Delhi District Court
Roshan Kumar vs Poonam Devi And Anr on 6 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH VIPUL SANDWAR, ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE COURT-CUM-
GUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 338/20
Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr.
CNR No.DLST03-000367-2020
Shri Roshan Kumar
S/o Late Shri Amrendra Pandey,
R/o H. No.926, Gali No.15, I-2, Block,
Gupta Colony, Sangam Vihar,
Pushpa Bhawan,
South Delhi-110062. .............PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Poonam Devi
W/o Late Sh. Kirpal Singh
R/o I-2-753/13,
Opposite to House No.I-2, 636/11,
Near Shiv Mandir, Zhakhriya Masjid,
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi-110080.
2. Manoj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Kirpal Singh
R/o I-2-753/13,
Opposite to House No.I-2, 636/11,
Near Shiv Mandir, Zhakhriya Masjid,
CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.1 of 14
Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi-110080. .............DEFENDANTS
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 04.03.2020
Date of reserving judgment : 20.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.05.2026
JUDGMENT
PLAINT
1. This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against restraining the defendants from selling/alienating/creating third party interest in the property bearing no.I-2-796/11, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110080, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit Property'), the title of which has devolved upon the plaintiff vide a General Power of Attorney having Certificate No.IN-DL79979095634109R dated 07.11.2019.
2. The defendant no. 2/Manoj Kumar is the son of defendant no.1/Smt. Poonam Devi who is the friend of the plaintiff and resides at Sangam Vihar alongwith his family. The defendant no.2 always used to discuss various schemes to invest money and earn huge profits and also encouraged other people to invest money into his ventures.
3. In the year 2018, the defendant no.2 alongwith the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff to lend them some money as some of Manoj Kumar's investment schemes has failed and that he was CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.2 of 14 under debt liability of approximately ₹15 lakhs which he had to return in installments within a year or so and had no money at that time. Considering the friendship between the plaintiff and the defendants and in good faith plaintiff lent him a sum of ₹20,000/- via an IMPS (Immediate Payment System) transaction dated 01.12.2018 from his account bearing No.102301530433 for the first installment as requested by Mr. Manoj Kumar, defendant no.2 and his mother i.e. the defendant no.1.
4. On 07.12.2018, the defendant no.2 again approached the plaintiff in order to request him to lend an amount of ₹60,000/- to him and as per the request of the defendant no.2 the plaintiff again made an IMPS transaction to Mr. Manoj Kumar's account amounting to ₹57,000/- from his account no.102301530433. Again on 09.01.2019, the defendant no.2 requested the plaintiff for a sum of ₹12,000/- which was transferred by the plaintiff through IMPS transaction from his account no.102301530433 dated 09.01.2019. Similarly again a transaction dated 22.02.2019 amounting of ₹10,000/- was transferred from the account of plaintiff bearing no.102301530433 into the account of the defendant no. 2.
5. Another transaction dated 02.04.2019 amounting of ₹28,000/- was made from the account bearing No.102301530433 of plaintiff into the account of the defendant no. 2. Similarly, some other transactions were made amounting of ₹40,100/- dated 05.04.2019, ₹10,000/- dated 01.05.2019, ₹1,00,000/- dated 29.07.2019, ₹99,999/- dated 29.08.2019, ₹99,9999/ dated 30.08.2019, ₹1,00,000/- dated 30.08.2019 and ₹99,999/- dated 31.08.2019 from CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.3 of 14 account bearing no.102301530433 of the plaintiff into the account of defendant no.2. Moreover, a transaction dated 24.07.2019 amount of ₹2,00,016/- from the account bearing No.918020090005354 belonging to the wife of the plaintiff was also made. Further, an amount of ₹1,20,000/- was given by the plaintiff to the defendant no.2 on his request in cash on 13.08.2019.
6. Till September 2019, the plaintiff had lent the defendant no.1 & 2 an amount of ₹9,97,097/-. Since a huge amount of money was lent by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 and 2, the plaintiff asked the defendant no.2 to return the above said amount on which the defendants requested the plaintiff for some time as they were going through monetary crises in their life and that they would soon return the money. On this the plaintiff asked the defendants to give something as a collateral just to be assured that the defendants would repay his above said amount.
