Delhi District Court
Sh. Bhupinder Yadav vs Satish on 18 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
CS DJ 611208/16
CNR Number: DLWT01-000088-2009
In the matter of:
Sh. Bhupinder Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o H.No. 110,
Village Kammruddin Nagar,
Nangloi, Delhi-110041 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Satish
S/o Sh. Pitamber Singh
R/o Village Tilangpur,
Kotla, Delhi.
2. Sh. Prem Babu Sharma
S/o Sh. Liladhar Sharma
R/o D-24A, Krishan Vihar,
Delhi-110041.
3. Head Constable Pradeep
Reader to SHO PS Nihal Vihar,
Delhi
4. Inspector Suresh Kaushik
SHO, PS Nihal Vihar,
Delhi ..... Defendants
Date of institution : 22.04.2009
Date of reserved for judgment : 02.03.2026
Date of judgment : 18.05.2026
Suit for possession, perpetual injunction and damages
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case
1. It is submitted by the plaintiff that plaintiff is residing and is the absolute owner of the suit property situated at Plot No. 1, H-Block, Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 1 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 17:56:35 +0530 Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi. The land originally belonged to the plaintiff's grandfather, Late Sh. Sukhan, who was the recorded bhumidar of several khasra numbers in Village Kamruddin Nagar. During his lifetime, Late Sh. Sukhan sold some portions of the land while retaining others, which after his death devolved upon his legal heirs. Pursuant to a family settlement, the suit property came exclusively to the share of the plaintiff.
2. Adhyapak Nagar is now a densely populated colony, and the plaintiff and his family own multiple plots there. Due to the high value of the land, local land mafia, namely defendants no. 1 and 2, in collusion with police officials defendants no. 3 and 4, attempted to illegally encroach upon the plaintiff's vacant plot, which has never been sold or transferred by the plaintiff or his family.
3. On the intervening night of 6-7th February 2009, defendants attempted to unlawfully occupy the suit property by dumping earth and starting construction work. When the plaintiff protested, he was threatened, intimidated, and forcibly taken to the police station, where he and his family members were illegally detained, assaulted, and coerced into signing blank papers. Defendants no. 3 and 4 repeatedly threatened the plaintiff and his family through phone calls, pressurizing them to relinquish ownership in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2.
4. Despite lodging complaints with the DCP (West) and initiation of a vigilance enquiry, the illegal acts continued. On 17 April 2009, the defendants again attempted to raise construction on the suit property under police protection. The plaintiff was falsely implicated, assaulted, Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 2 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 17:56:39 +0530 illegally confined overnight, and threatened with false criminal cases unless he surrendered his ownership rights. During the plaintiff's illegal detention, defendants no. 1 and 2 were allowed to raise a boundary wall and alter the property to show false possession.
5. The defendants, particularly police officials defendants no. 3 and 4, grossly abused their official positions and acted in collusion with the land mafia to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been prevented from accessing his own property under threat of false arrest. Due to illegal construction and alteration of the suit property, the plaintiff has suffered damages amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the parties, property, and cause of action are all situated in Delhi, the Court has territorial jurisdiction. The suit has been properly valued for possession, injunction, and damages.
Written Statement of defendant no.1 and 2
6. The defendants contend that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the suit property. They submitted that late Shri Sukhan, the plaintiff's predecessor, sold the entire suit property in 1987 to Smt. Kamla Devi, who subsequently sold the two portions of the property-Plot Nos. 149A (88 sq. yards) and 149B (87 sq. yards)-to Smt. Krishna Devi and Smt. Trishla Devi respectively, both of whom transferred the property on 24.03.1995 to defendant no. 2 and his wife, Smt. Sunita Sharma. The defendants assert that they have been in continuous possession of the suit property since their purchase.
7. The defendants further submit that the suit is an abuse of the Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 3 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 17:56:42 +0530 process of law and has been filed on the basis of false and fabricated claims. They alleged that the dispute arose when the plaintiff's uncle, Shri Joginder Yadav, interfered with defendant no. 2's lawful possession and attempted to extort money by producing forged documents purportedly showing a transfer of the property within the plaintiff's family. Upon police inquiry and revenue demarcation conducted by the SDM, Patwari, and Tehsildar, it was conclusively established that the suit property falls in Khasra no. 21/3 of village Kamruddin Nagar and not in Khasra no. 21/8 as falsely claimed by the plaintiff's side.
8. The defendants denied all allegations of illegal encroachment, police collusion, intimidation, or unlawful detention made by the plaintiff. They maintained that all police actions were taken in response to complaints filed by defendant no. 2 regarding interference and threats by the plaintiff's relatives. The defendants denied being land mafias and instead alleged that the plaintiff and his family have been falsely claiming ownership of land already sold by late Shri Sukhan in order to harass lawful purchasers.
9. The defendants submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC due to the plaintiff's failure to produce any document establishing devolution of title or a valid family settlement. They also contended that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, as defendant no. 2's wife, the owner of part of the property, has not been impleaded, and from misjoinder of parties, as defendant no. 1 has no role or possession in the matter.
10. The defendants denied the plaintiff's version of events relating to Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 4 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 17:56:46 +0530 alleged threats, illegal construction, detention, or misuse of police authority and reiterated that all construction on the property was carried out lawfully by defendant no. 2 as the rightful owner. They also disputed the valuation of the suit property and state that its market value exceeds Rs. 20,00,000/-. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff has no cause of action, that the suit is based on falsehoods and forged documents, and that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. Written Statement of defendant no.3 and defendant no.4
11. The defendant nos. 3 and 4, who are police officials, contended that the present suit is not maintainable in law and deserves dismissal with costs. They submit that they have been wrongly impleaded in their personal capacity for acts done in discharge of official duties, whereas any suit against them could only be maintained through proper impleadment of the State and service through the Commissioner of Police. Since the plaintiff has neither impleaded the State nor served the defendants through the Commissioner of Police, the suit is defective and not maintainable.
12. The defendants further asserted that the suit violates the mandatory provisions of Order XXVII Rule 5(a) CPC, Section 80 CPC, and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, as no prior statutory notice was served before filing the suit. In the absence of such mandatory notices, the suit is liable to be dismissed from its inception. They also submitted that the Commissioner of Police is a necessary party and that the suit suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
13. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 5 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18
17:56:50
+0530
standi against the defendants, as no specific relief has been claimed against them in the prayer clause. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, has suppressed material facts, and has impleaded them with malafide and oblique motives, despite knowing that they are not necessary parties. Consequently, their names deserve to be struck off from the array of parties, and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
14. The defendants submitted that a complaint dated 07.02.2009 regarding a land dispute was received at P.S. Nihal Vihar and was lawfully inquired into by defendant no. 3 in his official capacity. Both parties were asked to produce documents, and due to a dispute over khasra numbers, the SHO referred the matter to the SDM for demarcation. Revenue officials conducted demarcation and reported that the disputed property fell in Khasra No. 21/3, and the complainant was found in possession. Subsequent complaints against the police officials were inquired into by the Vigilance Cell and were found to be baseless.
15. The defendants further submitted that several PCR calls regarding alleged quarrels at the suit property were inquired into and found either baseless or resolved, and the relevant DD entries were duly filed. They categorically denied allegations of visiting the plot unlawfully, using force, assaulting the plaintiff's relative, or colluding with other defendants. According to them, the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of law, filed only to mislead the Court. The defendants denied all material allegations against them and reiterated that Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 6 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18
17:56:55
+0530
they acted strictly in accordance with law while performing official duties. They maintained that no cause of action arises against them and that the suit deserves dismissal with heavy and exemplary costs. Replication by the plaintiff to the WS of defendant no.1 and 2
16. The plaintiff has categorically denied all the preliminary objections and averments made in the written statement filed by the defendants. It is specifically denied that the suit is not maintainable, that it is an abuse of the process of law, or that the plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the suit property. The plaintiff has consistently asserted that the suit property lawfully devolved upon him after the death of late Shri Sukhan through a valid family settlement, which does not require any formal documentation and has never been disputed by any family member.
17. The plaintiff strongly refuted the defendants' claim that late Shri Sukhan sold the suit property in 1987 to Smt. Kamla Devi and that subsequent transfers were made in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi, Smt. Sunita Sharma, or defendant no.2. The plaintiff has alleged that all documents relied upon by the defendants, including General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, affidavits, and receipts, are forged, fabricated, and manufactured documents containing forged thumb impressions. It is specifically pleaded that these documents were falsely shown to be notarized by notaries who had already expired prior to the alleged dates of execution, and even the stamp papers relied upon do not correspond with the dates mentioned on the documents, thereby clearly establishing fraud and fabrication.
