Delhi District Court
Priyanka vs Naresh Kumar on 16 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-009373-2017
CS DJ No. 1198/2017
In the matter of :-
Priyanka
S/o Sh. Amar
R/o 50 and 54, Double Storey Quarters,
1st Floor, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Naresh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Phool Kumar @ Rattan,
R/o H. No. 50, Double Storey Quarters,
2nd Floor, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
..... Defendant
Date of institution : 17.10.2017
Reserved for judgment : 06.10.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 16.10.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for decree of declaration and possession in respect of one room at 1st Floor Terrace, bearing no. 50 Double Storey Quarter, CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 1/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:27:27 +0530 Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (for short 'suit property') and of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating third party interest over the suit property.
2. Succinctly put, the case of plaintiff is that Smt. Kamlesh W/o Late Sh. Phool Kumar was the absolute owner of property bearing no. 50 and 54, 1st Floor alongwith terrace with two rooms at Tilak Nagar, Double Storey Quarters, New Delhi vide General Power of Attorney executed on 22.08.2006. Smt. Kamlesh died on 26.01.2013 and her husband Sh. Phool Kumar had died on 23.02.2005, leaving behind only one adopted daughter i.e. plaintiff to succeed and inherit the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiff became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property.
3. It has been further averred by the plaintiff that when Smt. Kamlesh took over the possession of suit property from the concerned authorities, the defendant pleaded her to give the possession of suit property to him on temporary and license basis. She acceded to his request only on compassionate ground. She, out of good relation with him, allowed him to reside there with his family. The defendant had undertaken to vacate the suit property whenever Smt. Kamlesh would ask him to do so. Thereafter, the defendant got prepared certain documents in his favour illegally, like ID Card and Ration Card from the address of suit property and also filed a false case against Smt. Kamlesh in the year 2009 claiming ownership right and partition in the CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 2/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:27:35 +0530 capacity of son of husband of Smt. Kamlesh. Through RTI before Municipal Corporation of Delhi, she found that the name of father of defendant was Sh. Rattan. Thereafter, the suit filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 12.01.2012. Further, in respect of the suit property, the defendant had filed a similar suit against Smt. Sheela, who was the sister of Smt. Kamlesh and the said suit was also dismissed by Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 29.05.2017.
4. It has been further averred that constrained by the adamant attitude of defendant, the plaintiff withdrew/revoked/canceled the license of the suit property given to the defendant vide legal notice dated 12.07.2017, thereby calling upon him to hand over the possession of suit property to the plaintiff. But, he sent a false and fabricated reply to the notice. Thereafter, she sent a detailed rejoinder of the reply. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for declaration and possession of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest over it.
5. In his written statement, the defendant has raised preliminary objection that the plaintiff is the daughter of Smt. Sheela R/o 54, Double Storey Quarters, 1st Floor, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, who is the real sister of Smt. Kamlesh, who died on 26.01.2013 issueless. Smt. Kamlesh was the stepmother of defendant and after her death, mother of plaintiff namely Smt. Sheela alongwith her husband Sh. Mahaveer CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 3/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:27:41 +0530 forcibly entered into one room set situated on the 1 st floor of the property with dishonest and malafide intention to grab the same. They handed over the possession of the same to a tenant. Later on, mother of the plaintiff Smt. Sheela started claiming herself to be the owner of suit property and hence, the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property and she had no right, title and interest of any kind whatsoever in it.
6. The defendant has further averred that he is the sole and exclusive owner of the property bearing H. No. 50, Harijan Basti, Old Double Storey, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of a registered GPA dated 18.08.2004 by his late father Sh. Phool Kumar @ Rattan and was in the possession of the same as owner thereof. Further, the plaintiff has failed to produce on record any documentary evidence regarding her adoption by late Phool Kumar @ Rattan. All the documents furnished by her regarding proof of her address and parentage were forged, fabricated and manipulated documents. The defendant has further denied all the averments made by the plaintiff against him in her plaint. Further, after death of his father, the defendant had received fund and gratuity of his deceased father in the capacity of nominee from the department and as such, there was no doubt that Sh. Phool Kumar @ Rattan was his father. Thus, the defendant had prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 10.10.2018:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration, CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 4/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:27:46 +0530 as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
4. Relief.
8. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW-1/A. She affirmed the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Site Plan, Ex.PW-1/1.
