Delhi District Court
Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chhotu on 24 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT0300562012
CS SCJ No. 534791/2016
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o Sh. Plugdhari
R/o D-69, Harsh Dev Park,
Budh Vihar Phase II, Delhi-110086.
.......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Mulai @ Chotu
S/o Sh. Bhagirathi,
R/o D-69, Harsh Dev Park,
Budh Vihar Phase II, Delhi-110086.
....Defendant
Date of Institution 05.03.2012
Date of conclusion of arguments 17.09.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 24.09.2025
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24
17:13:52 +0530
CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 1 Of 23
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, MESNE PROFIT AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking reliefs of possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits in respect of property bearing Municipal No. D-69, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Phase II, Delhi. The plaintiff claims ownership of the suit property and alleges unauthorized occupation by the defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S VERSION
1. The brief facts of the present case, as set out in the plaint, are as follows:
(a) The present suit concerns immovable property situated at D-69, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi-110086, admeasuring 50 square yards (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property").
(b) The plaintiff asserts ownership over the suit property by virtue of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt, all executed on 16.07.1987. It is averred that the plaintiff acquired the suit property from his own financial resources and subsequently undertook construction thereon. Upon completion of the construction, the defendant approached the plaintiff seeking temporary shelter in one room, citing his unfamiliarity with Delhi and his ongoing search for employment.
The defendant assured the plaintiff that he would vacate the premises upon securing alternative accommodation. Relying on Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:13:59 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 2 Of 23 this assurance, the plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy the said room on a temporary basis. It is further stated that the electricity connection at the suit property was in the name of the plaintiff, but was disconnected due to non-payment, as the plaintiff was unable to bear the charges.
(c) It is further alleged that the defendant, with the intent to usurp the portion under his occupation, began quarrelling with the plaintiff. On 28.12.2000, the defendant, along with his family members, engaged in a physical altercation with the plaintiff and his family, resulting in serious injuries. During the said incident, the defendant allegedly forcibly took possession of the original title documents of the suit property and certain jewellery belonging to the plaintiff. Although the matter was reported to the police, no action was taken. Subsequently, the defendant instituted Civil Suit No. 42/2001 seeking an injunction against dispossession, which was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, vide order dated 20.04.2005. During the pendency of that suit, the defendant, accompanied by 3-4 unidentified persons, allegedly attacked the plaintiff and his family and issued threats of dire consequences.
(d) The plaintiff further avers that the defendant again filed Civil Suit No. 159/2005 seeking permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, on 20.05.2006, being barred by the principle of res judicata. The defendant preferred an appeal (RCA No. 18/2007) against the said dismissal, which too was rejected vide order dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Despite NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:14:06 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 3 Of 23 repeated oral and written requests, and notwithstanding the dismissal of both suits and the appeal, the defendant failed to vacate the suit property. Aggrieved by the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 21.04.2010 via speed post, calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises within 15 days and to pay ₹1500/- per month as damages for unauthorized occupation. A subsequent notice sent via registered AD on 06.05.2010 was returned with the remark "addressee not available." The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, in collusion with the postal staff, deliberately evaded service of the said notice.
(e) It is further alleged that the defendant, in conspiracy with his wife, orchestrated a false incident to implicate the plaintiff. In the said incident, Smt. Bindrawati, wife of the defendant, allegedly inflicted injury upon herself, while the defendant bit the plaintiff's hand. The matter was reported to the police and MLC No. 1311 dated 24.02.2011 was prepared. The plaintiff thereafter approached Police Station Vijay Vihar, where a police official in civil attire allegedly coerced him into signing 4-5 blank papers. The plaintiff claims to have made representations dated 08.03.2011 to various authorities including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, and the Human Rights Commission, but to no avail.
Hence, the present suit has been instituted seeking possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 17:14:12 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 4 Of 23
2. Reliefs Claimed:
(i) A decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to vacate and hand over peaceful, vacant physical possession of the suit property bearing Municipal No. D-69, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Phase II, Delhi.
(ii) A decree for damages/mesne profits at the rate of ₹1500/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the date of actual vacation of the suit property, for unauthorized and illegal occupation.
(iii) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his family members, legal heirs, agents, or any other person claiming through him from transferring, alienating, parting with possession, or creating any third-party interest in respect of the suit property.
