Delhi District Court
Hari Krishan And Ors vs Rajvir Singh And Ors on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV: DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
CNR No. DLSH010044142024
RCA(DJ) No.80/2024
In the matter of:-
Memo of Parties
1. Sh. Hari Krishan
S/o Late Sh. Hoshiar Singh,
2. Smt. Ramwati
W/o Sh. Hari Kishan,
Both R/o House No. A-8/734,
Gali No. 8, Amar Colony, East Gokalpur
Delhi-110094. ...Appellants
Versus
1. Sh. Rajvir Singh
S/o Sh. Hari Kishan
2. Smt. Mithlesh
W/o Sh. Rajvir Singh
Both R/o House No. A-8/734,
Gali No. 8, Amar Colony, East Gokalpur
Delhi-110094. ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 18.07.2024
Date of final argument : 20.01.2026
Date of judgment : 30.01.2026
Result : Allowed
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present civil Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30 16:34:58 +0530 RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 1 of 23 appeal under Section 96 read with under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), which has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby the suit has been dismissed. Along with present appeal, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, has also been filed.
2. To avoid confusion and for the ease of reference and clarity in the judgment, the appellants and respondents herein, shall be referred to by their original nomenclature in the suit as "plaintiff no. 1" "plaintiff no. 2" and "defendant no. 1"
"defendant no. 2" respectively, throughout the present judgment.
BRIEF MATRIX OF THE SUIT/PLAINT
3. The brief facts of the case, germane to the lis, as culled out from the plaint are that the plaintiffs are husband and wife, whereas the defendants are their son and daughter-in-law. Plaintiff no. 1 is the sole and exclusive owner and bhumidar of property bearing No. A-8/734, Gali No. 8, Amar Colony, East Gokalpur, Delhi-110094, constructed up to the second and half floor (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). The suit property was constructed by plaintiff no. 1 in the year 1988 from his own funds and has remained in his sole and exclusive possession.
4. Plaintiff no. 1, being a government servant, executed a GPA of the suit property in favour of his wife i.e. plaintiff no. 2 on 01.01.1999, to enable her to look after the suit property. The defendants, being son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiffs, were permitted to reside in the suit property and are, therefore, in Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 2 of 23 16:35:04 +0530 permissive possession.
5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants' behaviour was not good towards them and they did not contribute to household expenses and when it became difficult for plaintiff no. 1 to maintain the expenses, defendant no. 1 offered to install a new electricity connection for himself, to which the plaintiffs agreed. For this purpose, the defendants demanded a formal document, namely General Power of Attorney, as required by BSES for the portion of the suit property enjoyed by them. To avoid day-to-day annoyance, plaintiff no. 2 executed a GPA in favour of defendants on 20.01.2016, pursuant to which defendants no. 1 obtained a new electricity connection in his name for the portion occupied by him.
6. However, after obtaining the said GPA, the behaviour of the defendants worsened, making it impossible for the plaintiffs to reside peacefully in the suit property. The plaintiffs severed all relations with the defendants, disowned them from all movable and immovable properties, and cancelled the GPA on 17.05.2017 by way of a deed of cancellation, publishing public information in this regard in the daily newspaper "The Pioneer" dated 06.06.2017. On the same day, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to vacate the suit property, but the defendants failed to comply.
7. Aggrieved by the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiffs served a legal notice dated 04.07.2017, which was replied to by the defendants on false and fabricated grounds, claiming ownership of 55 sq. yards in the suit property. Consequently, the present suit had been filed seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the suit property, Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 3 of 23 16:35:10 +0530 specifically shown in green in the site plan annexed with the plaint.
8. The plaintiffs also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into or interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit property, specifically shown in red in the site plan annexed with the plaint, and restraining defendant no. 1 from creating any third-party interest therein.
9. Further, the plaintiffs also sought a decree of declaration declaring the GPA dated 20.01.2016 as null and void, along with a decree of mesne profits against the defendants at the rate of Rs. 836/- (Rupees Eight Hundred Thirty-Six only) per day from the date of filing of the present suit until vacation of the suit property.
