Delhi District Court
Pyare Lal vs Janardhan Ram on 3 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030012282016
CS SCJ No.537547/2016
In the matter of:
Sh Pyare Lal
(deceased through LRs)
(a) Smt Sunita Devi
(b) Smt Beena Devi
(c) Smt Inder
(d) Smt Ritu
All d/o Late Sh Pyare Lal
All R/o H No. 192, Harizan Mohalla
Village Bharola, Azadpur, Delhi 110033.
..........Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Sh Janardhan Ram
s/o Sh Suraj Bhan Rai
R/o Shop at H No. 192, Village Bharola
Azadpur, Delhi 110033.
......Defendant
Date of Institution 25.04.2016
Date of conclusion of arguments 13.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of Order 03.11.2025
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03
17:01:22 +0530
CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 1/21
Suit For Possession, Declaration and Permanent Injunction
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking possession, declaration, and injunction in respect of a shop forming part of property bearing no. 192, Harizan Mohalla, Village Bharola, Azadpur, Delhi-110033, measuring 120 square yards and situated within the extended lal dora of Village Bharola (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property").
The plaintiff, unfortunately expired during the pendency of the suit and proceedings were continued by his Lrs.
Plaintiff's version
(a) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property forms part of a larger parcel of land measuring 2200 square yards, owned by one Sh. Ram Swaroop Tyagi, who is stated to have provided the suit property to the plaintiff's forefathers for residential use. It is asserted that the plaintiff has been in vacant physical possession of the suit property since birth and has been paying house tax since 1977. It is further averred that five shops were constructed by the plaintiff on the suit property to earn his livelihood post-retirement from service as a safari karamchari in the Department of Education. It is also stated that the plaintiff installed an electricity meter and obtained a ration card at the address of the suit property.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.03 17:01:26 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 2/21
(b) It is further asserted that the plaintiff's wife, Smt. Kasturi Devi, with whom the plaintiff allegedly shared a strained relationship, sold the shops to Jai Narayan, Ram Shakal, Anil Kumar, Karma, and the defendant in the year 1998 without the plaintiff's consent. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, having previously served as a compounder/helper under a doctor, commenced his own clinic as an RMP at the suit property in 2008 and has failed to vacate the same despite repeated requests. It is further stated that the plaintiff was unable to secure vacation of the suit property from the unauthorized occupants, including the defendant, and was informed by them that rent was being paid to Smt. Kasturi Devi.
(c) It is the case of the plaintiff that an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed before the Rohini Court in 2012, which was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to institute a civil suit for possession. It is asserted that Smt. Kasturi Devi neither owned nor possessed any legal right or interest in the suit property. It is further alleged that the sale documents produced by the defendant before the learned ARC, Rohini Court, in the said eviction proceedings are false and fabricated.
(d) It is asserted that the plaintiff is in urgent need of the suit property/shop for earning his livelihood and for supporting his daughters who reside with him. It is stated that despite repeated requests, the defendant has not vacated the suit property. It is CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 3/21 Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 SHARMA 17:01:31 +0530 further asserted that the defendant holds no legal right, title, or interest in the suit property and is bound to vacate the same. Hence, the present suit has been instituted.
2. By way of the present suit, the following reliefs have been prayed for:
(i) A decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the suit property, being a shop in property no. 192, Harizan Mohalla, Village Bharola, Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
(ii) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his assigns, assessors, attorneys, and servants from disposing of the shop or creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
(iii) A decree of declaration declaring the sale documents of the defendant in respect of the suit shop as null and void, and declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit shop.
(iv) Any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Written Statement
3. To present its version, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant, wherein the following contentions have been raised:
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 17:01:36 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 4/21
(a) It is submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having been filed without any cause of action and being barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the suit is not maintainable, having not been properly valued for the reliefs claimed. It is asserted that the suit is barred by the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, as the value of the shop is not less than ₹20,00,000/-, and the plaintiff has failed to properly value the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.
(b) It is submitted that the defendant is the absolute owner and is in physical possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the suit property, having purchased the same from Smt. Kasturi Devi through registered documents dated 14.09.1997. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and has instituted the present suit on false and baseless grounds with the intent to usurp the suit shop/property. It is asserted that the plaintiff holds no right, title, or interest in the suit property and that the case presented is a concocted narrative aimed at wrongful acquisition. All other contents of the plaint are denied in toto.
