Delhi District Court
Narender Singh vs Sukhbir on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030009662015
RCA No.8/2016
In the matter of:
Narender
s/o Sh Fateh Singh
R/o H No. 383/535
Prahladpur Bangar,
Delhi-110042
...Appellant
VERSUS
Sh. Sukhbir (deceased)
Through Lrs
(a) Smt. Sunehri W/o Late Sh. Sukhbir
(b) Sh. Harender S/o Late Sh. Sukhbir
R/O Adjacent of plot no. 120A,
Prahladpur Bangar, Delhi 110042.
....Respondent
Date of Institution : 26.09.2015
Date of reservation of judgment : 16.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 24.12.2025
Appellant represented by : Sh. Neeraj Sharma
Respondent represented by : Sh. Sahib Singh
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.12.24
16:28:11 +0530
RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 1 of 12
Regular civil appeal under section 96 of the code of civil
procedure, 1908 against judgment & decree dated
26.08.2015, passed by Ld. Civil judge, North district, Rohini
courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 450/2016, titled as "Narender
Singh vs Sukhbir".
JUDGMENT
The appellants in the present appeal have challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2015 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby the suit of the appellant herein was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per ranks before the Ld. Trial Court.
Factual matrix:
1. The plaintiff instituted a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendant, respondent herein, which was dismissed by the Ld. trial court vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.2015.
2. The plaintiff claimed before the trial court that plaintiff purchased the property bearing no. 120-A, measuring 80 sq yards, part of khasra no.56/7, situated at Prahladpur Bangar, Delhi (hereinafter be referred to as suit property) from Smt Kanta Devi, the previous owner who was also having the possession of adjacent plot i.e. 120-B, part of khasra no.56/7, situated at Prahladpur Bangar, Delhi. The plaintiff constructed a boundary wall around the suit property and installed an iron gate over it. Smt Kanta Devi also Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.12.24 SHARMA 16:28:16 +0530 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 2 of 12 constructed one room in her adjacent plot i.e. 120B and same was let out to one sh Vijay. It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff has also filed complaints against the defendant on different dates on the pretext that defendant has broke some part of the boundary wall and also stole some building material from there. It is further averred that defendant also threatened the plaintiff to sell the property. Plaintiff complained to local police several times but all in vain.
Hence the plaintiff filed the suit before the ld trial court for permanent injunction.
3. The defendant, respondent herein, contended before the Ld trial court that he is the owner of the suit property measuring 160 sq yards. Defendant further contended that there were no serial number allotted to the plot in question such as plot no. 120-A and 120-B. It is further contended that the previous owner Smt Kanta Devi has no right/title in the suit property and could not transfer the ownership of the suit property to anyone. The plaintiff is neither the owner of the suit property nor is in possession of the same.
4. The trial court framed the following issues:
a. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad due to the non-joinder of the parties? OPD b. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
c. Relief KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24
16:28:23 +0530
RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 3 of 12
5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Sh. Vijay as PW-2 and Smt Kanta Devi as PW-3, while the defendant produced four witnesses in support of his claim. The trial court, vide judgment dated 26.08.2015, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, appellant herein, holding that the identity of the suit property itself is vague and even the witness especially PW2, the alleged tenant, failed to support the case of the plaintiff. The ld trial court further observed that defendant has succeeded in proving the fact that there was no partition between the two plots i.e. 120A and 120B and the whole land measuring 160 sq yards belonged to the defendant.
The Ld. Trial Court further observed that the suit property is a vacant piece of land and the possession of vacant land could only lie with the owner of the property. It was also observed that plaintiff failed to show his title over the suit property and report of local commissioner also did not support the case of plaintiff.
Grounds of appeal:
6. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.2015 on the ground that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. It is alleged that the judgment and decree are contrary to law, facts, and the oral and documentary evidence on record.Digitally signed by NITISH
NITISH KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.24 16:28:29 +0530 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 4 of 12 6.1. It is alleged that the trial court's approach and observations are erroneous and unfounded, as ld trial court has failed to consider the documents of ownership executed by Smt Kanta Devi in favour of plaintiff, however, admittedly, the respondents were neither having documents of ownership nor he has challenged the same.
6.2. It is further stated that the judgment is vitiated by the non-consideration of material facts, documents, evidence, and submissions on record, including admissions by the parties.
6.3. It is contended that the trial court erroneously gave a contrary finding so much so that once the site plan is admitted, the observation that plots i.e. 120A and 120B are not partitioned, is incorrect.
6.4. The appellants produced all relevant documents and successfully proved their case before the trial court, which failed to properly appreciate them.
7. Prayer In light of the foregoing, the appellant prayed to
(a) Allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.2015, passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, North District, Rohini Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.12.24 SHARMA 16:28:33 +0530 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 5 of 12 Courts, Delhi, in Civil Suit No. 450/2013, titled "Narender Singh vs Sukhbir" with costs of the appeal.
8. Arguments by appellant 8.1 It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court are wholly unsustainable in law and on facts, being based on conjectures and surmises rather than a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The appellant submits that the trial court failed to consider the ownership documents executed by Smt. Kanta Devi in favour of the plaintiff, which clearly established the transfer of title and possession of the suit property.
8.2 It is further contended that the respondent neither produced any ownership documents nor challenged the validity of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, and therefore the finding that the plaintiff had no title is erroneous. The appellant argues that once the site plan was admitted, the observation that plots 120-A and 120-B were not partitioned is contrary to record and amounts to misinterpretation of the evidence.