DEFENCE IN ABBREVIATED/WRITTEN STATEMENT
10. In their joint written statement, the defendants asserted that on 20.01.2016, in the presence of relatives and respectable persons of the society, a meeting was held between the parties wherein it was settled that out of the suit property measuring 90 sq. yards, the defendants would have 55 sq. yards share. Moreover, in this regard, plaintiff no. 2 executed a GPA, Gift Deed, and supporting affidavit in favour of the defendants on the same date in the presence of both parties.
11. They further asserted that the suit property was divided between the plaintiffs and the defendants by constructing a wall, and that the defendants are owners of their respective share of 55 sq. yards, while the plaintiffs reside separately in their portion.
12. They further asserted that the defendant no. 1 used to hand over his salary to the plaintiffs and that the construction of the Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 4 of 23 2026.01.30 16:35:15 +0530 suit property was carried out with his hard-earned money. The plaintiffs cannot cancel the GPA without giving the defendants their lawful share.
13. After completion of pleadings, following notional issues were framed by the Ld. Trial Court, vide order dated 03.09.2019:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mesne profits? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts?
OPD
7. Whether any settlement/agreement had taken place between the parties on 20.01.2016? If so, its effect? OPD
8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
9. Relief.
PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE
14. After framing of the issues as above, matter was listed for plaintiffs' evidence. In order to prove the case, plaintiff no. 1 stepped into witness box and examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint, which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. He also relied upon certain documents which are as follows: -
Digitally signed by GAURAVRCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 5 of 23 16:35:22 +0530 S.No Document(s) Exhibit(s)
1. Copy of Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR)
2. Original Site Plan Ex.PW1/2
3. Original Khasra Girdawari Ex.PW1/3
4. Original GPA dated 01/01/1999 Ex.PW1/4 (Colly 2 pages)
5. Original water tax bill of 1989, 1989- Ex.PW1/5 2004, 2016 and 2017. (Colly 3 pages)
6. Original property tax of 2000-2001 Ex.PW1/6
7. Original electricity bill of July 2015- Ex.PW1/7 November 2015, December 2016-April 2017.
8. Original cancellation deed dated Ex.PW1/8 17.05.2017.
9. Copy of newspaper publication. Mark A
10. Legal notice dated 04.07.2017 Ex.PW1/10 (Colly 6 pages)
11. Reply of legal notice. Ex.PW1/11 (Colly 6 pages)
15. Apart from that, in order to substantiate the claim, plaintiff no. 2 also examined herself as PW-2 and tendered her evidence affidavit Ex.PW2/A in which she reiterated the contents of the plaint, which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. She also relied upon the documents exhibited by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief.
16. PW-1 and PW-2 were cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendants. No other plaintiff's witness was examined and thereafter, on the basis of separate statement recorded on 16.10.2023, the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
17. In order to demolish the case, as set up by the plaintiffs, the defendant no. 2 stepped into the witness box and examined herself as DW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, which has been exhibited as Ex. DW1/A, wherein she reiterated Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 6 of 23 16:35:27 +0530 the contents of written statement, which are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. She also relied upon certain documents which are as follows: -
S.No Document(s) Exhibit(s)
1. Copy of reply dated 20.07.2017 to the Ex.DW1/1
legal notice sent by the plaintiffs.
2. Copy of GPA of suit property dated Ex.DW1/2 OSR
20.01.2016 (Colly 5 pages)
3. Copy of gift deed dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/3
OSR
(Colly 5 pages)
4. Copy of deed of Will dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/4
OSR
(Colly 2 pages)
5. Copy of Affidavit dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/5
OSR
(Colly 2 pages)
6. Copy of Bill of building material dated Ex.DW1/6
14.02.2016, 20.02.2016 & 12.02.2016. OSR (Colly 3 pages)
7. Electricity and water bills Ex.DW1/7 (Colly 2 pages)
8. Copy of Possession Letter. Ex.DW1/8 OSR
18. Apart from that, in order to substantiate their defense, defendant no. 1 has also stepped into witness box and examined himself as DW-2, who tendered his evidence by way of Ex.DW2/A, wherein he also reiterated the contents of the written statement, which are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. He also relied upon the documents which are already exhibited in the examination-in-chief of DW-1.
