish adverse possession, as these acts are equally consistent with permissive possession.
66. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have placed on record that disputes escalated in the year 2008 when defendant no. 1 allegedly refused to vacate and attempted to deal with the property as owner. Legal notices and complaints were also issued around that time. This indicates that the cause of action, at the earliest, arose in 2008. The present suit has been filed in the year 2009, which is well within the prescribed period of limitation of 12 years from the date when the possession is alleged to have become adverse.
67. It is also relevant to note that defendant no. 1 has taken inconsistent stands. On one hand, he claims ownership of the property. On the other hand, he seeks to defeat the plaintiffs' claim on the ground of adverse Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 26 of 36 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:18:13 +0530 possession. The plea of ownership and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa 2006 AIR SCW 4368, wherein it was observed that a person who claims title cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that defendant no. 1 has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the suit is barred by limitation. The plea of adverse possession is neither specifically proved nor supported by cogent evidence. Accordingly, it is held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within limitation. Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Issue No. 3:Whether the defendants are the owners of the suit property? OPD
68. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no. 1. It is a settled proposition that a party asserting ownership must establish the same by producing cogent, reliable, and legally admissible evidence showing a valid transfer of title in accordance with law.
69. Defendant no. 1 has claimed ownership of the suit property on the basis that he purchased the same in the year 1981 from the original allottee, and that various documents such as Agreement to Sell, GPA, SPA, affidavits, and subsequent dealings with statutory authorities support his claim. He has also relied upon long possession, payment of house tax, electricity bills, and correspondence with DDA.
70. The question arises whether the documents relied upon by defendant no. 1 confer any legal title. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 27 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:18:17 +0530 Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has conclusively held that transactions through Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, and Will do not convey ownership of immovable property. Such documents cannot be treated as deeds of title, nor do they create any interest in immovable property except a limited right to seek specific performance.
71. In the present case, defendant no. 1 has not produced any registered sale deed or conveyance deed executed in his favour by the original allottee. The documents placed on record, including GPA, SPA, and Agreement to Sell, even if proved, do not confer ownership in view of the settled legal position.
72. Defendant no. 1 has also relied upon DDA records, including applications for conversion from leasehold to freehold and correspondence with authorities. However, it is well settled that entries in municipal or revenue records, payment of house tax, or utility bills are not documents of title. They merely indicate possession or enjoyment of the property. In Corporation of City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah AIR 1989 SC 1809, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such records are not proof of ownership.
73. The testimony of DW-1 also does not materially advance the case of defendant no. 1. DW1 has repeatedly expressed lack of knowledge regarding the execution of documents, payment of consideration, and material aspects of the transaction. She has admitted that she was not present at the time of execution of the alleged title documents. Such testimony, being largely hearsay, carries little evidentiary value.
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 28 of 36
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02
17:18:21 +0530
74. Further, although defendant no. 1 has relied upon an Agreement to Sell allegedly executed in his favour, the same has not been proved in accordance with law by examining its executant or attesting witnesses. Mere exhibition of a document does not amount to its proof, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami Temple Appeal (Civil) 10585 of 1996.
75. It is also pertinent to note that the original allotment of the property was by DDA in favour of a third party, and the defendant's claim is based on subsequent transactions. In the absence of a registered conveyance deed transferring title from the original allottee to defendant no. 1, no valid ownership can be said to have been established in his favour.
76. The law under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mandates that transfer of ownership in immovable property of value exceeding Rs. 100/- can only be effected by a registered instrument. Admittedly, no such registered sale deed exists in favour of defendant no.
1. On the other hand, defendant no. 1 has taken a plea of ownership as well as adverse possession. As already discussed, such pleas are mutually inconsistent. A person claiming ownership cannot simultaneously claim to have perfected title by adverse possession.
77. In view of the above discussion, defendant no. 1 has failed to establish his ownership over the suit property through any legally valid and admissible evidence. The documents relied upon by him do not confer title, and his oral evidence is insufficient to prove ownership. However, it is clarified that mere failure of defendant no. 1 to prove Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 29 of 36 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:18:24 +0530 ownership does not automatically establish the title of the plaintiffs, as each party must stand on the strength of their own case. Accordingly, defendant no. 1 has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him. Issue No. 3 is decided against defendant no. 1 and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession and permanent injunction? OPP
78. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The relief of possession and injunction, being consequential in nature, is dependent upon the plaintiffs first establishing a lawful right, title, or interest in the suit property.
79. It is a settled principle that in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff must prove (i) his ownership or a better title than the defendant, and (ii) the defendant's unlawful possession. Unless the plaintiff successfully establishes his title, no decree for possession can be granted.
80. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2033, wherein it has been held that where title is in dispute, the plaintiff must seek and prove declaration of title, and mere suit for possession or injunction without establishing title is not maintainable.
81. In the present case, vide issue no. 1 it is held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership over the suit property. The documents relied upon by them, including the Agreement to Sell, Will, receipt, and Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 30 of 36 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:18:28 +0530 declaration, have been found to be either unproved or legally insufficient to confer title. Further, the plaintiffs have not sought any specific relief of declaration of title despite serious cloud being raised over their alleged ownership by defendant no. 1. In such circumstances, the suit for possession simpliciter, without a declaration of title, is not maintainable.
82. It is also a settled proposition that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot rely upon the weakness of the defendant's case. Even though defendant no. 1 has also failed to conclusively prove his ownership (as held under Issue No. 3), that by itself does not entitle the plaintiffs to a decree of possession.
83. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu AIR 2004 SC 4609 has held that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law, and the plaintiff must establish a better title to recover possession. In the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish any such better title.
84. The plaintiffs have also alleged that defendant no. 1 was a permissive user or licensee whose license was revoked in 2008. However, no cogent evidence has been led to prove the existence of any license arrangement, its terms, or payment of license fee. No documentary proof of such arrangement has been placed on record. Mere bald assertions are insufficient to establish a licensor-licensee relationship. In the absence of proof of ownership or a valid subsisting right, the plaintiffs cannot seek recovery of possession. Consequently, the prayer for permanent injunction also cannot be granted, as injunction is an equitable relief and Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 31 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:18:32 +0530 can only be granted to protect an existing legal right. When the plaintiffs have failed to establish any enforceable right in the property, no injunction can be issued against the defendant.
85. The possession of defendant no. 1 is longstanding and supported by various documents such as municipal records, tax receipts, and dealings with authorities, which at least establish settled possession, even if not ownership. Such possession cannot be disturbed at the instance of a party who has failed to prove title.
86. In view of the above discussions, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement to the relief of possession as well as permanent injunction. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Additional Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit / damages @ Rs.50,000/- per month against defendant no. 1? If yes, since when? OPP
87. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The claim for mesne profits/damages is consequential in nature and is founded upon the assertion that the defendant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit property belonging to the plaintiffs.
88. Mesne profits are defined under Section 2(12) CPC as those profits which a person in wrongful possession of property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received, together with interest. Thus, a condition precedent for grant of mesne profits is that the plaintiff must establish (i) his lawful entitlement to possession of the property, and (ii) Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 32 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:18:36 +0530 wrongful possession by the defendant.
89. In the present case, while deciding Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 4, it has been held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership or any better title to the suit property. Consequently, they have also failed to establish their entitlement to recovery of possession.
90. Once the plaintiffs have failed to establish their legal right to the property, the possession of defendant no. 1 cannot be termed as "wrongful" vis-à-vis the plaintiffs. In the absence of proof of a superior title or right to possession, the claim for mesne profits is not maintainable.
91. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (supra) has held that a person in settled possession is entitled to protect such possession against all except the true owner, and unless the plaintiff establishes a better title, no relief of possession or consequential reliefs can be granted. Further, in Anathula Sudhakar (supra) it has been held that where the plaintiff fails to establish title in a disputed property, consequential reliefs such as possession and damages cannot be granted.
92. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the quantum of mesne profits as claimed. The claim of Rs.50,000/- per month has been made without any cogent evidence such as prevailing market rent, expert testimony, lease deeds of comparable properties, or any other material to substantiate the said amount. Mere assertion in the plaint or affidavit is insufficient to establish entitlement to a specific amount.
93. The plaintiffs have also failed to prove the existence of any prior Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 33 of 36 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.02 DAGAR 17:18:39 +0530 arrangement regarding payment of license fee at the said rate. No documentary evidence has been produced to show that defendant no. 1 had agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month or that such amount reflects the fair market value of the property.
94. It is a settled principle that mesne profits cannot be granted on conjectures or surmises and must be supported by reliable evidence. In Fateh Chand (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that compensation or damages must be proved and cannot be awarded arbitrarily.
95. In view of the above discussions, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement to mesne profits/damages, either on the ground of title or on the basis of quantum. Accordingly, Additional Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of Defendant No. 1. Additional Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest on mesne profits, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
96. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The claim for pendente lite and future interest is consequential to the claim for mesne profits and cannot be considered in isolation. It is a settled proposition that interest under Section 34 CPC can be awarded only when the principal sum adjudged is found payable. In the present case, the principal claim relates to mesne profits/damages.
97. While deciding Additional Issue No. 1, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement to mesne profits/damages against defendant no.
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 34 of 36
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02
17:18:44 +0530
1. Once the substantive claim itself has been rejected, no question arises for grant of interest thereon. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. AIRONLINE 2009 SC 279 has held that interest is accessory to the principal claim and cannot be granted in the absence of a legally enforceable principal liability.
98. Further, even otherwise, the grant of pendente lite and future interest is discretionary and must be based on equitable considerations as well as proof of entitlement. In the present case, the plaintiffs have neither proved any contractual rate of interest nor placed any material on record to justify the grant of interest at any particular rate. Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove (i) their entitlement to mesne profits, and
(ii) the quantum thereof, the claim for interest automatically fails. In view of the above discussion, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any pendente lite or future interest. Accordingly, Additional Issue No. 2 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Issue No. 5 and additional issue no. 3 : Relief
99. In view of the findings returned on the preceding issues, particularly Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 4, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their ownership or any legally enforceable right, title, or interest in the suit property. Consequently, they are not entitled to the relief of possession or permanent injunction as claimed.
100. As regards the claim of mesne profits/use and occupation charges, the same is also not maintainable in the absence of proof of ownership or Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 35 of 36 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02 17:18:47 +0530 a superior legal right to possession. In view of the above discussions, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
101. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of mesne profits stands dismissed. Considering the nature of the dispute, which arises out of a family arrangement and long-standing relations between the parties, both parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.02
17:18:51
+0530
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 02nd Day of May 2026 District Judge-08, West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 36 pages.)
Civ DJ 610899/16 Suresh Kumar v. Babu Lal Page no. 36 of 36