7. In regard to this the defendant no.1 and 2 had provided the plaintiff a promissory note dated 01.09.2019, promising him to pay a sum of ₹10,00,000/- @ 8% per annum or hand over their property bearing H. No.I-2-796/11, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110080 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit Property') which was in the name of the defendant no. 1.
8. Further, some other transaction amounting of ₹30,000/- dated 02.09.2019, ₹40,000/- dated 12.09.2019 and ₹10,000/- dated 10.09.2019 were made from the account bearing no.102301530433 of plaintiff into the defendant no.1 and 2 on their request and a sum CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.4 of 14 of ₹80,000/- on 09.10.2019 was again given in cash to the defendant no.2.
9. The plaintiff by the month of October 2019, had lent the defendant a sum of ₹12,57,100/- out of which ₹7,57,097/- was transferred from the account bearing no.102301530433 belonging to the plaintiff through mobile banking from the period of December 2018 to October 2019, ₹2,00,016/- was transferred from the account of the wife of the plaintiff bearing account No.918020090005354 and a sum of ₹1,20,000/- dated 13.08.2019 and ₹80,000/- dated 09.10.2019 was given in cash by the plaintiff. The last transaction was made by the plaintiff into the account of defendant on 09.10.2019 amounting to ₹10,000/- and also ₹80,000/- were given in cash and that the defendants assured the plaintiff that they would be returning the entire amount of ₹12,57,100/- lent by the plaintiff to them by the end of the month of November, 2019, as defendant no.2 had enclosed a successful deal with a big company and would be soon receiving a handsome amount of money.
10. The plaintiff with this assurance given by the defendants when contacted the defendant no.2 on 23.10.2019 found out to his utter shock that Manoj Kumar's contact number was no more in service and when the plaintiff visited the house of the defendants i.e. the suit property, defendant no.1 i.e. Smt. Poonam Devi, told plaintiff that Manoj Kumar/defendant no.2 was not in the town and has gone somewhere for business purpose which she was not aware about and that defendant no.2 would be returning soon. The plaintiff again on 01.11.2019 visited the house of the defendants but CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.5 of 14 defendant no.2 was still not there and the defendant no.1 started making excuses and said that she had no clue about the whereabouts of her son i.e. defendant no.2 herein. On this, the plaintiff told the defendant no.1 that he would file a police complaint against them and would get them behind bars, if his money is not paid back within two days. On this defendant no.1 said that she had no money to pay back to him and that her son would return his money soon. Moreover, as per the promissory note given by the defendant no.1 and 2 dated 01.09.2019 to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 transferred the titled documents of the property bearing No. I-2-796/11, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110080 including an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Letter of Possession and her Will alongwith her Affidavit all dated 07.11.2019 in favour of the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff that she alongwith her son i.e. defendant no. 2 herein, would return his money soon and that she had transferred the property documents as an assurance to him and that if in case they are not able to return the amount she would i.e. the defendant no.1 handover the physical vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
11. When in the month of December 2019, the plaintiff again asked the defendant no.1 for the whereabouts of her son and asked her to repay become his money, the defendant no.1 started quarreling with the plaintiff and told him that her son i.e. defendant no.2 was arranging for funds and his money would be returned soon and that she has already transferred the titled documents of suit CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.6 of 14 property herein in the plaintiff's favour for his assurance and that she would not abscond with his money.
12. In the Month of January, 2020, the plaintiff got to know from his source in the market that the defendant no.1 was trying to sell the property bearing H. No.I-2-796/11, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi- 110080 i.e. the suit property herein. The plaintiff also found out that the defendant no.2 namely Manoj Kumar had taken a huge debt from various persons in the market and that he has been absconding since October 2019 and that various criminal cases and complaints have been filed against the defendant no. 2 U/s 138 N.I. Act and 420 IPC and such similar other sections. Aggrieved by this the plaintiff asked the defendant no.2 to immediately handover the possession of the suit property to him to which the defendant no.1 bluntly refused and threatened the plaintiff that she would create third party interest in the property and that her son has not taken any money from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff would never be able to touch her son and that she would gather the neighbours and accuse him of harassing her. Therefore, plaintiff approached this Court seeking permanent and mandatory injunction in his favour and against the defendants restraining them from creating any third party interest/selling/mortgaing/leasing out property bearing no.H-I- 2/796/11, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and to restrain the defendants from creating any disturbance from entering into the suit property.