4. A replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant, wherein the averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and the contents of the written statement have been denied.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 17:01:39 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 5/21 Issues
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial vide order dated 13.11.2018 :
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession in his favour and against the defendant, as prayed for ? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against the defendant ,as prayed for ? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration in his favour and against the defendant, as prayed for ? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff has properly valued the present suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees ? OPD
5) Whether the present suit is barred by limitation ? OPD
6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD Plaintiff's Evidence
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff, Sh Pyare Lal, has examined himself as PW-1 and has duly tendered his duly sworn in affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A and relied on documents :
S No Particular Exhibit
1. Copy of Ration Card Mark X
2. Copy of Adhar Card Mark Y
3. Copy of Caste Certificate Mark Z
4. Copy of House Tax Receipt Mark-X-1 (colly)
CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 6/21
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR Date: 2025.11.03
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 17:01:44 +0530
5. Copy of Death Certificate of Smt Mark X-2 Kasturi Devi
6. Copy of photograph of suit Mark A property
7. Copy of water bills of suit Mark X-3 property
8. Copy of Khasra Khatoni for year Mark X-4 2008-2009
9. Copy of statement of Sh Ram Mark B Swaroop Tyagi
10. Copy of complaint u/s 125 CrPC Mark C 11 Copy of site plan of suit property Mark X-5 Plaintiff further examined Smt Beena Devi, w/o Late Sh Om Prakash as PW2 vide her duly sworn in affidavit in evidence as Ex.PW2/A. Both PW1 and PW2 are cross-examined by ld counsel for defendant at length. After which, PE was closed vide order dated 19.03.2025 and the matter was listed for DE.
Defence evidence
7. In order to substantiate his case, defendant examined himself as DW1 vide his duly sworn in affidavit in evidence as Ex.DW1/A whereby he relied on following documents :
S No Particular Exhibit
1. Registered GPA dated 14.09.1998 Ex.DW1/1 (colly) Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 SHARMA 17:01:50 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 7/21
2. Will dated 14.09.1998 Ex.DW1/2
3. Agreement to sell dated Ex.DW1/3 14.09.1998
4. Receipt dated 14.09.1998 Ex.DW1/4
5. Affidavit dated 14.09.1998 Ex.DW1/5
6. Copy of Electricity bill Mark A
7. Copy of Ration Card of Smt Mark B Kasturi Devi
8. Photographs of defendant's shop Ex.DW1/8(colly) DW1 has been cross-examined by ld counsel for plaintiff at length.
Defendant, in order to prove his case, further examined Sh Suresh Chand, a summoned witness from office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, as DW2 who brought the summoned record i.e. registered GPA and Will both dated 14.08.1998 executed by Smt Kasturi Devi in favour of defendant. The copy of said GPA and Will have been exhibited as Ex.DW2/1 and Ex.DW2/2.
Defendant also examined Ms Babita Pandey, FSO, Food and Supply Office, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi as DW3 who brought the summoned record i.e. Report prepared by Sh Rajesh Kumar, Assitant Commissioner (North) whereby Smt Kasturi Devi got issued Ration Card in her favour bearing no. 135697 on 28.02.1997 at Village Bhadola, Sabji Mandi, Delhi. However, the said ration card was not renewed after expiry of Smt Kasturi Devi on Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 SHARMA 17:01:56 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 8/21 22.07.1999. It is further mentioned in the report that husband of Smt Kasturi Devi had applied for fresh ration card at H No. 192, Village Bhadola, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi as sole applicant in 2014 but same was rejected. The said report of Assistant Commissioner was exhibited as Ex.DW3/1.
Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
Arguments
8. It is argued by the plaintiff that the suit property was originally part of a larger parcel of land owned by Sh. Ram Swaroop Tyagi, who had orally granted possession to the plaintiff's forefathers for residential use. The plaintiff contends that he has remained in uninterrupted possession since birth and constructed five shops on the land post-retirement. It is further submitted that the defendant was inducted into possession by the plaintiff's wife, Smt. Kasturi Devi, without his consent and against his wishes. The plaintiff asserts that the documents allegedly executed by his wife in favour of the defendant are void and without authority, and seeks a declaration to that effect along with possession and injunction.
