Delhi District Court
Atul Dewan vs Inderjit Gandhi on 30 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. HALA QUAMAR
CNR No:-DLCT030005382010
CS DJ No.600003/2016
Sh. Atul Dewan
W/o Late Sh. P.L. Dewan
R/o 16/8, IIIrd Floor, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008. ..........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Inderjit Gandhi
S/o Late Sh. D.C. Gandhi
R/o G-43, IInd Floor,
Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
2. The S.H.O.
Police Station,
Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Smt. Sudesh Gandhi
W/o Sh. Inderjit Gandhi
R/o G-43, IInd Floor,
Kalkaji,
New Delhi. ........Defendants
Digitally
signed by
HALA
Page No.1HALA
QUAMAR
CS DJ No.600003/2016 of 31
QUAMAR Date:
2026.05.30
17:25:25
+0530
Date of institution of suit 28.04.2010
Date on which reserved for judgment 25.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment 30.05.2026
Decision Dismissed
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts as set out in the amended plaint are that the plaintiff, along with his three brothers, namely Sh. K.K. Dewan, Sh. G.K. Dewan and Sh. Lalit Dewan, are co-owners of property bearing No. 16/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that the ground floor portion of the said property was sold by the plaintiff and Sh. G.K. Dewan to Sardar Manjit Singh in the year 2007.
1.1 The plaintiff has averred that the property originally belonged to his mother, late Smt. Raj Kumari, in whose favour a Conveyance Deed dated 23.03.1967 was executed by the Land and Development Office, Ministry of Rehabilitation, New Delhi. Upon her demise on 12.02.1998 intestate, all her four sons inherited the property and became co-owners thereof.
1.2 It is further the case of the plaintiff that during the lifetime of their mother, an oral family partition took place on 26.08.1996 at her instance, which was subsequently reduced into writing by way of a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 01.12.1996. Under the said settlement, the plaintiff became entitled to half portion of the basement, half portion of the front side of the HALA QUAMAR Digitally signed by CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.2 of 31 HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:25:31 +0530 ground floor, and half portion of the third floor on the rear side of the property, shown in red colour in the site plan. It is pleaded that the mutation of the plaintiff's share in the basement and third floor was duly recorded with the municipal authorities and that he has been regularly paying house tax in respect thereof.
1.3 According to the plaintiff, after alienating his share in the ground floor in the year 2007, he shifted to the portion falling to his share on the third floor. It is stated that the said portion originally consisted of a barsati with a tin-sheet roof, which was renovated and converted into two rooms with basic amenities including bathrooms. The plaintiff further states that proceedings regarding alleged unauthorized construction were initiated by the Municipal Corporation under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, against which he preferred Appeal No. 10/AT:MCD/2009. The said appeal was disposed of on 10.02.2009 with directions to the competent authority to consider his application for regularization in accordance with law.
1.4 The plaintiff alleges that defendant No.1 has falsely claimed ownership of the roof rights of the third floor on the basis of an alleged Agreement to Sell and a receipt purportedly executed by late Smt. Raj Kumari. According to the plaintiff, the said documents are forged and fabricated and do not confer any right, title or interest upon defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that no registered sale deed was ever executed in favour of defendant No.1 and, therefore, no title could have legally passed to him. HALA QUAMAR Digitally signed CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.3 of 31 by HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:25:35 +0530 1.5 The plaintiff further states that he came to know for the first time on 03.05.2010, upon receipt of the written statement filed by defendant No.1, about certain documents allegedly executed by late Smt. Raj Kumari in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.3, including a registered General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney and affidavits. It is contended that even assuming such documents were executed, the same ceased to have effect upon the death of Smt. Raj Kumari on 12.02.1998 and are liable to be cancelled.
1.6 It is further alleged that defendant No.1 lodged a false complaint claiming ownership over the roof rights of the property and, on 26.03.2010, attempted to forcibly enter the third-floor portion in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that defendant No.1, accompanied by certain persons, tried to take forcible possession of the suit property, resulting in a scuffle during which the plaintiff sustained injuries. It is alleged that defendant No.1 threatened the plaintiff and his family members with dispossession and returned on 04.05.2010 with similar intentions after dismissal of the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
1.7 The plaintiff asserts that he has been in possession of the third-floor portion since the family settlement of 1996 and, after selling his ground-floor share in 2007, shifted permanently to the said portion. It is contended that the complaint made by defendant No.1 regarding alleged construction on the third floor in March 2010 is false and motivated, as proceedings concerning the HALA construction had already concluded much earlier. According to QUAMAR Digitally signed by CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.4 of 31 HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:25:39 +0530 the plaintiff, defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is attempting to dispossess him by relying upon forged and invalid documents. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
2. It is pertinent to mention that prayer clause (I) of the plaint has already been withdrawn/deleted.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.1,2 & 3
3. In contrast, Defendants No. 1 to 3 have contended that the present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed as the plaint fails to disclose any cause of action. It is their case that the suit has been instituted merely as a counterblast to the criminal proceedings already initiated against the plaintiff and is therefore not maintainable. The defendants further submit that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and, consequently, is not entitled to any relief. The defendants have also challenged the valuation of the suit, alleging that it has been overvalued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and that the requisite court fees have not been paid. According to them, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit upon proper valuation. It is further their contention that the suit has been filed with the sole objective of evading the criminal proceedings pending against the plaintiff and others, wherein their application for anticipatory bail has already been rejected. While admitting that Smt. Raj Kumari was the original owner of the suit property, the defendants deny the existence of the alleged family HALA QUAMAR settlement and describe the same as false and an afterthought.
