Delhi District Court
Rati Ram vs Bhuley Ram on 7 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT No.:- 8687/2016
CNR No.:- DLET03-000035-2006
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Lt. Sh. Ratiram
Now represented by:
1. Ramesh Chand (expired)
Now represented through LR's:
(a) Smt. Santosh Devi - Wife
(b) Sh. Ketan Chaudhary- Son
(c) Ms. Payal Chaudhary- Daughter
2. Shyam Singh
3. Gajraj Singh (expired)
Now represented through LR's:
(a) Smt. Davendri Devi (Wife)
(b) Smt. Preeti (Daughter)
(c) Smt. Rekha (Daughter)
(d) Smt. Pooja (Daughter)
(e) Arun (Son)
4. Maharaj Singh
5. Ratan Lal
6. Ranbir Singh
7. Rohtash Singh
All R/o- Village Subhanpur, Patti Gurjran
Ashar, P.O. Karawal Nagar, District North
East, Delhi-110094
T
..........Plaintiff (through his LRs) PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:07:38 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 1 of 37
Versus
1. Bhuley Ram.
2. Lal Chand
3. Satpal (expired)
Now represented through LR's:
(a) Smt. Jastwani Devi (Wife)
(b) Bijender (Son)
(c) Gajender (Son)
(d) Smt. Neetu (Daughter)
(e) Monu Chaudhary (Son)
4. Bhagmal
All sons of Late Hukum Singh.
5. Vijay Pal
6. Ajay Pal
Both S/o Bhuley Ram
7. Lalit Chaudhary S/o Sh. Lal Chand
8. Sumit Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwal
All R/o- Village Subhanpur, Patti Gurjran Ashar,
P.O. Karawal Nagar, District North East,
Delhi-110094.
..........collectively referred
to as the Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of Institution: 19.07.2006
Date on which judgment was reserved: 02.08.2025
Date of judgment: 07.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment I shall dispose of a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Before Digitally signed by T CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 2 of 37 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:07:44 +0530 adjudicating upon the issues framed, I feel it necessary to dwell upon the plethora of pleadings in the present suit.
PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. The facts of present case, are summarized below:
a) The late plaintiff was engaged in the business of agriculture, dairy, farming, gardening and other allied jobs which was the ancestral business of the plaintiff and the plaintiff belonged to the farmer community.
b) Sh. Balwant was the Bhumidar of the agricultural land consisting of Kh. No. 541, 542, 543, 544, 545 and 546, 600, 469, 610, 611, 613, 616, 619, 618 and Khata No. 32 alongwith Khasra No. 606 situated in the revenue estate of village Sabhapur Patti Gujran, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi.
After the death of Balwant, the Bhumidari rights devolved on the aforesaid land on their two sons (Sh. Nanwa and Sh. Ram Singh) in equal share to the extent of ½ and they were in cultivatory possession of the same.
c) Sh. Nanwa (son of Balwant) expired leaving behind his brother Sh. Ram Singh. The property of Sh. Nanwa was devolved upon his two sons namely Sh. Hukam Singh and Sh. Rati Ram in equal shares to the extent of ½ share each. Further, Sh. Hukam Singh expired leaving behind his four sons namely Bhuley Ram (defendant no.1), Sh. Lal Singh (defendant no.2), Sh. Satpal (defendant no.3) and Sh. Bhagmal (defendant no.4) and the Bhumidari rights were devolved upon them as per Section 50 of DLR Act in Digitally signed CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 3 of 37 T PRIYADARSHINI by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:07:52 +0530 equal shares.
d) Sh. Ram Singh expired later on and his rights, title and interest in the property were devolved upon survivorship by the surviving male lineal descendant Sh. Rati Ram and the mutation to that effect was effected on 01.04.1978 in the revenue record and the name of the Plaintiff Rati Ram is figured in the revenue record.
e) The plaintiff was in the actual physical possession, use and occupation and in cultivatory possession of the land and was using the same for its beneficial enjoyment. The plaintiff raised the cattle shed on the part of the land of Khasra No. 606 and in order to protect the crops from wild animals, the boundary wall and partly fencing was also made by erecting cemented poles and barbed wire by the plaintiff. plaintiff was regularly sowing Rabi and Kharif crops and installed a tube-well for irrigation and a hand pump for animals. The iron gate was also installed for security purpose. The khora, khunta, kurli were also there and the part is being used for storing the fodder, drying the cow-dungs and other allied agriculture purpose.
f) Union of India acquired 1-06 Biswas of land in the aforesaid Khasra number vide award no. 83/86-87 and the compensation was assessed to the plaintiff to the extent of ½ share. Thus, the plaintiff was now in possession of 266/469 Biswas in Khasra No. 606 min. and sown Jawar and Bajra in the said land.
g) Defendants on 07.07.2006 made a false police call and the plaintiff was taken to the police station and CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 4 of 37 T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07 16:07:57 +0530threatened to enter the private land of the deceased plaintiff and harvest crops. However, when the plaintiff showed the documents to the police officials, the situation came under control, although, defendants openly threatened the plaintiff to come with the force and harvest the crops forcibly on the private land of the plaintiff. Due to the aforesaid conduct of the defendants, proceedings under Section 107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also pending before SEM Seelampur, Delhi.
h) In this background, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession, use, occupation, enjoyment and cultivatory possession in Khasra No. 606 to the extent of ½ share measuring 266/469 bounded by boundary wall and barbed wire as shown in site plan and also not to damage the holding in any manner whatsoever of Khasra No. 606 situated in revenue estate of Village Sabhapur Patti Gujran, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Suit Land").
