Delhi District Court
Radha Kishan vs Kishan Lal on 13 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. NITISH KUMAR SHARMA
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH, ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI
CNR NO.DLNT030006882014
CS SCJ No.535848/16
Date of Institution : 15.03.2014
Date of reservation of judgment : 09.01.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 13.01.2025
Shri Radha Kishan
S/o Late Sh. Lotan Singh
R/o J-1621, Jahangirpuri,
Delhi.
.........Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Kishan Lal (Deceased)
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
Through his LRs
A) Smt. Rajesh W/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal
B) Sh. Parmod Lal
C) Sh. Nitin
D) Sh. Ishwar
All sons of late Sh. Kishan Lal.
All R/o J-1691, First Floor,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
.......Defendants
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.01.13
SHARMA 17:08:42 +0530
CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 1 Of 19
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
JUDGMENT
PLAINTIFF'S VERSION
1. Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are -
(a) That the plaintiff is the owner of property bearing No.J-1691, Jahangirpuri, Delhi having purchased the same from one Laxman Singh on 03.11.2010.
(b) That the property was initially allotted in the name of Smt. Bimla Devi, who had sold the same to Sh. Laxman Singh S/o Sh.
Mohan Lal on 09.01.1984 for valuable consideration.
(c) That Sh. Laxman Singh and Sh. Krishan Lal (defendant) started to reside in the suit property. Sh. Laxman Singh resided on the ground floor and Sh. Krishan Lal resided on the first floor of the property bearing No.J-1691, Jahangirpuri, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property), after the purchase from Bimla Devi.
(d) That after purchasing the property from Sh. Laxman Singh on 03.11.2010, the plaintiff obtained the possession of the ground floor and symbolic possession of first floor of the suit property. That the defendant had occupied the suit property and on various occasion, the plaintiff had asked the defendant to vacate the same.
(e) That on 21.02.2014, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant to vacate the suit property and the said notice was duly served upon the defendant. NITISH Digitally by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR signed SHARMA Date: 2025.01.13 SHARMA 17:08:48 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 2 Of 19
(f) That despite the service of notice the defendant did not vacate the suit property nor gave any reply to the same. Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
2. By way of present suit the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs :
(i) Decree of possession thereby directing the defendant to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the first floor of property bearing no. J-1691, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
(ii) Decree of damages @ Rs.3500/- per month for occupation charges of first floor of property bearing no.
J-1691, Jahangirpuri, Delhi from the filing of the suit till the handing over the possession.
(iii). Decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant, legal heirs etc. from creating any third party right or from disposing off the suit property bearing no. J-1691, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
DEFENDANT'S VERSION
3. Litigation by its very nature has two side to a story. To give his version, written statement was filed on behalf of defendant wherein it is stated-
(a) That the suit is not maintainable as the property bearing no. J-1691, Jahangirpuri, Delhi was purchased by defendant from its original allottee Smt. Bimla Devi on 09.01.1984 and at the time of execution the name of Laxman (younger brother of defendant) was added in the name of purchasers.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.01.13
SHARMA 17:08:56 +0530
CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 3 Of 19
(b) That the defendant has been residing in the suit property with
his family and has also got electricity meter installed in his name on the basis of documents of purchase and had also issued NOC to Laxman for getting electricity connection in his name.
(c) That in year 2010, Laxman Singh had vacated the ground floor of the suit property and shifted to Sharadhanand Colony.
(d) That in September, 2013, the plaintiff i.e. a Property Dealer had occupied the ground floor and threatened the defendant to oust him from the first floor and on 22.02.2014 also got a legal notice sent.
(e) That the documents purported to be executed by Bimla Devi in favour of Laxman Singh are forged and fabricated as the original documents executed by Bimla Devi are with the defendant.
(f) That the defendant is living on the first floor of the property in his own right as owner and there is no cause of action in the plaintiff to have file the present suit.
4. Replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein the contentions raised in the written statement were denied and the averments made in plaint were reiterated.
ISSUES
5. Vide Order dated 07.11.2014 following issues were framed :
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:09:02 Date: 2025.01.13 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 4 Of 19
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of mesne profits/damages as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP
4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action? OPD
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued? OPD
6. Relief, if any.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove his case the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and has duly tendered his duly sworn in affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A. During the testimony of PW-1 following documents have been exhibited :
1. Copy of allotment letter dated 20.06.1981 as Ex. PW 1/1.
2. Copy of SPA dated 09.01.1984 executed by Bimla Devi in favour of Laxman Singh as Ex. PW-1/2.
3. Copy of Ikrarnama and affidavit dated 09.01.1984 as Ex.
PW1/3.
