Delhi District Court
Vijay Laxmi vs Bir Sain Jain on 18 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GOPAL KRISHAN, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016
CNR NO. DLCT030000492007
IN THE MATTER OF -
SMT. VIJAY LAXMI
W/O SH. P. L. MANOCHA
R/O 38, JEEVAN BIMA APPARTMENT,
JAGATPUR, DELHI-110032. ....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. BIR SAIN JAIN,
S/O SH. RAMSWAROOP JAIN,
R/O A-2/14, SHAKTI NAGAR,
DELHI-110052.
2. SUMIT JAIN, (Suit of plaintiff qua this
GALI NO. 6, defendant was dismissed
SANT NAGAR, vide order dated
BURARI, DELHI. 19.03.2008)
3. THE S.H.O
P.S. TIMAR PUR, DELHI
4. THE M.C.D.
TOWN HALL
DELHI (THROUGH ITS
COMMISSIONER) ...DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution 08.08.2007
Date of Reserving the Order 22.01.2026
Date of Decision 18.02.2026
Decision Dismissed
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 1 OF 50
18.02.2026
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 08.08.2007 by way of a plaint, impleading four defendants (i.e. defendant No. 1 Bir Sain Jain, defendant No. 2 Sumit Jain, defendant No. 3 SHO, and defendant No. 4 MCD). Subsequently, on 19.03.2008, defendant No. 2, Sumit Jain, made a statement before the court asserting that he had no concern with the suit property and was neither encroaching upon nor raising any construction thereon, and will neither do so in future. In view of this statement, the suit qua defendant No. 2 Sumit Jain was dismissed vide order of the same date.
2. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 16.05.2011 seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application was allowed by the court vide order dated 05.05.2012, and the amended plaint of the plaintiff was taken on record. It is further noteworthy that though in the amended memo of parties attached with the amended plaint, the plaintiff mentioned only three defendants (defendant No. 1 Bir Sain Jain, defendant No. 2 SHO, and defendant No. 3 MCD), however, in the title/first page of the amended plaint, all four originally impleaded defendants were reflected (i.e. defendant No. 1 Bir Sain Jain, defendant No. 2 Sumit Jain, defendant No. 3 SHO, and defendant No. 4 MCD). Moreover, the body of the amended plaint also contained averments pertaining to defendant No. 2 Sumit Jain, despite the fact that the suit against him had already been CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 2 OF 50 18.02.2026 dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2008. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and clarity, all four defendants originally impleaded by the plaintiff are being reflected in the case title of the present judgment, though in most parts of the court record, including the order sheets and the evidence, reference has been made only to three defendants (i.e. defendant No. 1 Bir Sain Jain, defendant No. 2 SHO, and defendant No. 3 MCD), as mentioned in the amended memo of parties filed alongwith amended plaint.
3. Before adverting to the facts of the amended plaint, the court deems it appropriate to state in brief the case of the plaintiff as per the initial plaint filed in the year 2007, initial defence of defendants in their written statements and to also highlight certain important facts from record leading to filing of application seeking amendment of the plaint by the plaintiff.
4. Brief facts, as per the original plaint, are that the plaintiff is owner in physical possession of plot measuring 200 sq. yds bearing No.12/15, Gali No.8, Sant Nagar, near village Burari (hereinafter referred to as "suit property) situated in khasra no.937, as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. It is indicated that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from one Mr. Om Prakash through sale documents (i.e. power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, etc.) on 30.09.1981, who in turn purchased it from previous owner Mr. Kartar Singh by way of sale deed. It is further indicated that defendant no. 1 & 2 are land grabbers, who with their good connections with officials of defendant no. 3 & 4 are trying to encroach upon the suit property of plaintiff.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 3 OF 50 18.02.2026
5. It is further alleged that earlier Mr. Trilok Jain, Jagan Nath Jain and his wife tried to occupy the suit property forcibly and illegally, claiming themselves as owner of the piece of land measuring 150 sq. yds., part of khasra no.136/10/2 situated in extended Lal Dora Abadi Deh of village Burari, Sant Nagar, Delhi. Plaintiff further indicated that he kept on insisting Mr. Trilok Chand Jain that his plot is situated at different place and in different khasra number, but Mr. Trilok Chand Jain did not accede to the request of the plaintiff, whereupon, the plaintiff was constrained to file a civil suit against Trilok Chand Jain, Jagan Nath Jain and his wife. It is further alleged that after filing the said suit and trial for reasonable period, good sense prevailed upon the aforesaid persons and they agreed to leave their claim on the suit property as their plot was situated at different place and Sh. Trilok Chand Jain also undertook orally not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the said suit property and accordingly, both the parties did not pursue the suit and suit was disposed of without deciding any title or status, on merits.
6. Plaintiff further alleged that now she has come to know that defendant no.1 herein has got executed some sale documents from aforesaid Sh. Trilok Chand Jain and defendant no.1 and 2, have again started claiming the suit property as their own land, but their land is part of khasra no.136/10/2, which is situated at a different place. Plaintiff specifically alleged that suit property is part of land situated in khasra no. 937 and not of 136/10/2, and further stated that the defendant no. 1 & 2 are not ready to understand the same and they are trying to construct the temple over the suit property.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 4 OF 50 18.02.2026
7. The plaintiff has mentioned the incidents of 28.07.2007, 03.08.2007 and 04.08.2007, when defendant no.1 and 2 with a view to encroach upon the suit property, tried to raise the construction over the same for which the plaintiff made various complaint to various authorities including defendant no.3 and 4 and also made calls at 100 number, but defendant no.3 and 4 have failed to take any action in this matter. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit initially with the following prayers:-
(a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby declaring that the suit property bearing No. 12/15, Gali No. 8, Sant Nagar, Near Village Burari, measuring 200 sq. yds. as shown in red colour in the site plan, is actually located in Khasra no. 937 instead of Khasra No. 136/10/2.