9. Per contra, it is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff has no legal title or enforceable right in the suit property and that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant submits that he has been in settled possession since 1998 and that the plaintiff's own conduct, including the filing and withdrawal of an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, reflects acquiescence. It is Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR NITISH KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 17:02:01 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 9/21 further argued that the plaintiff has failed to identify the suit shop with specificity and has not proved any of the documents relied upon in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act. The defendant prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the record.
Analysis and Findings
11. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that it is a settled proposition of law that the burden of proof squarely lies upon the plaintiff to establish his claim by leading cogent and credible evidence. The plaintiff must affirmatively prove his legal right, possession, and the alleged acts of interference to sustain the reliefs sought. Mere deficiencies or contradictions in the defendant's case cannot, by themselves, cure the insufficiency in the plaintiff's own pleadings or evidence. The strength of the plaintiff's case must stand independently and cannot rest upon the weakness of the defence.
On the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the Court shall examine whether the plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden of proof incumbent upon him or not.
12. Issue no.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession in his favour and against the defendant, as prayed for ? OPP Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 17:02:05 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 10/21
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has asserted that the plaintiff's forefathers were given a land measuring 120 square yards out of 2200 sq. Yards in Village Bharola, Azadpur, Delhi by one Sh. Ram Swaroop Tyagi, who was the owner of the said property. It is further asserted that the defendant was inducted into possession by the plaintiff's wife, Smt. Kasturi Devi, in the year 1998, without his consent and against his wishes. The plaintiff claims to have constructed five shops on the land post-retirement and seeks possession of one such shop from the defendant.
14. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that there is no written document to establish that the suit property was owned by Sh. Ram Swaroop Tyagi or was given by him to the forefathers of the plaintiff. It is settled position of law that any transfer of immovable property valued above ₹100 must be effected by a registered instrument. An oral grant, even if pleaded, has no legal sanctity and cannot confer title or enforceable rights. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that such a grant was ever reduced to writing or registered in accordance with law.
The plaintiff has filed on record a copy of Khata-Khatoni pertaining to one Khata no. 54/49 which shows that Rajiv Tyagi was its Khatedar. Further, the plaintiff has relied on a statement made by Faqir chand Tyagi s/o Rajiv Tyagi in some proceedings. All the documents relied upon by the plaintiff i.e. ration card, house tax receipts, water bills, site plan, photographs, and statement of Sh. Ram Swaroop Tyagi, have not been proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No witness from Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 SHARMA 17:02:10 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 11/21 the issuing authorities was summoned, and no explanation was offered for non-production of the originals. The plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of Sections 61 to 65 of the Evidence Act for admissibility of secondary evidence.
Even otherwise, a bare perusal of statement made by Faqir Chand Tyagi i.e. Mark-B shows that he had stated that he did not know as to how much land was given by his ancestors to father of plaintiff.
15. In Chander Dutt Sharma v. Prem Chand 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9903, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under with respect to a suit for possession :-
"20 ..
(A) A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property can be filed either under Section 5 or under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
(B) A suit under Section 5, can be filed, either (i) on the basis of prior possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed, under Article 64 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, within twelve years from the date of dispossession;
or, (ii) based on title, under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, within twelve year from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
(C) A suit under Section 6, can be filed if any person is dispossessed from immovable property without his consent, otherwise than in due process of law, but within six months of the date of dispossession. Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 17:02:14 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 12/21 .....
(E) A mere possession of immovable property, even if accompanied with GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc., does not constitute title to the immovable property. Reference, if any required in this regard can be made to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656 setting aside the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Asha M Jain Vs. Canara Bank (2001) 94 DLT 841.
(F) The appellant/plaintiff, claiming only GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc. from respondents No.4&5 in his favour, thus had / has no title to the property.
(G) An agreement purchaser, has no right, title, interest in immovable property and has only a right to seek specific performance of such agreement. Reference if any required can be made to (i) Jiwan Dass Rawal Vs. Narain Dass AIR 1981 Del 291; (ii) Deewan Arora Vs. Tara Devi Sen (2009) 163 DLT 520; (iii) Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh (2010) 167 DLT 806; and, (iv) Samarjeet Chakravarty Vs. Tej Properties Private Limited 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3809.
.....
