Delhi District Court
Chand Singh vs Pooja And Ors on 16 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. NISHAT BANGARH:
CIVIL JUDGE-02: SOUTH WEST,
DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI.
CS No. 369/2018
CNR No. DLSW03-000524-2018
CHAND SINGH
R/O- WZ-290, VILLAGE & P.O. PALAM, NEW DELHI
.....Plaintiffs
Vs.
POOJA
R/O RZ-3B/4, GROUND FLOOR SHOP,
RAJ NAGAR, PART-1, PALAM, NEW DELHI
ALSO AT: VILLAGE JASHORE KHERI,
DISTRICT JHAJJAR, TEH. BAHADURGARH, HARYANA .
......Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of Institution : 27.03.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 10.09.2025
Date of judgment : 16.10.2025
Final Judgment : Decreed.
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed for seeking possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction. The brief facts of the present case as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing No. RZ-3B/4, Measuring 50 Sq. yds, out of Khasra No. 69/7, situated in Revenue estate of 1 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja Palam Colony, known as Raj Nagar Part-I, New Delhi. In the month of August, 2017, defendants approached the plaintiff and requested him to permit them to use the said shop, they assured that they will vacate the shop as and when directed by the plaintiff. They also assured that they will pay the rent when their business will be established. In pursuance of request and out of love and affection, plaintiff permitted the defendants to use and reside in the suit property. However, after some time, the intentions of defendants become mala fide and they started harassing the plaintiff by compelling him to transfer the property in favour of defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 1 and her brother hatched a conspiracy to grab the suit property and defendant no. 1 had filed a false case of domestic violence against plaintiff and his family members which is pending for adjudication in the court of Ld. MM, SW, Dwarka Courts, wherein, plaintiff had given statement that he will not dispossess defendant no. 1 from the suit property without due process of law. Further, allegations are made on the brother of defendant no. 1 that he tried to trespass in the portion of the property which was under the possession of the tenants with the help of goonda type person on 10.11.2017 at about 06:00 pm and when plaintiff tried to stop them, the brother of defendant no. 1 started abusing him and attempted to kill him, due to the assault, plaintiff remained admitted in the hospital and FIR bearing No. 410/17 is registered against the brother of defendant no. 1 in this regard. Further, on 08.08.2018, brother of defendant no. 1 also threatened the tenants of plaintiff to vacate the suit property. Thereafter, plaintiff asked defendant no. 1 to vacate the shop, but she and her brother threatened the plaintiff to face dire consequences if the plaintiff comes to the suit property even for collecting rent from the tenants. So, on 09.01.2018, plaintiff visited suit property to install CCTV cameras for security purpose. The defendant no. 1 and her brother threatened the workers of dire consequences. Due to such conduct of defendant, 2 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja plaintiff debarred the defendants from his properties through publication in newspapers and broke all the relationships with them. He asked them to hand over the possession of the suit property, instead of doing so, defendant no. 1 and her brother threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences and thereafter, plaintiff lodged a police complaint against them. The license of the defendants to use shop has already come to an end when plaintiff lodged a police complaint against them. In any case, plaintiff has served a legal notice dated 21.01.2018, thereby terminating the license of the defendant and hand over peaceful possession of the suit property till 07.02.2017. In case, they failed to do so, they will be liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the suit property at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per day w.e.f. 08.02.2018. After service of legal notice, defendant no. 1 registered a false case in PS Bahadurgarh, vide FIR no. 103/2018 against the plaintiff to pressurize him. Plaintiff against visited the suit property on 28.02.2018 and requested the defendants to vacate the suit property but they refused to do so. It is specified that defendants are not having any right or authority to withhold the suit property. Their license has been revoked. Hence, The present suit.
2. Vide the present suit, plaintiff has prayed as under:
A. Pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their family members, assignees, legal heirs, representatives, tenants, licensee etc. etc. thereby directing them to handover the peaceful vacant physical possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing no. RZ-3B/4 measuring 50 Sq. Yard, out of Khasra no. 69/7, situated in revenue Estate of palam Colony known as Raj Nagar, Part-1, New Delhi, more particularly shown in RED colour in the annexed site plan, to the plaintiff, in the interest of justice.3 / 40
Chand Singh Vs. Pooja B. Pass a decree of recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, its employees, legal heirs, family members, assignees, representatives etc. on account of mesne profit/damages for use and occupation of the premises till filing of the present suit, in the above noted case, in the interest of justice.
C. Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, its employees, legal heirs, family members, assignees, representatives etc. for recovery of future mesne profit and damages on account of use and occupation of the suit property Rs 10000/- per day from the date of filing of this suit till the date of vacation of the suit property, on which the plaintiff undertakes to pay requisite court fee as provided under Order 20 rule 12 CPC.
D. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, her family members, assignees, legal heirs, representatives, tenants, licensee etc. etc. thereby restraining them from letting out, parting with possession or creating third party interest in any manner in the suit property more particularly shown in RED colour in the annexed site plan, to the plaintiff, in the interest of justice. E. Award costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
F. Any other relief which this Honble court may deem fit may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
3. On filing of the present suit, summons was issued to the defendants on 28.03.2018, which was served on the defendants. Defendants entered appearance on 19.04.2018 and on the said date, the statement of defendant no. 2 was recorded wherein he has stated that he has already vacated the suit property 4 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja and he is having no concern with the suit property. In view of submissions and at request of plaintiff, Ld. Predecessor had deleted the name of defendant no. 2 from the array of parties. Further, defendant no. 1 filed the written statements on 21.05.2018.