2. Registered GPA [dated 22.08.2006], Ex.PW-1/2.
3. Death Certificate of Sh. Phool Kumar, Ex.PW-1/3.
4. Death Certificate of Smt. Kamlesh, Ex.PW-1/4.
5. Copies of electricity bills, Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6.
6. School Leaving Certificate, Ex.PW-1/7.
7. Ration Card, Ex.PW-1/8.
8. Passbook of State Bank of India, Ex.PW-1/9.
9. Copy of PAN Card, Ex.PW-1/10.
10. Copy of complaint made by her mother to Election Office dated 15.02.2008, Ex.PW-1/11.
11. Copy of complaint letter written by her mother to Ration Card Office dated 15.02.2008, Ex.PW-1/12.
12. Copy of complaint made by her mother to PS Tilak Nagar CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 5/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:27:51 +0530 dated 02.08.2018, Ex.PW-1/13.
13. Copy of RTI reply dated 30.12.2009, Ex.PW-1/14.
14. Certified copy of judgment dated 12.01.2012 and of orders, Mark-A and Mark-B.
15. Copy of Legal notice, Ex.PW-1/17.
16. Reply to the Legal notice, Ex.PW-1/18.
17. Rejoinder to the reply, Ex.PW-1/19.
PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 01.02.2020.
9. In his defence, the defendant examined four witnesses. DW-1 is the defendant himself. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. He submitted on the similar lines as stated by him in his written statement. DW-2 is Sh. Pooran Chand, who is neighbour of the defendant. He furnished his evidence affidavit, Ex.DW-2/A. He submitted that the father of defendant died on 23.02.2005 and the defendant had received fund and gratuity of his deceased father in the capacity of nominee. But, the stepmother of defendant namely Smt. Kamlesh removed the original registered GPA from [the office of] Sub Registrar, Janakpuri, Delhi executed in favour of Phool Kumar/father of defendant, secretly and dishonestly, which can not be produced. The defendant in his childhood lived with his maternal grandfather and after some years, he came back to his own father. During his childhood, the school where he studied, the name of his grandfather was written instead of his own father namely Sh. Phool Kumar. DW-3 is Sh.
CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 6/19Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:27:56 +0530 Ramesh Kumar, who is brother-in-law of the defendant. He tendered his evidence affidavit as DW-3/A. He submitted on the similar lines as stated by DW-2. DW-4 is Sh. Rajbir Singh, who is cousin of the defendant. He tendered his evidence affidavit as DW-4/A. He too has submitted on the similar lines as stated by DW-2. All the defence witnesses have been cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed vide order dated 21.04.2025.
10. Final arguments were heard from both the parties. Record has been perused. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is the adopted daughter of late Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh. Smt. Kamlesh was the owner of property bearing no. 50, area measuring 40 sq. yards, Double Storey, situated at Harijan Colony, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, by virtue of registered GPA dated 22.08.2006 executed in her favour. The defendant had been given possession of one room at 1st Floor terrace of the said property, on license basis by Smt. Kamlesh. The said license was revoked by the plaintiff through legal notice dated 12.07.2017, but the defendant did not vacate the suit property. Thus, the present suit shall be decreed.
11. On other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that first of all, the plaintiff has failed to prove by way of any cogent evidence that she was the adopted daughter of late Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh. She has filed false documents showing her parentage as of Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh. Furthermore, on the basis of CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 7/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:01 +0530 alleged registered GPA, Ex.PW-1/3, she can not claim ownership over the said property. She is not even entitled to seek possession over the suit property through the said document. Ld. Counsel has relied upon a precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, in Civil Appeal No. 1598/2023 decided on 01.11.2023. He has further argued that the agreement to sell dated 22.06.2006 is an unstamped and unregistered document, accordingly, the same can not be relied upon. Thus, the present suit shall be dismissed.
