Delhi District Court
Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Anr on 28 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAINA GUPTA, ASCJ-JSCC-GJ,
NORTH-WEST : ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 60776/2015
CNR NO. DLNW030012032015
Sh. Sushil Kumar Gahlot
s/o Sh. Sri Kishan Arya
R/o H.No. 2/24, gali no. 12,
B-block, Rama Vihar,
New Delhi-110081
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Vipin Handa s/o Not known
2.Ms. Rubi Handa
w/o Sh. Vipin Handa
r/o H.No. 2/24, Gali no. 12, Rama Vihar,
Delhi-110081
......Defendants
Date of Institution : 23.10.2015
Date of Reserving : 24.03.2025
Date of pronouncing Order : 28.04.2025
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION/DIRECTION
Digitally signed
NAINA by NAINA
GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.04.28
16:58:47 +0530
CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.1/12
JUDGMENT
1. The present case is involving a dispute between neighbours regarding seepage in the property of the plaintiff and claim for damages thereof.
2. The plaintiff is the owner in possession of H.No. 1/24, gali no. 12, Rama Vihar, New Delhi-81 (herein after referred to as suit property), since 2007. He is a Govt. employee and posted as JE in DMW, Patiala, Punjab and in his absence his family consisting of wife and his son and daughter in law reside in the suit property. The defendants are husband and wife who are the neighbours of the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff's case is that due to negligence and irresponsibility of the defendant, the inner portion of his house has been destroyed because there is some leakage in the house of the defendant which is seeping in through the roof and walls of the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff renovated his house in Feb, 2014 and thereafter he has suffered huge loss due to the seepage. The defendants did not repair the leakage despite repeated requests. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and is seeking the following reliefs from the court:-
i. Pass the order of damages/compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
ii. Pass the mandatory injunction for get repair the defective portion of their property as soon as possible.
Digitally signed by NAINA NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.28 16:58:52 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.2/12 iii. Pass a decree/order(s) restraining the defendants, not to create disturbance and not to harass the plaintiff and his family members.
iv. Any other relief. WRITTEN STATEMENT.
4. The defendants in their written statement have denied the entire case of the plaintiff and have submitted that it is the plaintiff himself who is responsible for the alleged seepage in his house as well as in the house of the defendants. It is contended that there is leakage of water from the bathroom etc built at the first floor of the plaintiff and from his unauthorised sewer built up in the street near the house of the defendants. Further it is averred that the plaintiff's water pipe is installed in between the walls of the parties and the first floor of the plaintiff and the same is leaking regularly. It is submitted that the leakage is from the bathroom pipe installed on the first floor of the plaintiff himself and also from the sewer built up in the street. REPLICATION
5. In replication the plaintiff has denied the averments made in the written statement and has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. It is also submitted that a safety tank was built up in the street by the builder in front of the house of the plaintiff and till the filing of the present suit neither the defendants nor any person raised any objection regarding the same. It is contended that the defendants are making cross allegations only to escape their liability. JOINT INSPECTION REPORT.
Digitally signedNAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.28 16:58:56 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.3/12
6. Vide order dated 21.01.2016 Ld. Counsels for both the parties were directed to do physical inspection of the suit property and to file the joint report to identify the area of seepage and damage caused to the property of the plaintiff/defendant. Accordingly, a joint report was filed by the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant dated 20.03.2016. As per the report, both the counsels visited the suit property on 20.03.2016. They found that there was no source of seepage in the premises of the plaintiff whereas in the premises of the defendant there is water pipeline fitting in the common wall between the premises of the plaintiff and the defendant. They observed that the water pipeline fitted in the premises of the defendant is doubtful and there is seepage on both sides of the premises at same place below the fitting of water pipeline in the premises of the defendants. This report was exhibited by the plaintiff as Ex. PW-1/7 during his evidence.
ISSUES
7. Issues were framed vide order dated 04.07.2016 as follows:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- as prayed for ? (OPP) ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? (OPP) iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as claimed in clause-C of the prayer clause of the plaint ? (OPP) Digitally signed by NAINA NAINA GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.28 16:59:02 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.4/12 iv. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
8. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the documents Ex- PW-1/1 to Ex-PW-1/7 as follows:-
(i) Photographs as Ex.PW-1/1(OSR);
(ii) Legal notice as Ex.PW-1/2 is de-exhibited and the same is marked as Mark A.