4. In the written statement, defendant no. 1 has denied all the averments made by the plaintiff. It is submitted in the written statements that the present plaint is baseless, plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court and had approached the court on the basis of forged documents. Hence, the suit of plaintiff is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that as per Section 33, 35 and 38 of Indian Stamp Act and Section 23, 27 and 49 of Indian Registration Act, plaintiff is not having any right or interest in the suit property on the basis of unregistered documents. It is further submitted that defendant no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of defendant no. 2/son of the plaintiff. Their marriage was solemnized on 13.02.2006. Thereafter, they started residing together in her matrimonial house at Palam Village. The turmoil in the marriage started after few days of the marriage when plaintiff, his son and family members started showing their true colours by picking up quarrel and subjecting the defendant no. 1 to harassment and humiliations due to demand of dowry. They used to give merciless beatings to defendant no. 1 and used to regularly demand dowry. Defendant no. 2 used to humiliate her in private and as well as in front of her parents and at social gatherings. She was not given proper food. Since the date of marriage, she was forced to stay in a small room at terrace in her matrimonial home like a prisoner. The whole written statement is filled with allegations of misconduct, harassment and raising demand for dowry by plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and their family members. Further, it is also stated that she has made several police complaints with regard to the conduct of the 5 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja beforementioned persons. It is alleged that defendant no. 2 denied to fulfill the meager necessary requirements of personal needs of defendant no. 1 and 2 children despite many requests. Defendant no. 1 is unable to maintain herself and two minor children. She is required to be economically supported by defendant no. 2, plaintiff and his family members. She is under apprehension that defendant no. 2, plaintiff and his family members in conspiracy with each other will try to alienate and dispose of their assets to keep defendant no. 1 and her children deprived them from their legitimate rights. It is submitted that defendant no. 2 is having rental income of Rs. 30,000-40,000/- from his own property bearing No. RZ3/4, Shiv Mandir Marg, Near HDFC Bank, Raj Nagar, Part I, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45 and from property bearing No. RZ3B/4, Shiv Mandir Marg, Near HDFC Bank, Raj Nagar, Part I, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45. It is also stated that defendant no. 2 is the co-owner of the property bearing No. WZ 290, Palam Village, New Delhi and complete owner of No. RZ3B/4, Shiv Mandir Marg, Near HDFC Bank, Raj Nagar, Part I, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45. It is submitted that defendant no. 2 is having a Wifi installed at property bearing No. RZ3B/4, Shiv Mandir Marg, Near HDFC Bank, Raj Nagar, Part I, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45 and running a cyber cafe namely S. K. R. M. Cyberhub. He is also running a bakery by the name of Dada Dev Bakery in shop at No. RZ3B/4, Shiv Mandir Marg, Near HDFC Bank, Raj Nagar, Part I, Palam Colony, New Delhi-45. It is alleged that defendant no. 2 is the actual owner of the suit property and present suit is filed in collusion and conspiracy by the plaintiff and defendant no. 2.
5. Vide separate statement recorded on 19.04.2018 defendant no. 2 had stated that he has already vacated the suit premises and he is not having any concern with suit premises and vide order of even date, defendant no. 2 deleted from the array of parties in view of the statement given by the Ld. Counsel for 6 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja the plaintiff on 19.04.2018. Further, he was again arrayed as party to the suit vide order dated: 30.11.2022 and thereafter he has stated in his statement recorded on 13.03.2023 that he does not wish to file written statement and he is not having any concern with the suit property.
6. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed vide order dated 22.07.2019:
1. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of filing of insufficient court fees? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of mesne profits/damages? OPP
5. Relief.
7. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has examined following witnesses:
a. Himself as PW-1.
b. Summoned witness from the office of registrar, namely Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Junior Assistant, Sub-Registrar-II, Basaidhara Pur, Delhi-27 and Narendra Kumar, Civil Defence Volunteer, Office of Sub-Registrar, Basaidarapur, New Delhi as PW-2.
c. Summoned witness namely Sh. Mukul Kumar Sharma, Draughtsman Civil, Lawyers Chamber Block Ground Floor, Seat in front of SBI Bank, Dwarka Court Complex.
8. Plaintiff has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and has relied upon the following documents i.e.:-
Sr. No. Nature of documents Exhibited as
1. Copy of GPA, Will, Agreement to Ex. PW1/1
7 / 40
Chand Singh Vs. Pooja
Sell, Affidavit and Receipt. (OSR)(colly.)
2. Copy of House tax. Marka A.
3. Site Plan Ex. PW1/3
4. Publication in Newspapers Ex. PW1/4
(OSR)
5. Copy of complaints and FIR Ex. PW1/5
(Colly)
6. Copy of MLC Mark B
7. Copy of legal notice Ex. P3
8. FIR Bearing No.103/2018 Ex. PW1/7.
9. He was cross examined at length, during his cross-examination he has produced a photocopy of sale deed and GPA dt. 02.06.1978 which is Mark C/DX (Colly) and original electricity bill of property bearing No. RZ-3B/4 is Ex. PW1/8. He was also confronted with documents i.e. FIR bearing No. 103/12/2/18 u/s 498A/506 IPC and surety bonds which are Ex. PW1/8DX, Rent Agreement which is Mark D/DX, 'Panchayati Faisla' dt. 10.06.2007 which is Ex. PW1/10DX, Bill of MTNL is Mark E/DX, Copy of Ration card of Amarjeet Solanki Mark F/DX.
10. From the cross-examination of plaintiff, it is proved that FIR bearing no. 103/12/2/18 u/s 498A/5066 IPC was registered at PS Bahadurgarh against him and his family members. He had not allowed defendant no. 1 to enter in house bearing No. WZ0290, Palam Village, New Delhi. The reason given for it was that she was trying to burn the clothes. There was a written rent agreement executed between him and the defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 was running a cyber café in the suit property. That a MTNL Connection was installed in the suit property in name of the defendant no. 2 for running his business. It is also admitted that Mr. Anish Darna and Komal Singh were residing in the property as tenants of Amarjeet Solanki/defendant no. 2. It is also 8 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja admitted that defendant no. 2 was running bakery in the shop from August 2017 to February 2018.It is submitted in cross-examination that defendant no. 1 & 2 were residing at second floor or WA-290, Palam Village after their marriage since 2007 to 2017. It is also proved that GPA is not bearing signatures of the plaintiff.
11. Further, PW-2 was summoned to produce record qua suit property from the office of Sub-Registrar, he produced GPA vide registration no. 44928, Book No. 4, Vol. NO. 4665, page no.45-46, dt. 15.09.1997 which is Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) (Colly) and Will dt. 15.09.1997 vide registration no. 59031 Book No. 3, Volume No.3992 Page no.112 which is Ex. PW2/2 (OSR).
12. From Cross-examination PW-2, it is proved that Ex. PW2/1 is not bearing signatures of plaintiff.
13. Further, PW-3 was summoned to prove Ex. PW1/3, he has stated in his chief-examination that he drafted the site plan Ex. PW1/3, he personally visited the property and prepared the rough site plan there.
14. Plaintiff evidence was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff recorded on 24.08.2022.
15. Thereafter, to prove her case defendant no. 1 namely Pooja, had examined herself as DW-1, she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. She relief on the following documents:
1. THE COPY OF AADHAR CARD OF DEPONENT IS EXHIBITED AS EX. DW1/1 (OSR).
2. THE COPY OF SCHOOL I-CARD OF CHILDREN OF DEPONENT & RESPONDENT NO. 1 IS EXHIBITED AS EX.
DW1/2 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark A being photocopy.
9 / 403. THE COPY OF REPLY OF DCW DATED 03/11/2017 IS EXIHIBITED AS EX. DW1/3 is de-exhibited as document is not on record.
4. THE COPY OF COMPAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 45B DATED 02.11.2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX-DW1/4 (OSR).
5. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 42B DATED 05/11/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. DW1/5 (OSR).
6. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER DD NUMBER 56B DATED 07/11/2017 EXHIBITED AS EX.DW1/6 is de-exhibited as document is not on record.
7. THE COPY OF POLICE REPORT BEARING DD NUMBER 90B IS EXHIBITED AS EX. DW1/7 (OSR).
8. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT SHO BAHADURGARH IS EXHIBITED AS EX.DW1/8 (OSR).
9. THE COPY OF DEPOSIT SLIPS OF ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/9 (OSR).
10. THE COPY OF PASSBOOK OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/10 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark B being photocopy.
11. THE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 18/04/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/11 (OSR).
12. THE COPY OF INVOICE DATED 02/02/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/12 (OSR).
10 / 4013. THE COPY OF FINAL ACTIVATION ADVICE OF RELIANCE IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/13 (OSR).
14. THE COPY OF MTNL BILL IN NAME OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/14 (OSR).
15. THE COPY OF INSURANCE POLICY OF CAR OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/15 is de-
exhibited and marked as Mark C being photocopy.
16. THE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT GIVEN BY AMARJEET SOLANKI BEARING HIS OWN MOBILE NUMBERS IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/16 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark D being photocopy.
17. THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 28/11/2016 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/17 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark E being photocopy.
18. THE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 13/01/2016 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/18 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark F being photocopy.
19. THE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 21/01/2016 IS EXHIBITED ASEX. D1/19 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark G being photocopy.
20. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 09/11/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX.D1/20 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark H being photocopy.
11 / 4021. THE COPY OF LIC POLICY OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/21 (OSR).
22. THE COPY OF KHATONI OF PROPERTY OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/22 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark I being photocopy.
23. THE COPY OF RECEIPTS OF HANS CABLE NETWORK IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/23 (OSR).
24. THE COPY OF RECEIPT OF VISHAL PRINTER & BINDING HOUSE IS EXHIBITED ASEX. D1/24 (OSR).
25. THE COPY OF WARRANTY CARD OF BATTERY IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/25 (OSR).
26. THE COPY OF RECEIPT OF J.B. POWER POINT IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/26 (OSR).
27. THE COPY OF DEGREE OF AMARJEET SOLANKI OF ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/27 is de-
exhibited and marked as Mark J being photocopy.
28. THE COPY OF RECEIPTS OF AUTO CZARS IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/28 (OSR).
29. THE COPY OF VISITING CARDS BEARING MOBILE NUMBER OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/29 (OSR).
30. THE COPY OF SURRENDER APPLICATION TO MTNL & BILL IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/30 (COLLY) (OSR).
12 / 4031. THE COPY OF RECEIPTS OF SCHOOL OF CHILDREN IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/31 (OSR).
32. THE COPY OF RECEIPTS OF ASTHA BOOK DEPOT IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/32 (OSR).
33. THE COPY OF RECEIPTS OF MEENAKSHI SCHOOL UNIFORMS IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/33 (OSR).
34. THE COPY OF CONSUMER INFORMATION SHEET OF BHARAT GAS OF AMARJEET SINGH IS EXHIBITED ASEX.
D1/34 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark K being photocopy.
34. THE COPY OF LICENCE OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/35 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark L being photocopy.
36. THE COPY OF SCHOOL ID CARD OF CHILDREN IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/36 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark M being photocopy.
37. THE COPY OF PCR CALL RECORD IS EXHIBITED AS EX.
D1/37 is de-exhibited as document is not authentic.
38. THE COPY OF NCR BEARING NUMBER 0048/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/38 (OSR)
39. THE COPY OF FIR BEARING NUMBER 0032/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/39 (OSR) (computer generated).
13 / 4040. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF POOJA DATED 17.11.2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX.D1/40 is de-exhibited and marked as Mark N being photocopy.
41. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 798 DATED 24/11/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/41 (OSR).
42. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 63B DATED 01/12/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/42 (OSR).
43. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 39B DATED 02/12/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/43 (OSR).
44. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 09/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/44 (OSR).
45. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 45B DATED 11/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/45 (OSR).
46. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 53B DATED 12/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/46 is de-
exhibited and marked as Mark O being photocopy.
47. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 21B DATED 15/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/47(OSR).
48. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 60B DATED 16/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/48 (OSR).
49. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING PHC NUMBER 07 DATED 16/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/49 (OSR).
14 / 4050. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING DD NUMBER 29B DATED 20/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/50 (OSR).
51. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BY RAJIV BEARING DD NUMBER 35B DATED 22/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. DW1/51 (OSR).
52. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE SWATI MALIWAL IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/52 (OSR).
53. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BY POOJA BEARING DD NUMBER 35B DATED 22/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/53 (OSR).
54. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING PHC NUMBER 13 DATED 24/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/54 (OSR).
55. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BY POOJA BEARING DD NUMBER 31B DATED 29/01/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/55 (OSR).
56. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING NUMBER 31B DATED 29/01/2018 BY RAJIV IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/56 (OSR).
57. THE COPY OF RATION CARD OF POOJA IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/57 (OSR).
58. THE COPY OF MLC BEARING NUMBER 12672 OF 2017 OF DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/58 (OSR).
59. THE COPY OF MLC bearing no. 12045 dated 10.11.2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/59 (OSR) and X-RAY REQUISITION FORM FOR MEDICO- LEGAL CASES OF POOJA dated 10.11.2017 is marked as Mark P (colly.).
60. THE COPY OF MLC BEARING NUMBER 566 OF POOJA IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/60 (OSR).
61.THE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS ARE EXHIBITED AS Mark P
62.THE COPY OF COMPLAINT TO BSES BEARING DIARY NO. 3359 ALOMNGWITH DISCONNECTION NOTICE DATED 30.05.2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
63.THE COPY OF BEARING DD NO. 20B DATED 27.05.2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
64.THE COPY OF BEARING DD NO. 40B DATED 27.05.2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
65.THE COPY OF BEARING DD NO. 43BDATED 01.06.2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record 15 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja
66.THE COPY OF BEARING DD NO. 31B DATED 06.06.2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
67.THE COPY OF BSES BILL IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
68.THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 04/01/2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
69.THE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE SENT TO POOJA DATED 22/01/2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
70.THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 06/11/2017 IS De- EXHIBITED and marked as A1 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
71.THE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 17/02/2010 P.S. SADAR BAHADURGARH IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
72.THE COPY OF MEDICAL DOCUMENTS OF POOJA IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/72 (OSR)
73.THE COPY OF KALANDRA 107/151 CR.P.C. AGAINST AMARJEET SOLANKI DATED 02/11/2017 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
74.THE COPY OF POLICE COMPLIANT DATED 09.11.2017 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
75.THE COPY OF BANK OPENING DOCUMENTS OF POOJA DATED 01/08/2015 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
76.THE COPY OF KRIPAL ASHRAM DONATION SLIPS IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
77.THE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 15.05.2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
16 / 4078.THE COPY OF POLICE REPORT PS SAMPLA DATED 17.12.2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
79.THE COPY OF RATION CARD OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED as Ex. DW1/79 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
80.THE COPY OF RETAIL INVOICE DATED 29.05.2019 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
81.THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 28/11/2016 IS DE- EXHIBITED and marked as Mark A4 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
82.THE COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF CHILDREN IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
83.THE COPY OF DLSA JHAJJAR, HARYANA REPORT DATED 20/12/2017 IS EXHIBITED as Ex. D1/83 (OSR).
