Delhi District Court
Puran Chand vs Nand Lal And Anr on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL), HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS DJ ADJ 584/2021
CNR: DLSW01-008106-2021
Sh. Puran Chand
S/o Late Kanwar Pal Singh
R/o: C-69, Street No. 8, Near Star Power Gym,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi,
New Delhi - 110059
....Plaintiff
Versus
1.Sh. Nand Lal S/o Late Kanwar Pal Singh
2. Smt. Shashi W/o Sh. Nand Lal Both R/o: H.No. C-69, Gali No. 8, Sainik Vihar, Phase - II, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059.
....Defendant(s)
Date of Institution : 03.09.2021
Date of Final Arguments : 23.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.03.2026
The arguments in the present case were heard by the undersigned while the undersigned was posted as District Judge - 04, South West District, Dwarka. Vide transfer order no. 08/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2026 dated 06.02.2026, the undersigned was transferred as Joint Registrar (Judicial) in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and is presently presiding CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 1 of 33 over JR Court No. 7. Vide the Note 2 appended to the said order, the undersigned has duly notified the present case to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, South West District, Dwarka.
INTRODUCTION
1. By way of the present judgment, this Court shall adjudicate upon a civil suit instituted by the plaintiff, Sh. Puran Chand, against defendant no. 1 Sh. Nand Lal and defendant no. 2 Smt. Shashi, seeking a decree of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction and mesne profits/damages in respect of property bearing no. 69, land measuring 100 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 7/19, situated in the area of Village Razapur Khurd, Colony known as Sainik Vihar, Phase-II, Mohan Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110059.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is that the suit property, bearing no. 69, land measuring 100 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 7/19, situated at Village Razapur Khurd, Sainik Vihar, Phase-II, Mohan Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, was originally purchased in the names of the parents of the parties, namely late Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh and late Smt. Patra Devi. It is pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are real brothers, while defendant no. 2 is the wife of defendant no. 1.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of late Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh, the other legal heirs, including the CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 2 of 33 sisters, relinquished their respective shares in favour of their mother late Smt. Patra Devi, who thereafter became the exclusive owner of the suit property. It is stated that the said Smt. Patra Devi, during her lifetime, executed a registered Will dated 24.01.2011 in favour of the plaintiff, thereby bequeathing the suit property exclusively to him.
4. The plaintiff has further pleaded that defendant no. 1 himself acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership by executing a registered declaration dated 23.01.2017, wherein he admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, that he (defendant no.
1) had not contributed any amount towards its purchase, and that he had vacated the premises pursuant to an oral family settlement.
5. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that despite the aforesaid arrangement, the defendants, with mala fide intentions, forcibly re-entered the suit property on 11.03.2018 by breaking open the lock and thereafter started residing in a portion thereof without any right, title or interest. It is stated that the plaintiff lodged a police complaint dated 13.03.2018 and also served a legal notice dated 09.02.2021 upon the defendants calling upon them to vacate the premises and desist from interfering with his rights, but to no avail.
6. The plaintiff has accordingly pleaded that the defendants are in unauthorized and illegal occupation of the portion shown in red colour in the site plan and are liable to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the same. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendants are liable to pay damages/mesne profits for use CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 3 of 33 and occupation of the said portion and has claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 11.03.2018 till delivery of possession. On these averments, the present suit has been filed seeking the reliefs of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction and mesne profits/damages.
DEFENDANTS' DEFENCE
7. The defendants have filed a joint written statement contesting the suit and have denied the averments made in the plaint. At the outset, certain preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present suit is false, frivolous and without any cause of action, and that the same has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.
8. On merits, the defendants have denied that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit property. It is their case that the property is not the self-acquired property of the plaintiff and that he has no exclusive right, title or interest therein. The defendants have disputed the plaintiff's claim that the property was purchased from his own funds or that the other legal heirs had relinquished their shares in favour of late Smt. Patra Devi in the manner alleged.
9. The defendants have further denied the genuineness and validity of the alleged Will dated 24.01.2011 said to have been executed by late Smt. Patra Devi in favour of the plaintiff. It is their stand that the said Will is fabricated, forged and not binding upon them. The defendants have also disputed the effect of the declaration CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 4 of 33 dated 23.01.2017, asserting that the same does not confer any ownership rights upon the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.
10. The allegations of forcible re-entry on 11.03.2018, the police complaint dated 13.03.2018 and the legal notice dated 09.02.2021 have also been denied. The defendants have denied that they are in illegal or unauthorized possession of the suit property and have asserted their right to continue in possession thereof.
11. The defendants have also denied their liability to pay any mesne profits or damages as claimed by the plaintiff and have specifically disputed the claim of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the suit.
12. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
ISSUES FRAMED
13. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2023 for adjudication:
a. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for? OPP b. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 5 of 33 c. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits/damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 11.03.2018 as prayed for? OPP d. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD e. Whether the suit of the Plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fees and Jurisdiction? OPD f. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
14. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined six other witnesses, namely PW-2 Sh. Madan Gopal, PW-3 Smt. Sheela Devi, PW-4 Smt. Shakuntala Devi, PW-5 Smt. Babli @ Bimlesh, PW-6 Ms. Sudha, Sr. Assistant from the office of Sub-Registrar-II-B, Janakpuri, and PW-7 Sh. Amit Kumar, Sr. Assistant from the office of Sub- Registrar-II, Basai Darapur. The plaintiff's evidence stood closed on 24.03.2025.
15. The plaintiff, appearing as PW-1, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he substantially reiterated the averments made in the plaint. He relied upon the following documents: copy of his Aadhaar Card as Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR), site plan as Ex. PW-1/2, copy of registered GPA, Will, notarized affidavit, possession letter and receipt dated 01.02.2000 as Ex.
PW-1/3 (colly.), copy of notarized GPA, joint affidavit, deed of sale agreement and possession letter dated 19.01.2011 executed in favour of Smt. Patra Devi as Ex. PW-1/4 (colly.), death certificate of his father as Ex. PW-1/5, copy of registered Will dated 24.01.2011 as CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 6 of 33 Ex. PW-1/6, death certificate of his mother as Ex. PW-1/7, copy of registered declaration dated 23.01.2017 as Ex. PW-1/8, police complaint dated 13.03.2018 as Ex. PW-1/9, legal notice dated 09.02.2021 as Ex. PW-1/10, postal receipts as Ex. PW-1/11 (colly.), and tracking reports as Ex. PW-1/12 (colly.). Initially, when his evidence was recorded, the defendants were ex parte.
16. PW-1 was thereafter recalled for cross-examination after the defendants entered appearance. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was a post-graduate; that he had completed Class X in 1998, Class XII in 2000 and graduation in 2002; and that during his younger years he used to earn for short periods during summer vacations by doing small jobs. He also stated that he used to receive payment in cash. In the further course of his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not have receipts showing the construction carried out by him at the suit property and that he could not produce such documents. He, however, maintained that after the death of his father, the father's share, inherited by the legal heirs, was transferred in the name of his mother, and denied the suggestions that he had obtained the signatures of family members by misleading them or that he had pressured his mother into executing documents in his favour.
17. The plaintiff next examined PW-2 Sh. Madan Gopal, his real brother. PW-2 tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-2/A. In his affidavit, he deposed that the suit property had been jointly purchased by their parents; that the plaintiff had paid the entire consideration amount for purchase of the property from his own CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 7 of 33 savings; that after the death of their father, all legal heirs surrendered their respective shares in favour of their mother; and that thereafter their mother executed a registered Will dated 24.01.2011 in favour of the plaintiff. He further deposed that the said Will was witnessed by him as well as by defendant No. 1 Nand Lal, and that defendant No. 1 had also executed a declaration dated 23.01.2017 in favour of the plaintiff.
18. In his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that he had studied up to 10th class and could not read or understand English. He stated that the affidavit had been prepared on the instructions of the plaintiff. He further stated that it was his mother who had purchased the property in the year 2000 for Rs.35,000/- and that he had no idea as to what exact amount the plaintiff used to earn. He stated that his mother had executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff with his consent and that he had signed as an attesting witness. He denied the suggestions that the plaintiff had pressured their mother to execute the Will in his favour or that the defendants had been prevented from meeting their mother.
19. The plaintiff also examined PW-3 Smt. Sheela Devi, PW-4 Smt. Shakuntala Devi and PW-5 Smt. Babli @ Bimlesh, who are his sisters. All the said witnesses tendered their respective affidavits as Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW5/A respectively in evidence and broadly supported the plaintiff's version. Each of them deposed that the suit property had originally been purchased by their parents; that the plaintiff had paid the consideration amount; that after the death of their father, all the legal heirs surrendered their CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 8 of 33 shares in favour of their mother; that late Smt. Patra Devi thereafter executed a registered Will dated 24.01.2011 in favour of the plaintiff; that they had no objection to the said Will; and that defendant No. 1 had also executed a declaration dated 23.01.2017 in favour of the plaintiff.
