Delhi District Court
Ishwari Prasad Chaturvedi vs Wakf Khan Bahadur Nawab Abul Hasan Khan on 30 January, 2026
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030000632006
CS SCJ No. 8789/16
DLWT030000632006
Sh Ishwari Prasad Chaturvedi
(Through LRs)
Sh. Ajay Kant Chaturvedi
S/o Late Sh. Ishwari Prasad Chaturvedi
R/o C-165, Ground Floor, New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-15
........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Wakf Khan Bahadur Nawab Abul Hasan Khan
Through its Mutawalli
Sh. Omar Hasan Khan @ Channi
S/o Late N.Z. Sikander Hasan Khan
At: 5024, Sirki Walan, Lal Kuan,
Delhi-06.
2. Sh. D. R. Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Dayal Gupta Digitally
R/o W-49, Greater Kailash, signed by
VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
Part-II, New Delhi-48. KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
Also 2026.01.30
18:10:52
+0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),
PAGE 1/38 30.01.2026
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
Working At:
6, Devika Tower, Nehru Place,
New Delhi
3. SH. SUDHIR SARIN (DELETED VOD. 06.05.2023)
M.D. Of Shelly Chit & Finance Pvt. Ltd.,
2888, Bazar Sirkiwalan, Lal Kuan,
Delhi-06
4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)
Service to be effected through its Commissioner
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Center,
JLN Marg, Minto Road, Delhi-02
......DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 20.01.2006
Date of Judgment : 30.01.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND DAMAGES FOR
USE AND OCCUPATION
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment of mine shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiff seeking possession of the property bearing no. 2889, Bazar Sirkiwalan, Lal Kuan, Delhi-06 (hereinaftter called as Suit Property) and for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- from the defendants towards damages for illegal use and occupation of the suit property.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:11:00 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 2/38 30.01.2026 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN VERSION OF PLAINTIFF:-
2. As per the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a senior citizen aged about 80 years at present and he had been in occupation of suit property as a lawful tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 116.50/- sometime since 1950 onwards, under the defendant no. 1 for commercial purposes. That the tenanted premises of the plaintiff measures about 417 sq. yds. and the plaintiff had been doing business of Building material including Agra Stone Slabs, bricks, cement, badarpur, sand, rori, stone dust etc. etc. in the same, since the inception of tenancy. That the plaintiff had a electric connection bearing No. 84322 in his tenanted premises, in the name of his business concern i.e. M/S Choubey Narain Das Radha Ballabh. That the plaintiff also had a water connection in the tenanted premises in the name of his above stated business concern bearing connection no. 43824. That the plaintiff also had a telephone connection in his personal name in his above stated tenanted premises and his telephone no. was 267911. That the business concern of the plaintiff was also registered under Delhi Sales Tax Act and he had been filing his sales tax returns etc. regularly in the Sales Tax Department and he had been receiving the assessment order from time to time and his ward no. was XI. That the plaintiff was also registered under the Central Sales Tax and his CST No. at one time was CST/DLH/W-4/4189 and he had been purchasing building materials for his firm, from firms stationed outside Delhi and he had been issuing CST forms to them. That the plaintiff had also been receiving Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 2026.01.30 18:11:09 PAGE 3/38 30.01.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN materials from the Railways and had been paying toll tax etc, on the materials so received. That the plaintiff had also been receiving cement at the times when "The Delhi Cement (Licensing & Control Order), 1982" remained in force. That the plaintiff had also been receiving letters / correspondence from the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation as the tenanted. premises was initially taken over / managed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property after 1947 and thereafter he had been issued rent receipts by the defendant no.1 / landlord also. That due to the house tax being in huge arrears, the rent of the property was once attached by the MCD / defendant no.4 and the plaintiff also deposited rent amount with the defendant no. 4 against proper receipts.
2.1. It is further stated that the plaintiff had been running his business peacefully and comfortably till December, 1993 but he was alone and was aged about 67/68 years at that time and had no helping hand as his only son had been selected in D.J.S. and was unable to help him in any manner in his business activities. That in the first week of January 1994, as the office room and cement store etc. required repairs, therefore, in the first week of January 1994 the plaintiff started certain necessary repairs in the existing structure of his tenanted premises which at that time had about three pauccarooms and four tin sheds and in this construction, one room was used by the plaintiff as a office and one room was used as a store room for cement and in one room, 2-3 labours / chowkidar were residing, while most Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR PAGE 4/38 30.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:11:18 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN of the material used to remain lying outside, in open area. But the defendant no. 1 objected to the said repair work and MCD also directed to stop the repair work, which was accordingly stopped by the plaintiff, being a law-abiding citizen. That on or around 30/31.1.1994 the defendants no. 1 to 3 alongwith some local bad elements of the locality came to the tenanted premises and threatened the plaintiff to leave the same immediately failing which they openly threatened him that they will kill him and also his family members. They were associated with 15/20 persons and the plaintiff was afraid, out of fear he left the premises and did not tell all these facts even to his son at that time, to avoid any possible risks from the hands of the defendants no.1 to 3 to him and his family members.