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from encroaching and from raising unauthorised construction upon the suit property.
8. After appearance, defendants filed their respective written statements. As the various allegations levelled on merits in the plaint did not pertain to defendant no.3/SHO concerned and defendant no.4/MCD, these defendants basically raised only the preliminary objection about maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-serving of mandatory legal/statutory notice upon them as per law prior to filing of the present suit. Whereas separate written statements were filed on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2, though, they raised similar objections in their written statements. The objections taken by defendant no. 1 & 2 will be highlighted later, but the main objection which was taken on behalf of CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 5 OF 50 18.02.2026 defendant no.1 and 2 was that the suit property in question belongs to the ownership of defendant no.1 and same falls in old khasra no.1060, which khasra No.1060 has become new khasra no.136/10/2 after Chakbandi.
9. Perusal of record reveals that after filing of the present suit on 08.08.2007, the court vide order dated 01.09.2007 directed the concerned Tehsildar to carry out demarcation and file the demarcation report of the suit property and in the meanwhile, the court directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the construction in the suit property. In terms of directions of the court, a demarcation report dated 19.12.2007 was filed by Tehsildar concerned on 24.01.2008, wherein it was indicated that the suit property, where the construction of a temple is going on, falls in khasra no.136/10/2.
10. It further transpires that after filing of the said demarcation report, an application u/o 39 Rule 4 CPC was filed on 19.03.2008 on behalf of defendant no.1 to the effect that as per the demarcation report of concerned Tehsildar, it is very clear that the suit property actually falls in khasra no.136/10/2, which infact belongs to defendant no.1, and a request was made vide said application that status quo order passed on 01.09.2007 by the court be set aside. When the case was pending adjudication on the said application, a submission was made on behalf of plaintiff on 03.05.2011 that the plaintiff wishes to move an amendment application, whereafter an application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiff on 16.05.2011.
11. In the said application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff alleged that at the time of filing the suit, the suit property in CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 6 OF 50 18.02.2026 question was lying vacant and plaintiff was in physical possession of the same, but after filing of the present suit, the plaintiff came to know on 25.08.2007 that defendant no.1 has raised some unauthorized construction over the suit property and now, the defendant no.1 with the help of other defendants is not allowing the plaintiff to enter in the plot in question and therefore, relief of possession is required to be added in the present suit as a necessary consequential relief. It was further indicated in the said application that after filing of the present suit, the husband of the plaintiff had filed an RTI application before the revenue department to know about the new khasra number of the suit property in question after chakbandi and in response to that, it was revealed that old khasra No.937 is now khasra no. 136/10/2 and alongwith the application, the plaintiff had attached the copy of said RTI reply dated 23.07.2008. It was further mentioned in the application that since defendant no.2 has already been deleted from the array of parties, therefore, even the amended memo of parties is required to be filed. Therefore, the prayers were made to amend the plaint so as to amend the memo of parties, to make necessary amendment regarding khasra number, to add the prayer of possession and to change the case title of the suit.
12. After hearing the parties, the court allowed the said application vide its order dated 05.05.2012 and took the amended plaint on record.
13. In the amended plaint, the plaintiff has basically changed the description of the suit property by keeping rest of the contentions same and changed description of suit property is reflected in para no. 1 of the amended plaint, wherein plaintiff mentioned that he is CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 7 OF 50 18.02.2026 the owner in exclusive physical possession of plot bearing no.12/15, Gali No.8, Sant Nagar, near village Burari, measuring 200 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') situated in old khasra no.937, now new Khasra No. 136/10/2 after Chakbandi. Similarly, in other para of the amended plaint, plaintiff also stated that the property of the defendant no. 1 Bir Sain Jain (and his predecessor-in-interest Mr. Trilok Chand Jain) is part of old khasra number 1060, which has no connection with khasra number 136/10/2 but defendant no. 1 & 2 are falsely claiming the suit property in question by stating that the old khasra no. 1060 has changed to khasra number 136/10/2, whereas in fact it is old khasra no. 937 which has changed to khasra no. 136/10/2. Further, in the amended plaint, the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:-
(a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby declaring that the suit property bearing No. 12/15, Gali No. 8, Sant Nagar, Near Village Burari, measuring 200 sq. yds. as shown in red colour in the site plan, is actually located in Khasra no. 937 now new Khasra No.136/10/2 after Chakbandi.
(b) pass a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1, directing him to handover the physical possession of the suit property situated in old Khasra No. 937 now new Khasra No. 136/10/2 after chakbandi.
(c) pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant no. 1 from encroaching and from raising unauthorised construction upon the suit property CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 8 OF 50 18.02.2026 situated in old Khasra no. 937 now new Khasra No.136/10/2 after Chakbandi.
14. In pursuance to amended plaint, amended WS was filed only on behalf of defendant no.1/Bir Sain Jain and defendant no.3/SHO concerned, whereas no amended WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.4/MCD.
15. In the amended WS to the amended plaint, defendant no. 1 indicated that he had purchased the suit property in question (which measures 150 sq. yds. only instead of 200 sq. yds. and which is part of khasra no.136/10/2), from Mr. Trilok Chand Jain on 07.08.2006 vide registered GPA, agreement to sell and other documents. Defendant no. 1 denied all the allegations of the plaintiff and submitted that plaintiff and her husband are in habit of filing false and frivolous litigations with malafide intention to harass and blackmail people by dragging them into unnecessary litigations. Defendant no.1 has mentioned the details of one previous civil suit no. 32/92 filed by husband Mr. Phiraya Lal of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction and possession, which suit was later dismissed by the concerned civil judge on 19.01.2005. Defendant no.1 further alleged that it is the plaintiff and her son- in-law who visited the suit property on 31.07.2007 and threatened the labourers and masons engaged in the construction of Jain Temple, for which, a complaint was lodged on the same day against them.