(iii) Postal receipt as Ex.PW-1/3
(iv) Site plan as Ex.PW-1/4
(v) Original plaint as Ex. PW-1/5.
(vi) Plumber report as Ex.PW-1/6 and
(vii) Joint inspection report as Ex.PW-1/7.
9.The plaintiff in his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A reiterated the submissions made in the plaint. During his cross examination, the plaintiff admitted that there is a water tank installed at the roof of the first floor of the suit property and the said water tank is being used to supply water to the suit property. He also admitted that there is a sewer tank in the public street and a hand pump in the front of his house. He stated that the sewer tank and the hand pump were installed before he purchased the property. He also deposed that there are water pipes and fittings in the common wall from the side of the defendant. He deposed that there is no water fitting in the common wall of the suit property of the plaintiff.
10. He further deposed that in the site plan Ex. PW-1/4 the affected area where there is seepage has not been Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.28 16:59:07 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.5/12 specifically mentioned or shown. There is a toilet, bathroom and a kitchen on the first floor of his house and there is a separate sewerage pipe of the same. He deposed that the problem of seepage started when the defendant raised a bathroom on the first floor on his side.
11. Plaintiff also examined his cousin Sh. Hazari Lal who tendered his affidavit Ex. PW-2/1. He was also cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
12. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Lachman Singh, licensed plumber serving with Delhi Jal Board who tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW-3/2. In his affidavit, PW-3 has deposed that he inspected the property of both the parties and found that there is a common wall between both the properties and there are four water taps installed in the common wall from the side of the defendants and there is no/any possibility of seepage in the property of the plaintiff due to the fault of the plaintiff, whereas in the property of the defendant, the defendant no. 2 stated that they got repaired the portion of the bathroom. His report was exhibited by PW-1 as Ex. PW-1/6.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
13. Defendant no.1 and 2 examined themselves as DW-1 and DW-2. DW-1 tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the documents:-
i. Photographs of damaged walls and the electricity meter installed on the wall alongwith other electri installations is Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/10 (Colly).Digitally signed
NAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA 2025.04.28 Date:
16:59:12 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.6/12 ii. True copy of the notice sent on 13.08.2016 alongwith postal receipts are Mark A, B, C and D. iii. Copy of complaint to DC of MCD, Rohini Zone is Mark F. iv.Letter dated 23.09.2016 is Mark G, v. Legal notice dated 09.12.2016 is Mark H, vi. Summons for 20.12.2016 is mark I.
14. DW-1 was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. During his cross examination, he deposed that there is no seepage in his house at the wall where electric meter is installed. He deposed that a water pipe is installed in the wall of the plaintiff and seepage in the wall is due to the said water pipe. He did not get the water pipe installed in the wall of the plaintiff checked as the plaintiff never allowed him to enter his house.
15. DW-2 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-2/A and relied upon the documents as under:-
i. Photographs of the damaged walls are Ex. DW-1/1. ii. The copies of complaint sent to Police Commissioner, DCP, Pitampura, ACP, PS Sultanpuri, SHO, PS Begumpur, Delhi on 13.08.2016 are marked as Mark A, B, C,D (colly) alongwith postal receipts is Marked as Mark E. iii. Copy of complaint sent to Dy. Commissioner of MCD, Rohini Zone (North) is marekd as Mark F and letter dated 23.09.2019 is marked as Mark G. iv.Copy of notice dated 09.12.2016 is marked as Mark H and summons for 20.12.2016 is marked as Mark-I. Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.28 16:59:17 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.7/12
16. PW-2 was also cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. She deposed that her house was constructed by the builder and there is no common wall between the house of the plaintiff and defendant. She deposed that there is a water pipeline installed in the wall of the plaintiff, however she could never check the same as the plaintiff never allowed her. During her cross examination she admitted that there is a bathroom in her house which is towards the house of the plaintiff and there is a tap fixed on the wall which is towards the house of the plaintiff.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties. Both the plaintiff and the defendants have filed written submissions in support of their arguments. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff has successfully proved his case. It has come on record that there is no source of seepage in the premises of the plaintiff and there is water pipe fitting on the side of the defendant. In view thereof it is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
18. The counsel for the defendant has requested for dismissal of the suit with cost. It is argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was any seepage due to the fault of the defendant. It is argued that the plaintiff has failed to submit documentary proof of the damage suffered. It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed the present suit with malicious intent and the same be dismissed.
