Delhi High Court - Orders
Jogendra vs Saroj & Ors on 9 April, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 66/2026, CM APPL. 22835-22838/2026
JOGENDRA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sidharth Tyagi, Advocate
versus
SAROJ & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 09.04.2026 CM APPL. 22837/2026 (Exemption - Decree), CM APPL. 22836/2026 (Exemption - Documents)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL. 22835/2026 (Condonation of Delay of 62 Days), CM APPL. 22836/2026 (Exemption), CM APPL. 22838/2026 (Condonation of Delay of 71 Days in Re-Filing)
3. The above two Applications have been filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking Condonation of 62 Days in filing the Second Appeal and 71 Days in Re-Filing the Appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the Applications, the delay of 62 Days in filing the Second Appeal, and 71 Days in Re-Filing the Appeal, is condoned.
5. Both the Applications are allowed and stand disposed of, accordingly.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56 RSA 66/2026:
6. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2025 whereby the learned District Judge has upheld the Order of the learned Civil Judge dated 22.02.2020 rejecting the Suit of the Plaintiff / Appellant for Declaration and Permanent Injunction as barred by limitation, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
7. The facts in brief are that Plaintiff / Appellant is the grandson and one of the legal heirs of late Smt. Chandro @ Chandrawati, who was the co- owner and co-bhumidhar of agricultural land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Rewla Khanpur, New Delhi. The land in question measures approximately 78 bighas and 17 biswa, spread across several Khasra numbers (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Property') with the share of late Smt. Chandro reflected in the revenue records and in the Khatauni for the year 1995-96.
8. The land constituted ancestral and valuable agricultural holdings of the family and the Appellant by succession, claimed to have acquired rights and interest, being the lawful legal heirs.
9. The Plaintiff / Appellant further asserted that the ancestral land has been fraudulently alienated by way of a purported Sale Deed dated 08.01.1997, allegedly executed by one Smt. Rami, sister of late Smt. Chandro. In connivance and active collusion with Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, Smt. Rami fraudulently impersonated herself as Smt. Chandro and projected herself as co-owner/co-bhumidhar of the property.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56 On the basis of her impersonation and fraud, the Sale Deed got registered and thereafter, the mutation was carried out in the name of the Respondents.
10. Sh. Narayan Singh, a distant relative of late Smt. Chandro without any authority, SPA or GPA, lodged a criminal complaint in 1997 in his individual capacity, although in the name of late Smt. Chandro, under Sections 416/417/468/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). through one Sh. Narayan Singh.
11. On this complaint, the investigation was carried out and the criminal proceedings were initiated. During the course of investigation and trial, it emerged that Respondent No. 1 & Respondent No. 2 had benefited from the fraudulent transaction. Though by Order dated 17.10.2015, the Criminal Court discharged them, the trial against Smt. Rami and other co-accused continues till date.
12. Consequently, the Appellant instituted the Civil Suit No. 119/2016 dated 02.06.2016 for the Declaration of the Sale Deed as well as mutation entry, to be declared null and void and the Respondents be restrained from creating third party rights.
13. An Application dated 25.03.2019, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the Respondents/Defendants for rejection of the Suit stating that it was barred by limitation.
14. Learned JSCC vide Order dated 22.02.2020 observed that it was clear from the reading of the averments made in the Plaint, that the Plaintiffs had prior knowledge about the execution of the Sale Deed, long back. It was their own case that they had filed a Criminal Complaint in 1997, for the forging of documents in question, and could have reasonably compelled its This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56 production at the time of filing the complaint. Thus, the Suit was rejected as barred by Limitation.
15. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a Review Application against the Order dated 22.02.2020. The learned JSCC while dismissing the Application observed that the averment of the Plaintiffs was that the knowledge of fraud came to their knowledge in the year 2016, when they were impleaded in the on-going criminal case. It was observed that this averment was never a part of the Plaint, rather, was contrary to the stand taken by the Plaintiffs that the cause of action finally arose on 17.10.2015 i.e., when they came to know about the discharge of the Defendants.
16. The Regular First Appeal bearing RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 11/2021 dated 12.03.2021 was filed challenging the (i) impugned Order dated 22.02.2020 and (ii) dismissal of the Review Application vide Order dated 10.12.2020. The Appellant reiterated that he only came to know about the fraud committed only in the year 2016, when he was made party to the criminal proceedings.
17. Learned District Judge vide impugned Order dated 11.07.2025 observed that the Order passed by the Ld. JSCC was based on the averments made in the Plaint. As such, it could not be held that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and facts. The Learned District Judge concurred with the Order of the learned Civil Judge and upheld the Order declaring the Suit to be barred by limitation.