2.2. It is further stated that after 2/3 days which was most probably Sunday, the son of the plaintiff namely A.K. Chaturvedi came to meet his father i.e. the plaintiff and finding him sorrowful, asked him as to what is the matter. That the plaintiff told him the entire facts and then the plaintiff accompanied by his above named son went to the tenanted premises and the defendant no.2 was available at the site to whom the plaintiff and his son talked. It was observed by the plaintiff and his above named son that there were about 10/12 gundas type persons present in the property sitting on chairs and cots etc. and the defendant no. 2 assured them to look into the matter and see that the possession of the plaintiff is returned to him as early as possible. That the defendant no.2 told the plaintiff that (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), signed by VIVEK PAGE 5/38 30.01.2026VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:11:27 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN he was not aware of the status of the plaintiff in the suit property and that is why he alongwith other defendants had taken possession of the same 2-3 days prior i.e. 30/31.1.1994 and at that time the plaintiff requested him to allow access of his office room which was agreed to by the defendant no.2 and from the Almirah in the office room which was opened by the plaintiff with his keys. The plaintiff showed him hundreds of documents including rent receipts, purchase bills, bills for goods sold etc. etc. and the defendant no. 2 was convinced that the plaintiff is a lawful tenant in the above said premises. That the defendant no.2 assured the plaintiff to hand over back the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff after talking to his other associates i.e. defendants no.1 & 3 and in these circumstances, the plaintiff and his son had no other option but to come back hoping that the plaintiff will be restored back the possession of his tenanted premises by the defendants no.1 to 3.
2.3. It is further stated that the plaintiff had been repeatedly requesting the defendants no.1 to 3 to restore him the possession of his tenanted premises and almost every month or sometimes twice a month, he has been visiting them and they have been postponing the matter on one ground or the other and in the last week of December 2005, the plaintiff repeatedly met the defendants no.2 and 3, who had been looking after the suit property allegedly on behalf of the defendant no.1 for last sometimes, but they flatly refused to accede to the lawful request of the plaintiff. That as the defendants no.1 to 3 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 2026.01.30 18:11:35 PAGE 6/38 30.01.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN are enjoying the possession of the tenanted premises illegally and unauthorizedly, they are liable to pay damages for the illegal use and occupation of the tenanted premises minimum @ Rs. 10,000/- per month and the plaintiff being a senior citizen aged about 80 years and has been deprived of his business income from the tenanted premises, does not have means to pay the Court fees for the recovery of damages for the last three years, for which period the plaintiff is legally entitled to claim. However the plaintiff is claiming damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month only for the period of 6 months immediately proceeding to the filing of the present suit. That the defendants no.1 to 3 are legally bound to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff by bringing it in its original condition by removing the unauthorised construction raised by them on the same and are further liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for illegal use and occupation of the tenanted premises @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, the defendants no.1 to 3 are not acceding to the lawful demands of the plaintiff, thus the plaintiff has no other option but to seek the assistance of this Hon'ble Court, hence this suit. That no relief has been claimed against the defendant no.4 but it has been made party to the suit as a proper party because the defendants no.1 to 3 have raised huge illegal construction also over and above the tenanted premises of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had no other efficacious & alternate remedy except to approach this honble court by way of present suit. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 18:11:43 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), +0530 PAGE 7/38 30.01.2026 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN VERSION OF DEFENDANT No. 1:-
3. As per the written statement of defendant no. 1, the preliminary objections have been taken that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and the same is without any cause of action. That the plaintiff had surrendered his tenancy as well as possession of the tenanted premises long back i.e. in the year 1993 when the father of the answering defendant was the Mutawalli / Manager/Administrator of the defendant NO. 1, namely Late Nawab Sikander Hasan Khan who expired on 14.06.2003 and now he has been succeeded by the under-signed who is now the Mutawalli /Manager/Administrator of the defendant No. 1. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the same is time barred because the same has been filed after a lapse of about 13 years, hence, the same is beyond the statutory limitation for filing the present suit.
3.1. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court and by way of suppressing the true fact the plaintiff has tried to mislead the Hon'ble Court and the family of the plaintiff is a high profile family and have very well acknowledged the provisions of law because his son is himself a judicial officer in Delhi namely Sh. A.K. Chaturvedi, ADSJ, Delhi and who used to deal all the matters related to the suit property and had executed the surrender deed regarding the tenancy and possession of the suit property about Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 8/38 30.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:11:53 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN 13 years back in favour of the defendant No. 1 in his own hand writing. Original of the same is with the defendant No. 2 who has already filed photocopy of the same because after surrendering the suit property alongwith its tenancy by the plaintiff about 13 years back the defendant No. 2 was inducted as tenant partly in the suit property who later on with the passage of time sub-letted the same with the consent of father of the undersigned and fresh tenancies were created in the suit property and the name of the tenants/occupants at present in the suit property has been shown in the Annexure 'A' annexed herewith. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the defendant No. 2 and 3 have no concern with the suit property in any manner though the defendant No. 2 had concern with the suit property earlier but at present he has no more in possession as per the knowledge of the answering defendant and defendant No. 3 never been concerned with the suit property in any manner at any stage till date he is simply a neighbour and tenant in the adjoining property bearing No. 2888, Sirki Walan, Lal Kuan, Delhi under the landlordship of the answering defendant and he has been simply dragged in this case because he is a sympathizer to the answering defendant because of close relation and friendship with the Late father of the undersigned who represent at present the defendant No. 1, so the suit is liable to be dismissed on this score alone because of mis-joinder of the parties. 3.2. It is further submitted that the defendant No. 3 has already stated that the suit property is old and legal one, hence, the Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK AGARWAL KUMAR PAGE 9/38 30.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:12:01 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN impleading of the defendant No. 3 in the present suit also amounts to mis-joinder. