Delhi District Court
Ram Chand Juneja vs Sanjeev Kumar Juneja on 29 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR, DISTRICT JUDGE-05,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
RCA No. 07/2018
CNR No. DLSE01-000398-2018
Ram Chand Juneja & Anr. (Both Appellant deceased now through their
LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr.
Ravinder Juneja
S/o Late Mr. R.C. Juneja,
R/o A 1/1, First Floor,
Hospital Road, Jangpura,
New Delhi
Sanjeev Juneja,
S/o Late Mr. R.C. Juneja,
H. No. 466, Sec 39,
Gurugram, Haryana (already impleaded as defendant)
Rajeev Juneja,
S/o Late Mr. R.C. Juneja,
Permanent R/o A1/1 Third Floor,
Hospital Road, Jangpura,
New Delhi.
At presently
15897 13 Ave SW
Edmonton AB T6W 2H5
Canada.
Poonam Vij,
W/o Mr. Punit Vij
Permanent Resident of
PW-26, Ground Floor,
Malibu Town, Sohna Road,
RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 1 of 13
Dated 29.07.2025
PRABH Digitally signed by
PRABH DEEP KAUR
DEEP Date: 2025.07.29
KAUR 16:10:48 +0530
Gurgaon, Haryana.
At presently
349, Macewan Road,
Alberta, Calgary, Canada
(All LR of the deceased Appellants) .....Appellant
Versus
1. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Juneja,
S/o Mr. Ram Chand Juneja,
R/o H. No. 466, Sec 39,
Gurugram, Haryana
2. Mrs. Akta Juneja,
W/o Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Juneja,
R/o A 1/1 Ground Floor,
Hospital Road, Jangpura,
New Delhi. ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 17.08.2018
Date of arguments : 16.07.2025
Date of judgment : 29.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appellants had filed a suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction before the Ld. Court of Senior Civil Judge, Saket, New Delhi. The same was registered as CS SCJ No 51069/16 and listed before the Ld Court of Mr. Sushil Anuj Tyagi, JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum Guardians Judge, South East, Saket, New Delhi. The aforesaid suit all the parties duly appeared and Written Statement and Replication was also filed, The Local Commissioner was also appointed. The Defendant No 2 earlier moved an RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 2 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 16:10:56 +0530 application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the same was withdrawn by the defendant No 2 during the course of arguments. Thereafter, again an application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed and Ld. Trial Court allowed the application vide order dated 27.11.2017 and rejected the plaint U/O 7 R 11 (d) CPC r/w Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act and the same order has been assailed by way of present appeal.
2. The appellants files the present appeal on the following amongst other grounds.
GROUNDS.
(i) The Impugned Orders Passed by the Ld. Judge are contrary to the pleadings and the Law as envisaged in Order 7 Rule 11, as such the same is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be overturned in the present appeal.
(ii) The pleadings of the suit of the Appellant does not does not fall either in Order 7 Rule 11 (d) or under Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act and the suit for mandatory Injunction against the daughter in law is maintainable and not hit by Section 41 of the Specific relief Act.
(iii). The Ld. Trial Court though mentions the Judgment of Barun Kumar Nahar V. Parul Nahar & Ano rendered by Honorable Delhi High Court , but its apparent that the contents of the judgment were not gone through, in the said judgment the contention whether a suit for Mandatory Injunction is maintainable against the daughter in law was discussed and the Honorable Court came to the conclusion that Mandatory Injunction was indeed was maintainable.
(iv) Ld. Trial Court was again wrong in holding that since the daughter in law had forcefully entered the house again she has become the trespasser and as such a Suit for Possession would lie. Again the Judgment of Barun RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 3 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.07.29 Kumar Nahar comes to the aid of deciding this issue. Honourable Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir of Hon'ble Delhi High Court considered this aspect as in the said case also the daughter in law had left the house after signing an affidavit and thereafter later entered the house forcefully.
(v) The Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the judgment supplied by the appellant of S.R. Batra & Anr. -Vs.- Taruna Batra, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it was again a case where the wife/daughter-in-law forcibly broke open the lock of the house and entered even in that case considering the aspect that the daughter-in-law had forcibly entered the house, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld that the mandatory injunction was maintainable.