19. Further to substantiate the defense, defendants have also examined Sh. Chatter Singh as DW-3, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW3/A, wherein he deposed that the plaintiffs are the father and mother of defendant no.1 and father- in-law and mother-in-law of defendant no. 2. He further deposed that the defendants used to demand their shares in the suit Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 7 of 23 16:35:33 +0530 property, resultantly, there was a dispute between them. He further deposed that in order to finish the dispute; panchayat was called by them wherein it was decided that the plaintiffs will give 55 sq. yards to the defendants out of the suit property. He further deposed that on 20.01.2016, as per the decision of Panchayat, the plaintiffs gave 55 sq. yards out of the suit property to defendants through notarized documents i.e. GPA, Gift Deed, Deed of Will, Possession Letter and Affidavit on dated 20.01.2016. He further deposed that on the basis of said documents; the defendants are the owner of suit property.
20. DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 were cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs. No other defendants' witness was examined and thereafter, on the basis of separate statement recorded on 14.03.2024, the defendant's evidence was closed.
21. After hearing the parties, suit was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024.
22. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 passed by Ld. Trial Court, preferred the present appeal mainly on the grounds that: -
1) Because the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Learned Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises, and not on the facts and evidence on record.
2) Because the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellants never sold the suit property to the respondents. No consideration was ever mentioned or paid. The appellants had merely executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 20.01.2016 in favour of Respondent No. 1 for the limited purpose of obtaining a separate electricity meter. Such GPA, executed without consideration, cannot be treated as a Sale Deed. The said GPA was subsequently cancelled on 17.05.2017, with Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 8 of 23 16:35:39 +0530 public notice of cancellation published in The Pioneer newspaper. Despite this, the respondents refused to vacate the suit property and falsely claimed settlement. No settlement deed was ever executed, no panchayat was held, and no evidence of settlement was produced by the respondents. The Learned Trial Court ignored these material facts, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.
3) Because the Learned Trial Court failed to consider the admission of Respondent DW-1, who categorically stated in his evidence that no settlement document exists. This crucial admission was disregarded, and the judgment was wrongly passed against the appellants.
4) Because the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of Respondent DW-2, who admitted that the plaintiffs (his parents) are the owners of the suit property. This vital admission was ignored, and the judgment was illegally passed against the appellants.
5) Because the Learned Trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence of Respondent DW-3, who falsely claimed to be a witness to a settlement deed allegedly executed before the panchayat. No such document was filed along with his affidavit of evidence. Despite the absence of documentary proof, the Trial Court relied upon his statement and passed the impugned order, showing complete non-application of judicial mind.
6) Because the appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the impugned order is not set aside by this Hon'ble Appellate Court.
7) Because the appellants have no other efficacious remedy except to seek the intervention of this Hon'ble Court to secure justice.
8) Because the appellants applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment on 10.06.2024, which was delivered on 13.06.2024. However, the certified copy was not ready for delivery on that date, and another date, i.e., 10.07.2024, was mentioned. The certified copy shall be supplied to this Hon'ble Court in due course as and when received by the appellants.
23. Notice of this appeal was sent to defendants and trial court record was also requisitioned for adjudicating the present Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date: 2026.01.30 16:35:45 +0530 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 9 of 23 appeal.
24. Defendants have duly appeared through counsel, however, despite opportunity, they did not file any formal reply but orally opposed the present appeal and applications and have prayed for dismissal of the same.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
25. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts, as it is based on conjectures and surmises rather than the evidence placed on record.
26. He further contended that the plaintiffs never sold or transferred the suit property to the defendants, nor was any consideration ever paid. The only document executed was a General Power of Attorney dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/2, which was executed for the limited purpose of enabling defendant no. 1 to obtain a separate electricity connection. Such GPA, without consideration, cannot be treated as a sale deed or conveyance of ownership rights.