DEFENDANT'S VERSION
3. Litigation, by its very nature, presents competing narratives. In response to the plaintiff's claims, the defendant has filed a written statement setting out his version of events, summarized as follows:
(a) The plaintiff and defendant are cousin brothers. It is stated that both arrived in Delhi during their adolescence, plaintiff at the age of 15 and defendant at 12, and initially resided together in a jhuggi at Shankar Road, Rajinder Nagar, while working as domestic help. They continued to live jointly in the said jhuggi for approximately ten years. During this period, they allegedly purchased a plot measuring 50 square yards in Khasra No. 4, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Phase II, Delhi-110086, for a total NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:14:18 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 5 Of 23 consideration of ₹7,500/-, contributed equally by both. However, the defendant contends that the property documents were fraudulently executed in the sole name of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff subsequently handed over the said documents to the defendant for safekeeping.
(b) The defendant claims that he first became aware of the unilateral execution of documents on 23.01.2001, following a quarrel wherein the plaintiff allegedly pressured him to vacate the suit property. The property, according to the defendant, had been physically divided between the parties by construction of a partition wall. On the said date, while the defendant and his wife were away, the plaintiff allegedly broke into the defendant's portion and called the police control room (PCR). Aggrieved by this act, the defendant lodged complaints with the police on 25.01.2001, though no action was taken. Another altercation occurred on 22.02.2011, during which the plaintiff allegedly injured the defendant's wife, Smt. Bindrawati, and an MLC was prepared at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital.
(c) The defendant relied on record various documents in support of his residence and possession, including ration card, voter ID, and gas connection. It is stated that despite repeated requests, the plaintiff allegedly attempted to dispossess the defendant from his portion of the property, prompting the defendant to file Civil Suit No. 42/2001 seeking permanent injunction. It is stated that a Local Commissioner appointed in the said suit reported that the partition wall had been broken.
(d) Subsequently, the defendant filed Civil Suit No. 159/2005 seeking similar relief, which was dismissed on 20.05.2006 as NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:14:25 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 6 Of 23 barred by res judicata. An appeal preferred against the said dismissal also met the same fate. The defendant submits that, in view of the dismissal of the earlier suits and appeal, no relief has been granted to the plaintiff for eviction or dispossession of the defendant from his portion of the suit property. All other averments in the plaint are denied in toto.
REPLICATION
4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant wherein the contents of the written statement are refuted and those of the plaint have been re-affirmed.
ISSUES
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 26.02.2014:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession against the defendant, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mesne profit/damages @ Rs.1500/- per month, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action ? OPD
5. Relief.Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 17:14:31 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 7 Of 23 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and has duly tendered his duly sworn in affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. During the testimony of PW-1 following documents have been exhibited :
Serial Exhibit Particular
no.
1 Ex.PW1/1 General Power of Attorney dated
16.07.1987
2. Ex.PW1/2 Agreement to sell dated 16.07.1987
3. Ex.PW1/3 Receipt dated 16.07.1987
4. Ex.PW1/4 Affidavit dated 16.07.1987
5. Ex.PW1/5 Site plan
6. Mark A Receipt showing payment of
charges for obtaining electricity
connection
7. Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) Voter ID
8. Ex.PW1/8(OSR) Driving license
9. Mark B Copy of complaint dated
22.01.2001
10. Ex.PW1/10 Certified copy of suit bearing
no.42/2001
11. Ex.PW1/11 Certified copy of written statement
of defendant
12. Mark C Certified copy of complaint dated
10.02.2022
13. Ex.PW1/13 Certified copy of judgment and
decree passed in suit no.42/2001
14. Ex.PW1/14 Legal notice dated 24.04.2010
15. Ex.PW1/15 Postal receipt
16. Ex.PW1/16 Returned envelope
17. Mark D Copy of MLC and copy of
bills/treatment given to plaintiff Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:14:37 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 8 Of 23
18. Mark E Copy of representation dated 08.03.2011 made by plaintiff PW1/Plaintiff was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defendant at length.
7. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 28.05.2016 and the matter was listed for DE.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
8. Defendant examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. During the testimony of DW-1 following documents have been exhibited :
Serial Exhibit Particular
No.
1. Ex.DW1/1(OSR) Ration Card
2. Ex.DW1/2 Parivar register issued by BDO
3. Mark D1 Joint Ration Card of plaintiff and
defendant
4. Mark D2 Copy of complaint dated
27.07.2001
5. Mark D3 Receipt of SBI dated 02.11.1982
6. Mark D4 Gas Connection Form with Indane
Gas Service dated 23.03.1999
7. Mark D5 MLC dated 22.02.2011
8. Mard D6(colly) Photographs
9. Mark D7 Copy of voter ID
10. Mark D8 Copy of acknowledgment of voter
ID of deponent and his wife
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.09.24
SHARMA 17:14:44 +0530
CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 9 Of 23
9. During the cross-examination, DW1/defendant had brought the photocopy of receipt which is marked as Mark DW1/P1. DW1 was cross-examined at length by ld counsel for the plaintiff.