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS
3. In the written statement, the defendants have taken certain preliminary objections namely, that the present court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act; that appeal is already pending disposal before Deputy Commissioner, North West; that the present proceedings are barred under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 5 of 37 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07 16:08:01 +0530 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") in view of the pendency of the proceedings before Ld. SDM; and that suit is otherwise bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. The other specific defences averred by the defendants are listed below:
a) The plaintiff is not having any ancestral business and has no business except farming. It is admitted that Sh.
Balwant was the owner of the land and that Bhumidari rights of Sh. Balwant came to his sons, namely, Sh. Nanwa and Sh. Ram Singh. Estate of Sh. Nanwa devolved on the plaintiff late Sh. Rati Ram and the sons of Mr. Hukam Singh. The defendants being successor-in-interest of Sh. Balwant, Sh. Nanwa and Sh. Hukam Singh, have inherited the share.
b) It is averred that there is no question of devolution of Sh. Ram Singh's property by survivorship as he has already bequeathed/partitioned/given his property to his two nephews and the plaintiff during his lifetime in two equal shares.
c) It is also averred that no mutation was ever sanctioned because the certified copies of the same were not available with the concerned department. Moreover, the said mutation was forged by the plaintiff regarding which information was also conveyed to the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, North West. Further, mutation has been fraudulently shown only in one Khasra. Defendants denied that the revenue officer prepared the records as per the Land Revenue Act.
d) The property of Ram Singh has been occupied by
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 6 of 37 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:08:05 +0530
his two nephews namely Mr. Hukam Singh and the plaintiff and they are cultivating the land in their respective one-half share. It is denied that the plaintiff is in actual and physical possession, use and occupation of the land as the defendants are in possession of ½ share of Ram Singh and are in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of ½ share of Ram Singh in all the Khasra Numbers. Defendants denied that plaintiff raised cattle shed in respect of part of the land of Suit Land in order to protect the crops from wild animals, boundary. They also denied the fact that boundary wall was fenced and it is the defendants who fenced the boundary. Defendants also denied that there is no tubewell and handpump in the Suit Land and an iron gate is installed by the plaintiff therein.
e) Defendants also denied that the plaintiff is in possession of 266/469 Biswas of the Suit Land and has sown the crop of JWAR and BAJRA over the land.
f) Defendants denied that they made a false call to the police. In fact, the call was made due to the act of the plaintiff. Defendants denied the suggestion that they threatened the plaintiff to enter into the land as they are enjoying the same and have been harvesting the corps since 1960, hence, no question of entering is ever arising.
g) The plaintiff and his family members are threatening the defendants to dispossess them from their share which was given to them by their father and grandfather Sh. Ram Singh, during his lifetime.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:09 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 7 of 37
REPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
4. The plaintiff has denied the averments of the defendants. The plaintiff has denied that Ram Singh bequeathed the property to his nephews. The plaintiff has also denied that the either Hukam Singh or his legal heirs are in possession of ½ share of Ram Singh. The plaintiff has also denied that the property was partitioned in 1960. It is averred that the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff in 1978 and there was no bequeathal by Sh. Ram Singh as averred.
COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
5. An application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in view of the provisions of Section 185 of the Land Reforms Act, 1954 as the suit pertains to agricultural land. The defendants have averred that Entry 18 of Schedule I of the Land Reforms Act includes suit for injunction which can be tried before the Revenue Assistant and not before the Civil Court. The defendants also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nathu vs. Hukam Singh [21 (1982) Delhi Law Times 219] and averred that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has averred that the right of transfer of interest by a Bhumidar (if his Bhumidari rights is in agricultural land) is controlled only by the provision of the Land Reforms Acr 1954. The application was dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2006 with the following observation:
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:13 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 8 of 37
"A bare reading of Section 83 provides for that in lieu of suing for ejectment, the Gaon Sabha or land holder may sue for injunction with or without compensation. The injunction as provided for in Section 83 of the Act means the suit for mandatory injunction and not for perpetual injunction. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court for entertaining a suit for perpetual injunction qua agricultural land is not barred under the provisions of Section 185 and Entry no. 18 of Schedule I of the Act."