(vi) The Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate nor has gone through the Judgment of Virender Kumar & Anr. -Vs.- Jaswant Rai rendered by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kochar of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, though the said judgment is mentioned in the order but it seems that the Ld. Trial Court completely lost the contents of the Judgment. The very first page of the judgment in para 2 the last three lines states, "they also forcibly occupy one room on the ground floor. On resistance the plaintiffs were beaten by the defendant's son and his wife. Various complaints were made inter-se between the parties. The Hon'ble Court further held, "the defendant No.1 been the son and defendant No.2 been the daughter-in-law were merely given right to stay in the suit property and in such facts I am of the considered opinion that the defendants been mere licensee can be directed to vacate the suit property and that the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable and plaintiffs are not required to file suit for possession".
It is respectfully submitted that even in the cited case there was an RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr PageDigitally no. 4 of 13signed by PRABH Dated 29.07.2025 PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 KAUR 16:11:08 +0530 element of forcible occupation of the room, for which mandatory injunction was filed and despite the fact that there was a forcibly occupation, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that the suit for Mandatory Injunction was maintainable.
(vii) The Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sant Lal Jain Vs. Avatar Singh wherein it was held, "the suit is in fact one for possession though couched in the form of a Suit for Mandatory injunction as that would be given to the plaintiff in case he succeeds in possession of the suit property to which he may found to be entitled, therefore, the appellant should not be denied relief merely because he couched the plaint in the form of a suit for mandatory injunction".
It was further held, "the respondent was a licensee and he must be deemed to be always a licensee. It is not opened to him, during the subsistence of the license or in the license or in the suit for the recovery of possession of the property after revocation of the license to set up a title in the property to himself or anyone else, it is his plain duty to surrender possession of the property as the licensee and seek his remedy separately in case he has acquired title in the property subsequently through some other person. He need not do so if he has acquired title to the property from the licensor or from someone else lawfully claiming under him, in which case there would be clear merger. The respondent has not surrendered the possession of the property to the appellant even after termination of the license and institution of the suit, the appellant is therefore entitled to recover possession of the property.
(viii) The Ld Trial Court completely lost sight of the Judgment given in case of Mulk Raj Khullar vs. Anil Kapoor by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayantnath.
RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 5 of 13
Digitally
Datedsigned by
PRABH PRABH DEEP
29.07.2025
DEEP KAUR
Date: 2025.07.29
KAUR 16:11:12 +0530
The preliminary objection whether a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable was decided in that case by the Honorable High Court in affirmative, it was further held that the decision of Anatulay Sudhakar. V. P. Buccha Reddy was not applicable in such cases.
(ix) Even otherwise the Ld Trial Judge wrongly came to the conclusion that Mandatory Injunction was not maintainable against the Trespasser, Honourable Supreme Court in Kishan Lal V. Rama Rao in AIR 1981 held that the Mandatory Injunction is maintainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in order to succeed in the suit it was sufficient for the plaintiff to show that the land was in possession of the plaintiff and that the defendant has made an encroachment on the land.
(x) The Ld Trial Court completely ignored the fact that the Appellant No 1, been the registered owner of entire premises is in Possession except for the floor which is in occupation of the Respondent. Its Respondent's case that the basement of the building has been given on rent to Lord's Clinic by the Appellant No 1.
Response of Respondent no.1:
3. The response to the appeal of the Appellant, it is respectfully submitted that the Respondent has no objections to the appeal of the Appellant. The premises in question exclusively belongs to the father of respondent no.1 and the same is evident from the conveyance deed. At no point of time, any money of the respondent no. 1 was ever used in renovating or constructing the premises in any manner. The Appellants have already disowned the respondents vide publication and his wife earlier vide publication in the News Paper and have severed all relation. Respondent no. 1 is not living with the appellants ever since he has been disowned. In fact RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 6 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.07.29 KAUR 16:11:42 +0530 the respondent no. 1 is living separately. The respondent no. 1 has no objections in case the appeal is allowed by this Court. Respondent no. 1 has filed a Divorce Case against respondent no. 2 and the same is pending adjudication.
Response of respondent no. 2:
4. It is respectfully submitted that the present appeal is an abuse of the process of law. The reliefs sought in the present appeal are clearly not maintainable. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself with exemplary cost. There is absolutely no error in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The Appellants' suit was rejected by the Ld. Trial Court being hit by Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The Ld. Trial Court while rejecting the Appellants' plaint had relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs Buchi Reddy, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when a person's title is not disputed, but if he is not in possession, then his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. Such a person cannot seek a relief of injunction simplicitor, without first claiming the relief for possession. In other words, the relief for possession is paramount in such cases. Admittedly, in the Appellants' case, they were not in possession of the suit premises.