12. Issue-wise findings are as follows:
Issue No. 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that in the clause 'A' of the prayer clause of plaint, the plaintiff has not mentioned in categorical terms as to what specific declaration she wishes to seek. However, it is made out that she has sought declaration that she is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has set up her case on the premise that Smt. Kamlesh had purchased the property bearing no. 50 and 54, 1st floor, Tilak Nagar, Double Storey Quarters, New Delhi, vide General Power of Attorney executed on 22.08.2006. She has expired intestate on 26.01.2013. Thus, the plaintiff, being her adopted daughter, has become sole and absolute owner of the said property.CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 8/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA
NAVEEN Date:
GUPTA 2025.10.16
16:28:07
+0530
13. On other hand, the defendant has challenged the said plea of plaintiff being adopted daughter of Smt. Kamlesh and Sh. Phool Kumar. He has stated that the plaintiff is daughter of Smt. Sheela, who is the real sister of Smt. Kamlesh. Smt. Kamlesh had died issueless and she was step mother of the defendant.
14. To prove her claim of being adopted daughter of Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh, the plaintiff has tendered following documents i.e. School leaving certificate, Ex.PW-1/7, Ration Card, Ex.PW-1/8, Passbook of SBI, Ex.PW-1/9 and PAN card, Ex.PW-1/10.
15. Before deliberating upon the above documents, the Court wishes to examine the testimony of PW-1/Plaintiff in this regard. PW-1, during her cross-examination conducted on behalf of defendant, has deposed that Smt. Kamlesh was a government servant working in MCD, Community Hall. She did not exactly know at which post she was working. She (PW-1) was not aware about her biological parents. She was not aware whether Smt. Sheela was her biological mother. She was not aware whether the property in question was private flat or government flat. She did not have any adoption deed. Smt. Kamlesh expired on 26.01.2013 and Sh. Phool Kumar expired in February, 2005. She admitted that date of issuance of Ration Card, Ex.PW-1/8 was 08.10.2005, in which, Sh. Phool Kumar was shown to be alive. She did not remember the exact year in which she was studying in D.C. Model School. She did not know that after the death of Sh. Phool Kumar, the CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 9/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:12 +0530 PF and Gratuity fund were released to the defendant and Smt. Kamlesh. She did not know from whom Smt. Kamlesh had purchased the suit property.
16. The Court is conscious of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in respect of proof of adoption, in Rahasa Pandiani v. Gokulananda Panda, AIR 1987 SC 962, wherein the Court has held that:
4. Before we advert to the relevant circumstances we consider it appropriate to advert to note of caution sounded by this Court as early as in 1958 in Kishori Lal v. Mst. Chaltibai, 1959 Suppl (1) SCR 698. We can do no better than to quote the relevant passage from the judgment of Kapur, J. (at p. 508 of AIR):-
"As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth. Failure to produce accounts, in circumstances such as have been proved in the present case, would be a very suspicious circumstance. The importance of accounts was emphasised by the Privy Council in Sootrugun v. Sabitra. (1834 (2) Knapp 287); in Diwakar Rao v. Chandanlal Rao, AIR 1916 PC 81; in Kishorilal v. Chunilal, (1908 (36) Ind App, 9); in Musammat Lal Kunwar v. Chiranji Lal, (1909(37) Ind App 1) and in Padmalal v. Fakira Debya, AIR 1931 PC 84."
