Delhi District Court
Pooja Verma vs Sushil Dhawan on 7 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ALKA SINGH, COMMERCIAL CIVIL JUDGE
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030015532023
CS SCJ No: 762/2023
Smt. Pooja Verma
W/o Sh. Ritesh Verma
R/o H. No. 6/20, 3rd Floor,
Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027. ......Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Sushil Dhawan
R/o 6/20, GF & 1st Floor,
Subhash Nagar,
New Delhi-110027. ....Defendant
Date of Filing : 07.06.2023
Date of Judgment : 07.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and recovery of damages against the defendant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case of the plaintiff alongwith her son Raghav Verma has jointly purchased the entire 3rd Floor with roof/terrace rights CS No. 762/2023 Pooja Verma Vs. Sushil Dhawan Page No. 1 / 8 out of the free hold built up property bearing No. 6/20, area measuring 100 sq. yds., situated at Subhash Nagar, Tehar-I, New Delhi-110027 alongwith proportionate undivided, indivisible and impartiable ownership rights in the underneath land in the said property alongwith common passage and with right to use common area underneath staircase and stair case leading from ground floor to top floor as per registered Sale Deed dated 03.02.2023. It is further averred that the defendant is also the owner of the GF, 1st Floor of the aforesaid property and is living in the said property alongwith his family and it has now come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant has also purchased the 2nd floor of the said property. The plaintiff started living in the property peacefully till the defendant started obstructing the free movement of her and her family members leading towards her floor with malafide intention best known to him.
3. It is also submitted by the plaintiff that in order to obstruct free movement of the plaintiff to go to her floor, the defendant started parking his scooters/ bikes and car surrounding the entire free corners of the front side of the property and it became difficult for the plaintiff to enter the staircase and sometimes she and her family members got hurt due to parked scooters and car. It is alleged that in order to further harass the plaintiff, the defendant encroached upon the area underneath the staircase which is to be used as common space and he has kept his personal goods there and even locked the gate of the same.
4. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the water tanks of the entire property are installed at the terrace of the 3rd floor of the property owned by plaintiff and the water tank belonged to the defendant is also installed at the terrace of the floor of the plaintiff and the same got overflowed due to some defect in the water tank and due to over flow of the water, the same has been leaking since long and has caused considerable damage to the property of CS No. 762/2023 Pooja Verma Vs. Sushil Dhawan Page No. 2 / 8 plaintiff causing seepage in her property and is continuously causing damage to the property of the plaintiff and despite having made several oral requests/ complaints, the defendant has paid no heed and till date a damage of more than Rs. 1,00,000/- has been caused to her property due to the seepage caused by overflow of water from the tank of the defendant. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has sent a legal notice dated 22.05.2023 to the defendant but despite receipt of said legal notice, the defendant has failed to comply with the same. Therefore, it is prayed that a decree for mandatory and permanent injunction alongwith a decree for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest for causing damages to the property of the plaintiff due to overflow of the water tank, be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
5. Written Statement has been filed in the present matter by the defendant wherein the defendant has stated that the allegations made by plaintiff in the present suit are false & frivolous and the same has been filed with the ulterior motive to harass and extort money from the defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiff and her husband used to maintain friendly relations with the defendant till the time when the defendant had not made a complaint to MCD regarding unauthorized construction of another floor being carried out by them, they have filed the present false and baseless suit. It is contended by the defendant that an unsigned Legal notice dated 22.05.2023 was sent by advocate Ritesh Verma, which cannot be construed as a valid legal notice as the said unsigned legal notice neither bears the signature of advocate Ritesh Verma nor mentions the enrollment number of advocate Ritesh Verma.
6. It is submitted by the defendant that he and his son are the owners of the ground floor, 1st floor and second floor of the property No. 6/20, Subhash nagar, New Delhi-110027, whereas the plaintiff and her son are the owners of 3rd floor of the said property. It is contended that the present suit has been filed by the CS No. 762/2023 Pooja Verma Vs. Sushil Dhawan Page No. 3 / 8 plaintiff to put pressure on the defendant to allow the plaintiff and her husband to construct another floor on the terrace of the suit property. The next contention of the defendant is that the allegations of the plaintiff with respect to defendant obstructing her free movement to go to her floor and further that defendant has parked his scooters/bikes and car surrounding the entire three corners of front side of property, is totally misleading, baseless, vexatious and misconceived. Even the plaintiff and her husband park their scooty and car in front of their floor in other property bearing No. 6/18, Subhash Nagar. It is further submitted that no obstruction has been caused by the defendant and no such complaint has ever been made by previous floor owners and moreover, the plaintiff and her husband are occupying public space by parking their school buses on public road illegally and thereby causing obstruction, congestion and traffic in Subhash Nagar area.
7. It has also been contested that the plaintiff being the owner of third floor started illegal and unauthorised construction on the terrace of the suit property with a view to construct another floor on terrace of the suit property which was objected by the defendant and when the plaintiff did not stop, the defendant was constrained to made a complaint to the MCD on 28.04.2023. It is further contended that for unauthorized construction, the plaintiff removed the water tanks of the defendant from its original position and also shifted and altered the IGL gas pipelines without seeking permission/consent from the defendant or his son or IGL. The plaintiff failed to restore water tanks and IGL gas pipelines to their original position, however, instead of compensating the defendant and other floor owners for the aforesaid act, the plaintiff is seeking damages from the defendant for her own wrong doings and illegal acts being committed by the plaintiff and her husband. Defendant states that it is important to mention here that this fact has already been mentioned in the sale deed dated 03.02.2023 that the owners of other floors shall have the right to access the water tanks situated CS No. 762/2023 Pooja Verma Vs. Sushil Dhawan Page No. 4 / 8 on the terrace/mumty and moreover, the plaintiff or her husband has locked the terrace and are not allowing the defendant and other floor owners to access the terrace/mumty pursuant to filing of a complaint to MCD by the defendant regarding their unauthorized construction. It is also submitted that the area underneath the staircase is not a common space as the said area is basically part of entry and access to defendant's ground floor and the same cannot be common space as the defendant used it for their ingress and egress to ground floor and the defendant is the exclusive owner of the said area. All other allegations levelled by the plaintiff are false and frivolous and the present plaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
8. Replication to the Written Statement by the defendant was filed reiterating and reasserting the claim mentioned in the plaint.
9. Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 28.08.2024 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, it was observed that the prayer clauses A & B of the plaintiff were not maintainable.
10. On completion of pleadings, issues were framed in the present suit, which are as under:-
ISSUES:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest, as compensation for causing damages to the property of the plaintiff due to over flow of the water tank ? (OPP) ii. Relief.
11. To prove her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and relied upon CS No. 762/2023 Pooja Verma Vs. Sushil Dhawan Page No. 5 / 8 certain documents i.e. Photocopy of Sale Deed Ex. PW-1/A, Site plan Ex. PW-1/B, photograph Ex. PW-1/E, 07 photographs Ex. PW-1/F (Colly.), photocopy of complaint made to the concerned police station Mark-A, office copy of Legal Notice dated 22.05.2023 alongwith postal receipt and tracking report Ex. PW-1/H to PW-1/J and Certificate U/Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW-1/K. The plaintiff was cross examined at length and thereafter Plaintiff closed her evidence.
12. Thereafter the matter was fixed for Defendant's Evidence and to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant examined herself as DW-1 and she has also relied upon various documents i.e. copies of the complaints dated 28.04.2023 Ex. DW-1/1.(Colly)(Pages 20-23)(OSR), photographs showing water tanks being kept on bricks, damaged dish antenna and shifting of gas pipelines Ex. DW-1/2.(Colly)(Pages 24-26), photographs showing the before and after shifting of the tank Ex. DW-1/3.(Colly)(Pages 90 & 91), affidavit U/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 Ex. DW-1/4. The defendant was cross examined at length and thereafter defendant closed his evidence.
13. Matter was then fixed for final arguments and same were heard on behalf of both the parties. All the material on record have been perused and considered and so are the evidences led by the parties.
14. In the present case the plaintiff was required to prove that a damage of Rs 1,00,000/- has been caused to her property due to seepage of water from the water tanks of the defendant, installed at the roof of the suit premises. During the cross examination of PW-1/plaintiff, it was stated by her that when she had purchased the property the seepage/dampness already existed in the property. It was stated by her that she had not asked the vendor from whom she had purchased the property to amend the situation or carry out any repair work before purchasing the property.
CS No. 762/2023 Pooja Verma Vs. Sushil Dhawan Page No. 6 / 815. Now, there were certain suggestions given by the counsel for defendant to the plaintiff during her cross-examination that because she was engaged in the business of AC servicing and was doing it on the roof of the property that is why such dampness/seepage was caused, which was obviously denied by the plaintiff. It is the defence of the defendant that such case has been filed by the plaintiff only as a means of revenge because the defendant had filed a complaint with the SHO of the concerned Police Station and with the concerned MCD regarding the unauthorized construction being carried out by the plaintiff.
16. From the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that they have been casting allegations and counter allegations against each other, accusing each other of causing disturbance in one manner or the other in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property including parking and removal of water tanks etc. However, the same are not the bone of contention in the present case, rather this Court has to decide whether the plaintiff has proven herself to be entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for damage caused to her property due to the seepage caused by the actions of the defendant.
17. Firstly, to prove such assertion that a damage of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been caused to the plaintiff no expert evidence has been placed on record i.e. it has not been explained by the plaintiff how she arrived at such a sum that the alleged damage to her property would incur a loss of the abovesaid amount in carrying out the repair work or otherwise. Moreover, how this fact of the seepage being caused by the water tanks of the defendant has been attributed to the defendant, has also not been explained by the plaintiff i.e. how the defendant is exclusively responsible either overtly or by doing some omissions, which has caused damage to the property of the plaintiff, because she had herself stated that seepage was already there in the property when she purchased it, therefore, until CS No. 762/2023 Pooja Verma Vs. Sushil Dhawan Page No. 7 / 8 and unless it was proved sufficiently to the satisfaction of the court that such an act or omission pertained exclusively to the defendant, she cannot claim any such compensation.
18. There are photographs on record to show that there is water on the roof and dampness on the wall, but again as above stated no certified cause of such dampness of the wall has been placed on record for this court to believe in the authenticity of the claim of the plaintiff that it is because of the seepage from the water tanks of the defendant installed at the roof. Thus, a party cannot expect a favourable order from the court only on the basis of his/her assumptions or speculations to bring forth a point that such an such act might have been done by the defendant without any scientific or other such substantial evidence. After considering all the evidence led by the plaintiff, she has failed to substantiate her allegations against the defendant for aforesaid discussed reasons.
19. In view of the abovesaid discussions and reasons, the present suit is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court on this day of 7th March, 2026 This judgment consists of 8 signed pages.
Digitally signedALKA by ALKA SINGH Date:
SINGH 2026.03.07 15:54:24 +0530 (ALKA SINGH) Commercial Civil Judge (W) West District Courts, Delhi.CS No. 762/2023 Pooja Verma Vs. Sushil Dhawan Page No. 8 / 8