Digitally signedCS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.5 of 31 by HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:25:44 +0530 They assert that the document in question effectively constitutes a sale through a power of attorney, a mode of transaction commonly adopted in Delhi, and that the document was accompanied by delivery of possession, thereby attracting the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and conferring rights equivalent to those arising from a sale deed. The defendants further state that the plaintiff had also sought anticipatory bail, and that the learned Sessions Judge disposed of the application in the presence of the Investigating Officer, who had submitted a status report. They maintain that the police complaint lodged by them is genuine and correct. The defendants have denied the allegations incorporated through the amended plaint, contending that such amendments were introduced only to fill the lacunae in the plaintiff's case, as had been pointed out by the Court in its order dated 03.05.2011. According to them, in the original plaint the plaintiff had denied the occurrence of any incidents on 25.03.2010 and 26.03.2010, but subsequently altered his stand by way of amendment. The defendants assert that no such incidents ever occurred and that the allegations are entirely baseless. They further contend that there is no contemporaneous complaint or MLC to substantiate the plaintiff's version and that the story regarding the alleged incident dated 04.05.2010 was fabricated solely to overcome the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and to cure the deficiencies in the plaintiff's case. The defendants have also stated that they instituted a separate suit for recovery of possession against the plaintiff, as he had projected himself as the owner of the third floor of property bearing No. HALA 8/7, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, both in the present proceedings QUAMAR and in the pleadings and affidavits filed by him. Lastly, it is Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.6 of 31 Date: 2026.05.30 17:25:49 +0530 contended that the plaint discloses no cause of action and that, since the document sought to be challenged carries a value of Rs.1,55,000/-, the suit ought to have been valued accordingly. Consequently, upon proper valuation, this Court would lack the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
REPLICATION
4. The plaintiff has filed a replication to the Written Statement of Defendants No. 1 to 3, wherein the averments and allegations contained in the Written Statement have been specifically denied, while the assertions and contentions set out in the plaint have been reaffirmed and reiterated.
ISSUES
5. Following issues have been framed in the present suit:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed?OPP (framed vide Order dated 13.08.2010)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that the documents dated 19.08.1996 have been forged by defendant No.1 and thus null and void?OPP (Additional issue framed vide Order dated 09.12.2011) PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE HALA QUAMAR
6. In support of his case, the plaintiff No.1 got examined Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.7 of 31 Date:
2026.05.30 17:25:54 +0530himself as a witness PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 Site Plan. Ex.PW1/2 Photocopy of Conveyance Deed. (OSR) Ex.PW1/3 Original Memorandum of Understanding. Ex.PW1/4 Original House tax receipt. Ex.PW1/5 Original House tax receipt. Mark A Photocopy of judgment dated 10.02.2009. Ex.PW1/7 Letter dated 02.06.2008
Ex.PW1/8 Mutation Deed dated 05.03.2009. (OSR) 6.1 PW-1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of Defendants No. 1 and 3. During his cross-examination, he admitted having received the notice dated 05.04.2011, which was exhibited as Ex.
PW1/D1, and identified the AD card bearing his signatures as Ex. PW1/D2. He stated that he had not produced the documents referred to at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the said notice on the ground that the same were not available with him. With regard to the document mentioned at Serial No. 3, he stated that he had already filed the conveyance deed bearing the signatures of his mother. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally withheld the documents.