10. Perusal of file shows that defendant has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh Sukh Lal, Sh Chote lal but despite opportunities no evidence was led on their behalf and ultimately, DE was closed on 29.04.2025 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
11. I have heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. counsels for parties and have perused the record.
ARGUMENTS
12. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the suit property bearing Municipal No. D-69, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Phase II, Delhi, by virtue of documents executed on 16.07.1987, including the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and Receipt. It is submitted that the plaintiff purchased the property from his own resources and constructed the premises independently. The defendant, being a stranger to the title, was permitted temporary shelter in one room on humanitarian grounds, which does not confer any legal right or interest in the property.
It is further contended that the defendant has unlawfully continued to occupy a portion of the suit property despite repeated requests and issuance of legal notices dated 21.04.2010 and Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:14:51 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 10 Of 23 06.05.2010. The plaintiff has placed on record various documents including site plan, voter ID, electricity connection receipts, and certified copies of prior litigation to substantiate his claim. It is argued that the defendant's earlier suits for injunction were dismissed, and the appeal preferred was also rejected, thereby affirming the plaintiff's possession and ownership.
Ld. Counsel submits that the defendant's conduct amounts to unauthorized occupation and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits for illegal use of the premises. Reliance is placed on the principle that permissive possession does not ripen into ownership or tenancy, and the defendant cannot claim any right contrary to the plaintiff's title.
13. Per Contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the suit property was jointly purchased by the plaintiff and defendant during their early years in Delhi, when both were residing together and working as domestic help. It is submitted that the consideration amount of ₹7,500/- was contributed equally, but the documents were fraudulently executed in the sole name of the plaintiff. The defendant claims continuous possession of his portion of the property and has placed on record documents such as ration card, gas connection, voter ID, and photographs to establish residence.
It is further contended that the plaintiff has attempted to dispossess the defendant by force and has lodged false complaints. The defendant refers to the MLC of his wife and complaints made to the police to demonstrate the plaintiff's aggressive conduct. It is Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 17:14:57 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 11 Of 23 argued that the earlier suits filed by the defendant were dismissed on technical grounds and not on merits, and that the Local Commissioner's report in Suit No. 42/2001 confirmed the existence of a partition wall, indicating shared possession.
Ld. Counsel submits that the present suit is devoid of merit, filed without prior notice, and is an attempt to evict the defendant from a property he has occupied and maintained for decades. It is prayed that the suit be dismissed and the defendant's possession be protected.
FINDINGS
14. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. My findings on the issues are as under:
15. Issue no.1 :Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for? OPP
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
17. At the outset, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment passed in Chander Dutt Sharma v. Prem Chand 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9903, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein it was held as under with respect to a suit for possession:-
"20.....
(A) A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property can be filed either Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
SHARMA SHARMA 2025.09.24 17:15:02 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 12 Of 23 under Section 5 or under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
(B) A suit under Section 5, can be filed, either
(i) on the basis of prior possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed, under Article 64 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, within twelve years from the date of dispossession; or,
(ii) based on title, under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, within twelve year from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
(C) A suit under Section 6, can be filed if any person is dispossessed from immovable property without his consent, otherwise than in due process of law, but within six months of the date of dispossession.
.....
(E) A mere possession of immovable property, even if accompanied with GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc., does not constitute title to the immovable property.
Reference, if any required in this regard can be made to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656 setting aside the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Asha M Jain Vs. Canara Bank (2001) 94 DLT 841.
(F) The appellant/plaintiff, claiming only GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc. from respondents No.4&5 in his favour, thus had / has no title to the property. NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:15:09 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 13 Of 23 (G) An agreement purchaser, has no right, title, interest in immovable property and has only a right to seek specific performance of such agreement.
Reference if any required can be made to
(i) Jiwan Dass Rawal Vs. Narain Dass AIR 1981 Del 291; (ii) Deewan Arora Vs. Tara Devi Sen (2009) 163 DLT 520; (iii) Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh (2010) 167 DLT 806; and, (iv) SamarjeetChakravarty Vs. Tej Properties Private Limited 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3809.
.....