4. Copy of GPA etc. executed by Laxman Singh as Ex. PW-1/4.
5. Possession letter dated 27.10.2010 as Ex. PW 1/5.
6. Copy of water bill as Ex. PW 1/6.
7. Copy of postal receipt and courier receipt as Ex.PW-1/7
8. Delivery receipt of notice as Ex.PW-1/8.
9. Site plan as Ex.PW-1/9. Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.01.13 SHARMA 17:09:09 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 5 Of 19 Plaintiff was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defendant. PW-2 Sh. Sameer Vats was a summoned witness who brought the power of attorney executed by Laxman Singh in favour of Radha Kishan. PW-3 Sher Singh was examined and cross examined. Thereafter PE was closed and the matter was listed for DE.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
7. Defendant got examined Sh. Rakesh Sharma as DW-1 who brought on record copy of Ration Card and possession slip i.e. Ex.DW-1/1 and photocopy of allotment register showing the sanction of water connection to Laxman Singh. Defendant also examined DW2 Sh. Vijay Kumar from TPDDL, who brought the summoned record pertaining to CA No.60006896710 registered in the name of defendant at first floor of the suit property. The documents filed with application form were exhibited as Ex.DW-2/1 collectively. He also brought application form of Sh. Laxman and the documents filed with it which were exhibited as Ex.DW-2/2. The defendant examined himself as DW-4 and relied upon the following documents:
1. Allotment receipt of DDA as Ex.DW-4/1.
2. General Power of Attorney dated 06.01.1984 as Ex.DW-4/2.
3. Agreement to sell dated 06.01.1984 as Ex.DW-4/3.
4. Affidavit dated 06.01.1984 as Ex.DW-4/4.
5. NOC issued by defendant to plaintiff as Ex.DW-4/5.
6. Complaint to SHO as Ex.DW-4/7.
7. Receipt dated 06.01.1984 as Ex.DW-4/8.Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:09:15 Date: 2025.01.13 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 6 Of 19
8. DW-5 Sh. Narender Pal Malik was examined to bring on record the allotment record pertaining to Bimla Devi. The defendant got expired during the proceedings and his LRs were brought on record on 13.04.2018.
9. After examination of witnesses, DE was closed on 20.02.2019 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
Arguments:
10. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff had purchased the property from Sh. Laxman and all the documents were duly registered and after the sale of the property, the ground floor was handed over to plaintiff and the first floor was occupied by Kishan Lal, who failed to deliver the possession despite asking and issuance of notice in this regard. It is argued that the plaintiff has proved his case by examining himself and witnesses from office of Sub Registrar and PW-3 Sher Singh i.e. attesting witness of the document executed in favour of the plaintiff by Sh. Laxman. It is argued that the defendant had taken a plea that he was the owner of the suit property but no documents were furnished by him and in his cross examination he had stated that he was not in possession of such documents. It is argued that the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff has been in possession of the ground floor of the property since 2012 and no action was taken by him. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had relied on O.P. Aggarwal and Anr. Vs Akshay Lal & Ors. 188 (2012) DLT 525. It is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed and defendant be directed to hand over the possession of the suit property. It is further prayed that mesne profits be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.01.13 SHARMA 17:09:22 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 7 Of 19 10.1 Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the plaintiff has vehementaly failed to prove the fact that he was entitled to any right in the suit property i.e. First Floor of property bearing No.J-1691, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. It is argued that the plaintiff has not placed on record any sale deed and he is not the owner of the property. It is argued that the plaintiff has not sought relief of declaration and the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is further argued that the documents relied on by the plaintiff are unregistered and improperly stamped and are inadmissible. It is further argued that the documents alleged to be executed by Ms. Bimla Devi in favour of Laxman Singh are forged and fabricated.
11. I have heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for parties and have perused the record.
FINDINGS
12. My issue wise findings are as under :
Issue no.1 :Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for? OPP
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
14. At the outset, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment passed in Chander Dutt Sharma v. Prem Chand 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9903, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein it was 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 NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.01.13 SHARMA 17:09:28 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 8 Of 19 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.
.....
