Delhi District Court
Amardeep Gupta (Senior Citizen) vs Devi Dayal Gupta on 3 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR PASWAN, LD. DISTRICT
JUDGE-04 (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MCA DJ No. 25/2024
Shri. Amardeep Gupta
S/o Late Shri Ram Baksh Gupta
R/o 169 B, Jeewan Nagar,
New Delhi-110014
Also at:
Plot no.: B-286 (Old No: 11, 21-A & 31-A)
Khasra No.: 390/263/1/2
New Ashok Nagar-II
New Delhi-110096
...........Appellant
Versus
1. Shri Devi Dayal Gupta
S/o Late Dewat Ram Gupta
R/o 411 A, Chitla Gate
Chawari Bazar, Delhi-110006
Also at:
413, Chitla Gate, Chawari Bazar,
Delhi-110006
2 Smt. Indra Gupta
W/o Shri Devi Dayal Gupta
R/o 411 A, Chitla Gate
Chawari Bazar, Delhi-110006
MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 1 of 35
Digitally signed
ANIL by ANIL KUMAR
PASWAN
KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:47:36 +0530
3. Shri Ramesh Chauhan
S/o Shri Deep Chand Chauhan
R/o PK-140, Sector-122,
Behind Water Tank, Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh
4. The SHO
P.S. New Ashok Nagar-II
New Delhi
...........Respondents
Date of Institution : 05.12.2024
Date of final arguments : 30.01.2025
Date of decision : 03.02.2025
Final decision : Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT
CASE OF APPELLANT
1. This appeal has been filed against the order of dismissal of application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC passed by Ld Trial Court.
2. The suit before Ld. Trial Court was filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff (appellant herein) against the defendant (respondent herein) on the ground that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing no. B-286, (consisting of three properties) Part of Khasra no. 390/263/1/2, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring 620 sq yds.
MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 2 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:47:55 +0530
3. The first property was purchased by the father of appellant Sh. Ram Baksh Gupta in the year 1981, second property was purchased by maternal uncle of appellant in the year 1981 and the third property was purchased by Smt. Indira Gupta in the year 1981. Thereafter plaintiff took possession of two properties being sold by defendants and later on, the father of appellant gifted the properties to wife Smt. Bimla Devi Gupta (mother) which was subsequently bequeathed in favor of the plaintiff through a Will dated 10.09.2008.
4. Defendants sold part of suit property to a third person (defendant no.3) and they were threatening the plaintiff to vacate the said plots therefore the suit was filed for permanent injunction. Application was filed U/o 12 rule 6 CPC by the appellant/plaintiff and the same was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court.
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS
5. No reply has been filed and respondents have relied upon the reply and judgment filed to the application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC before the Ld. Trial Court. Some judgments were filed on behalf of the respondents along with some supporting documents. It is orally submitted that the appellant has not come with clean hand for seeking relief of equity i.e injunction and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal on the ground that there can be no appeal for dismissal of application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 3 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:48:08
+0530
and only revision lies before the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, respondents have submitted that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
6. According to the arguments and submissions, the following points for determination in this appeal could be ascertained/found-
1) Whether the present appeal is maintainable.
2) Whether the Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application u/o 12 rule 6 CPC.
7. I have heard Ld counsel for plaintiffs and Ld counsel for the defendants and I have perused the record.
My observation is as under:-
POINT NO.1
8. Ld counsel for respondent has submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable on two grounds:-
a) This Court cannot entertain the present appeal in view of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled 'Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Rambir Singh' dated 14.10.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
b) That the order of dismissal of application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC is non appealable as per Section 43 of the CPC.
MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 4 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:48:31
+0530
9. Regarding the first question/ground for non maintainability, the judgment relied upon by the respondent mentions the following:-
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following conclusions emerge:-
(i) The Civil Courts at Delhi, were originally the Civil Courts under the jurisdiction of High Court of Punjab, and in view of notifications issued under Section 39(3) of the Act (being the notification dated 16.5.1935 as stated above with respect to suits whose pecuniary jurisdiction was upto Rs.500/- and now Rs.1,000/- by virtue of the extant notification dated 11.8.2000) appeals which are to be filed from decrees and orders passed by Civil Judges in suits having pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.1,000/-, have to be filed before the courts of Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge and not to the Court of the DJ/ADJ.
(ii) If the first appeal is heard by the court of the Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge, the second appeal against the order or decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge will lie to the High Court by virtue of Section 39(1)(b) read with Section 41 of the Act.
(iii) Where the Senior Civil Judges pass orders/decrees in suits having pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.1,000/-, then, since the original court and the appellate court cannot be the same, court of the Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge, therefore, against decrees and orders passed by the Senior Civil Judges/Additional Senior Civil Judges in suits having pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.1000/-, the first appeal MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 5 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:48:38 +0530 against the orders/decrees passed by the Senior Civil Judge/Additional Senior Civil Judge will lie to the court of the DJ/ADJ in view of Section 39(1),(2) and (2A) read with Section 34 of the Act.
