Delhi District Court
Kartik Gautam vs Ms Aarti on 23 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KHATRI, CIVIL JUDGE-06,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 520/2023
CNR No. DLCT03-001301-2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Sh. Kartik Gautam
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar & Smt. Neelam Devi
2. Sh. Ritik Gautam
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar & Smt. Neelam Devi
Both R/o Kh. No. 23/18, A-1 Block,
Main Shani Bazar Road, Near Richi Gift Gallery,
Surender Colony, Jharoda Majra,
Burari, Delhi-110084. ......Plaintiffs
Versus
Ms. Aarti
W/o Late Sh. Raju
R/o One Room, Ground Floor,
Kh. No. 23/18, A-1 Block,
Main Shani Bazar Road, Near Richi Gift Gallery,
Surender Colony, Jharoda Majra,
Burari, Delhi-110084. ............. Defendant
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of Institution : 03.03.2023
Date of Reserving for Judgment : 19.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 23.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking following CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 1/30 reliefs:
"a. Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant thereby declaring the plaintiffs as the lawful joint owners to the extent of ½ each of the suit property i.e. entire property/land area measuring 100 sq. yards, comprised in Khasra No. 23/18, situated in the area od Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi at present colony known as A-1, Surender Colony (Main Shani Bazar Road), Delhi-110084 including the suit property i.e. one room (8' x 10') situated on the ground floor (back side 15 ft. road).
b. Pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant, her legal heirs, assignees, agents, servants or any other person acting on her behalf to vacate and hand over the peaceful physical possession of the suit property i.e. one room area measuring 8' x 10' ground floor, (back side 15 ft. road) forming part of the property area measuring 100 sq. yards, comprised in Khasra No. 23/18, situated in the area of Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi at present colony known as A-1, Surender Colony (Main Shani Bazar Road), Delhi-110084.
c. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant, her legal heirs, assignees, representatives or any other person on her behalf from selling, mortgaging, transferring, alienating, disposing of or creating any third party interest in the suit property i.e. one room area measuring 8' x 10' ground floor, (back side 15 ft. road) forming part of the property area measuring 100 sq. yards, comprised in Khasra No. 23/18, situated in the area of Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi at present colony known as A-1, Surender Colony (Main Shani Bazar Road), Delhi-110084."
PLAINTIFFS' CASE
2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the plaint are as follows:
2.1 Sh. Pyare Lal had purchased property area measuring 100 sq. yards, comprised in Khasra No. 23/18, situated in the area of Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi at present colony known as A-1, Surender Colony, Main Shani Bazar Road, Delhi-110084 CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 2/30 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') from Smt. Raj Bala W/o Sh. Shyam Lal R/o H.No. 233, Village Dhirpur, Delhi against a valid sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- who had executed the documents i.e. Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Registered Receipt for Rs.45,000/-, Will dated 24.04.1989 and affidavit dated 24.04.1989 in his favour.
2.2 It is submitted that the plaintiffs are having the right and interest over the suit property by virtue of General Power of Attorney dated 31.03.2019 executed by Smt. Prakashi Devi in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant is in illegal, unlawful and unauthorised use, occupation and possession of one room (8' x 10') situated on the ground floor (back side) in the suit property. It is further submitted that Smt. Prakashi W/o Sh. Pyare Lal was the sole and absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the title documents i.e. Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Will all dated 24.11.2011 executed by Sh. Pyare Lal in her favour.
2.3 It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have been residing with said Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Prakashi who were issueless, the plaintiffs being their maternal grandsons (Smt. Prakashi is the maternal aunt (mausi) of the mother of the plaintiffs). During their lifetime, in the month of January 2011, the defendant alongwith her two children approached Sh. Pyare Lal and requested that they may be allowed to use and occupy the suit property for a temporary period for their residence because she was not able to find a suitable accommodation as she had to vacate her earlier residence on very short notice. The defendant undertook CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 3/30 to vacate the suit premises as and when she gets suitable accommodation. The said Sh. Pyare Lal, the maternal grandfather (Mausre Nanaji) agreed to give the one room (8' x 10') of the suit property to the defendant with the clear cut undertaking that she would hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to Sh. Pyare Lal as soon as she finds herself a suitable accommodation. Since the defendant is very poor, the suit property was given to her free of charge.
2.4 In the month of January 2015, the defendant shifted to another suitable accommodation from the suit property when her house was completed. However, she put a lock on the said room/suit property. It is relevant to mention here that Sh. Pyare Lal during his lifetime, requested the defendant several time to vacate the suit property as she has already shifted to another house and also she is not using the suit property, but the defendant kept on delaying vacation of the suit property on one pretext or the other and lastly she started demanding money from Sh. Pyare Lal for vacating the suit property.