When the plaintiff relies on oral evidence in support of the claim that he was adopted by the adoptive father in accordance with the Hindu rites, and it is not supported by any registered document to establish that such an adoption had really and as a matter of fact taken place the Court has to act with a great deal of caution and circumspection. Be it realized that setting up a spurious adoption is not less frequent than concocting a spurious Will, and equally, if not more difficult to unmask. And the Court has to be extremely alert and vigilant to guard against being ensnared by schemers who indulge in unscrupulous practices out of their lust for CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 10/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:18 +0530 property. If there are any suspicious circumstances, just as the propounder of the Will is obliged to dispel the cloud of suspicion, the burden is on one who claims to have been adopted to dispel the same beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of an adoption which is not supported by a registered document or any other evidence of a clinching nature if there exist suspicious circumstances, the same must be explained to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court by the party contending that there was such an adoption. Such is the position as an adoption would divert the normal and natural course of succession. Experience of life shows that just as there have been spurious claims about execution of a Will, there have been spurious claims about adoption having taken place. And the Court has therefore to be aware of the risk involved in upholding the claim of adoption if there are circumstances which arouse the suspicion of the Court and the conscience of the Court is not satisfied that the evidence preferred to support such an adoption is beyond reproach.
17. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Senthilkumar v. Dhandapani, AIR 2004 Madras 403, has held that:
19. For a valid adoption, the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite, a ceremony imperative in all adoptions whatever the caste. This requisite is satisfied in its essence only by the actual delivery and acceptance of the boy, even though there exists an expression of consent or an executed deed of adoption. In the case of Madhusudan Dos v. Narayani Bai, AIR 1983 SC 114, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that a person who seeks to displace the natural succession to property by alleging that an adoption must discharge the burden that lies upon him by proof of the factum of adoption and its validity. They further held that the proof shall be free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubting its truth. The fact of adoption must be proved in the same way as any other fact.
18. Surprisingly, in the present case, the plaintiff has not mentioned as to in which year Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh had adopted CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 11/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:22 +0530 her. Admittedly, she did not have any adoption deed in this regard. She has not averred anything either in the plaint or in the evidence affidavit as to whether the requisite ceremony was performed at the time of her adoption. In the background of preliminary objection raised by the defendant against the claim of plaintiff being adopted daughter of Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh, it was the duty of plaintiff to substantiate her plea of being an adopted daughter. No witness came forward in support of the plaintiff, who could have deposed that she had been adopted by Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh or she had been residing with them as an adopted daughter.
19. So far as documents tendered by the plaintiff in this regard are concerned, the defendant has claimed that all the documents furnished by the plaintiff regarding her parentage are forged, fabricated and manipulated. The ration card Ex.PW-1/8 reflects that the same had been issued on 08.10.2005, depicting the details of family members as Smt. Kamlesh, Sh. Phool Kumar and the plaintiff. The death certificate of Sh. Phool Kumar, Ex.PW-1/3 depicts the date of his death as 23.02.2005. It is beyond comprehension as to how Sh. Phool Kumar had been shown to be one of the family members in the Ration Card, Ex.PW-1/8 issued on 08.10.2005, while Sh. Phool Kumar had expired on 23.02.2005. Surprisingly, no clarification was given by the plaintiff when specific query was put to her in this regard, during her cross-
examination conducted on behalf of the defendant. Furthermore, in the Ration card, Ex.PW-1/8, year of birth of plaintiff has been shown as CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 12/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:28 +0530 1995, while the school leaving certificate, Ex.PW-1/7 and PAN card, Ex.PW-1/10 show the date of her birth as 19.03.1996.
20. The plaintiff has further relied upon, School Leaving Certificate, Passbook of bank account and PAN card, wherein her parentage has been shown as of Sh. Phool Kumar. But, the passbook of bank account, Ex.PW-1/9 shows the date of issuance as 22.08.2013. School Leaving Certificate, Ex.PW-1/7 depicts the date of issuance as 25.08.2014 and PAN card, Ex.PW-1/10 depicts the date as 17.04.2015. Smt. Kamlesh, as per her death certificate, Ex.PW-1/4, expired on 26.01.2013. Thus, the above three documents had been issued after her death. Thus, the documents Ex.PW-1/7 to Ex.PW-1/10 do not inspire confidence.