10. Therefore, I do not find any bar in hearing this matter as the judgment itself says that in appeal from Senior Civil Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 1000/-, appeal shall lie before the Court of Ld. DJ/ADJ.
11. Regarding the other question (b) raised by Ld counsel for respondent stating that the present appeal being an appeal qua the order U/o 12 rule 6 CPC and the same is not mentioned U/o 43 CPC, it would be pertinent to go through the provisions of Order 43 CPC.
ORDER XLIII APPEALS FROM ORDERS "1. Appeal from orders.--An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely: --
(a) an order under rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court [except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of Order VII has been followed];
(c). an order under rule 9 of order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit;
(d) an order under rule 13 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte;
(f) an order under rule 21 of Order XI;
MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 6 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:48:45 +0530
(i) an order under rule 34 of Order XXI on an objection to the draft of a document or of an endorsement;
(j) an order under rule 72 or rule 92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale; [ja) an order rejecting an application made under sub-rule (1) of rule 106 of Order XXI, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 105 of that Order is appealable;]
(k) an order under rule 9 of Order XXII refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit;
(l) an order under rule 10 of Order XXII giving or refusing to give leave;
(n) an order under rule 2 of Order XXV rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit;
1[(na) an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order XXXIII rejecting an application for permission to sue as an indigent person;]
(p) orders in interpleader-suits under rule 3, rule 4 or rule 6 of Order XXXV;
(q) an order under rule 2, rule 3 or rule 6 of order (XXVIII);
(r) an order under rule 1, rule 2 1[rule 2A], rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX;
(s) an order under rule 1, or rule 4 of Order XL;
(t) an order of refusal under rule 19 of Order XLI to re- admit, or under rule 21 of Order XLI to re-hear, an appeal; (u) an order under rule 23 1[or rule 23A] of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court;
(w) an order under rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application for review.
1[1A. Right to challenge non-appealable orders in appeal against decrees--(1) Where any order is made under this Code against a party and thereupon any judgment is pronounced against such party and a decree is drawn up, such party may, in an appeal against the decree, contend that such order should not have been made and the MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 7 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:48:52 +0530 judgment should not have been pronounced. (2) In an appeal against a decree passed in a suit after recording a compromise or refusing to record a compromise, it shall be open to the appellant to contest the decree on the ground that the compromise should, or should not, have been recorded.]
2. Procedure.--The rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as may be, to appeals from orders."
12. Therefore, the appeal U/o 12 rule 6 CPC is not mentioned in Order 43 CPC, upon this, Ld counsel for appellant has submitted that the present appeal is very much maintainable and has pointed towards certain judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein Regular First Appeal was taken up and heard.
13. Heard. Record perused.
14. Order 43 CPC prescribes guidelines regarding the various orders which are appealable and in this context it would be beneficial to go through the substantive provision of Section 104 CPC which is reproduced as under:-
Section 104- Orders from which appeal lies.
(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders:---
[(ff) an order under section 35A;] [(ffa) an order under section 91 or section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in section 91 or section 92, as the case may be;]
(g) an order under section 95;
(h) an order under any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 8 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:48:57 +0530 the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree;
(i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules:
[Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in clause (ff) save on the ground that no order, or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made.] (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.
15. Therefore, there is clear law on the point that appeal is permissible only if it is provided in the body of the Code of Civil Procedure or by any law for the time being in force. The Code has provided appealable orders U/o 43 CPC and regarding the other law providing for appeal, it can be either statutory law or judicial pronouncements. It is settled law that judicial pronouncements are also within category of law.
16. Article 141 of the Constitution of India says that all the judgments rendered/delivered/pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are binding upon all the authorities in India. The Article 141 of the Constitution of India is reproduced as under-
Article 141 in Constitution of India
141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts. The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
17. Therefore, the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court are biding upon all the authorities in India and similarly the judgments MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 9 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:49:02 +0530 pronounced by Hon'ble High Courts are binding upon all the authorities within a particular State.
18. In this context, it would be relevant to go through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED" decided on March 14, 2022 wherein it was held that -
"117. Let us take another instance of a similar order which may not amount to a judgment. Suppose, the trial Judge allows the plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding a particular relief or taking an additional ground which may be inconsistent with the pleas taken by him but is not barred by limitation and does not work serious injustice to the defendant who would have ample opportunity to disprove the amended plea taken by plaintiff at the trial. In such cases, the order of the trial Judge would only be a simple interlocutory order without containing any quality of finality and would therefore not be a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent.