18. The plaintiff has further alleged that defendants No.1 and 2, in Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 7 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 17:56:59 +0530 conspiracy and collusion with defendants no.3 and 4, misused police machinery to illegally trespass upon and encroach the suit property. It is asserted that false complaints were lodged, signatures of family members were forcibly obtained in the police station, and evidence was illegally created to support the defendants' false claim. The alleged police complaint dated 07.02.2009 is stated to be ante-dated and fabricated, as it bears neither a diary number nor the seal of the concerned police station.
19. The plaintiff denied all allegations of extortion, threats, or interference by his family members and submitted that no such complaint has ever been made by any third party. The plaintiff further denied that the defendants were ever in possession of the suit property prior to their illegal encroachment and relied upon photographs to show that construction and boundary walls were raised illegally during the pendency of disputes.
20. It is also denied that there is any misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. The plaintiff submitted that all defendants are necessary and proper parties as the reliefs sought are against each of them due to their joint acts of trespass, conspiracy, and fabrication of documents. The plaintiff further denied the defendants' objections regarding territorial jurisdiction, valuation, and Court fees, terming them vague and baseless. The plaintiff has reaffirmed and reiterated all averments made in the plaint, denied each contrary allegation in the written statement, and maintained that the defendants are land grabbers who have attempted to dispossess the plaintiff through forged documents and misuse of state machinery.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 8 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.05.18 17:57:03 +0530
Replication by the plaintiff to the WS of defendant no.3 and 4
21. The plaintiff submitted that the written statement filed by defendants No.3 and 4 is not supported by an affidavit and, therefore, is not in accordance with the provisions of CPC and the applicable High Court Rules, rendering it inadmissible in law. The plaintiff denied all objections raised by defendants No.3 and 4 as false, baseless, and taken merely for the sake of objection. The plaintiff asserted that the suit is fully maintainable in law and that the defendants have failed to specify any legal provision under which the suit is allegedly barred. The contention that defendants no.3 and 4 cannot be sued in their personal capacity is denied, and it is stated that there is no legal bar preventing proceedings against them for their illegal acts, even if such acts were committed under the guise of official duty. The plaintiff maintained that neither the Commissioner of Police nor the State is a necessary party, as the acts, omissions, and commissions complained of were committed by defendants no.3 and 4 in their personal capacity, though by misuse of official position.
22. The plaintiff further submitted that due notice of the illegal acts was duly given to the higher authorities through multiple complaints since February 2009 and that the law does not prescribe any specific format for such notice. The plaintiff also complied with the requirements of Section 80 CPC by filing an appropriate application under Section 80(2) along with the plaint. Allegations that the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands, suppressed material facts, or acted with malafide intentions are specifically denied. The objections regarding Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 9 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 17:57:10 +0530 misjoinder, non-joinder, lack of locus standi, absence of cause of action, and absence of relief against defendants No.3 and 4 are also denied, it is asserted that defendants no.3 and 4 are necessary and proper parties due to their active role in the alleged conspiracy.
23. The plaintiff submitted that the narrative put forth is false, misleading, and an attempt to fabricate evidence to justify their illegal acts. It is submitted that defendant no.3, despite having no authority to investigate, actively participated in illegal acts, coerced the plaintiff and his family members, and colluded with other defendants to dispossess the plaintiff of his property. The plaintiff denied having supplied any documents relating to the suit property and pointed out that no witness statements or details have been filed by the defendants to support their claims.
24. On merits, the plaintiff denied all averments made in the written statement and reiterated that the defendants, in conspiracy with one another, have forged and fabricated documents to falsely claim ownership of the suit property. The plaintiff highlights glaring inconsistencies in the alleged documents, including the use of stamp papers of later dates, notarization by notaries who had already expired, and absence of entries in notary registers, which clearly establish forgery and fabrication. The plaintiff asserted that these documents were created to unlawfully grab the plaintiff's property and to misuse the machinery of the State for personal gain.
25. The plaintiff further submitted that complaints made to the police by the defendants are ante-dated, lack official seals or diary numbers, and Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 10 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18
17:57:14
+0530
were filed as a counterblast to the plaintiff's genuine complaint lodged with the DCP. It is alleged that defendants no.3 and 4 acted with undue haste and bias to collect evidence in favor of defendants no.1 and 2, exerted pressure on revenue officials, and illegally detained and coerced the plaintiff's family members. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the suit property and submitted that the defendants illegally trespassed upon it on the basis of forged documents. The plaintiff denied the allegation that no complaint was filed with the DCP and submitted that a duly acknowledged complaint bearing a diary number and official seal was annexed with the plaint and supplied to the defendants. All remaining allegations regarding suppression of facts, abuse of process, absence of cause of action, and non-entitlement to relief are denied. Issues :-
26. From the pleadings of the parties and material on record, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 27.08.2010 :-
Issue no. 1 Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession? OPP Issue no.2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction? OPP Issue no.3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages, if any, if so what amount? OPP Issue no.4 Whether defendant no.2 and his wife are the owners of suit property? OPD Issue no.5 Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD Issue no.6 Relief.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 11 of 51
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18
17:57:18 +0530
Plaintiff Evidence:-
PW1/ Shri Bhupinder Yadav
27. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents :
certified copy of khatoni of Village Kamruddin Nagar issued on 16.02.2009 by Office of Deputy Commissioner, District West Ex. PW1/1, Original Aks Shijra depicting the land of late Sh. Sukhan Ex. PW1/2, site plan of the suit property Ex. PW1/3, plan of Adhyapak Nagar Ex. PW1/4, photographs showing status of vacant plot Mark A1 to A5, complaint given by plaintiff against defendant no. 3 and 4 to the DCP Ex. PW1/6, copy of complaint through fax to the Commissioner of Police along with receipt Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/8, complaint dated 18.04.2009 given by plaintiff to DCP Ex. PW1/9 and its postal receipts Ex. PW1/10, complaint to Commissioner, MCD Ex. PW1/11, photographs of 17.04.2009 Ex. PW1/12, photographs of 19.04.2008 Ex. PW1/13 and death certificate of Sh. C.L. Bhatia Ex. PW1/14.
28. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2, PW1 stated that his grandfather, Sukhan, was the bhumidhar of 25 acres of land and had four sons-Kuldeep, Naresh Kumar, Narender Kumar, and Joginder Kumar-and five daughters-Pindra, Sunita, Raj, Sita, and Babli.
Sukhan died in 2004, the plaintiff's father died in 2003, and his uncle Kuldeep died in 2005, and no mutation of the land was ever carried out after any of their deaths. The grandfather had sold portions of land in plots from 1986 onwards without executing registered sale deeds, maintaining records, preparing a site plan, or demarcating specific plots Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 12 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 17:57:22 +0530 for family members. At the time of his death, 16 plots remained, located in J, H, I, and G Blocks, and these plots were orally partitioned among the four sons in 2005 after construction had been completed.
29. PW1 stated that four plots in J Block were constructed by his father, while the remaining plots had boundary walls, some of which were raised in 1992-93. Specific plots were stated to be in possession of Narender, Joginder, Kuldeep, and the plaintiff's father. No partition has taken place between the plaintiff, his brother, and his sister. The plaintiff admitted that he did not obtain khasra girdawari or khatoni records before filing the suit and that no demarcation was conducted by the Patwari. He learned the khasra number (21/3/1) of the suit property from his uncle Narender s hortly before filing the suit in 2009. He acknowledged a typographical error in a prior complaint regarding the khasra number.
30. PW1 stated that part of plot H-1 was sold by his father to Anwar Hussain in 1990, though he did not possess any sale documents and was unaware of the exact area sold or whether a separate number was assigned. He denied that his grandfather sold land to Murti Devi, Kamla Devi, Krishna Devi, or Trishla Devi, and further denied subsequent transfers to the defendants. He also denied knowledge of GPA, agreement to sell, receipts, affidavits, or other documents allegedly executed in 1997. He claimed he did not receive any notice regarding demarcation or violation of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and is unaware whether the land vested in the Gram Sabha.
31. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and 4, PW1 stated that he was present at the disputed spot on 07.02.2009 along Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 13 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 17:57:26 +0530 with his uncles, Joginder and Narender, and denied the suggestion that he was not present. He affirmed that he made complaints to the police on 21.02.2009 and 25.02.2009, and denied that he failed to lodge any complaint. He admitted that in complaint Ex. PW1/6 the Khasra number of the land claimed by him is mentioned as 21/8, but denied that he raised a false claim regarding Khasra No. 21/8. He stated that the police arrived at the spot on 07.02.2009 and that he visited PS Nihal Vihar on 07.02.2009, 25.02.2009, and 17.04.2009, accompanied by different persons on each occasion.
32. He alleged that on 17.04.2009 he was forcibly taken to the police station by 6-7 police officials, including ASI Pardeep, and was released only on the morning of 18.04.2009. He stated that he made a PCR call on 17.04.2009 and that PCR officials reached the spot before the local police. He denied that ASI Pardeep was absent on 17.04.2009 and claimed that the police obtained an undertaking Ex. PW1/D3-A from him, his uncle, and his friends under compulsion. He further alleged that the defendants threatened him and his uncle, illegally detained him, and obtained his signatures on blank and stamp papers.
33. He stated that a vigilance enquiry was conducted on his complaint but claimed ignorance of its outcome, as well as of any demarcation proceedings allegedly conducted by the Patwari on 06.03.2009 concluding that the plot fell in Khasra No. 21/3. He denied that the defendants visited the plot only on specific dates, denied that they called his uncle for investigation or demarcation, and denied offering any bribe to the defendants. He maintained that he has deposed truthfully and that Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 14 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 17:57:29 +0530 his affidavit is not false.
PW2/ Ms. Murti Devi
34. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2, PW2 stated that she is illiterate and cannot read, even numbers, and therefore does not understand the property documents relating to Sh.
Sukhan. She does not know the Khasra numbers of the properties retained or sold by Sh. Sukhan, nor does she know the Khasra numbers or total extent of the land in Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi. She stated that Sh. Sukhan had retained 2-4 acres of land and sold the remaining land, but she does not know the specific details. She further stated that there are 8- 9 plots in Adhyapak Nagar which have not been sold, but she has not seen any documents relating to them and does not know their numbers. She added that she was brought to the proceedings by her grandson and denied the suggestion that she gave false evidence in her affidavit at his instance.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and 4 adopted the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2. PW3/ Shri Satbir Singh
35. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and 4, PW3 stated that he has lived at his current address since birth and that the plaintiff's house is approximately 500 feet from his residence. He stated that Mr. Sukhan was his uncle and that he owned about 19 acres of land, though he did not remember the Khasra numbers except that Khasra Nos.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 15 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2026.05.18 DAGAR 17:57:36 +0530
21/1, 21/2, 21/3, and 21/8 were not sold by Mr. Sukhan. He further stated that in 1986 Mr. Sukhan sold the remaining land, excluding the aforesaid four Khasra numbers, to certain property dealers, whose names and addresses he does not recall. He also stated that he did not know whether Mr. Sukhan sold any land to Mr. Brijesh Kumar, son of Shri Ram Dulare, or to Mr. Bhikam Pal. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property and further denied that he is deposing falsely due to his relationship with the plaintiff.
36. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2, PW3 stated that he did not know the area covered under Khasra Nos. 21/8, 21/1/1, 21/2, and 21/3/1, as these khasra numbers were not demarcated in his presence. He deposed that there were 12-13 plots in the said land with different dimensions and areas and that the land existed in these khasra numbers during 1986-87. He further stated that he was not present at the time of partition of the land and had no personal knowledge regarding which plot was allotted to which person, though he volunteered that the land was partitioned among four brothers, namely Kuldeep, Naresh, Joginder, and Narinder. He stated that he could not say which specific plot was allotted to which brother and denied the suggestion that the land had already been sold and that there was no question of partition among the brothers.
37. PW3 deposed that Kuldeep and Naresh has passed away but he did not remember the exact date, month, or year of their death. He stated that he did not know whether Sukhan had sold one bigha of land out of Khasra No. 21/3 to Smt. Kamla in April 1987 and denied the suggestion Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 16 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:00:02 +0530 that Sh. Sukhan and his successors have no right, title, or interest in the said one bigha land. He stated that he is employed with the Delhi Jal Board and must have been in his office on 17.04.2009. He further stated that he did not know which of the defendants visited the suit property on that date and that he was not explained the contents of Ex. PW-3/A but was only requested to depose before the Court.
38. PW3 denied the suggestion that defendant no. 2 is the owner of the suit property but admitted that defendant no. 2 is in possession of it. He denied the suggestion that Bhupinder has no right, title, or interest in the suit property. He stated that the suit property measures approximately 150-175 square yards, though it has not been measured by him. He described the suit property as L-shaped with streets on two sides, the property of the plaintiff's uncle on one side, and on the fourth side a house measuring 50-60 square yards belonging to one Hussain or Khan, whose full name he did not know. He stated that he did not know from whom the said person purchased the property. He denied the suggestion that the contents of paragraph 4 of his affidavit were deposed without his knowledge and further denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the plaintiff, while stating that he knew Bhupinder as he is a resident of their village.
PW4/ Shri Ram Kishan
39. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and 4, PW4 stated that he had been residing at their current address since birth and that the plaintiff's house is approximately 500 feet from their Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 17 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:00:05 +0530 residence. He stated that Mr. Sukhan was their uncle and owned about 19 acres of land. He did not recall all the Khasra numbers of Mr. Sukhan's property but asserted that Khasra Nos. 21/1 and 21/8 were not sold by him, while the remaining land was sold in 1985-1986 to certain property dealers whose names and addresses they do not remember. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Sukhan sold any land to Mr. Brijesh Kumar, son of Sh. Ram Dulare, or to Mr. Bhikam Pal. He was unsure of the exact Khasra number of the land in question but stated that it falls either in Khasra No. 21/3 or 21/4. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property and also denied that he is deposing falsely due to their relationship with the plaintiff.
40. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2, PW4 stated that Sh. Sukhan had four sons-Sh. Kuldeep (since deceased), Sh. Naresh (since deceased), Sh. Narinder, and Sh. Joginder-and four daughters-Smt. Sita, Smt. Pinkra, Smt. Raj, and Smt. Babli. PW4 stated that he was not present on any occasion when Sh. Sukhan sold his properties. He stated that the properties were sold after demarcation of plots on several occasions, but he could not say how many times the land was sold. He also did not know whether Sh. Sukhan executed sale deeds, General Powers of Attorney, or agreements to sell at the time of sale. He was unaware of the specific Khasra numbers of the land sold at different times. He stated that the land not sold by Sh. Sukhan comprised agricultural land and that no plots remained unsold. He did not know how many plots were carved out from the agricultural land. After the demise of Sh. Sukhan, his property was partitioned, but he did not know the year, Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 18 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:00:09 +0530 month, or date of the partition and was not present at that time. He also did not know which property fell to the share of which person.
41. Late Sh. Naresh had three children, namely two sons, Sh. Bhupender (the plaintiff) and Sh. Vipin, and one daughter whose name PW4 did not remember. The wife of Late Sh. Naresh is alive. PW4 did not know when the partition of Late Sh. Naresh's property took place. He stated that the property falling to the share of Late Sh. Naresh is situated in Khasra Nos. 21/1/1, 21/8, 21/2, and 21/3/1, and that the land in these Khasra numbers has been subdivided into four plots. He did not know the area of these plots. The disputed plot measures about 175 square yards. He had seen the suit property and stated that it is bounded by a 25-foot road on one side, a 20-foot road on another side, another property of Late Sh. Naresh on the third side, and a colony on the fourth side. He did not know the plot number of the colony adjacent to the suit property, nor did he know to whom the remaining adjacent property of Sh. Naresh was apportioned.
42. PW4 stated that he is employed with the Jal Board and may have gone to his job on 17.04.2009. He stated that defendants no. 1 and 2 did not enter the suit property in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Sh. Bhupender Singh and also denied the suggestion that he had no knowledge about the disputed property.
PW5/ Shri Dharmender Dhaka
43. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW5/A. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 19 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:00:13 +0530 4, PW5 stated that the plaintiff is his neighbour and not related to him, and that they have known each other since birth and attend each other's family functions. He is a farmer, educated up to 10th class, and cannot read or understand English. He stated that the contents of document Ex. PW5/A were explained to him by the plaintiff's Counsel, and he signed it about two to three years ago.