2.5 It is further averred that said Sh. Pyare Lal kept on requesting the defendant to vacate the suit property but the defendant instead of vacating the suit premises threatened to part with the possession of the suit premises and create third party rights. Ultimately, the said Sh. Pyare Lal terminated the license of the defendant orally and directed her to hand over the possession of the suit property to him as he was in desperate need of the same to shift his Nati i.e. plaintiffs-herein. Instead of vacating the suit premises, the defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 4/30 against Sh. Pyare Lal and others vide Suit No. CS/2962/2018 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2019 by the court of Ms. Neha Mittal, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2.6 It is further submitted that since January 1973, the plaintiffs' mother who was adopted by Payare Lal and Smt. Prakashi (now deceased) was residing in the entire suit property and they are in peaceful use, occupation and possession of the entire property except the suit property i.e. one room which is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the defendant who come in possession in January 2015. Unfortunately, Smt. Prakashi expired on 10.12.2020, whereas Sh. Pyare Lal expired on 04.03.2021.
During his lifetime, Sh. Pyare Lal has filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and damages against the defendant.
2.7 It is further submitted that during the pendency of the suit filed by Sh. Pyare Lal, Sh. Pyare Lal expired on 04.03.2021 and after that the plaintiffs filed an application U/O XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for bringing them as legal heirs of the plaintiff therein on 18.12.2021.
2.8 It is further submitted that during the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff through his legal heirs filed an application U/O VII Rule 14 R/w Section 151 CPC, for filing of certain documents i.e. title documents executed by Sh. Pyare Lal in favour of Smt. Prakashi Devi on dated 24.11.2011 including the registered Will dated 30.11.2011 duly registered with Sub- Registrar-1, vide registration No. 5855, Volume No. 930, Addl. Book No. 3, on pages 162 to 163 and the copy of General Power CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 5/30 of Attorney dated 31.03.2019 executed by Prakashi in favour of the plaintiffs-herein (grandsons of Prakashi's sister) and the copy of settlement dated 23.08.2018 arrived between the deceased Sh. Pyare Lal and Neelam Devi (mother of the plaintiffs-herein before Mediation Centre, Central Hall, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case C.S. No. 11704/2016 titled as Pyare Lal Vs. Neelam Devi.
2.9 Vide order dated 23.12.2022, the Ld. ADJ, Central Tis Hazari Courts, was pleased to abate the said suit titled as Pyare Lal Vs. Smt. Aarti vide CS No. 245/2019 whereby the application U/O XXII Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC was dismissed holding that there are no other legal heirs brought on record to be substituted. However, it is pertinent to mention here that while passing the said order dated 23.12.2022, the Hon'ble Court did not discuss the application U/o VII Rule 14 read with section 151 CPC filing the relevant documents, filed on record by the plaintiffs- herein. In the Settlement dated 23.08.2018 arrived at between Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Neelam Devi who is the mother of the plaintiffs, it was agreed between them that as under:-
"1. It is agreed between the parties that Sh. Kartik Gautam and Mr. Ritik Gautam both sons of defendant shall have equal right in the suit property i.e. Khasra No. 23/18, Surender Colony, A-1 Block, Main Shani Bazar Road, Jharoda Mazra, Burari, Delhi from today onwards.
2. It is further agreed between the parties that the Plaintiff and defendant shall have no right, title or interest in the foresaid property."
2.10 As the defendant has been illegally and unauthorised in possession of the suit property without having any right, title or interest and has been extending threats to the plaintiffs to face dire consequences if the plaintiffs ever ask her to vacate the suit CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 6/30 property, the apprehension of creating third party interest in the suit property cannot be ruled out. Even on the strength of the said Settlement dated 23.08.2018 arrived at between the said Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Neelam Devi, the plaintiffs are the sole and absolute owners of the entire property as detailed above.
2.11 It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have also been requesting the defendant to vacate the suit property and hand over the peaceful the physical possession of the same as the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit property by virtue of the GPA and they requires the suit property for their personal use. But the defendant has not been paying any heed. On the contrary, she has been extending threats to face dire consequence and also threatening to implicate the plaintiffs in false case.
2.12 Lastly, it is further submitted that the plaintiffs are the owner of the entire property including the suit property and thus a declaration to this effect that the plaintiffs are the joint owners in equal proportion of the entire property including the suit property is required to be passed.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
3. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendant. Defendant appeared in the court and filed her Written Statement ('WS' in short) wherein she has made the following averments:
3.1 Present suit is not only misconceived but the same is also not maintainable in the eyes of law. The suit is a black-mailing exercise for ulterior motives and is a gross abuse and misuse of CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 7/30 judicial process and the plaintiffs cannot be indulged in their morbid design to misuse the court to accomplish his dishonest motives.
3.2 The suit is false and frivolous and suffering from suppersio-varie and suggestio falsi. The plaintiffs have made total misrepresentation of the facts and have not come before this court with clean hands. The suit is without any cause of action and merits rejection at the outset.
3.3 The suit has been filed without any cause of action against the defendant, merely on false and frivolous and concocted grounds to harass the defendant to evict the property on false and frivolous grounds, as such the suit of the plaintiffs is without any cause of action and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3.4 The plaint is malafidely filed with a view to harass and black-mailing the defendant and under the garb of the present suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction.
The plaintiffs want to dispossess the defendant from the suit property in any manner. The present suit against the defendant on false, frivolous and fabricated grounds and on the basis of self- created documents.