20. In the cross-examination of PW-4 Smt. Shakuntala Devi, she stated that she was illiterate and that the affidavit had been prepared by counsel on her instructions. She further stated that the property had been purchased by her mother in the year 2000 for a consideration of Rs.35,000/-; that she was already married at that time; that the plaintiff was younger than her by about 10 to 12 years; that her mother had executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff in her presence; and that all the sisters had relinquished their shares in favour of their mother by executing documents at Janakpuri.
21. The plaintiff then examined PW-6 Ms. Sudha, Sr. Assistant from the office of Sub-Registrar-II-B, Janakpuri. This witness brought the original record pertaining to the Declaration Deed dated 23.01.2017, bearing registration no. 102, Book No. 4, Vol. 129, pages 153 to 155, and the certified copy thereof was placed on record as Ex. PW-6/1 (running into three pages) (OSR). The certified copy of the declaration shows that it was executed by defendant No. 1 Nand Lal and that the witnesses thereto included Smt. Shashi and one Pankaj Rai. It further records the declaration of defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property, that the plaintiff had purchased the same from his own funds, that defendant No. 1 had not contributed any amount CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 9 of 33 towards its purchase, and that he had vacated the house as per oral family settlement. PW-6 was not cross-examined by the defendants.
22. Lastly, the plaintiff examined PW-7 Sh. Amit Kumar, Sr. Assistant from the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Basai Darapur. This witness brought the original record pertaining to the registered Will dated 24.01.2011, bearing registration no. 834, Book No. 3, Vol. 7918, pages 138 to 139, and proved the certified copy thereof as Ex. PW-7/1 (running into three pages) (OSR). PW-7 was also not cross-examined by the defendants.
23. Thereafter, no other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's evidence stood closed.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
24. Despite having contested the suit by filing written statement and despite sufficient opportunities having been granted, the defendants did not lead any evidence in support of their defence.
25. The record reflects that after closure of the plaintiff's evidence, the matter was listed for defendants' evidence. On 24.07.2025, the defendants had neither filed their list of witnesses nor the evidence affidavits. On the request made on behalf of the defendants, a final opportunity was granted to them to file the list of witnesses and evidence affidavits within one week, with a CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 10 of 33 stipulation that default would entail consequences, and the matter was adjourned for defendants' evidence to 12.08.2025.
26. On 12.08.2025, despite the earlier direction, the defendants again failed to file the list of witnesses and evidence affidavits. Defendant no. 2 appeared in person and stated that she had not been able to contact her legal aid counsel. In the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity was granted to the defendants, and it was specifically made clear that in case of further default, their right to lead defence evidence shall be closed. The matter was then adjourned to 10.09.2025 for defendants' evidence.
27. On 10.09.2025, once again neither the list of witnesses nor the evidence affidavits had been filed on behalf of the defendants. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the defendants submitted that the defendants were not cooperating despite repeated efforts and assurances. In these circumstances, observing that repeated indulgence had already been granted and that the conduct of the defendants showed lack of seriousness and a deliberate pattern of delay, the Court closed the right of the defendants to lead evidence.
28. Consequently, no witness was examined on behalf of the defendants and no documentary evidence was proved by them.
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 1 - WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE DECREE OF POSSESSION AS PRAYED FOR? OPP CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 11 of 33
29. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. In the facts of the present case, the principal question is not merely whether the plaintiff has produced a Will in his favour, but whether, on the date of institution of the suit, he had a better and enforceable right to possession vis-à-vis the defendants. For deciding that question, it becomes necessary to examine: firstly, whether late Smt. Patra Devi acquired rights over the entire suit property on the basis of the document set dated 19.01.2011; secondly, if not, what was the extent of the right which could pass under her Will dated 24.01.2011; and thirdly, whether defendant no. 1 had, by virtue of the subsequent family arrangement and declaration dated 23.01.2017, ceased to retain any subsisting right to remain in possession.
30. It is not in dispute that the suit property was originally purchased in the joint names of the parents of the parties, namely late Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh and late Smt. Patra Devi. The plaintiff's case is that after the death of late Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh, all the legal heirs decided to transfer his share in favour of their mother and, in that regard, a notarized GPA, joint affidavit, deed of sale agreement and possession letter dated 19.01.2011 (Ex. PW-1/4) were executed in the name of Smt. Patra Devi. The same version has been repeated by PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 in their affidavits.
31. The oral evidence and the recitals brought on record show that, according to the family arrangement pleaded by the plaintiff, after the death of late Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh, Smt. Patra Devi was treated as having 8/14 share in the property and the six CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 12 of 33 children, including the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, were treated as having 1/14 share each. The further case is that the heirs agreed to surrender or transfer their respective shares in favour of their mother. This position also finds reflection in the Will set up by the plaintiff, which recites that the legal heirs had transferred their shares in favour of Smt. Patra Devi.
