Delhi District Court
Roopak Gopalakrishnan vs Vishal Anand on 9 September, 2025
Roopak Gopalakrishnan Vs. Vishal Anand
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITEN MEHRA:
DISTRICT JUDGE 10:TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CS DJ NO. 633/2022
CNR NO.DLCT01-008995-2022
In the matter of:
ROOPAK GOPALAKRISHNAN
S/o Late Sh. K.V. Goplalakrishnan
R/o J-403, Kaveri Apartments,
Plot No.4, Sector - 6, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
VISHAL ANAND
S/o Sh. Jamna Prasad,
R/o H.No.140, Subhash Khand,
Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,
New Delhi - 110019.
.....Defendant
Date of institution: 09.06.2022
Date on which reserved for judgment: 28.08.2025
Date of decision : 09.09.2025
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:
1. The plaintiff Sh. Roopak Gopalakrishnan has instituted the CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.1/27 present suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant Sh. Vishal Anand on the basis of the plaintiff's title to the suit property.
Plaintiff's version as per the plaint
2. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute, lawful, sole and exclusive owner of Plot bearing No. 145, measuring 100 sq. yards, being part of Khasra No. 75/12(1-16) and 75/12/2 (0-20), situated in the area of Village Burari, Delhi, which is now known as Kaushik Enclave, Delhi ('suit property'). The suit property is bounded on the sides as follows:
East: Plot No. 146
West: Road 20 feet North: Road 20 feet South: Road 10 feet
3. The plaintiff states that he has purchased the suit property from one Sh. E.K. Shivaraman, s/o Late Sh. E.M.K. Kutty by virtue of the following documents dated 24.05.1996:
(a) A registered General Power of Attorney, duly registered as Document No. 16806, Book No. IV, Vol No. 3976, at pages 184 to 186 dated 24.05.1996.
(b) Agreement to Sell dated 24.05.1996.CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.2/27
(c) Affidavit dated 24.05.1996.
(d) Receipt dated 24.05.1996.
(e) Possession Letter dated 24.05.1996.
4. After purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff also raised a boundary wall on the said plot of land upto three feet high.
5. On 14.07.2015, when the plaintiff visited the suit property he found one Vinod Kumar Sharma present there, who was in the process of further raising the height of the boundary wall constructed by him on the suit property. He revealed himself to be a labour/contractor who was carrying out the work on the instructions of the defendant Sh. Vishal Anand. The plaintiff immediately rushed to the local police station and lodged a written complaint dated 14.07.2015. However, only a preliminary enquiry was conducted and no FIR was lodged by them, despite assuring the plaintiff of the same. On the matter being pursued by the plaintiff, the SHO, P.S. Burari ultimately wrote a letter dated 21.12.2015 to the SDM, Civil Lines, Delhi to verify/demarcate the suit property. The SDM then gave a report that the suit property falls under Khasra No. 75/12/1.
CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.3/27
6. The plaintiff also made further complaints dated 23.07.2017, 27.11.2017, 22.10.2018, 12.07.2019 and 22.07.2021 with respect to the illegal possession of the defendant. As per the plaintiff, the defendant has also illegally and unlawfully got an electricity connection installed in his name at the suit property.
7. On 15.05.2022, the plaintiff visited the suit property, where he met the defendant Sh. Vishal Anand, who refused to hand over the possession of the suit property to him and also claimed that he was the owner of the same. The defendant however failed to produce any documents to substantiate his claim. The defendant is further stated to have told the plaintiff that in collusion with his associates, they were indulging in the grabbing of vacant plots on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.
8. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded in para no.12 of the plaint that "The present suit is based on title and same is well within period of limitation. The plaintiff is not only the absolute and lawful owner of suit property but also have better title over CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.4/27 the suit property to the exclusion of world. The defendant has no legal right, title and interest in the suit property. The defendant is only a trespasser."
9. The cause of action is stated to have arisen on 14.07.2015 when the plaintiff found the labour/contractor engaged by the defendant trying to further raise the boundary wall and thereafter on 20.07.2017, 22.11.2017, 22.09.2018, 12.07.2019, 22.07.2021 and 15.05.2022. The cause of action is stated to be continuing and subsisting.