6.2 PW-1 admitted that the suit property originally belonged HALA to his mother, Smt. Raj Kumari, and stated that he was capable of QUAMAR identifying her signatures. Upon being confronted with the General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Receipt, Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR Date:
CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.8 of 31 2026.05.30 17:25:59 +0530 Agreement to Sell and Purchase, and affidavits relied upon by the defendants, he categorically denied that the signatures and thumb impressions appearing thereon belonged to his mother and alleged that the same were forged and fabricated. However, he admitted that the photographs affixed on the General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney and Receipt were photographs of his mother. He further stated that he did not know how the defendants had obtained those photographs. He denied the suggestion that the signatures and thumb impressions on the said documents were genuine or that he was deposing falsely in that regard. The witness admitted that he had neither made any inquiry regarding the registration of the GPA and SPA nor verified whether the said documents were registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar. He further admitted that he had not lodged any police complaint regarding the alleged forgery committed by Defendants No. 1 and 6.3 Regarding the physical status of the property, PW-1 deposed that in the year 1996 there existed only a tin shed on the roof of the second floor and no room or wall was constructed thereon. He denied the suggestion that a room existed on the roof in the year 1997. He further admitted that he had been in possession of the entire third floor since 26.08.1996 and that none of his brothers had any concern with the said floor. PW-1 admitted that in the year 2007 he and his brother, Sh. Gulshan Kumar Dewan, had shown the ground floor of the property to one Smt. Daljeet Kaur. He further admitted that litigation was pending with her, explaining that the dispute arose because she had not paid the HALA QUAMAR entire sale consideration. He also admitted that a Local Commissioner had been appointed in the said litigation and stated Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.9 of 31 Date:
2026.05.30 17:26:03 +0530 that the commission proceedings related to a water tank situated on the third floor. He further admitted that the Local Commissioner had found him in possession of the entire third floor and that he continued to remain in possession thereof. He also admitted that there was no access to the roof above the third floor. The witness stated that he did not know one Sh. Umesh Chadha and was unaware whether he worked as a property dealer in West Patel Nagar. He further stated that he had never met any of the attesting witnesses to the documents relied upon by the defendants. PW-1 admitted that Defendant No. 1, Sh. Inderjeet Gandhi, had lodged a complaint dated 02.04.2010 with the SHO, Police Station West Patel Nagar, and that he had been called by the police in connection with the investigation. However, he stated that he did not know whether the title documents in favour of Sh. Inderjeet Gandhi and his wife had also been submitted along with the complaint.
6.4 The witness stated that he had no knowledge regarding any bank account maintained by his mother, Smt. Raj Kumari. He also expressed ignorance as to whether any such account had been closed after her death on 12.02.1998 or whether any amount lying therein had been distributed among the four brothers. PW-1 specifically denied the suggestion that a cheque bearing No. 893045 dated 19.09.1996 drawn on UCO Bank for a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- had been issued by Sh. Inderjeet Gandhi to his mother towards consideration for the sale of roof rights of the HALA second floor. The witness denied the suggestion that no incident QUAMAR had taken place on 26.03.2010 as alleged in the amended plaint.Digitally signed
He also denied the suggestion that on 25.03.2010 Sh. Inderjeet by HALA QUAMAR CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.10 of 31 Date:
2026.05.30 17:26:07 +0530 Gandhi had visited the property in the manner alleged in his complaint dated 02.04.2010 or that large-scale construction activity was being carried out on the third floor on that date. PW-1 admitted that an iron grill had been installed at the mezzanine floor level by his brother for security purposes and that no person could access the upper floors without passing through the said grill. He further admitted that the alleged incident dated 26.03.2010 had not been mentioned in the anticipatory bail application filed by him and explained that the application had been dismissed as no FIR had been registered. The witness denied the suggestion that his mother had sold the third floor/roof rights of the property to Defendants No. 1 and 3 through registered GPA and allied documents or that he was aware of any such transaction. He further denied possessing any other documents bearing the signatures of his mother and stated that apart from the conveyance deed, no other document containing her original signatures was in his possession. PW-1 also denied the suggestions that Defendants No. 1 and 3 had been using the room on the roof for storage purposes, that he or his brothers had misappropriated articles kept therein, or that he had trespassed into or illegally occupied the third floor. He further denied that any water connection had ever been sanctioned or installed for the third floor by the Delhi Jal Board or its predecessor authority, or that a water motor had been installed at the ground floor by Defendants No. 1 and 3.
HALA QUAMAR 6.5 The witness stated that he did not know any person by the name of Sh. Darshan Gandhi. He denied that any compromise Digitally signed meetings had taken place, that he had repeatedly called the by HALA QUAMAR Date: CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.11 of 31 2026.05.30 17:26:11 +0530 defendants for settlement, or that during such meetings he had admitted execution of the disputed documents by his mother and offered to settle the matter. At that stage, learned counsel for the defendants sought an adjournment to confront the witness with an alleged voice recording secretly made by Sh. Darshan Gandhi during compromise talks. The request was declined by the Court.
7. Thereafter, the plaintiff's evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for defence evidence.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
8. In defence evidence, the defendant has got examined himself as a witness DW-1 and tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1 and relied on the following documents:-
Ex.DW1/1 Copy of receipt dated 19.08.1996. (OSR) Ex.DW1/2 Copy of agreement to sell and purchase dated 19.08.1996. (OSR) Ex.DW1/3 Copy of GPA dated 19.08.1996 (OSR). Ex.DW1/4 Copy of SPA of Smt. Sudesh Gandhi dated 19.08.1996. (OSR) Ex.DW1/5 Copy of affidavit acknowledging the agreement to sell and purchase dated 19.08.1996.
Ex.DW1/6 Copy of possession slip dated 19.08.1996.