32. However, the crucial legal difficulty for the plaintiff is that the document set dated 19.01.2011 (Ex. PW-1/4), as proved by him, consists only of a GPA / joint affidavit / deed of sale agreement / possession letter. The plaintiff has not proved any registered relinquishment deed, registered release deed, or registered conveyance deed executed by the heirs in favour of Smt. Patra Devi in respect of their undivided shares. Therefore, though the said documents may reflect the intention of the parties that the mother should hold the entire property, this Court is unable to hold that by virtue of the said 19.01.2011 GPA (Ex. PW-1/4) set alone, late Smt. Patra Devi became the absolute legal owner of the entire suit property. The plaintiff's case to that extent cannot be accepted in its full breadth.
33. The consequence of the above would be that the Will dated 24.01.2011 (Ex. PW-1/6) executed by late Smt. Patra Devi in favour of the plaintiff could certainly operate in respect of the interest which legally vested in her, but it could not, merely on that basis, divest the other heirs of whatever shares continued to remain with them if the 19.01.2011 documents did not validly convey those shares. In other words, the plaintiff cannot succeed on the broad CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 13 of 33 proposition that his mother had become full owner of the whole property solely because the 19.01.2011 papers (Ex. PW-1/4) were executed.
34. If the matter were to rest there, defendant no. 1 could legitimately contend that he still retained, at least, the 1/14 share inherited by him from his father and that the plaintiff, even if armed with the Will of the mother, could not seek to evict him as though he were a rank trespasser. That submission, in principle, is correct. A co-sharer cannot ordinarily be dispossessed by another co-sharer merely on the strength of a better fractional share. Therefore, the adjudication of Issue No. 1 cannot end merely with the conclusion that the plaintiff received the mother's share under the Will. The Court must still determine whether defendant no. 1's competing claim stood given up or settled thereafter.
35. It is at this stage that the registered declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8) assumes central importance. PW-6, an official from the office of the Sub-Registrar, proved the certified copy of the said declaration. In that declaration, defendant no. 1 Nand Lal stated in clear terms that: (i) the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property; (ii) the plaintiff had purchased the property from his own sources and funds and defendant no. 1 had not contributed a single penny; (iii) a dispute had arisen between the brothers and, in order to avoid litigation, defendant no. 1 had vacated the house as per oral family settlement; and (iv) he would not object in future if the plaintiff sold or enjoyed the property, and that his entire amount as per oral family settlement had been received and CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 14 of 33 nothing remained pending. The declaration further describes itself as an irrevocable declaration. PW-6 was not cross-examined by the defendants.
36. This Court is of the view that the said declaration, by itself, is not an operative conveyance deed creating title in favour of the plaintiff in the same manner as a registered sale deed or registered release deed would. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be held entitled to possession on the reasoning that the declaration itself transferred ownership to him. However, that is not the only manner in which the declaration can be read. The declaration expressly refers to a prior oral family settlement, to defendant no. 1 having vacated the house under that settlement, and to his having received the entire agreed amount. Read thus, the declaration is powerful evidence of a concluded and acted upon family arrangement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. The evidentiary value of the document lies not in it being a deed of transfer, but in it being an admission and acknowledgment by defendant no. 1 of the settlement already arrived at inter se the parties.
37. The plaintiff's own pleadings and affidavit are in consonance with the above declaration. He specifically pleaded that the defendants demanded money to vacate the portion under their occupation; that in order to avoid family dispute, he paid Rs. 3,50,000/- to defendant no. 1; that defendant no. 1 thereupon executed the registered declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8); and that after that the defendants handed over possession and vacated the property. The later case of the plaintiff is that despite CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 15 of 33 such settlement, the defendants re-entered the property on 11.03.2018. Thus, the plaintiff has consistently founded his case not only on title through the mother, but also on a subsequent family settlement with defendant no. 1.
38. The written statement does contain a denial of the plaintiff's plea regarding payment of Rs. 3,50,000/-, execution of the declaration, and vacating of the premises. However, that denial remained a mere plea. The defendants did not step into the witness box. Despite repeated opportunities, they failed to file their witness list and evidence affidavits, and ultimately their right to lead defence evidence was closed on 10.09.2025. The Court is, therefore, left with the plaintiff's evidence, the official proof of the declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8), and no rebuttal from the defendants.