118. The various instances given by us would constitute sufficient guidelines to determine whether or not an order passed by the trial Judge is a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent. We must however hasten to add that instances given by us are illustrative and not exhaustive. We have already referred to the various tests laid down by the Calcutta, Rangoon and Madras High Courts. So far as the Rangoon High Court is concerned we have already pointed out that the strict test that an order passed by the trial Judge would be a judgment only if it amounts to a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, is legally erroneous and opposed to the very tenor and spirit of the language of the letters patent. We, therefore, do not approve of the test laid down by the MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 10 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:49:06 +0530 Rangoon High Court and that decision therefore has to be confined only to the facts of that particular case because that being a case of transfer, it is manifest that no question of any finality was involved in the order of transfer. We would like to adopt and approve of generally the tests laid down by Sir White, C.J., in Tuljaram Row case [ILR 35 Mad 1] (which seems to have been followed by most of the High Courts) minus the broader and the wider attributes adumbrated by Sir White, C.J., or more explicitly by Krishnaswamy Ayyar, J. as has been referred to above.
119. Apart from the tests laid down by Sir White, C.J., the following considerations must prevail with the court:
"(1) That the trial Judge being a senior court with vast experience of various branches of law occupying a very high status should be trusted to pass discretionary or interlocutory orders with due regard to the well settled principles of civil justice. Thus, any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit which may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one party or the other cannot be treated as a judgment otherwise the appellate court (Division Bench) will be flooded with appeals from all kinds of orders passed by the trial Judge. The courts must give sufficient allowance to the trial Judge and raise a presumption that any discretionary order which he passes must be presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice. (2) That the interlocutory order in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit itself or in a part of the proceedings.
(3) The tests laid down by Sir White, C.J. as also by Sir Couch, C.J. as modified by later decisions of the Calcutta High Court itself which have been dealt with by us elaborately should be borne in mind."
120. Thus, these are some of the principles which MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 11 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:49:11 +0530 might guide a Division Bench in deciding whether an order passed by the trial Judge amounts to a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent. We might, however, at the risk of repetition give illustrations of interlocutory orders which may be treated as judgments:
(1) An order granting leave to amend the plaint by introducing a new cause of action which completely alters the nature of the suit and takes away a vested right of limitation or any other valuable right accrued to the defendant.
(2) An order rejecting the plaint. (3) An order refusing leave to defend the suit in an action under Order 37, of the Code of Civil Procedure. (4) An order rescinding leave of the trial Judge granted by him under clause 12 of the letters patent. (5) An order deciding a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, absence of notice under Section 80, bar against competency of the suit against the defendant even though the suit is kept alive.
(6) An order rejecting an application for a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6. (7) An order refusing to add necessary parties in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (8) An order varying or amending a decree. (9) An order refusing leave to sue in forma pauperis. (10) An order granting review.
(11) An order allowing withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh one.
(12) An order holding that the defendants are not agriculturists within the meaning of the special law. (13) An order staying or refusing to stay a suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (14) An order granting or refusing to stay execution of MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 12 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:49:16 +0530 the decree.
(15) An order deciding payment of court fees against the plaintiff."
121. Here, it may be noted that whereas an order deciding the nature of the court fees to be paid by the plaintiff would be a judgment but this order affects only the plaintiff or the Government and not the defendant. Thus, only the plaintiff or the Government as the case may be will have the right to file an appeal in the Division Bench and not the defendant because the question of payment of court fees is a matter between the Government and the plaintiff and the defendant has no locus in this regard.
122. We have by way of sample laid down various illustrative examples of an order which may amount to judgment but it is not possible to give such an exhaustive list as may cover all possible cases. Law with its dynamism, pragmatism and vastness is such a large ocean that it is wellnigh impossible for us to envisage or provide for every possible contingency or situation so as to evolve a device or frame an exhaustive formula or strategy to confine and incarcerate the same in a straitjacket. We, however, hope and trust that by and large the controversy raging for about a century on the connotation of the term "judgment" would have now been settled and a few cases which may have been left out, would undoubtedly be decided by the court concerned in the light of the tests, observations and principles enunciated by us.
123. In the instant case, as the order of the trial Judge was one refusing appointment of a receiver and grant of an adinterim injunction, it is undoubtedly a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent both because in view of our judgment.
Order 43 Rule 1 applies to internal appeals in the High Court and apart from it such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would therefore be a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 13 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:49:21
+0530
letters patent. The consistent view taken by the Bombay High Court in the various cases noted above or other cases which may not have been noticed by us regarding the strict interpretation of clause 15 of the letters patent are hereby overruled and the Bombay High Court is directed to decide the question in future in the light of our decision.
124. We, therefore, hold that the order passed by the trial Judge in the instant case being a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent, the appeal before the Division Bench was maintainable and the Division Bench of the High Court was in error in dismissing the appeal without deciding it on merits. We have already directed the High Court to decide the appeal on merits by our formal order dated April 22, 1981."
17. It could thus be seen that though this Court has held that the term 'judgment' used in Letters Patent could not be given a narrower meaning as is given to the term 'judgment' used in CPC and that it should receive a much wider and more liberal interpretation, however, at the same time, each and every order passed by the trial judge could not be construed to be a 'judgment' inasmuch as there will be no end to the number of orders which would be appealable under the Letters Patent. It has been held that the word 'judgment' has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broader and not in a narrower sense. It has been held that where an order vitally affects a valuable right of the defendants, it will undoubtedly be treated as a 'judgment' within the meaning of Letters Patent so as to be appealable to a larger Bench.