HALA 8.1 DW-1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for QUAMAR Digitally signed CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.12 of 31 by HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:26:16 +0530 the plaintiff. During his cross-examination, he stated that the original documents exhibited on 19.09.2016 were already on record, though he was unaware of the exact date on which they had been filed. He deposed that he had been residing at G-43, Second Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi since 1999 and clarified that since 2008 he was no longer residing at property bearing No. 7/7, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He further stated that he possessed proof of residence pertaining to his Kalkaji address. He admitted that he had filed his affidavit by way of evidence in May 2016, which had been prepared by his counsel. He stated that he was educated up to the 10th standard, could not understand English, and that the affidavit had been prepared in his presence at Daryaganj and explained to him before he signed it. The witness produced the original documents pursuant to the Court's order dated 16.11.2016. He admitted that documents Ex. DW1/3 to Ex. DW1/6 had neither been executed by him nor signed by him as an attesting witness. He, however, denied the suggestion that Ex. DW1/2 was forged or fabricated. He deposed that documents Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/6 had been got prepared by him at Kashmere Gate and admitted that the stamp papers used for the said documents had been purchased by him. However, he stated that he did not remember whether he was alone when the stamp papers were purchased. He further stated that he did not remember the names and addresses of either the Notary/Oath Commissioner who attested the documents or the stamp vendor from whom the stamp papers were purchased. DW-1 denied the suggestion that documents Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/6 were forged and fabricated or that they had never been executed by the alleged executant. He HALA admitted having filed two affidavits during the course of his QUAMAR Digitally signed CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.13 of 31 by HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:26:20 +0530 evidence but expressed inability to recollect the dates of their filing. During the course of cross-examination, the Court recorded that learned counsel for the defendants had advised the witness to state that he did not remember facts whenever he was unable to answer questions. The Court cautioned learned counsel not to coach the witness during examination and observed that appropriate orders would be passed in case of repetition.
8.2 The witness stated that affidavit Ex. DW1/A had been prepared on his instructions by his counsel and that he had signed the same after its contents had been explained to him. He clarified that he had not filed the affidavit on behalf of Defendant No. 2 and attributed the statement to that effect in the affidavit to a typographical error. DW-1 deposed that approximately five to six days prior to the execution of documents Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/6, he had seen the title documents of Smt. Raj Kumari. According to him, he had seen the registered sale deed in her favour at the residence of the plaintiff, Atul Dewan, in the presence of one Umesh Chadha. He stated that neither he nor his brother was engaged in the business of property dealing. He admitted that he had not obtained any photocopy of the registered sale deed for verification purposes and did not remember the name of the vendor mentioned therein. He denied the suggestion that no registered sale deed existed in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari or that he was deposing falsely in this regard. He further admitted that he had not placed on record a copy of the said sale deed. HALA QUAMAR When asked whether the aforesaid facts had been mentioned in the written statement, he stated that he did not remember. Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR Date:
2026.05.30 CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.14 of 31 17:26:24 +0530 8.3 The witness admitted that no sale deed in respect of the suit property had ever been got registered either in his own name or in the name of his wife by the executant of documents Ex.
DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/6. He denied the suggestion that no sale deed had been obtained because the documents relied upon by him were forged and fabricated. He expressed ignorance as to whether his wife had executed any power of attorney in his favour authorising him to defend the suit or depose on her behalf and stated that his counsel would be aware of the same. DW-1 further stated that he did not remember when any application for mutation of the suit property had been made either in his name or in the name of his wife before the Municipal Corporation. He denied the suggestion that no mutation application had been filed because the documents relied upon by him were forged and fabricated. During the cross-examination, when the witness was asked whether he had filed any other suit, learned counsel for the defendants answered the question before the witness could respond. The Court recorded its displeasure and observed that despite previous warnings, learned counsel continued to interfere with the cross-examination by suggesting answers to the witness. Consequently, learned counsel was directed to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 228 IPC should not be initiated against him for interrupting court proceedings.
8.4 DW-1 admitted that he was not presently residing at property bearing No. 7/7, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. However, he HALA denied that he had deliberately furnished an incorrect address at QUAMAR the commencement of his cross-examination. He further denied Digitally signed by HALA the suggestion that he had falsely deposed regarding payment of QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:26:28 +0530 CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.15 of 31 Rs.1,55,000/- to Smt. Raj Kumari through cheque as stated in paragraph 3 of his affidavit. He also denied the suggestion that Smt. Raj Kumari had never executed any document in his favour or in favour of his wife. The witness denied the suggestion that possession of the suit property had never been delivered to him or his wife. At the same time, he admitted that he had never resided in the suit property, though he voluntarily stated that some of his articles were lying therein. He denied the suggestions that no such articles were lying in the suit property, that he had deliberately omitted particulars of such articles because none existed there, that he had filed false documents in the present proceedings, or that the contents of his affidavit Ex. DW1/A were false. He maintained that his testimony and the documents relied upon by him were genuine and correct.
9. Vide Order dated 19.09.2016, the right of the defendants to lead further evidence stood closed.
10. have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case meticulously.