3.5 It is submitted that the plaintiffs are required to file strict proof to prove the said averments. The plaintiffs have filed false and frivolous case against the defendant and made concocted story only to mislead this court. It is further submitted that the CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 8/30 plaintiffs have neither produce the sale/title documents of deceased Sh. Pyare Lal nor filed any previous chain documents as such the defendant is in a position to give proper reply in this regard, but as and when produce the same, the defendant deserve her right to give proper and satisfactory reply of the same before this court.
3.6 On merits, it is submitted that the plaintiffs having no title, right and interest over the suit property and neither deceased Sh. Pyare Lal has executed kinds of documents in favour of Smt. Prakash Devi nor deceased Smt. Prakashi Devi has executed any kinds of documents in favour of the plaintiffs. On the basis of false and fabricated documents, the plaintiffs are claiming rights and interest over the suit property in question. Previously deceased Sh. Pyare Lal was filed a Suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction in February, 2019 and injunction has been granted on 15.05.2019, where at the deceased Sh. Pyare Lal himself claimed that he was the owner of the property in question and during the pendency of the suit, Sh. Pyare Lal died. After passing of long period, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. before the said Ld. Court but plaintiffs were unable to prove the LRs of deceased Pyare Lal and after several hearings, the said application was dismissed by the said Ld. Court and suit of the deceased Pyare Lal was abated. Further, after death of both Pyare Lal and Prakashi Devi, the plaintiffs have prepared false and fabricated documents and used the same in the present case. It is pertinent to mention here that a GPA holder cannot execute further GPA to another person or persons on the same property or for the same reason. After the death of GPA holder, CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 9/30 that Power of Attorney became inoperative and revoked automatically forever.
3.7 It is further submitted that defendant is residing on the suit property being an adopted daughter of deceased Sh. Pyare Lal since 1997. It is further submitted that previously the plaintiffs and his mother had harassed and threatened the defendant to evict the suit property and due to which the defendant had filed a suit for Injunction in year 2019 before Ld. Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi bearing CS No. 2962/2018 and the Hon'ble Court after recording the statement of deceased Sh. Pyare Lal and other persons has passed an order dated 02.09.2019. It is further submitted that the defendant is in legal and lawful possession of the suit property being an adopted daughter of deceased Pyare Lal.
3.9 Rests of the contents of the plaint were denied by the defendant and it is prayed that the present suit be dismissed with heavy cost.
REPLICATION
4. Replication was also filed on behalf of the plaintiffs to the WS of the defendant, in which plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint and denied the submissions of the defendant.
ISSUES
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the court:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint? OPP CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 10/30 ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for in prayer (b) of the plaint? OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer (c) of the plaint? OPP iv. Whether the plaintiff has no right, title of interest over the suit property? OPD v. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD vi. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6.1 Sh. Kartik Gautam/ plaintiff no.1 examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
i. Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) is Certified copy of Application U/O 7 Rule 14 R/W 151 CPC filed on behalf of legal heirs of the deceased alongwith the list of documents.
ii. Ex. PW1/2 is Certified copy of settlement dated 23.08.2018 before Delhi Mediation Centre,THC, Delhi.
iii. Ex. PW1/3 is Certified copy of Agreement to sell, re ceipt, Affidavit, Possession letter, Will(registered be fore Sub- Registrar dated 29.11.2011) by deceased Pyare Lal in favour of his wife Smt. Prakashi.(Same is collected from the Court of Ms. Collette Rashmi Kajur, ADJ, Delhi).
iv. Ex. PW1/4 is Certified copy of GPA dated 31.03.2019 executed by deceased Smt. Prakashi in favour of plaintiffs in respect of the suit property.
v. Ex. PW1/5 is Certified copy of Death Certificate of Smt. Prakashi dated 21.01.2021.
CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 11/30 vi. Ex. PW1/6 is copy of Death certificate of Sh. Pyare Lal dated 18.05.2021.
vii. Ex. PW1/7(colly) is Certified copy of Aadhar Cards of the deceased Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Prakashi.
viii. Ex. PW1/8 is Certified copy of Ration Card dated 25.01.1996.
ix. Ex. PW1/9(Colly) is copy of Aadhar Card of the Plaintiff Sh. Kartik Gautam and Sh. Ritik Gautam.
x. Ex PW1/10 is Certified copy of proceeding sheets from 01.06.2022 to 23.12.2022 in the mater of Pyare Lal Vs. Smt. Aarti, CS/245/19 passed by Ms. Co lette Rashmi Kujur, Ld ADJ, THC, Delhi.
xi. Ex PW1/11 is Certified copy of the order dated 23.12.2022 in matter of Pyare Lal vs Smt. Aarti, CS/245/19 passed by Ms. Colette Rashmi Kujur, Ld. ADJ, THC, Delhi.
xii. Mark A is photocopy of electricity bill of TPDDL of the suit property in the name of Mr. Kartik Gautam dated 16.10.2021, 28.07.2022.
xiii. Mark B is photocopy of electricity bill of TPDDL of the suit property in the name of Mr. Ritik Gautam dated 14.12.2021.
xiv. Ex PW1/14 is site plan showing the suit property in red colour.
