Delhi District Court
Pawan Deep Singh vs Ibrar Ahmad on 23 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS AUNRADHA JINDAL, ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH,
NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 82443/2016
PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD
CNR No. DLST03-000077-2015
Pawandeep Singh
S/o S. Charanjit Singh,
R/o AB-12B, AB Market,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Kamal Cinema,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029. .....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Ibrar Ahmad
S/o Late Mohd. Muslim
R/o Plot No. AB, AB Market,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Kamal Cinema,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029. .....DEFENDANT
COUNTER CLAIM FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION AS
WELL AS FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 14.05.2015
Date of reserving judgment : 24.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.04.2025
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 1 of 46
JUDGMENT
The Case
1. The present counter claim arises in response to the suit filed by the plaintiff, wherein the plaintiff seeks a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff's claim is based on allegations of wrongful interference with possession, despite lacking any legal right, title, or ownership over the suit property. The defendants/counter claimants, being the rightful owners, are compelled to file this counter claim to assert their legal rights, protect their property, and seek relief against the plaintiff's continued unlawful occupation.
2. The crux of the dispute revolves around the plaintiff's alleged occupation of the suit property. The defendants/counter claimants contend that the plaintiff was initially engaged as a security guard/chowkidar to safeguard the property and was granted limited permission to reside in a small portion of the premises for the duration of his employment. However, upon termination of his services in 2011, the plaintiff refused to vacate the premises despite agreeing to do so in writing, and instead, he has resorted to harassment and litigation to prolong his illegal possession. The defendants further claim that the plaintiff, through false representations, is attempting to assert possessory rights over the property, despite having no legal entitlement.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 2 of 46
3. This counter claim, therefore, seeks a mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove his belongings and vacate the premises, along with a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from carrying out unauthorized construction, creating third-party interest, or causing damage to the property. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's actions constitute an abuse of legal process and that his continued occupation is in violation of the agreement executed between the parties.
4. Thus, the present counter claim is necessitated to seek appropriate judicial intervention to restrain the plaintiff's unlawful actions and protect the legitimate rights of the defendants. The defendants, therefore, invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to grant the reliefs sought herein, ensuring that justice is served in accordance with established legal principles.
5. This Court has duly considered the final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties. The Court has meticulously examined the entire record, giving careful attention to the pleadings, the evidence presented, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Each aspect of the case has been analysed in light of the relevant facts and law, ensuring that all material brought before the Court has been fully reviewed and assessed in reaching a fair and just decision.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 3 of 46 Counter Claim for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction
6. It is stated that the plaintiff has instituted a false and frivolous suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants/counter claimants. The defendants/counter claimants have already filed a detailed written statement, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference and should be treated as an integral part of the present counter claim. The plaintiff, under the guise of seeking mandatory and permanent injunction, is in fact pursuing relief for declaration and possession based on adverse possession, which is legally untenable and liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. The factual background leading to the present counter claim is that the counter claimants had engaged the plaintiff as a security guard (chowkidar) to safeguard and maintain the security of the suit property, i.e., Plot No. AB-12-B, adjacent to Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (previously known as 714/13, Village Kharera, New Delhi), measuring approximately 500 sq. yards. The plaintiff was employed at a monthly salary of Rs.1,600/-, which was paid regularly until April 2011, when his services were terminated. During his employment, the plaintiff was permitted to temporarily occupy a small portion of the suit property, measuring approximately 10- 12 sq. yards, where he raised a makeshift shelter covered with a tirpal, including an open toilet and bathroom for his use. The exact portion is delineated in red in the site plan CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 4 of 46 annexed with this counter claim. Initially, the plaintiff resided alone but later brought his family members and began unauthorized occupation of the property.
8. Upon termination of his services in April 2011, the plaintiff was asked to vacate the suit property. However, he sought financial assistance of Rs.5 lakhs, which the counter claimants, under compelling circumstances, agreed to provide. Consequently, an agreement dated 27.05.2011 was executed between the parties, duly signed by the plaintiff, his wife, and two witnesses, wherein the plaintiff expressly agreed to vacate the property.
9. In furtherance of this agreement, the plaintiff received Rs.75,000/- in installments against separate receipts. However, instead of honoring the agreement, the plaintiff reneged on his commitments and began harassing and blackmailing the counter claimants by filing false complaints against them. The present suit is yet another attempt to misuse the judicial process to further his illegal demands.
10.The plaintiff has now escalated his unlawful demands by insisting on Rs.10 lakhs instead of the agreed Rs.5 lakhs for vacating the premises. The counter claimants categorically refuse to bow down to such coercion. The plaintiff's conduct is a deliberate abuse of legal process, aimed at creating false evidence and prolonging litigation to unlawfully retain possession.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 5 of 46
11.The plaintiff is misusing the process of law to encroach upon the suit property without any legal right, title, or interest. Initially, his occupation was tied to his employment. However, upon termination of his services, he ceased to have any claim over the property. This fact has been acknowledged by the plaintiff himself in his representation before the Delhi Minority Commission.
12.The plaintiff has now begun illegal activities on the suit property, including:
Attempting unauthorized construction under the pretext of "repairs," without obtaining prior written consent from the counter claimants or the concerned municipal authorities.
Threatening to transfer possession of the encroached portion to third parties after demanding huge sums as a premium.
Tampering with the boundary wall to create an unauthorized entry point, despite the existence of a designated entrance.
13.Furthermore, the plaintiff has deliberately blocked the toilet pipe within the property, causing serious nuisance and emitting a foul smell, thereby harassing the counter claimants and creating unhealthy living conditions. Despite repeated requests, he has refused to clear the blockage, necessitating urgent judicial intervention. The counter claimants have repeatedly approached the plaintiff to CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 6 of 46 vacate the premises, desist from illegal construction, and remove the toilet blockage. However, all such amicable efforts have failed, making the present counter claim imperative. The plaintiff's actions are unlawful, arbitrary, and contrary to natural justice. Being aggrieved by these actions, the counter claimants are compelled to seek relief before this Court.