FINDINGS ON ISSUES ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration that the documents dated 19.08.1996 have been forged by defendant No.1 and thus null and void?OPP (Additional issue framed vide HALA QUAMAR Order dated 09.12.2011) Digitally signed by HALA CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.16 of 31 QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:26:33 +0530
11. Issue No. 2 is taken up for consideration first, as the determination of Issue No. 1 is intrinsically dependent upon the findings to be returned on Issue No. 2. The question relating to the validity of the documents relied upon by the defendants forms the foundation for adjudicating the plaintiff's claim of lawful possession and entitlement to the relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, Issue No. 2 is decided prior to Issue No.
12. It is a settled principle of law that registered documents carry a strong presumption of genuineness and correctness. Therefore, the onus to dislodge such presumption and prove the issue lies upon the plaintiff.
13. The documents dated 19.08.1996 comprise an Agreement to Sell executed by Smt. Raj Kumari, mother of the plaintiff, in favour of Sh. Inderjeet Gandhi (Defendant No.1), along with a registered General Power of Attorney and registered Special Power of Attorney executed in favour of Defendant No.3 (wife of Defendant No.1), as well as a possession slip. The plaintiff has challenged the said documents (GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, etc.) as forged and fabricated, alleging that they were never executed by late Smt. Raj Kumari.
14. However, mere denial of execution is not sufficient to HALA prove forgery. The burden lies heavily upon the party alleging QUAMAR fraud, which must be proved by cogent and convincing evidence, especially where registered documents are produced by a party.
Digitally signedIn such a case, the party challenging the registered documents by HALA QUAMAR Date: CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.17 of 31 2026.05.30 17:26:37 +0530 carries a higher burden to dislodge the presumption of genuineness attached to them.
15. In the present case, PW-1 has admitted that photographs of his mother appear on the documents relied upon by the defendants, though he denies her signatures and thumb impressions. He has also admitted that no police complaint regarding alleged forgery was ever lodged by him, nor did he take any steps to verify the registration of the said documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar.
16. On the other hand, DW-1 has consistently maintained that consideration was paid and possession was delivered through the possession slip, and that the documents were duly executed by late Smt. Raj Kumari. Although GPA/Agreement to Sell transactions do not, by themselves, create ownership rights, their existence cannot be discarded merely on allegation without strict proof of forgery. No expert opinion, handwriting analysis, or testimony of any official from the office of the Sub-Registrar has been produced by the plaintiff to discredit the registered documents placed on record by the defendants. Not even the brother of the plaintiff has entered into the witness box. In civil jurisprudence, fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, which has not been done in the present case.
17. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffHALA has failed to discharge the burden of proving forgery. QUAMAR
18. Therefore,issue no:2 is decided in favour of the defendantDigitally signed by HALA and against the plaintiff. QUAMAR Date:
2026.05.30 CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.18 of 31 17:26:42 +0530 ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed?OPP (framed vide Order dated 13.08.2010)
19. Onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff had initially filed the present suit seeking reliefs of declaration qua title and permanent injunction. However, subsequently, the plaintiff chose to delete the prayer seeking declaration of title on the ground that the defendants had not denied the family settlement on the basis of which the plaintiff claimed title, as recorded in the order dated 28.01.2014. However, a perusal of paragraph 4 of the reply on merits in the Amended Written Statement shows that the same was specifically denied by the defendants, who alleged that it was merely an afterthought on the part of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit now survives only with respect to the relief of permanent injunction.
20. It is further to be noted that, in order to justify his possession over the suit property, the plaintiff has relied upon Ex. PW1/3, namely the memorandum of family settlement. It is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Raj Kumari, his mother, was the owner of the suit property and that on 26.08.1996, an oral family settlement was arrived at between Smt. Raj Kumari and her sons, including the plaintiff, pursuant to which the property was divided and separate portions were allotted to each of the brothers.
HALA
21. Thereafter, the said oral partition was reduced into writing QUAMAR as Memorandum of family settlement on 01.12.1996. It is further Digitally signed CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.19 of 31 by HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:26:46 +0530 the case of the plaintiff that the third floor of the suit property fell to his share along with one of his brother and that the ground floor was also jointly allotted to him along with one of his brother. According to the plaintiff, he subsequently sold his share in the ground floor and thereafter shifted to the third floor portion of the property. It is his further case that the defendants threatened his possession, compelling him to institute the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction.
22. It is important to mention that the plaintiff's claim of possession is founded upon his title which he alleges to derive from the aforesaid family settlement. In that case, it is pertinent to note the following:
(i) Upon perusal of the said document, it is evident that it records Smt. Raj Kumari as the owner of the property who purports to divide the property amongst her sons. Since it is an admitted position between the parties, and also reflected in the family settlement itself, that Smt. Raj Kumari was the owner of the property, it was essential that the document bear her signature.