10. The suit has been valued at Rs. 36,00,500/-, being the market value of the suit property, on which ad valorem court fees has been paid. For the purpose of the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, the suit has been valued at Rs. 200/- and Rs. 300/- respectively, on which the court fees of Rs. 33/- has been paid. The suit property is also stated to be falling under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
11. The plaintiff therefore seeks the following reliefs: CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.5/27
(a) A decree of possession in his favour and against the defendant and his attorneys/agents/ associates/ representatives/ assigns etc. to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property;
(b) A decree of declaration in his favour and against the defendant and his attorneys/agents/ associates/ representatives/ assigns etc., declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit property;
(c) A decree of permanent injunction in his favour and against the defendant and his attorneys/agents/ associates/ representatives/ assigns etc. directing them not to create any third party right, title or interest over the suit property;
(c) costs of the suit and any other order deemed fit by the Court.
Written statement of the defendant
12. The defendant Sh. Vishal Anand filed his written statement in which he raised the preliminary objection that the present suit was a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and not maintainable in its present form. Further, the plaintiff had not approached the Court with cleans hands and had raised false claims. It was submitted that the plaintiff had no land in the area and the suit was pretext to extort money from the defendant.
13. It was further submitted that the defendant was the owner and in possession of the plots no. 143 and 144 admeasuring 200 CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.6/27 yards under the Khasra No. 75/12/1 (1-16) and 75/12/2 (3-0) in the revenue estate of Burari, which had already been sold out along with the possession by him to a buyer, whose name was not revealed.
14. It was further submitted that the present suit was liable to be dismissed under the provisions of section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit was also stated to be barred under the provisions of Order II rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and also liable to be 'dismissed' under the provisions of Order VII rule 11 CPC.
15. In the reply on merits, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff was not the owner of any land in the area mentioned in the plaint and the present suit had been filed only to extort money from the defendant. It was also denied that Sh. E.K. Shivaraman was ever the owner of the suit property as well. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the plots no. plots no. 143 and 144 since the year 2006 and claimed to have constructed two rooms along with the boundary wall on the suit property in the CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.7/27 year 2007 to 2009. The defendant claimed to have purchased the plots no. 143 and 144 from one Mrs. Jaya Laxmi Laroia. The defendant admitted to obtaining an electricity connection on the plots no. 143 and 144 and asserted that it was done as its rightful owner. The defendant denied that he ever met the plaintiff on 15.05.2022 as claimed in the plaint. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff had filed any complaints as stated by him. The defendant sought for the dismissal of the present suit along with heavy exemplary costs and compensation for harassment and legal expenses incurred by him.
ISSUES FRAMED
16. Vide order dated 23.09.2024, the following issues were framed for consideration in the present suit:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.8/27 the present form? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff's case is based on false and fabricated documents? OPD
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as per the preliminary objections made by the defendant in the WS? OPD
8. Relief.
Relevant proceedings in the suit
17. It is pertinent to mention that after the defendant had filed his written statement in the present suit, the plaintiff filed an application under section 151 CPC on 06.10.2022 seeking direction to the defendant to disclose the name of the purchaser to whom he had sold the plots no. 143 and 144 and also to file on record the document of sale executed by him in respect of the suit property in favour of the said subsequent purchaser and further to also file his alleged title document qua the plots no. 143 and 144.
18. The defendant filed his reply on 20.04.2023 stating that the plaintiff was never the owner of plot no. 145 and further that the defendant was the owner of the plots no. 143 and 144 and had CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.9/27 nothing to do with the plot no.145 over which the present suit had been filed. Hence, the defendant submitted that he was not liable to disclose the name of the person to whom the plots no. 143 and 144 had been sold by him. He further submitted that the defendant had sold the plots no. 143 and 144, through a property dealer by way of a GPA and had also handed over the documents. He submitted that he had "no record of the purchaser of Plot No. 143-144. The defendant has nothing to do with the Suit property and never sold the suit property i.e. plot No. 145".
19. In order to ascertain the location and identity of the property in dispute, i.e. plot no. 145 as claimed by the plaintiff and plots no. 143 and 144 as claimed by the defendant, this Court, vide order dated 05.12.2023, directed the SDM Burari as well as the Revenue Commissioner to visit the said spot along with the plaintiff and the defendant and file a report with respect to whether the location of the said plots. The defendant was also directed to remain present on the next date of hearing.
20. On the next date of hearing i.e. 21.02.2024, none appeared CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.10/27 on behalf of the defendant and inadvertently copy of the order was also not sent to concerned SDM and Revenue Commissioner, which was ordered to be sent and report to be filed within four weeks from today.
