Delhi District Court
Kanchan Devi And Ors vs Ramesh And Ors on 20 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030025592018
CS SCJ No. 1580/2018
1. Smt. Kanchan Devi
W/o-Shri. Gopal Lal
R/o D-809 & D-810
JJ. Colony, Jahangirpuri. Delhi-110033
2. Shri. Gopal Lal (deceased)
S/o Late Shri. Gyarsi Lal
R/o: D-809 & D-810
J.J. Colony. Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033
... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Shri. Ramesh,
S/o: Shri. Gopal lal and Smt. Kanchan Devi,
R/o: D-809 & D-810, J.J. Colony, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033
2. Smt. Rachna,
W/o: Shri. Ramesh
R/o D-809 & D-810, J.J. Colony,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033
3. Shri. Mahesh
S/o Shri. Gopal lal and Smt. Kanchan Devi.
R/o: D-809 & D-810, J.J. Colony.
Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033
4. Smt. Bhagwati
W/o Shri. Mahesh
R/o D-809 & D-810, J.J. Colony,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033
NITISH by
... Defendants
Digitally signed
NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.08.20
17:16:43 +0530
CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 1 Of 12
Date of Institution 08.01.2019
Date of conclusion of arguments 05.08.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 20.08.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, MANDATORY
INJUCTION AND FOR MESNE PROFITS
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's Version
1. Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are that -
(a) The plaintiffs, Shri Gopal Lal and Smt. Kanchan Devi, are husband and wife, both senior citizens of India and have been residing at the suit premises located at D-809 and D-810, JJ Colony, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033, since the date of its purchase.
The said property is their self-acquired and self-purchased asset, over which they hold exclusive legal and ownership rights.
(b) The present suit has been instituted by Smt. Kanchan Devi, who is duly authorized to represent her husband, Shri Gopal Lal, by virtue of a General Power of Attorney dated 03.11.2018. The said GPA was notarized and stamped by the Assistant Consular Officer, Embassy of India, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Shri Gopal Lal is currently employed as a driver in Saudi Arabia, and his wife has been empowered to act on his behalf before any court of law in Delhi. Accordingly, Smt. Kanchan Devi files this suit both in her own capacity and as the lawful attorney of her husband. Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 17:16:49 +0530 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 2 Of 12
(c) It is submitted that plaintiff no.1, Smt. Kanchan Devi, purchased the property bearing number D-809, measuring 25 square yards, from Smt. Raj Kali Devi, wife of Shri Jag Ram Singh. The transaction was executed through a General Power of Attorney dated 14.05.1985, accompanied by a receipt of ₹10,000/-, an Agreement to Sell, and an Affidavit of the same date. The said documents confer ownership rights upon plaintiff no.1 in respect of D-809, JJ Colony, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033.
(d) Plaintiff no.2, Shri Gopal Lal, son of Late Shri Gyari Lal, purchased the adjoining property bearing number D-810, measuring 25 square yards, from Shri Ishwar Dass, son of Shri Gurumukh Dass, resident of 810, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033. The transaction was formalized through an Agreement to Sell dated 26.10.1998, a General Power of Attorney of the same date, a receipt, and an affidavit. Both properties have since been jointly constructed up to the first floor and terrace, comprising a ground floor, first floor, staircases, and terrace.
(e) Prior to the marriages of the defendants, the plaintiffs constructed the suit property up to the first floor and terrace using savings and funds arranged by plaintiff no.2. Defendant no.1, Shri Ramesh, the elder son of the plaintiffs, resides at the suit property along with his wife, defendant no.2, Smt. Rachna, and their children, Daksh and Pehu.
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.08.20
SHARMA 17:16:56 +0530
CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 3 Of 12
(f) Defendant no.3, Shri Mahesh, the younger son of the
plaintiffs, also resides at the suit property along with his wife, defendant no.4, Smt. Bhagwati, and their minor son, Ansh. All defendants are residing at the plaintiffs' self-owned property located at D-809 and D-810, JJ Colony, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033.
(g) It is pertinent to note that the defendants and their children are residing jointly with the plaintiffs solely at the discretion of the plaintiffs. Their occupation of the suit property is permissive in nature. The defendants have been allowed to reside free of cost on the first floor of the constructed premises, which comprises two rooms, two toilets, and a joint terrace. Their status is that of licensees.
(h) On 10.07.2018, the plaintiffs, through their counsel, issued a legal notice to defendants no.1 to 4, declaring their intent to sever all ties, communications, and associations with the defendants. The plaintiffs, being of sound mind, conveyed that they no longer recognize any relationship with the defendants due to their harsh, arrogant, and inhuman conduct. Despite residing in the plaintiffs' self-acquired property, the defendants have failed to care for the plaintiffs in their old age.
(i) In view of the foregoing, the plaintiffs called upon defendants no.1 to 4 to vacate the suit premises within thirty days NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 SHARMA 17:17:02 +0530 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 4 Of 12 from the receipt of the said legal notice. However, despite receipt of the notice, the defendants have failed to vacate the property and have instead issued threats to the plaintiffs, demanding transfer of ownership in their favour and warning of dire consequences. Hence, the present suit has been instituted.
Relief Sought:
2 The plaintiffs, by way of the present suit, has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) Decree of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants, his agents representatives, family members, attorneys, etc. to remove his unauthorized occupation and vacate the first floor of the suit premises.
(b) Decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, his agents representatives, family members, attorneys etc from creating any third party interest in any manner in respect of the suit property and to restrain the defendants along with their children, their agents, representatives, family members, attorneys etc. from interfering, disturbing, or otherwise creating hindrances in any manner to the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises in possession of the plaintiffs including common facilities.