14.The cause of action for this counter claim first arose approximately 10-12 years ago, when the plaintiff was engaged as a chowkidar and was permitted to reside temporarily in a small portion of the property. It further arose in April 2011, when the plaintiff's employment was terminated, and he was asked to vacate the premises. The cause of action was reaffirmed in 2011, when the plaintiff executed an agreement in favor of the counter claimants and received Rs.75,000/- towards financial assistance. However, he later refused to vacate, filed false complaints, and initiated frivolous litigation. The cause of action continues to persist, as the plaintiff remains in unauthorized occupation, despite repeated requests for eviction and compliance with the agreement dated 27.05.2011.
15.The cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Both parties reside and conduct business in Delhi, and the suit property is located within Delhi. Thus, this Court has competent jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. The present counter claim has been CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 7 of 46 valued at Rs.260/- for mandatory injunction and Rs.390 for permanent injunction, with the requisite court fee duly affixed. In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the counter claimants respectfully pray that this Court may be pleased to:
1. Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction, directing the plaintiff to:
o Immediately remove his belongings from the makeshift jhuggi and hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the counter claimants.
o Unblock the toilet pipe or permit the counter claimants to remove the obstruction.
2. Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction, restraining the plaintiff, his agents, family members, and associates from:
o Undertaking unauthorized construction or repairs within the suit property.
o Creating third-party interests by transferring or handing over possession to any other person. o Damaging or breaking the boundary wall in any manner, except for using the designated existing gate.
3. Award costs of the present counter claim in favor of the defendants/counter claimants.
4. Grant any other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 8 of 46 Written Statement to Counter Claim
16.The plaintiff, a long-standing occupant of the suit property, submits that the counter claim filed by the defendants is based on misrepresentations and concealment of material facts. From the outset, it is evident that the defendants have never had any jural, contractual, employer-employee, or licensor-licensee relationship with the plaintiff. The counter claim is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and must be dismissed at the very threshold.
17.For nearly three decades, the plaintiff has been in settled possession of the suit property. By the defendants' own admission, he has continuously occupied the premises. Given this fact, a suit for mandatory injunction, as filed by the defendants, is legally unsustainable. The plaintiff's connection to the property dates back almost 30 years, when he was permitted to reside there by local market shopkeepers who engaged him as a guard. However, unlike what the defendants claim, the plaintiff was never paid a salary. His right to reside in the property was not conditional upon any employment relationship, nor was it granted by the defendants.
18.It was only in 2005 that the defendants suddenly surfaced, claiming ownership of the property. Despite making tall assertions, they produced no documentary proof to substantiate their claims. Again in 2011, they approached the plaintiff, repeating their claim and offering Rs.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 9 of 46 5,00,000/- as compensation if he vacated the premises. Yet, no ownership document was shown, and the plaintiff, being a poor and illiterate man, was lured into signing an agreement under misrepresentation and deception.
19.Under this pretext, the defendants paid him a sum of Rs. 75,000/- but failed to fulfill their end of the bargain. Thereafter, they resorted to coercion and intimidation, attempting to force the plaintiff out of the suit property. Their subsequent false claims of ownership and high- handed tactics are nothing but an attempt to snatch away the property from someone who has been residing there for decades.
20.The plaintiff was never a chowkidar or employee of the defendants, nor was he ever engaged by them for guarding the property. Instead, he was in possession of the entire 500 sq. yard plot, which included his jhuggi and an open area. However, once the defendants falsely asserted ownership, they forcefully occupied a portion of the land and made makeshift constructions. Today, the plaintiff continues to lawfully occupy 150 sq. yards, as correctly depicted in the site plan submitted by him. It is noteworthy that the defendants have not even filed a site plan to support their claims, further highlighting the baseless nature of their assertions.
21.The defendants now claim that the plaintiff owes them Rs. 4,25,000/- or has demanded Rs. 10,00,000/-, but these CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 10 of 46 allegations are entirely false. There has never been any contractual agreement between the parties that could justify such a claim. The agreement signed by the plaintiff in 2011 was obtained through deception, with the plaintiff being made to sign without understanding its contents. The defendants exploited his illiteracy, making false promises of compensation, only to later use the document as a tool of coercion. It is a sham agreement, and its enforceability is highly questionable.
22.Furthermore, the plaintiff's long-standing possession gives him a clear possessory title. The defendants, on the other hand, have never produced a single document to substantiate their ownership. Despite repeatedly asserting that they own the property, they have failed to present even a shred of evidence. Their counter claim is nothing more than a desperate attempt to manufacture a legal right where none exists.
23.The allegations made by the defendants in their counter claim, that the plaintiff has attempted to create third-party interests, alter the boundary wall, or block the toilet pipe, are all false and fabricated. These claims are intended to malign the plaintiff's reputation and distract from the fact that the defendants have no legal claim to the property. In reality, the boundary wall was built by the plaintiff himself, using his own resources, to ensure access to his premises.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 11 of 46
24.The defendants further attempt to rely on a complaint filed before the Minorities Cell, claiming that the plaintiff admitted to being their employee. However, this complaint was filed under a mistaken belief caused by the defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations. The defendants themselves misled the plaintiff into thinking they were the property's rightful owners, and they now seek to take advantage of their own deception. Such reliance is legally untenable. The counter claim is completely devoid of merit, and no cause of action has arisen in favor of the defendants to justify its filing. It has not been properly framed, nor has it been properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction.
25.The plaintiff, therefore, prays for the outright dismissal of the counter claim, along with exemplary costs for the harassment, coercion, and legal misuse perpetrated by the defendants. This counter claim is a blatant abuse of the process of law, filed with the sole intention of intimidating the plaintiff into surrendering possession of the property without any legal basis. The defendants have neither a legal claim nor documentary proof to back their assertions. Their counter claim is a crude and transparent attempt to mislead the Court, and it must be summarily rejected.