However, a perusal of the family settlement reveals that the signature of Smt. Raj Kumari is conspicuously absent. In the considered opinion of this Court, a family settlement purporting to divide the property of a person, without the signature of such person, lacks legal sanctity and cannot be relied upon to establish rights in the property.
(ii) Moreover, as per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the suit HALA property had fallen to his share jointly with one of his brothers. QUAMAR However, the family settlement placed on record merely indicates that 50% of the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff and is Digitally by HALA signed QUAMAR Date:
CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.20 of 31 2026.05.30 17:26:52 +0530 silent as to the remaining 50% share. Even if the plaintiff's case is accepted in its entirety, the plaint itself shows that the plaintiff claims ownership of only a 50% share in the third floor of the property. Though, in a suit for permanent injunction, the primary concern of the Court is lawful possession and not title, this aspect assumes significance in the present case since the plaintiff seeks to justify his possession of the entire third floor solely on the basis of his alleged ownership rights. As per his own pleadings, another brother is a co-owner of the said portion. Therefore, even according to the plaintiff's case, he is not the exclusive owner of the suit property. This circumstance creates a serious doubt regarding the plaintiff's claim of exclusive possession on the basis of memorandum of family settlement and raises questions as to the nature, extent and legality of the rights asserted by him in respect of the suit property.
(iii) Though it is true that in a suit for permanent injunction the Court is not required to conclusively determine title, it is nevertheless necessary for the plaintiff to establish lawful possession. The court is also conscious of the fact that even a trespasser in the settled possession cannot be ousted without due process of law. However, in the present case, there is a cloud over the title of the plaintiff who is seeking permanent injunction. The plaintiff seeks to justify his possession on the basis of an asserted ownership right flowing from the alleged family settlement. The defendants, on the other hand, have specifically disputed the plaintiff's title and have contended that he is merely a trespasser.
Defendant has placed on record a registered GPA, Registered SPA HALA which is coupled with consideration and the same has not been QUAMAR successfully proved to be forged and fabricated. In this context it Digitally signed CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.21 of 31 by HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:26:56 +0530 is important to mention the well settled law in Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled.
We may refer to them briefly.
11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where HALA the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, QUAMAR if a trespasser without any claim to title or an Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.22 of 31 Date: 2026.05.30 17:27:01 +0530 interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title."
23. In view of the law discussed herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that a cloud has been raised over the title claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff traces his rights in the suit property to the alleged family settlement. However, the said family settlement does not bear the signature of Smt. Raj Kumari, who admittedly was the owner of the property sought to be partitioned thereunder. The absence of the signature of the owner of the property on the very document through which the plaintiff claims title renders the said document doubtful and incapable of conclusively establishing the plaintiff's rights. On the other hand, the defendants have placed on record registered documents, including the GPA and SPA, which are coupled with consideration HALA QUAMAR and interest. As already held while deciding Issue No. 2, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the said documents are forged or fabricated. Consequently, the defendants' documents continue Digitally signed by HALA to enjoy the presumption of validity attached to registered QUAMAR Date:
2026.05.30 17:27:05 +0530 CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.23 of 31 instruments. The existence of a serious dispute regarding title is further evident from the conduct of the plaintiff himself, who had initially instituted the present suit seeking both declaration and permanent injunction. Although the relief of declaration was subsequently withdrawn on the premise that the defendants had not disputed the family settlement, a perusal of the Written Statement clearly shows that the defendants had specifically denied the alleged family settlement and had termed it an afterthought. Thus, the foundation of the plaintiff's claim itself remained under challenge. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that a substantial cloud exists over the title claimed by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, where the title is seriously disputed and requires adjudication, a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. The appropriate remedy for the plaintiff was to seek a declaration of his rights and consequential reliefs. Therefore, the present suit seeking only the relief of permanent injunction is not maintainable.
24. Moreover, it has already been held while deciding Issue No. 2 that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the registered GPA, registered SPA, receipt, possession letter and other documents executed by Smt. Raj Kumari in favour of the defendants are forged or fabricated. Consequently, the execution of those documents stands established on record. Although such documents may not, by themselves, confer title in immovable HALA property, their validity cannot be ignored, particularly when the QUAMAR plaintiff has failed to successfully challenge them. Once it is accepted that the documents were validly executed and registered Digitally signed in the year 1996, the challenge raised by the plaintiff thereto also by HALA QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.24 of 31 17:27:10 +0530 appears to be untenable. Article 59 of the Limitation Act provides that a suit seeking cancellation of an instrument must be filed within three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to seek such relief first become known. A registered document operates as constructive notice to the world at large. In this regard, reference may be made to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 3 Explanation I of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 lays down as follows:
Explanation I.--Where any transaction relating to immoveable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated:...."