6. Two applications were filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC by the defendants during the course of proceedings. One for impleadment of LRs of Mr. Doonger as defendants and the other for impleadment of Gram Sabha as defendants. Both applications were dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2008. An appeal was preferred by the defendants which was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2008 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the said order, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
"The plaintiff had filed a suit that plaintiff was in peaceful possession of half portion of Khasra No. 606 in the Revenue Estate of Village Sabha Pur Shahdara, Delhi and he wanted that he should not be dispossessed by the defendant without due process of law. The defendant moved these applications alleging that LRs of Mr. Doongar and Gram Sabha were the necessary parties since the land was shown in the revenue record to be owned by Gram Sabha as Mr. Doongar was the earlier co-owner in the Digitally signed by T CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 9 of 37 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:08:18 +0530 revenue record, since Mr. Doongar had died his LRs should also be brought on record.
It is undisputed that the land in question is alleged to be agricultural land known by khasra number etc. and the Civil Judge cannot enter into the controversy about the ownership of the land. The jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide ownership is specifically barred by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and thus the controversy before the Civil Judge would be confined to the issue whether there was any threat of forcible dispossession to the plaintiff at the hands of the defendants. No other person would be a necessary party in such a suit. The trial court rightly dismissed the applications. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed."
ISSUES
7. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 05.09.2013, the following issues were framed:
Issue no.1 - Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court as stated by the defendants in the preliminary objection of the written statement filed on record? OPD Issue no.2 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff in the plaint? OPP Issue no.3 - Relief Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 10 of 37 Date: 2025.08.07 16:08:23 +0530 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
8. Sh. Ramesh Chand examined himself as PW1, Sh. Shyam Singh as PW2, Sh. Giriraj Singh, Halka Patwari, SDM Ofice, Karawal Nagar as PW3, Sh. Babu Ram, Extension Officer, Agriculture, Block Development office as PW4, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Senior Judicial Assistant, In-charge Record Room (Civil), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as PW5 and Sh. Amit, Junior Judicial Assistant, Office of Financial Commissioner, Delhi as PW6. PW1 has led his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. He also placed on record copy of the Khatoni Ex. PW1/1 (4 sheets), copy of Khasra Girdhawari Ex.
PW1/2, copy of Naksha Muntazanin Ex. PW1/3 (colly), copy of Site Plan Ex. PW1/4, Photographs of the property Ex.PW1/5 (colly), copy of the summons in suit no. 1474/06 Ex. PW1/6, copy of suit filed by Bhule Ram Ex. PW1/7, copy of appeal filed by Bhule Ram Ex. PW1/8, copy of reply in the appeal Ex. PW1/9, photographs Ex. PW1/10 (colly), copy of report of the video dated 05.03.2007 Ex. PW1/11, copy of report in ID no. 393 Ex. PW1/12, copy of case filed u/s 145 of the Code Ex. PW1/13 and copy of the report of SHO dated 13.06.2006 Ex. PW1/14. He was partly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for defendants on 16.05.2015, 03.12.2015 and 05.03.2016. However, the cross- examination of the said witness was not concluded by Ld. Counsel for the defendants. Accordingly, the opportunity to cross examine the said witness was closed vide order dated 03.08.2017.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:27 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 11 of 37
9. PW2 Sh. Shyam Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW2/A. He also relied upon the same documents that were exhibited and relied upon by PW1. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2.
10. PW3 Sh. Giri Raj Singh brought the summoned record i.e. Khatoni of the year 1985-1986, Village Sabhapur, Shahdara, in respect of the Suit Land and placed on record the copy of the same i.e. Ex PW3/1(OSR). He also brought the Khasra Girdhawari of the year 2017-2018 and Shizra in respect of Village Sabhapur, Shahdara i.e. Ex. PW3/2 (colly) (OSR) and Ex. PW3/3 (OSR) respectively. He also filed copy of his office identity card i.e. Ex. PW3/4(OSR). Despite grant of opportunity, no questions were asked by the defendants.
11. PW4 Sh. Babu Ram, Extension Officer, Agriculture brought the summoned record of ID No. 393 dated 15.02.2007 and ID No. 394 dated 15.02.2007. He also compared the copy of Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12 with the record and produced the true copy i.e. Ex. PW4/1 and Ex. PW4/2, which bears the signature of Block Development Officer Yogesh Pal Singh. He also filed his office identity card i.e. Ex. PW4/3(OSR). Despite grant of opportunity, no questions were asked by the defendants.
12. PW5 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Senior Judicial Assistant, Incharge Record Room (Civil), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. the original file of the suit no. 1474/2006 Digitally signed by T CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 12 of 37 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07 16:08:32 +0530 titled as Bhuley Ram & Ors vs. Rati Ram & Ors. Copy of the said suit/plaint as well as application filed by the plaintiff therein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC already Ex. PW1/7. It is averred that the same has been compared with the contents of the original case file brought by him i.e. Ex. PW5/1 (colly). The aforesaid case file also contains the order dated 27.02.2007 of the then Ld. Civil Judge, KKD Courts, Delhi i.e. Ex. PW5/2 (colly three pages). Despite grant of opportunity, no questions were asked by the defendants.