44. He deposed that on 17 April 2009 at around 10:30 a.m., defendants no. 1 and 2 arrived at the site with 10-12 men carrying digging tools such as kassi, tasla, and fawra, and began digging the earth. He stated that he reached the site at about 10:00 a.m. along with the plaintiff Bhupinder and one Sandeep. The plaintiff called the police at about 10:10 a.m., and a PCR van arrived first, followed about 15 minutes later by police from PS Nihal Vihar. He did not know the vehicle in which the police arrived. He stated that a person named Pradeep Kumar from PS Nihal Vihar, who was in civil dress, was present and apprehended them. He claimed he had never met Pradeep Kumar before that day and denied the suggestion that Pradeep Kumar did not visit the site.
45. He further stated that he, the plaintiff, and Sandeep were taken to the police station in a Scorpio vehicle, whose number he did not remember, and were produced before the SHO around 10:45 a.m. He alleged that the SHO, Suresh Kaushik, abused and slapped the plaintiff, after which all three were put in the lockup and released at 8:00 a.m. the next morning when their relatives came to the police station. He stated that nothing else happened at the police station.
46. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 20 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:00:18 +0530 2, PW5 stated that he is a farmer and neighbor of the plaintiff. He stated that he is aware of the dispute concerning the suit property but had never seen the plaintiff's title documents. He confirmed that he and the plaintiff have been childhood friends and were on visiting terms, and that he knew the plaintiff's family members, including his father, Sh. Naresh Kumar, his paternal uncles Sh. Narender Singh and Sh. Joginder Singh, and his siblings. However, he is unaware of any property disputes between Sh. Joginder Singh and Sh. Naresh Kumar and did not know the measurement of the suit property. He last visited the property two to three years before the dispute.
47. He deposed that on 17.04.2009, the plaintiff took him to the suit property where laborers were working. He denied the suggestions that the property belonged to defendant no. 2, that they threatened or beat the laborers, that defendant no. 2 arrived with title documents and attempted to show them, or that they refused to see such documents. He also stated that the plaintiff's grandfather was Sh. Sukhan Yadav but had no knowledge of any property transactions conducted by him, including any alleged sale on 02.04.1987 in favor of Ms. Kamla Devi through GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, or Receipts. He denied that defendant no. 2 did not trespass or that he was constructing on his own property, and further denied attempting to take illegal possession of defendant no. 2's property.
48. PW5 stated that he had no prior knowledge of defendant no. 1 before 17.04.2009 and had no knowledge of any previous cases against the defendants. He asserted that defendant no. 1 was present at the Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 21 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:00:25 +0530 property and that he and the plaintiff were taken to Police Station Nihal Vihar in a silver Scorpio vehicle belonging to defendant no. 1, although he did not recall the vehicle's registration number. Finally, he acknowledges that he is appearing as a witness at the request of the plaintiff but denies that he is giving false evidence due to their friendship. PW6/ Shri Sandeep Kumar
49. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW6/A. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2, PW6 stated that he has known the plaintiff for the past 15 years and has been residing in Kamruddin Nagar, Amar Colony for the last 20 years. He was running a cable network office at SB-3, Amar Colony, Kamruddin Nagar, where the plaintiff used to sit with him, though the plaintiff was not his partner. He did not know the exact address of the disputed property but stated that it is located in Adhyapak Nagar, and he is unaware of the occupants of the neighboring properties.
50. He testified that the incident occurred on 17.04.2009 while he was in Kamruddin Nagar, which is about a 10-minute drive from Adhyapak Nagar under normal traffic conditions. He was with the plaintiff when the plaintiff received a phone call informing him that some persons were present at the disputed property. He did not know Satish or Prem Babu Sharma but said he could recognize them if they appeared before him. He denied the suggestion that he mentioned the presence of defendants no. 1 and 2 at the property at the plaintiff's instance.
51. He stated that when they reached the disputed property, there were 7-8 laborers and 3-4 other persons present. The plaintiff called the PCR Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 22 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:00:29 +0530 after reaching the property. Defendants no. 1 and 2 were already present when the police arrived. He said he had not read the contents of Ex. PW6/A but had signed it when the case was instituted and had been informed about its contents, as he cannot read English. He admitted that the contents of his affidavit stating that defendants no. 1 and 2 arrived with a posse of about ten policemen, some in uniform and some not, were incorrect. He maintained that his statement in Court that defendants no. 1 and 2 were present at the property before the police arrived was correct.
52. He further stated that there was no complaint against him at that time and denied the suggestion that he was not taken to PS Nihal Vihar. He said that none of his family members had come to meet him at the police station and denied the suggestion that no family members came because he was not there. He also stated that he had not seen any documents in favor of the plaintiff regarding the disputed property but denied the suggestion that this was because the plaintiff was not the owner. He denied that the plaintiff failed to show property documents in his presence.
53. He estimated that the disputed property measures about 160 square yards but did not know its khasra number. He denied the suggestions that the plaintiff was attempting to take forcible possession of defendant no. 2's property, that defendant no. 2 had constructed the boundary wall prior to 17.04.2009, that defendants no. 1 and 2 had not raised any illegal construction by trespassing or encroaching on the plaintiff's property, and that no police protection was provided to defendant no. 2 for construction of the boundary wall.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 23 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:05 +0530
54. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and 4, PW6 stated that he has passed Class XII but did not understand English. He admitted that the signatures at points E and F on Exhibit PW6/A are his and that he signed the document at the time of filing the suit. He had attended the Court many times in connection with the present case and had known the plaintiff for about 20 years, as they have attended each other's family functions. He stated that the plaintiff owned a large amount of land in Village Kamruddin Nagar, though he could not specify the exact area, the details of the plots, or the khasra numbers. He also did not know about any dispute in February 2009 regarding a plot in Adhyapak Nagar, Delhi, and said he first learned of the dispute on 17.04.2009 after the plaintiff received a phone call from his cousin Sonu.
55. He stated that the plaintiff informed him that some persons were encroaching on the plaintiff's plot and constructing boundary walls, after which he voluntarily accompanied the plaintiff to the site around 10:15 a.m. He testified that 15-20 persons were present there, including defendants no. 1 and 2 and about 10-12 police personnel, some in uniform and some in civil dress. He could not name any police officer except a constable named Pradeep, whom he had not met before that day and whose exact designation he did not know. He denied the suggestion that only the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2 were taken to the police station and stated that he, the plaintiff, and one Dharmender were forcibly taken to the police station around 10:45 a.m. He further stated that although the plaintiff called the police by dialing 100, no one responded to that call.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 24 of 51
SUSHEEL Digitally signed by
SUSHEEL BALA
BALA DAGAR
Date: 2026.05.18
DAGAR 18:01:09 +0530
56. He testified that at the police station, their mobile phones were taken away and all three of them were detained behind bars until the next morning. He admitted signing Exhibit PW1/D3-A along with Dharmender and the plaintiff but said he did not remember when they signed it. He denied suggestions that they were not detained, that Pradeep was not present or had no role in the matter, that they went to the police station voluntarily, or that the plaintiff had no ownership rights in the disputed plot. He also denied knowledge of any vigilance inquiry or demarcation placing the disputed plot in Khasra No. 21/3 instead of 21/8. Finally, he denied that his affidavit was filed at the plaintiff's instance or that he was giving false testimony.
PW7/ Shri Joginder Yadav
57. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW7/A. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2, PW7 stated that at the time of partition in 2004-2005, he had seen the Khasra Girdawari and Khata Khatauni relating to his father's 19 acres of land situated in Village Kamruddin Nagar near Nangloi. Agricultural activities on the land had ceased about 20-25 years earlier, after which a dealer carved out a colony known as Adhyapak Nagar. His father interacted with the dealer regarding the carving out of the colony, but the deponent had no role in those dealings and was unaware of any written agreement. His father was illiterate and used to affix his thumb impression. The father died on 17.06.2004, and no mutation of the 19 acres was ever carried out in the deponent's name. At the time of his father's death, the family consisted of four brothers and their mother, Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 25 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:12 +0530 Smt. Murti Devi, who has since passed away.