Determination of Issues
26.On the basis of pleadings, following issues were identified:-
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 12 of 46
1. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause a (i) ? OPP
2. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause a (ii) ? OPP
3. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed in clause b (i)? OPP
4. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed in clause b (ii) ? OPP
5. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed in clause b (iii) ? OPP
6. Relief, if any.
Evidence
27.The plaintiff's evidence, as recorded in the main suit CS SCJ 82852/16, titled Ibrar Ahmed v. Pawandeep Singh, is to be considered in the present counter claim. Both counsels for the respective parties have recorded their separate statements, agreeing that the evidence led in the main suit shall be treated as evidence in the counter claim as well. Accordingly, the evidence so recorded in the main suit is reproduced hereinbelow.
PW-1/Ibrar Ahmed/Plaintiff No. 128.PW-1, tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A, bearing his signatures at points 'A' and 'B'. In support of his case, he relied upon the following documents:
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 13 of 46 o Ex.PW-1/1 - Site Plan of the suit property. o Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly) - Photographs of the suit premises. o Ex.PW-1/3 to Ex.PW-1/7 - Copies of bank passbooks from New Bank of India and Indian Bank, Aadhaar cards, PAN Card, and Voter Cards, which had been de- exhibited (as noted in affidavit Ex.PW-1/3 to 8). o Mark A - A copy of the passport, which had also been de-exhibited (as per affidavit Ex.PW-1/9). o Mark B (Colly) - A copy of complaints dated 01.10.2014 and 06.10.2014.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-1
29.By way of evidence affidavit, PW-1, Sh. Ibrar Ahmed, has affirmed that he is a law-abiding citizen of India and has been residing at the suit property, located at Plot No. AB, AB Market, Near Punjab National Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, for approximately 30 years along with his family. The property consists of a jhuggi and a bathroom, with the remaining portion lying vacant. He has submitted a site plan and photographs of the suit property, which are already on record as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 (Colly).
30.PW-1 asserts that he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for over three decades. He relies on various documents to substantiate his claim, including his bank account records dating back to 1985, election identity cards, income tax records, voter CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 14 of 46 slips, passport, and Aadhaar cards of himself and his family members, which have been exhibited as Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/9. He claims possessory rights over the suit property and asserts that he has acquired ownership through adverse possession.
31.PW-1 alleges that the defendants, despite having no right, title, or interest in the suit property, have been attempting to forcibly dispossess him and his family with the support of local authorities. He contends that the defendants have resorted to threats and intimidation, unlawfully interfering with his peaceful possession. They have allegedly obstructed his ability to carry out construction or repairs on the property, which is in a deteriorated condition. Additionally, they have interfered with his religious practices and attempted to restrict his ingress and egress by placing locks on the entrance.
32.PW-1 narrates specific incidents of harassment by the defendants. On 14.08.2014, the defendants, along with their associates, allegedly threatened him and his family, attempted to forcibly evict them, and began throwing their household belongings. However, with the intervention of neighbors, the attempt was thwarted, and the defendants left while issuing further threats. On 22.09.2014, the defendants allegedly returned to the suit property, engaged in a quarrel, used abusive language, and attempted to forcibly remove PW-1's belongings while demanding that he vacate the premises.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 15 of 46
33.On 01.10.2014, the defendants once again came to the property and issued threats that they would implicate PW- 1's children in false criminal cases or even resort to violence if he did not vacate immediately. Consequently, PW-1 lodged a complaint with the SHO, PS Safdarjung Enclave, vide DD No. 62B dated 01.10.2014, but claims that no action was taken. Copies of the complaints dated 01.10.2014 and 06.10.2014 have been marked as Ex. PW1/10 (Colly).
34.On 06.10.2014, while PW-1 and his family were celebrating Eid-ul-Zuha, the defendants allegedly attempted to disrupt the celebration by issuing threats and trying to throw away their belongings. PW-1 and his wife reported the matter to the police, following which ASI Ravi Shankar visited the suit property, prepared a site plan, and instructed both parties to maintain peace. However, despite police intervention, the defendants allegedly continued to cause disturbances.
35.PW-1 asserts that the defendants have no legal claim over the suit property and, therefore, have no right to issue threats or forcibly evict him and his family. He maintains that his possession of the property is lawful and that he is entitled to relief as prayed for in the suit.
36.PW-1 contends that he has acquired ownership of the suit property through adverse possession and seeks protection CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 16 of 46 against unlawful eviction. He claims that the defendants' attempts to dispossess him have been illegal and arbitrary. The complaints lodged with the police, coupled with his long-standing possession, form the basis of his claim for relief in the present suit.
Cross-Examination of PW-1
37.During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he did not know English. The plaint had been read over to him by one M. M. Shukla, who had since passed away. PW-1 signed the plaint only after understanding its contents.
38.Regarding the photographs (Ex.PW-1/2 Colly), PW-1 could not recall the name of the person who had taken them but confirmed that they were taken in 2006 at his instance. Around 4-5 photographs had been taken. PW-1 did not remember the amount paid to the photographer, nor did he have a receipt for the payment. The negatives of these photographs had been destroyed. These photographs had been taken purely for his own record.
39.Regarding the site plan (Ex.DW-1/1), PW-1 did not recall when it had been prepared or who had prepared it. He could not confirm whether the person who prepared it had visited the site or had drawn it in court at his request. He also did not know whether such draftsmen sat in any court premises in Delhi or operated from the market. In the site plan (Ex.PW-1/1), the portion marked in red had been in CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 17 of 46 his possession, while the portion in blue had been occupied by Pawan Deep. The portion marked 'X' represented a bathroom, but PW-1 could not state its exact measurement. Similarly, he could not recall the size of the Jhuggi (marked as 'Y') in the site plan.