39. There is also surrounding conduct which supports the plaintiff's version. PW-2 Madan Gopal deposed that the mother had executed the Will dated 24.01.2011 (Ex. PW-1/6) in favour of the plaintiff and that the same was witnessed by him and by defendant no. 1. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 also supported the plaintiff's case that the Will dated 24.01.2011 (Ex. PW-1/6) had been executed in his favour and that defendant no. 1 had later executed the declaration in his favour. Thus, defendant no. 1 first figured in the family arrangement by which the heirs were stated to have yielded in favour of the mother, then as an attesting witness to the mother's Will in favour of the plaintiff, and thereafter as the executant of the 2017 declaration acknowledging the plaintiff's ownership and recording receipt of the settlement amount. These cumulative circumstances CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 16 of 33 make his subsequent denial in the written statement wholly unconvincing.
40. Accordingly, though this Court is not prepared to hold that late Smt. Patra Devi became absolute owner of the entire suit property solely on the basis of the 19.01.2011 GPA set (Ex. PW-1/4), this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has nevertheless established a better and enforceable right to possession against the present defendants because defendant no. 1, who might otherwise have claimed a 1/14 inherited share, has been shown by cogent evidence to have settled and given up his competing claim inter se the plaintiff under an oral family settlement, the terms and completion whereof stand acknowledged in the registered declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8). Defendant no. 2 claims no independent title and can stand only through defendant no. 1. Once defendant no. 1's right to continue in possession stands negatived, defendant no. 2 cannot resist the plaintiff's claim on any better footing.
41. It is clarified that this finding is returned only qua the entitlement of possession as against defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2. This Court is not called upon in the present suit to pronounce upon the rights, if any, of other legal heirs who are not before the Court. The present decree, therefore, rests on the plaintiff's better right vis-à-vis the defendants, and not on an abstract declaration that the plaintiff has established absolute title against the whole world.
CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 17 of 3342. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff is held entitled to recovery of possession of the portion under the occupation of the defendants, i.e. the portion shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW-1/2.
43. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, with the clarification that the decree is founded on the plaintiff's superior and enforceable right against the defendants on the basis of the proved Will (Ex. PW-1/6) read with the proved family settlement and the declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8), and not on the proposition that the 19.01.2011 GPA set (Ex. PW-1/4) by itself vested complete legal title in late Smt. Patra Devi.
ISSUE NO. 2 - WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION AS PRAYED FOR? OPP
44. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
45. The plaintiff has sought injunctive relief on the assertion that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property, that they are in unauthorized occupation of the portion shown in red in the site plan, and that they are liable to be restrained from causing damage to the property and from alienating, mortgaging, selling, transferring or creating any third-party interest therein. The adjudication of this issue must necessarily follow, and be aligned with, the findings already returned on Issue No. 1.
CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 18 of 3346. While deciding Issue No. 1, this Court has already held that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving that late Smt. Patra Devi became the absolute legal owner of the entire suit property solely on the basis of the GPA set dated 19.01.2011 (Ex. PW-1/4). This Court has further held that the declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8) executed by defendant no. 1 is not, by itself, an operative deed of conveyance creating title in favour of the plaintiff in the same manner as a registered sale deed or registered release deed. However, this Court has also found that the plaintiff has established a better and enforceable right to possession vis-à-vis the present defendants, because defendant no. 1, who might otherwise have claimed a competing right, has been proved by cogent evidence to have entered into and acted upon an oral family settlement with the plaintiff, the terms and completion whereof stand acknowledged in the registered declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8). It has further been held that defendant no. 2 claims no independent title and can stand only through defendant no. 1.
47. Thus, the foundation on which the present issue is to be decided is not that the plaintiff has established absolute title against the whole world, but that as against these defendants, he has proved a superior and enforceable right which disentitles them from continuing to interfere with or act adversely to his rights in the suit property.
48. Once that position is accepted, it necessarily follows that the defendants cannot be permitted to continue asserting rights inconsistent with the family settlement acknowledged by defendant CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 19 of 33 no. 1 himself. The declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8) records not only that the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the property, but also that defendant no. 1 had vacated the house as per oral family settlement, had received the entire agreed amount, and would not object in future if the plaintiff sold or enjoyed the property. Although this declaration is not being treated as an independent instrument of title, it is nevertheless a significant admission and acknowledgment by defendant no. 1 that he had settled his claim inter se with the plaintiff.
49. The plaintiff has further pleaded and deposed that despite such settlement, the defendants re-entered the suit property on 11.03.2018 by breaking open the lock and thereafter started residing there again. He also relied upon the police complaint dated 13.03.2018 (Ex. PW-1/9) and the legal notice dated 09.02.2021 (Ex. PW-1/10) to demonstrate that he had objected to such conduct and had called upon the defendants to vacate and desist. The defendants, though they denied these assertions in the written statement, chose not to lead any evidence in support of their denial. Their right to lead defence evidence stood closed after repeated defaults.