21. On the next date of hearing i.e. 28.03.2024, a report was filed through the Tehsildar, Civil Lines that the office of the SDM, Civil Liner had issued notice dated 20.03.2024 to both the parties to appear for site visit on 22.03.2024. However, only the plaintiff appeared and submitted copies of documents and the defendant Vishal Anand did not appear. Thereafter, a second notice dated 22.03.2024 was again issued to the parties for another site visit, scheduled for 26.03.2024. On 26.03.2024, again only the plaintiff appeared and the counsel of the defendant Sh. Manish Kapoor confirmed the receipt of the notice and stated that the defendant was out of town and hence could not be present.
22. Therefore, on account of the absence of the defendant Sh. Vishal Anand, the SDM could not carry out the identification of CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.11/27 the plots in question, i.e. plot no. 145 of the plaintiff and plots no. 143 and 144 of as claimed by the defendant.
Evidence adduced by the Plaintiff
23. The plaintiff Sh. Roopak Gopalakrishnan only examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A on 05.12.2024, in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He relied on the following documents in support of his case:
(a) Site plan of the suit property as Ex. PW-1/1.
(b) Copy of the Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter dated 24.05.1996 as Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly, OSR).
(c) Copy of the reminder of complaint qua the suit property dated 22.07.2021 as Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR).
(d) Copy of the reminder/request for action on the complaint DD. No. 51B dated 12.07.2019 as Ex. PW-1/4(OSR).
(e) Copy of the reference dated 22.10.2018 with respect to DD. No. 52B in the complaint dated 14.07.2016 to the SHO PS Burari, Delhi as Mark A.
(f) Copy of the written complaint dated 05.06.2018 to the DCP (North), Delhi, Civil Lines as Mark B. CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.12/27
(g) Copy of the written reminder dated 27.11.2017 as Mark C.
(h) Copy of the complaint dated 23.07.2017 vide DD No. 36B to the SHO, PS Burari, Delhi as Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR).
(i) Copy of the written complaint dated 14.07.2015 made to the SHO PS Burari, Delhi as Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR).
(j) Copy of the request dated 21.12.2015 to SDM, Civil Lines, Delhi as Mark D.
(k) Copy of the written report dated 21.12.2015 vide No. 3961/R/SHO/Burari as Mark E.
(l) Copy of the report dated 27.01.2016 as Ex. PW-1/12 (Colly, OSR).
24. The plaintiff/PW-1 was cross-examined on 05.12.2024 by the ld. Counsel for the defendant, during which he deposed that he was working with a company namely Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. As their training head and was also an income tax assessee. He deposed that he was not sure whether he had mentioned the purchase of the suit property in his income tax returns. He denied the suggestion that he had not filed the previous chain of the property documents and Khasra/Khatauni of the bhoomidar/kisan. He denied the suggestion that the previous CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.13/27 owner Sh. E. K. Sivaraman did not own any property in the area. He denied the suggestion that his title documents qua the suit property were forged and fabricated. He deposed that he last visited the suit property in October, 2023 and found that the boundary wall had been extended to about 10 feet and there was addition of one room apart from the existing one room. He deposed that he found out about the electricity connection on the suit property in the name of the defendant just prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. He denied the suggestion that the site plan was wrongly prepared. He admitted that in the year 2018 he had filed a complaint against Vinod Kumar Sharma and volunteered to state that during the investigation, the defendant as well as Vinod Kumar Sharma were called and Vinod Kumar Sharma revealed himself to be the uncle/chacha of the defendant. He admitted that he had also filed a complaint against Sh. T.K. Satishan, Vishal Anand and Haridas. He denied the suggestion that during investigation, no irregularity was found against the said persons. He deposed that he did not know the name of the bhoomidar of the suit property and volunteered to state that he only knew the names of two owners, i.e. Vidyawati and Rajesh CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.14/27 and later Satpal Jindal. He denied the suggestion that the colony map filed by him was forged and fabricated. He also denied the suggestion that the police complaints were filed by him in order to extract more money from the defendant. He also denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not made the other persons mentioned in his police complaints as defendants in the present suit. He also denied the suggestion that he did not deny/rebut the assertions of the defendant in his written statement. He also denied the suggestion that he did not own any land in the area or that the documents filed by him had no legal sanctity. He also denied the suggestion that the defendant owned plots no. 143 and 144 and the same were sold by the defendant and he never tried to ascertain as to who was currently in possession of the said plots. He admitted that he never visited the suit property after October, 2023. He also denied the suggestion that the patwari pamaish report dated 27.01.2016 clearly showed that he had no land in the area. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
25. The plaintiff also closed his evidence on 05.12.2014 and CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.15/27 the matter was listed for defendant's evidence. Evidence adduced by the Defendant
26. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-1/A on 02.04.2025, in which he deposed that he was the owner and in possession of the plots no. 143 and 144 admeasuring 200 sq. yards under Khasra No. 75/12/1 (1-16) and 75/12/2 (3-0) falling under the revenue estate of Burari, Delhi having purchased the same from one Jaya Laxmi Laroiya. He deposed that he had sold out the property along with its possession, but did not provide any details of the purchaser or even the date of the sale. He further deposed that he had also obtained an electricity connection on the suit property. He claimed to have never met the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff did not own even '1 inch of land in the area'. The defendant relied on only a photocopy of GPA as Mark A in support of his case.