Secondly, the Appellants had themselves contended that Respondent No.2 had illegally trespassed into the suit premises owned by them. Under the said circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellants' suit, simplicitor for injunction was clearly not maintainable. The Appellants, in their suit ought to have prayed for the relief RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 7 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 16:11:46 +0530 of possession first, before seeking the relief for injunction. The Ld. Trial Court was therefore correct in holding that prima facie no case existed in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff and a ground for rejection of the plaint was made out by Respondent No.2. The Appellants, in their suit had alleged that Respondent No.2 had illegally occupied the ground floor/suit premises by trespassing on 22.11.2014 in the absence of the Appellants. This contention of the Appellants is completely baseless and has no merit. In fact, Respondent No.2 has been residing in the suit premises since 2003, from the time she was married to Respondent No.1. The suit premises is her matrimonial home. In December 2012, she had only temporarily shifted to Gurgaon as the whole property at Jangpura was being renovated. In September 2014, once the renovation work was completed, she shifted back to the suit premises and since then she has been residing there. On 22.11.2014, the Appellant No. 1, his son Mr. Ravinder Juneja and Mr. Ravinder Juneja's wife, Mrs. Sudershan Juneja had tried to forcibly evict/throw out Respondent No.2 from her matrimonial home. However, Respondent No.2 somehow managed to prevent the illegal eviction and Appellants were unsuccessful in their evil design. Respondent No.2 immediately called the police and somehow with the intervention of the police, she managed to prevent her forceful illegal removal from the suit premises. Thereafter, immediately on 22.11.2014 and on 24.11.2014, she lodged two police complaints, one with the Jt. Commissioner of Police and the other with the Police Station at Nizamuddin. Respondent No.2 has been residing in the suit premises at A 1/1, Hospital Road, Jangpura, New Delhi since 2003. This property is her matrimonial home and she has been residing there since the time she got married. During December 2012, she had only RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 8 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.07.29 KAUR 16:11:55 +0530 temporarily shifted to Gurgaon as the property at Jangpura was being renovated. In September 2014, after the renovation work was over, she shifted back and occupied the same floor which was being occupied by her pre-renovation. Post renovation, the property at Jangpura consists of Basement, Ground Floor, 1st Floor, 2nd Floor, 3rd Floor and 4th Floor. The Basement Floor, Ground Floor, 3rd and 4th Floor are given on lease to a Hospital by the name of "Lord's Clinic". The 1 st Floor is occupied by Respondent No.2 and the 2nd Floor is occupied by Appellant's second son and daughter in law. The Appellants are not residing in the property at Jangpura. They have several properties and are currently residing in Gurgaon at Sushant Lok in an independent house constructed on 1000 Sq yd Plot. It is submitted that the Appellants by filing a false and frivolous suit were illegally trying to dispossess Respondent No.2 from her matrimonial home. It is respectfully submitted that the suit premises is the matrimonial home of Respondent No.2 and she has been residing in this property ever since her marriage in 2003. She has every right to reside in the said premises as Respondent No. 1, who is the husband of Respondent No.2 has a share in the suit premises. Moreover, he is also a joint business partner in several joint businesses with Appellant No. 1 and the funds of the said joint family business has been utilized for the purposes of renovating the premises at A1/1 Hospital Road Jungpura. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 has a right and interest in the property at Jangpura. Since Respondent No.2 is the wife of Respondent no. 1, she too has a right over her husband's property. The Appellants are in collusion with Respondent No. 1 and by filing a false suit they were illegally trying to throw Respondent No.2 out of her matrimonial home. In fact, the suit was filed only as a counter blast to the FIR No. RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 9 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 KAUR 16:11:59 +0530 535/2014 PS Gurgaon Sadar under Section 354A/198A/34 IPC, wherein they are all accused. Earlier also a frivolous suit was filed by the Appellants being Suit No. 311 of 2014, which was withdrawn by the Appellants vide orders dated 13.01.2015. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 is actively colluding and assisting the Appellants with the evil design of throwing out Respondent No.2 from her matrimonial home.
5. The Trial Court records was summoned and perused.
6. Sh. Sunil Jacob with Sh. Michael Shephered and Ms. Angel Jacob, Ld. Counsels for Lrs of appellant and Sh. Prateek, Ld. LAC for Ms. Akta Juneja/respondent no. 2 have addressed final arguments.