6.2 He was cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the defendant. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he has been residing in the suit property since 2021. He conceded that ration card Ex.PW1/8 was made when he was small and he does not remember the date on which ration card was made. He could not tell the exact date of the death of Late Sh. Pyare Lal and stated that CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 12/30 he may have expired on 23.03.2021. He stated that GPA in favour of the plaintiffs was executed by Late Smt. Parkashi Devi after mediation proceedings in a separate court case. He admitted that Late Sh. Pyare Lal was owner of the suit property till he signed the mediation agreement. Later he stated that Late Sh. Pyare Lal alongwith Smt. Parkashi Devi was the owner of the suit property till 2019. He conceded that Late Sh. Pyare Lal had not executed any property documents in favour of anyone except the plaintiffs till the year 2019 (which is against the case of the plaintiffs that Late Sh. Pyare Lal had transferred the suit property to his wife Late Smt. Parkashi Devi in the year 2011). He admitted that Smt. Aarti was staying in the property before he came in the suit property. He denied the suggestion that his name was included in the ration card by committing forgery in the same.
6.3 Smt. Neelam was examined as PW2 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW2/A. She was cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the defendant. Relevant part of her cross-examination is as follows:
"I am aware of the contents of my evidence affidavit. It is correct that deceased Prakashi Devi had expired prior to death of Pyare Lal. Deceased Prakashi Devi had expired in the year of 10.12.2020. It is correct that the present case was filed after death of Prakashi Devi. No suit was filed prior to this suit for claiming ownership of the suit property. It is correct that deceased Pyare Lal had filed a suit against the defendant in the year of 2019 for recovery of the possession and injunction. It is correct that deceased Pyare Lal had mentioned him as an owner in such suit. It is correct that deceased Pyare Lal was the owner of the property till the year 2019 i.e. at the time of filing the suit. It is wrong to suggest that the alleged document Ex. PW1/4 is forged and fabricated. Deceased Prakashi Devi had told about execution of GPA Ex PW1/4 in favour of the plaintiffs about 6-7 months before her death. It is correct that I CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 13/30 was not aware of such GPA before 6-7 months of the death of Parkashi Devi. It is correct that deceased Pyare Lal was permitted to reside at the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that the possession was given in the year 1997 as a adopted daughter to defendant. It is correct that I have complete knowledge in regard to the case which was filed by deceased Pyare Lal against the defendant (Aarti) since beginning. I have complete personal knowledge about the dealing between the deceased Pyare Lal and Aarti (defendant). It is correct that deceased Parkashi and deceased Pyare Lal did not have any child. I have documents which shows that I am a legal heir of deceased Parkashi and deceased Pyare Lal. Have you filed any such document?
Ans. Such documents are Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/8.
It is wrong to suggest that such documents do not show that I am the LR of deceased Parkashi and deceased Pyare Lal. It is wrong to suggest that defendant Aarti had not come in the year 2011. It is correct that no notice for vacating the suit property was given by deceased Pyare Lal or by the plaintiff (vol. deceased Pyare Lal had requested Aarti to vacate the suit property many times despite which she did not vacate). It is wrong to suggest that deceased Pyare Lal had told Aarti to vacate the suit property. My mother was not adopted by deceased Pyare Lal and deceased Parkashi Devi. It is correct that Aarti had filed a case against us stating that we are harassing Aarti, however, we were not harassing Aarti (defendant). It is correct that Ex. PW1/4 was found by me on 23.05.2022. It is wrong to suggest that documents Ex. PW1/3 (colly) are forged and fabricated. It is correct that deceased Pyare Lal had filed a suit against me for eviction, however, I do not remember the year in which it was filed. The electricity meter in the suit property was earlier installed in the name of deceased Pyare Lal. I do not remember as to when my name and name of my son was got added in the Ration Card. I do not have the Ration Card right now. It is wrong to suggest that ration card Ex. PW1/8 is forged and fabricated. It is wrong to suggest that I had got the name in the electricity meter changed to my name (vol. My father had got the changed done). Name of my real father is Sh. Nanak Chand and the name of my adoptive father is Sh. Pyare Lal. I was born in Delhi in Dhirpur. It is wrong to suggest that Aarti is residing at the suit property continuously since the year 1997. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 14/30 6.4 Thereafter, vide separate statement of the Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs recorded on 28.05.2025, PE was closed.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE 7.1 Defendant examined herself as DW1 and filed her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:-
i. Statement of parties in suit bearing No.2962/18 dated 02.09.2019 which is already marked as Mark PW1/D1 (OSR).
ii. Ex. DW1/2 (colly) (OSR) is certified copy of order bearing CS DJ no. 245/19 dated 23.12.2022. iii. Ex. DW1/3 (colly) (OSR) is certified copy of order bearing CS no. 245/19 dated 02.09.2019.