18. It has been held that most of the interlocutory orders which contain the quality of finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC and would be 'judgments' within the meaning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable. However, there may be interlocutory orders which are not covered by Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 14 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:49:26 +0530 inasmuch as such orders may adversely affect a valuable right of the party or decide an important aspect of the trial in an ancillary proceeding. It has further been held that however, for such an order to be a 'judgment', an adverse effect on the party concerned must be direct and immediate rather than indirect or remote. Various illustrations of interlocutory orders have been given by this Court in para (120), which could be held to be appealable. This Court held that though any discretion exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in the course of the suit may cause some inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one party or the other, they cannot be treated as a 'judgment' unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality. This Court has expressed in para (122) that though it had, by way of sample, laid down various illustrative examples of an order which may amount to a judgment, it would not be possible to give such an exhaustive list as may cover all possible areas. This Court, in the facts of the said case, held that an order of the Single Judge refusing appointment of a receiver and grant of an adinterim injunction was undoubtedly a 'judgment' within the meaning of Letters Patent, both because Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC applies to internal appeals in the High Court and that such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would therefore be a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
19. Justice A.N. Sen, while holding that the order in question was appealable under Section 104(1) read with Order XLIII CPC, did not find it necessary to go into the question as to whether such an order would be appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of the learned Judge:
"151. ......In my opinion, an exhaustive or a comprehensive definition of 'judgment' as contemplated in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot be properly given and it will be wise to remember that in the Letters Patent itself, there is no definition of the word 'judgment'. The expression has necessarily to be MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 15 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:49:42 +0530 construed and interpreted in each particular case. It is, however, safe to say that if any order has the effect of finally determining any controversy forming the subjectmatter of the suit itself or any part thereof or the same affects the question of court's jurisdiction or the question of limitation, such an order will normally constitute 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent......."
19. The above mentioned judgment has categorically included an appeal U/o 12 rule 6 CPC within the ambit of word 'judgment' for the purpose of letters patent. The letters patent appeal being an extra ordinary remedy, however is in the nature of appellate jurisdiction for the trials of suits in the original jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court. The similar ratio can be drawn/observed in case of appeal against the orders of Trial Courts in the District judiciary as the allowing/dismissal of any application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC creates/extinguishes valuable right in favor of the parties. The decision of any question related to Order 12 rule 6 CPC has a quality of finality and it cannot be equated with appointment of a receiver U/o 40 CPC or any other interim measure where the suit/proceedings continues and nothing material/important decision/adjudication comes out as compared to adjudication of the application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC.
20. The Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in the year 1908 and the framers could not have foreseen all the circumstances wherein the appeal could lie and had confined the contours of Order 43 CPC to some matters. During this period when there is MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 16 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:49:50
+0530
rise in the market value of property, giving the property on rent/lease has become a crucial part in the economy. Most of the matters decided for application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC are pertaining to landlord tenant issues. Therefore, keeping the adjudication regarding the application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC out of purview of appeal will be against the interest of justice.
21. Ld counsel for appellant has shown the judgment titled 'Inderprakash Vs. K R Rastogi' dated 28.07.2014 wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has entertained first appeal and has further assigned the matter to Ld. District and Sessions Judge, East District for disposal. This shows that the Court of DJ/ADJ is competent to take up the matters of appeal related to Order 12 rule 6 CPC. Similarly, in the matters titled 'Rajkumari Garg VS. S M Ezaz & Ors' decided on 13.08.2012, 'Surjeet Vs. H N Pahilaj', dated 30.10.1996, 'Kumari Sushila Yadav Vs. Lt. Col. (Retd.) Atul Chaudhary', decided 14.01.2016, 'Dinesh Sharma Vs. 'Krishan Kainth', decided on 19.04.2022, matters were taken up as appeals and disposed off. This shows that first appeal is permissible regarding any judgment/order of adjudication of an application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC.
22. In 'Babita Vs. Ravinder Verma' decided on 14.02.2012, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed in RFA no. 86/12 that -
"9. In view of the above, though strictly the action of the trial Court of rejecting the plaint MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 17 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:49:58 +0530 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may not be wholly correct, inasmuch as, it is really the suit that has to be dismissed on the admitted facts under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. A „decree‟ within the meaning of the said expression in Section 2(2) of CPC includes dismissal of the suit. The defendant therefore can very much file an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC to dismiss the suit on the basis of admitted facts, admitted documents and admitted pleadings. In the present case, on the basis of the facts, documents and pleadings, as admitted , it is clear that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment, however, though not under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but as per the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC."
23. Therefore, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above mentioned judgment has impliedly stated that application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC was in issue. Moreover, in the none of the judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for appellant, there is any mention of Writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, I agree with the contentions of Ld counsel for appellant that the present appeal is maintainable before this Court.