(I) Though the appellant/plaintiff, under Section 5, had a choice to sue either on the basis of prior possession or on the basis of title but the appellant/plaintiff, inspite of having no title to the property, filed the suit by drafting the plaint not on the basis of prior NITISH possession but on the basis of title. The KUMAR appellant/plaintiff, throughout the plaint has SHARMA described himself as purchaser of the property from respondents No.4&5. Owing Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR thereto only, issue also framed in the suit was SHARMA Date:
qua ownership of appellant/plaintiff and not 2025.11.03 17:02:19 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 13/21 qua possession of the appellant/plaintiff. Rather, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff today also, upon it being put to him as to why the appellant/plaintiff did not sue for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell, states that there was/is no need to sue for specific performance since the appellant/plaintiff was already owner in possession of the immovable property. (J) Owing to the appellant/plaintiff having sued on the basis of title which the appellant/plaintiff did not possess, and not on the basis of prior possession, Issue No.1 got framed in the suit, was decided against the appellant/plaintiff.
(K) Though issues are to be framed by the Court but with the assistance of the counsels.
If the appellant/plaintiff had sued for possession on the basis of prior possession and the Court had wrongly framed the issue treating the suit as on the basis of title, it was incumbent upon the appellant/plaintiff to apply for amendment of issues and which was not done by appellant/plaintiff. (L) However, even if the appellant/plaintiff is treated as having sued for possession on the basis of prior possession and even if non seeking of an issue qua prior possession is ignored, the recovery of possession was sought not from respondents No.4&5 but from respondents No.1 to 3 and their mother Bhagwati and it was against respondents no.1 to 3 and their mother that the appellant/plaintiff was required to prove prior possession. For proving such prior NITISH KUMAR possession against respondents No.1 to 3, SHARMA admission of the respondents no.4&5, in their written statement or in the Agreement Digitally signed to Sell or in their evidence, could not be by NITISH KUMAR relied by the appellant/plaintiff. The SHARMA Date:
2025.11.03 respondents No.4&5 were not contesting the 17:02:24 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 14/21 claim of appellant/plaintiff and rather filed a written statement admitting the material pleas in the plaint. A plaintiff, to prove case against defendant, cannot rely upon admission of another defendant who is not in contest with the plaintiff.
(M) The appellant/plaintiff was thus required to prove prior possession by some independent evidence.
(N) The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, on enquiry, admits that save for the recital in the Agreement to Sell of being delivered possession, there is no other evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff of being in possession of the property, to be able to sue for recovery of possession thereof on the basis of prior possession."
16. Thus, a suit for possession can be filed either on the basis of the title or on the basis of previous possession. The plaintiff does not have a valid title in his favour and thus he can not sustain the relief of possession on the basis of title.
17. Now, as regards the prior possession as well, the plaintiff has failed vehemently to prove the same. The plaintiff was required to prove prior possession by some independent evidence. However, it is noteworthy that apart from plaintiff and daughter of plaintiff, no other witness was examined.
PW-2 in her cross-examination stated that defendant is running his shop as registered medical practitioner but she is not aware if he was tenant in the suit property. Significantly, PW-1, i.e., the plaintiff himself, admitted in his cross-examination that there is CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 15/21 Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 17:02:31 +0530 no water connection in the suit property and that the electricity connection stands in the name of the defendant.
The plaintiff has heavily relied on the fact that he has been paying house rent qua the suit property since the year 1977 and for the said purpose, he has relied on Mark-X1(colly). However, as discussed above, these documents were merely copies and the same is not proved on record. No official witness was examined to authenticate such assertion of the plaintiff.
18. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to establish either ownership or previous settled possession.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
19. Issue no. 2, 3 & 6
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against the defendant ,as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration in his favour and against the defendant, as prayed for ? OPP
6.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.03 17:02:36 +0530
20. The onus to prove issue no. 2 & 3 was on the plaintiff and of issue no.6 was on defendant. The plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating third-party interest in the suit property, and further prays CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 16/21 for a declaration that the documents allegedly executed by his wife, Smt. Kasturi Devi, in favour of the defendant are null and void. It is the plaintiff's case that his wife had no authority to deal with the suit property and that the defendant's possession is unauthorized.
21. However, as discussed above in issue no.1, the plaintiff has failed to establish any legal title or proprietary interest in the suit property. No registered document has been placed on record to demonstrate ownership. The plaintiff has also not proved settled possession. Thus, no case is made out for the grant of relief of injunction as prayed for.