7.2 She was cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs. Relevant part of her cross-examination is as follows:
"I am illiterate. It is correct that I have come in pos- session in 1997. The objection is overruled. On partic- ular year in 1997, I was not facing any accommodation problem. Vol. The deceased Pyare Lal called to me and give the room for residential purpose. It is correct that I did not have filed any document related to the adoption deed. Vol. Deceased Pyare Lal adopted as a daughter to me (orally). It is wrong to suggest that I have resided in the suit property illegally. I do not have any legal doc- ument like this rent agreement and other documents pertaining to the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that I have no any other alternation/accommodation where the suit property is situated. It is correct that I do not know anything what is written in english by said affidavit by way of evidence. It is correct that my ad- vocate tuit in his chamber to me that what to be given the reply of the question and what to not give the re- ply whatever asked by the plaintiff. It is correct that I CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 15/30 was put my thump impression on the evidence of affi- davit in my house. Further, she has stated that I was put the thump impression in the court before the oath commissioner. It is wrong to suggest that I do not want to grab the suit property. It is correct that I did not pay any monitory to the deceased Pyare Lal or at present Kartik Gautam or Ritik Gautam against the suit prop- erty. It is correct that deceased Parkashi Devi was ex- pired first, but I do not remember the exact date and year. I do not remember the exact date and year of de- ceased Pyare Lal when he was expired. It is wrong to suggest that the deceased Pyare Lal orally requested the defendant to vacate the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that the present plaintiff has said so many times for vacate the suit property to me. I do not know how many properties are exists in Delhi except the present suit property of the deceased Pyare Lal. I do not know how many electricity connections are available re- maining portion of the suit property except me. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiffs are residing from childhood in the property of deceased Pyare Lal and Prakashi Devi. I do not have any knowledge in regard of any attorney of the property i.e. deceased Prakashi Devi, bearing no. Khasra No. 23/18, A-Block, Main Shani Bazar Road, Near Richi Gift Gallery, Surender Colony, Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi-110084 which was executed by the deceased Pyare Lal. Vol. deceased Pyare Lal never executed in favour of anyone. It is correct that the deceased Pyare Lal was owner of the property i.e. Khasra No. 23/18, A-Block, Main Shani Bazar Road, Near Richi Gift Gallery, Surender Colony, Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi-110084. I do not know whether any legal document was executed by deceased Pyare Lal in favour of his wife deceased Prakashi Devi. It is wrong to suggest that the deceased Pyare Lal has never cancelled my license orally against the suit property. It is correct that the plaintiff and his family members are residing in the property/premises till to- day.
It is correct that CS no. 2962/2018, District Central, was pending Ms. Neha Mittal, Ld. CJ, THC, was dis- missed.
It is correct that I never give any rent/dues to the de - ceased Pyare Lal and deceased Prakashi Devi and also I have never paid to the present plaintiff in the suit property. (Vol. I am residing in the suit property as a adopted daughter of deceased Pyare Lal.) Objection:- The adoption date (registered) must be/ to be consider as a legal document, but here there is no CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 16/30 registered adoption of plaintiff in the present in ques- tion.
It is correct that there is no electricity and water sup- ply connection installed in the aid property in question. (Vol. The electricity and water connection was dis- connected by the mother of the plaintiff.) It is correct that there is no installation in my name the electricity and water connection in the said suit property (8/10 sq. yrds).
Q. There is no any electricity and water connection in your name in the suit property in question?
(Vol. The electricity meter was installed in the name of deceased Pyare lal). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as a witness in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am illegally residing in the suit property in question. It is wrong to suggest that I never threats to the plaintiffs for any kind of transfer to the other person of the suit property in question. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
7.3 Thereafter, vide separate statement of the defendant recorded on 25.09.2025, defendant's evidence was closed.
8. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of parties and perused the record minutely. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of parties.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS Issue no. (i) "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint? OPP";
Issue no. (ii) "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for in prayer (b) of the plaint? OPP"
and Issue no. (iii) "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer (c) of the plaint? OPP"
CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 17/30 9.1 All these issues are taken up together as they are inter- connected and common evidence has been led by the parties. The onus to prove the aforesaid issues was upon the plaintiffs. Con- sidering the complexity of various ownership documents and liti- gation between the parties, it is apposite to mention the time line regarding the ownership of suit property and various cases as fol- lows:
24.04.1989: Suit property was purchased by late Sh. Pyare Lal from Smt. Raj Bala through Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will and Affidavit. 24.11.2011: Sh. Pyare Lal transferred the suit property in favour of his wife Smt. Prakashi by way of General Power of Attorney, Agreement, Receipt, Affidavit, Possession Letter dated 24.11.2011 duly notarised with Notary Public and Will dated 30.11.2011, duly registered with Sub-Registrar-I. 23.08.2018: Mediation agreement arrived in Case no. CS No. 11704/2016 titled Pyare Lal vs. Neelam Devi filed by the late Sh. Pyare Lal against Smt. Neelam Devi for possession, permanent injunction and damages.
As per the settlement, late Sh. Pyare Lal i.e. plaintiff therein and his wife has given the statement that Sh. Kartik Gautam and Sh. Ritik Gautam, both sons of Smt. Neelam Devi, defendant therein shall have equal rights in the suit property from that day onwards.