Accordingly, following the precedent of the case of Rahasa Pandiani (supra), the plaintiff has not been able, even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, to substantiate her claim of being adopted daughter of Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh by producing any cogent evidence.
21. Though in the background of above observations, it is not required to deliberate upon the evidence of defendant in this regard, yet the Court proceeds to examine the defendant's evidence too. DW-1/defendant in his evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A has categorically stated that his father died on 23.02.2005 and he received fund and gratuity of his deceased father in the capacity of nominee. Further, the plaintiff is daughter of Smt. Sheela, who is sister of Smt. Kamlesh. After death of his stepmother Smt. Kamlesh, mother of plaintiff Smt. CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 13/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:35 +0530 Sheela alongwith her husband forcibly entered into one room set situated on the first floor of the suit property. During his cross- examination conducted on behalf of plaintiff, DW-1 deposed that his mother's name was Mukti. He had started residing in the suit property since 2007. He admitted that his father's name was Sh. Ratan Singh. He admitted that electricity meter installed at the suit property was in the name of plaintiff. A suggestion was put to him that plaintiff was residing in the suit property since birth.
22. It is worth noting that the plaintiff did not controvert the submission of defendant in his evidence affidavit that plaintiff was the daughter of Smt. Sheela. Further, the version of receipt of gratuity benefits of Sh. Phool Kumar by the defendant as his nominee, has also not been controverted. Furthermore, a suggestion contradictory to the documents of plaintiff was given to DW-1 that she was residing at the suit property since her birth. As per school leaving certificate Ex.PW-1/7, the date of birth of plaintiff is 19.03.1996, while the suit property had been allegedly purchased by Smt. Kamlesh in the year 2006. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the plaintiff could have been residing at the suit property since birth. So far as electricity meter installed at the suit property in the name of plaintiff is concerned, the electricity bill Ex.PW-1/5 shows the energisation date as 27.07.2015, which is after the death of Smt. Kamlesh i.e. on 26.01.2013. Thus, the plaintiff has controverted neither the claim of defendant that he was stepson of Smt. Kamlesh nor his claim that she was daughter of Smt. Sheela.
CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 14/19
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16
16:28:40
+0530
23. At this stage, it is worth noting that in the judgment dated 12.01.2012 Mark-A of Ld. Civil Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts passed in suit no. 265/2009 titled 'Naresh Kumar v. Kamlesh' (placed on record by the plaintiff), the Court observed in para no. 7 that 'there is a document Ex.PW-1/1A purported to be a Panchayat Certificate relied upon by the plaintiff. The said certificate only reveals that plaintiff was the son of deceased Sh. Phool Kumar. This fact is as such not disputed by the defendant'. The above observation has not been denied by the plaintiff herein in her plaint that Smt. Kamlesh had not disputed the claim of plaintiff therein (defendant herein) being son of Sh. Phool Kumar.
24. The Court does not wish to appreciate the testimony of DW-2 as during his cross-examination, DW-2 had submitted that he did not know anything about the contents of his affidavit. He had put his signatures on the affidavit of evidence without getting it understood as the Counsel of defendant had asked to put the signatures.
25. In his evidence affidavit Ex.DW-3/A, DW-3 has stated that he got married with cousin sister of the defendant in the year 1980. He being the family member of defendant, used to frequently visit the house of defendant. Father of defendant died on 23.02.2005 and defendant had received fund and gratuity of his deceased father in the capacity of nominee. The defendant in his childhood lived with his maternal grandfather and after some years, the defendant came back to his own father Phool Kumar. During his childhood, school where defendant CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 15/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:48 +0530 studied, his grandfather's name had been written instead of his own father Sh. Phool Kumar. During his cross-examination, DW-3 deposed that name of the father of defendant was Sh. Phool Kumar, who had been working in MCD. He admitted the suggestion put to him that name of the father of defendant was not Sh. Rattan Singh. He stated that the defendant used to live with his parents in his childhood.