27. The defendant/DW-1 was cross-examined by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on 02.04.2025, during which he deposed that he was doing share market business along with a business of CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.16/27 advertisement. He stated that he had no GST number and had filed all his ITRs as per record. He surprisingly deposed that he did not remember from whom he had bought the plot in question. He deposed that he had disclosed all the payments for the suit property in his ITRs and reflected the transaction for its purchase in the same as well. He deposed that he had received the payments by cheque towards the sale of the plot, however, he had no records to whom he had sold the property in question. He stated that there was no other court case pending against him except the present civil suit. He denied the suggestion that he had filed fake and forged documents in the Court.
28. The defendant also closed his evidence on 02.04.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
Arguments of the parties
29. Sh. Amit Khanna, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by way of registered deeds. On 05.12.2023, the Court was pleased to direct the Ld. SDM, Burari as well as the Revenue Commissioner to CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.17/27 visit the spot along with the both the parties and file a report as to whether the said plot bore the number 145 or 143-144 or any other number in order to find out the actual plot number and its Khasra number. The defendant deliberately absented himself from the dates of inspection fixed by the authorities and cost of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on him and injunction was also granted against him on 28.03.2023. He has further argued that the defendant has not revealed the name or any details of the person from whom he had purchased the plot in question or the person to whom he had sold the same. The defendant in his cross- examination has stated that he received the payment for the sale of the plot by way of cheque, however he did not provide any details of the same as well. The defendant was a habitual litigant who had filed a lot of fake cases against many persons for land encroachment and land grabbing. A proceeding under section 156(3) Crpc was pending against him at Tis Hazari Court and another case at Karkardooma Courts, titled as 'Vishal Anand vs K. Das' as well as another suit no. 60296/2016 titled as ' Satish T.K. vs. K.P. Kamalakaran'. He argued that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as prayed for.
CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.18/27
30. Sh. Manish Kapoor ld. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that the plaintiff has not identified the suit property in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 rule 3 CPC as he did not exhibit any map of the colony. Further the land fell in the jurisdiction of the revenue department prior to 2017 which only had the Khasra record. The document Ex. PW-1/12 clearly showed that the alleged plot fell in Khasra No. 75/12/1,however in the document Ex. PW-1/12 (Colly, OSR) at page no.38, the plot was shown to be part of Khasra No. 75/12/1 and 75/12/2. When the land was initially sold by the developer, the plot numbers were given by him, however the same did not exist at the present time. Further, the plot sizes had changed and had been further divided into pieces and at present there was no plot no. 145 in existence. Further, the plaintiff has claimed that there was an electricity connection installed in the property, however never tried to ascertain who was in possession of the suit property. Further, Ex. PW-1/1, i.e. the site plan did not identify the suit property at all. It did not even mention the street numbers. No witness or notary was examined to prove the property documents CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.19/27 i.e. Ex. PW-1/2. Further, no previous chain of documents had been placed on record by the plaintiff. Nothing had been placed on record to show that Mr. E. K. Shivaraman was the earlier owner of the suit property. The plaintiff had filed several complaints against other persons as well who had not been arrayed as defendants in the present suit. The police enquiry reports were not filed by the plaintiff and no police official was also examined as a witness. No proof of possession of the defendant was filed. No witness from the electricity department was also filed. During the cross-examination of the defendant, it was never suggested that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and no question regarding the electricity connection had been put to him. The defendant never claimed to be the owner of the plot no.145 or in its possession and the plaintiff did not take steps to ascertain as to who was in the possession of the property. Further, no neighbour had been examined as a witness. Further, the defendant owned 200 sq. yards of land with different plot numbers and plaintiff was wrongfully claiming 100 sq. yards from him. He argued that the suit deserved to be dismissed. CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.20/27 Issue-wise finding and reasons Issue no.1 -4
31. I shall first decide issues no. 1-4 together, being connected issues, which are being reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint? OPP
32. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of Plot bearing No. 145, measuring 100 sq. yards, being part of Khasra No. 75/12(1-16) and 75/12/2 (0-20), situated in the area of Village Burari, Delhi, which is now known as Kaushik Enclave, Delhi ('suit property'). The suit property is bounded on the sides as follows: East: Plot No. 146; West: Road 20 feet; North: Road 20 feet and South: Road 10 feet.
CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.21/27
33. The plaintiff has placed on record Copies of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter dated 24.05.1996 as Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly) (OSR) in order to prove his 'ownership' over the suit property.
34. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded in para no.12 of the plaint that the present suit of the plaintiff is based on title and the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, during arguments, has also reiterated that the plaintiff has approached this Court seeking possession on the basis of his title.
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the decision of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd vs State of Haryana and Anr, 2011 X AD (SC) 365, that documents in the nature of Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Possession Letter etc. do not transfer any right of title in an immovable property as per section 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act). Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff admittedly does not have any title to the suit property, i.e. plot no. 145 in question.
CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.22/27
36. As per section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) a person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A person can institute a suit for recovery of possession based upon (i) his title to the suit property; (ii) his possessory title to the suit property and (iii) based on his previous possession, when dispossessed without his consent otherwise than in the due course of law as per section 6 SRA.
37. A suit under Section 5 SRA can be filed on the basis of the prior possession, i.e. possessory 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. Alternatively, a suit under Section 5 SRA can be filed based on the title, under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, within twelve years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
38. In a suit for recovery of possession based on title, the CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.23/27 plaintiff must show one must prove his ownership documents to the suit property, as recognized by the TP Act. A mere 'agreement to sell' falls well short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property as per the judgment of Suraj Lamps, supra.
39. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the settled position of law in City Municipal Council Bhalki vs. Gurappa, (2016) 2 SCC 200 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 59 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 866 that in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff must prove his title independently and he cannot succeed merely on the ground that the defendant has not been able to prove his title to the property. It has been held as follows:
"31. It is a settled position of law that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove his title. Further, not only is the onus on the plaintiff, he must prove his title independently, and a decree in his favour cannot be awarded for the only reason that the defendant has not been able to prove his title, as held by this Court in Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri [Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri, AIR 1965 SC 1506] as under : (AIR p. 1508, para 8) CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.24/27 "8. ... The plaintiff's suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property...."
The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the more recent case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple [R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752] as under : (SCC p. 768, para 29) "29. In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for the plaintiff to prove his title and satisfy the court that he, in law, is entitled to dispossess the defendant from his possession over the suit property and for the possession to be restored to him. ... In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title."
40. Accordingly, the plaintiff in the present case has approached this Court seeking recovery of the possession on the basis of his title, which he has failed to prove. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff must also fail due to the lack of any title being CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.25/27 proved by the plaintiff. It is made clear that the question whether the plaintiff has any possessory title to the suit property on the basis of his prior possession has not adjudicated in the present case and the plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh suit on the said basis.
41. Hence, the issues no. 1-4 are decided against the plaintiff. Issues no. 5-7
42. I shall next decide issues no. 5-7, which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff's case is based on false and fabricated documents? OPD
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as per the preliminary objections made by the defendant in the WS? OPD
43. The onus of proof of the above issues was on the defendant, who has led no evidence to prove the same. Hence, the issues no. 5-7 are decided against the defendant. CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.26/27 Relief.
44. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the plaintiff is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by JITEN JITEN Date:
MEHRA MEHRA 2025.09.09 Announced in the open court (JITEN MEHRA) 16:31:32 +0530 on 09.09.2025 DJ-10/Central/THC Delhi.CS DJ No. 633/22 Page No.27/27