25. Since the documents in question were registered on 19.08.1996 and the alleged family settlement relied upon by the plaintiff is stated to have been entered into subsequently on 01.12.1996, even if the plaintiff's version is accepted at its face value, the plaintiff would be deemed to have had constructive notice of the said registered documents. Therefore, the the claim of the plaintiff that he came to know about the said documents HALA only when the WS was filed cannot be sustained. Therefore, the QUAMAR challenge raised thereto appears to be hopelessly barred by limitation.
Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR26. It is also pertinent to note that the defendants have Date: 2026.05.30 17:27:14 CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.25 of 31 +0530 pleaded that a consideration of Rs.1,55,000/- was paid to Smt. Raj Kumari at the time of execution of the GPA and allied documents. Thus, the GPA appears to be one coupled with interest. In terms of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, where an agent has himself an interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. Therefore, even upon the death of Smt. Raj Kumari, such authority would not automatically stand revoked. It is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunita Sinha v. M/S Leela Builders Pvt. Ltd.,RFA 70/2019 has held as follows:
"c. Validity of the GPA dated 03rd August, 1989
98. The appellant has contended that the GPA dated 03rd August, 1989 was revocable under Section 201 of the Contract Act as it did not create any interest in favor of the respondent no. 7 in the subject matter, and therefore, the GPA stood terminated upon the demise of Smt. Nirmal Krishan. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent nos. 1 to 8 that the said GPA was irrevocable in nature, and did not lapse upon the death of the executant.
99. At the outset, it is to be noted that no challenge was raised by the appellant herein to the validity of the said GPA before the Trial Court.Further, it is not the case of the appellant that the said GPA was obtained by fraud or undue influence. In contrast, the GPA has duly been admitted into evidence during the trial.
100. The law with regard to the nature of a GPA being revocable or irrevocable has been recently discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Ananthamurthy and Another Versus J. Manjula and Others, in the following manner:
―xxx xxx xxx
(i)Relationship between the executant and holder of general power of attorney
27. A power of attorney derives its basic principles from Chapter X of the Contract Act which provides for ―Agency‖ along with Sections 1-A and 2, respectively, of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. Agency is a fiduciary relationship HALA between two persons, where one explicitly or implicitly agrees that the other will act on their behalf to influence QUAMAR their legal relations with third parties, and the other similarly Digitally signed by HALA CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.26 of 31 QUAMAR Date: 2026.05.30 17:27:18 +0530 agrees to act in this capacity or does so based on an agreement. The relationship between the executant of a general power of attorney and the holder of the power is one of principal and agent. A principal is bound by the acts done by an agent or the contracts made by him on behalf of the principal. Likewise, power of attorney in the nature of contract of agency authorises the holder to do acts specified by the executant, or represent the executant in dealings with third persons.
xxx xxx xxx
33. Section 201 of the Contract Act prescribes various ways of revocation of authority given by the principal to his agent. A principal can terminate the contract of agency unless such revocation is precluded by Section 202 of the Contract Act. Section 202 of the Contract Act, as an exception to the general rule under Section 201, prescribes that where an agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of such interest unless there is an express stipulation to the contrary.
34. Illustration (a) to Section 202 of the Contract Act states that A (principal) has given authority to B (agent) to sell A's land, and to pay himself i.e. the agent, from the proceeds the debt which is due to him from A. Illustration (b) states that A (principal) has consigned 1000 bales of cotton to B (agent), who has given an advance on the bales of cotton. Now, A wishes B to sell the cotton and recover his advance from the sale proceeds. In both the cases, A can neither revoke the authority nor agency will be terminated by his insanity or death. It is important to take a note that in both the cases, the agent has an interest vested in the subject-matter of the agency. The factum of interest or security of the agent, in both cases, does not imply that the agent's right to remuneration constitutes an interest in the subject-matter of the agency; rather, it extends beyond the mere advancement of remuneration or commission. Where PoA is coupled with an interest, it metamorphosises to an irrevocable agency unless expressly stated otherwise. There an agent's right to remuneration is not an interest in the subject-matter of the agency.
35. Therefore, the essentials of Section 202 of the Contract Act are, first, there shall be a relationship in the capacity of ―principal and agent between the parties and secondly, there shall be agent's interest in the subject-matter of the agency. If both the conditions are fulfilled the agency HALA becomes irrevocable and cannot be terminated unilaterally QUAMAR at the behest of the principal. As the first condition is satisfied in the present case, we shall now proceed to examine whether from the reading of the GPA, the holder of PoA had an interest Digitally signed in the subject-matter of the agency, namely, the suit property. by HALA QUAMAR Date:
CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.27 of 31 2026.05.30 17:27:22 +0530 xxx xxx xxx"
.................................
101. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that the essential ingredients under Section 202 of the Contract Act are first, there shall be a relationship in the capacity of 'principal and agent' between the parties and second, the agent must have interest in the subject matter of the agency. If both the conditions are fulfilled, the agency becomes irrevocable, and cannot be terminated unilaterally at the behest of the principal. Thus, where a power of attorney is coupled with an interest, it metamorphoses into an irrevocable agency, unless expressly stated otherwise.