02.09.2019: The Suit for permanent injunction bearing no.
2962/2018 filed by the defendant Smt. Aarti against late Sh. Pyare Lal was disposed of on the statement CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 18/30 given by him that he will not dispossess the defen- dant/plaintiff therein from the suit property except due process of law.
31.03.2019: Smt. Prakashi executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Ritik Gautam and Sh. Kartik Gautam, the plaintiffs herein.
10.12.2020: Smt. Prakashi i.e. wife of late Sh. Pyar Lal expired. 04.03.2021: Sh. Pyare Lal expired.
23.12.2022: The civil suit bearing no. 245/2019 titled Pyare Lal vs. Smt. Aarti, for possession, permanent injunction and damages filed by late Sh. Pyare Lal against de- fendant herein was abated by the court and the ap- plication U/o XXII Rule 3 filed by the plaintiffs herein for their substitution as his LRs was dis- missed.
9.2 It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are joint owners of the suit property and defendant is a licensee who was allowed to reside in one room at the ground floor of the suit property by late Sh. Pyare Lal, who is their maternal grandfather (Mausere Nanaji) and original owner of the suit property. It has been averred that the wife of Sh. Payre Lal i.e. Smt. Prakashi is the maternal aunt (mausi) of mother of the plaintiffs namely Smt. Neelam. The mother of the plaintiffs was adopted by late Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Prakashi. Plaintiffs are claiming ownership over the suit property on the basis of mediation settlement dated 23.08.2018 and also on General Power of Attorney executed by Smt. Prakashi in their favour on 31.03.2019.
CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 19/30 9.3 Per contra, it is the case of the defendant that she is residing in the suit property since 1997 being an adopted daughter of deceased Sh. Pyare Lal. Since late Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Prakashi were issueless plaintiffs have concocted a false story to usurp the suit property. Late Sh. Pyare Lal never executed any document in favour of his wife and similarly no GPA was executed in favour of plaintiffs by Smt. Prakashi Devi. The said documents have been forged and fabricated by the plaintiffs. The mediation settlement deed dated 23.08.2018 cannot transfer title in favour of the plaintiffs.
9.4 In view of the aforesaid facts, following points for de- termination have arisen in the present case:
A. Whether late Sh. Pyare Lal was the owner of the suit property?
The plaintiffs are claiming their title through late Sh. Pyare Lal. In the plaint it has been stated that suit property was purchased by late Sh. Pyare Lal from Smt. Raj Bala through Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will and Affidavit on 24.04.1989. However, surprisingly neither said documents have been filed on record nor any explanation for not filing them was given by the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs are seeking declara-
tion of ownership over the entire suit property, the burden to prove the ownership of Sh. Pyare Lal lies on them. Even if the defendant, admitted his ownership qua her property, it will not relieve them from proving by leading cogent evidence the facts regarding title documents mentioned in the plaint. The non filing of previous chain of title of the suit property is thus fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. Even if for the sake of arguments it is considered that CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 20/30 Sh. Pyare Lal has purchased the suit property from the previous owner through Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will and Affidavit etc. then also no title in respect of immovable property can be conveyed on the basis of those documents in the absence of registered sale deed, gift deed etc. It is pertinent to mention here the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) vs State Of Haryana & Anr AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 206 as follows:
"15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank - 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of at-
torney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justi- fied, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance.
Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/ GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property.
They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 21/30 to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold prop- erty but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a regis- tered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales.
17. It has been submitted that making declaration that GPA sales and SA/GPA/WILL transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer is likely to create hardship to a large number of persons who have entered into such transactions and they should be given sufficient time to regularize the transactions by obtaining deeds of conveyance. It is also sub- mitted that this decision should be made applica- ble prospectively to avoid hardship.
18. We have merely drawn attention to and reiter- ated the well-settled legal position that SA/ GPA/WILL transactions are not `transfers' or `sales' and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale.
Nothing prevents affected parties from getting reg- istered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. The said `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to `SA/GPA/WILL trans- actions' has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this deci- sion."
In view of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the SA/GPA/Will documents can only be used for the purpose of seeking specific performance of the contract of sale and for defending the possession under section 53A Transfer of Property Act, 1882 subject to registration of the agreement in case CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 22/30 of post 2001 transfer, due to amendment made in the year 2001 in the Registration Act, 1908. In the present case, plaintiffs are seeking declaration regarding their title to the suit property. In the considered opinion of this court, for such declaration plaintiffs have to prove by cogent evidence their title or ownership over the suit property, which the plaintiffs have miserable failed to do.
B. Whether any right, title or interest in the suit property accrued to plaintiffs on the basis of mediation settlement dated 23.08.2018?