EX- PARTE PROCEEDINGS:
13. Summons were refused by the defendants as per order dated 10.10.2022. No WS was filed the defendants and they were CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.7 of 14 directed to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.01.2023. on the basis of the plaint, Ld. Predecessor of this Court has framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from creating disturbance in plaintiff entering into the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (b)? OPP.
3. Relief."
14. The matter thereafter, listed for plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. The witness has relied on the following documents:-
"1. Mark PW1/A : Promissory note dated 01.09.2019
2. Mark (colly) (including 23 pages): Copy of bank account statement of plaintiff namely Roshan Kumar and M/s Palak International for the period 16.11.2018 to 15.11.2019 and 01.01.2019 to 01.12.2019, respectively
3. Ex. PW1/3(OSR) (colly) : GPA, agreement to sell and purchase, affidavit, letter of possession and will, all dated 07.11.2019"
15. Thereafter, plaintiff examined Sh. Vikas Pandey, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank as PW2 who produced the account statement.
16. Thereafter, plaintiff also examined Sh. Loknath Kabi, friend of the plaintiff as PW3 who filed his evidentiary affidavit Ex.
CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.8 of 14 PW3/A, Sh. Kundan Kumar, cousin brother of the plaintiff who filed his evidentiary affidavit Ex. PW4/A, his wife Mrs. Mamta Pandey who filed her evidentiary affidavit Ex. PW5/A and Branch Manager ICICI Bank who produced account statement.
17. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 20.01.2026. On 20.03.2026, this Court heard ex-parte final arguments as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and the matter was listed for Judgment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ON THE ISSUES FRAMED
18. This court has meticulously perused the pleadings, the evidence led by both parties, and the arguments advanced. The issues are decided as follows:-
Both the Issues shall be dealt together "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from creating disturbance in plaintiff entering into the suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (b)?
OPP."
19. The onus for proving the above said issues was on the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the title of the property bearing no.I-2-796/11, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi has devolved upon him vide GPA dated 07.11.2019. At the outset, it needs to be CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.9 of 14 clarify that para 6 of the plaint incorrectly states the GPA to be registered in the office of Sub Registrar whereas in reality the same is a notarised document. Be that as it may, the plaintiff is claiming title to the suit property by virtue of set of documents brought by him in his evidentiary affidavit Ex. PW1/3. The said documents are notarised GPA issued by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff, notarised agreement to sell and purchase between defendant no.1 and the plaintiff, notarised affidavit of defendant no.1, possession letter issued by defendant no.1 and notarised Will of defendant no.1.
20. At this stage, the Court deems it fit to mention here that in view of facts and circumstances as mentioned above, it becomes inevitable to answer one question as to whether the transfer of the property on the basis of the abovementioned documents i.e. Agreement to sell, GPA, Affidavit etc. are proper or not in terms of findings/observations as given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Through Director (2) v. State of Haryana & Anr.(2012) 1 SCC 656.
To this, the court deems it fit to mention here that there is no doubt that it was propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj Lamp (Supra) that a transfer of an immovable property done through an agreement to sell/GPA/Will are not transfer or sale in true terms and such transactions cannot be treated as complete transfer or conveyance; however, the court deem it fit to mention here that in the final judgment which is reported in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Through Director (2) v. State of Haryana & Anr.(2012) 1 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Supreme Court CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.10 of 14 clarified the legal position that judgment would not affect the validity of sale by agreement to sale and GPA executed in genuine transaction and the judgment would operate only prospectively. The court deem it fit to quote here the relevant para from the Suraj Lamp (supra):-
"...17. It has been submitted that making declaration that GPA sales and SA/GPA/WILL transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer is likely to create hardship to a large number of persons who have entered into such transactions and they should be given sufficient time to regularize the transactions by obtaining deeds of conveyance. It is also submitted that this decision should be made applicable prospectively to avoid hardship.