8.3 The appellant also submits that the trial court overlooked the oral testimony of PW-3, Smt. Kanta Devi, who categorically deposed about the sale and possession of the suit property, and the testimony of PW-2, the tenant, which corroborated the plaintiff's possession. It is urged that NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.12.24 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:28:37 +0530 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 6 of 12 the trial court misapplied the principle that possession of vacant land lies only with the owner, ignoring that possession can be established by acts such as construction of boundary walls and installation of gates, which the plaintiff had proved. The appellant therefore contends that the impugned judgment is vitiated by non-conside Date of Institution : 26.09.2015 Date of reservation of judgment : 16.12.2025 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 24.12.2025ration of material evidence, misapplication of law, and undue haste, and prays that the decree be set aside and the relief of permanent injunction be granted.
9. Arguments by respondent 9.1 It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the appeal is devoid of merit and the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. The respondent submits that the plaintiff failed to establish either ownership or possession of the suit property, as the identity of the property itself was vague and unsubstantiated. It is contended that the alleged ownership documents executed by Smt. Kanta Devi are of no legal consequence, as she herself had no title in the property and therefore could not transfer any ownership to the plaintiff.
9.2 The respondent further argues that the plaintiff's witnesses did not support his case, particularly PW-2, the alleged tenant, whose testimony was inconsistent and failed to prove possession. The trial court rightly held that there Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.12.24 SHARMA 16:28:41 +0530 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 7 of 12 was no partition of the land into plots 120-A and 120-B, and the entire land measuring 160 sq yards belonged to the respondent. It is also submitted that the plaintiff's claim of possession was untenable, as the suit property was a vacant piece of land and possession of such land can only lie with the true owner, which the plaintiff failed to prove. The report of the local commissioner also did not support the plaintiff's case, and therefore the trial court correctly dismissed the suit.
9.3 The respondent contends that the grounds of appeal are baseless, as the trial court's findings are supported by evidence and legal principles, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs.
Decision And Reasons
10. Upon a thorough review of the pleadings, evidence, and arguments, this Court finds the appellants' claim to be unsubstantiated and lacking in merit. The primary argument on behalf of the appellant is that the defendant/respondent could not prove any right or title with respect to the suit property and as such the court could not have presumed the possession of the defendant in the suit property.
At the outset, it does not need reiteration that it is a settled proposition of law that the burden of proof squarely lies upon the plaintiff to establish his claim by leading cogent and credible evidence. Mere deficiencies or contradictions in the defendant's case cannot, by themselves, cure the insufficiency in the plaintiff's own pleadings or evidence.
Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.24
SHARMA 16:28:47 +0530
RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 8 of 12
The strength of the plaintiff's case must stand independently and cannot rest upon the weakness of the defence.
11. The Ld. Trial Court while appreciating the evidence has duly observed that the documents executed by one Kanta Devi in favour of plaintiff/appellant were notarized documents and did not confer any title in the suit property. The Ld. Trial Court has relied on Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt Ltd v State of Haryana 2012(1)SCC656. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for appellant that the documents in favour of the plaintiff pertains to the year 1999 and the judgment of Suraj Lamps is prospective.
The said contention of the appellant has to be rejected as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shakeel Ahmed v Syed Akhlaq Hussain 2023 INSC 1016, while dealing with similar argument has observed:
"13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments."
12. Another contention on behalf of the appellant is that the suit property is situated in an area where documents are not registered as the same is unauthorised colony. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.12.24 SHARMA 16:28:52 +0530 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 9 of 12 Shakeel Ahmed (supra) has also observed that the embargo put on registration of documents can not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property.
13. Thus, the argument that the documents placed on record by the plaintiff/appellant, being not challenged, proved the title of the plaintiff has to be rejected as the documents by themselves are deficient to confer any title. The Ld. Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff neither placed on record the chain of documents nor examined the person from whom Ms. Kanta had purchased the suit land.
It is 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.
14. Once it is held that the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove his title to the suit land, the suit for injunction from interference in the possession could have been maintained only if the plaintiff could have shown the settled Digitally signed possession. NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 16:28:56 +0530 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 10 of 12 Ld. Trial Court has observed in the judgment that it is admitted position that suit land is vacant plot and in such circumstances, a person having title to the suit property could only claim possession and further that in light of Anathula Sudhakar v P.Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, a simpliciter suit for injunction is not maintainable.
15. It is notable that even in the appeal, the appellant has referred the suit property as plot no. 120A measuring 80 sq yards in Khasra No. 56/7 Village Prahladpur Bangar Delhi. Thus, it is not disputed that suit property is indeed a vacant plot. In the considered opinion of this court, the plaintiff could have not sought the relief of injunction simpliciter in such circumstances and the findings of the Ld. Trial Court are correct and well founded.
16. It is also contended that site plan has been admitted by DW-4 and thus the finding that plot no. 120A and 120B are not partitioned is incorrect. Whether the alleged plots were partitioned or not, would have no meaningful bearing on the outcome of the suit as the suit of the plaintiff/appellant would still be not maintainable for want of title and possession. Even then, in the opinion of this court, the said contention is also without any merits.
A bare perusal of testimony of DW-4 shows that the said witness nowhere stated that plot no. 120A and 120B exist separately or that there is any partition. The witnesse NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.12.24 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:29:02 +0530 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 11 of 12 merely stated that the suit land is encompassed by three lanes as shown in the site plan. Further, Ld. Trial Court has rightly taken into account that the plaintiff as well as PW Kanta have stated on oath that plot no. 120A and 120B have no partition.
Thus, the contentions raised in the appeal are found to be meritless and are accordingly, rejected. The Trial Court's findings are reasoned and grounded in law and no ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree.
ORDER
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and decree of the trial court is upheld. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed without costs.
18. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this judgment.
19. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 24.12.2025 Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.24 16:29:06 +0530 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE, North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/24.12.2025 RCA No.8/2016 Narender. Vs Sukhbir Page No. 12 of 12