POINT NO.2
24. Appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2022 by the Ld. Trial Court and has stated that Ld Trial Court has passed the impugned order without considering the MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 18 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:50:17
+0530
material available on record, the impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures, Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the admissions in the pleadings with are unequivocal regarding appellant's possession over the suit property, Ld Trial Court failed to appreciated the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ' Suraj Lamp Industries Vs. State of Haryana ', the possession of appellant over the suit property is for a considerable time, reliance was placed by Ld. Trial Court upon the FIR and other grounds.
25. Appellant has submitted that they are in settled possession of the suit property and has sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 13.12.2022.
26. It is submitted on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 (respondents) that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and the plaintiff was not in actual and physical possession of the portion of land measuring 420 sq yds of Khasra no. 390/263/1/2 in respect of plot no.31-A and 21-A situated in New Ashok Nagar and the relief of injunction that was sought being a discretionary relief and since the plaintiff has forged and fabricated documents and had filed the same before this Court, therefore, they are not entitled for the discretionary relief.
27. Further, it was the submission on behalf of respondent that the gift deed allegedly executed by the father of appellant in favor of his mother is insufficiently stamped document as per the Indian MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 19 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:50:24
+0530
Stamp Act and requires compulsory registration. Further, the document cannot be looked into as per the provision of Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. Moreover, the alleged Will dated 10.09.2008 cannot be looked into for any purpose as Smt. Bimla Devi Gupta was not having any right, title or interest in the property as the gift deed is unregistered.
28. It is also stated that the plaintiff has forged and fabricated documents and had filed application before the concerned official of BSES for transfer of electricity connection CA no.101154688 installed at the property 31-A, Khasra no.390/263/1/2 situated in New Ashok Nagar in the name of defendant no.2 to his name by filing forged and fabricated document i.e GPA dated 07.04.2003 and other documents and thereafter meter has been allotted to the plaintiff's father Sh. Ram Baksh Gupta. It is stated that these documents are totally different from the documents which the plaintiff has filed before the concerned IO of the case FIR no. 547/17 PS New Ashok Nagar.
29. The respondent has denied the fact that on 12.01.1999, the defendant no.1 and 2 sold their respective plots being part of the suit property in favor of Sh. Ram Baksh Gupta i.e father of the plaintiff for a valuable consideration by executing notarized agreement to sell and GPA and other documents prevalent at that relevant time. It is further submitted that the original previous chain of titled documents was also not submitted to the appellant MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 20 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:50:29 +0530 and the alleged documents are forged and fabricated and does not bear the signature of defendant no.1 and 2. In this regard, it is submitted that in the year 2012 an NCR no. 16/12 PS Jama Masjid, Delhi was lodged by defendant no.1 and 2 that the documents were misplaced since the year 1997.
30. It is submitted that on 13.08.2017 defendant no.1 to 3 visited the suit property and found that plaintiff was interfering in possession of the suit property but quarrel took place on that day and in this regard DD no.31A was lodged and the same was attendant by one ASI who reached at the spot and found that there was no quarrel and the call was mentioned as untraced. On 14.08.2017, a PCR call was made which was also assigned to one ASI who reached at the spot and found that the matter relates to property so he directed the parties to file their respective documents showing title of all the three plots. The concerned ASI was told that the two plots were transferred to defendant no.3 (Ramesh Chand Chauhan) and the parties was directed to join the inquiry along with the documents. On 16.08.2017, the plaintiff handed over documents alleging a Will executed by her by the mother and he had not filed all the documents and requested the concerned police official to grant some more time thereafter on 24.08.2017 the defendant submitted a complaint vide DD no. 31B, PS New Ashok Nagar against the plaintiff and his father stating that they had committed theft of original documents of the defendants and have forged the documents of title in their favor MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 21 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:50:36 +0530 which were submitted in the office of BSES for transfer of the electricity connection in the name of Smt. Indira Gupta (defendant no.2). Further, the documents filed by the plaintiff and his father Sh. Ram Baksh Gupta before the office the BSES are totally different from that of the documents filed by the defendant before the Court and after preliminary inquiry FIR no. 547/14 was registered.
31. Heard. Record perused.
32. The law related to admission U/o 12 rule 6 CPC is well settled. Even Ld Trial Court has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled 'Dinesh Sharma Vs. Mrs. Krishna Kainth' dated 19.04.2022. In that judgment apart from the observations recorded by Ld. Trial Court following observations/directions are also important :-
"20. The law on the aspect as to what should constitute "pleadings or otherwise", the words used under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, for passing a judgment on admission, is well settled. There are a line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the High Courts that if there is sufficient material on record including express/implied admissions, that can validate passing of a decree on the basis of such admissions, there is no impediment for the Court to accelerate the suit proceedings to a closure by passing a decree on admitted claims.
28....It can be oral or in writing; the admission can be constructive admission as well as without it MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 22 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:50:41 +0530 being specific or expressive, which can be inferred from vague and evasive denials in the written statement while responding to specific pleas taken in the plaint.