(I) Though the appellant/plaintiff, under Section 5, had a choice to sue either on the basis of prior possession or on the basis of title but the appellant/plaintiff, inspite of having no title to the property, filed the suit by drafting the plaint not on the basis of prior possession but on the basis of title. The appellant/plaintiff, throughout the plaint has described himself as purchaser of the property from respondents No.4&5. Owing thereto only, issue also framed in the suit was qua ownership of appellant/plaintiff and not qua possession of the appellant/plaintiff.
Rather, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff today also, upon it being put to him as to why the appellant/plaintiff did not sue for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell, states that there was/is no need to sue for specific performance since the appellant/plaintiff was already owner in possession of the immovable property.
(J) Owing to the appellant/plaintiff having sued on the basis of title which the appellant/plaintiff did not possess, and not on the basis of prior possession, Issue NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:15:15 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 14 Of 23 No.1 got framed in the suit, was decided against the appellant/plaintiff.
(K) Though issues are to be framed by the Court but with the assistance of the counsels. If the appellant/plaintiff had sued for possession on the basis of prior possession and the Court had wrongly framed the issue treating the suit as on the basis of title, it was incumbent upon the appellant/plaintiff to apply for amendment of issues and which was not done by appellant/plaintiff.
(L) However, even if the appellant/plaintiff is treated as having sued for possession on the basis of prior possession and even if non seeking of an issue qua prior possession is ignored, the recovery of possession was sought not from respondents No.4&5 but from respondents No.1 to 3 and their mother Bhagwati and it was against respondents no.1 to 3 and their mother that the appellant/plaintiff was required to prove prior possession. For proving such prior possession against respondents No.1 to 3, admission of the respondents no.4&5, in their written statement or in the Agreement to Sell or in their evidence, could not be relied by the appellant/plaintiff. The respondents No.4&5 were not contesting the claim of appellant/plaintiff and rather filed a written statement admitting the material pleas in the plaint. A plaintiff, to prove case against defendant, cannot rely upon admission of another defendant who is not in contest with the plaintiff.
(M) The appellant/plaintiff was thus required to prove prior possession by some independent evidence. NITISH KUMAR Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.09.24 17:15:23 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 15 Of 23 (N) The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, on enquiry, admits that save for the recital in the Agreement to Sell of being delivered possession, there is no other evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff of being in possession of the property, to be able to sue for recovery of possession thereof on the basis of prior possession."
18. Thus, a suit for possession can be filed either on the basis of the title or on the basis of previous possession. It is contended by the plaintiff that he had purchased the property D-69 Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi by executing the necessary documents in this regard i.e. GPA, agreement, affidavit, and receipt on 16.07.1987. It is further contended that after the purchase, the defendant was permitted to reside in one room in the suit property as defendant was his friend.
19. Per contra, it is the contention of the defendant that he alongwith plaintiff had purchased the suit property and the defendant later discovered that the documents were got executed in favour of the plaintiff alone. It is contended that defendant has been residing in the suit property since the day of its purchase and was never a licensee of the plaintiff.
20. It is settled principle of law that in respect of relief claimed by a plaintiff, he has to stand on his own legs by proving his case. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of possession in the present suit. Thus, it has to been seen from the evidence led by the plaintiff as to whether he has succeeded in proving his case.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 17:15:29 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 16 Of 23
21. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon documents i.e. Ex PW1/1 to Ex PW 1/4 i.e. GPA, agreement, receipt and affidavit. All these documents are notarised documents.
22. Now, the law on this point is very clear. A sale of an immoveable property can not be done without a registered sale deed. A reference in this regard can be made to Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) vs State Of Haryana & Anr 2012(1) SCC 656 wherein it was held as under:
"16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales." NITISH KUMAR Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 17:15:36 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 17 Of 23
23. Thus, on the basis of the said documents i.e. GPA, agreement, affidavit, and receipt and which are only notarised documents, the plaintiff can not claim to say that he had a lawful title over the suit property.
24. In order to succeed in the present case, the plaintiff could have shown that he was better entitled to the suit property than the defendant or the plaintiff could have shown that he was in prior possession of the suit property i.e. portion of property stated in the plaint. However, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has dispossessed him but that the defendant has overstayed in the property despite termination of his license.
25. It is now pertinent to note that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to assert that he had purchased the property from one Lakhi were not proved on record. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330; 2023 4 SCC 731, the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"When a document is produced as primary evidence, it will have to be proved in the manner laid down in Sections 67 to 73 of the Evidence Act.
Mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence."