(d) To award a sum Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the plaintiffs and against the defendants as past mesne profits, on account of unlawful occupation and use of the suit property by the defendants, from the date of receiving of legal notice 14.07 2018 regarding termination of license to stay in the suit property till Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 SHARMA 17:17:08 +0530 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 5 Of 12 filing of the present suit and further award pendente lite and future mesne profits till the date of actual handing over the peaceful possession of suit property to the plaintiffs.
(e) Cost of the suit in the favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Written Statement/ Defence Version:
3. In the written statement, the defendants have raised preliminary objections, contending that the present suit being filed by plaintiffs is false, frivolous and baseless, hence the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.1 It is stated that the present suit has been devised as a tool to harass the answering defendants and that the plaintiffs have not approached with clean hands before this Court. It is stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is without cause of action and is liable to be dismissed U/O 7 rule 11 of C.P.C.
3.2 On merits, the defendants have denied the allegations made in the plaint and reiterated that the suit is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
4. Plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of defendants no. 2 and 4 wherein the contents of the written statement are refuted and those of the plaint have been re-affirmed.
NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 SHARMA 17:17:14 +0530 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 6 Of 12 Issues
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 26.07.2019:
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction in their favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction in their favour and against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of a sum of Rs 20,000/- as past mesne profits on account of unlawful occupation and use of the suit property by the defendant in their favour and against the defendants, as prayed for?OPP
(iv) Whether the suit property is liable to be sold or purchase? OPD2 & 4
(v) Whether the present suit is without any cause of action? OPD2 & 4
(vi) Whether the present suit is only to gratifying the personal revenge in avenge of instituted matrimonial suit by the defendant no.2?OPD2
(vii) Relief
6. The defendants stopped appearing in the Court and vide order dated 24.03.2022, they were proceeded exparte and the matter was listed for exparte PE.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 17:17:20 +0530 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 7 Of 12 Plaintiff's Evidence
7. In order to prove their case, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon following documents:-
Copy of PAN Card Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) Copy of GPA dated 03.11.2018 Ex.PW-1/2 Copies of GPA dated Ex. PW-1/3 (colly) (OSR). 14.05.1985, Receipt, Agreement to Sell and affidavit.
Copies of Agreement to sell and Ex. PW1/4 (Colly) (OSR). GPA dated 26.10.1998.
Copies of photographs Mark-A (colly). Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) are now de-
exhibited and marked.
Copy of site plan Ex.PW-1/6. Copy of newspaper dated Ex.PW-1/7 (OSR). 22.07.2018.
Copy of legal notice dated Ex.PW-1/8 (colly). 10.07.2018 along with postal receipts.
Copy of electricity bill Mark-B.
Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.08.20
SHARMA 17:17:26 +0530
CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 8 Of 12
Thereafter, plaintiff closed his exparte PE and the matter was listed for exparte final arguments.
8. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the record.
Analysis and Findings
9. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff no.2/Gopal Lal had expired on 17.11.2023 i.e. during the pendency of the suit and as his Lrs were not impleaded, the suit qua him stood abated.
Issue no.1 -3
(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction in their favour and against the defendants, as prayed for?OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction in their favour and against the defendants, as prayed for?OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of a sum of Rs 20,000/- as past mesne profits on account of unlawful occupation and use of the suit property by the defendant in their favour and against the defendants, as prayed for?OPP
10. The plaintiff no.1 in her plaint had stated that she had purchased the property no. D-809 from Smt. Raj Kali Devi and her Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:17:32 +0530 Date: 2025.08.20 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 9 Of 12 husband had purchased the property no. D-810 and the said properties were then jointly constructed upto first floor and the suit property consisted of ground floor, first floor, terrace and stairs. It is asserted that defendants are residing on the first floor as licensees of plaintiffs and the license has been terminated and they are bound to vacate.
11. Admittedly, the documents in favour of plaintiff no.1 and 2 i.e. Ex PW1/3 and Ex PW1/4 are all notarised documents. Now, it is settled that 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 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 Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 SHARMA 17:17:38 +0530 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 10 Of 12 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."
12. Thus, on the basis of the said documents i.e. GPA, agreement, affidavit, and receipt, the plaintiff can not claim ownership over the suit property. Allegedly, the property no. D-809 was allotted to one Mahavir Singh. The plaintiff has, however, not placed on record any allotment letter in favour of Mahavir Singh and only a possession slip in the name of Mahavir Singh has been filed. The documents executed by Mahavir Singh in favour of one Raj Kali Devi also do not bear the signatures of Raj Kali Devi and the said documents have not been proved on record as per Indian Evidence Act. 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 filed by him.
13. Even otherwise, if the case as presented by the plaintiffs is accepted, it is notable that the plaintiff no.2 has already expired and thus, his sons i.e. defendant no. 1 and 3 have acquired some right in NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 SHARMA 17:17:45 +0530 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 11 Of 12 the property i.e. D-810. Admittedly, property no. D-809 & D-810 have been joined and constructed upto first floor and the defendants are residing in the first floor. In the considered opinion of this court, when the defendants have acquired some right in the property D-810, they can not be considered as licensee any longer and thus can not be directed to vacate the suit property. Consequently, they can not be held liable to pay any mesne profits either. As regards the relief against creation of third party right, the plaintiff has vehemently failed to prove their absolute title over the suit property.
14. Issue no. (i)-(iii) are accordingly decided. As no evidence was led by the defendants, the other issues stand decided against the defendants.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary facts as mentioned in the plaint, her suit is liable to fail. The suit of the plaintiff accordingly stands dismissed.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed on 20.08.2025. NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 17:17:51 +0530 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/20.08.2025 CS SCJ No. 1580/2018 Kanchan Devi & Ors V Ramesh & Ors 12 Of 12