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e. the tenants / occupants of the suit property. It is stated that the plaintiff ought to have impleaded all those persons who are in occupation of the suit property irrespective of their rights therein as the suit property is measuring about 417 sq. yards and is situated in a very old commercial area of Delhi from there the wholesale market of the hardware is used to be run by the business working there and in the suit property itself there are so many tenants. List of the same available with the record of the answering defendant is annexed herewith as Annexure A and if any new name of the tenant/occupant of any part of the suit property would be found at the later stage the same would be brought on record with the permission of this Hon'ble Court. That, the value of the suit property is more than Rs. 1 crore for which the plaintiff first should have paid the proper court fees as per the Court Fee Act and then file the present suit and hence this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. 3.3. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as it is beyond comprehension that the plaintiff whose son Sh.A.K. Chaturvedi, is a judicial officer, would waited for 13 years from his alleged dispossession from the tenanted premises and file the present suit now. The present suit is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The story of the plaintiff is a false and fabricated story and is beyond the imagination and cannot be believed on any pretext Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 10/38 30.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:12:09 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN because the house of the plaintiff is hardly about 200 mtrs. from the suit property and the whole area is thickly populated area and the local police station of P.S. Hauz Qazi is in front of the suit property and is hardly about 25 steps from the suit property, hence, the false and frivolous story of dis-possession of the plaintiff from the suit property is beyond and imagination. That till date there is no report on record of the police against the answering defendant or other defendants or other tenants / occupants in the suit property. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as per the provisions of Section 6 of specific Relief Act itself since the present suit has been filed beyond the period of Limitation Period as prescribed therein. That all the documents of the plaintiff are of 1990 and not after that hence the suit is barrred by limitation. 3.4. In reply on merits, it is stated that para No. 1 of the plaint is correct to the extent that the plaintiff is a senior citizen subject to the condition he should prove it with strict proof. Rest of the para is denied. It is stated that at present the plaintiff neither in possession nor tenant in the suit property, hence, his claim of tenancy and rent @ 116.50 is false and frivolous one. The other averments of plaint regarding utility services and house-tax etc. are denied stating that there is no question of running any business in the suit property ever been arosed after 1993 when the plaintiff surrendered the tenancy as well as tenancy premises in favour of the answering respondent. That the status of the son of the plaintiff is not denied as the son of the plaintiff is a judicial officer namely Sh. A.K. Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 11/38 30.01.2026 AGARWAL 2026.01.30 18:12:19 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN Chaturvedi, ADJ, Delhi, hence, the responsibility of the plaintiff and his family is more than a lay man and he should avoid to file the present false and frivolous suit as the said judicial officer, the son of the plaintiff himself written the surrender deed in his own hand writing as per the knowledge of the answering defendant as mentioned earlier.
3.5. It is submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages or any remuneration from the answering defendant or his property including the suit property. It is further submitted that the structural position of the suit property has already been stated by the defendant No. 4 who is the only legal authority to settle the status of the suit property. The averments of preliminary objections are reteirated. Again in the annexure of the WS, name of some tenants / occupants in the suit property have been also mentioned.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT NO. 2. :-
4. In the WS filed by defendant no. 2, the preliminary objections are taken that the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation, as the tenancy that the plaintiff had/yielded the vacant, peaceful possession of the suit premises to the defendant no. 1, the landlord of the said premises, more than 12 years prior to the institution of the suit under reply. This act of the plaintiff was further confirmed by a writing made by his son on his behalf. That the plaintiff has no cause of action, or surviving cause of action against the answering defendant. That the plaintiff has concealed vital facts and Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 12/38 30.01.2026 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:12:27 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN circumstances, including previous suits instituted by him in relation to the suit property.
4.1. In reply on merits, averments of plaint are denied. It is stated that the tenancy of the plaintiff in the suit premises was ended by his own act more than 12 years ago prior to the filing of the suit under reply. That the plaintiff voluntarily yielded the vacant, peaceful possession of the suit premises to the defendant no. 1, his landlord. This fact was also acknowledged in writing on behalf of the plaintiff by his son, a judicial officer, Sh A.K. Chaturvedi, presently posted as an Additional District Judge, at Delhi. After the plaintiff yielded the possession of the premises to the defendant no. 1, the defendant no. 1 let the same out to the answering defendant under a tenancy agreement. That the 'mutawaili of the defendant no. 1 Wakf showed the above said writing to the answering defendant before the answering defendant agreed to take the suit premises on rent. The answering defendant consented to become the tenant of the suit premises only after he was satisfied, including other things, by a perusal of the above said writing of the son of the plaintiff that the previous tenant, i e. the plaintiff had yielded the vacant peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord. Thereafter, the answering defendant became a tenant of the defendant no. 1 by virtue of an agreement with the defendant no. 1. The premises have been, and still are under the possession and beneficial enjoyment of the answering defendant. That the contents of para 4 of the suit under reply are a Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 PAGE 13/38 30.01.2026 18:12:40 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN matter of record. That the documents filed by the plaintiff in support of this para under reply of the plaint show that at any event, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit premises after November 1990. That the contents of para 5 of the suit under reply are a matter of record. The other averments of plaint are denied with the request to dismiss the suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NO.3 :-
5. In WS of defendant no. 3, the preliminary objections are taken that the defendant no.3 is not connected with the property in question in any manner and has been unnecessarily been impleaded as a defendant in the present suit. present suit is an abuse of the process of Law and the same is liable to be dismissed against the defendant no.3 in limini itself. That the present suit in the present form is not maintainable since the plaintiff who is seeking the possession of the suit property in his capacity as a tenant, has not impleaded all the occupants in the property in question who are in occupation of the same and as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the replying defendant no.3 stated that the plaintiff ought to have impleaded all those persons who are in occupation of the suit property therein. That the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no.1 on the plea that the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant no.1 and that the defendant no.1 alongwith other persons Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 14/38 30.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:12:47 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN have dispossessed the plaintiff forcibly. Other objections are taken with respect to valuation of suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the present court.