40.PW-1 denied the defendant's suggestion that the photographs (Ex.PW-1/2 Colly) did not pertain to the plot in question. He also refuted the claim that the site plan did not accurately depict the property. PW-1 did not recall whether he had filed a complaint at the police station before filing the present suit, nor did he remember the exact date when he filed the suit.
41.PW-1 reiterated that his Jhuggi did not have a specific number, but its address had been AB Block, Near PNB, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. He disputed the defendant's assertion that the plot was numbered AB-12B.
42.Regarding the agreement dated 27.05.2011, PW-1 confirmed that his signatures appeared at point 'A' and those of his wife at point 'B' on the document marked as Ex.PW-1/D1. Similarly, the receipt dated 07.06.2011 bore his signature at point 'A' and his wife's at point 'B' (now marked as Ex.PW-1/D2). Another receipt dated 20.08.2011 also contained their signatures (now marked as Ex.PW-1/D3). A complaint dated 04.08.2014, marked as Ex.PW-1/D4, had been written in the handwriting of his CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 18 of 46 daughter, Runak, at his instance. PW-1 stated that document Ex.PW-1/D1 had been blank at the time he signed it, and he did so at his residence. He never filed a complaint alleging that Defendant No.1 obtained his signatures on blank papers.
43.PW-1 did not remember the exact date, month, or year when he signed documents Ex.PW-1/D1 to D4, but confirmed that these documents had been signed on different dates. The document Ex.PW-1/D3 had been written in his son's handwriting, and its contents had already been written when he signed Ex.PW-1/D2 and Ex.PW-1/D3. PW-1 stated that he had filed a complaint with PS Safdarjung Enclave on 17.12.2014.
44.PW-1 stated that he had been 62 years old and was born in Darbhanga, Bihar. He did not remember when he shifted to Delhi, nor did he recall his exact age at that time. He had first moved to Delhi alone and had initially worked as a whitewasher in Kamal Cinema Market, a trade he continued to pursue. In 1988-89, since he had no fixed home, he had slept anywhere in the market. His wife had joined him in Delhi in 1984. At the time of moving to Delhi, he had no children. His first child had been born in 1986, on the road where he had been sleeping. PW-1 denied the suggestion that his child had been born in a hospital.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 19 of 46
45.The local residents, seeing his situation, had suggested that he construct a jhuggi on a vacant plot and start living there. He had followed their advice, and his first child had been born in the jhuggi in 1986. PW-1 disputed the claim that he had started living in the jhuggi only in 2005. When he had built his jhuggi, the entire plot had been vacant, and he had not sought permission from anyone before constructing it. Other people had also constructed jhuggis nearby, and he had followed suit. He had first heard in 2005 that the plot was allegedly owned by Charanjeet Singh, but he had never entered into any agreement to vacate it with him.
46.PW-1 had five children, all of whom had been born in the same jhuggi and not in a hospital. He claimed to possess a document proving his occupation of the plot since 1986 and stated that he had submitted it in court records. Upon reviewing the judicial file, he identified a photocopy of his passbook, now marked as Mark A, but he had not brought the original to court. This document contained his address as Jhuggi near AB-28, SIE Market, New Delhi.
47.PW-1 denied the claim that Mark A did not reflect the suit property's address. At the time of filing the present suit, he had provided his address as Plot AB, AB Block, Near PNB Bank, Safdarjung Enclave, Kamal Cinema, New Delhi. PW-1 acknowledged that none of the photographs (Ex.PW1/2 Colly) visibly displayed the address of the suit property. However, he strongly denied the suggestion that CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 20 of 46 these photographs did not pertain to the disputed property. He stated that he might still have the negatives, but he had not submitted them in court.
48.PW-1 did not have municipal birth certificates for his children, as they had been born at home, not in a hospital. He denied the suggestion that the money received from the defendant had been in exchange for vacating the suit property. He stated that the amount given to him by the defendant in Ex.PW1/D2, PW1/D3, and PW1/D1 had been for "Daan" (financial assistance) for his daughter Rukshana, who remained unmarried and was around 22-24 years old.
PW-2/Smt. Rehmati Begum/wife of Plaintiff No. 1
49.PW-2 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW- 2/A and did not exhibit any document.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-2
50.Smt. Rehmati Begum, wife of the plaintiff, deposed that she has been residing with the plaintiff in the suit property since its inception and is well-acquainted with the facts of the case. She affirmed that approximately 30 years ago, local market shopkeepers had engaged the plaintiff as a guard but provided him only a place to reside in the suit property without any salary.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 21 of 46
51.In 2005, the defendants/counter claimants appeared and introduced themselves as the owners of the suit property. They repeated the same claim in 2011 and assured the plaintiff that, in recognition of his services in guarding the property, they would compensate him with Rs. 5 lakhs if he vacated the premises. However, they never produced any ownership documents. The plaintiff, being a poor man, was misled by these promises. Eventually, the defendants induced the plaintiff into an agreement, made partial payments of approximately Rs. 75,000, and later resorted to coercive and high-handed tactics to force him out of the property.
52.She categorically denied that the plaintiff was ever an employee or chowkidar of the defendants/counter claimants. She asserted that the plaintiff initially occupied the entire plot measuring 500 square yards, comprising a jhuggi and an open area. However, after the defendants' claims of ownership, they took possession of a portion of the property and constructed makeshift structures. The plaintiff currently retains possession of 150 square yards, as accurately depicted in the site plan submitted by him.
53.Rehmati Begum contended that the agreement in question was procured through fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants/counter claimants. The plaintiff, an illiterate man incapable of reading and writing, was not allowed to review its contents before signing. She reiterated that the plaintiff was never an employee of the defendants, nor do CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 22 of 46 the defendants have any legal right, title, or interest in the suit property.