102. For a power of attorney to be irrevocable, it must have been given to the agent for the purpose of effectuating a security, or protecting/securing the interest of the agent. Thus, the agency has to be specifically meant to secure the agent's benefit or interest, which can be inferred from the language of the document or from the course of business between the principal and agent. The intention of the parties has to be gathered from the terms of the documents themselves and from the surrounding circumstances, which are required to show in what manner the language of the document is related to the existing facts.
103. In the present case, the sellers and the purchasers had executed the Agreement to Sell, and were clearly in talks of sale/purchase of the suit property. In this course of business and dealings between them, when a part of the sale consideration stood paid, the sellers executed the GPA dated 03rd August, 1989, against valuable consideration.
104. The purpose for executing the GPA, as is clear from the admission of the appellant in her Evidence Affidavit, was to facilitate the handing over of the possession of the suit property to the purchasers/respondent nos. 1 to 8 in terms of Clause 4 of the Agreement to Sell. Thus, it is evident that the purpose of the said GPA was meant to secure the interest of possession of the purchasers in the suit property. The GPA is clearly coupled with the interest, and is irrevocable in nature. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the GPA lapsed upon the death of Smt. Nirmal Krishan is devoid of any merit, and has to be rejected.
105. The reliance by the appellant on the case of M.S. Ananthamurthy (Supra), to contend that the GPA in the present case is revocable, is misplaced. In the facts and circumstances of the said decision, the Supreme Court held that the GPA therein was revocable as it did not create any HALA interest in favor of the agent in the subject matter thereto. QUAMAR Furthermore, the agent under the said GPA was not in possession of the property in question.
106. Pertinently, with regard to GPAs and agreements to sell, Digitally signed the Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in the case of by HALA QUAMAR Date: CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.28 of 31 2026.05.30 17:27:26 +0530 Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (Supra), itself has held that the agreement to sell and the GPA can be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under Section 53-A of the TP Act and that nothing prevents the affected parties from getting registered deeds of conveyance to complete their title."
27. Moreover, as per the recitals of the GPA, the defendant was authorised to manage and deal with the property, including sale of the property. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot simply ignore the legal consequences flowing from such a document, particularly when it is not disproved on record that the GPA was coupled with consideration.
28. Moreover, it is not the case of the defendants that the consideration was paid in cash; rather, their specific case is that the consideration amount was paid through a cheque. During his cross-examination, the plaintiff was questioned regarding the bank account details of his mother and was called upon to produce the relevant records. However, no such record was brought on record by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the plaintiff under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly when the burden of proving the issue was also upon him. The non-production of the best available evidence within his reach further weakens his challenge to the transaction relied upon by the defendants.
29. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it can be held thatHALA once the GPA is found to have been validly executed and is QUAMAR coupled with interest, thereby attracting the provisions of Section Digitally signed 202 of the Indian Contract Act, the same becomes irrevocable. by HALA QUAMAR Date:
2026.05.30 CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.29 of 31 17:27:31 +0530 The same doesn't get extinguished on the death of the principal either. Consequently, although no valid title in the immovable property could have been conveyed solely through the GPA, Defendant No. 3 continues to remain the duly authorised agent of Smt. Raj Kumari for the purposes contemplated under the said instrument. Further, it is well settled that a GPA coupled with an agreement to sell may still be relied upon by the holder for seeking specific performance of the contract and for protecting possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The law also recognizes that nothing prevents the parties from subsequently obtaining a registered deed of conveyance so as to perfect and complete their title. Therefore, the rights flowing from the said documents cannot be altogether disregarded merely on the ground that title had not formally passed by way of a registered sale deed.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted against the true owner of a property, nor can it ordinarily be granted against a duly authorised agent acting on behalf of the true owner. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to disprove the validity of the registered GPA, which has been found to be coupled with interest. As already discussed, the said GPA continues to operate and renders the defendant an authorised HALA agent of Smt. Raj Kumari. The recitals of the GPA further indicate QUAMAR that the defendant was vested with authority to manage, deal with and even effect the sale of the property. In these circumstances, Digitally the defendant cannot be treated as a stranger to the property or as signed by HALA a person having no lawful authority in respect thereof. Since the QUAMAR Date:
2026.05.30 CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.30 of 31 17:27:35 +0530 relief of injunction is equitable and discretionary in nature, the same cannot be granted against a duly authorised agent acting within the scope of authority conferred by the true owner. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.
31. Even otherwise the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable without seeking declaration of his title as already discussed and even the challenge to the defendants' documents appears to be barred by limitation.
32. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
RELIEF
33. For the aforementioned reasons, the present suit stands dismissed.
34. No Order as to costs.
35. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
36. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court today on 30.05.2026.
(HALA QUAMAR)
Civil Judge-1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi HALA
QUAMAR
Digitally signed by
CS DJ No.600003/2016 Page No.31HALA
of 31 QUAMAR
Date: 2026.05.30
17:27:41 +0530