27. He further contended that the said GPA Ex.DW1/2 was duly cancelled by the plaintiffs on 17.05.2017 through a deed of cancellation Ex.PW1/8, and public notice of such cancellation was published in the newspaper "The Pioneer" on 06.06.2017. Despite this, the defendants refused to vacate the suit property and falsely claimed ownership on the basis of alleged settlement. No settlement deed was ever executed, no panchayat was held, and no documentary evidence of any such settlement was produced by the defendants. The Ld. Trial Court erred in relying Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 10 of 23 2026.01.30 16:35:50 +0530 upon the oral testimony of DW-3, who claimed to be a witness to a panchayat decision, without any supporting documentary proof.
28. He further contended that the admissions made by the defendants themselves were ignored by the Ld. Trial Court. DW- 1 categorically admitted in her evidence that no settlement document exists, and DW-2 admitted that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. These crucial admissions, which go to the root of the matter, were disregarded by the Ld. Trial Court, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment.
29. He further contended that the documents relied upon by the defendants, namely GPA, Gift Deed, Will, and Affidavit dated 20.01.2016, are all notarized documents and not registered instruments of transfer. None of these documents confer ownership rights in immovable property under law. The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that ownership of immovable property can only be transferred by way of a registered sale deed, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.
30. He further contended that the plaintiffs had produced cogent documentary evidence, including property tax receipts, water tax bills, electricity bills, and khasra girdawari, all of which establish that plaintiff no. 1 is the exclusive owner and bhumidar of the suit property. These documents were duly exhibited and proved, yet the Ld. Trial Court ignored them while dismissing the suit.
31. He further contended that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the portion of the suit property shown in green in the site plan, as their possession is merely permissive and has been revoked. They are also entitled to a decree of permanent injunction Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 11 of 23 2026.01.30 16:35:56 +0530 restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the remaining portion of the suit property shown in red in the site plan.
32. He further contended that the plaintiffs are also entitled to a declaration declaring the GPA dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/2 as null and void, as the same was executed without consideration and for a limited purpose, which has already been cancelled. The plaintiffs are further entitled to mesne profits at the rate claimed in the plaint, as the defendants are in unlawful occupation of the suit property after cancellation of the GPA.
33. He further contended that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the impugned judgment is not set aside, as they are being deprived of their lawful property rights by their own son and daughter-in-law. The plaintiffs have no other efficacious remedy except to seek intervention of this Hon'ble Court.
34. He further contended that along with the appeal, the plaintiffs have also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay occurred only due to the time taken in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment, and the same has been sufficiently explained. On this basis, at the end, it was prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice, the appeal be allowed, and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed in terms of the reliefs sought.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
35. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiffs have deliberately concealed material facts and have Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 Date: Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 12 of 23 GAURAV 2026.01.30 16:36:02 +0530 approached the Court with unclean hands.
36. He further contended that on 20.01.2016, in the presence of relatives and respectable persons of the society, a settlement was arrived at between the parties whereby the defendants were given 55 sq. yards out of the total 90 sq. yards of the suit property. In pursuance of this settlement, plaintiff no. 2 executed a series of documents in favour of defendant no. 1, namely GPA Ex.DW1/2, Gift Deed Ex.DW1/3, Will Ex.DW1/4, Affidavit Ex.DW1/5, and Possession Letter Ex.DW1/8. These documents clearly establish that the defendants are the lawful owners of their portion of the suit property.
37. He further contended that the suit property was divided by constructing a wall, and thereafter both parties started residing separately in their respective portions. The defendants have been in peaceful possession of their share since then, and their possession is not permissive but ownership-based. The plaintiffs cannot now turn around and cancel the GPA unilaterally, as the defendants have acquired ownership rights through the aforesaid documents executed on 20.01.2016.
38. He further contended that the defendants have also produced documentary evidence to substantiate their ownership and possession, including electricity and water bills Ex.DW1/7 and building material bills dated 14.02.2016, 20.02.2016, and 12.02.2016 Ex.DW1/6, which show that construction and maintenance of their portion was carried out by them from their own funds. Defendant no. 1 used to hand over his salary to the plaintiffs, and the construction of the suit property was carried out with his hard-earned money. The plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive ownership in disregard of these facts.