58. PW7 stated that his father had retained land in Khasra Nos. 21/1/1, 21/2, 21/3/1, and 21/8, and that plots were carved out in each of these khasra numbers, though no documents were executed in his or his brothers' names. He stated that his brothers Narender and Kuldeep had sold their respective plots. He denied that there was no partition in 2004 and maintained that although the land remained one holding until his father's death, a family settlement took place in 2004-2005, though he did not remember the exact date.
59. He stated that he is in possession of plots G-16, H-4, I-12, and J-24, though only plot J-24 has an electricity connection and the others are vacant. He stated that plot H-1 measures 175 square yards and was given to his brother Naresh, and that Naresh did not sell it to Anwar Hussain. He admitted that the khasra number of the plaintiff's share was not mentioned in his affidavit and that the legal heirs of late Naresh Kumar did not apply for mutation of the land records. He denied suggestions that the suit property did not fall to the plaintiff's share.
60. He alleged that defendants no. 1 and 2 were local land mafia and denied that defendant no. 2 or his wife owned portions of plot H-1. He stated that he did not know about any prior sale transactions involving Sunita Sharma, Krishna Devi, or Trishla Devi, nor whether the colony was carved out in 1986. He also stated that he had not received any notice under Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
61. He stated that the properties in his and his surviving brothers' shares were not involved in any litigation and had not been encroached Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 26 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:01:16 +0530 upon. He clarified that certain portions of his affidavit were incorrectly recorded and that he had intended to depose regarding the plaintiff's properties.
62. He stated that neither he nor his surviving brothers executed any document in favour of the plaintiff regarding property No. H-1, which has been in possession of defendant no. 1 and others since 17.04.2009. He alleged that on 07.02.2009 he and his brother were called to PS Nihal Vihar, where his thumb impressions were taken on blank papers and stamp papers, allegedly for bail purposes, and that he did not file any complaint to higher authorities. He further stated that he received threatening phone calls and visited the police station multiple times. He denied suggestions that he was deposing falsely or at the instance of his nephew Bhupender, and stated that he was not present on 17.04.2009 when the plaintiff's signatures were allegedly taken on blank papers, as he had gone to Jhajjar.
63. PW8/ HC Sanjay Sharma from the office of Commissioner of Delhi Police brought the complaint register pertaining to complaint dated 20.04.2009 filed by Sh. Bhupender Yadav and the same is mentioned in their register at S.No. 3345/3PP dated 20.04.2009, Ex. PW8/1. Their department has not received any complaint on 17.04.2009 by Sh. Bhupender Yadav on FAX. Therefore, he cannot produced the same. He did not remember the FAX number used by their department in the year 2009 nor used by the department in the year 2022 as in the year 2009 he was not posted there. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2, PW8 stated that he did not have any personal Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 27 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:19 +0530 knowledge about the complaint. He does not have any knowledge regarding the complaint dated 20.04.2009.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and 4 adopted the cross examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2.
64. PW9/ ASI Ved Prakash from DCP West deposed that the summoned record i.e. complaint cases and its connected registers upto 31.12.2009 has been destroyed by their department vide letter no. 2024- 60/Compt. (W)/DA-VI, New Delhi dated 21.01.2013, Ex. PW9/1.
65. PW10/ Sh. Gyanender Rana, Patwari, SDM Office, Punjabi Bagh proved the Aksizra of year 1953-54 of Village Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi already Ex. PW1/A. The khatoni pertaining to the Khata no.67 pertaining to the year of 1973-74 has been transferred either to the office of Rajouri Garden or Tis Hazari Record Room or Mehraulli, Delhi.
The Aksizra of Village Kamruddin Nagar is the same as per their record.
During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 and 2, PW10 stated that he had no personal knowledge regarding the summoned documents.
66. PW11/ Shri Harinder Singh Mehta who has deposed that the photocopy of the Notary register at page nos. 111 to 116 and front page of seal of his father late Sh. Mehtab Singh Mehta, Notary Public, was handed over by him to the plaintiff on 06.08.2009, Ex.PW11/1. The original register was destroyed due to pest in 2019. He had not filed any complaint regarding the same.
67. PW12/ Shri Pradeep Kumar, Record Keeper, from the office of Sub Registrar West Zone, Rajouri Garden brought the summoned record Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 28 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:23 +0530 pertaining to the death certificate of Sh. Chunni Lal Bhatia bearing registration no. 66 registered on 13.10.1986. The death certificate is correct as per their record already Ex. PW1/14.
68. PW13/ Sh. Surender Yadav, Patwari from the office of SDM Patel Nagar New Delhi brought the summoned record pertaining to Khata- Khatoni serial no. 67/67 of Village Kamruddin Nagar, year 1973-74 already Ex. PW1/1. The same is as per their record.
69. PW13/Sh Anil Kumar Gupta deposed that the layout plan of G, H, I, J, K, Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi was prepared by him already Ex. PW1/4.
70. PW14/ Sh. Krishan Gopal (Draughtman), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi deposed that the site plan was prepared by him already Ex. PW1/3.
After cross-examination, plaintiff evidence was closed. Defendant Evidence:-
D1W1/Shri Satish
71. He stated that he did not have anything to do with the present case. He did not know what property the case relates to. He received the summons of the Court and appeared once, at that time also he stated that he had nothing to do with the case.
72. During cross-examination, DW1 stated that he has been serving as a Head Constable in the Fire Department since 1992. He deposed that he did not know Prem Babu Sharma and is unaware whether he filed any written statement in the present case. When shown the written statement allegedly filed by defendants no. 1 and 2 Ex. DW1/X1 bearing signatures at points A, B, C, and D, he did not identify the signatures as his own.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 29 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18
18:01:27
+0530
73. Upon being shown photographs marked as Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13, allegedly depicting his presence at the suit property on 17.04.2009, he denied being present at the property on that date and time. He further denied the suggestions that he connived with other defendants to grab the suit property, that he jointly filed a written statement with defendant no. 2, or that he worked for defendants no. 3 and 4 in the area of Nihal Vihar.
74. When shown vakalatnamas in favor of Sh. Devraj & Associates dated 30.04.2009 Ex. DW1/X2 and Sh. Ashok Kumar dated 17.08.2013 Ex. DW1/X3, both bearing signatures at point A, he denied that the signatures were his. He stated that he had not engaged any Counsel in the present matter as he was unaware of the case. He further deposed that he appeared in Court at the request of Prem Lal Sharma, whose address he did not know. He denied having knowledge of the facts of the case, participating in the alleged grabbing of the suit property, knowing Mr. Bhupinder Yadav, or deposing falsely to protect himself or Prem Babu Sharma.
D2W1/Sh. Prem Babu Sharma
75. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.D2W1/A and relied upon the following documents : copy of GPA dated 02.04.1987 by Sh. Sukhan Mark A, copy of agreement to sell dated 02.04.1987 by Sh. Sukhan Mark B, copy of affidavit dated 02.04.1987 by Sh. Sukhan Mark C, copy of receipts dated 02.04.1987 by Sh. Sukhan Mark D, registered Will dated 24.03.1995 by Smt. Kamla Devi Ex. D2W1/5, GPA dated 27.03.1995 by Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of Smt. Sunita Sharma Ex.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 30 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:30 +0530
D2W1/6, agreement to sell dated 28.03.1995 between Smt. Krishna Devi and Smt. Sunita Sharma Ex. D2W1/7, affidavit dated 28.03.1995 of Smt Sunita Sharma Ex. D2W1/8, GPA dated 03.07.1987 executed by Smt. Kamla Ex. D2W1/9, agreement to sell dated 03.07.1987 between Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi Ex. D2W1/10, affidavit dated 03.07.1987 of Smt Krishna Devi Ex. D2W1/11, registered Will dated 29.03.1995 in his favour Ex. D2W1/12, GPA dated 28.03.1995 executed by Smt. Trishla Devi Ex. D2W1/13, agreement to sell dated 28.03.1995 between him and Smt. Trishla Devi Ex. D2W1/14, affidavit of Smt. Trishla Devi dated 29.09.1995 Ex. D2W1/15, copy of complaint dated 07.02.2009 made by him to SHO PS Nihal Vihar Mark D, copy of documents produced by Sh. Joginder Yadav before SHO Mark E, copy of complaint dated 3rd March, written to SDM Punjabi Bagh Ex D2W1/18 and copy of letter dated 06.03.2009 to Patwari Mark F.