7. Both the parties have also filed written arguments which reiterated the arguments addressed before the Court and same are not reproduced here in verbatim for the sake of brevity but will be dealt alongwith the findings upon issues at the relevant stage. Record has been carefully perused. .
8. In the present suit, both appellants had filed the suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants. Admittedly, appellants were father in law and mother in law of respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 1 is their son. Admittedly, there was a marital discord between respondent no. 1 and 2 and various litigations have been filed by respondent no. 2 against respondent no. 1 as well as appellants. Admittedly, the suit property i.e. ground floor A1/1, Hospital Road, Jangpura, New Delhi is owned by the appellants. Thereafter, the property was vacated due to renovation. Admittedly, respondent no. 2 was residing in the property being daughter in law of appellants and wife of respondent no. 1.
RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 10 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025 Digitally signed PRABH by PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 KAUR 16:12:03 +0530
8. Now as per appellants, during renovation of the property, respondent no. 2 illegally entered the property in November 2014 while the suit filed by appellants for restraining the respondents from entering the suit property was pending. Later on, appellants had withdrawn the suit and filed the present suit thereby seeking the possession of the ground floor of the suit property from the respondent no. 1 and 2 by way of mandatory injunction. Respondent no. 1 /husband of respondent no. 2 supported the claim of his parents/appellants.
9. It is settled principle that at the time of applying the parameter u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC only plaint and documents annexed with the plaint can be looked upon. In the present matter, from the perusal of plaint it is clear that appellants were seeking the relief of eviction of respondents from the ground floor of the suit property because respondents, being relatives of appellants, had entered the premises without permission of the appellants. The reading of plaint and documents is not to be done in a mechanical manner but in a sacrosanct manner. The crux of the matter is that respondent no. 2 could get the access to the suit property being relative/ daughter in law of the appellants and therefore, the simiplicitor suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable. Had respondent no. 2 been a stranger, the judgment of Anatulla Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) through LRs decided on 25.03.2008 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as relied by Ld. Trial Court would have been applicable to the facts in hand.
10. Ld. Trial Court has grossly erred in applying the said judgment to the case and dismissing the suit u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 27.11.2017. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. The judgment relied by respondent no. 2 are not applicable to the facts in hand as in the facts in RCA no.07/2018 PRABH Digitally Page no. signed Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr byDated PRABH KAUR 11 of 13 DEEP 29.07.2025 DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.07.29 16:12:07 +0530 hand, respondent no. 2 could enter the property only being daughter in law of appellants.
11. However in the present case, during pendency of the appeal, both the appellants /original plaintiffs have passed away. The respondent no. 1, admittedly, is a son of the appellants and after death of appellants, he, being class-I legal heir of appellants, has right, title and share in the property and respondent no. 2, being wife of respondent no. 1, can also claim certain rights over the property of respondent no. 1, though at this stage, Court can neither decide the quantum and quality of rights of respondent no. 1 nor of respondent no. 2. However, respondent no. 1, being LRs of appellants cannot seek his own eviction nor can seek eviction of his wife without their being proper pleadings to the same. Even the rights of other LRs of appellants are subject to the rights of respondent no. 1, being son of appellants. Therefore, the original cause of action stated by the appellants in the suit does not survive any more. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed being infructuous, though the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by Ld. Trial Court is bad in law.
CONCLUSION
12. In view of abovesaid reasons, it is hereby held that Ld. Trial Court has passed wrong order and the order dated 27.11.2017 has been passed ignoring the factual proposition laid down in the plaint and the suit should not have been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC r/w Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act and appellants should have been given opportunity to prove their averments. However, the appeal has become infructuous as both appellants have passed away during pendency of the suit and respondent no.
1, being class-I legal heir of appellants, has acquired certain rights which are RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 12 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 16:12:13 +0530 yet to be crystallized and the impact of the same over the rights of respondent no. 2 being wife of respondent no. 1, qua the suit property are to be evaluated in view of new factual proposition and the original cause of action on the basis of which suit was filed does not survive any longer. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being infructuous. Parties to bear their own costs.
Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith trial court record. File of the present appeal be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR
DEEP KAUR Date: +0530
2025.07.29 16:12:18
Typed to the direct dictation and (Prabh Deep Kaur)
announced in the open court District Judge-05, South East
th
on this 29 July 2025 Saket Courts, New Delhi
RCA no.07/2018 Ram Chand Juneja & Anr (both appellant deceased through their LRs) Vs. Sanjeev Juneja & Anr Page no. 13 of 13 Dated 29.07.2025