54.She further asserted that the plaintiff has possessory title over the suit property, whereas the defendants have none. The complaint made to the Delhi Minorities Commission was based on a misunderstanding created by the fraudulent misrepresentations of the defendants. The counterclaim filed by the defendants, according to her, is baseless and ought to be dismissed.
Cross-examination of PW-2
55.PW-2 stated that she was 55 years old, illiterate, and a housewife. She could not recall the exact year of her marriage with the plaintiff and had no documents to substantiate it. She clarified that during that time, marriages were not formally documented. She deposed voluntarily in the present matter.
56.Upon being asked about the contents of her affidavit Ex. PW2/A, she initially stated that she had not prepared any affidavit but had signed 7-8 blank papers. However, upon being shown Ex. PW2/A, she acknowledged awareness of its contents and confirmed that she had signed it. She stated that it was prepared by her advocate at the Saket Court premises, and she signed it willingly without anyone's coercion.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 23 of 46
57.PW-2 stated that she came to Delhi in 1984 and, since then, had resided in the plot in question. Her husband had been looking after the market near the suit property. She confirmed that her husband had constructed a house on the plot before she joined him in Delhi. She asserted that her husband never worked as a guard in the market but merely looked after it without any remuneration. She maintained that there was no owner of the plot when she and her husband started residing there and that, to date, no one had established ownership over the plot. She reiterated that she had been residing in the suit property for over 39 years.
58.When asked about the total area of her constructed house, PW-2 stated that initially, the area was 500 sq. yards, but now only 150 sq. yards remained in their possession. She alleged that the remaining portion was taken by the defendants in 2011 after getting a few blank papers signed from them.
59.Upon further questioning, she described the structure of the house, stating that it consisted of one room, one courtyard, one toilet, and one bathroom. She could not provide the exact dimensions of the room but stated that it was large enough to accommodate 3-4 beds.
60.PW-2 admitted that neither she nor her husband had filed any case to reclaim the portion of the land allegedly taken by the defendants. They had also not lodged any formal complaint with any authority regarding the dispossession.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 24 of 46 However, she volunteered that they had approached the local MLA, Ms. Kiran Waliya, and later went to the police station, where her husband had filed complaints in 2014. She refuted the suggestion that neither she nor her husband had ever made any complaint regarding the alleged dispossession.
61.She confirmed that there was no boundary wall separating the portion in the defendants' possession from the part she claimed. She stated that there were two gates to access the entire plot--one at the front and another at the back. She mentioned that the main gate was in the area occupied by the defendants, while the second access was from a narrow alley (gali). She clarified that while she used the main gate, her children accessed the plot from the gali side by climbing over a waist-height wall.
62.She admitted that neither she nor her husband sought permission from the MCD before constructing their house. She acknowledged that the defendants had raised construction in the portion they occupied but stated that the construction was done overnight. However, she admitted that they did not file any complaint regarding this construction.
63.Upon being shown Ex. PW1/D1, PW-2 denied executing or signing the document. She also denied that the signatures at Point B belonged to her or that the signatures at Point A belonged to her husband. Similar denials were CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 25 of 46 made for documents Ex. PW1/D2, Ex. PW1/D3, and Ex. PW1/D4, stating that neither she nor her husband had executed or signed them. She expressed uncertainty regarding whether they had approached the Delhi Minority Commission in 2014 and whether they had received any notice dated 14.10.2014 from the commission (Ex. PW1/D5).
64.When asked whether Ex. PW1/D4 was in the handwriting of her daughter Ronak, she initially denied it but later stated that she and her husband had signed blank papers at the behest of Charanjeet Singh, which were later misused by the defendants. However, she again stated that she could not remember.
65.Regarding the financial transactions, PW-2 admitted that the defendants paid a total of Rs. 75,000/- to them in installments of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. However, she claimed that the amount was given as a donation for the marriage of their daughter, Ruksana, who got married in 2023. She denied the suggestion that this amount was financial assistance for vacating the suit property.
66.PW-2 confirmed that the suit property was described as AB Plot, AB Block, Near PNB Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, and insisted that it had no number other than AB.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 26 of 46
67.She stated that all five of her children were born in the suit property while she was residing there with the plaintiff. She affirmed that none of them was born in a nursing home or hospital but at home. However, she was unsure whether she possessed their birth certificates. She denied concealing these documents from the court.
68.PW-2 rejected the suggestion that the suit property was AB-12B, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. She also denied that the plaintiff was an illegal occupant of the property or that he was merely a permissive occupier, allowed to reside there to guard the plot for the defendants. She refuted the claim that the plaintiff had no possessory rights over the suit property. She vehemently denied that the present suit had been filed with malafide intentions to grab the defendants' property or extort money from them. She categorically rejected the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
Final Arguments Submissions on behalf of the Defendants (Counter-Claimants):
69.Learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that the plaintiff was initially permitted to occupy a small portion of the suit property in his capacity as a chowkidar during his employment, and that his possession was purely permissive in nature. It is contended that upon termination of his services in April 2011, the plaintiff executed an CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 27 of 46 agreement dated 27.05.2011, undertaking to vacate the premises against financial assistance. The said agreement, duly signed by the plaintiff and his wife, along with receipts evidencing payment of Rs.75,000/-, has been relied upon to substantiate the defendants' case.
70.It is further argued that despite receiving the agreed amount, the plaintiff failed to vacate the premises and instead filed false complaints and initiated frivolous litigation. It is submitted that the plaintiff's possession after termination of employment is illegal and unauthorized. The plea of adverse possession taken by the plaintiff is legally untenable, as hostile possession cannot be claimed by one who has acknowledged the defendants' authority by entering into an agreement to vacate. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has no title or right over the suit property, and his continued occupation is without lawful basis.