The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the evidence of those persons who NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:15:42 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 18 Of 23 can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. In the instant case, the executant of documents Ex PW 1/1-1/4 were not examined. None of the witnesses were examined to identify their signatures on the said documents. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the defendant has admitted that one Lakhi had executed the documents and it is contended that the defendant has admitted that the documents are in favour of the plaintiff. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that though fraud has been alleged by defendant, he had not led evidence to prove the same. It is argued that the defendant has not led evidence to prove that he contributed towards the purchase of the property.
26. Even if such arguments were to be accepted, it is pertinent to observe that the documents Ex PW1/1-PW1/4 nowhere mention any plot number and description of property has been mentioned as "Plot No......... measuring 50 sq yards Khasra No. 44/7 Abadi Known as Harashdev Park, Buddh Vihar, Phase-II"
27. Thus, even if these documents are assumed to be validly executed documents, there is no description of any specific property and thus, the said documents would be non est. Even otherwise, as discussed above, such documents do not confer any valid title.
28. It is interesting to note that the plaintiff has asserted that the defendant was a licensee in his property but the plaint nowhere states as to when he was so inducted. Further, the authority to grant a license is governed by Sections 53 and 54 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. These provisions delineate both theNITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date: 2025.09.24 17:15:48 SHARMA +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 19 Of 23 competence of the grantor and the manner in which a license may be conferred.
29. As per Section 53 of Indian Easement Act "53. A license may be granted by any one in the circumstances and to the extent in and to which he may transfer his interests in the property affected by the license."
Section 53 stipulates that a license may be granted by any person who possesses the legal capacity to transfer his interest in the property affected by the license. The provision underscores that the power to grant a license is inherently linked to the power to alienate proprietary interest. Accordingly, a person lacking sufficient legal interest in the property cannot confer license rights.
30. The plaintiff has himself contradicted himself during examination and stated facts against the pleadings. In the plaint, the plaintiff categorically described the defendant as a licensee. However, during his cross-examination as PW-1, he contradicted this position by asserting that the defendant was in fact his tenant, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. This discrepancy has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the defendant, who contends that such an admission would attract the bar under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is further submitted that the plaintiff may have deliberately characterized the defendant as a licensee in the plaint to circumvent the statutory bar, thereby casting doubt on the bona fides of the pleadings.
It was next argued that the electricity connection in the suit property was installed in the name of plaintiff which shows the NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 SHARMA 17:15:54 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 20 Of 23 possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. It is noteworthy that possession of the plaintiff in a portion of the suit property has not been denied by the defendant. Existence of an electricity connection in the suit property would not imply that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit property. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position that such electricity connection has been disconnected for non-payment of charges.
31. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was owner or in prior possession of the portion of the property involved. The plaintiff has further failed to prove that the defendant was a licensee or even a tenant under him. There is no rent agreement or license deed executed and there is no evidence of any rent or license fee ever being advanced by the defendant to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff vehemently failed to show that he is better entitled to suit property than the defendant.
Accordingly, the issue no.1 stands decided against the plaintiff.
32. Issue No. 2 & 32. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of mesne profits/damages as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.24 17:16:01 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 21 Of 23
33. In view of the findings on issue no.1, the plaintiff can not be held entitled to recovery of mesne profits/damages or permanent injunction as the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was better entitled to the suit property. Accordingly, the issue no.2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
34. Issue no. 4 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed of for want of cause of action ? OPD
35. Though, the said issue is a legal issue and no evidence could have been led on the same. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as it has no cause of action and an illusion of cause of action was created by plaintiff by clever drafting. It is argued that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor licensor of the defendant and the suit cannot sustain.
It is pertinent to note that sustainability of a suit is distinct from its maintainability. A suit may not sustain but can be maintainable. Whether cause of action existed or not can be ascertained only on the basis of the pleadings. The plaintiff may or may not be able to establish his cause of action but merely because plaintiff failed to prove his case would not imply that cause of action never existed. From the perusal of pleadings, the plaintiff could show that he has cause of action against the defendant, however, it is evident from the aforesaid discussion that he failed vehemently to prove the same.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 17:16:07 +0530 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 22 Of 23
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this issue is decided against the defendant.
Conclusion
37. In view of the findings on issue no. 1, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as plaintiff failed to establish on record that he was owner or in prior possession of the portion of the property involved/suit property. The plaintiff has further failed to prove that the defendant was a licensee or even a tenant under him with respect to the suit property i.e. D-69, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Phase II, Delhi.
38. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Announced in the open court SHARMA Date:
2025.09.24 17:16:14 +0530 on 24.09.2025. (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/24.09.2025 CS SCJ No. 534791/2016 Vinod Kumar vs Mulai @ Chotu Page No. 23 Of 23