50. In these circumstances, the threat to the plaintiff's rights cannot be treated as illusory or speculative. The conduct attributed to the defendants, namely, re-entry despite the prior settlement, continued occupation, and denial of the plaintiff's rights, furnishes sufficient basis for a protective decree of injunction. If such protection is not granted, there would remain a real possibility of the defendants either causing further interference with the CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 20 of 33 plaintiff's enjoyment of the property or creating complications by setting up third-party claims in derogation of the settled arrangement between the parties.
51. At the same time, the exact scope of injunctive relief has to be carefully moulded so as to remain consistent with the limited nature of the findings returned on Issue No. 1. Since this Court has not granted any abstract declaration of absolute title in favour of the plaintiff against the whole world, and since the rights of other legal heirs who are not parties to the present lis have not been adjudicated, the injunction cannot be couched in unnecessarily expansive terms. The decree must, therefore, be confined to restraining the present defendants, who have been found to have no subsisting enforceable right as against the plaintiff, from acting prejudicially to the plaintiff's rights in respect of the suit property.
52. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives or any person claiming through or under them from:
a. causing any damage to the suit property; b. interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful use and enjoyment of the portion in his possession; and c. selling, transferring, alienating, mortgaging, parting with possession or creating any third-party interest in the suit property or in the portion under their occupation, in CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 21 of 33 derogation of the plaintiff's rights as recognised in the present judgment.
53. Insofar as the prayer for mandatory injunction is concerned, no separate mandatory relief survives for independent adjudication. The principal substantive relief requiring a positive direction, namely, handing over of possession of the defendants' portion, already stands covered by the decree for possession granted under Issue No. 1. Granting a separate decree of mandatory injunction on the same set of facts would be merely repetitive.
54. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is decided partly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in the above terms, whereas no separate independent relief of mandatory injunction is required beyond the decree for possession already granted.
ISSUE NO. 3 - WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO MESNE PROFITS/DAMAGES @ RS.10,000/- PER MONTH W.E.F. 11.03.2018 AS PRAYED FOR? OPP
55. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
56. The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from 11.03.2018 onwards. A reading of the prayer clause shows that the claim is not happily drafted, inasmuch as it mixes together three distinct heads, namely, mesne profits for wrongful occupation, electricity charges as per consumption, and compensation for mental pain and suffering. Thus, even at the CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 22 of 33 pleading stage, there is no clear bifurcation of the amount claimed under each head.
57. At the outset, the adjudication of this issue has to be aligned with the findings already returned on Issue No. 1. This Court has not held that the plaintiff established absolute title to the entire suit property merely on the basis of the GPA set dated 19.01.2011. At the same time, this Court has held that, as against the present defendants, the plaintiff has established a superior and enforceable right on the basis of the proved Will read with the proved oral family settlement and its acknowledgment in the registered declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8). Therefore, the question here is whether the defendants' occupation after 11.03.2018 was wrongful inter se the present parties, so as to entitle the plaintiff to compensation for use and occupation.
58. The registered declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8), proved through PW-6 from the office of the Sub-Registrar, assumes significance in this context as well. In the said declaration, defendant no. 1 acknowledged that the plaintiff was owner and in possession of the property, that defendant no. 1 had not contributed towards its purchase, that he had vacated the house as per oral family settlement, and that he had received the entire amount due under the settlement. This Court has already held while deciding Issue No. 1 that the declaration is not by itself a conveyance deed, but it is powerful evidence of a concluded and acted upon family arrangement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1.
CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 23 of 3359. The plaintiff's pleaded and deposed case is that despite such settlement and despite having vacated earlier, the defendants re-entered the property on 11.03.2018 by breaking open the lock and thereafter started residing there again. He relied upon the police complaint dated 13.03.2018 (Ex. PW-1/9) and the legal notice dated 09.02.2021 (Ex. PW-1/10) in support of the said plea. Although these documents are not conclusive proof by themselves of every part of the incident, they do show that the plaintiff objected to the continued occupation of the defendants and consistently asserted that their possession after re-entry was unlawful.
60. In view of the findings returned on Issue No. 1, this Court is satisfied that the defendants' occupation after 11.03.2018 was wrongful qua the plaintiff, not because defendant no. 1 never had any competing claim at any earlier point of time, but because his competing claim stood settled and given up inter se the plaintiff under the oral family settlement acknowledged in the declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8). Once defendant no. 1 had, under the family arrangement, vacated the premises and received the settlement amount, his subsequent re-entry and continued occupation could not be treated as lawful as against the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2, claiming no independent right, can stand only through defendant no. 1.