5.1. In reply on merits, the averments of plaint are denied. It is stated that the defendant no.3 had been informed by the defendant no.1 and 2 and the market people that the portion of the property, which was in the tenancy of the plaintiff had been surrendered the tenancy rights and the possession had been handed over to the defendant no.1. It is stated that the plaintiff to the knowledge of the defendant no.3 is not a tenant w.r.t. the suit property. It is categorically denied that on or around 30/31 January 1994, the defendants no. 1 to 3 came to the tenanted premises and threatened the plaintiff as alleged in the paragraph under reply. It is denied that the plaintiff was threatened to leave immediately or that they threatened to kill him and his family members. It is categorically denied that the defendant no.3 ever went to the plaintiff or threatened him as alleged in the paragraph under reply. It is categorically denied that the plaintiff left the premises as alleged in the paragraph under reply. It is submitted that the averments made are absolutely baseless and it cannot be imagined that a person whose son is in the Delhi Judicial Services would not tell his son about the incident. All the other averments of plaint are denied with the request to dismiss the suit.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2026.01.30 18:12:54 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 15/38 30.01.2026 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.4/MCD:-
6. In the WS of defendant no. 4/MCD, the Preliminary Objections are taken that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 477/478 of the DMC Act, 1957 for want of service of statutory notice and as such the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever against the answering defendant as the official of the answering defendant has inspected the property bearing No.2889, Bazar Sirkiwalan, Lal Quan, Delhi -6 on 3.3.2006 and it was found that the property consist of ground floor, first floor and second floor and is being used for commercial purposes, the property is an old one and fully occupied. No unauthorized construction was seen in progress nor was any building material stacked at site. At present no action is required to be taken on behalf of the answering defendant and as such the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed against the answering defendant. That the plaintiff has not sought any relief against the answering defendant and the relief has been sought against defendant No. 1. In reply on merits, it is stated that the averments of plaint do not relate to the answering defendant and need no reply.
REPLICATION:-
7. In the separate replications filed on behalf of plaintiff to the WS of all the defendants, the averments of plaint are reiterated Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 2026.01.30 PAGE 16/38 30.01.2026 18:13:02 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN and allegations of WS are denied. It is further stated that the relations of plaintiff with his son SH. A.K Chaturvedi are of no consequence. It is specifically denied that A.K. Chaturvedi had executed any surrender deed qua the suit property as alleged. It is stated that even otherwise A.K. Chaudhary was not authorised to execute any such deed on behalf of plaintiff and that relations between the two are not cordial. That the present occupants of the suit premises are illegal and unlawfull occupants and plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the same from them. Again that said occupants are the representative of the defendant no. 2, as propounded by contesting defendant, they are not necessary parties. It is also stated that records of plaintiff were in the office within the suit premises and they were usurped / stolen when the plaintiff was forcibly and illeglly dispossessed and that the record available with the plaintiff was produced before the court.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURTS:-
8. It is pertinent to mention that after summons being served separate WS were ??filed by all the four defendants, however, later defendant no. 3 was deleted from array of parties vod. 06.05.2023, when the application u/O 1 R 10 CPC moved on behalf plaintiff for deletion of defendant no. 3 was allowed. Again defendant no. 2 was proceeded exparte vod. 11.03.2024. Again during proceedings of suit, some applicants claiming themselves as beneficary and mutawali of defendant no. 1 firm moved the Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 PAGE 17/38 30.01.2026 18:13:10 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN application u/O I Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment, which were dismissed vod. 12.11.2025. Again during pendency of the suit, plaintiff had also expired and his LR namely Sh. A.K. Chaturvedi was impleaded vod. 13.08.2011. It is also pertinent to mention that some evidence in the present matter was recorded by the local commissioner in terms of order dt. 21.03.2024, however, said LC was discharged vod. 12.11.2025 and thereafter evidence was recorded in the court itself.
ISSUES:-
9. The following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of the hon'ble Court vide order dt. 01.10.2008:-
Issue no.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for?OPP.
Issue no.2:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- as prayed for?OPP Issue no.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the said amount, if yes at what rate?OPP. Issue no.4:- Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder / misjoinder of necessary parties?OPD.
Issue no.5:- Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provision of the Limitation Act?OPD.
Issue no.6:- Relief. Digitally
signed by
VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 18:13:25
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), +0530
PAGE 18/38 30.01.2026
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF:-
10. In plaintiff evidence, the LR of plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. PW-1 relied on the documents tenders as Ex.PW1/1A to Ex.PW1/11N as follows:-
Ex.PW1/1-A to Ex.PW1/1-J i.e. rent receipts of different period of time.
Ex.PW1/2 i.e. Site Plan.
Ex.PW1/2-A i.e. Original Stone Receipt. Ex.PW1/2-B i.e. Original Transport Receipt. Ex.PW1/3-A to Ex.PW1/3-O i.e. Electricity Bills of different time period.
Ex.PW1/3-P to Ex.PW1/3-Z i.e. Water Bills of different time period.
Ex.PW1/4-A to Ex.PW1/4-B i.e. Telephone Bills of different time period.
Ex.PW1/5-A i.e. Original letter / registration certificate dt. 16.07.1957.
Ex.PW1/5-B & Ex.PW1/5-C i.e. Original Form C dt
02.09.1957 and 22.08.1957 respectively. Ex.PW1/5-D, Ex.PW1/5-G to Ex.PW1/5-N(colly), Ex.PW1/5- Q, Ex.PW1/5-R, Ex.PW1/5-S, Ex.PW1/5-AA, Ex.PW1/5-AF and Ex.PW1/5-AL i.e. Assessment orders of different time Digitally period. signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:13:33 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 19/38 30.01.2026 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN Ex.PW1/5-E & Ex.PW1/5-F i.e. Letter dt. 14.11.1951 and 27.04.1953 respectively.