13. PW6 Sh. Amit brought the summoned record of the appeal no. 11/06 titled as Bhuley Ram and others vs. Rati Ram and another filed by the defendant in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Delhi i.e. Ex. PW6/A (colly). Reply filed by Rati Ram alongwith photographs in the said appeal are Ex. PW6/B (colly 14 pages) (OSR). Copy of order dated 24.05.2016 in appeal no. 11/06 titled as Bhuley and others vs. Rati Ram and another is Ex. PW6/C (colly three pages) (OSR) and copy of the second appeal no. 190/16 is Ex. PW6/D (colly 24 pages)(OSR). He also filed his office identity card i.e. Ex.PW6/E(OSR). He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
14. In support of his case, the defendants examined eleven witnesses. DW1 Sh. Vijay Pal tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. copy of Khasra Girdawari of year 1978-1979, copy of the order dated Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 13 of 37 2025.08.07 16:08:36 +0530 17.12.2007 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Ex. DW1/2(colly three pages), copy of Demarcation Report dated 08.02.2008 prepared by Tehsildar, Seelampur, Delhi i.e. Ex.
DW1/3(colly three pages), copy of the Map prepared by the Tehsildar, Seelam Pur, Delhi i.e. Ex. DW1/4, copy of order dated 12.09.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi i.e. Ex. DW1/5 (colly three pages), copy of the Khasra Girdawari of year 2006-07 Ex. DW1/6, copy of Khasra Girdawri of year 2011-2012 Ex. DW1/7, Certified copy of the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the court of Financial Commissioner, Delhi i.e. Ex. DW1/8. He also relied upon the document which is already exhibited as Ex. PW2/DA, which is the copy of the Khata Khatoni. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
15. DW2 Sh. Braham Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit ie. Ex. DW2/A and relied upon the document i.e. copy of his voter ID card Ex. DW2/1(OSR). He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
16. DW3 Sh. Rajinder tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. DW3/A and relied upon the document i.e. copy of his Aadhar card Ex. DW3/1(OSR). He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
17. DW4 Sh. Giri Raj Singh, Halka Patwari brought the Khatoni record in respect of Khasra no. 613 and 616 of Village Sabhapur i.e. Ex. DW4/1(OSR). He also asserted that as per Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 14 of 37 PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07 16:08:40 +0530 record, Gram Sabha should be in recorded possession over the Suit Land. On being asked as to who is the owner/Bhumidar of Khasra no. 613 and 616 of Village Sabhapur as on date, he said as the Revenue record/Khatoni i.e. Ex. DW4/1, the name of the owners are mentioned in the said document. He also asserted that as per document Ex. DW4/1, Sh. Ram Singh is the owner/bhumidar of Khasra no. 616 and 616, Village Sabhapur, Delhi. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. During examination, Ld. Counsel for the defendants was permitted to re-examine the witness, which was allowed. DW Sh. Giri Raj Singh has filed copy of Form P-4/ Girdhawari in respect of Suit Land i.e. Ex. DW4/2(colly two pages) (OSR). He deposed that as per his record, Ex. DW4/2 Gram Sabha is in cultivatory possession. He was again cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
18. DW5 Sh. R. L. Meena, Tehsildar Karawal Nagar brought a letter from his office i.e. Ex. DW5/A and as per the letter, mutation file bearing no. 344/NT/D dated 25.04.1978 and O4 register pertaining to Suit Land could not be traced with the record keeper in his office. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
19. DW6 Sh. Kulwant, LDC, posted at the Office of Financial Commissioner, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi brought the relevant record pertaining to the case titled as Bhuley and others vs. Rati Ram (deceased) and others. As per the record, there is a CAI form pertaining to application for obtaining certified copy of the Digitally signed CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 15 of 37 T PRIYADARSHINI by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:08:44 +0530 mutation records of the Suit Land i.e. Ex. DW6/A(colly six pages) (OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
20. DW7 Sh. R.N. Meena, Tehsildar, Karawal Nagar brought the summoned i.e. Demarcation Report dated 08.02.2008 and submitted that the aforesaid record is not traceable in the office and report to this effect Ex. DW7/A (colly three pages). Despite grant of opportunity, no questions were asked by the defendants.