16. In addition, defendant no. 1 raised various objections to the case of plaintiff like taking of contradictory stand by the plaintiff, suit being barred by res-judicata as well as limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, etc. To elaborate, it is indicated by defendant CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 9 OF 50 18.02.2026 no.1 that plaintiff has taken the contradictory stand in the present case because in the initial plaint, plaintiff has specifically stated that the suit property is part of khasra no. 937 and not of khasra no.136/10/2 but in the amended plaint the plaintiff is alleging himself to be the owner of the suit property situated in old khasra no. 937, now new khasra no.136/10/2. Defendant no.1 further highlighted the contradictory stand of the plaintiff by stating that in the body of the amended plaint, the plaintiff is alleging that she is in exclusive physical possession of the suit property in question, whereas in the prayer clause, the plaintiff is also seeking the relief of possession with regard to the suit property.
17. Defendant no.1 further indicated that after purchasing the suit property on 07.08.2006 from Mr. Trilok Chand Jain, he has donated/transferred the same to the registered Society namely Shri Digambar Jain Samaj, Burari, Delhi and accordingly, at present, he is not even in physical possession of the property and therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Sh. Digambar Jain Samaj. It is further alleged that the said society has already placed Jain Idols and constructed a Jain Temple in the suit property and religious ceremonies are performed in said Jain Mandir and hence, the present suit for possession filed by the plaintiff against defendant no.1, who himself is not having the possession of the property, is not maintainable.
18. It is further alleged that the suit of the plaintiff is even barred by principle of res-judicata because the plaintiff has earlier filed a civil suit bearing no. 239/2001 on 29.05.1985 for possession and permanent injunction against Trilok Chand Jain & Ors. with regard to the suit property in question, wherein the plaintiff has CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 10 OF 50 18.02.2026 specifically sought the relief of possession against the defendants of that suit and which suit was dismissed by civil judge concerned on merits vide judgement dated 08.08.2001 and an application for restoration of the said suit was further dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2002 by civil judge concerned.
19. Defendant no.1 further stated that the suit is barred by limitation also because in the aforesaid earlier suit filed on 29.05.1985 by the plaintiff, she has sought the possession of the property from the defendants in the said suit, which shows that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property prior to filing of the said suit on 29.05.1985 and plaintiff has failed to disclose as to when she has come in possession of the suit property after 29.05.1985. Therefore, it is alleged that the present suit for possession filed after expiry of more than 20 years is clearly barred by limitation. At the end, it is requested to dismiss the suit.
20. In the amended WS filed on behalf of defendant no.3/SHO concerned, mainly the same objection regarding non-serving of mandatory notice upon him as per Section 140 of Delhi Police Act was raised.
21. Plaintiff chose not to file any replication to any of the WS filed on behalf of the defendants.
22. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for trial vide order dated 22.11.2012:-
(1) Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is barred by the principle of res-judicata? OPD (2) Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? OPP CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 11 OF 50 18.02.2026 (3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD (4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s140 of the D.P. Act? OPD2(or now OPD3/SHO) (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for.? OPP (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP (8) Relief.
23. At this stage, it is apt to mention that there seems to be inadvertent/typo error while framing issue no. 7 for the reasons mentioned in ensuing paragraphs.
24. In view of the court, issue no.5, 6 and 7 were framed on the basis of three reliefs sought by the plaintiff in its amended plaint. In other words, issue no.5 was framed on the basis of relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff vide prayer (a), as mentioned in para 13 hereinabove. Similarly, issued no. 6 was framed in accordance with prayer no. (b) regarding possession of the plaintiff in her amended plaint. Now vide prayer no. (c), the plaintiff has sought decree of permanent injunction in her favour and against defendant no.1 to the effect that defendant no.1 be restrained from encroaching or raising unauthorized construction over the suit property. So, in view of the court, issued no.7 should have been framed as - "whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP". But, it seems that CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 12 OF 50 18.02.2026 inadvertently, issue no.7 was framed as "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP"
25. Order 14 Rule 5 CPC empowers the court to amend any issue at any time passing a decree and therefore, in the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the court reframes/amends issue no. 7 at this stage as under -
Issue no. 7 - "whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP".
26. Further, bare perusal of the record including the evidence of the parties, makes it clear that both the parties were aware of the actual issue no.7 as reframed above, therefore, in view of the court no prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties by reframing of issue no. 7 at this stage.
27. In PE, plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1, whereas Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Patwari from the office of SDM, Civil Lines, Tis Hazari Courtrs, Delhi was examined as PW-2.
28. PW-1 tendered the following documents in her evidence:-
a) Ex.PW1/A - Site Plan.
b) Ex.PW1/B -Sale Deed.
c) Mark A (De-exhibited from Ex.PW1/C) - Copy of General Power of Attorney
d) Mark B (De-exhibited from Ex.PW1/D) - Copy of Agreement to Sell
e) Mark C (De-exhibited from Ex.PW1/E) - Copy of affidavit
f) Mark D (De-exhibited from Ex.PW1/F) - Copy of registered Will
g) Mark E (De-exhibited from Ex.PW1/G) - Copy of money receipt CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 13 OF 50 18.02.2026
h) Ex.PW1/H- RTI reply dated 23.07.2008 (copy of this document was also exhibited separately as Ex.PW2/1 in the evidence of PW-2).
i) Ex.PW1/I- Copy of complaint to SHO dated 03.08.2007
j) Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/K & Ex.PW1/L - Counter courier/postal receipts for dispatch of complaints to ACP, Commissioner of Police and Commissioner, MCD respectively.
29. PW-2 Mr. Yogesh Kumar tendered copy of RTI reply dated 23.07.2008 as Ex.PW2/1 and Nakal (true copy) of respective pages of Khatoni, as Ex.PW2/2 (colly.) in his evidence.