Ex.PW1/5-O and Ex.PW1/5-P i.e. the performa XXIV. Ex.PW1/5-T i.e. Form of Return u/R 3 of Sales Tax Act. Ex.PW1/5-U & Ex.PW1/5-X i.e. Form ST-11. Ex.PW1/5-V & Ex.PW1/5-W i.e. letter dt. 19.04.1980 & 23.04.1983, respectively.
Ex.PW1/5-Y i.e. Form of Acknowledgment. Ex.PW1/5-Z i.e. Demand Notice dt. 14.05.1980. Ex.PW1/5-AB to Ex.PW1/5-AE i.e. Form of Declaration. Ex.PW1/5-AG i.e. Letter for assessment. Ex.PW1/5-AH i.e. Form No. XXII/XXIII under Delhi Sales Tax Act.
Ex.PW1/5-AI i.e. Challan.
Ex.PW1/5-AJ i.e. Rectification order. Ex.PW1/5-AK i.e. Notice of demand.
Ex.PW1/5-AM & Ex.PW1/5-AN i.e. Notice respectively. Ex.PW1/5-AO i.e. letter.
Ex.PW1/5-AP i.e. remittance note.
Ex.PW1/5-AQ i.e. consignment form.
Ex.PW1/5-AR i.e. ST 29 receipt.
Ex.PW1/6-A i.e. original blank receipt. Ex.PW1/6-B i.e. Original cash / credit voucher. Digitally signed by Ex.PW1/6-C i.e. original transport. VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Ex.PW1/6-D i.e. original bill no. UP/68. AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:13:44 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 20/38 30.01.2026 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN Ex.PW1/6-E i.e. Challan.
Ex.PW1/6-F & Ex.PW1/6-G i.e. notice dt. 21.08.1958 & 12.07.1958, respectively.
Ex.PW1/6-H i.e. letter dt. 16.07.1958. Ex.PW1/6-I to Ex.PW1/6-L i.e. receipts. Ex.PW1/6-M i.e. blank letter.
Ex.PW1/7-A to Ex.PW1/7-M i.e. toll tax receipts of different period of time.
Ex.PW1/7-N to Ex.PW1/7-R i.e. Original railway receipt of different period of time.
Ex.PW1/8-A i.e. Delhi Cement Form H. Ex.PW1/9-A to Ex.PW1/9-G i.e. Original envelope. Ex.PW1/9-H to Ex.PW1/9-L i.e. postcard of different period of time.
Ex.PW1/9-M, Ex.PW1/9-N & Ex.PW1/9-Q i.e. envelope. Ex.PW1/9-O & Ex.PW1/9-P i.e. inland letter. Ex.PW1/10-A to Ex.PW1/10-E i.e. property tax receipt. Ex.PW1/10-F i.e. propety tax form CI-1. Ex.PW1/10-G to Ex.PW1/10-K i.e. photocopy of inspection book of MCD.
Ex.PW1/10-L & Ex.PW1/10-M i.e. Photocopy of notice. Ex.PW1/10-N i.e. photocopy of reply.
Ex.PW1/11-A, Ex.PW1/11-B, Ex.PW1/11-E, Ex.PW1/11-H, Ex.PW1/11-I & Ex.PW1/11-K i.e. original letter.
Digitally
signed by
VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 2026.01.30
PAGE 21/38 30.01.2026 18:13:51
+0530
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
Ex.PW1/11-C & Ex.PW1/11-D, Ex.PW1/11-G, Ex.PW1/11-J & Ex.PW1/11-L i.e. office copy of letter. Ex.PW1/11-F i.e. carbon copy of letter. Ex.PW1/11-M & Ex.PW1/11-N i.e. copy of letter.
10.1. Thereafter witness has been cross-examined by defendant accordingly and then PE has been closed vide separate statement of LR of plaintiff dt. 29.11.2025.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT:-
11. In defendant evidence, the defendant no. 1 examined the witness namely Sh. Omar Hasan Khan, as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW1/A. DW1 relied on Ex.DW1/1 i.e. list of tenants in the suit premises. Thereafter defendant no.1 also examined another witness namely Mohd. Kayyub as DW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW2/A and DW2 relied on some documents i.e. rent receipts as Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/4. Both the witnesses have been cross- examined and thereafter DE has been closed vod. 23.12.2025.