21. DW8 Sh. Ram Kishan, former Halka Patwari/Kanoongo deposed that on the instruction and letter from BDO, he prepared the Demarcation Report i.e. already Ex.DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4, which bears his signatures at point A, B and C. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
22. DW9 Sh. Narender Kumar, Kanoongo, Revenue Record Room, Tis Hazari brought the summoned record i.e. Khatoni of Khasra no. 334/215/258/259 and 388/324 in Khata no. 31 of Revenue State of Sabhapur, Delhi for the year 1964-65 i.e. Ex. DW9/1, for the year 1969-1970 i.e. DW9/2(OSR), for the year 1977-79 i.e. Ex. DW9/4(OSR) and for the year 1982-83 i.e. Ex. DW9/5 (OSR). He also brought the summoned record i.e. Khasra Girdhawari of Khasra no. 334/215/258/259 and 388/324 in Khata no. 31 of Revenue Estate of Sabhapur, Delhi for the year 1949-56 Ex.DW9/6(OSR) and for the year 1956-58 Ex. DW9/7(OSR). He also brought summoned record i.e. Khasra Khatoni of the Suit Land for the year 1964-64 i.e. Ex. DW9/8(OSR), for the year T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 16 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:08:49 +0530 1968-69 i.e. Ex. DW9/9(OSR), for the year 1973-74 i.e. Ex. DW9/10(OSR), for the year 1980-81 i.e. Ex. DW9/11(OSR), for the year 1954-58 i.e. Ex. DW9/12(OSR). He did not file the record i.e. Khasra Girdawari of the Khasra no. 334/215/258/259 and 388/324 for the year 1959 to 1991 as the same was stated to be destroyed vide orders which are Ex. DW9/13(colly). He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
23. DW10 Sh. S. K. Verma, Patwari from the Office of SDM Karawal Nagar produced the summoned i.e. Khatoni and Khasra Girdawari of the Khasra bearing no. 334/215/258/259 and 388/324 (Khata no.31) of the Revenue Estate Sabhapur for the year 1986-87 which is Ex. DW10/1, for the year 2016-17 which is Ex. DW10/2 (colly two pages) and for the year 2021-2022 which is Ex. DW10/3 (colly two pages). He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
24. DW11 Sh. Manoj Kumar, Lekhpal, Tehsil Loni, UP deposed that the requisite record is not available with them and same is lying in Record Room, Ghaziabad. He was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.
25. After conclusion of defence witnesses, the DE was closed vide order dated 01.09.2022. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties. The pleadings as well as evidence and all the annexed and exhibited documents, record and written arguments have been carefully perused.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:08:55 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 17 of 37
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
Issue no.2 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiff in the plaint? OPP Re: Law relating to permanent injunctions
26. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the following in relation to permanent injunction:
"38. Perpetual injunction when granted --
(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:
a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion; Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:00 +0530 CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 18 of 37
c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief; and
d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings."
27. The present suit has been filed for injunction simplicitor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy [AIR 2008 SC 2033] with respect to suits filed for simplicitor injunction:
11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.
11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:2025.08.07 16:09:04 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 19 of 37 11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, Digitally signed by T CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 20 of 37 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:08 +0530 which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration.
Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
.....21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy.
Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 21 of 37 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07 16:09:13 +0530 established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-
forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.
But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 22 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:17 +0530 because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case."
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jharkhand State Housing Board vs. Didar Singh and others [(2019) 17 SCC 692] has held that:
"The issue that falls for our consideration is: "Whether the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff?" It is well settled by catena of Judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction."
29. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vikas Wadhwa vs. Pradeep Kumar and others [AIR Online 2018 DEL 2758] wherein it was observed that:
"A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar's case (supra) CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 23 of 37 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:22 +0530 shows that a person who is in possession can protect his possession against the world at large except the true owner. As against the true owner the equitable remedy of injunction is not to be granted in favour of a plaintiff who is not in lawful possession. In a suit where a plaintiff only claims injunction, but where title of a plaintiff is seriously disputed and which requires examination of complex questions of law and facts, then a simplicitor suit for injunction will not lie and it would be necessary for the plaintiff to seek a declaratory relief with respect to the ownership of the suit land before seeking injunction with respect thereto. The Supreme Court has also however held that if a suit is simplicitor for injunction but the parties proceed on the basis of title itself being in issue and accordingly the case is contested by leading evidence by the respective parties, then in such a case the simplicitor suit for injunction can be said to include the aspect of title which has to be decided. Thus, in any suit for injunction filed with respect to an immovable property where title of the suit property is disputed, courts have to examine the aspect of title which is directly in issue and it is only if the plaintiff is found to have title to the suit property, only then the plaintiff will be entitled to injunction, of course provided that the plaintiff is also found to be in actual physical possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit."Digitally signed by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:26 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 24 of 37
30. Applying the above legal position w.r.t. cases seeking simpliciter injunction to the facts of the present case, the following issues have to be seen:
a) Whether the plaintiff has exclusive and legal possession of the Suit Land?
b) Whether title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed and requires examination of complex questions of law and fact?