18. Aggrieved by the said Order of the two Courts, the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred.
19. The proposed substantial questions of law are:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56 i. Whether the learned Courts below were justified in law in summarily rejecting the Plaint under Order VII Rule11(d) on the ground of limitation, despite the Plaint having specifically pleaded fraud, impersonation, and collusion - issues which by their very nature are complex. Triable questions requiring adjudication through framing of issues, recording of evidence, and appreciation of documents, and which cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold without trial?
ii. Whether the limitation in fraud cases is the mixed question of fact and law, ignoring the settled principle that determination of the precise date of discovery of fraud, diligence exercised by the aggrieved party, and accrual of cause of action.
iii. That there was manifest error of law in applying Article 56 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by computing the limitation period and ignoring Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which expressly provides that in case of fraud or concealment, the limitation shall commence from the date of discovery of such fraud.
iv. That the unauthorized complaint filed by one Narayan Singh, was treated as evidence of knowledge of fraud in 1997 thereby erroneously computing limitation period from that date.
v. Whether the cause of action to challenge the fraudulent Sale Deed accrued only upon the discharge of the Respondents This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56 from the criminal proceedings on 17.10.2015, or when the Appellant acquired the knowledge of the fraud only in 2016 upon being impleaded, thereby rendering the Suit filed in 2016 within limitation?
20. The grounds of Appeal are that both the Courts have wrongly applied Article 56 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without considering the overriding mandate of Section 17 of the Act, which postpones the running of limitation, where the Suit is founded upon fraud or concealment of the right or title. The limitation has been calculated solely on the basis of criminal complaint, even though the plaint clearly pleaded that the Appellant acquired knowledge only later, through criminal proceedings and impleadment in 2016.
21. The learned District Judge vide Order dated 12.02.2025, allowed the Appellant's Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and has taken on record the certified copies of proceedings dated 04.01.2016, 07.01.2017, and 20.12.2019, which clearly establish that Sh. Narayan Singh had no Power of Attorney or authorization from late Smt. Chandra. These newly admitted documents conclusively demonstrate that the Complaint filed by Sh. Narayan Singh, was without authority and cannot be the basis for computing limitation.
22. The Respondents have indulged in a deliberate fraud upon the Courts and Revenue Authorities, by taking mutually destructive stands regarding the crucial Application dated 17.02.1997. For more than two decades, the Respondents relied upon this Application to claim innocence and obtained favourable orders, including discharge in criminal proceedings.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56 However, in the SDM Order dated 17.09.2020, Respondent No. l falsely denied ever filing such an Application and termed it false and fabricated. A party cannot be permitted in law to approbate and reprobate, nor can it be allowed to obtain advantage from a document and later deny its existence.
23. Both the Courts erred in giving undue weightage to the discharge of the Respondents in criminal proceedings treating it as determinative of civil rights and knowledge of fraud. The difference between registration, mutation and title has not been appreciated. Mutation is only an administrative entry and does not confer the title. By relying on the fact of mutation and holding the Civil Suit barred, the Courts have conflated administrative processes with substantive rights in property.
24. The material admissions and conduct of the Respondents, including their own attempt to seek cancellation of mutation and their statements in related proceedings, amount to admissions and establish the fraud in the registration of Sale Deed and mutation, which has not been considered.
25. The Suit has been rejected at the preliminary stage depriving the Appellant of his right to fair trial in violation of natural justice, under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. There is a jurisdictional error, non-application of judicial mind, and misreading of the pleadings.
26. The Appellant being the legal heir of late Smt. Chandro, acquired knowledge of the fraud only upon his impleadment in 2016 and the right to sue accrued only thereafter. Hence, a prayer is made that the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge as well as of the learned JSCC, be set aside.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56 Submissions heard and record perused.
27. Plaintiffs Jogendra (Appellant herein) and Rajender had filed a Suit bearing CS 119/2016 for Declaration that Sale Deed dated 08.01.1997, purportedly executed by Smt. Chandro Devi in favour of the Defendants / Respondents, and also the mutation effected on the basis this Sale Deed, to be declared null and void, as being fraudulent. Permanent Injunction was also sought for restraining the Defendants from creating any third-party rights.
28. The basic averment made in the Plaint was that allegedly the Sale Deed was executed on 08.01.1997 by Smt. Chandro Devi in favour of the Defendants, however, it was asserted that Smt. Rami, sister of Smt. Chandro Devi, had impersonated herself as Chandro and got the Sale Deed executed. It was therefore, claimed that this Sale Deed was fraudulent, null and void.