33. Therefore, the law is settled that for deciding any application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC, the admission relied upon must be clear unequivocal and consistent. Further, the admissions can be express or implied and can be inferred also.
34. Ld counsel for appellant has relied upon the following paragraphs from the written statement on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 -
"It is submitted that Shri Ram Baksh Gupta is the real brother of the defendant no.1, while the plaintiff is the brother's son of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1. The plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 are closely related. The defendant no.1 and 2 are living at a distance place from the suit property and as such allowed Shri Ram Baksh, who is also living and carrying on business with his son in adjoining property bearing no.11, measuring about 200 square yards as care taker to look after the properties bearing no. 21-A, and 31 A, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. The defendants no.1 and 2 remain in actual and physical possession of the aforesaid properties and thereafter have handed over the possession of the properties bearing no. 21-A and 31A, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi to defendant no.3 and have also executed various documents like agreement to sell, GPA etc all dated 07.07.2017 MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 23 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:50:48 +0530 in favor of defendant no.3. On execution of the documents, the defendants no.1 to 3 went to the house of Shri Ram Baksh Gupta at Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, who was also allowed to keep one set of second keys of the locks of the properties belonging to defendant no.1 and 2 to take it back from him so that the defendant no.3 may replace and change the locks. The plaintiff was also called by his father Shri Ram Baksh Gupta at that time, who had stated that some of his articles are lying in the properties and he will hand over the second set of keys of the lock of the property to the defendants in a day or two. The plaintiff removed his articles from the properties in suit and handed over the set of keys lying with him to the defendants no.1 to 3 on 13.08.2017 in the presence of Shri Nassimuddin and defendants no.1 to 3 have put their locks over the property. The plaintiff at that time has however said that some of his goods are lying there, which he will take back with two days, however have asked the defendants to put their own locks over the same. The defendants put their locks over the properties in suit. Since, some of the articles of the defendant's no.1 and 2 were also there so defendant's no.1 to 3 again came to the property in suit, the plaintiff and his father broke the locks of the defendants put on the properties in suit. The defendant no.3 filed a complaint with the SHO dated 14.08.2017 and call was also made at 100 number PCR on behalf of defendants. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest of any kind in the property in dispute. It is worthwhile to mention that later on it transpired that the plaintiff and his father have also forged and fabricated the documents of the properties in suit for which a complaint dated 24.08.2017 was also lodged by the defendants MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 24 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:50:54 +0530 no.1 and 2 with PS New Asho Nagar, New Delhi and FIR no. 0547 dated 15.09.2017 PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi under sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC has been registered and investigation of which is still going on. It further transpired that the original documents of the properties no.21-A and 31-A, in fact have been stolen by the plaintiff and his father. The plaintiff and his father have forged the signatures of the defendant no.1 and 2 and forged documents like GPA, indemnity bond etc dated 07.04.2003 in respect of the properties belonging to defendants no.1 and 2 and have filed the same which office of the BSES for obtaining/changing their names in the office of the BSES, Yamuna Power Ltd. The forgery is apparent from the set of documents filed by the plaintiff and his father before the office of the BSES Yamuna Power Ltd is totally different to the set of documents filed by them before the PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi and before this Court. The suit of the plaintiff in view of the same is liable to be dismissed and in addition to that the plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted for using forged and fabricated documents as genuine before this Court. It is a fit case where this Court may lodge a complaint U/sec 340 of Cr.P.C.
35. Apart from the above observations, appellant has relied upon the admissions of defendant in documents and pleadings. In the documents they have relied upon the FIR no. 547 dated 15.09.2017 PS New Ashok Nagar wherein the complainant/defendant has stated -
"That since the above-names accused (plaintiff and his father) are close relatives of MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 25 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:51:00
+0530
the complainant, therefore, the complainant appointed them as CARETAKER of the aforesaid property as one adjacent property of the family of accused Rambux Gupta is also situated there."
36. Appellant has also relied upon the further admission in the WS which is given as under-
"... From the above facts, it is clear that the plaintiff and his father have forged and fabricated the documents relating to the property in dispute and have entered into the promise only one day earlier to the filing of the suit.... In view fo the same, it is submitted that the documents of title and possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute are forged and fabricated and does not confer any right, title or interest of any kind in favour of the plaintiff....."
37. Further, reliance is placed upon the admissions of defendant no.3 which is given as under-
" The Plaintiff is neither the owner nor has got any right, title or interest of any kind of property bearing No. B-286, Khasra No. 390/263/1/2 situated in New Ashok Nagar, Delhi measuring about 420 Square yards, which belongs to the Defendant no.3 through the Defenant Nos. 1 and 2. The Plaintiff has based the suit on forged and fabricated document and after forging the documents in respect of the property relating to the Defendants No. 1 & 2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit. The plaintiff has trespassed over the property and a trespasser has not right to seek injunction against the true owner."
MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 26 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:51:07 +0530 "The plaintiff taking benefit of the absence of the defendants break the back side wall and entered into the plot on 14.08.2017. It is however submitted that since the parties are relatives, the father of the plaintiff used to look after the plots of the defendants also. The plaintiff is the real brother's son of defendant no.1."
38. Defendant no.4 in the reply dated 19.07.2017 stated the following as admission-
"Enquiry conducted from the place and found that since approx 15 year Plaintiff Amardeep Gupta is running his business from the said property and also found in possession continuously."
39. Further, in the bail order of Hon'ble Justice Ms. Mukta Gupta in 'Amardeep Gupta Vs. The State', dated 19.07.2018, it was held that -
"2. The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of Smt. Indira Gupta against Ram Baksh Gupta her real brother in law (jeth) and Amardeep Gupta, Son of Ram Baksh Gupta. Complainant alleged that she was the owner of the property bearing No. 390/263/1/2-N, B-286 (New No. 31-A), New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. Since the petitioner and his father were closed relatives she appointed them as caretaker of the aforesaid property as the adjacent property belonged to Ram Baksh Gupta. Complainant lodged a NCR on 6th January, 2012 for the loss of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt, etc. in respect of the property afore-mentioned.
MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 27 of 35
Digitally
signed by
ANIL ANIL KUMAR
PASWAN
KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03
17:51:16
+0530
From sources complainant came to know that the said original documents were stolen by the petitioner from the house of the complainant and are in his custody and possession.
3. On enquiry it was revealed from the officials of BSES that the accused persons forged important documents such as indemnity bond, GPA dated 7th April, 2003 and GPA dated 15th January, 1997. In respect of the property and on the strength of the forged documents transferred the electricity connection installed in the premises in the name of Ram Baksh Gupta.
4. As per the status report during the course of investigation certified copies of the documents submitted by the accused persons for transfer of the electricity connection were collected from the office of the BSES and the documents showed different dates and year from the GPA submitted by the petitioner Amardeep Gupta in the civil suit at Karkardooma Court. Further, it was revealed from the stamp vendor, B.D. Sharma, that stamp papers vide the serial No. 55141 to 55182 were not sold by him on 12th January, 1999. Through the status report notes the conduct of the petitioners, however, the learned Trial Court also noted that besides the complainant claiming to have lost the original documents in respect of the property in the year 2012 when the electricity connection was transferred in the name of the petitioner's father, the Investigating Officer though collected the certified copies but did not compare them with the originals available with the BSES nor bothered to seize the original documents. Learned Trial Court while deciding the bail application of Ram Baksh Gupta also noted that before registration of FIR the complainant had sold the property to a third MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 28 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:51:21 +0530 person, namely, R.C. Chauhan when admittedly the complainant was not in possession of any original document with her. Considering the conduct of both the parties learned Trial Court granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused Ram Baksh Gupta, father of the petitioner."
40. In order to proceed further, this Court has to take into consideration the prayer sought in the suit before Ld. Trial Court. The prayer is reproduced as under-
"a) A decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant nos. 1 to 3, their successors, legal heirs, assigns, representatives, attorneys, agents, servants etc. from illegally dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property i.e. property bearing no.: B-286 (Old no.: 11, 21-A & 31-A_ being part of Khasra No.: 390/263/1/2 situated in Ashok Nagar-II, New Delhi-110096 measuring 620 sq.yds.;
b) A decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.4 for discharging his duties as per law;
c) Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants"
41. It is settled that any admission has to be seen in the context of the prayer sought. For example in the suit by landlord against tenant, admission regarding the tenancy has to be seen in order to adjudicate upon any application U/o 12 rule 6 CPC. Therefore, in the present suit also the admissions of defendant are to be viewed MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 29 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:51:27 +0530 from the point of view of the prayer only. The plaintiff states that he is in possession of the suit property and has annexed various documents showing possession and are pertaining to the contemporary period 2013 to 2017. The documents of defendant are pertaining to the period 2003, 2009, 2011 and 2012.
42. If the admissions of all the parties are perused carefully, there is clear and categorical admission regarding possession of the plaintiff/appellant herein. The only dispute is as to the duration and validity of the possession. The defendants have themselves admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as caretaker in the property being relative. Another admission is that the plaintiff trespassed over the property. One admission of defendant no.4 is that the plaintiff is in possession for the last 15 years continuously and articles of appellant were kept in the suit property (only possible when a person has possession). All these admissions are clear, unequivocal and consistent regarding the possession of plaintiff. This suit is limited qua the relief of injunction for not interfering with the possession of plaintiff/appellant therein without due course of law. When the respondents have admitted the possession of appellant, they have not filed any suit for taking back the possession from appellant. It is the contention of respondent that documents were forged and fabricated and electricity connection was allotted in the name of plaintiff's father. This fact came into knowledge in the year 2017 and from that date no suit has been filed for declaring the forged and fabricated documents as MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 30 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:51:32 +0530 null and void.