Digitally signed by GAURAVRCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 13 of 23 16:36:08 +0530
39. He further contended that the testimony of DW-3, an independent witness, corroborates the defendants' case. DW-3 deposed that a panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute between the parties, and it was decided therein that 55 sq. yards would be given to the defendants. Pursuant to this decision, the plaintiffs executed the aforesaid documents in favour of the defendants. The Ld. Trial Court rightly relied upon this testimony, which clearly establishes the defendants' ownership.
40. He further contended that the plaintiffs' claim of cancellation of GPA dated 20.01.2016 through cancellation deed dated 17.05.2017 Ex.PW1/8 and publication in newspaper "The Pioneer" Mark-A is of no consequence, as once ownership rights have been conferred through Gift Deed, Will, and Possession Letter, the same cannot be revoked unilaterally. The cancellation deed is void and ineffective against the defendants' lawful rights.
41. He further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form, as they have sought mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, declaration, and mesne profits without properly valuing the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. The plaintiffs have also concealed the fact of settlement and execution of documents dated 20.01.2016, thereby disentitling them to any equitable relief.
42. He further contended that in view of the above submissions, the defendants pray that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed, the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 be upheld, and the defendants' ownership and possession over 55 sq. yards of the suit property be protected. It was further prayed that the plaintiffs' application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be rejected, as the appeal itself is devoid of merit and the plaintiffs have failed to Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 14 of 23 16:36:13 +0530 show sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal.
43. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by Sh. S.D. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs and Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendants and have also perused the entire record of appeal as well as trial court record relied upon by the parties.
44. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal, it is incumbent upon this Court to first consider the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The impugned judgment was pronounced by the Ld. Trial Court on 04.06.2024. The appellants applied for a certified copy thereof on 10.06.2024. As per the endorsement on the back page of the certified copy of the judgment, the date of delivery was noted as 12.08.2024.
45. In the meantime, the appeal came to be instituted on 18.07.2024 without annexing the certified copy of the judgment.
It is further pertinent to note herein that the certified copy filed on record bears the stamp showing that it was attested on 19.07.2024, i.e., one day after the appeal was presented. Subsequently, the certified copy of the judgment was formally placed on record on 20.01.2026.
46. In view of the above chronology, it is evident that the delay in filing the appeal has been occasioned on account of the time consumed in applying for and obtaining the certified copy of the impugned judgment. The explanation furnished by the appellants appears to be bona fide and sufficient. The fact that the appeal was filed even prior to the attestation of the certified copy demonstrates the appellants' diligence in pursuing their remedy. The delay cannot be said to be deliberate or intentional.
Digitally signed by GAURAV Date:RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV 2026.01.30 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 15 of 23 16:36:19 +0530
47. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that "sufficient cause"
has been shown for condonation of delay. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. The delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. The appeal shall now be considered on its merits.
48. Now, the next question arises that whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by Ld. Trial Court, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs were rightly dismissed, based on the evidences available on record.
49. Before proceedings further, it is imperative to mention herein that the role of the appellate court is primarily to review the judgment of the Trial Court to determine whether the findings and conclusion reached by the Trial Court are legally sound and in accordance with law. As per the provision of Section 96 CPC, an appeal is a continuation of the original pleadings, but it is not a re-trial. The purpose of an appeal is to ensure that the Trial Court has applied the correct legal principals, evaluated the evidence appropriate, and arrived at a decision i.e. consistent with the law and the facts. It is well settled that an appellate court should not interfere with the Trial Court's findings on facts unless they are found to be perverse.
50. The fulcrum of the present dispute lies in the question of ownership of the suit property. The plaintiffs have produced and relied upon several documents i.e. khasra girdawari Ex.PW1/3, water tax bills Ex.PW1/5, property tax receipts Ex.PW1/6, and electricity bills Ex.PW1/7. These documents, emanating from public authorities, consistently reflect the plaintiffs' association with the suit property and lend weight to their claim.
51. However, during the course of cross-examination, DW-
Digitally signed by GAURAVRCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 16 of 23 16:36:27 +0530 2/defendant no. 1 candidly acknowledged that plaintiff no. 1 is the owner of the suit property, though he sought to volunteer that he had contributed towards its construction. This admission, even with the volunteered explanation, is significant inasmuch as it affirms the plaintiffs' position. Furthermore, DW-1/defendant no. 2, in her cross examination, also admitted that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property and clarified that it was for this reason that they had transferred the same.