29. The Respondents / Defendants had taken a plea that this alleged Sale Deed was of 1997 and the declaration sought by way of Suit filed in 2016, was patently barred by limitation. The Appellant, on the other hand, asserted that they came to know about the fraud only on 17.10.2015, when the Respondents were discharged in the Criminal Complaint, and thus, the Suit was filed for Declaration and Injunction, which is within the period of limitation.
30. It is pertinent to refer to the averments made in the Plaint itself. It is stated therein that on coming to know about the fraudulent registration of the Sale Deed on 08.01.1997, allegedly by Smt. Chandro Devi, the Complaint Case No. CC No.38/1/14 under Sections 416, 417, 468 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed by late Smt. Chandro, through her attorney Shri Narayan Singh, which was sent for investigation by the learned MM, Delhi.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56
31. In the Plaint, it is specifically mentioned that the Complaint was filed by Smt. Chandro Devi. This fact also finds specific mention in the Reply filed by the Appellant to the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC that when Smt. Chandra Devi (Plaintiff No.1's grandmother and mother of Plaintiff No.2) gained knowledge regarding the fraud committed by Smt. Rami, they filed the Criminal Complaint Case.
32. Neither in the Plaint nor in the Reply to the Application, was it averred that the Criminal complaint in 1997 was filed without the knowledge of Smt. Chandro. It is perceptible that this feigned ignorance is merely to explain the Limitation.
33. During the trial of Criminal Complaint, after the demise of Smt. Chandro Devi, when Shri Narayan Singh, through whom the Complaint had been filed as the Special Power of Attorney, moved an Application to be brought on record as an LR of Smt. Chandro Devi, the ld. MM in his Order dated 07.01.2017, observed that there was no formal Special Power of Attorney executed in his favour and thus, it was held that he, being the Complainant, can continue and need not be substituted as the Legal Representative.
34. The Appellants have tried to derive the benefit of this Order, by asserting that Sh. Narayan had no Special Power of Attorney and he had filed the Complaint on his own and the complaint was not in their knowledge. However, this contention is totally belied from the documents and the Orders of the Court.
35. In the Order dated 17.10.2015 on the point of charge in the Criminal Complaint, it has been specifically recorded that there were four CWs This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56 produced in the pre-charge evidence. Pertinently CW-4 is Sh. Rajendra, who is Smt. Chanderwati @ Chandro Devi. It is but natural that the pre-charge evidence in the Criminal Complaint which was filed way back in 1997, would have been recorded prior to 17.10.2015. Further, this also corroborates that the Complaint indeed had been filed by Smt. Chandro Devi and was being pursued by her and her family members.
36. It is evident from the averments made in the Plaint itself, that Sh. Narayan Singh may or may not have had the formal Special Power of Attorney, but the Complaint Case had been filed way back in 1997, for and on behalf of Smt. Chandro Devi. Therefore, she was aware about this alleged fraud since 1997.
37. The specific averments in the Plaint reflect that the Complaint filed in 1997 was for and on behalf of Smt. Chandro Devi and it stands corroborated by the court proceedings and the Orders. For the Appellants to now allege that they came to know about the fraudulent Sale Deed only in 2015, is patently incorrect.
38. It is significant to observe that learned SDM, in the Order dated 29.11.2019 had dismissed the application for cancellation of mutation by stating that the Civil Court was yet to give their findings on the Plaint and observed that:
'It is well settled law that unless and until, the sale deed is set aside, the mutation cannot be set aside. Hence, no case has been made out by the applicants in their favour at this time. However, in case any order will be passed by Civil Court in favour of the applicants, mutation will be sanctioned accordingly.' This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56
39. The Plaintiffs / Appellant to now claim that they were not aware about any of the multiple litigations which got undertaken after 1997, is only a desperate endeavour to bring the Suit within the period of limitation.
40. The learned JSCC therefore, has rightly held that from the averments made in the Plaint itself, it is evident that Smt. Chandro Devi was well aware about this Sale Deed way back in 1997. The Suit for Declaration of the Sale Deed as fraudulent could have been filed within three (03) years from 1997, while present Suit has been filed in the year 2016, which is patently barred by limitation, as has been rightly held by the learned JSCC and whose findings have been endorsed by the learned District Judge in the First Appeal bearing RCA No.11/2021.
41. The findings of both the Courts, while allowing the Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is based on the averments made in the Plaint itself and their own pleadings. There is no substantial question of law has been raised in the present Second Regular Appeal.
42. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed along with pending Applications.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
APRIL 9, 2026 N This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/05/2026 at 20:39:56