71.It is argued that the plaintiff has also indulged in unauthorized constructions and alterations on the suit property, obstructed the functioning of facilities such as the toilet pipe, and attempted to create third-party interests, all of which justify the grant of mandatory and permanent injunctions as sought in the counter-claim. Accordingly, learned counsel for the defendants has prayed that the counter-claim be decreed in their favor, and appropriate reliefs be granted to protect the suit property from further unlawful acts of the plaintiff.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 28 of 46 Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff (Counter-claim Defendant):
72.Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff has been in settled, peaceful, and continuous possession of the suit property for over three decades. It is contended that the plaintiff's possession is evidenced by public documents, including site plans, photographs, voter identification cards, bank passbooks, and other supporting records, which have not been effectively challenged by the defendants.
73.It is further submitted that there existed no jural relationship of employment, license, or agency between the plaintiff and the defendants. The assertion of the defendants that the plaintiff was engaged as a chowkidar is stated to be a false and belated claim, unsupported by any documentary evidence. It is argued that mere oral assertions cannot defeat the plaintiff's long-standing possession.
74.Learned counsel for the plaintiff has emphasized that the defendants have failed to produce any ownership documents in support of their claim over the suit property. It is submitted that the plaintiff's settled possession, even in the absence of formal title, is entitled to protection under law and cannot be disturbed without following due process.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 29 of 46
75.It is further submitted that the defendants failed to lead any evidence in support of their counter-claim, and their right to do so was closed by a judicial order. In these circumstances, it is contended that the counter-claim is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed with costs, while the plaintiff's peaceful possession ought to be protected.
Analysis and Findings Issue No. 1:
Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause a (i) ? OPP
76.Prayer clause a (i) of the plaint reads as follows:-
(a) pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the defendants /counter claimants and against the opposite party, thereby directing the plaintiff/opposite party to:-
(i) immediately remove his goods/articles from the temporary jhuggi covered with a tirpal along with open toilet and bath room, constructed in one of the corners of the suit property bearing No.AB-12-B, adjoining to Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (previously known as 714/13 etc. min, Village Kharera, New Delhi) as more specifically shown and delineated in red colour in the site plan annexed with the present counter claim, and to hand over its actual, vacant, peaceful and physical possession in favour of the counter claimants;
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 30 of 46
77.The onus to prove this issue was upon the counter claimants.
78.The counter claimants seek a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to remove his goods and articles from the temporary jhuggi, covered with a tirpal, along with an open toilet and bathroom allegedly constructed in a corner of the suit property bearing No. AB-12-B, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, and to hand over actual, vacant, peaceful, and physical possession to the counter claimants.
79.In order to succeed, the counter claimants were required to prove two essential elements:
(i) That they possess a legal right, title, or interest over the suit property entitling them to seek eviction of the plaintiff; and
(ii) That the plaintiff's possession is unauthorized and illegal so as to warrant the grant of a decree of mandatory injunction.
80.Upon careful examination of the pleadings and the material available on record, it emerges that although the counter claimants have alleged that the plaintiff was initially permitted to occupy a small portion of the suit property in his capacity as a chowkidar during his employment. It is a matter of record that the counter claimants' right to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 19.09.2024, and their application seeking recall of CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 31 of 46 the said order was dismissed on 17.01.2025. Consequently, the counter claimants have not examined any witness or produced any documentary evidence to establish either their ownership, lawful possession, or the existence of any jural relationship with the plaintiff.
81.It is a settled principle of civil jurisprudence that mere assertions in pleadings do not constitute proof. A party seeking relief before a court of law must prove its case by leading proper oral and documentary evidence. In the absence of any evidence, the pleadings of the counter claimants remain bald allegations without evidentiary support.
82.Further, the requirement to seek a decree of mandatory injunction imposes a stricter burden on the claimant, as such reliefs, by their very nature, direct a change in the existing state of affairs and compel a party to act in a particular manner. Courts have consistently held that grant of mandatory injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief, and it is only awarded where the plaintiff demonstrates a clear legal right, substantial injury, and absence of any alternative remedy. In the present case, none of these foundational requirements have been satisfied by the counter claimants.
83.On the contrary, the plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 and has led positive evidence to establish his long-standing possession over the suit property. The plaintiff has placed on record the site plan, photographs, public documents CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 32 of 46 such as bank passbooks, and identification documents reflecting his address at the suit property. His oral testimony also supports his residence at the suit property.
84.It is also noteworthy that the plaintiff's claim to possession is strengthened by the settled legal principle that a person in peaceful possession cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law, irrespective of whether such possession is lawful or otherwise. The Apex Court, in its various pronouncements, has emphasized that even a trespasser in settled possession cannot be evicted except through a legal process.
85.In the present case, in the absence of proof of ownership, title, or superior right, the counter claimants cannot seek to dislodge the plaintiff's possession merely by alleging unauthorized occupation. Their counter claim for mandatory injunction is thus legally unsustainable.
86.Accordingly, it is held that the counter claimants have failed to discharge the onus placed upon them to prove their entitlement to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause a(i) of the plaint. Thus, Issue No. 1 is decided against the counter claimants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2 :
Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause a (ii) ? OPP CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 33 of 46
87.Prayer clause a (ii) of the plaint reads as follows:-
(a) pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the defendants /counter claimants and against the opposite party, thereby directing the plaintiff/opposite party to:-
(ii) immediately remove the blockage so made in the toilet and to open the toilet pipe so blocked by the plaintiff/opposite party and/or in the alternative to allow the defendants/counter claimants to open the said pipe by removing the blockage therein.
88.The onus to prove this issue was upon the counter claimants.
89.The counter claimants, by way of clause a (ii) of their prayer, seek a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to immediately remove the blockage allegedly created in the toilet pipe within the suit property, or, in the alternative, to allow the counter claimants to remove the said blockage themselves.