76. During cross examination, D2W1 stated that he is educated up to 8th standard and has known Satish /defendant no. 1 since the beginning of the present suit. He engaged Advocate Sh. Dev Raj and gave him the brief. Although he initially stated that he had not filed a written statement, he admitted that he had signed the written statement filed jointly by defendant no. 1 and 2 Ex. D1W1/X1, but denied that it was jointly filed by him and defendant no. 1.
77. He deposed that the disputed properties bearing numbers 149-A and 149-B were purchased by him in 1995, property no. 149-B from Krishna Devi and property no. 149-A from Trishla Devi, for a total consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. He stated that Krishna Devi and Trishla Devi Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 31 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:01:34 +0530 had purchased the property from Kamla Devi in 1987, and that Kamla Devi had purchased it from Sukhan Yadav, possibly through a property dealer named Shri Kishan. He expressed lack of knowledge regarding the original owner at first, but then stated that Sukhan Yadav was the owner. He did not possess the original documents relating to the transaction between Sukhan Yadav and Kamla Devi, and only photocopies are on record. He did not know who provided the photocopies of the chain documents Mark A to Mark C and did not remember whether they were fraudulently prepared. He admitted that all documents on record were filed jointly by him and defendant no. 1. He denied the suggestion that Sukhan Yadav never sold the property to Kamla Devi or that the documents were fabricated.
78. He stated that at the time of purchase in 1995, the plot was vacant and had a board displaying the names of Krishna Devi and Trishla Devi, though he did not remember the material of the board and had not filed any photograph of it. He denied that no such board existed. He deposed that he carried out earth filling on the plot in 2002 but admitted that this fact was not mentioned in his pleadings or evidence affidavit. He stated that he did nothing on the plot between 2002 and 2009. He constructed one room on the plot in 2009, though he did not remember the exact month. He stated that his mind is upset and he could not recall the date and time of foundation digging in 2009, but added that it was written in documents at his home.
79. He further stated that a quarrel took place when he began digging the foundation in 2009 between him and Joginder Yadav, Narender Yadav, Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 32 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18
18:01:37
+0530
and others. He did not remember the date of the complaint made to the police regarding the quarrel and did not have the original of Mark D, though a copy is on record. He denied that the complaint was fabricated. He admitted that he does not know English, that his evidence affidavit Ex. D2W1/A bears his signatures, but that he neither read nor understood its contents, and did not remember whether it was explained to him.
80. He stated that he is not aware whether Joginder Yadav produced documents such as GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, and Affidavit in the police station, but denied that no such documents were given. He admitted that Satish is visible in the photographs exhibited as PW-1/12 and PW-1/13. He did not remember whether he received the entire chain of documents at the time of purchase, whether he filed any document pertaining to Joginder Yadav, or whether he saw Sukhan Yadav affix his thumb impression on any document. He stated that he did not file any complaint dated 03.03.2009 to the SDM, Punjabi Bagh, and did not have the original of Mark F, but denied that it is false or fabricated.
81. He stated that the documents relating to the plot were prepared by Chand Pradhan Ji and handed over to them, and that they never visited the Sub-Registrar's office. He did not know C.L. Wadia or M.S. Mehta, Notary Public. He denied suggestions that he never purchased the property, that he fabricated documents to grab the plaintiff's property, that he encroached upon the plot after Sukhan Yadav's death in 2004, or that he took possession forcibly. However, he admitted that he, along with Satish, the then Reader of the SHO HC Pradeep, and the then SHO Inspector Suresh Kaushik, took possession of the suit property. He denied Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 33 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:40 +0530 that the plaintiff was illegally detained to enable taking possession. He stated that he made a PCR call regarding threats but did not make any written complaint and did not remember the date. He denied all suggestions that he never purchased the property, forcefully took possession, or is deposing falsely.
82. D2W3/ Sh. Rahul, Official from Sub Registrar-II, Basai Darapur brought the summoned record i.e Will dated 27.03.1995 bearing registration no. 16877 in book no.03 and volume no. 2490 on page no.92 executed by Smt. Krishna Devi in favour of Sh. Prem Babu Sharma and Will dated 29.03.1995 bearing registration no. 16662 in book no. 03 and volume no. 2489 on page no. 70.
During cross-examination, he stated that he had no personal knowledge of the present case. He did not have any knowledge about any other document.
83. D2W4/Sh. Gyanendra Rana, Patwari from SDM Office, Punjabi Bagh deposed that summoned record i.e. record of letter dated 03.03.2009 written by Prem Babu Sharma alongwith the reply dated 06 th March 2009 given by Tehsildar/ Executive magistrate Class-I bearing reply no. 590/SDM/PK Dated 06.03.2009 are not traceable in their office and report of tehsildar, Ex. D2W4/1.
After cross-examination, defendant evidence was closed. Final arguments
84. I have heard Shri Mayank Yadav and Sh. Jitender Verma, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Dev Raj, Ld. Counsel for defendants and perused the record.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 34 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:01:43 +0530
85. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments : A.B. Govardhan v. P. Ragothaman, (2024) 10 SSC 613, Holistic Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Gaon Sabha Rajokri and Ors., MANU/DE/1840/2023, Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and Ors., MANU/SC/0172/1999, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Ors, MANU/SC/0192/1994, Misrilal Ramratan and others Mansukhlal and others v. A.S. Shaik Fathimal (dead) by LRs and others, Civil 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 600, Jatinder Singh Bhatia v. State & Ors, 2008 SCC Online Del 969, Jatinder Singh Bhatia v. State 2008 SCC Online Del 969.
Arguments by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
86. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the Court initially granted an ex parte injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner, whose report supported the plaintiff's claim that the construction appeared recent and hurried. The plaintiff examined several witnesses who corroborated the allegation of illegal dispossession and encroachment. The defendants, despite filing written statements, failed to substantiate their claims through cogent evidence or by producing original documents to establish ownership. The plaintiff challenged the authenticity of the documents relied upon by defendant no. 2, highlighting discrepancies in execution dates and notarization, and emphasized that no credible chain of title was proved.
87. The plaintiff relied on judicial precedents to argue that mere pleadings without evidence are insufficient, that failure of a party to enter the witness box invites adverse inference, and that a commissioner's Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 35 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:47 +0530 report forms part of the record and cannot be disregarded. The plaintiff also refuted the defendants' contention regarding applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act by submitting that the area had already been urbanized, rendering such objections untenable.
88. On the issue of mis-joinder and non-joinder, the plaintiff submitted that the defendants led no evidence and that previous objections under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had already been dismissed, thus attaining finality. The plaintiff asserted that he has successfully discharged the burden of proof on all issues, whereas the defendants have failed to prove ownership, mis-joinder, or any valid defense. Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks a decree of possession, perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property, and damages along with interest.
Arguments by Ld. Counsel for defendant
89. Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that the plaintiff case has to stand on its own feet. It is case the plaintiff that his grandfather was owner of agricultural land on which the Adhypak Nagar was carved out. After demise of grandfather agricultural land devolves on his sons and out of the two sons, one of them i.e. the plaintiff's father expired and his share came to him. It is submitted that it is nowhere mentioned by the plaintiff which specific plot devolved on him. The plaintiff is completely silent on the date, month or year of the alleged oral partition. It is submitted that in para 2 of the plaint there is no mentioned of khasra no. 21/8, later the plaintiff says that khasra no. 21/3 after seeing the documents of the defendant. No demarcation of the property was got Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 36 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:51 +0530 done by the plaintiff. It is argued that without determining the khasra number, the alleged property of plaintiff cannot be identified. It is further argued that in Ex. PW1/1 no mutation has been recorded in the khatoni. The defendant has relied upon the testimony of D2W2 Chand Singh to submit that he is witness to the two Wills Ex. D2W1/5 and Ex. D2W1/6 executed in favour of defendants in 1995. It is argued that once a land in a rural area is notified to be urbanized, there has to be a notification placed on record but it has not been done by the plaintiff. It is argued that during cross-examination, PW1 stated that he did not know the measurements. He further stated that the suit property was not got demarcated by the patwari. It is submitted that in the police complaint filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has mentioned some other khasra number. It is submitted that only during evidence plaintiff stated that the plot is in khasra no. 21/3. It is argued that there is no document to show that the land came to the share of the plaintiff on any alleged partition. It is submitted that there is no counter claim filed by the defendant. Hence, in case there is any deficiency on part of the defendant the same is of no consequence. Court observation and findings Issue No. 1: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession? OPP Issue No. 4: Whether defendant no.2 and his wife are the owners of the suit property? OPD
90. Since both these issues are intrinsically connected and involve determination of title, ownership, possession, and competing claims over the suit property, they are being taken up together for adjudication.