52. Such admissions, when read in conjunction with the documentary record, assume importance under Section 53 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BSA") which stipulates that facts admitted need not be proved. The combined effect of the defendants' admissions and the documents produced by the plaintiffs is that the ownership of plaintiff no. 1 over the suit property is not a matter of dispute. The evidentiary record, therefore, leaves no scope for controversy on this aspect. Thus, ownership of plaintiff no. 1 over the suit property remains undisputed.
53. As per available record, plaintiff no. 1 executed a General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/4 in favour of his wife i.e. plaintiff no. 2 qua the suit property. However, the legal effect of a GPA must be examined. A GPA is an instrument of agency governed by the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. It authorizes the attorney to act on behalf of the principal but does not transfer ownership.
54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 206 , has conclusively held that transactions involving GPA, Agreement to Sell, and similar instruments do not convey title to immovable property. Such documents may, at best, evidence an intention to transfer or authorize certain acts, but they do not constitute a valid Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 17 of 23 16:36:32 +0530 conveyance under the law. The Hon'ble Court emphasized that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred only through a registered deed of conveyance, such as a sale deed. The reliance on GPA/Agreement to Sell/WILL transactions as substitutes for registered conveyance is not only legally flawed but also contributes to uncertainty and litigation in property matters. The relevant paras have been reproduced hereinbelow for reference: -
"15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank - 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales.
55. Applying the aforesaid settled law in the instant case, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff no. 2 did not acquire ownership Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 18 of 23 16:36:39 +0530 rights under GPA Ex.PW1/4. She remained only an attorney holder, empowered to manage the suit property but not to alienate it in her own right. Consequently, any subsequent Gift Deed executed by her in favour of the defendants i.e. Ex.DW1/3 is legally void ab initio, as one cannot gift what one does not own. This principle flows from Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which defines "gift" as a transfer of ownership made voluntarily and without consideration. Plaintiff no. 2, not being the owner of the suit property, could not have transferred ownership.
56. The defendants have relied upon a series of documents dated 20.01.2016 i.e. GPA Ex.DW1/2, Gift Deed Ex.DW1/3, Will Ex.DW1/4, Affidavit Ex.DW1/5, and Possession Letter Ex.DW1/8. All these documents are notarized and unregistered. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes it clear that immovable property can only be transferred by way of a registered instrument. Notarized documents, even if executed, do not confer ownership rights. The reliance placed by the defendants on these documents is, therefore, wholly misconceived.
57. The defendants also sought to bolster their claim by asserting that a settlement took place before a panchayat on 20.01.2016, pursuant to which the plaintiffs allegedly gave them 55 sq. yards of the suit property. DW-3, Sh. Chattar Singh, deposed to this effect. However, in cross-examination, DW-3 candidly admitted that he does not possess any panchayatnama and has not signed any such document. His oral testimony is unsupported by documentary proof. The mere fact that his name appears as a witness on notarized documents does not establish that a lawful partition or settlement occurred.
Digitally signed by GAURAV Date:RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV 2026.01.30 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 19 of 23 16:36:44 +0530
58. Section 94 of BSA mandates that when the terms of a contract or disposition of property have been reduced to writing, no evidence shall be given in proof of such terms except the document itself. In the present case, no written settlement deed has been produced. Thus, the alleged settlement is unproved and legally invalid.
59. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, consistently deposed that the GPA dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/2 was executed only to enable the defendants to obtain separate electricity and water connections. PW-1 and PW-2 reiterated the same in their testimonies. PW-2 specifically stated that she had executed GPA, Gift Deed, Will, and Affidavit only for installation of separate meters and not for transfer of ownership. This explanation is plausible and consistent with the surrounding circumstances, particularly the subsequent cancellation of GPA on 17.05.2017 Ex.PW1/8 and publication of public notice in "The Pioneer"
dated 06.06.2017.
60. The main contention of the defendants that cancellation of GPA is void as ownership rights had already been conferred is legally unsustainable. As discussed, plaintiff no. 2 had no ownership rights to confer, and the documents relied upon are notarized and unregistered, incapable of transferring title.