FINDINGS
12. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties have been heard at length and file has been carefully and minutely perused including the written submissions filed on behalf of Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 PAGE 22/38 30.01.2026 18:14:01 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN defendant and my issues wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:-ISSUE NO. 1
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It has been argued by ld. Counsel for plaintiff that as per the version of defendants, the son / LR of plaintiff namely A.K. Chaturvedi had surrender the tenancy rights. That in the WS of defendant no. 1, in para no. 4 of preliminary objections, it was specifically stated that the son of plaintiff had executed the surrendered deed regarding tenancy and possession of the suit property about the 13 years back in favour of defendant no. 1 in his own hand-writing and that original of the same was with defendant no. 2, however, defendant no. 2 in his WS did not mention anything, if he was in possession of said surrender deed. That defendant no. 1 also failed to examine the defendant no. 2 or get him summoned for production of said surrender deed. In this regard, attention is also drawn to the order dt. 30.09.2016 passed in the present matter, vide which application moved by the plaintiff, seeking direction to the defendant produce original surrender deed, was dismissed. Accordingly it is argued that the plaintiff on his part had made effort for production of said alleged surrender deed, if any, however, the said deed was never produced in original and was not tendered in the evidence of any of the witness examined by the contesting defendant no. 1. Further attention is drawn to the cross-
examination of DW1, wherein the said witness did not deny the Digitally
signed by
VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 PAGE 23/38 30.01.2026 18:14:09 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN suggestion of hiring of defendant no. 2 and 3 by the defendant no. 1 for his father to forcefully evict the plaintiff from the suit property. It is further argued that as reflected from the cross-examination of DW1, he was not aware of any fact with respect to the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that plaintiff was doing his well-established business in the suit property as reflected from the documents relied upon by LRs of the plaintiff / PW1 and he had no reason to surrender the tenancy and the possession of the suit property at his own. Accordingly, it is contended that as plaintiff had no reason to surrender the tenancy and as the defendants failed to prove the version of voluntary surrender by way of surrender deed, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the plaintiff was forcefully dispossessed from the suit property and consequently plaintiff is entitled to recover the possesssion of the suit property from the defendants.
13.1. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 has submitted that as per the case of defendant no. 1, plaintiff was not doing any business in the suit property since 1990 till 1993 and that possession of the property was handed over on behalf of plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 in 1993 itself. The attention of the court is drawn to para no. 12, 13 and 14 of the plaint and it is submitted that as per the version of the plaintiff, he was doing the business in the suit property till December, 1993 and was getting the work of repair in the suit premises in the January, 1994 and that he was allegedly Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 24/38 30.01.2026 2026.01.30
18:14:17
+0530
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
dispossessed on 30/31.01.1994. In this regard, it is further submitted that the plaintiff failed to produce any single document to show his possession in the month of December, 1993 or in the month of January, 1994. It is further argued that admittedly the plaintiff did not move any complaint to police despite alleged forceful eviction from the suit property, which shows that no such event had taken place. It is submitted that plaintiff has taken the plea that he was scared and therefore, he did not approach the police, however, it is not believable as, it is an admitted fact that the son / LR of plaintiff was a judicial officer in Delhi at the time of the alleged event of dispossession in January, 1994. It is further submitted that as mentioned in the para 11 of the replication to WS of defendant no. 1, the police station was the distance of stone throw away from the suit property and again as mentioned in para 15 of the replication, some documents of plaintiff were also stolen, however, again no complaint was given to the police.
13.2. It is further submitted that the version of plaintiff is further falsified regarding the averment in para 15 of the plaint that he had disclosed about the same to his son after 2-3 days, when he had come to meet him on Sunday, whereas as seen from the calander of the year 1994, the Sunday was falling on 06.02.1994. Again, in this regard the attention is also drawn to the replication of the plaintiff, where he stated that he was not having cordial relations with his son and it is further submitted that during pendency of the suit an Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 25/38 30.01.2026 2026.01.30
18:14:24
+0530
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
applcation is also moved u/O 33 R 1, 3, 4 and 15 CPC stateing htat plaintiff has become the person of unsound mind and the next friend to repesent the plaintiff was not his son rather some other person.
That said application was later dismissed, as plaintiff expired and his son was impleaded as LR.
13.3. It is further submitted that as mentioned in para 17 and 18 of the plaint, defenant no. 2 was not aware about the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and he had assured the plaintiff to hand over back the possession of the suit property, however, despite that no suit was filed by the plaintiff for approx 12 years and same was filed in the year 2006, which again shows the malafide of the plaintiff.
13.4. It is further argued that the plaintiff has sought the possession of the entire suit property without seeking the relief of mandatory injunction for the demolition of the existing structure on the suit property. In this regard, attention is drawn to the cross- examination of PW1, where he had admitted that in the year 1994, the entire property was reconstructed and different tenants were occupying the same since then. Accordingly, the suit for possession in the present form was not maintainable. 13.5. Lastly, it has been argued that suit was also not properly valued, as plaintiff was required to seek the relief of possession from the occupiers of the suit property including defenant Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 26/38 30.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:14:34 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN no. 2 and 3, who were not the landlords and therefore, he was required to value the suit on the market value of the suit property and to file the advolerm court fees.
13.6. The counsel for defenant no. 1 has also relied upon certain judgment including : L.I.C. of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 49, Poona Ram Vs. Moti Ram AIR 2019 SC 813, Maya Gopinathan Vs. Anup S.B. AIR 2024 SC 2454, Moinuddin Vs. Wasim Ahmed 2023: DHC: 1732, Ram Kumar Vs. Banwari Lal Civil Revision No.371-D/1964.
13.7. In rebuttal, counsel for plaintiff submitted that there was no issue frame with respect to the valuation of suit and accordingly defenant cannot press this issue at this stage.
13.8. After having heard the contentions of Ld. Counsels for both the parties and on perusal of file, I am of the view that the, main questions involved for determination in the present suit are as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on or just before the date of alleged forcible dispossession i.e. 30/31.01.1994 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit property on or around 30/31.01.1994? Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 18:14:43 +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 27/38 30.01.2026 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN 13.9. It is further observed that the burden to prove both these facts was certainly on the plaintiff himself. In this regard, I find it pertinent to discuss the relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (BSA, 2023) with the relevant illustrations.
"104. Burden of Proof.- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said tha the burden of proof lies on that person.
105. On whom burden of proof lies.- The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Illustrations. (a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore, the burden of proof is on A.
106. Burden of proof as to particular facts.- The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
107. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence Digitally admissible.- The burden of proving any fact necessary to signed by VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK AGARWAL be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:14:52 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 28/38 30.01.2026 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence."