26. It is pertinent to note that DW-3 has claimed to be a close relative of defendant, but no question was put to him on behalf of the plaintiff to controvert the claim of defendant that he was stepson of Smt. Kamlesh. Furthermore, when he had got married with the cousin sister of the defendant long back in the year 1980 and claimed to be frequent visitor to the house of defendant, being his family member, then he was supposed to know about the family details of late Sh. Phool Kumar too. Surprisingly, no question was put to DW-3 suggesting that the plaintiff had been adopted by Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh. Further, version of DW-3 that name of the grandfather of defendant had been written in the school records instead of his father Sh. Phool Kumar, has also not been controverted by the plaintiff.
27. In his evidence affidavit Ex.DW-4/A, DW-4 has stated that he is the cousin brother of defendant. He has also submitted on the similar lines as stated by DW-3. During his cross-examination, DW-4 has stated that DW-3 is his brother-in-law (Jija) and of the defendant. Further, Sh. Rattan Singh was maternal grandfather of DW-4 and the defendant. He admitted the suggestion that gratuity fund after CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 16/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:53 +0530 retirement of Sh. Phool Kumar was received by the defendant and Kamlesh in 50-50 ratio.
28. Regarding the testimony of DW-4 too, the same observations made by the Court in respect of testimony of DW-3 would be applicable. Here too, the plaintiff did not put her claim to DW-4, of being adopted daughter of Sh. Phool Kumar and Smt. Kamlesh. She did not suggest anything to DW-4 to negate the claim of defendant being stepson of Smt. Kamlesh.
29. In view of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate her claim of being adopted daughter of Smt. Kamlesh and Sh. Phool Kumar. She has further failed to negate the claim of defendant being stepson of Smt. Kamlesh.
30. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has claimed declaration of the ownership over the suit property on the basis of the registered General Power of Attorney dated 22.08.2006, Ex.PW-1/2 executed in favour of Smt. Kamlesh. She has not tendered in evidence other customary documents placed on record i.e. Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and the Will. The probable reason for not doing the same is that the execution of the said Will dated 22.06.2006 of the testator Smt. Shanti does not bear the signature of any attesting witness, what about fulfilling the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses. Further, there is no signature/thumb impression of purchaser/ CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 17/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:28:58 +0530 second party (Smt. Kamlesh) in the agreement to sell dated 22.06.2006. It is not a registered document too. It is worth mentioning here itself that since the agreement to sell dated 22.06.2006 had not been tendered in evidence by the plaintiff, it is not required to further deliberate upon the argument of Ld. Counsel for defendant that the said document is not admissible. Accordingly, merely on the basis of registered General Power of Attorney, Ex.PW-1/2, Smt. Kamlesh did not acquire ownership rights over the suit property. The precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs. v. Suresh Chand, in Civil Appeal No. 6377/2012 decided on 01.09.2025, has been relied upon.
31. In view of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate her claim of being adopted daughter of Smt. Kamlesh and Sh. Phool Kumar. Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to produce any document of transfer of ownership rights in favour of Smt. Kamlesh in respect of the suit property. Thus, the relief of declaration can not be granted to the plaintiff. This issue is decided against the plaintiff.
32. Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession, as prayed for? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The Court has already observed that plaintiff has failed to substantiate her claim of being adopted daughter. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has failed CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 18/19 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.10.16 16:29:04 +0530 to prove her entitlement to get possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiff.
33. Issue no. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP Since the issues no. 1 and 2 have been decided against the plaintiff, thus she is not entitled to get a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating third party interest over the suit property. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is also decided against the plaintiff.
Relief
34. In view of the findings on above issues, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint. This suit is dismissed. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTAAnnounced in the open Court NAVEEN Date:
GUPTA on the 16th day of October, 2025 2025.10.16 16:29:09 +0530 (Naveen Gupta) District Judge-09, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.CS DJ 1198/2017 Page no. 19/19