18. We have merely drawn attention to and reiterated the well-settled legal position that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not transfers or sales and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale. Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. The said SA/GPA/WILL transactions may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to SA/GPA/WILL transactions has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision..."(underline added)"
At this stage, court also deems it fit to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad, Civil Appeal No. 2458 of 2014 date of decision 19.02.2014, which has categorically clarified that the judgment of Suraj Lamp (supra) will CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.11 of 14 not affect the transfer of property done through agreement to sale and GPA executed in genuine transaction and the judgment Suraj Lamp (supra) would operate only prospectively.
The relevant para from the judgment Maya Devi (supra) written by Hon'ble Justice Vikramajit Sen is quoted here as under
for the sake of clarity:-
"...1. I have perused the judgment of my learned and esteemed Brother Radhakrishnan, and I entirely and respectfully agree with his conclusion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. My learned Brother has succinctly analysed the sterling judgment in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363, which has been rendered by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court. I completely concur with the view that since General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the Appellant was executed and registered on 12.05.2006, it could not be impacted or affected by the Suraj Lamp dicta. Furthermore, a reading of the order of the Executing Court as well as of the High Court makes it palpably clear that both the Courts had applied the disqualification and illegality imposed upon GPAs by Suraj Lamp, without keeping in mind that the operation of that judgment prospective. Was pointedly And poignantly This question has been dealt with by my esteemed Brother most comprehensively...
...17. A perusal of the above will show that the Executing Court ignored and overlooked the important submission of the Appellant stating that she was the absolute owner of the suit property and that she had no truck whatsoever either with the Judgment Debtor Shri Prem Chand Verma or his wife Smt. Nirmal Verma beyond purchasing the subject property from the latter.What has also escaped the attention of the Court is that Suraj Lamp has prospective operation, thereby rendering it inapplicable to the subject 2006 transaction. Secondly, if the General Power of Attorney in favour of the Appellant Smt. Maya Devi was bereft of legal efficacy, the ownership of Smt. Nirmal Verma would also be invalid, and Page 3637 sequentially whatsoever the property would have no CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.12 of 14 connection with the Judgment Debtor purportedly derived title only through a Will. Since he had Unfortunately, this is also the approach which has been preferred by the High Court in terms of the impugned order. The High Court has also wrongly applied Suraj Lamp and has also neglected to reflect upon the Appellant's plea that she is (I) the actual owner of the suit property having purchased it for valuable consideration, and (ii) being a third party not connected in any mala fide manner with the Judgment Debtor, and (iii) not having received prior notice of any action of late Shri Prem Chand Verma, was imperious to Execution proceedings. monumental proportions, A miscarriage of justice, of has taken place on an un- substantiated presumption that one of the assets of the Judgment Debtor had been illegally transferred to defeat the decree. The Appellant before us had no other recourse than to file Objections under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC..."(underline added) After going through the abovementioned, it is clear that decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj Lamp (supra) has prospective operation. The present transaction pertains to 07.11.2019 after the Suraj (supra) and therefore, the set of documents executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff could be said to have transferred the title in favour of the plaintiff to obtain the reliefs sought.
21. In the present case, the injunction sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted also in view of section 41(h) Specific Relief Act which reads as follows:-
" (h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust"
CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.13 of 14
22. As per the plaintiff he had lent money to the defendants and as a security the defendant no.1 had executed documents Ex. PW1/3 (colly) in his favour. The optimal recourse of the plaintiff should have been to file a suit for recovery of the amount paid. Even though, the same has not been claimed. The next relief should have been specific performance of the agreement to sell executed by defendant no.1 in his favour dated 07.11.2019 and subsequent injunctions.
23. In view of the discussions, the issues are decided against the plaintiff.
24. In view of the findings on all the issues above, this court concludes that the present suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIPULAnnounced in the open Court VIPUL SANDWAR
on 6th May, 2026 SANDWAR Date:
2026.05.06
16:53:56 +0530
(VIPUL SANDWAR)
ASCJ-cum-JSCC-CUM-GJ (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS SCJ 338/20 Roshan Kumar Vs. Poonam Devi & Anr. Page No.14 of 14