84.THE COPY OF POLICE REPORT PS PALAM IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
85.THE COPY OF POLICE RECORD BALWAN, RANDHIR & RAJBEER @ RAJU IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
86.THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 06/11/2017 IS DE- EXHIBITED and marked as Mark A3 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
87.THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 06/11/2017 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
88.THE COPY OF BAIL BONDS OF AMARJEET, CHAND SINGH & SANTOSH DEVI IS EXHIBITED as Ex D1/88 ( the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is 17 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
89.THE COPY OF POLICE REPORT DATED 22.01.2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
90.THE COPY OF SUNITA'S 164 STATEMENT IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
91.THE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILLS OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS DE-EXHIBITED for want of proof.
92.THE COPY OF STATEMENT AMARJEET SOLANKI IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE DATED 19.04.2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
93.THE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 22.01.2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/93 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
94.THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT BY AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED EX.D1/93 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
95.THE COPY OF RTI REPLY BY DCP OFFICE, VASANT VIHAR IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/95 (OSR)
96.THE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DCP OFFICE, VASANT VIHAR IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/96. (colly) (OSR)
97.THE COPY OF REPLY OF OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF AMARJEET SOLANKI DATED 16.12.2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
98.THE COPY OF REPORT DELHI JAL BOARD SUBMITED IN THE COURT OF MM, DWARKA COURTS IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
18 / 4099.THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PARVEEN KUMAR DATED 24.05.2018 IS EXHBITED EX.D1/99 (Original ) ( the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
100. THE COPY OF REPLY OF LEGAL NOTICE IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
101. THE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILLS IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
102. THE COPYOF PHOTOS OF AMARJEET SOLANKI AND RANDHIR IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
103. THE COPY OF POLICE COMPLAINT AGAINS POLICE OFFICERS OF PALAM IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
104. THE COPY OF RECENT FIRs AND POLICE COMPLAINT WITH MLC IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
105. THE COPY OF KHATONIS IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/105 (OSR)
106. THE COPYOF LOAN AGREEMENT IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
107. THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF RAJESH KUMAR AND RAJIV KUMAR IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
108. THE COPY OF POLICE REPORT FILED BY SI RAJESHWAR IS EXHIBITED as Ex. D1/108 (OSR) ( the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
109. THE COPY OF WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER BY DLSA, PHC IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/109 (colly) (OSR) 19 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja
110. THE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
111. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 05.08.2019 IN THE CASE OF EXECUTION NO. 186/19 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/111 (OSR)
112. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 24.05.2019 IN THE CASE OF EXECUTION NO. 318/18 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/112 (colly.) (OSR)
113. THE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF ALTO CAR WHICH AMARJEET SOLANKI TRANSFER IN FAVOUR OF RANDHIR SINGH IS DE-EXHIBITED for want of proof.
114. THE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF TVS SCOOTY WHICH AMARJEET SOLANKI TRANSFER IN FAVOUR OF AMIT KUMAR IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
115. THE COPY OF RTI REPLY FROM TIHAR JAIL, DELHI REGARDING INFORMATION OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/115. (OSR)
116. THE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL (BSES) OF WZ-290, PALAM VILLAGE AND ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
117. THE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL OF SURAT SINGH OF WZ-290, PALAM VILLAGE, IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
118. THE COPY OF WATER SUPPLY BILL (DJB) OF SURAT SINGH WZ-290, PALAM VILLAGE IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
119. THE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL OF AMARJEET SOLANKI ON WHICH THEY CHANGED THE MOBILE NUMBER AND REMOVE THE METER WITHOUT GIVING INFORMATION TO THE COURT IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/119 ( the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed 20 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
120. THE COPY OF BEARING DD NO. 40B DATED 27.05.2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record. TION NO. 318/18 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
121. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ANITA SOLANKI BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR, CIVIL JUDGE, BAHADURGARH IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR VERSUS ANITA SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/121 (colly) (OSR)
122. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF CHAND SINGH, SANTOSH DEVI, RAJBIR, RANDHIR, RAMAN & BHOOP SINGH IN THE ENQUIRY REPORT HELD BEFORE DCP, SOUTH WEST IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
123. THE COPY OF FIR NO. 136/14 P.S. PALAM VILLAGE REGISTERED AGAINST RANDHIR SINGH & BALWAN SINGH IS marked AS Mark S (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
124. THE COPY OF PREVIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD OF RAJBIR IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
125. THE COPY OF RATION CARD OF SURAT SINGH OF WZ-290, PALAM VILLAGE IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
126. THE COPY OF RATION CARD OF CHAND SINGH OF WZ-290, PALAM VILLAGE IS DE-EXHIBITED for want of proof ( the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
127. THE COPY OF PARENTS I-CARDS OF BABY PALAK AND MASTER ABHAY IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
21 / 40128. THE COPY OF COURT CHALLAN OF FIR NO. 103/18 P.S. SADAR BAHADURGARH IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
129. THE COPY OF SUMMON THROUGH DCW, ACP OFFICE IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
130. THE COPY OF DISCHARGE CARD OF POOJA DATED 26.07.2007 OF SUNIL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL , PALAM VILLAGE, IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
131. THE COPY OF MEDICAL TREATEMENT DOCUEMTNS OF POOJA AND LAB REPORT OF POOJA AND BABY PALAK IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
132. THE COPY OF FIR NO. 103/18 P.S. SADAR BAHADURGARH REGARDING ADDRESS PROOF OF ACCUSED/RESPONDENT IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/132. (colly) (OSR)
133. THE COPY OF BAIL BONDS OF ALL ACCUSED/RESPONDENT IN FIR NO. 103/18 P.S. SADAR BAHADURGARH IS De-exhibited as it is already EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/88.
134. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT OF RENU W/O RAJIV IN PS SADAR BAHADURGARH AGAINST AMARJEET SOLANKI IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record. THE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 22/01/2018 THROUGH MAHESH AHLAWAT IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/135. (colly.) (OSR)
135. THE COPY OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 161 CRPC OF RAJBIR IN FIR NO 410/17 AND LIST OF WITNESS IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
136. THE COPY OF KALANDRA 107/150 CR.P.C. DATED 20/01/2018 P.S. PALAM VILLAGE IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/137 (colly.) (OSR)
137. THE COPY OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST POOJA BY CHAND SINGH & SANTOSH DEVI P.S. PALAM IS marked as Mark B1.
138. THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 28/11/2016 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is already marked as Mark A4.
139. THE COPYOF CHAND SINGH TENANTS AFFIDAVIS IN FAVOUR OF POOJA AND RAJIV KUMAR IS EXHIBITD EX.D1/140 (colly.) (OSR) 22 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja
140. THE COPYOF RETAIL INOVICE OF DADA DEV BAKERY DATED 02.02.2017 IS EXHIBITED EX. D1/141 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/12.
141. THE COPY OF RATION CARD OF AMARJEET SOLANKI OF ADDRESS RZ-3B/4, RAJNAGAR-I, PALAM IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/79.
142. THE COPYOF ENQUIRY REPORT OF DCP IS EXHIBITED IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
143. THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 16/12/2018 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/144 (colly.) (OSR) (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
144. THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 06/01/2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
145. THE COPY OF INFORMATION OF TENANTS OF WZ-290, PALAM VILLAGE IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B2 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
146. THE COPYOF INTRODUCTION FORM OS POOJA OF OBC BANK, PALAM IS EXHIBITED EX.D1/147 (colly.) (OSR).
147. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET & DECREE SHEET PASSED BY SH. VIVEK KUMAR, CIVIL JUDGE, BAHADURGARH IN THE MATTER OF RAJESH VERSUS ANITA IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B3 (colly.).
148. THE COPY OF STATUS REPORT FILED BY SI RAJESHWAR BEFORE THE COURT OF MS NEHA MM DWARKA COURTS, DELHI IS EXHIBITED EX.D1/149 (colly.) (OSR) (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
149. THE COPY OF BAIL BOND OF SANTOSH DEVI IN FIR NO 0032/18 PS PALAM VILLAGE IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
150. THE COPY OF LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY AMARJEET SOLANKI IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT, JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B4 (colly.).
23 / 40151. THE COPY OF COMPANY REGISTRATION FORM-I CERTIFICATE OF M/S SHREE BALAJI IMAGING & PATHALOGY CENTRE PVT. LTD. IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/152. (colly.) (OSR).
152. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ANITA SOLANKI IN THE COURT OF CIVIL COURT, BAHADURGARH IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
153. THE COPY OF DON BOSCO ASHALAYM, PALAM GAON IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
154. THE COPY OF RTI REPLY OF DELHI COMMISSION FOR WOMEN (ID NO. 1292) IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/155. (colly) (OSR) (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
155. THE COPYOF FACEBOOK ID STATUS OF AMARJEET SOLANKI, ANITA SOLANKI, RAJBIR, RANDHIR, SUNITA & WIFE OF RAJBIR IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
156. THE COPY OF RETAIL INVOICE DATED 18.04.2017 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/12.
157. THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT DATED 04.01.2018 BETWEEN AMARJEET SOLANKI AND PARVEEN KUMAR IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
158. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PARDEEP KUMAR R/O WZ-148A, GALI NO 7, RAJ NAGAR PART-II, PALAM COLONY IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
159. THE COPY OF PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 18.04.2017 OF RS. 47,000/- IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/11.
160. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT 21-5D DATED 21.01.2019 P.S. CITY BAHADURGARH WITH DETAILS OF RAJESH KUMAR BANK AND CREDIT DETAIL IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
161. THE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 15.05.2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
162. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT 415-5D DATED 14/12/2018 P.S. SADAR BAHADURGARH IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B5.
163. THE COPY OF SPEED POST TRACKING REPORT DATED 27.12.2017IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
24 / 40164. THE COPY OF BILL/INVIOCE OF GAYAN DEEP TRACTOR SAMPLA ROHTAK IN NAME OF AMARJEET SOLANKI DATED 16/05/2014 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/165. (OSR).
165. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 03.05.2019 REGARDING POOJA ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENT OF AMARJEET SOANKI IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
166. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PARVEEN REGARDING DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/99.
167. THE COPY OF ELECTRICITY BILL BSES IS EXHIBITED AS EX.D1/168 (OSR).
168. THE COPY OF CASE NO 2864/2019 UNDER SECTION 156(3) FALSE CASE FILED BY SUNITA AGAIST POOJA & RAJIV AND STATUS REPORT FILED BY IO IN THE COURT IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
169. THE COPY OF STATUS REPORT FILED BY SI RAJESHWAR DATED 23.05.2019 BEFORE THE COURT OF MS NEHA, LDMM, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
170. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 23.02.2019 IN EXECUTION NO 318/18 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
171. THE COPY OF REPLY OF AMARJEET SOLANKI FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF MS NEHA, LD MM DWARKA COURTS, DELHI IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
172. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING NO 8750 BEFORE DCP SOUTH WEST DATED 25.05.2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
173. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT AGAISNT ASI AJIT SINGH , DCP SOUTH WEST WITH CALL RECORDING OF AJIT SINGH IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
174. THE COPY OF STATUS REPORT BY IO NCR 0048/2017 PS PALAM VILLAGE IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
175. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING NO 565 DATED 22/7/2019 DLSA DWARKA IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
176. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING NO 20311 DATED 23.10.2018 JCP OF DELHI POLICE IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
25 / 40177. THE COPY OF KALANDRA 107/150 CR.P.C. DATED 20/07/2019 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
178. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING NO 75B DATED 22/7/2019 WITH MLC OF POOJA OF DDU HOSPTIAL IS EXHIBITED EX. D1/179 (colly) (OSR) (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
179. THE COPYOF STATUS REPORT OF ASI AJIT SINGH DATED 22.01.2018B IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
180. THE COPY OF MLC OF MASTER ABHAY DATED 23.01.2018 OF DDU HOSPITAL IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
181. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEARING NO 11PP DATED 25/7/2019 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
182. THE COPY OF COMPLAINT PS SADAR BAHADURGARH FILED BY RENU & POOJA PARETNS DATED 09.11.2017 AGAINST AMARJEET SOLANKI IS IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
183. THE COPY OF BSES BILL OF RZ-3B/4M, RAJ NAGAR AND MOBILE NO IS OF AMARJEET SOLANKI IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
184. THE COPY OF LAB REPORT OF ANITA SOLANKI DATED 23.04.2014 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
185. THE COPYOF BANK STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK OF RAJESH KUMAR (BROTHER OF POOJA) IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
186. THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF SBI BANK OF RAJIV KUMAR IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
187. THE COPY OF DONATION SLIPS OF KIRPAL ASHRAM IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
188. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 09/12/2020 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/189. (Colly.) (OSR).