90.In order to succeed, it was incumbent upon the counter claimants to establish through cogent and reliable evidence:
(i) That the blockage in the toilet pipe was in fact created by the plaintiff,
(ii) That the blockage is continuing to cause nuisance, obstruction, or injury to the counter claimants' use and enjoyment of their portion of the suit property, and CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 34 of 46
(iii) That despite requests, the plaintiff has refused to remove the blockage, thereby necessitating judicial intervention.
91.Upon perusal of the pleadings and the record, it emerges that the counter claimants have merely made general assertions in their counter claim to the effect that the plaintiff deliberately blocked the toilet pipe within the suit property, thereby causing nuisance. However, the counter claimants have failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate these allegations.
92.As noted earlier, the counter claimants' right to lead evidence was closed vide judicial orders dated 19.09.2024 and 17.01.2025. Consequently, no witness has entered the witness box to depose as to the existence of the alleged blockage, the cause of the blockage, or the responsibility of the plaintiff in creating the said obstruction. No independent witness, technical report, inspection note, or photographic evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate the actual existence of the blockage or the extent of inconvenience caused thereby.
93.It is a settled principle of law that he who asserts must prove. A party seeking a decree of mandatory injunction must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of a right, the violation thereof, and the need for issuance of mandatory directions to restore or protect that right. Mere allegations in pleadings, unsupported by CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 35 of 46 evidence, are insufficient to grant such relief, particularly where the relief sought is in the nature of compelling a party to perform a specific act.
94.In the absence of any evidence establishing that the plaintiff has blocked the toilet pipe, or that the said blockage is attributable to his actions, or that it continues to cause material harm to the counter claimants, this Court is unable to find any justification to grant a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed.
95.Furthermore, it is significant to note that the counter claimants have not produced any expert evidence or civil maintenance report or municipal authority report regarding the alleged blockage. In disputes of this nature, especially concerning nuisance or obstruction of sanitary facilities, an official inspection report or testimony from an independent authority ordinarily carries evidentiary weight, which is missing in the present case.
96.The allegations made by the counter claimants remain wholly unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. Without any proof of wrongdoing by the plaintiff and without any proof of continuing nuisance, granting a mandatory injunction would amount to granting relief on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures, which is impermissible under law.
97.Accordingly, it is held that the counter claimants have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon them CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 36 of 46 for this issue. Thus, Issue No. 2 is decided against the counter claimants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3 :
Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed in clause b (i)? OPP
98.Prayer clause b (i) of the plaint reads as follows:-
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the defendants /counter claimants and against the plaintiff/opposite party, his agents, employees, associates, workers, family members and the persons working on his behalf from:-
(i) raising any illegal and unauthorized construction or carrying out any repairing activities in the temporary jhuggi covered with a tirpal along with open toilet and bath room, constructed in one of the corners of the suit property bearing No.AB-12-B, adjoining to Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (previously known as 714/13 etc. min, Village Kharera, New Delhi), as more specifically shown and delineated in red colour in the site plan annexed with the present counter claim, without the written consent, knowledge and permission of the defendants/ counter claimants and/or Corporation;
99.The onus to prove this issue was upon the counter claimants.
100. The counter claimants, through prayer clause b (i), seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff, his agents, employees, associates, family CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 37 of 46 members, and others acting on his behalf from raising any illegal or unauthorized construction or carrying out any repairing activities in the temporary jhuggi covered with a tirpal along with an open toilet and bathroom situated at one corner of the suit property bearing No. AB-12-B, adjoining Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, without the prior written consent of the counter claimants and/or the municipal authorities.
101. It is settled law that in order to succeed in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie right, the existence of a threat of infringement of that right, and the absence of an equally efficacious remedy. In the present counter claim, the counter claimants were required to demonstrate, through credible evidence, their ownership or lawful entitlement over the suit property and the unauthorized actions of the plaintiff which infringe their rights and require the grant of an injunction.
102. Upon examining the record, it is evident that while the counter claimants have asserted ownership and permissive occupation of the plaintiff initially, they have not produced any evidence to substantiate their title or lawful entitlement over the suit property. As already discussed, the counter claimants' right to lead evidence was closed by the Court vide order dated 19.09.2024, and the application for recall of the said order was dismissed on 17.01.2025. Consequently, no witness has been examined, nor any document proved to establish CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 38 of 46 ownership, lawful possession, or any superior right over the suit property.
103. Further, no documentary or photographic evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate that the plaintiff has carried out any illegal or unauthorized construction or repair activities during the pendency of the proceedings or otherwise. The pleadings alleging that the plaintiff is making unauthorized construction remain bald assertions without any supporting material. In the absence of a proper site plan, the exact location of the alleged unauthorized construction or repair activities remains vague and unverified.
104. It is also well settled that mere apprehension of possible unauthorized construction without proof of actual violation is not sufficient to grant an injunction. Courts do not restrain parties from using or enjoying properties unless there is clear and imminent threat of unlawful acts causing irreparable injury. In the instant case, the counter claimants have failed to establish any specific instance of ongoing illegal construction or repair undertaken by the plaintiff requiring intervention by way of permanent injunction.
105. The cumulative effect of the counter claimants' failure to prove their title, possession, the existence of unauthorized construction, and imminent threat leads this CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 39 of 46 Court to conclude that they have failed to discharge the burden placed upon them.