Re: Exclusive Possession of the Suit Land by the Plaintiff
31. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the proof of possession is essential as in order to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful and exclusive possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. The plaintiff has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rama Gowda vs. M. Vardappa Naidu [AIR 2004 SC 4609] wherein it was held that person in settled possession is entitled to protect his possession. Whilst the plaintiff has averred that he was in exclusive cultivatory possession of the Suit Land, per contra, in their written statement, the defendants have denied that the plaintiff is in actual and physical possession, use and occupation and in cultivatory possession of the land. The defendants have averred that the they are in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of ½ share of Ram Singh. It is also averred that the defendants have fenced their half share. Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI T PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07 16:09:31 +0530 CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 25 of 37
32. Whilst the plaintiff has argued that defendants have not filed any documentary proof of possession and no applications have been filed by the defendants before the Revenue Authorities requesting them to record the defendants' possession in favour of the Suit Land, it is pertinent to note that the initial onus to prove exclusive and lawful possession is on the plaintiff. In support of their claim re: exclusive possession, the plaintiff has relied on:
a) The proceedings under Section 145 of the Code were initiated in respect of the Suit Land and the proceedings concluded in the plaintiff's favour after the site inspection was done by the SDM. This Report is Ex. PW1/14 wherein it has been conclusively observed that the plaintiff Rati Ram has exclusive possession of the Suit Land.
b) The Report dated 05.03.2007 of Block Development Officer which is Ex. PW1/12 wherein possession of Rati Ram has been verified.
c) As per the Khatoni which is Ex. PW1/1, area admeasuring 266/469 in the Suit Land has been mutated in favour of the plaintiff Late Sh. Rati Ram and the LRs of the plaintiff are in possession of the Suit Land.
d) The plaintiff has placed on record photographs of the Suit Land which are Ex. PW1/5.
e) The Block Development Officer in his Reports which are Ex. PW4/1 and PW4/2 have reported that the possession of Suit Land is with the plaintiff.Digitally signed by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 26 of 37 PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:09:35 +0530
33. In support of their claim that the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the Suit Land and that the defendants are also enjoying joint cultivatory possession with the plaintiff in the Suit Land, the defendants have relied upon the following:
a) PW1 Mr. Ramesh Chand has admitted in his cross-
examination that the entire Suit Land is lying idle without any cultivation since 2006. Therefore, cultivatory possession has been denied by PW1.
b) PW1 Mr. Ramesh Chand has admitted in his cross- examination that he has not got any site plan concerning any land.
c) PW2 in his cross-examination stated that he can produce documents/Girdhawari to show that the plaintiff is cultivating the land since 2007, however, no documents were produced despite grant of opportunity.
d) PW2 has admitted in his cross-examination that "It is correct that the Plaintiffs are not the exclusive owner or in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 606 and 607". This admission ought to be read against the case of the plaintiff.
e) In the revision petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Ex. DW1/8) against the vesting order, it was held by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 27.03.2012 that the Plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence in the form of revenue records such as Khasra Girdhawari to prove cultivatory possession. The appeal petition was accordingly dismissed summarily. T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 27 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:39 +0530
f) DW2 Mr. Braham Singh s/o Surjit @ Surji has been examined as a witness. He has deposed that he is in cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 555 which is adjoining the Suit Land. His father Surjit s/o Tekaram is also mentioned as co-Bhumidar of the Suit Land comprising of 2 bighas land. He has deposed that North Side of the Suit Land is in possession of the defendants and the South Side of the Suit Land is in possession of the plaintiff with each having possession of six bighas and 13 biswas each. DW3 Rajinder has also deposed on the same lines as DW2.
g) As per Ex. DW4/2, the Gram Sabha is in cultivatory possession of the Suit Land. DW4 has also initially deposed that entry regarding possession in P-4/ Girdhawari (Ex. DW4/2) is recorded only after issuance of warrants of possession by the Block Development Officer. Subsequently, during cross-examination, he also stated that entry in the Girdhawari can be done even prior to issuance of warrants of possession.
34. The onus was on the plaintiff to establish that he was in exclusive possession of the Suit Land. For the following reasons, the plaintiff's averments re: exclusive possession stand unsubstantiated:
a) Firstly, the plaintiff has relied upon Exhibit PW-1/14 which is a police report filed by Police Officials in the petition under Section 145 of the Code. The plaintiff has not examined the official i.e. Mr. B.P. Sharma who has CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 28 of 37 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:43 +0530 prepared the report. A police report is essentially hearsay unless the person who has prepared it is examined in Court [Re: Adhikanda Behera and another vs. Dhaneswar Swain and others 1978 CriLJ 265]. Moreover, the police report appears to be a photocopy document and cannot be relied upon as evidence.
b) Secondly, the photographs (Ex. PW1/5) placed on record by the plaintiff to establish possession cannot be read in evidence as they have not been proved in as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In P. Rama Srinivasa Rao vs. N. Raghavan [(2006) 3 MLJ 625], it has been held that photographs are admissible only if the photograph has been properly verified on oath by a person able to speak to its accuracy. It has also been observed that photographs should not be admitted in evidence without examining the person who took the photographs and the negatives of the same being produced on record or at whose instance the photographs were taken.
c) Thirdly, Khasra Girdhawari is a document which shows the possessory details w.r.t. cultivation. The Khasra Girdhawari on record of the year 2006-07 which is Ex.