189. THE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 08.01.2021 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B6 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
190. THE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 16.01.2021 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B7 (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same is 26 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja filed without the permission of this court. The objection will be decided at final stage).
191. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 17.02.2022 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
192. THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DATED 09.03.2022 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
193. THE COPY OF STATUS REPORT FILED BY SI RAJESHWAR DATED 23.05.2019 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
194. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF EXECUTION CRIMINAL NO 186/2019 IS EXHIBTIED AS EX.D1/195 (colly.) (OSR) (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same does not consist to whole execution petition and it is only part of it. The objection will be decided at final stage).
195. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF CIVIL SUIT 369/2018 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
196. THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY DEPONENT TO SHO POLICE STATION BAHADURGARH DATED 22.10.2019 IS DE- EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
197. THE COPY OF THE FARD/KHATONI DATED 05/11/2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/105.
198. THE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUM SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, JHAJJAR DATED 22/10/2019 ALONG WITH STATEMENTS IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/83.
199. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MAHILA COURT BY HON'BLE JUDGE SMT. NEHA DATED 17/11/2017 IN THE MATTER TITLED AS "POOJA VS AMARJIT SOLANKI" CC NO. 22998/2017 IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/200. (colly.) (OSR).
200. ORIGINAL ELECTRICITY BILL BY BSES OF CA NO. 151009075 & 151009077 DATED 11/12/2017 EACH IS EXHIBITED AS EX. D1/201. (colly.) (OSR).
201. THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY SH. TEK CHAND IN FAVOR OF SH. AMARJEET SOLANKI DATED 16/12/2018 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/144.
202. ORIGINAL CERTIFIED COPY IN EXECUTION NO 318/2018 IN MATTER OF TITLED AS POOJA VS AMARJEET SOLANKI IS EXHIBITED EX.D1/203 (colly.) (OSR) (the document is objected by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff on the ground that the same does not pertain to 27 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja whole execution petition and it only consists ordersheet dated 01.05.2023. The objection will be decided at final stage).
203. THE COPY OF RENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY CHAND SINGH IN FAVOR OF SH. AMARJEET SOLANKI DATED 6/11/2017 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B10.
204. COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER RTI FILED BY DEPONENT DATED 04.09.2019 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
205. COPY OF THE RATION CARD OF DEPONENT DATED 21/02/2015 WITH ADDRESS RZ3-B-4 DDA CHHATRI WALA PALAM DELHI 110045 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is already exhibited as Ex. D1/57.
206. COPY OF THE RATION CARD OF RESPONDENT NO. 2DATED 24/12/2010 WITH ADDRESS RZ38/4 RAJ NAGAR PALAM COLONY NEW DELHI - 110045 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
207. COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER SHOWING PUBLIC NOTICE BY PLAINTIFF DATED 11/11/2017 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B8.
208. THE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED BY AMARJEET SOALNKI IN FAVOUR OF R KRISHAN REAL ESTATE LLP DATED 08.01.2021 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
209. THE COPY OF RELEASE DEED EXECUTED BY AMARJEET SOLANKI IN FAVOUR OF R KRISHAN REAL ESTATE LLP DATED 16.01.2021 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
210. THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT BY ANISH DATED 18/01/2018 is already exhibited and BANK STATEMENT OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is now marked as Mark B9.
211. THAT FULL CERTIFIED COPY OF THE EXECUTION FILE No. 186/2019 IS DE-EXHIBITED as the same is not on record.
16. It is proved from the cross-examination of defendant no. 1 that Chand Singh/plaintiff was not in talking terms with the defendant no. 1 from October 2017 to 26.02.2018. It is also admitted that plaintiff got FIR Registered against the brother of the defendant no. 1. It is admitted that the defendant no. 1 has received the legal notice from plaintiff directing her to vacate the suit property. It was stated voluntarily by the defendant no. 1 that her husband was 28 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja not residing with her when legal notice was delivered. It is also admitted that prior to November, 2017 the ground floor of RZ-3B/4 measuring 50 sq yds. Out of Khasra no. 69/7 situated at Revenue Estate of Palam Colony as Raj Nagar, Part-I, New Delhi. It is also admitted fact that there are two separate Ration Cards in the name of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2. She has denied that she is not willing to reside at second floor of WZ-290, Palam Village. It is also admitted that she and her husband have never filed any application for seeking right to reside in matrimonial house i.e. WZ-290, Palam Village. It is voluntarily stated by the defendant no. 1 that she was forcefully evicted by her in-laws from her matrimonial house and she not having any place to reside. It is also evident from the questions asked and answers given that Second floor of WZ-290, Palam Village has already been attached by the court in pursuance of application filed by the defendant no. 1. It is also admitted that plaintiff is residing at second floor of RZ-3B/4. It is also admitted that the defendant no. 1 has not filed any document proving that the defendant no. 2 is owner or co- owner of the suit property.
17. Court has heard perused the record and heard arguments of counsels for both the parties.
Courts observations on the issues:
Issue No. 1: Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of filing of insufficient court fees? OPD
18. The onus of proving the issue is on the defendant. However, during the final arguments, it is conceded by both the parties that the said issue has already been decided by the court in order dated: 01.07.2025.
19. In the order dated 01.07.2025 court while placing its reliance on Judgments titled as Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avtar Singh 1985 AIR 1857 and Sunil Sharma & Anr Vs. Uma Sharma RSA No. 166/2012 decided on 14..03.2014, 29 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja has held that the plaintiff was required to value the relief of possession as he had claimed relief of mandatory injunction, which is permissible as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court Sunil Sharma & Anr Vs. Uma Sharma, hence, there is no irregularity is found in the valuation of the present case and in court fee affixed with the plaint.
20. In view of above discussion, present issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession, as prayed for? OPP Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property? OPD.
21. Both the issues are taken together, as the decision on one will affect the decision on the other issue. The burden of proving the issue no. 2 is on the plaintiff and burden of proving the issue no. 3 is on the defendant.
22. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a senior citizen and the owner of the suit property and he has permitted the defendants to use it for use and reside the same on their request and assurance, that they will vacate the same as and when they will be directed to. The license of the defendants to use the shop had come to an end when report against them was filed in the police due their misconduct, however to avoid controversy it was cancelled by issuing legal notice dated 21.01.2018. To prove that plaintiff is the owner of the shop he has produced Copy of GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt, executed by Sh. Mahavir Singh S/o Sh. Surat Singh in favour of the plaintiff, which are Ex. PW1/1 (OSR)(colly.), through these documents Sh. Mahavir Singh has transferred his rights in the property which is built up part of house No. RZ-3 B/4, area measuring 50 sq. yds, out of Khasra No. 69/7, situated in the area of Village Palam, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff. further he has also examined PW-2 from the office of Sub-Registrar, who produced GPA vide 30 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja registration no. 44928, Book No. 4, Vol. NO. 4665, page no.45-46, dt. 15.09.1997 which is Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) (Colly) and Will dt. 15.09.1997 vide registration no. 59031 Book No. 3, Volume No.3992 Page no.112 which is Ex. PW2/2 (OSR). Ex. PW2/1 is the same GPA, which is part of Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) and as per the will PW2/2 (OSR) Sh. Mahavir Singh has bequeathed the property which is built up part of house No. RZ-3 B/4, area measuring 50 sq. yds, out of Khasra No. 69/7, situated in the area of Village Palam, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff. Further, plaintiff has also produced electricity bill issued by BSES, which is Ex. PW1/8 to prove that the electricity connection on the suit property is also in the name of the plaintiff. To prove the misconduct of defendant's plaintiff has produced police complaints and FIR Ex. PW1/5 (Colly). Further to prove termination of license plaintiff has filed legal notice Ex. PW-P3.
23. Per Conta, the case of the defendant no.1 is that she is not the licensee in the suit property. She is in possession of the suit property because her husband, i.e. defendant no. 2 is the actual owner of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 2 has given the portion of house No. RZ-3 B/4 on rent, he is receiving the rent from the tenants on the property in his bank account, further he was also running a cybercafé by the name of S.K.R.M Cuber Hut on the suit property for which he is having broadband connection in his name given by MTNL on the suit property. Further, it is stated that the he was also running a bakery by the name of Dada Dev Bakery Shop in the suit property. Further, the case of the defendant no. 1 is also that the defendant no. 2 and plaintiff in conspiracy are trying to dispossess her from the suit property, which is actually owned by the defendant no. 2 and not the plaintiff. The case of the defendant no. 1is also that the title documents of plaintiff are forged and fabricated, she was not guilty of misconduct; rather, the plaintiff, defendant No. 31 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja 2, and their family mistreated her. She was subjected to cruelty by them for demanding more dowry. It is not in dispute that the defendant no. 2 was receiving rent from RZ 3 B/4, same is admitted by the plaintiff during his cross- examination. It is also not in dispute that the defendant no. 2 was running cyber- café or bakery in the suit property. However, to prove her contention that her husband/defendant no. 2 was running a Cyber-café, she has relied on a visiting card of the said cafe Ex. DW1/29 (OSR), the visiting card is name of the plaintiff and also bearing the address i.e. RZ3 B/4, Raj Nagar Part-1. Opp. Sham Marble, Palam, New Delhi-46. The remaining visiting cards in Ex. DW1/29 (OSR) are only name of defendant no. 2 and mobile numbers but not bearing any addresses. Further, the electricity bills in the name of defendant no. 2, pertaining to property bearing no. RZ3 B/4, Raj Nagar Part-1. Opp. Sham Marble, Palam, New Delhi-46 were admitted by the plaintiff. Further, to prove that plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and their family was guilty of misconduct and cruelty over her, she has filed on record various police complaints. In this regard, plaintiff has admitted during his cross examination that and FIR bearing no. 103/12/2/18 u/s 498A/5066 IPC was registered at PS Bahadurgarh against him and his family members. Further, no effort has been made by the defendant no. 1 to prove that the title documents filed by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated. On contrary, defendant no. 1 has admitted that she has not filed any document to prove that defendant no. 2 is the owner of the property.
24. It is needless to say, that defendant no. 1 has failed to prove that the title documents filed by plaintiff are forged and fabricated, as she has not made any effort to prove the said contention. Further, from the above discussion court is of the opinion that the documents produced by the plaintiff proves that he is having better possessory title than the defendants, in absence of any title documents in favour of defendants. The will executed in favour of plaintiff is 32 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja sufficient to transfer the ownership over the property to plaintiff after the death of Sh. Mahavir Singh. It is clear that the defendant has failed discharge the burden of proving the issue no. 3.
25. Further, it is also argued on behalf of defendant no. 1 that the suit property is shared household as per the provision of DV Act, hence she must not be dispossessed from the same as she is not having any other place to reside. The reliance was placed by the defendant no. 1 on the judgment titled as Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja MANU/SC/0767/2020.
26. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the suit property cannot be termed as "shared household" as per section 17 (1) of the DV Act, as the suit property is self-acquired property of father-in-law of the defendant no. 1, it is not owned by the defendant no. 2/husband of defendant no.1, it is not belonging to joint family of which defendant no. 2 is member and it is also not taken on rent by defendant no. 2, reliance is placed on Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra 2014 LawSuit(Del) 5740.
27. In this regard, court wishes to place its reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja MANU/SC/0767/2020, where Apex Court has interpreted the term "shared household" in much broader and progressive manner than the previous judgments, especially S.R. Batra vs Taruna Batra. It is clarified that "shared household" is neither restricted to the property owned or rented by the husband of daughter-in-law, nor joint family property, but rather covers any household where the wife has lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of actual ownership or tenancy status. In the present case, the plaintiff himself has stated that he has in the plaint that his son/defendant no. 2 and daughter-in-law to reside and use the suit property. It is the case of plaintiff that they have lived in a domestic relationship on the suit property. So, in view of the law settled in the 33 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja judgement of Apex Court, the court has found that the suit property is a "shared household", it does not mean that the defendant no. 1 is having indefeasible right to reside in the suit property. In Satish Chander Ahuja (supra), it was also held that right to reside in shared household is not an indefeasible right, especially when it is pitted against rights of the old age father-in-law or mother- in-law. At the same time, directions are also given to balance the rights of both the parties, in view of guidelines mentioned in the para 56 of Ambika Jain Vs. Ram Prakash Sharma 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11886, which are as followed:
"56. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are accord-
ingly set aside. The matters are remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given hereinbe-
low:
(i) At the first instance, in all cases where the respondent's son/the appellant' husband has not been impleaded, the trial Court shall direct his impleadment by invoking its suo motu powers under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
(ii) The trial Court will then consider whether the appellant had made any unambiguous admission about the respondent's ownership rights in respect of the suit premises; if she has and her only defence to being dispossessed therefrom is her right of residence under the DV Act, then the trial Court shall, before passing a decree of possession on the sole premise of ownership rights, ensure that in view of the subsisting rights of the appellant under the DV Act, she is provided with an alternate accommodation as per Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which will continue to be provided to her till the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.
(iii) In cases where the appellant specifically disputes the exclusive ownership rights of the respondents over the suit premises notwithstanding the title documents in their favour, the trial Court, while granting her an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim, will be entitled to pass interim orders 34 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja on applications moved by the respondents, directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises subject to the provision of a suitable alternate accommodation to her under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which direction would also be subject to the final outcome of the suit.