Plaintiffs have placed great reliance on the medication settlement dated 23.08.2018 i.e. Ex. PW1/2 arrived between the parties in Mediation Centre, THC in case no. CS No. 11704/2016 titled Pyare Lal vs. Neelam Devi filed by the late Sh. Pyare Lal against Smt. Neelam Devi for possession, permanent injunction and damages. As per the said settlement, late Sh. Pyare Lal i.e. plaintiff therein and his wife has given the statement that Sh. Kartik Gautam and Sh. Ritik Gautam, both sons of Smt. Neelam Devi, defendant therein shall have equal rights in the suit property from that day onwards. As the plaintiffs have failed to prove the ownership of late Sh. Pyare Lal over the suit property, which has been discussed above, they cannot place any reliance of the Ex.PW1/2 which has been executed by him and his wife in their favour. The plaintiffs have also claimed that their mother was adopted by late Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Prakashi. They have even failed to mention the date, month, year of the alleged adoption and stated that she was residing in the entire suit property since Janu- ary, 1973. Admittedly, no deed of adoption has been filed on CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 23/30 record by the plaintiffs. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 prescribes several pre-requisite for valid adoption like ca- pacity of adoptive parents, consent of wife, capacity and age of the child etc. No pleadings or evidence in respect of these essentials were there in the plaint or evidence affidavit of the plaintiffs. The fact of adoption cannot be proved just by making some random statement in the plaint or evidence in the absence of substantive proof regarding the same. In this regard it is relevant to repro- duce the excerpt of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the court of Additional District Judge-10, Central, in Case no. 245/2019, titled Pyare Lal vs. Aarti, whereby the application U/o 22 Rule 3 filed by the plaintiffs for impleadment in that suit in place of late Sh. Pyar Lal was dismissed and suit was abated:
"5. Rejoinder on behalf of the applicants has been filed, wherein it is stated that the applicants are the children of daughter of y ounger sister-in-law (sali) of the deceased plaintiff Late Sh. Pyare Lal namely Neelam. That the applicants have been by the deceased plaintiff during his lifetime who was issue-less and he orally adopted the children of daughter of his sister-in-law (sali) namely Neelam owing to the close relationship. On merits, it is submitted that the applicants are the adoptive children of Pyare Lal and this fact could not be mentioned by the previous counsel due to bonafide mistake. It is further submitted that the fact of death of Pyare Lal came into the knowledge of the counsel on 05.03.2021 and the application was moved on 18.12.2021.
9. My findings as regards the application under Order XXII rule 3 CPC are as under:
According to Hindu Succession Act, if a male person passes away without leaving a Will, his property will be distributed among his legal heirs. Immediate family members fall under the category of Class I legal heirs and in the absence of Class I heirs, Class II of the Suc- cession Act will apply.
9. In case of Hindu male passes away intestate and leaves no Class I or Class II heirs, then the property would devolve on agnates (related by blood or adoption CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 24/30 wholly through males). It does not extend to relationship by marriage and is restricted to relationship by blood.
When there are no agnates, then succession would be through cognates (related by blood or adoption but not wholly thorugh males eg. mother's brother's son and brother's daughter's son are cognates.
10. The applicants namely Kartik Gautam and Ritik Gautam fall under none of the category. Documents in support of the application for impleadment are insuffi- cient to support the averments with respect to adoption. Even as per the settlement dated 23.08.2018 before the mediation before the Delhi Mediation Center, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the applicants are referred as sons of de- fendant Neelam Devi.
11. In view of the discussion made above, the applica- tion under Order XXII rule 3 CPC moved by the appli- cants stands dismissed."
9.5 Bare perusal of the aforesaid order shows that in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs/applicants therein, they have stated that they were adopted by the deceased Sh. Pyare Lal during his life time who was issue less and he orally adopted the children of daughter of his sister-in-law (sali) namely Neelam owing to the close relationship. In the present case, plaintiffs are claiming that their mother was adopted by the late Sh. Pyare Lal, whereas in the aforesaid case, they have stated that they themselves were adopted by him. This is clear contradiction in the pleadings of the plain- tiffs. Plaintiffs have failed to prove the adoption either of their mother or themselves. In the the aforesaid order dated 23.12.2022, the court has also observed that they could not be termed as legal heirs of deceased Sh. Pyare Lal as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Moreover, the said mediation settlement was neither stamped nor registered. In this regard the Hon'ble CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 25/30 Apex Court in the case of Roshan Singh & Ors vs Zile Singh & Ors 1988 AIR 881 has observed as follows:
"The true principle that emerges can be stated thus: If the arrangement of compromise is one under which a person having an absolute title to the property transfers his title in some of the items thereof to the others, the formalities prescribed by law have to be complied with, since the transferees derive their respective title through the transferor. If, on the other hand, the parties set up competing titles and the differences are resolved by the compromise, there is no question of one deriving title from the other, and therefore the arrangement does not fall within the mischief of s. 17 read with s. 49 of the Registration Act as no interest in property is created or declared by the document for the first time. As pointed out by this Court in Sahu Madho Das's case, it is assumed that the title had always resided in him or her so far as the property falling to his or her share is concerned and therefore no conveyance is necessary."
9.6 In view of the above, in case of transfer of title, the formalities prescribed by law has to be complied. However, if the competing titles and the differences are resolved by compromise, then there is no question of one deriving title from other. In the latter case, there is no need for registration or payment of stamp duty. In the present case, it has been held that plaintiffs or their mother were never adopted by purported owner late Sh. Pyare Lal. Therefore, there is no question of any competing title which can be resolved through compromise since plaintiffs were not related to late Sh. Pyare Lal at the time of mediation settlement. Plaintiffs have even failed to prove that Sh. Pyare Lal was their maternal grandfather.