106. Accordingly, it is held that the counter claimants are not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for. Thus, Issue No. 3 is decided against the counter claimants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 4 :
Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed in clause b (ii) ? OPP
107. Prayer clause b (ii) of the plaint reads as follows:-
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the defendants /counter claimants and against the plaintiff/opposite party, his agents, employees, associates, workers, family members and the persons working on his behalf from:-
ii) creating any third party interest over the temporary jhuggi covered with a tirpal along with open toilet and bath room, constructed in one of the corners of the suit property bearing No.AB-12-B, adjoining to Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (previously known as 714/13 etc. min, Village Kharera, New Delhi), as more specifically shown and delineated in red colour in the site plan annexed with the present counter claim, by transferring or handing over the possession thereof in favour of any third person except the defendants/counter claimants in any manner whatsoever.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 40 of 46
108. The onus to prove this issue was upon the counter claimants.
109. The counter claimants, by way of prayer clause b
(ii), seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff, his agents, family members, and associates from creating any third-party interest by transferring, assigning, or handing over possession of the temporary jhuggi structure, covered with tirpal, along with the open toilet and bathroom, constructed in one of the corners of the suit property bearing No. AB-12-B, adjoining Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, to any person other than the counter claimants.
110. In order to succeed in obtaining such a decree, the counter claimants were required to establish:
(i) That they possess lawful ownership or possessory rights over the suit property or the portion in question;
(ii) That the plaintiff is either attempting or likely to create third-party interests without any right; and
(iii) That there exists a real, immediate, and substantive threat of third-party rights being created to the prejudice of the counter claimants.
111. Upon perusal of the pleadings and record, it is evident that the counter claimants have not produced any evidence whatsoever to substantiate their claims. Despite alleging that the plaintiff was permitted to reside CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 41 of 46 temporarily and is now illegally attempting to transfer possession to third parties, no witness has been examined, nor any document filed to prove such apprehension or attempted third-party transactions.
112. As already recorded in earlier findings, the counter claimants' right to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 19.09.2024, and their recall application was dismissed on 17.01.2025. Thus, their pleadings stand unsubstantiated by any oral or documentary evidence.
113. The law relating to grant of permanent injunction is well-settled that injunctions cannot be granted merely on speculative apprehensions. The party seeking injunction must demonstrate an actual or imminent threat of infringement of a legal right. In the present case, there is neither any documentary evidence suggesting any transfer of possession by the plaintiff to third parties, nor any oral evidence supporting the existence of such a real threat. Mere bald averments in pleadings without proof cannot constitute a ground for grant of a decree of injunction.
114. Furthermore, it is noted that the counter claimants have failed to prove any superior title or lawful ownership over the suit property. In the absence of establishing a stronger legal right over the suit premises, they cannot claim to restrict the plaintiff's acts unless there is a proven threat of unlawful alienation adversely affecting their proprietary rights.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 42 of 46
115. Thus, the counter claimants have failed to discharge the burden placed upon them for this issue as well. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is decided against the counter claimants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 5 :
Whether the counter claimant is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed in clause b (iii) ? OPP
116. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Prayer clause b (iii) of the plaint reads as follows:-
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the defendants /counter claimants and against the plaintiff/opposite party, his agents, employees, associates, workers, family members and the persons working on his behalf from:-
(iii) damaging/break opening the boundary wall either in whole or in part construction around the suit property bearing No.AB-12-B, adjoining to Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (previously known as 714/13 etc. min, Village Kharera, New Delhi), as more specifically shown and delineated in the site plan annexed with the present counter claim in order to make entry to use the same for ingress and egress purposes except the gate already constructed in the suit property for the said whatsoever, justice. purposes, in any manner in the interest of justice.
CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 43 of 46
117. The onus to prove this issue was upon the counter claimants.
118. The counter claimants, by way of prayer clause b
(iii), seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff, his family members, associates, and workers from damaging or breaking open the boundary wall, either in whole or in part, around the suit property bearing No. AB-12-B, adjoining Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, in order to create a new entry for ingress and egress purposes, except through the gate already constructed in the suit property.
119. In order to succeed in this relief, the counter claimants were required to establish:
(i) That a boundary wall exists enclosing the suit property or a part thereof,
(ii) That the plaintiff has either attempted to damage or has threatened to damage the boundary wall to create an unauthorized entry point, and
(iii) That there exists a real and imminent threat justifying intervention by way of a permanent injunction.
120. Upon examination of the pleadings and material on record, it is noted that the counter claimants have alleged that the plaintiff, in continuation of his illegal acts, is attempting to damage the boundary wall to create an alternative access to the suit property. However, there is no CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 44 of 46 oral or documentary evidence adduced to support these allegations.
121. The counter claimants' right to lead evidence was closed by order dated 19.09.2024, and their application for recall of the said order was dismissed on 17.01.2025. No witness has entered the witness box to depose regarding the existence of a boundary wall, the condition of the wall, or any act or attempt by the plaintiff to damage or breach the said wall. No photographs, inspection reports, or site verification documents have been produced to corroborate the alleged threat.
122. It is a well-established principle that permanent injunctions cannot be granted merely on hypothetical fears or apprehensions. The existence of a boundary wall, the acts of interference, or the threat thereof must be specifically proved by credible evidence. In the present case, mere assertions in the counter claim without any proof fall short of the standard required for grant of relief. In the absence of a proper site plan and proof of the alleged obstruction or damage, the Court cannot assume the existence of a factual matrix warranting injunction.
123. Additionally, the counter claimants have also failed to establish their ownership or lawful possession over the entirety of the suit property or over the boundary wall, which could entitle them to seek protection against alleged acts of the plaintiff. It is also important to note that, the balance of convenience does not lie in granting an CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 45 of 46 injunction based purely on unsubstantiated fears, without evidence of actual damage or threat. Thus, the counter claimants have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon them with respect to this issue as well.
124. Accordingly, it is held that the counter claimants are not entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in clause b (iii). Thus, Issue No.5 is decided against the counter claimants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief :
125. In view of the analysis and findings above, no relief can be granted to the counter claimant. Accordingly, the counterclaim is hereby dismissed. No Order as to costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Announced in the open court Digitally on 23.04.2025. signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2025.04.23 13:03:04 +0530 (ANURADHA JINDAL) ASCJ-cum-JSCC-CUM-GJ (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi CS SCJ 82443/16 PAWANDEEP SINGH VS IBRAR AHMAD 46 of 46