13.10. In view of these provisions, there is no doubt that the burden of proof to prove both the above mentioned facts in issue was on the plaintiff only. The plaintiff was required to prove that he was in possession of the suit property on or just before 30/31.01.1994 and that he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit property by the defenants, however, I am of the considered and confirmed view that plaintiff completely failed to discharge the said burden in any manner. I come to this conclusions for the reasons discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
Possession Of The Plaintiff In The Suit Property On or Just Before The Date Of Alleged Forcible Dispossession I.E. 30/31.01.1994
14. It is observed that it is an admitted fact that plaintiff was in possession of the suit property for a long period till the year 1993, as stated in the WS of defenant no. 1 / landlord and as also conceded by ld. counsel for defenant no. 1 during the final arguments.Now, for sake of arguments, even if said possession is taken being there till December, 1993, then the specific fact in issue for determination was whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property in January, 1994 or not. Now, as reflected from the documents relied upon by PW-1, it can be seen that though the Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:15:03 PAGE 29/38 30.01.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN plethora of documents were filed by the plaintiff, however, none of the said documents pertained to the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property in January, 1994. Even, otherwise, during the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff duly conceded that plaintiff had not filed any document to show his possession in the suit property in January, 1994, as he was not doing any business in the suit property in January, 1994.
14.1. It is further observed that as reflected from the plaint itself, it was mentioned that plaintiff was doing his business in the suit property till December, 1993 and that in the first week of January, 1994, as office room and cement store etc. required repairs, the plaintiff had started the necessary repairs in the existing structure of the tenanted premises consisting of three pakka room and four tin-
sheds. Now, even if it is taken that the plaintiff was not doing any business in the suit property in January, 1994, the plaintiff could have easily proved his possession in the suit property in January, 1994 by showing the electricity or water consumption in his name or in the name of the business firm of the plaintiff, however, no such documents were filed, despite the fact that the plaintiff had filed the electricity, water and telephone bills of the suit property in the name of firm of the plaintiff of the prior period. Similarly, the plaintiff also failed to prove or even to file any document in nature of house / property tax, postal correspondence, etc. to show his possession in the suit property in January, 1994. No justified explanation has been Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 30/38 30.01.2026 2026.01.30
18:15:12
+0530
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
given on behalf of plaintiff in this regard. In the replication, the vague plea was taken that certain documents of the plaintiff were stolen from the suit property, however, at the very first said plea was not believable, as no complaint to police in this regard and moreover, if the plaintiff was using the electricity, water and telephone in the suit premises in January,. 1994, he could have got summonned the record of the said utilities from the concerned departments.
14.2. It is further observed that as mentioned in Para 13 of the plaint, the plaintiff was getting the repair work in the suit property in January, 1994 and 2-3 labourers / chokidars were residing in one room at the suit property, however, the plaintiff failed to examine any of the said persons to support his version and even no effort was made for examination of said persons, who would have been the eye- witness to the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and to the factum of alleged dispossession of the plaintiff. 14.3. Accordingly, there is no other conclusion to be drawn except that the plaintiff has completely failed to prove his possession in the suit property in January, 1994 itself.
Forcible Dispossession of the Plaintiff from the Suit Property On or Around 30/31.01.1994
15. As mentioned above, at the very first, when the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession in the suit property in January, 1994 itself and therefore, no further question arises with respect to the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 PAGE 31/38 30.01.2026 18:15:23 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property on or around 30/31.01.1994. Now, even for sake of arguments, going one step further, if the plea of plaintiff is taken up for consideration, it is observed that at the very first, the plaintiff has failed even to specify the date of his forcible dispossession. The plaintiff in para no. 14 of the plaint had stated that it was " on or around 30/31.01.1994" that defenant no. 1 to 3 alongwith some local bad element of the locality came to the plaintiff premises and threatened the plaintiff to leave the same and also to kill him and his family members and that they were associated with 15/20 persons and out of fear plaintiff left the premises. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed even to specify the particular date that it was on 30.01.1994 or on 31.01.1994, when he was allegedly dispossessed by force.
15.1. It is further observed that admittedly the plaintiff did not make any complaint to the police regarding the alleged event of forcible dispossession. This is certainly a very vital fact to be taken into consideration, as the subsequent conduct is very much relevant for decision of a fact in issue, as per Section 8 IEA 1872 (Sec 6 BSA, 2023). This becomes more pertinent considering the fact that admittedly, as recorded in the cross-examination of PW1, the police station was very much near to the suit property and on the way to the house of the plaintiff. Going one step further, it is an admitted fact the son / LR of plaintiff, examined as PW1 was a serving Judicial Officer in Delhi itself and therefore, apparently there is no reason to believe Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 32/38 30.01.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.01.30 18:15:31 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN that either the plaintiff was too afraid to approach the nearest Police Station or plaintiff was ignorant that said incident was required to be reported to the police.
15.2. Again, it is also a matter of record that despite alleged dispossession of the plaintiff on 30/31.01.1994, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 20.01.2006, just 10 days before the expiry of limitation period of 12 years, counted from the date of the alleged dispossession. As discussed above, the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff is certainly very much relevant and not filing of the suit for approx 12 years for repossession of the suit property certainly leads to the inference to be drawn against the plaintiff only. Said inference is further fortified by the very fact that admittedly the son / LR of the plaintiff was a serving Judicial Officer, who would have been very much well aware of the provision of Section 6 of SRA, in which the plaintiff could have approached the court for repossession of the suit property within the period of 6 months. It is also pertinent to mention that in para 15 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated that he had apprised about the said incident to his son after 2-3 days itself, and despite that the plaintiff did not take any action for repossession of the suit property and waited for approx 12 years to file the present suit.
