Delhi District Court
Babita vs Bablu Singh on 22 August, 2025
Digitally
signed by
MANSI MANSI
Date:
MALIK
MALIK 2025.08.22
16:12:11
+0530
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE/ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
CS No. 646/21
CNR No. DLNW-030008292021
In the matter of:-
Smt. Babita
D/o Raj Kumar Vyas
R/o B-5, Punjabi Basti
Nangloi, Delhi-110041
Through SPA Holder
Sh. Ghanshyam
S/o Sh. Shiv Narayan
R/o H.No. 1, Village Karala
Sultan Pur Road
Delhi-110081 ... Plaintiff
Vs.
Sh. Bablu Singh
S/o Ram Chander
R/o Village Karala
Bazar Panna
Delhi-110081. ... Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 22.03.2021
Date of reservation of judgment : 05.07.2025
Date of judgment : 22.08.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION &
DECLARATION
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is filed for permanent and mandatory injunction & declaration of the GPA and other documents of the defendants as null and void with respect to the suit property i.e. H.No. 4, Khasra No. 75/25, Ut-
CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 1 of 9 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.22 16:12:15 +0530 sav Vihar, Village Karala, Delhi-110081 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as suit property).
2. Briefly stated it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the reg- istered owner of the suit property i.e. H.No. 4, area measuring 100 sq. Yards, Khasra No. 75/25, Utsav Vihar, Village Karala, Delhi-110081. That in the year 2000, plaintiff purchased the suit property from Bhola Singh, however, in the year 2006, she sold out part portion of the suit property i.e. 50 sq. yards to Smt. Sangita who constructed the same and has been resid- ing on the same till today. It is further stated that in the year 2011, plaintiff constucted rest area of 50 sq. yards from the funds collected from her un- cle, who is the SPA holder of the plaintiff. It is further stated that on 04.07.2015, plaintiff received a call from her tenant that one Bablu Singh alongwith 4-5 unknown persons carrying dandas in hand forcefully en- tered the property of the plaintiff and threw out the tenant of the plaintiff from the suit property alongwith his household articles and locked the main entrance of the property. It is further stated that when the plaintiff shared this facts with her uncle then her uncle went to the property and op- posed them where he was manhandled by the defendant and thereupon, SPA holder of the plaintiff called the police at 100 number and police reached the spot and took both the parties to the police station. It is further stated that in the PS the defendant stated himself to be owner of the suit property on the basis of GPA executed by Smt. Sarla Devi in the year 2015 and despite being shown all the title documents of the suit property by the plaintiff, police officer joined hands with the defendant and allowed the defendant to put lock upon the main gate of the suit property alongwith the lock of the plaintiff. It is further stated that plaintiff opposed this act of the defendant as the plaintiff is in possession of the of the suit property since CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 2 of 9 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.08.22 16:12:23 +0530 2000 and articles of the plaintiff were still lying in the suit property. There- after, plaintiff made police complaints vide DD No. 52 B and DD No. 43 B and further made complaints to concerned ACP and concerned DCP, but police has taken no action.
3. It is further stated that thereafter, the police official file a kalandra under Section 107/145/150 Cr.P.C. before SDM and the SPA Holder on the instructions of the plaintiff filed a detailed reply before SDM court and also recorded statement of two witnesses before the SDM which clearly states that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and that the defendant has no concern regarding the same. That during the lockdown period, on 20.10.2020, the defendant with the support of police officials tried to break open the lock of the suit property, however, plaintiff reached at the spot and restrained the defendant and lodged a police complaint vide DD No. 40A. The plaintiff with the help of her uncle has also filed a case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the defendant, which is pending for dis-
posal.
4. The plaintiff has therefore filed the present suit seeking decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from entering into the suit property and to re- move the lock from the main gate of the suit property. She has further sought declaration of the GPA and other documents of the suit property ex- ecuted in favour of the defendant as null and void. Further, it is prayed that a decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property. The plaintiff has further sought cost of the suit.
CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 3 of 9 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.22 16:12:26 +0530
5. Summons for settlement of issues were served upon the defendant. The defendant appeared before the court and sought time for filing WS. However, despite granting various opportunities, the defendant failed to file the WS. Accordingly, his defence was struck off vide order dated 07.02.2023. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.08.2023, an opportunity was given to the defendant to file Written Statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- but despite opportunity, he failed to do the same and hence his right to file WS was again closed and his defence was again struck off vide order dated 07.11.2023. An an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was again filed by the defendant seeking vacation of order dt. 07.02.2023 but it was dismissed vide order dt. 27.08.2024.
6. Thereafter, the SPA holder of the plaintiff led evidence wherein he examined himself as PW-1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the documents as under:
i. GPA of the year 2000 and SPA Ex. PW-1/1 (colly.) (OSR). ii. GPA of the year 1999 Ex. PW-1/2 (colly.)(OSR). iii. Original site plan Ex. PW-1/3. iv. Copy of complaint under DD No. 52-B Ex. PW-1/4(OSR). v. Copy of complaint under DD No. 43-B Ex. PW-1/5(OSR). vi. Certified copy of the statement in Kalandra Ex. PW-1/6(colly.). vii. Copy of complaint under DD no. 40A Ex. PW-1/7. viii. Certified copy of order issued by Ld. MM Ex. PW-1/8(colly.) ix. Photographs of the construction site and damages on the suit property Ex. PW1/9 (colly.).
x. Copy of complaint lodged by Sh. Subhash Chopra against the defendant Ex. PW-1/10.
CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 4 of 9 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.22 16:12:28 +0530
7. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 19.03.2024 and matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were addressed by both the parties as even though the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant was dismissed, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant kept appearing in the matter.
8. I have heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties and carefully perused the record.
9. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish his case under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of suit property i.e. H. No. 4, Khasra No. 75/25, Utsav Vihar, Karala, Delhi-110081, which she had purchased from one Shri Bhola Singh in the year 2006. Out of the 100 sq. yards purchased by her, she sold 50 sq. yards to one Smt. Sangita who raised construc- tion on her share and is residing there at present. On the remaining 50 sq. yards, the plaintiff raised construction and rented out the same to a tenant. However, on 04.07.2015, the tenant of the plaintiff who was re- siding on the suit property was thrown out of the suit property along- with all his household articles by the defendant alongwith 4 to 5 un- known persons. The plaintiff submits that the defendant locked the main entrance of the suit property after throwing out the tenant of the plaintiff. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant is also claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property on basis of a GPA executed by one Smt. Sarla in the year 2015. It is prayed that the mandatory injunction be granted against the defendant to restrain him from entering in the suit property, to restrain him from creating third party inerest in the suit property, and to direct him to remove his lock CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 5 of 9 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.22 16:12:31 +0530 from the main gate. Declaration is also sought to declare the GPA and other documents executed in favour of the defendant as null and void.
10. On the other hand, the defendant submits that the present suit for the simplicitor injuncition is not maintainable as the plaintiff has to seek possession of the suit property as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors, 2008 AIR SCW 2692. It is further contended that the suit property is not identifiable as the site plan is vague and does not show which 50 sq. yards of the property is in possession of the plain- tiff. It is, therefore, prayed that the present suit be dismissed as being not maintainable.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Anathula Sud- hakar vs. P Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors, 2008 AIR SCW 2692 has stated that where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or un- der a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. It is further stated that where there is merely an interference with the plaintiffs lawful possession or threat of possession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simplicitor.