(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.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:09:34 +0530 Date: 2025.01.13 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 9 Of 19 (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) SamarjeetChakravarty 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 possession but on the basis of title. The appellant/plaintiff, throughout the plaint has described himself as purchaser of the property from respondents No.4&5. Owing thereto only, issue also framed in the suit was qua ownership of appellant/plaintiff and not 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 Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.01.13 17:09:40 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 10 Of 19 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 possession against respondents No.1 to 3, admission of the respondents no.4&5, in their written statement or in the Agreement to Sell or in their evidence, could not be relied by the appellant/plaintiff. The respondents No.4&5 were not contesting the 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. Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.01.13 17:09:46 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 11 Of 19 (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."
15. Thus, a suit for possession can be filed either on the basis of the title or on the basis of previous possession. It is contended by the plaintiff that the property bearing No.J-1691, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, was purchased by him from one Sh. Laxman by paying a consideration amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ and by executing the necessary documents in this regard i.e. GPA, sale agreement, affidavit, receipt and possession letter on 27.10.2010. It is further contended that after the purchase, the defendant was asked to vacate the first floor of the property i.e the suit property but he failed to comply.
16. Per contra, the plea of the defendant is that the suit property belonged to him and Sh. Laxman jointly as he had purchased the same from its original allottee Ms. Bimla Devi in the year 1984 by executing necessary documents i.e. GPA, Ikrarnama, affidavit and Receipt. It is further contended that the defendant has ever since been in the possession of the first floor of suit property.
17. It is settled principle of law that in respect of relief claimed by a plaintiff, he has to stand on his own legs by proving his case. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of possession in the Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.01.13 17:09:52 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 12 Of 19 present suit. Thus, it has to been seen from the evidence led by the plaintiff as to whether he has succeeded in proving his case.
18. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon allotment letter issued in the name of Bimla Devi. It is not disputed that Bimla Devi was the original allottee of the suit property and the said fact was also proved by examination of DW-5.
It is the claim of the plaintiff that Bimla Devi had sold the property to Laxman Singh who further sold it to him. The plaintiff has filed on record GPA, Ikrarnama, affidavit, and receipt which are Ex PW1/2 and Ex PW1/3. A bare perusal of these documents show that all of the said documents i.e. GPA, Ikrarnama, affidavit and receipt are notarised documents and are not registered. The documents claimed to be executed by Laxman Singh in favour of plaintiff i.e. documents Ex PW1/4 and Ex PW1/5 are all notarized documents (except for the GPA which is registered).
19. Now, the law on this point is very clear. A sale of an immoveable property can not be done without a registered sale deed. A reference in this regard can be made to Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) vs State Of Haryana & Anr 2012(1) SCC 656 wherein it was held as under:
"16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.01.13 SHARMA 17:09:57 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 13 Of 19 transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales."
20. Thus, on the basis of the said documents i.e. GPA, agreement, affidavit, and receipt and which are only notarised documents, the plaintiff can not claim to say that Laxman Singh had a lawful title over the suit property. Further, it is also settled law that no one can transfer a better title than his own. In Ratendra Kumar Vs. Karya Nirikshak, Hathras Junction, 2018(6) All. LJ 386 the Hon'ble High Court held that no one can transfer a better title than he himself has and the buyer must be vigilant at the time of purchasing property and must inquire properly about the title of the seller. In view of the above, the plaintiff can not claim to have acquired perfect title with respect to the suit property on the basis of the documents alleged to be executed in favour of Laxman Singh and then by Laxman Singh in favour of him.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.13 17:10:03 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 14 Of 19
21. However, in Karamvir vs Maan Singh RSA No. 27/2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed:
The appellants/plaintiffs therefore may not in the strict sense be owners of the property, but, in a suit for possession or for injunction, a plaintiff has only to prove an entitlement to the suit property which is better than the respondent/defendant. Once the appellants/plaintiffs prove an entitlement better than the respondents/defendants, it is upon the respondents/defendants to discharge the onus that they have a better entitlement to the suit property than as is pleaded by the appellants/plaintiffs.
22. Thus, in order to succeed in the present case, the plaintiff could have shown that he was better entitled to the suit property than the defendant.
It is now pertinent to note that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to assert that Bimla Devi had sold the property to Laxman Singh, were not proved on record. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330; 2023 4 SCC 731, the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"When a document is produced as primary evidence, it will have to be proved in the manner laid down in Sections 67 to 73 of the Evidence Act. Mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence."
Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.13 17:10:09 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 15 Of 19 The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. In the instant case, the executant of documents Ex PW 1/2-1/3 were not examined as it is the case that both of them i.e Bimla Devi and Laxman Singh had expired. None of the witnesses were examined to identify their signatures on the said documents. Rather PW-1/plaintiff in his cross-examination stated:
"I do not know whether the thumb impression of seller appearing on document Ex PW1/2, Ex PW1/3 (agreement and affidavit dated 09.01.1984) are of Smt. Bimla Devi or not.
Q. I put it to you that the thumb impression to Smt. Bimla Devi on the aforesaid document is forged. What you have to say?
A. I can not say if the said thumb impressions are forged."
Further, one Rajinder Singh is stated to be the attesting witness of document Ex PW1/2 -1/3 as well as the documents executed by Laxman Singh in favour of plaintiff. However, the said person was not examined by the plaintiff for reasons better known to the plaintiff despite the fact that PW-3 in his examination had disclosed his address. Thus, what transpired from the above is that the documents i.e. Ex PW1/2-1/3 GPA, Ikrarnama etc. alleged to be executed by Bimla Devi in favour of Laxman Singh remained unproved.
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.01.13
SHARMA 17:10:15 +0530
CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 16 Of 19
Further, in order to prove that GPA was executed by Laxman Singh in favour of plaintiff, PW-2/ Sameer Vats i.e. witness from Sub-Registrar office was summoned and in his deposition he stated that Ex PW1/4 i.e. copy of GPA was not identical with the record of Sub-registrar as signatures on the copy were at a different place than the record of sub-regsitrar. He further deposed to the effect that the document i.e. GPA was not having photograph of the executant which are taken at the time of registration. Nevertheless, as discussed above, Laxman Singh could not have transferred something more than what he himself had and when the documents in favour of Sh. Laxman Singh itself are disputed and not proved by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can not claim to have proved that the documents executed in his favour by Laxman Singh transferred better title in him.
23. On the other hand, the defendant though had also not produced the original documents executed by Bimla Devi in favour of defendant and Laxman Singh, he summoned witness from TPDDL i.e. DW-3 who brought the copy of documents furnished by defendant as well as by Laxman Singh for obtaining electricity connection. The documents furnished by said Laxman Singh with the electricity department shows that the documents were in the joint name of Laxman Singh and the erstwhile defendant i.e. Kishan Lal.
It is pertinent to note that the said Laxman Singh had himself filed documents Ex.DW-3/B (collectively) to obtain an electricity connection on the ground floor of the property and an NOC from the defendant was also filed with the department. It has not been explained by the plaintiff as to why such NOC was taken NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.01.13 SHARMA 17:10:21 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 17 Of 19 by his predecessor in interest, had there been no right of the defendant in the suit property.
24. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was better entitled to suit property than the defendant. Accordingly, the issue no.1 stands decided against the plaintiff.
25. Issue No. 2 & 32. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of mesne profits/damages as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP In view of the findings on issue no.1, the plaintiff can not be held entitled to recovery of mesne profits/damages or permanent injunction as the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was better entitled to the suit property. Accordingly, the issue no.2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
26. Issue No. 4 & 54. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action? OPD
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued? OPD
27. The onus to prove these issues was on the defendant. However, evidence were not led on these aspects by the defendant. However, it is argued on behalf of defendant that Laxman Singh was not the owner of the entire property and the plaintiff had not Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.01.13 SHARMA 17:10:28 +0530 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 18 Of 19 impleaded the Lrs of Laxman Singh in the suit. It is argued that the plaintiff has claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property without any valid document for the same and had no cause of action. It is further argued that the circle rate of the property is around Rs.8.0 lakh and the total value of the property is Rs.10,52,100/-. It is argued that the value of suit property i.e. First Floor is around Rs.5,26,050/- and the suit is thus improperly valued. Sans such arguments, no evidence to such effect was brought on record on behalf of defendant. It is averred that the value of the suit property is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court as per the circle rate. It is settled position that circle rate are only one of the factors for determination of the valuation and the same is not conclusive factor for valuation. Even otherwise, the defendant has not brought on record any document to show as to what was the circle rate in the locality. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion the issue no.4 and 5 are decided against the defendant for no evidence.
RELIEF
28. In view of the findings on issue no. 1, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as plaintiff failed to establish on record his entitlement better than the defendant with respect to the suit property.
29. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed Announced in the open court KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.01.13 SHARMA 17:10:34 +0530 on 13.01.2025. (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/13.01.2025 CS SCJ No.535848/16 Shri Radha Kishan Vs Kishan Lal Page No. 19 Of 19