15.3. Again, the version of plaintiff has been further falsified by the averments in para 17 and 18 of the plaint. As mentioned above, on the one hand, in para 14 of the plaint, plaintiff stated that on or Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 33/38 30.01.2026 2026.01.30
18:15:43
+0530
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
around 30/31.01.1994, the defenant no. 1 to 3 alongwith some other persons had come to the suit property and had threatened the plaintiff and on the contrary, in para 17 and 18 of the plaint, it is stated that defenant no. 2 told the plaintiff that he was not aware about the status of plaintiff and that defenant no. 2 after being convinced about the lawful tenancy of the plaintiff had assured him to hand over back the possession of the same. Nothing is explained that why the plaintiff could not apprise the defenant no. 2 about his status as a tenant on the date of alleged dispossession itself. Again, if it was so, why the defenant no. 2 had completely denied the version of plaint in his WS.
Moreover, the plaintiff also did not make any effort to examine or get summoned the defenant no. 2 as a witness before the court so as to prove the averments para no. 17 and 18 of the plaint.
15.4. Accordingly, it is to be concluded that plaintiff has completely failed to prove his case as alleged in the plaint. It is further observed that the entire thrust of the ld. Counsel for plaintiff during the final arguments has been on the aspect that defenants failed to prove the deed of surrender, allegedly signed by the son / LR of the plaintiff in the year 1993, as stated in the WS, however, as mentioned above, the fact remains that the burdden to prove the facts in issue was on the plaintiff only. It is the matter of legal trite that plaintiff has to stand upon his own legs and not that of the defenant. It is very apparent that the defenants failed to prove the surrender deed, as stated in the WS of defenants, however, the failure of the defenants Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 34/38 30.01.2026 2026.01.30
18:15:52
+0530
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
cannot lead to the inference being drawn in favour of the plaintiff. If the defenants could not prove the surrender deed in question, it cannot lead to any assumption that plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed from the suit property by the defenants and possibility cannot be ruled out that the plaintiff himself would have vacated the suit premises in the year 1993 itself, when his business was not running, as stated in the plaint itself and consequnetly no question arises for any right of plaintiff to claim the possession of the suit property.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is hereby decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2 and 3
16. Both the issues are interconnect are taken together. As discused in the findings of issue no. 1, plaintiff has failed to prove his right to claim the possession of the suit property and accordingly , no further question arises for recovery of any money towards damages / occupation charges and any interest on the same.
Issue no. 2 and 3 are decided accordingly in favour of the against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 417. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants only. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for defenant that as mentioned in WS of defenants and as specified in the annexure of WS of defendant no. 1, there were several tenants in the suit property.
Digitally
signed by
VIVEK
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR
AGARWAL
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 35/38 30.01.2026 2026.01.30
18:16:02
+0530
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
That said version has been further proved by evidence of DW1 and DW2 and from the documents Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/4. That as plaintiff failed to implead the said tenants in the present suit, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
17.1. On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the witness examined on behalf of defenant no. 1, as DW-1 completely failed to prove the version of the WS. That he was not aware of the status of property in question. Again the version of DW-2 was beyond pleadings and therefore, it could not be taken into consideration.
17.2. Heard. It is observed that in his cross-examination LR of plaintiff / PW-1 was given the suggestion that in the year 1994, the entire property was reconstructed and different tenants were occupying the same since then and the witness did not deny the same and rather stated the same to be 'the matter of record'. Again said witness further stated that he and his father had not inspected the suit property before filing of the suit and that his father must have inspected the same, which further shows that the plaintiff failed to prove, if he was aware of the exact status of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. Moreover, as reflected from Para 6 of the reply to preliminary objections in the replication, the plaintiff claimed the tenants / occupants in the suit property as representative of Digitally defenant no. 2 and denied them to be the necessary party. signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)AGARWAL Date:
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 2026.01.30 18:16:11 PAGE 36/38 30.01.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB ABUL HASAN KHAN 17.3. It is observed that if some other persons apart from the defenant were in possession of the suit property, they were certainly necessary party to be impleaded in the suit and without their impleadedment, suit could not be adjudicated effectively. As discussed above, the plaintiff did not deny the possession of some other persons apart from defenants in the suit property and accordingly it is clear that despite being aware about the possession of other occupants in the suit property, the plaintiff failed to implead them and consequently suit was certainly bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as provided in the Proviso to Rule 9 of Order I CPC and therefore, issue no. 4 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 5 :-
18. It is obseved that as mentioned in the findings of issue no. 1, the plaintiff failed to prove his possession in the suit property in January, 1994 and furthe failed to prove, if he was forcibly disspossessed from the suit property on or around 30/31.01.1994. At the best and for sake of arguments, the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property could be taken till December, 1993 only and accordingly the present suit filed on 20.01.2006 was apparently barred by limitation period of 12 years.
Issue no. 5 is decided accordingly in favour of the defendant.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 2026.01.30
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18:16:20
PAGE 37/38 30.01.2026 +0530
CS SCJ 8789/16 ISHWARI PRASAD CHATURVEDI Vs. WAKF KHAN BAHADUR NAWAB
ABUL HASAN KHAN
ISSUE NO. 6: RELIEF
19. In view of above findings, suit is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2026.01.30
18:16:30 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC,
Delhi/30.01.2026
(Announced in open court
On 30.01.2026).
Note: This judgment contains 38 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.01.30 18:16:36 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/30.01.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 38/38 30.01.2026