(iv) While determining as to whether the appellant's husband or the in-laws bears the responsibility of providing such alternate accommodation to the appellant, if any, the trial Court may be guided by paragraph 46 of the decision in Vinay Verma (supra).
(v) The trial Court shall ensure that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that the direction for alternate accommodation is not rendered and that a shelter is duly secured for the appellant, during the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.
(vi) This exercise of directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises by granting her alternate accommodation will be completed expeditiously and not later than 6 months from today."
28. As per the aforementioned judgment, in cases for possession against daughter in law, husband must be made party; in case she disputes ownership rights over the suit property, she must be given an opportunity to lead evidence; and while passing orders of eviction against the daughter in law court must ensure that alternate accommodation must be provided to the daughter-in- law; and to determine whether in-law or husband are responsible for providing alternate accommodation the court may be guided by paragraph 46 of the decision in Vinay Verma (supra).
29. Para 46 of Vinay Varma vs Kanika Pasricha & Anr. AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1878, is as followed:
"46. However, later decisions of various High Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of `shared household‟, followed one uniform pattern in order to protect the daughter-in-law and to provide for 35 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja a dignified roof/ shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-
laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-
law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out below, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act and the DV Act:
1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son‟s/ daughter‟s family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son-
in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son‟s family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a 36 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband.
On facts of the present case"
30. In aforementioned judgment, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that primary duty to provide maintenance and residence to the wife is upon the husband, not the in-laws; but, where the wife had lived in a joint family set-up, she may temporarily claim residence as part of her right to dignity and shelter. The Court clarified that parents are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of their property and may seek eviction of their son and daughter-in-law in case of acrimony or harassment. However, in cases of joint residence or collusion between son and parents, eviction must be balanced with provision for alternative reasonable accommodation to the daughter-in-law, ensuring that both the wife's right to shelter and the parents' right to property and peaceful living are protected concurrently.
31. In the present case, it is already held that the suit property is a "shared household", husband of the defendant has been made party and defendant no. 1 is given an opportunity to lead evidence to prove her contention that plaintiff is not the owner, but her husband defendant no. 2 is the owner of the suit property. Further, it is also already held, that the plaintiff is having better possessory title than the defendants over the suit property. Also, from the above discussion, it is also established that the defendants are in possession of the suit property because of the permission given to them to use the same by the plaintiff. The service of legal notice is also proved/admitted, accordingly, it is established that the permission given to the defendants to use and reside in the suit property has been terminated. Hence, it is established that the defendants are in unlawful possession of the suit property since the service of legal notice.37 / 40
Chand Singh Vs. Pooja
32. Further, it is the case of both the parties that the relationship between the parties is not harmonious. In pleadings, both the parties have levelled allegations of harassment, cruelty and misconduct over each other. Both parties have filed police complaints against each other. Criminal litigation is also pending between the parties.
33. From the above discussion, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has established the clear case for eviction of the defendants from the suit property and it is already on record the defendant no. 2 has already vacated the suit property.
34. Further, it is also the case of the parties, that the defendants are living separately in the suit property and not living in a joint family. Neither of the party has claimed that the defendant no. 1 is living in a joint family. Hence, the condition precedent for invoking responsibility of plaintiff to provide shelter/accommodation to the defendant no. 1 is not fulfilled. Also, defendant no. 1 has not brought on record any evidence other mere averments to prove that defendant no. 2 and plaintiff are in collusion. It is also not the case of defendant no. 1 that her husband is residing with his parents. Further, plaintiff has brought on record publication in newspaper showing that he has severed all his relations from his son Amarjeet Solanki/defendant no. 2 and defendant no.1. He has also debarred them from his movable or immovable properties. So, from the record available before the court, court has found no reason to believe that plaintiff is in collusion with the defendant no. 2. Also, in any case, from the questions put to defendant no. 1 during her cross-examination, it is evident she is having place to reside i.e. WZ-290, 2nd Floor, Palam Village, Lodhi Chowk, New Delhi-45. Further, during final arguments, it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the said property is in the name of the defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 can reside in the said property. Defendant no. 2 has never come 38 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja forward to raise any objection against the plaint or submissions made by the plaintiff. From cross-examination of defendant no.1 it is also appearing that she is not having any objection if she is given residence at WZ-290, 2nd Floor, Palam Village, Lodhi Chowk, New Delhi-45. In view of the beforementioned discussion, court has found that the defendant no. 1 can reside in WZ-290, 2nd Floor, Palam Village, Lodhi Chowk, New Delhi-45 and her husband or any member of the family of in-law must not obstruct her from residing in the said property till the subsistence of matrimonial relations.
35. In light of the above discussion, both the issues are decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of mesne profits/damages? OPP
36. The burden of proving the present issue is on the plaintiff. Although plaintiff has brought nothing on record to prove that he has suffered the damages of Rs. 1,50,000/-. But it has already been held that the defendants are in unlawful possession of the suit property since the service of legal notice (i.e. for more than last 7 years) thereby depriving the plaintiff of the lawful enjoyment of his rights from the date of termination of their license. The continued occupation of suit property after termination of license by the defendants, amounts to wrongful possession, entitling the plaintiff to claim mesne profits for the period of such occupation till the delivery of possession. Even if the defendant no. 2 had vacated the suit property, but being husband of defendant no. 1, it his duty to maintain and provide accommodation to defendant no. 1, who continued to remain in possession of the suit property even after termination of license, Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover mesne profits from both the defendants jointly and severally.39 / 40
Chand Singh Vs. Pooja
37. In view of above, issue no. 4 is also decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff.
Relief
38. In light of above discussion, plaintiff is hereby found entitled to:
a. The decree of possession, hence defendant no. 1 is directed to vacate the suit property i.e. property bearing no. RZ-3B/4 measuring 50 sq. yard, out of Khasra no. 69/7, situated in revenue Estate of Palam Colony Known as Raj Nagar, Pat-1, New Delhi and hand over the peaceful physical possession of the same to the plaintiff within 30 days from today.
b. Recover Rs. 1,50,000/- from the defendants, jointly and severally as mesne profits.
39. Further, Court has found that the defendant no. 1 can reside in WZ-290, 2nd Floor, Palam Village, Lodhi Chowk, New Delhi-45 and her husband or any member of the family of in-law must not obstruct her from residing in the said property till the subsistence of matrimonial relations.
NISHAT
40. No orders to cost. BANGARH
41. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.Digitally signed by NISHAT
42. File be consigned to record room BANGARH Date: 2025.10.16 16:56:09 +0530 (NISHAT BANGARH) Civil Judge-02, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi/16.10.2025 40 / 40 Chand Singh Vs. Pooja