22. Insofar as the relief of declaration is concerned, it is trite that under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, such relief can only be granted where the plaintiff is entitled to a legal character or right in property and where such right is denied or disputed by the defendant. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to establish any such legal character or proprietary right. The challenge to the defendant's claim is based solely on uncorroborated assertions and unproved documents. It is amusing that the plaintiff has sought declaration of ownership without having any required title/interest over the suit property and despite contending that it was an oral/verbal grant by one Ram Swaroop Tyagi.
Thus, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any enforceable legal right or interest in the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore, lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the present suit.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
SHARMA SHARMA 2025.11.03 17:02:39 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 17/21 Issues No. 2, 3 and 6 are accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
23. Issue no.4 Whether the plaintiff has properly valued the present suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees ? OPD
24. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendant. It has been contended that the plaintiff has undervalued the suit for the relief of possession and declaration, and that the actual market value of the suit property exceeds ₹20,00,000/-, whereas the plaintiff has valued the relief at ₹50,000/-. It is argued that such valuation is arbitrary and does not reflect the true value of the property, thereby rendering the suit liable to rejection for want of proper court fees and jurisdiction.
25. The valuation adopted by the plaintiff must be examined in light of the nature of the relief claimed and the applicable law. In the present case, the plaintiff has sought recovery of possession of a shop only and declaration of ownership. The defendant has not led any evidence to establish the prevailing market value of the suit property or to demonstrate that the plaintiff's valuation is mala fide or intended to defeat jurisdiction. Mere assertion that the property is worth more than ₹5,00,000/- is insufficient in the absence of valuation reports, sale instances, or expert testimony.
NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.11.03 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:02:47 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 18/21 However, the relief of declaration has been valued at Rs 200/ which is highly inadequate and even as per valuation made by plaintiff, the suit must have been valued at the same amount as that of possession for the purpose of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction qua the relief of declaration. The said relief of declaration, as discussed above, is otherwise also not maintainable.
This issue is therefore decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
26. Issue no.5
5. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation ? OPD
27. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present suit has been instituted in the year 2016, seeking possession, declaration, and permanent injunction in respect of a shop. It is an admitted position that the defendant has been in occupation of the suit premises since 1998. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination, stated that he came to know of the defendant's occupation only after the death of his wife in the year 1999. Thus, even on the plaintiff's own showing, the date of knowledge of alleged dispossession stands established as 1999. As per plaint, it is stated that cause of action, firstly arose in the year 1998 when the possession was given to the defendant by the wife of the plaintiff.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.03 17:02:53 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 19/21
28. Now, under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for a suit for possession of immovable property based on title is twelve years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In the present case, the suit has been filed after a lapse of approximately seventeen years from the date of knowledge of dispossession. The plaintiff has not pleaded or proved any acknowledgment of title by the defendant within the limitation period. Nor has he demonstrated any legal disability or exception that would extend or suspend the running of time.
29. The plaintiff has contended that he was pursuing his remedy before the Court of the Ld. Additional Rent Controller (ARC), having instituted eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in the year 2012. It is submitted that the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a civil suit, and that the present suit is a continuation of that remedy. However, this contention does not aid the plaintiff.
30. The filing of an eviction petition under the Rent Control Act does not interrupt or extend the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act for a civil suit based on title. The two remedies are distinct in nature and governed by separate statutory frameworks.
Most importantly, no explanation has been offered for the delay between 1999 and 2012, nor has any contemporaneous NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.11.03 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:02:58 +0530 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 20/21 material been placed on record to show that the plaintiff exercised control over the suit property during the intervening period.
31. The law is well settled that limitation is not a matter of procedural formality but a substantive defence that extinguishes the remedy itself. The mere assertion that the plaintiff was pursuing his remedy before another forum does not, in the absence of legal sanction or statutory protection, extend the limitation period.
32. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the present suit, having been filed in 2016, is barred by limitation.
The issue no.5 is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant.
Conclusion
33. In view of the foregoing and consequent to findings on issue no. 1-6, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.11.03 on 03.11.2025 17:03:04 +0530 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/03.11.2025 CS SCJ 537547/2016 Pyare Lal vs Janardhan 21/21