Digitally signedNAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.04.28 16:59:22 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.8/12 ISSUE WISE FINDINGS.ISSUE NO. 2 AND 3
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? (OPP) (3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as claimed in clause-C of the prayer clause of the plaint ? (OPP)
19. Issue no. 2 and 3 are taken up first. The plaintiff to prove his case was required to lead conclusive evidence to the effect that due to some action or negligence of the defendant there was seepage in his property. In the joint inspection report dated 20.03.2016 it was observed that there was seepage and that it could be due to the fitting of water pipeline in the premises of the defendant. The plaintiff examined PW-3 Lachman Singh, a Sanitary Eng., Licensed Plumber, Delhi Jal Board who stated in his report dated 10.01.2016 Ex. PW-1/6 that he found that there was a five feet broad dried wall (sukhi papdi) in the bathroom on the ground floor. On checking he found that there was no sign of leakage in the house of the plaintiff and on inspection on the side of the defendant he found that there was some repair work done after breaking the floor.
20. Other than the joint inspection report and the evidence of the plumber PW-3 there is no other witness or evidence on record to prove that there was seepage due to the leakage on the side of the defendant. Further, from the report of the plumber, PW-3 it is clear that at the time of his inspection there was no seepage and the entire wall had already dried Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.28 16:59:26 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.9/12 up. Thus, in 2016 itself, complaint of seepage or leakage from the property of the defendant was resolved.
21.From the appreciation of evidence led by PW-3 as well as other plaintiff witnesses, none of the witnesses could directly point that the seepage was due to a leakage from the water pipeline of the defendant. They only deposed that there existed a water pipeline on the side of the defendant. Further, even if it is believed that there was no source of leakage in the property of the plaintiff and the source was only present in the property of the defendant, the plaintiff had to further prove that the defendant was negligent in not handling the leakage. In 2016 itself it has come on record that the seepage had dried up and there was no more leakage in the suit property.
22.In my view the evidence led by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove that the seepage was due to the negligence of the defendant. Further, from the evidence led by the plaintiff itself, it is clear that there is no seepage existing in the suit property at present or since January, 2016. Thus, in my view the plaintiff has failed to prove that there exists seepage in his property due to leakage in the house of the defendant or due to the negligence of the defendant.
23.The plaintiff has filed the present suit on 23.10.2015 and as per the report of the plumber dated 10.01.2016, Ex. PW- 1/6, there was no seepage in the suit property and the wall had already dried up. Thus, the cause of action on which the plaintiff had filed the present suit did not remain Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.28 16:59:31 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.10/12 subsisting. In my view the plaintiff has failed to prove that the leakage was due to negligence of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for. The plaintiff is also not entitled to the relief of the permanent injunction as prayed for because the plaintiff could not prove that the defendants had created disturbance or harassment to him and his family members.
24. In view thereof, issue no. 2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 1(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- as prayed for ? (OPP)
25.The plaintiff to claim any damages was required to prove that he suffered loss which could be quantified in monetary terms due to any action or negligence of the defendants. In view of the discussion on issue no. 2 and 3 it has been held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that it was due to defendants' fault that there was seepage in his property. Further, the plaintiff has also not placed on record any proof of the expenses incurred by him on account of the seepage. Therefore, issue no. 1 is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 4RELIEF.
26.In view of the findings on the issues no. 1 to 3 it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the scale of NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.04.28 16:59:36 +0530 CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.11/12 preponderance of probabilities and is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
27.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedNAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA 16:59:39 +0530 Date: 2025.04.28 Announced in the open court on (NAINA GUPTA) Date : 28th day of April, 2025 ASCJ-JSCC-GJ NORTH-WEST ROHINI COURTS/ DELHI CS SCJ No. 60776/16 Sushil Kumar Gahlot vs Vipin Handa Page No.12/12