43. There is no question of title in this suit and even if there is issue regarding title, the respondents herein have no document in their favor to establish title and on the other hand the appellant have chain of documents starting from 1981. If the appellant was in authorised occupation, the respondent could have filed a suit which has not been done. The Ld counsel for respondent has pointed towards the conduct of appellants and also the police investigation being conducted against the appellants and has posed a question as to whether equitable relief of injunction can be granted to the appellant when there is no proper conduct/suppression of material facts. In this regard it is again important to highlight that this suit is limited to the relief of injunction only and nothing material has been pointed in the form of evidence/document which could show that there was concealment/suppression of facts by the appellant.
44. Further, if according to the respondents, forged documents were prepared and a false FIR was registered regarding the loss of title documents by the appellants then, the respondents too have no title documents in their favor and are also stated to be lost and for which NCR number 16/12 PS Jama Masjid was lodged. Interestingly, defendant no.1 and 2 had sold the suit property to defendant no.3. If there is no title document in possession of defendant no.1 and 2 (being lost), then how can they sell the suit property to defendant no.3. It seems that both the parties are MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 31 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:51:37 +0530 sailing in the same boat regarding titled documents and no party can be blamed more than the other.
45. Further, respondents have also stated that the documents i.e agreement to sell, GPA, etc dated 12.01.1999 are forged and fabricated and the gift deed in favor of Smt. Bimla Devi Gupta dated 09.03.1999 is also unregistered and cannot be acted upon. Moreover, the Will executed by Smt. Bimla Devi Gupta in favor of the appellant does not confer any right, title or interest is also not acceptable in law. Even if the gift deed is unregistered, it can be considered for any collateral purpose in view of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act to ascertain the nature of possession and further there is no requirement of probate in the State of Delhi. Even if the gift deed is not valid, still Sh. Ram Baksh Gupta remains owner of the property and appellant being legal heir is entitled to his property along with other legal heirs.
46. It has come on record that there are two sets of documents provided by appellant however police investigation is in progress and has no concern with this case. No steps have been taken to declare the documents dated 12.01.1999 as null and void by the respondent (as they are aggrieved by those documents) and no suit or counter claim have been filed.
47. The record reflects that the admissions of defendant/respondents herein are very much clear and unequivocal MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 32 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:51:43 +0530 qua the relief sought by the appellants to the extent that the appellant herein was in possession of the suit property. Further, even if denial from the side of defendant is seen, it is vague and evasive and no specific denial can be seen regarding the various contemporaneous documents regarding the property no. B-86 attached with the plaint pertaining to business transactions.
48. The admission as well as documents are clear that the appellant is in possession of the suit property for long. Even if he has arrived/occupied the suit property one day before the filing of suit, the law gives permission to the rightful owner to evict the trespasser in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration, dated 27.11.1967 which reads as under -
"No one including the true owner has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession and has to be evicted in due course of law. However, stray or even intermittent act of trespass do not give such a trespasser a right against rightful owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of rightful owner. The rightful owner may reenter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force then necessary."(emphasis supplied)
49. Therefore, the respondent could have used reasonable force to evict the appellant and regain the possession but the same was not done in this case. Regarding the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 33 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:51:48 +0530 Court in Suraj Lamp Industries Vs. State of Haryana, 11.10.2011 and Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, dated 25.03.2008 , it will be important to state that the documents on which appellant is placing reliance, are the similar to/connected to the documents on which the respondent relies. Both have similar origin/titles if documents are perused and are also unregistered. So no one can claim better title and there can be no cloud upon the title when the title is not in issue in this case and the only issue is regarding the possession. It is submitted that there can be no injunction against the true owner cannot be accepted as there is no certainty regarding the ownership in this case. Moreover, there is no document with the respondents and are stated to have been lost whereas there is complete chain of documents in favor of the appellants.
50. It is admitted that the appellants were relatives and appointed as caretakers, therefore, they stand in the footing of being licensees. When the license is terminated, the respondent can only get the property vacated through due procedure establish by law i.e by filing a regular suit for possession and title which has not been done in this case or in any other case. This suit is limited in scope and pertains only to possession of the appellant which as discussed above is clear and categorical.
51. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 13.12.2022 passed in case bearing CS no. 681/2017 titled as 'Amardeep Gupta Vs. Devi Dayal Gupta & MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 34 of 35 Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN PASWAN Date:
2025.02.03 17:51:53 +0530 Anr., passed by Ld. ASCJ-cum-JSCC-cum- Guardian Judge, East District, Karkardooma Court, is set aside.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
TCR be sent back to the Trial Court with the attested copy of this order. Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date:
PASWAN 2025.02.03 17:51:58 +0530 Pronounced in the open court (Anil Kumar Paswan) on 03.02.2025 DJ-04 (EAST), KKD, Delhi 03.02.2025 MCA DJ no. 25/2024 Amardeep Gupta VS Devi Dayal Gupta Page no. 35 of 35