30. Initially only these two witnesses were examined in plaintiff's evidence and PE was closed vide order dated 07.09.2015, whereafter the matter was put up for defence evidence.
31. In DE lead by defendant no.1, DW-1 Bir Sain Jain, DW-2 Vinod Kumar Pandey, Halka Patwari from the office of SDM, DW-2 Bal Krishan Sharma (a private witness who was defendant in a past case filed by husband of plaintiff), DW-3 Ram Avtar, Patwari from the office of SDM, and DW-4 Vikram JJA, Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi were examined. Inadvertently, the same witness number, DW-2, was assigned to two witnesses, namely Vinod Kumar Pandey and Bal Krishan Sharma. Furthermore, the documents tendered by both witnesses were marked with the identical exhibit number i.e., DW-2/1.
32. DW-1 tendered the following documents in his evidence:-
a) Mark-A (De-exhibited from Ex.DW1/1)- Copy of the judgment dated 08/08/2001.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 14 OF 50 18.02.2026
b) Mark-B (De-exhibited from Ex.DW1/2) - Copy of the order dated 13/09/2002.
c) Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) - Copy of the certificate of registration of Sri Digambar Jain Samaj Burari.
d) Ex.DW1/4 to Ex.DW1/8 respectively (OSR) - Copy of the GPA, copy of the agreement to sell, copy of the receipt, copy of the affidavit and the copy of the Will, all dated 07/08/2006 respectively.
e) Ex.DW-1/9 - De-exhibited being not on record.
f) Ex.DW1/10 (OSR) - Copy of the passbook with regard to the Khasra no.1060.
g) Mark-C (De-exhibited from Ex.DW1/11) - Copy of the demarcation report.
h) Mark-D (De-exhibited from Ex.DW1/12) - Copy of the DD no.20 dated 31/07/2007
33. DW-2 Vinod Kumar Pandey, Halka Patwari from the office of SDM, tendered the original khatoni for the year 1993-1994 with regard to Khasra No.136/10/2 as Ex.DW2/1 (OSR) in his evidence.
34. DW-2 Bal Krishan Sharma (a private witness who was defendant in a past case filed by husband of plaintiff) tendered in his evidence, the certified copy of order dated 19.01.2005 as Ex.DW2/1, passed by the concerned court in the civil suit filed by husband of plaintiff against various defendants including said witness.
35. DW-3 Ram Avtar, Patwari from the office of SDM tendered in his evidence Khata Khatoni with respect to Khasra No.136/10/2 for the year 1993-1994 as Ex.DW3/1 (OSR).
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 15 OF 50 18.02.2026
36. DW-4 Vikram JJA, Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, tendered in his evidence the certified copy of order dated 13.09.2002 as Ex. DW4/1 passed by concerned court in case titled as Vijay Laxmi Vs. Trilok Chand Jain & Ors. bearing M. No.12A/2002.
37. Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 10.08.2018 on behalf of defendant no.1. Since defendant no.3/SHO and defendant no. 4/MCD did not lead any evidence despite opportunity, their evidence was also closed on 10.08.2018 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
38. It is pertinent to note that when the matter was at the stage of DE, an application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiff on 13.11.2018 for impleadment of Sh. Trilok Chand Jain and Digambar Jain Samaj Society as party in the present case, but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2019. It is further pertinent to mention that thereafter, an application u/o 7 Rule 14 r/w Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiff on 03.04.2019, which was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2021 and in pursuance of which, plaintiff lead additional evidence by examining summoned witnesses i.e. PW-3 Narender Kumar, Kanoongo from the office of Tehsildar HQ and PW-4 Santosh Dutt, Patwari, office of SDM.
39. PW-3 Narender Kumar, Kanoongo from the office of Tehsildar HQ tendered following documents in his evidence:-
a) Ex PW-3/1 (OSR) - Field book of khasra no.136/10 and old no.937 of Village Burari Delhi
b) Ex PW-3/2 (OSR) - Khatoni chakbandi part 1 of khasra no.1060 of Village Burari Delhi.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 16 OF 50 18.02.2026
c) Ex PW-3/3 (OSR) - Khatoni chakbandi part 1 of khasra no.937 of Village Burari Delhi.
d) Ex PW-3/4 (OSR) - Khatoni chakbandi part 2 of khasra no.1060 of Village Burari Delhi.
e) Ex PW-3/5 (OSR) - Register karvahi-jild no.1 of khasra no.937 and 1060 of Village Burari Delhi.
f) Ex PW-3/6 (OSR) & Ex PW-3/7 (OSR) - Register karvahi- jild no.2 & 3 respectively of khasra no.136/10 Burari Delhi.
40. PW-4 Santosh Dutt, Patwari, office of SDM, tendered the field book of Khasra No.136/10/1/1, 136/10/1/2, 10/2, 10/3, 10/4 as Ex.PW4/1 (OSR) and Khatoni paimaish of village Burari as Ex.PW4/2 (OSR), in his evidence.
41. After said additional evidence on behalf of plaintiff, the matter was listed for final arguments.
42. No oral final arguments were advanced on behalf of plaintiff and only written submissions were filed on her behalf. Defendant no. 1 advanced oral final arguments but despite seeking opportunity, no written arguments were filed on behalf of defendant no.1. Whereas despite repeated opportunities, neither any oral arguments were advanced nor any written arguments were filed on behalf of defendant no.3/SHO and defendant no. 4/MCD.
Issue-wise findings
43. On the basis of evidence on record and submissions of the parties, my issue-wise findings are being discussed in ensuing paragraphs.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 17 OF 50 18.02.2026 Issue No.1 -Whether present suit of the plaintiff is barred by the principle of res-judicata? OPD
44. Onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. Although the issue as framed does not specifically indicate which defendant bears the onus, in light of the defence set out in the written statements, the burden appropriately rests on defendant no. 1 alone.
45. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that to prove the said issue, the defendant has tendered in evidence copy of judgment dated 08.08.2001 passed by concerned court in the previous suit between the plaintiff and predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.1 and said document was marked as Mark-A in the evidence of DW1. Similarly, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that order dated 13.09.2002 passed by concerned court, vide which an application of the plaintiff seeking restoration of previous suit was dismissed, has been tendered in evidence as Ex. DW-4/1 by summoned witness DW4/Mr. Vikram, JJA, Record Room, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that a copy of the same order dated 13.09.2002 was also tendered in evidence of DW1 as Mark- B. In view of the aforesaid facts, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that since the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against three persons including the predecessor-in-interest Mr. Trilok Chand Jain of defendant no.1 regarding the same property and seeking the same relief of possession as well as injunction, was dismissed by concerned court on merits, therefore, the present suit regarding the same property filed by the plaintiff against defendant CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 18 OF 50 18.02.2026 no.1 seeking same reliefs is clearly barred by the principle of res- judicata.
46. Per contra, in the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff, it was indicated that the previous suit filed by the plaintiff against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain was disposed of without decision on merits because Sh. Trilok Chand Jain has agreed to leave his claim over the suit property, and compromise of the plaintiff with Sh. Trilok Chand Jain was reason for disposal of the previous suit. Therefore, as per plaintiff, the present case cannot be stated to be barred by the principle of res-judicata particularly when a fresh cause of action has accrued in favour of plaintiff against the defendant no. 1 in as much as the defendant no. 1 tried to take forcible possession of the suit property in year 2007 from the plaintiff. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed by the plaintiff on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Gobinda Dawan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Bhakta Bal 1971 (1) SCC 387. In the light of aforesaid judgment, it was submitted on behalf of plaintiff that for the bar of res-judicata to operate in the subsequent suit, the decision in the former suit must have been passed on merits on the same substantial questions both of the facts and law.
47. In this regard, in para no. 5 of the amended plaint itself, plaintiff has specifically mentioned that earlier Mr. Trilok Jain, Jagan Nath Jain and his wife tried to occupy the suit property forcibly and illegally, claiming themselves as owner of the piece of land measuring 150 sq. yds., part of old khasra no.1060 situated in extended Lal Dora Abadi Deh of village Burari, Sant Nagar, Delhi. Plaintiff further indicated that he kept on insisting Mr. CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 19 OF 50 18.02.2026 Trilok Chand Jain that his plot is situated at different place and in different khasra number, but Mr. Trilok Chand Jain did not accede to the request of the plaintiff, whereupon, the plaintiff was constrained to file a civil suit against Trilok Chand Jain, Jagan Nath Jain and his wife. It is further alleged that after filing the said suit and trial for reasonable period, good sense prevailed upon the aforesaid persons and they agreed to leave their claim on the suit property as their plot was situated at different place and Mr. Trilok Chand Jain also undertook orally not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the said suit property and accordingly, both the parties did not pursue the suit and suit was disposed of without deciding any title or status, on merits.
48. It is also the case of the plaintiff that now the defendant no.1 got executed some sale documents from the aforesaid Sh. Trilok Chan Jain and he has started claiming that his land, which is part of old khasra no.1060, has changed to khasra no.136/10/2, whereas infact it is old khasra no. 937 which has been changed to new khasra no.136/10/2 not old khasra no.1060.
49. So, the plaintiff, in her plaint itself, has clearly admitted the factum of past litigation with predecessor-in-interest Sh. Trilok Chand Jain of defendant no.1, but the plaintiff has neither clarified about the nature of the suit or nature of the relief sought by the plaintiff against the defendants in the previous suit nor the plaintiff has filed the copy of the proceedings of the said previous suit. The only contention of the plaintiff in this regard is that since the previous suit was disposed of without deciding title and status on merits because of some alleged settlement between the parties to CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 20 OF 50 18.02.2026 the previous suit, therefore, present case filed by the plaintiff is not barred by res-judicata.
50. But in his written statement, defendant no.1 has clearly given the details of the said previous suit and mentioned in para no.2 of his amended written statement that plaintiff had earlier filed a civil suit bearing no. 239/2001 on 29.05.1985 against Trilok Chand Jain & Ors and in the said suit, the plaintiff has sought the relief of possession as well as injunction against the defendants with regard to the same suit property. It is further the case of defendant no.1 that the said suit filed by the plaintiff was heard and dismissed on merits by the then Ld. Civil Judge on 08.08.2001. It is further the case of defendant no.1 that thereafter, the plaintiff even moved an application for re-opening of the said suit but the said application was also dismissed by concerned court vide its order dated 13.09.2002 after imposing cost of Rs.2,000/- upon the plaintiff. Along with his written statement itself, the defendant no.1 had placed on record the copy of said judgment dated 08.08.2001 as well as order dated 13.09.2002 passed in said previous suit by concerned court. In these facts, the defendant no. 1 raised a specific objection in his written statement that the present suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction with regard to the same property by the plaintiff against the present defendants is barred by the principle of res-judicata.
51. It is interesting to note that despite providing the specific details of the previous suit in his WS by defendant no. 1 by mentioning the nature of claim as well as indicating that the said case was decided on merits and despite filing of the copy of judgments/orders dated 08.08.2001 and 13.09.2002 in the previous CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 21 OF 50 18.02.2026 suit by defendant no.1 alongwith his written statement itself, the plaintiff has failed to traverse these facts as well as documents by filing any replication in this matter.
52. It is further pertinent to mention that during his evidence, DW1 has duly tendered the copy of judgement dated 08.08.2001 passed by concerned court in previous suit between the plaintiff and others including predecessor-in-interest namely Sh. Trilok Chand Jain of defendant no.1, as Mark-A and has also tendered the order dated 13.09.2002 passed by concerned court on an application of the plaintiff seeking restoration of the said suit, as Mark-B; but the plaintiff has not asked even a single question disputing the correctness of aforesaid documents placed on record by defendant no. 1 in his evidence. Further, aforesaid order dated 13.09.2002 passed by concerned court was duly exhibited as Ex. DW4/1 in the testimony of summoned witness Mr. Vikram JJA, Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, but plaintiff did not cross- examine the said witness as well.