12. In this background, it is necessary to evaluate in the present matter whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property or not to de- termine, which reliefs he should have sought in the instant case. In the plaint as well as the evidence by way of affidavit of the SPA holder of the plaintiff, it has been mentioned that on 04.07.2015, the tenant of the plaintiff who was residing in the suit property was thrown out of the house alongwith all his articles and that the defen-
CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 6 of 9
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.22
16:12:34
+0530
dant locked the main entrance of the suit property. From the said averments, it appears that the plaintiff was ousted from the posses- sion of the suit property on 04.07.2015 as his tenant was dispos- sessed from the same alongwith his articles and defendant also put his locks on the suit property. Furthermore, a perusal of the com- plaint dated 04.07.2015 made by the SPA holder of the plaintiff to concerned DCP bearing DD NO. 52B, which is EX.PW1/4(OSR) also states that one person by the name of Bablu Singh has forcefully and illegally taken possession of property bearing no. 4 measuring 100 sq. yards, Khasra no. 75/25, Utsav Vihar Colony, Village Karala, Delhi-110081 and that he has also gotten installed one NDPL meter in his name and has also forced the tenant in the said premises to leave the same. Another complaint dated 14.07.2015 made by the SPA holder of the plaintiff to SHO, Kanjhawala bearing DD NO. 43B which is EX.PW1/5(OSR) has also been placed on record during the evidence led by the plaintiff, which states that on 04.07.2015, one person by the name of Bablu Singh forcefully took possession of property bearing no. 4 measuring 100 square yards, Khasra no. 75/25, Utsav Vihar Colony, Village Karala, Delhi-110081. The SPA holder of the plaintiff has also placed on record the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. filed in the concerned Ld. MM Court, which is Ex.PW1/8. A perusal of the said application also shows that it states that on 04.07.2015 the tenant of the plaintiff who was residing on the suit property was thrown out of the suit property alongwith his all household articles by the defendant along- with 4 to 5 unknown persons.
CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 7 of 9
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.22
16:12:37
+0530
13. A perusal of all the aforesaid documents placed on record by the SPA holder of the plaintiff himself establishes that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant. When, ad- mittedly, the tenant of the plaintiff has been thrown out of the suit property alongwith his belongings, symbolic possession also does not remain with the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff has himself ad- mitted in Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) that the defendant has also got a NDPL meter installed in the suit property, which again shows that the plain- tiff is no longer in possession of the suit property. No other evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property at present.
14. In view of aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the considered opin- ion that the plaintiff is required to file a comprehensive suit seeking possession of the suit property from the defendant and that a simplic- itor suit for injunciton is not maintainable against the defendant with regard to the suit property in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors, 2008 AIR SCW 2692.
15. In addition to the above, it is also pertinent to mention that there seems to be an issue with the identification of the suit property also. The SPA holder of the plaintiff has submitted that 100 sq. yards of property bearing no. 4, Khasra No. 75/25, Utsav Vihar, Village Kar- ala, Delhi was purchased by the plaintiff. Out of the said 100 sq. yards, 50 sq. yards was sold to one Smt. Sangita who raised construc- tion on the said area and she is residing there till date. On the remain- ing 50 sq. yards, construction was raised by the plaintiff, which was CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 8 of 9 rented out to a tenant. However, the site plan placed on record by the plaintiff, which is Ex.PW1/3 only pertains to the 50 sq. yards of which she is stated to be the owner. The said site plan does not show the area of 50 sq. yards sold to Smt. Sangita on any side of the prop- erty in question, which is claimed to be of the plaintiff. On three sides of the site plan, "others property" has been mentioned and on the fourth side a road has been shown. It then appears that the site plan has not been correctly drafted. Furthermore, no landmarks or any other identification marks have been mentioned which will help in identifying the 50 sq. Yards, which is in dispute. The site plan is thus vague and cannot be used to identify the suit property in ques- tion. Order 7 Rule 3 CPC clearly states that where the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property, the plaint shall contain a de- scription of the property sufficient to identify it. The said provision has not been complied with by the plaintiff in the instant case. With- out clear identification of the suit property, no decree qua the same can be passed by the Court as it would amount to a vague and ambi- gious decree.
16. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed owing to failure to discharge the evidentiary burden placed on him.
17. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
18.File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.22 Announced in Open Court (Mansi Malik) 16:12:45 +0530 on 22.08.2025 ACJ/ARC/(North-West) Rohini District Courts/ Delhi CS No. 646/21 Babita Vs. Bablu Singh Pg. No. 9 of 9