PW1/2 indicates the Gram Sabha as the tenure holder. No Khasra Girdhawari records have been filed showing cultivation by the plaintiff subsequent to 2006. As the Gram Sabha is mentioned as the tenure holder, the plaintiff is an unauthorized occupant as the plaintiff has not established lawful possession.
d) Fourthly, DW2 Mr. Braham Singh s/o Surjit @ Surji T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 29 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:47 +0530 has been examined as a witness. He has deposed that he is in cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 555 which is adjoining the Suit Land. His father Surjit s/o Tekaram is also mentioned as co-Bhumidar of the Suit Land comprising of 2 bighas land. He has deposed that North Side of the Suit Land is in possession of the defendants and the South Side of the Suit Land is in possession of the plaintiff with each having possession of 6 bighas and 13 biswas each. DW3 Rajinder has also deposed on the same lines as DW2. These are independent witnesses and nothing material has been elicited from their cross- examination.
e) Lastly, in his cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that plaintiff is not the exclusive owner or in exclusive possession of the Suit Land and Khasra No. 607.
35. In arguendo, even if the averment of the plaintiff is admitted that the plaintiff has established possession and the defendants have not filed any record re: his co-possession of the Suit Land, it is the opinion of this Court that the Suit Land is not identifiable and hence, no duly executable decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff. Order VII Rule 3 of CPC provides that "Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers". In Bandhu Das vs. Uttam Charan Pattnaik [AIR 2007 Ori 24] it was held: T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 30 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:51 +0530 "A bare reading of the above provision makes it is crystal clear that what exactly the land or the area over which the dispute exists is a question which goes into the root of the matter relating to subsistence of the case. In absence of such description in the plaint or supply of the map by annexing the same to the plaint and the evidence to the above effect, no Court would pass a decree, as such a decree would be in executable or would be rendered otiose. Even if the Court finds that the plaintiff had title and possession in respect of the suit land, in absence of proper description, as mentioned in Order 7 Rule 3, C.P.C., the decree cannot be executed."
36. Therefore, a decree for permanent injunction can be granted only where the Suit Land is identifiable thereby rendering a decree of permanent execution executable. From a careful reading of the file, it is apparent that Suit Land as alleged by the plaintiff is not clearly identifiable. Firstly, PW1 Ramesh Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that the land, as per record, of Sh. Rati Ram and Hukum Singh are separate. However, details of the separate land have not been given by PW1. No site plan re: the separate land of Hukum Singh has also been filed. The witness has not even stated which Khasra number falls in the name of Mr. Hukum Singh and which falls within the name of Mr. Rati Ram. He has specifically deposed "I cannot tell any of the Khasra number which could have been in the name of Sh. Nanwa". Secondly, it is clear from the Nakal Khatoni of 1985-1986 filed on record i.e. PW1/1 that in addition to the T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 31 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:09:56 +0530 plaintiff, the Suit Land is also shown in the name of Surji s/o Tekram, Mamraj s/o Bhola and Doongar. In the Revenue Records, till the year of vesting of the land, the land has been shown as joint one along with the said co-sharers. None of these persons or their LRs have been examined by the plaintiff to clarify the aspect of possession and the demarcation of land. Thirdly, DW8 Mr. Ram Kishan, former Halka Patwari has deposed that he prepared the demarcation report which is Ex. DW1/4 and as per the said report, the room marked at point D is in Khasra no. 607. In fact, the site plan is Ex. PW1/4 and PW2 has admitted that no demarcation has been done between the Suit Land and Khasra No. 607, he cannot say whether the room, toilet, boring, house constructed by him falls within Suit Land or Khasra No. 607. PW2 has himself admitted in his cross- examination that he has not described the Suit Land in an identifiable manner. Whilst the plaintiff has denied the veracity of the manner in which the demarcation has been done, this Court is not the proper forum for said objections and the fact remains the Suit Land is unidentifiable and a decree passed w.r.t. the said Suit Land would be rendered non-executable.
37. In a nutshell, it is concluded that the plaintiff/LRs of the plaintiff have not been able to discharge their onus that they are in exclusive and lawful possession of the Suit Land by leading cogent and admissible evidence and that the Suit Land has been described in an identifiable manner meriting a decree in their favour.
T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 32 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:10:00 +0530 Re: Whether title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed and requires examination of complex questions of law and fact?
38. The LRs of the plaintiff have averred their title by way of mutation entry in the Revenue Records. The plaintiff has relied on the Khatoni which is Ex. PW1/1 wherein his name is mentioned as one of the land owners and the name of the defendants or their father Mr. Hukum Singh does not figure in the said document. It is also averred that no documentary proof has been filed by the defendants in support of their averment that prior to his death, Ram Singh had partitioned all the properties among Hukum Singh and Rati Ram equally. It is stated that DW1 Vijay Pal has also admitted that no Will has been executed by Ram Singh in this regard. It is further averred that title of the plaintiff is further corroborated by the fact that on the vesting of the land on the Gram Sabha, compensation was assessed in the name of the plaintiff. In view of the above, it is argued that plaintiff has better title on the Suit Land and therefore, question of cloud on title does not arise.