91. The burden to establish entitlement to possession was upon the Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 37 of 51 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:01:54 +0530 plaintiff. It is settled law that in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot derive advantage merely from any weakness in the case of the defendants. The plaintiff is required to establish a better title to the suit property than the defendant and prove a lawful entitlement to recover possession. Mere allegations of dispossession or challenge to the documents of the opposite party do not ipso facto entitle the plaintiff to a decree for possession unless the plaintiff independently proves his own right, title, or lawful interest in the suit property. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs AIR 2008 SC 2033, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where title is under a cloud and possession is disputed, the plaintiff must establish title and consequential entitlement to possession.
92. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property, namely Plot No. 1, H-Block, Adhyapak Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi, devolved upon him from his grandfather Late Sh. Sukhan through an oral family settlement after the demise of the latter. According to the plaintiff, Late Sh. Sukhan retained certain khasra numbers and after his death, the remaining plots were partitioned among his sons, whereunder the suit property allegedly came to the share of plaintiff's father Late Sh. Naresh Kumar and thereafter devolved upon the plaintiff.
93. However, upon perusal of the record, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to place on record any cogent documentary evidence proving the alleged devolution of title. The plaintiff admittedly did not produce any document of ownership in favour of his father Late Sh.
Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 38 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:01:58 +0530 Naresh Kumar or in his own favour. No mutation records, relinquishment deeds, partition documents, succession documents, revenue entries, or family settlement deed have been produced.
94. Although the plaintiff relied upon Khatoni Ex. PW1/1 and Ak- shijra Ex. PW1/2 to establish that Late Sh. Sukhan was a recorded bhumidar of certain agricultural lands, these documents merely establish historical revenue entries in favour of Late Sh. Sukhan and do not establish that the specific suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff or his father. The plaintiff was under an obligation to prove not merely the title of his predecessor but the chain through which the suit property specifically devolved upon him.
95. During cross-examination, PW1/plaintiff admitted that no mutation of land was ever carried out after the death of Late Sh. Sukhan, Late Sh. Naresh Kumar, or Late Sh. Kuldeep. He further admitted that no formal partition document existed and that the alleged family settlement was oral in nature. He candidly admitted that he had no khasra girdawari or khatoni pertaining to the suit property before filing of the suit and no demarcation was carried out by the Patwari at his instance. He further admitted that he learned the khasra number of the suit property from his uncle only shortly before institution of the suit.
96. The testimony of PW1 further reveals substantial uncertainty regarding the identity and legal status of the suit property. The plaintiff initially pleaded one khasra number and subsequently admitted typographical errors in prior complaints. In complaint Ex. PW1/6, the khasra number of the property was mentioned as Khasra No. 21/8, Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 39 of 51 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:02:01 +0530 whereas during evidence reliance was placed upon Khasra Nos. 21/8, 21/1/1, 21/2, and 21/3/1. Such inconsistencies assume significance because the very identity of immovable property is foundational to a decree of possession.
97. Further, PW1 admitted in cross-examination that his grandfather had sold plots from 1986 onwards without maintaining records and that portions of H-1 had already been sold to one Anwar Hussain in 1990. However, he admittedly possessed no documentary record regarding such sale and was unaware of the exact extent sold. Such admissions materially weaken the certainty regarding the boundaries and ownership status of the suit property.
98. The plaintiff heavily relied upon an oral family settlement. There can be no dispute that a bona fide family arrangement may be oral and need not always be reduced into writing. However, where title is seriously disputed and third-party rights are claimed over immovable property, the existence and terms of such settlement must be proved through clear and convincing evidence. Mere bald assertions are insufficient.
99. In the present matter, the oral family settlement has remained wholly unsubstantiated. None of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Sukhan produced any contemporaneous record showing partition of the remaining land. No independent witness to such settlement has been examined. PW7 Shri Joginder Yadav, uncle of the plaintiff, admittedly stated that he was unable to state the exact date of family settlement and conceded that no documents had been executed in favour of the plaintiff regarding property H-1. He further admitted that neither he nor his surviving brothers Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 40 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:02:05 +0530 executed any document in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. PW7 admitted that defendant no.1 and others had remained in possession of the property since 17.04.2009.
100. The testimonies of PW2, PW3, and PW4 also fail to advance the plaintiff's case materially. PW2, mother/grandmother, admitted that she was illiterate, did not know khasra numbers, did not understand property documentation, and had no knowledge regarding the details of retained or sold lands. Her testimony therefore remained largely hearsay and devoid of particulars. PW3 Satbir Singh admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding partition and could not state which plot had fallen to which brother. Although he supported the plaintiff generally, he admitted that defendant no.2 was in possession of the suit property. Similarly, PW4 Ram Kishan admitted ignorance regarding the specific khasra number of the disputed property and candidly deposed that he had no knowledge regarding the actual partition or apportionment among the legal heirs. PW4 even stated at one stage that no plots remained unsold after conversion of agricultural land into colony plots, thereby contradicting the plaintiff's assertion of retained ownership.
101. Thus, the oral evidence led by the plaintiff suffers from inconsistencies, lack of specificity, and absence of personal knowledge regarding material particulars such as exact khasra number, allotment under family settlement, extent of land retained, and mode of devolution. The plaintiff also relied upon photographs and complaints to police authorities to establish illegal encroachment and dispossession. However, even if such documents are taken at face value, they merely show Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 41 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:02:08 +0530 existence of disputes and allegations of interference. Such documents cannot substitute proof of title.
102. It is settled principle of law that possession follows title only when title is proved. In a suit for possession based on ownership, the Court cannot grant possession merely on suspicion regarding defendant's conduct. The plaintiff must first establish a lawful entitlement to possession. Reference may be made to Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu AIR 2004 SC 4609, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that even in cases involving dispossession, the nature and source of possession must be established.
103 The plaintiff argued that the defendants failed to prove ownership and that their documents were forged and fabricated. The Court now turns to the case of defendant no.2 under Issue No.4. Defendant no.2 claimed ownership through a chain of transactions beginning from an alleged sale by Late Sh. Sukhan to Smt. Kamla Devi in 1987, followed by transfers to Smt. Krishna Devi and Smt. Trishla Devi, who ultimately transferred the property to defendant no.2 and his wife in 1995.
104. However, serious infirmities emerge in the evidence of defendant no.2 as well. Defendant no.2 admittedly produced only photocopies of the foundational documents allegedly executed by Late Sh. Sukhan in favour of Smt. Kamla Devi, marked as Mark A to Mark D. No original GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, or Receipt executed by Late Sh. Sukhan was produced. Defendant no.2 himself admitted during cross-examination that he did not possess original chain documents, did not know who provided photocopies, and had never witnessed execution of documents Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 42 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18
18:02:11
+0530
by Late Sh. Sukhan. He also admitted ignorance regarding preparation and authenticity of foundational documents. Moreover, the plaintiff challenged the authenticity of these documents by placing on record the death certificate of alleged notary Sh. C.L. Bhatia Ex. PW1/14 and evidence through PW11 concerning notarial records. Though suspicion was raised regarding notarization and execution dates, no conclusive expert evidence was led to establish forgery.
105. Nonetheless, the defendant's documents being GPA/Agreement to Sell/Will transactions do not by themselves constitute complete title in immovable property. It is now settled law that transfer of immovable property can ordinarily be affected only through a registered conveyance deed. GPA sales do not convey ownership in the eyes of law. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 206. Thus, the Court is unable to conclusively hold that defendant no.2 and his wife became lawful owners of the suit property solely on the basis of the documents relied upon by them. The burden of Issue No.4 was upon the defendants and they have failed to prove complete legal ownership in accordance with law.
106. However, failure of defendant no.2 to conclusively prove ownership cannot automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree for possession. The plaintiff must independently stand on his own feet and establish a better title than the defendants. On the other hand, defendant no.2's possession over the suit property stands substantially admitted. PW3 admitted possession of defendant no.2. PW7 admitted possession since 17.04.2009. Even the plaintiff's own case is that the defendants Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 43 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:02:15 +0530 constructed upon the property and remained in occupation thereafter. Thus, settled possession of defendant no.2 is evident.