61. However, the plaintiff was still required to prove the rate at which such mesne profits/damages were payable. On that aspect, the evidence remains wholly deficient. PW-1 has nowhere stated in his affidavit the prevailing rental value of the portion under CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 24 of 33 the defendants' occupation, the basis on which he arrived at the figure of Rs.10,000/- per month, whether any inquiry was made in the locality, or whether there were comparable tenancies. Nor has he produced any independent witness, such as a property dealer or neighbour, or any rent agreements of similar properties, to establish the market rental value of the relevant portion.
62. The position is no better in relation to the electricity charges and alleged mental pain and suffering, which have been clubbed together in the prayer. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the unpaid electricity amount in the year 2017 was around Rs.50,000/-, that he paid the same in 2017, and that the settlement amount of Rs.3,50,000/- included Rs.50,000/- towards electricity charges, yet no electricity bills or supporting receipts have been proved on record. The plaintiff has thus failed to provide a documentary basis even for that component of the monetary claim.
63. Further, the plaintiff's own case is that only the portion shown in red in the site plan was under the occupation of the defendants, while the remaining portion continued with him. Therefore, even the claim for mesne profits or use and occupation charges could only relate to the portion under the defendants' occupation and not to the entire property. In the absence of evidence regarding the rental value of that specific portion, this Court cannot decree the sum of Rs.10,000/- per month merely on the ipse dixit of the plaintiff.
CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 25 of 3364. Though this Court has found that the defendants' occupation after 11.03.2018 was wrongful as against the plaintiff, mere proof of wrongful occupation is not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a money decree for mesne profits/damages at a particular rate. The burden to establish the quantum squarely lay upon the plaintiff, and that burden has not been discharged.
65. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove his entitlement to mesne profits/damages at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month or at any other definite rate.
66. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 4 - WHETHER THE SUIT IS WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OF ACTION? OPD
67. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
68. The defendants, in their written statement, took a preliminary objection that the present suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and without any cause of action. They further pleaded that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. However, the said objection is wholly devoid of merit.
69. For determining whether a suit is without cause of action, the Court is required to see whether the plaint discloses a bundle of material facts which, if ultimately proved, would entitle the plaintiff to some relief against the defendants. At that stage, the CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 26 of 33 Court is not required to finally pronounce upon the correctness of those facts; it is sufficient if the plaint discloses a real and substantial dispute requiring adjudication.
70. In the present case, the plaint does disclose such a cause of action. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that the suit property was originally purchased in the names of the parents of the parties; that after the death of late Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh, there was a family arrangement under which the share of the deceased father was sought to be transferred in favour of late Smt. Patra Devi through the document set dated 19.01.2011; that late Smt. Patra Devi thereafter executed a registered Will dated 24.01.2011 in favour of the plaintiff; that later, upon a dispute arising between the parties, defendant no. 1 settled the matter with the plaintiff, accepted money, vacated the premises and executed a registered declaration dated 23.01.2017 acknowledging the plaintiff's rights; and that despite such settlement, the defendants re-entered the property on 11.03.2018, compelling the plaintiff to lodge a police complaint and thereafter issue a legal notice calling upon the defendants to vacate. The plaint further sets out the cause of action paragraph by tracing the successive events which, according to the plaintiff, entitled him to seek possession, injunction and mesne profits.
71. Thus, the plaint clearly disclosed a live dispute regarding entitlement to possession as against the defendants. Merely because, while deciding Issue No. 1, this Court has held that the plaintiff did not prove that late Smt. Patra Devi became absolute owner of the entire suit property solely on the basis of the GPA set CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 27 of 33 dated 19.01.2011 (Ex. PW-1/4), it does not follow that the plaint was without cause of action. The existence of a cause of action has to be examined on the basis of the pleaded material facts, and not on the basis of whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in proving every limb of his legal theory in the exact manner pleaded.
72. In fact, the findings returned on Issue No. 1 themselves show that there was a substantial and triable dispute between the parties requiring adjudication, particularly on the question whether defendant no. 1 had, by virtue of the oral family settlement acknowledged in the declaration dated 23.01.2017 (Ex. PW-1/8), ceased to retain any subsisting right to remain in possession. That very controversy demonstrates the existence of a cause of action rather than its absence.
73. It is also significant that the defendants led no evidence in support of their objection. Despite repeated opportunities, they failed to file their witness list and evidence affidavits, and their right to lead defence evidence was ultimately closed on 10.09.2025. Consequently, the objection under the present issue remained a bare pleading unsupported by proof.