9.7 Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that in the ra- tion card Ex. PW-1/8 issued to the late Sh. Pyare Lal, plaintiffs have been mentioned as 'G. Son' and their mother Smt. Neelam as CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 26/30 daughter. Therefore, it has been duly proved that they were related to the deceased.
9.8 In the opinion of the court, plaintiffs cannot place any reliance upon Ex.PW-1/8 i.e. ration card. First of all the said doc- ument has not been validly proved in accordance with the rules of evidence. It is settled proportion of law that merely on the basis of marking of a document as 'exhibit or mark', it cannot be said to be proved. As can be seen from Ex.PW-1/8, the said document is 'copy to copy' and not certified copy as written in the evidence affidavit of PW-1. The same was not admitted by the defendant. Therefore, plaintiffs have to prove the same either by producing its original in court or by filing its certified copy, which has not been done. Secondly, on close scrutiny, it transpires that in the said ration card i.e. Ex.PW1/8 name of daughter of the deceased also find mention, which is against the version put forth by plaintiffs and defendant that late Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Prakashi were issueless. Though her name has been cut, but the same have not been verified by any sign or stamp. Further, the names of plaintiffs and their mother have been written in English language whereas names of all the other persons were written in Hindi. Its date of issue was mentioned as 15.07.96 and age of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no.2 were mentioned as 07 years and 04 years respec- tively. However, in the Aadhar Cards i.e. Ex. PW1/9 (colly) date of birth of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 were mentioned as 31.05.1995 and 05.02.2000 respectively. Therefore, plaintiff no. 2 was not even born at the time of issuance of Ex. PW1/8 and plaintiff no. 2 was only about 01 years of age. PW-2 Smt. Neelam has conceded in his cross examination that she did not remember CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 27/30 as to when her name and name of her son were got added in the Ex. PW1/8. She further admitted that she did not have the ration card now. She denied the suggestion that Ex.PW1/8 is forged and fabricated. In view of the above, plaintiffs have the opportunity to dispel the suspicious circumstances in the Ex. PW1/8 by produc- ing the original or by calling the relevant witness from the Food and Supply Department from where it was issued. However, nothing has been done by the plaintiffs to prove Ex.PW1/8 on record. Hence, the case put forth by the plaintiffs that they or their mother were adopted by does not hold water, in the absence of any adoption deed or evidence to the said effect.
C. Whether any right, title or interest in the suit property can said to accrued to plaintiffs on the basis of GPA dated 31.03.2019?
GPA i.e. Ex. PW1/4, notarised by Notary Public, was purportedly executed by late Sh. Prakashi Devi in favour of plaintiffs to control, look after, administer and supervise the suit property. However, admittedly, Smt. Prakashi Devi has expired on 10.12.2020. As per Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agency is determined on the death of the principal. Therefore, after the death of Smt. Prakashi Devi, authority, if any to look af- ter the property of the plaintiff has come to an end. Even other- wise, Smt. Prakashi Devi got the purported ownership of the suit property from late Sh. Pyare Lal and this court has already came to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to prove the ownership of late. Sh. Pyare Lal in the suit property. Hence, seen from any an- gle no right can be said to accrued in favour of the plaintiffs from CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 28/30 the aforesaid GPA. It has been mentioned in the GPA that the same was executed pursuant to the mediation settlement reached be- tween the parties. Therefore, plaintiffs were aware that unless steps mandated by law were taken for transfer of property in pur- suance of said settlement, no right would accrue in their favour. However, for saving stamp duty or some other extraneous con- sideration no sale-deed was executed by late Sh. Pyare Lal and Smt. Prakashi Devi in their favour. It confirms that there was de- fect in the title of late Sh. Pyare Lal. It is trite law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and he cannot take any benefit from weakness of defendant's case.
9.9 In view of the aforesaid discussion the issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant. Once it is determined that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property no relief of possession or permanent injunction can be passed in their favour and against the defendant. Hence, issue no. 2 and 3 are also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue no. (iv) "Whether the plaintiff has no right, title of interest over the suit property? OPD"
and Issue no. (v) "Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD"
10. In view of the findings given in issue no. 1, 2 and 3, these issues are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.
CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 29/30 RELIEF
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely concluded that plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief from this court. Hence, the present suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
13. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SUNIL
Pronounced in the open SUNIL KHATRI
KHATRI Date:
court on 23.04.2026. 2026.04.23
17:24:49
+0530
(SUNIL KHATRI)
Civil Judge-06/Central
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
Present judgment consists of 30 pages and each page is signed by me. Digitally signed by SUNIL SUNIL KHATRI KHATRI Date:
2026.04.23 17:24:56 +0530 (SUNIL KHATRI) Civil Judge-06/Central Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi CS SCJ 520/23 Kartik Gautam & Anr. Vs. Aarti pg. no. 30/30