53. Therefore, genuineness of judgements/orders dated 08.08.2001 and 13.09.2002, as passed in the previous suit between plaintiff and predecessor-in-interest of defendant no. 1, have not been disputed on behalf of plaintiff.
54. Now, perusal of judgement dated 08.08.2001 Mark A, passed in previous civil suit bearing no. 239/2001, reveals that the said suit was filed on behalf of plaintiff on 29.05.1985 against Trilok Chand Jain (predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.1 herein) and Jagan Nath Jain and wife namely Pusto Devi of Jagan Nath Jain regarding the same property in question herein i.e. plot bearing no.12/15 measuring 200 sq. yds. situated in khasra no.937, CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 22 OF 50 18.02.2026 Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi, and said suit was filed for relief of possession and permanent injunction against the aforesaid indicated defendants. It is mentioned in the said judgment that initially, the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking only permanent injunction against the said defendants on 10.06.1983 but during the hearing of the case, when the defendants took the plea that the suit has become infructuous because apart from being owners of plot in question, they are also in possession; the said case was withdrawn and it appears that on 29.05.1985, the plaintiff has filed a fresh suit seeking possession of the suit property also in addition to seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the aforesaid indicated defendants.
55. Perusal of the said judgment further reveals that issue no.11 in said case was framed on the basis of relief prayed for by the plaintiff in the said suit and the said issue was "Issue No.11 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession and permanent injunction as prayed? OPP". It further transpires that despite several opportunities, since the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence in the said matter, therefore, PE was closed vide order dated 14.10.1997 in the said suit and whereafter Ld. Counsel for defendant also made a submission that since the plaintiff has not led any evidence, therefore, defendant also would not lead any evidence and accordingly, DE was also closed vide order dated 24.11.1997. Then, after hearing the final arguments, the suit of the plaintiff was finally dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession and permanent injunction because he has failed to discharge his onus to prove issue no. 11 by examining any witness.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 23 OF 50 18.02.2026
56. Perusal of order dated 13.09.2002 Ex. DW4/1 clearly shows that against said judgement dated 08.08.2001 Mark A, the plaintiff had filed an application u/o 9 Rule 9 & 13 and section 151 CPC with the prayers to restore the suit of the plaintiff to original number and to allow the plaintiff to lead evidence in the main suit. But concerned court dismissed the said application on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed vide judgment dated 08.08.2001 after giving findings on all the issues which were framed in the case and it was not dismissed in default for non- prosecution and therefore, the application for restoration was not found maintainable in law and the said application was dismissed subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- by concerned court.
57. So, from the aforesaid facts proved on record, it is clear that that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against three persons including the predecessor-in-interest Mr. Trilok Chand Jain of defendant no.1 seeking the relief of possession and permanent injunction regarding the same property in question, was dismissed on merits after giving findings on the issues framed in the said case.
58. As stated above, the plaintiff has neither disputed the genuineness nor the contents of the aforesaid judgements/orders dated 08.08.2001 and 13.09.2002 passed in the previous suit, as placed on record by the defendant no. 1 alongwith his written statement; and the only contention of the plaintiff in this regard is that since the previous suit was disposed of without deciding title and status on merits because of some alleged settlement between the parties to the previous suit, therefore, present case filed by the CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 24 OF 50 18.02.2026 plaintiff is not barred by res-judicata. However, the plaintiff has miserably failed to give any basis of her aforesaid contention.
59. Pertinently, as highlighted earlier, the plaintiff has led additional evidence in this matter even after closure of DE, but the plaintiff never took any steps to summon any witness of alleged compromise or summon the complete record of previous suit to prove her version that the previous suit was decided on the basis of compromise (in court or out of the court) or that the previous suit was not decided on merits.
60. Interestingly, in her cross examination, PW1 specifically admitted that she had filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain prior to the file of the present suit and she only pleaded ignorance about the dismissal of the said previous suit against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain vide order dated 08.08.2001 and further denied the suggestion of defendant no.1 about dismissal of the application u/o 9 Rule 9 CPC filed by the plaintiff for restoration of said suit vide order dated 13.09.2002 subject to cost. Plaintiff had also replied very vaguely about arriving at any compromise against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain and she failed to specify any details as to when such compromise was entered and she further failed to state whether the said compromise with Mr. Trilok Chand Jain was in writing or not.
61. It is apt to reproduce the relevant extracts of cross examination of PW1 at this stage, which are as under:-
"Prior to this suit I had also filed another suit for possession and permanent injunction against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain. In the said suit Sh. Trilok Chand Jain had compromised and agreed with me not to enter into my CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 25 OF 50 18.02.2026 plot. I do not remember as to whether my suit for possession and permanent injunction as filed against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain was dismissed on 08.08.2001. It is wrong to suggest that after dismissal of the suit against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain I have moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC which has also been dismissed by the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja, the then Ld. Civil Judge Delhi on 13.09.2002 subject to cost of Rs.1000/-. I do not remember in which year I had filed the suit for possession and permanent injunction against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain. I do not remember the date, month and year when I compromised the matter with Sh. Trilok Chand lain. I do not remember whether the compromise was in writing or not. I might have told to the concerned Court, where the suit against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain was pending. about the compromise as entered between me and Sh. Trilok Chand Jain. I do not remember in which year Sh. Trilok Chand Jain handed over the possession of my plot to me. Vol. However, it was further agreed that he would not enter upon my property. There is no written documents to the effect of handing over possession by Sh. Trilok Chand lain to me after the compromise."
62. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of possession as well as injunction against successor-in-interest (i.e. defendant no.1/Bir Sain Jain herein) of defendant no. 1 Mr. Trilok Chand Jain in the said previous suit, appears to barred by the principle of res-judicata as per provisions contained under section 11 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 26 OF 50 18.02.2026
63. Section 11 of CPC states that 'No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court'.
64. Therefore, it is clear that the matter in issue in the present suit (i.e. whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession and injunction) was also a matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, which was between the plaintiff and one Mr. Trilok Chand Jain (under whom defendant no.1 herein is claiming his title/interest in the suit property in question) and said matter regarding possession and injunction was also regarding the very same property. Since the former suit between plaintiff and predecessor-in-interest of defendant no. 1 herein, involving directly and substantially same issues, has already been heard and decided by a competent court of jurisdiction, accordingly, the present suit of the plaintiff is clearly barred by the principle of res- judicata and suit is liable to dismissed on this ground alone.
65. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.
Issue no.2 - Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? OPP
66. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. In this regard, in the written submissions/arguments of plaintiff, it is mentioned that plaintiff has specifically alleged in this case that CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 27 OF 50 18.02.2026 she was initially in possession of the property and only after filing of the present suit, the plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 has raised unauthorized construction on the plot in question. It is further submitted that defendant no. 1 has failed to produce any evidence in support of his case to the effect that he was in possession of the property in question and plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. It is further stated on behalf of plaintiff that during her cross examination, the plaintiff has clearly stated that predecessor-in-interest namely Trilok Chand Jain had compromised the matter with the plaintiff and agreed that he will not enter in the plot of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted that the suit is not barred by limitation.
67. On the other hand, during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that it is admitted position that earlier the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the erstwhile owner Trilok Chand Jain (who is predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.1) on 29.05.1985, and in the said suit, the plaintiff had claimed relief for possession against the defendants therein regarding the same property. Ld. Counsel further submitted that inevitable conclusion from the said facts on record is that on the date of filing of the said suit i.e. 29.05.1985, plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and in the entire present plaint, plaintiff has not disclosed as to when she came into the possession of the plot/property in question after 29.05.1985. Therefore, it is submitted that the present suit for possession filed on behalf of plaintiff after more than 20 years after her admitted dispossession (i.e. sometime prior to 1985), is clearly barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel further CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 28 OF 50 18.02.2026 submitted that since the relief of possession is barred by limitation, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as well, as sought by the plaintiff in her plaint.
68. As discussed during the findings on issue no.1, from the facts proved on record by defendant no.1, it is clear that plaintiff has earlier filed a suit specifically seeking the relief of possession against three defendants including predecessor-in-interest namely Trilok Chand Jain of defendant no.1 herein and said suit was filed by the plaintiff on 29.05.1985. This fact clearly establishes that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of the previous suit which was 29.05.1985.
69. The plaintiff has made only bald averments in her plaint as well as in her evidence that the said suit was compromised between her and defendants in that suit. The said fact has not been proved on record because as already discussed, perusal of the judgment/order dated 08.08.2001 and 13.09.2002 passed in the previous suit, clearly reveals that no such compromise ever took place between the plaintiff and defendants of that previous suit and rather, the matter was contested on behalf of defendants in that case by raising objections in the main suit as well as in the restoration application.
70. Accordingly, this court finds merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for defendant No. 1 that in view of the plaintiff's admission that she had earlier instituted a suit for possession in the year 1985 (which was ultimately dismissed in 2001, and restoration application in said was also dismissed in September 2002), in respect of the same property, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to clearly plead and establish the point of time at CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 29 OF 50 18.02.2026 which she allegedly came back into possession of the suit property. Had the plaintiff disclosed that she obtained possession at any time subsequent to the institution of the earlier suit, such pleadings could have demonstrated the accrual of a fresh cause of action in her favour to seek the relief of injunction and/or possession in the present suit instituted in 2007. If it were shown that she had come into possession after 1985, then the present suit (initially filed as one for simpliciter injunction in 2007 on the basis of her claimed exclusive possession, followed by her allegation of dispossession during its pendency and the subsequent amendment seeking relief of possession), might have been maintainable.
71. In this regard, the plaintiff even during her cross examination failed to state as to when the possession of the property in question was handed over by Trilok Chand to her and further stated that there are no written documents to the effect of handing over the possession of the suit property by said Trilok Chand Jain to her after the alleged compromise. It is apt to reproduce the relevant extracts of cross examination of PW-1, which are as under:-
"I do not remember the date, month and year when I compromised the matter with Sh. Trilok Chand lain. I do not remember whether the compromise was in writing or not. I might have told to the concerned Court, where the suit against Sh. Trilok Chand Jain was pending. about the compromise as entered between me and Sh. Trilok Chand Jain. I do not remember in which year Sh. Trilok Chand Jain handed over the possession of my plot to me. Vol. However, it was further agreed that he would not enter upon my CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 30 OF 50 18.02.2026 property. There is no written documents to the effect of handing over possession by Sh. Trilok Chand lain to me after the compromise. I know about this for last 7 years. I am not in possession of the suit property at present. It is correct that I have wrongly stated in my affidavit that I am in possession of the suit property. 1 was not in possession of the suit property on 10.01.2013 when the affidavit in evidence was prepared."
72. The plaintiff has failed to plead or establish that she regained possession of the suit property at any time after instituting the earlier suit in 1985. In the absence of specific averments or cogent evidence on this aspect, it cannot be concluded that she re-entered or resumed possession of the property after her alleged dispossession prior to 1985 and before the institution of the present suit.
73. Moreover, as stated earlier that despite taking the specific objection by the defendant no. 1 regarding the issue of limitation after delineating of the entire facts in his WS, the plaintiff did not even file replication to traverse the averments made in WS, which tantamount to be deemed admission on her part to the new facts stated in WS of defendant no. 1 on this issue.