74. Accordingly, this Court holds that the present suit was not without cause of action.
75. Issue No. 4 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 28 of 33ISSUE NO. 5 - WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY VALUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COURT FEES AND JURISDICTION? OPD
76. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
77. The defendants, in the written statement, have taken an objection that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. However, before examining the said objection, it is necessary to notice that under Order VII Rule 1(i) CPC, a plaint is required to contain a statement of the value of the subject-matter of the suit both for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees. Further, in a suit for possession of a house or garden, court-fee is governed by Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, which provides that the fee is to be computed according to the value of the subject-matter, and in the case of a house or garden, according to its market value. Thus, for the relief of possession claimed in the present suit, the court-fee was not payable as a fixed fee, but was payable ad valorem on the market value of the subject-matter.
78. In the present matter, though the plaint itself does not properly set out the valuation in a satisfactory manner, the Case Information Form filed along with the plaint shows that the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 3,50,000/-. The said figure also finds support, according to the plaintiff's own case, from the declaration Ex. PW-1/8. No material whatsoever has been brought on record by the defendants to show that the valuation of Rs. 3,50,000/- was arbitrary, understated or otherwise liable to be discarded. In the absence of any CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 29 of 33 rebuttal evidence, and there being nothing on record to disbelieve the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff himself, this Court finds no sufficient ground to reject the said valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction.
79. However, the matter does not end there. Once the suit is taken to be valued at Rs. 3,50,000/-, and once the relief of possession is governed by Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act, the court-fee payable thereon was necessarily ad valorem on such valuation. Admittedly, only Rs. 200/- has been paid towards court- fee. Such payment is clearly not the ad valorem court-fee payable on a suit for possession valued at Rs. 3,50,000/-. Consequently, the court-fee paid on the plaint is deficient.
80. Accordingly, this Court holds that the defendants have failed to prove improper valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, and the valuation of the suit at Rs. 3,50,000/- is accepted for the present. However, insofar as court-fee is concerned, the defendants succeed. Since the present suit includes the relief of possession of immovable property, court-fee was payable ad valorem on the value of the subject-matter under Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act, 1870, and the court-fee of Rs. 200/- paid by the plaintiff is deficient.
81. In view of Section 149 CPC, the deficiency in court- fee can be made good, and upon such payment the plaint would have the same force and effect as if the proper fee had been paid in the first instance. Consequently, instead of non-suiting the plaintiff on CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 30 of 33 this ground, it is directed that the decree sheet shall be drawn up but the decree shall be executable only upon the plaintiff making good the deficit ad valorem court-fee payable on the valuation of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
82. Issue No. 5 is accordingly decided partly in favour of the defendants and partly in favour of the plaintiff, to the effect that while the valuation of the suit at Rs. 3,50,000/- is accepted, the court- fee paid on the plaint is deficient, and the execution of the decree shall remain subject to the plaintiff making good the deficit court- fee.
RELIEF
83. In view of the findings returned on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be partly decreed. Accordingly, a decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the portion under their occupation, i.e. the portion shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW-1/2, forming part of property bearing no. 69, land measuring 100 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 7/19, situated in the area of Village Razapur Khurd, Colony known as Sainik Vihar, Phase-II, Mohan Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110059. The defendants shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said portion to the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of payment of pending court fees.
84. A decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their agents, CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 31 of 33 representatives or any person claiming through or under them, restraining them from:
a. causing any damage to the suit property; b. interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful use and enjoyment of the portion in his possession; and c. selling, transferring, alienating, mortgaging, parting with possession or creating any third-party interest in the suit property or in the portion under their occupation, in derogation of the plaintiff's rights as recognised in the present judgment.
85. Insofar as the relief of mandatory injunction is concerned, no separate decree is required inasmuch as the substantive positive relief already stands covered by the decree of possession granted above.
86. The claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits/damages is declined, the plaintiff having failed to prove his entitlement thereto at the claimed rate of Rs.10,000/- per month or at any other definite rate.
87. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit.
88. However, in view of the finding returned on Issue No. 5, it is made clear that the decree sheet shall be drawn up but the decree shall be executable only upon the plaintiff making good the deficit ad valorem court-fee payable on the accepted valuation of Rs. 3,50,000/-.
CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 32 of 3389. File be sent to the Court of Ld. District Judge - 04, South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi for passing appropriate orders for consignment of the file to the record room, after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30.03.2026 (SUMIT DALAL)1 Joint Registrar (Judicial) - 072, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, 30.03.2026.
1Note - The order is being uploaded without digital signature as the digital signature of the undersigned has expired on 13.03.2026 and renewal of the same will take some time.
2Formerly, District Judge - 04, South West District, Dwarka Courts, at the time of reserving orders.
CS DJ ADJ 584/2021 Page 33 of 33