61. The objection raised by the defendants regarding maintainability and valuation of the suit also does not hold. The plaintiffs sought injunctions, declaration, and mesne profits, and paid requisite court fees. No cogent evidence was led by the defendants to show undervaluation or concealment. The suit was maintainable in the present form.
62. The plaintiffs have also claimed mesne profits at the rate Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 20 of 23 16:36:50 +0530 of Rs. 836/- (Rupees Eight Hundred Thirty-Six only) per day from the date of filing of the suit until vacation of the suit property. In the present case, apart from a bare assertion in the plaint, the plaintiffs have not led any independent evidence to substantiate the quantum of mesne profits claimed. No witness was examined to prove the prevailing market rent, nor were any documents such as rent agreements of comparable properties filed. In absence of such evidence, the Court cannot mechanically accept the figure of Rs. 836/- (Rupees Eight Hundred Thirty-Six only) per day as claimed. The burden of proof lay squarely upon the plaintiffs, and they have failed to discharge it. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of mesne profits, and the claim in that regard stands rejected.
63. The plaintiffs have also sought declaration that the GPA dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/2, is null and void. It is trite law that a notarized and unregistered GPA does not confer ownership rights in immovable property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (supra) has categorically held that GPA sales are not valid transfers of title. Once this legal position is clear, the GPA dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/2 is already devoid of any legal efficacy and does not affect the ownership of plaintiff no. 1. A declaration is granted only when there exists a cloud on title or when a document prima facie affects legal rights. In the present case, since the GPA is inherently void and incapable of conferring ownership, there is no necessity for a formal declaration as prayed. The law itself renders the document ineffective, and therefore, the prayer for declaration is redundant. No further declaratory relief is required. Accordingly, the relief of declaration is hereby declined.
64. This Court also finds that the observations made by the Digitally signed by GAURAV Date: GAURAV RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 2026.01.30 16:36:56 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 21 of 23 +0530 Ld. Trial Court are perverse on the premise that the Ld. Trial Court relied upon DW-3's oral testimony and his signature on notarized documents to conclude that a settlement had taken place. Such reliance is contrary to law, as DW-3 admitted the absence of any panchayatnama and the documents relied upon are legally ineffective. The Ld. Trial Court ignored admissions made by DW-1 and DW-2, the documents relied upon by defendants are notarized and unregistered and that plaintiff no. 1 is the owner of the suit property. The findings of the Ld. Trial Court are, therefore, perverse, based on misappreciation of evidence, and cannot be sustained.
65. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court suffers from perversity, misappreciation of evidence, and non-application of settled principles of law. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
66. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is hereby set aside.
67. The suit of the plaintiffs stands decreed in the following terms:
1) The defendants are directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the portion of the property bearing No. A-8/734, Gali No. 8, Amar Colony, East Gokalpur, Delhi-110094, as shown in green in the site plan annexed with the plaint to the plaintiffs within thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment.
2) The defendants are restrained from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the remaining portion of the suit property bearing No. Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2026.01.30 RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 16:37:01 +0530 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 22 of 23 A-8/734, Gali No. 8, Amar Colony, East Gokalpur, Delhi-110094, as shown in red in the site plan.
3) The prayer for declaration that GPA dated 20.01.2016 Ex.DW1/2 null and void is hereby declined, as the said document is already devoid of legal efficacy being notarized and unregistered, and no cloud on title exists requiring judicial declaration.
4) The prayer for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 836/- (Rupees Eight Hundred Thirty-Six only) per day is also rejected, as the plaintiffs have failed to lead any independent evidence to substantiate the quantum of mesne profits as claimed.
5) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
68. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of being infructuous.
69. A copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
70. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room as per rules. (Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and pronounced in open court on 30.01.2026).
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date: 2026.01.30
16:37:09 +0530
(GAURAV)
DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
Certified that this judgment contains 23 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date: 2026.01.30 16:37:14 +0530 (GAURAV) DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI RCA (DJ) NO. 80/2024- CNR No. DLSH030016132017 Hari Krishan & Anr. Vs. Rajvir Singh & Anr. Page No. 23 of 23