Delhi District Court
Sunil vs Amit Chauhan And Ors on 11 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030029222016
CS SCJ No. 538552/2016
Shri Sunil
S/o Sh. Megh Pal
R/o A-106, A Block, T-Huts,
Shiv Mandir, Shahbad Dairy,
Delhi-110042.
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Amit Chauhan
S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh Chauhan
R/o G-4/189, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
... Defendant
Date of Institution 05.12.2016
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 11.06.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit pertains to the property dispute involving a parcel of land admeasuring 200 square yards (out of a total land area of 450 square yards) forming part of Khasra No. 245, situated at Village Shahbad Daulatpur and falling within the abadi known as Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11 16:20:51 +0530 CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 1 Of 9 Prahlad Vihar, Delhi-110042 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property").
Brief Facts of the Case:
2. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner and in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from one Sh. Rakesh Madan S/o Sh. Sohan Lal Madan on 16.06.2016. In furtherance of the said transaction, the necessary documentation including General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, and Will were executed in favour of the plaintiff. These documents were duly notarized and recorded vide registry entries No. 5259 and 5260 dated 16.06.2016. Possession of the suit property was also allegedly handed over to the plaintiff at that time.
3. It is alleged that the plaintiff, who used to visit the property regularly for inspection, discovered on 29.11.2016 that the defendants were attempting to take unlawful possession of the suit property. Upon objection by the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 allegedly claimed ownership of the suit property but refused to produce any title documents. Instead, he allegedly hurled abuses and extended threats.
4. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendants, in collusion with unknown associates, threatened him with dire consequences and claimed to have connections with political persons and local police officials, asserting that they could falsely Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.11 16:20:57 +0530 CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 2 Of 9 implicate the plaintiff in criminal cases. Out of fear, the plaintiff and his sister-in-law reportedly left the site.
5. On the same day, the plaintiff claims to have received a call from officials of PS Shahbad Dairy and visited the police station along with relevant documents. It is alleged that while the plaintiff was able to produce ownership documents, the defendants failed to do so. The police officials allegedly advised the plaintiff to seek civil remedies, citing the dispute as civil in nature. A written complaint dated 29.11.2016 was submitted to the SHO, PS Shahbad Dairy, but no action was allegedly taken thereafter.
6. It is further alleged that later that night, defendant no. 2 telephonically contacted the plaintiff and expressed a desire to settle the matter, requesting a meeting. However, the plaintiff declined and was again advised not to file any complaint.
7. The plaintiff asserts that both defendants are acting in concert to unlawfully dispossess him and usurp the suit property, despite having no right, title, or interest therein. The plaintiff alleges repeated attempts by the defendants to interfere with possession and create third-party interest in the property.
8. The plaint further alleges that the defendants have fabricated false documents in their favour and are attempting to sell or encumber the suit property. The plaintiff also claims continued Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 SHARMA 16:21:03 +0530 CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 3 Of 9 threats and interference by the defendants' agents and associates, who have been making frequent visits to the site.
9. Despite approaching the local police on multiple occasions, the plaintiff alleges that no effective assistance was provided, with the matter again being treated as civil in nature and the plaintiff being advised to seek judicial remedy. The plaintiff contends that the defendants' acts amount to an orchestrated effort to wrongfully dispossess him and cause him wrongful loss while securing unlawful gain for themselves.
10. Relief Sought:
The plaintiff, by way of the present suit, has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) That a decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives, associates, and any other persons acting on their behalf, from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property or from creating any third-party interest therein by way of letting out, transfer, sale, mortgage, or any other mode of alienation. The suit property is described as a plot/land measuring 200 square yards (out of the total land area of 450 square yards) forming part of Khasra No. 245, situated in Village Shahbad Daulatpur, within the abadi known as Prahlad Vihar, Delhi-110042, and is more specifically delineated in red in the site plan annexed with the plaint.Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:21:08 +0530 CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 4 Of 9
(b) That the costs of the present suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
11. Written Statement / Defence Version:
11.1 In the written statement, the defendants have raised preliminary objections, contending that the suit is not maintainable in law and is an abuse of the process of the court. It is asserted that the plaintiff has no cause of action and that the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
11.2 The defendants allege that the plaintiff has filed a false and frivolous suit with the ulterior motive of unlawfully acquiring possession of the property in question.
11.3 It is further contended that the plaintiff lacks locus standi to institute the suit, as he is neither in physical possession nor has any legal right, title, or interest in the suit property, which is claimed to be under the lawful possession of the defendants.
11.4 The defendants assert that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts.
11.5 It is alleged that the plaintiff is attempting to usurp the defendants' property by relying on forged and fabricated documents purportedly relating to Khasra No. 245, whereas the Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:21:15 +0530 CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 5 Of 9 defendants claim ownership and possession of a separate property forming part of Khasra No. 279, Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi.
It is further claimed that Khasra No. 245 has already been acquired by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and is vacant land.
11.6 The defendants also contend that the suit is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy elsewhere.
11.7 On merits, the defendants have denied the allegations made in the plaint and reiterated that the suit is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
12. The defendants stopped appearing in the Court and vide order dated 23.01.2019, they were proceeded exparte and the matter was listed for exparte PE.
Plaintiff's Evidence
13. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon following documents:-
(i) Certified copy of the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, SPA, Receipt, Will, Possession letter all dated 16.06.2016 as Ex.
PW1/1(colly.)
(ii) Copy of complaint to the police commissioner as Ex. PW1/2.
NITISH Digitally signed by
NITISH KUMAR SHARMA
KUMAR Date: 2025.06.11
SHARMA 16:21:21 +0530
CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 6 Of 9
Thereafter, plaintiff closes his exparte PE and the matter was listed for exparte final arguments.
14. I have heard the plaintiff and perused the record.
Findings and Analysis
15. In order to succeed, the plaintiff was required to prove that he is the lawful owner or has a better legal title or interest in the suit property and that he was in actual, peaceful, and continuous possession of the said property at the relevant time and that the defendants attempted to interfere with or dispossess him from the suit property without any legal right or authority.
15.1 To substantiate its claims, the plaintiff has placed on record original documents, including:
Certified copy of the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, SPA, Receipt, Will, Possession letter all dated 16.06.2016. Copy of complaint to the police commissioner.
15.2 The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and from creating third party right in the suit property stating that the defendants were trying to grab the suit property on 29.11.2016 without having any right, title or interest over the suit property as the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. In order to establish the ownership over the suit property the plaintiff has placed on record certified copy of the NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2025.06.11 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:21:27 +0530 CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 7 Of 9 GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, SPA, Receipt, Will, Possession letter all dated 16.06.2016 as Ex. PW1/1 (colly.).
16. 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."
17. 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. Further, it is also settled law that no one NITISH can transfer a better Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 SHARMA 16:21:34 +0530 CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 8 Of 9 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.
The plaintiff has not placed on record the chain of documents or any other document to show that his predecessor/ as per GPA etc, was the owner of the suit property. In view of the above, the plaintiff can not claim to have acquired perfect title with respect to the suit property on the basis of the documents filed by him.
18. Admittedly, the suit property is a plot/land and it is settled that possession of a vacant land goes with the ownership of the suit property. As the plaintiff could not establish his title over the suit land, it has to be held that the plaintiff failed to show his possession also.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, as the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary facts as mentioned in the plaint, his suit is liable to fail. The suit of the plaintiff accordingly stands dismissed.
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH on 11.06.2025. KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:21:41 +0530 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/11.06.2025 CS SCJ No. 538552/2016 Sunil V Amit Chauhan 9 Of 9