107. The plaintiff also sought to rely upon alleged collusion of police officials and illegal detention. Even if such allegations are assumed arguendo, the same would not dispense with the legal requirement of proving title and entitlement to possession in a civil suit.
108. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the Local Commissioner's report to contend that construction was hurriedly raised. However, even assuming recent construction, the same merely establishes the timing of possession and not legal ownership. A Local Commissioner's report cannot become proof of title.
109. Reliance placed upon Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao AIR 1999 SC 1441, by the plaintiff regarding adverse inference is also misplaced insofar as defendant no.2 entered the witness box and faced cross-examination. Though defendant no.1 distanced himself from pleadings, the substantial defence regarding ownership and possession was led through defendant no.2.
110. In view of the above discussions, the Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove lawful title, valid devolution, or better entitlement to possession of the suit property. Simultaneously, defendant no.2 has also failed to conclusively prove ownership in the strict legal sense through legally admissible title documents. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff is held not entitled to a decree of possession. Issue No.4 is decided against defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 and his wife are held not to have Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 44 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:02:18 +0530 conclusively proved ownership of the suit property in accordance with law.
Issue No. 2: Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction? OPP
111. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property and from creating third-party interest therein. The relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief. A party seeking permanent injunction must establish an existing legal right in the property, a threatened or continuing violation of such right, and entitlement to protection of possession or title.
112. In the present case, the plaintiff has primarily claimed injunction on the basis of ownership and alleged prior possession. However, while deciding Issue No.1, the Court has already held that the plaintiff failed to prove lawful title or a better entitlement to possession in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff also failed to establish the exact identity of the suit property through cogent demarcation or consistent khasra particulars. It is settled law that where title is disputed and the plaintiff is not in possession, a simpliciter injunction ordinarily cannot be granted without establishing title and consequential entitlement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar (supra) categorically held that when the plaintiff is not in possession and title is disputed, the appropriate remedy is a suit for declaration and possession and not a bare injunction. Even in a composite suit, the plaintiff must establish legal entitlement.
113. The evidence on record clearly reveals that the plaintiff is not in Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 45 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:02:22 +0530 possession of the suit property. On the contrary, possession of defendant no.2 stands admitted through plaintiff's own witnesses. PW3 specifically admitted that defendant no.2 was in possession of the suit property. PW7 similarly deposed that defendant no.2 and others had remained in possession since 17.04.2009. The plaintiff himself alleged dispossession and encroachment in 2009, thereby admitting loss of possession.
114. Once possession of the defendant stands established and the plaintiff fails to prove title or better entitlement, no injunction can be granted restraining a person already in possession from using the property. A decree of injunction cannot indirectly grant what the plaintiff failed to establish directly through a decree of possession.
115. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants illegally entered the suit property with police collusion and raised unauthorized construction during pendency of disputes. However, even assuming such allegations for the sake of argument, equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted in absence of proof of legal right. Courts cannot restrain occupation merely on allegations unsupported by proof of title.
116. The plaintiff further relied upon photographs Ex. PW1/12 and Ex. PW1/13 and complaints to police authorities to contend illegal construction. However, photographs only depict physical status of property at a given point of time and cannot establish ownership. Similarly, complaints to authorities merely evidence existence of grievance and not legal entitlement.
117. The plaintiff has sought injunction against police officials, namely defendants no.3 and 4, alleging misuse of authority. However, no specific Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 46 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:02:25 +0530 continuing act requiring injunction survives against the said defendants. The allegations pertain to past incidents of alleged detention and collusion in 2009. Injunction is preventive in nature and cannot ordinarily be granted in respect of concluded acts. Further, defendants no.3 and 4 raised objections regarding statutory protection and want of notice under Section 80 CPC and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. Although the plaintiff claimed to have filed an application under Section 80(2) CPC, no substantive relief of injunction survives against these defendants in absence of proof of continuing interference.
118. In view of the findings under Issue No.1 and the admitted possession of defendant no.2, the plaintiff has failed to establish any subsisting enforceable legal right warranting grant of perpetual injunction. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction.
Issue No. 3: Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages, if any, if so what amount? OPP
119. The burden to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- alleging illegal trespass, construction, dispossession, threats, coercion, and alteration of the suit property by the defendants. It is a settled proposition that damages cannot be granted merely on assertions. The plaintiff is required to establish (i) existence of a legal wrong, (ii) resultant injury or loss, and (iii) quantification of damages through reliable evidence.
120. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to place any Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 47 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:02:29 +0530 documentary or oral evidence establishing the actual quantum of loss allegedly suffered. No valuation report, estimate of damages, expert evidence, construction assessment, market assessment, or any documentary basis for quantification of Rs.1,00,000/- has been produced.
121. The plaintiff has also failed to establish the foundational fact that the defendants unlawfully dispossessed him from property legally belonging to him. Since Issue No.1 has already been decided against the plaintiff on the question of title and entitlement to possession, the consequential claim for damages also cannot survive.
122. The allegations of illegal detention, coercion, assault, and threats by defendants no.3 and 4 also remained unsubstantiated through independent evidence. No medical record, MLC, independent complaint outcome, or conclusive vigilance finding was brought on record establishing police excesses. PW8 merely proved existence of a complaint register entry, whereas PW9 stated that records had been destroyed. Such evidence falls short of proving actionable misconduct.
123. Although PW5 and PW6 supported the plaintiff regarding alleged detention at the police station, their testimonies suffer from inconsistencies. PW6 admitted contradictions in his affidavit and stated that portions thereof were incorrect. PW5 admitted that he had signed his affidavit after it had been explained by Counsel and had no knowledge regarding ownership documents. Their evidence, even if accepted partially, does not establish quantifiable civil damages.
124. Further, the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved mesne profits, loss of use and occupation, rental valuation, or any financial injury capable of Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 48 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:02:32 +0530 monetary assessment. A bald claim of Rs.1,00,000/- without evidentiary foundation cannot be decreed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that damages must be proved and cannot be awarded on speculation or conjecture. Thus, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish either entitlement or quantification of damages. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff is held not entitled to damages of any amount.
Issue No. 5: Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD
125. The burden to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants contended that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties on the ground that wife of defendant no.2, namely Smt. Sunita Sharma, who allegedly owned part of the property, had not been impleaded. It was further argued that defendant no.1 had no concern with the suit and that defendants no.3 and 4 had been improperly impleaded in their personal capacity.
126. However, no cogent evidence was led by the defendants to establish how the suit was liable to fail for non-joinder or misjoinder. Merely because defendant no.2 claimed that part of the property stood in the name of his wife would not automatically render the suit non- maintainable, particularly when allegations of joint trespass and possession were levelled.
127. It is a settled proposition that non-joinder becomes fatal only when a necessary party, in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, is Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 49 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.05.18
18:02:36
+0530
omitted. A proper party or a person having some interest in the dispute does not necessarily become indispensable.
128. In the present matter, an effective adjudication regarding competing possession claims could have been undertaken even in absence of defendant no.2's wife. Moreover, the defendants did not seek impleadment of the alleged necessary party during trial. Similarly, though defendant no.1 denied participation and even disputed signatures on pleadings, the plaintiff specifically alleged his involvement in dispossession. Therefore, impleadment of defendant no.1 cannot be said to be wholly unnecessary at the threshold.
129. Defendants no.3 and 4 were impleaded on allegations of collusion and misuse of official machinery. Whether such allegations ultimately stood proved is a separate issue. Mere failure of the plaintiff to establish misconduct does not render the suit bad for misjoinder. It is also pertinent that objections under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and maintainability had already been contested during earlier stages and the matter proceeded to trial. Therefore, defendants have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the suit was liable to fail on account of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. Accordingly, Issue No.5 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief
130. In view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 3 against the plaintiff, the Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to establish lawful title, better entitlement to possession, right to perpetual injunction, or entitlement to damages in respect of the suit property. Though Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 50 of 51 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.05.18 DAGAR 18:02:41 +0530 defendant no.2 also failed to conclusively establish ownership through legally admissible title documents, the weakness of the defendants' case cannot enure to the benefit of the plaintiff, who was independently required to prove his own entitlement. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him in accordance with law.
131. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession, perpetual injunction, and damages stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL File be consigned to Record Room. SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.05.18 18:02:45 +0530 Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar) on 18th Day of May 2026 District Judge-08, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. (This judgment contains 48 pages.) Civ DJ 611208/16 Bhupinder Yadav v. Satish Page no. 51 of 51