39. The defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff on the following grounds:
a) Firstly, the title of the plaintiff is denied on the ground that no presumption of title is raised by way of revenue records. The defendants have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jattu Ram vs. Hakam Singh and others [MANU/SC/0399/1994] wherein it was held that it is well settled that an entry in revenue T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 33 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:10:06 +0530 records does not confer title on the person whose names appears in the Records. The defendants have relied upon Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and others [1996 6 SCC 223], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.
b) Secondly, it is averred that the plaintiff has not placed on record the mutation file pertaining to the Suit Land. DW5 Mr. R.L. Meena, Tehsildar Karawal Nagar, deposed that no mutation file bearing no. 344/NT/D dated 25.04.1978 and O4 register pertaining to Suit Land could be traced with the record keeper. He also deposed that as per record keeper, Sadar Kanoongo Branch, Tis Hazari Courts, there is no entry in the Goshwara Register pertaining to the mutation. Sh. Kulvant, LDC at Office of Financial Commissioner also deposed that file pertaining to mutation of Suit Land is not available.
c) Thirdly, the title of the plaintiff is disputed on the ground that the Suit Land vests on the Gram Sabha. In support of this contention, it is averred that in the Khasra Girdhawari, from the year 1998, the landholder is reflected as Gram Sabha (Ex. PW1/2).
d) Fourthly, the defendants have argued that PW2 has himself admitted that there is a title / ownership dispute between the parties with respect to the Suit Land. In his cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that plaintiff is not Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 34 of 37 16:10:10 +0530 the exclusive owner or in exclusive possession of Suit Land or Khasra No. 607.
e) Fifthly, some of the other properties of Ram Singh were sold such as Khasra No. 616 (which is near the Suit Land) and the sale proceeds were equally shared between the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff has admitted that the defendants have 50% share in Ram Singh's share.
f) Lastly, it is stated that the other properties of Mr. Ram Singh such as Khasra No. 334/215/258/259 and 338/324 in Khata No. 31, Sabhapur, Delhi are under cultivation by the plaintiff and defendants equally and name of Mr. Ram Singh is still reflecting in the revenue records. On the basis of parity, it is stated that the mutation of the Suit Land is manipulated and forged.
40. The issue concerning validity of the mutation in favour of Rati Ram (i.e. the late plaintiff) is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as the defendants have already filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4263 of 2023. Thus, the issue about the validity of mutation is sub judice.
41. The issue of title has been strongly contested by both the sides during trial. The defendants have raised dispute w.r.t. title since the stage of filing the written statement. The title dispute is sub judice in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The issue of title is of the plaintiff is seriously disputed and requires examination of complex questions of law and facts. Therefore, a simplicitor suit for injunction will not lie and it would be necessary for the T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 35 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:10:14 +0530 plaintiff to seek a declaratory relief with respect to the ownership of the Suit Land before seeking injunction with respect thereto. The Suit Land being an agricultural one, the parties have proceeded on the basis of title itself being in issue and accordingly, the case has been contested by leading evidence on the aspect of title by the respective parties. Therefore, a simplicitor suit for injunction will not lie in the present matter.
42. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Suit Land is not identifiable, the plaintiff has not established exclusive and legal possession of the Suit Land and the aspect of title is directly and substantially in issue. Therefore, a decree of permanent injunction cannot be passed in the present matter applying the settled position of law discussed in detailed above. Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.1 - Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court as stated by the defendants in the preliminary objection of the written statement filed on record? OPD
43. It is averred by the defendants that the plaintiff has not disclosed that the Suit Land was vested in Gram Sabha in the year 1988 and the said order was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner, which was dismissed. It is also averred that the plaintiff has concealed that no partition has been effected with respect to the property of Mr. Balwant after his demise. It is further submitted that the background of the mutation in the T PRIYADARSHINI CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 36 of 37 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.07 16:10:17 +0530 name of Rati Ram has also not been entirely disclosed. It is the considered opinion of this Court that the aforesaid facts do not amount to material concealment as the present suit has only been filed for permanent injunction. The aforesaid facts alleged to be concealed pertain to title and are not relevant. In fact, after filing of written statement, the plaintiff has fairly acceded and addressed the aforesaid issues. In view of the same, the defendants have not discharged their onus on the aspect of concealment of material facts and issue no. 1 is decided against the defendants.
44. In view of the findings on issue no. 2, the present suit is dismissed.
45. Applications, if any, which are pending in the present judicial file and have not been pressed by the parties are also disposed of as dismissed as not pressed. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
Digitally signed by TAnnounced in open court T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
on this 07th August, 2025. 2025.08.07 16:10:23 +0530 T. Priyadarshini Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi This judgment consists of 37 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 37 of 37