74. Now, as per Limitation Act, 1963 the suit for seeking possession of immovable property has to be filed within the period of 12 years from the date of dispossession, whereas the facts proved on record establish that the plaintiff has lost her possession over the suit property somewhere prior to 29.05.1985 i.e. prior to the date of filing of previous suit by the plaintiff against three persons including predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.1 and CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 31 OF 50 18.02.2026 nothing has come on record to even prima facie indicate that the plaintiff has regained her possession over the property after her initial dispossession prior to 1985. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property within 12 years prior to filing of the present suit against defendant no.1, the relief of possession sought by the plaintiff in this suit is barred by limitation.
75. Since the other reliefs sought by the plaintiff in this case are merely consequential to the principal relief of possession, and since the claim for possession is barred by limitation, the entire suit is consequently rendered barred by limitation.
76. Accordingly, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No.3 - Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
77. Onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. Although the issue as framed does not specifically indicate which defendant bears the onus, in light of the defence set out in the written statements, the burden appropriately rests on defendant No. 1 alone.
78. The basic objection in this regard taken by defendant no.1 in his written statement was that since defendant no.1 has already transferred the possession of the suit property by donating/transferring it to registered society namely Sri Digambar Jain Samaj, Burari, therefore, in the absence of possession of defendant no.1 over the suit property, the present suit seeking possession is not maintainable in view of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Sri Digambar Jain Samaj, Burari.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 32 OF 50 18.02.2026
79. However, firstly, the defendant No. 1 has failed to place on record any document evidencing the transfer of the suit property or delivery of its possession in favour of the said society, Sri Digambar Jain Samaj. Secondly, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded her cause of action for the reliefs of injunction and possession only against defendant No. 1. Thirdly, mere assertion of an alleged transfer by defendant No. 1 in favour of Sri Digambar Jain Samaj Society does not, by itself, render the said society a necessary party to the present proceedings, particularly when defendant No. 1 has not even disclosed the date of such alleged transfer, because any transfer of the suit property or its possession by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Sri Digambar Jain Samaj Society, if effected after the institution of the present suit, would be hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, would not affect the plaintiff's rights in the pending litigation.
80. Further, as mentioned earlier that during the pendency of the present suit, the plaintiff has filed an application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead Mr. Trilok Chand Jain and Sri Digambar Jain Samaj Society in the present matter on 13.11.2018, which application came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2019 of this court. In the said order, it was observed that in view of overall facts, the presence of proposed defendants appears to be not necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute involved in the present suit between the parties. As the order dated 31.01.2019 has attained finality, the present issue may even be treated as having become infructuous.
81. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against the defendant no. 1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 33 OF 50 18.02.2026 Issue No.4 - Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 140 of DP Act? OPD-2 (to be considered as OPD-3/SHO in view of narration given in para no. 2 above)
82. Onus to prove this issue was on defendant no.3/SHO. Defendant no. 3/SHO in its written statement has taken the objection that before filing any suit against defendant no.3/SHO concerned, it is mandatory for a party to serve a mandatory notice upon it as per Section 140 of the DP Act and, therefore, the present case filed without serving the prior notice is barred by Section 140 of DP Act.
83. During the cross examination of PW1/plaintiff by defendant no.3/SHO concerned, PW1/plaintiff admitted that it is correct that she has not given any notice to Delhi Police u/s 138 & 140 of Delhi Police Act.
84. But in view of the court, non-serving of any prior notice u/s 140 of DP Act upon defendant no. 3/SHO concerned prior to filing of this case was not fatal for the case of plaintiff because defendant no. 3/SHO has been made only a proforma party in this case and no relief has been sought against defendant no. 3/SHO herein. Accordingly, the present issue is decided against defendant no. 3/SHO and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No. 6 and 7 Issue No. 6 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession as prayed for.? OPP Issue No. 7 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 34 OF 50 18.02.2026
85. For the sake of convenience, these two issues are taken up before discussion on issue no. 5. Further, since both these issues are inter-connected and involve common discussion of the facts and law, therefore, these are taken up together.
86. To be held entitled for relief of possession coupled with consequential injunction, it was must for the plaintiff to have proved either her title or her prior settled possession over the property in question. Though the plaintiff has not mentioned specifically so in her plaint, but in the application u/o 6 rule 17 filed on behalf of plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff specifically alleged that at the time of filing the suit, the suit property in question was lying vacant. So, as per the case of plaintiff the suit property was a vacant piece of land and as per authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anatula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, in disputes involving vacant piece of land, the principle is that the possession follows title. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff was required to establish her ownership of the suit property in order to substantiate her settled possessory title. Only upon proving such ownership could she claim entitlement to the relief of possession and the consequential injunction sought in the present proceedings.
87. In the plaint, plaintiff has claimed herself as owner of the suit property on the basis of sale documents dated 23.09.1981 executed by the erstwhile owner Mr. Om Prakash in favour of plaintiff, who in turn had allegedly purchased the same from the initial owner Mr. Kartar Singh by way of sale deed.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 35 OF 50 18.02.2026
88. In this regard, the plaintiff has placed on record the original sale deed Ex.PW1/B allegedly executed by initial owner Mr. Kartar Singh in favour of predecessor-in-interest namely Sh. Om Prakash of the plaintiff. But interestingly, the plaintiff has placed on record only the copies of sale documents dated 30.09.1981, vide which the plaintiff is stated to have purchased the property in question from said Sh. Om Prakash. Though in her evidence affidavit, plaintiff has exhibited general power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, Will and money receipts all dated 30.09.1981 as Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D, Ex. PW1/E, Ex. PW1/F and Ex. PW1/G respectively, however, when the said documents were tendered in evidence before the court, same were de- exhibited and were marked as Mark-A to Mark-E respectively on the submission of plaintiff/PW-1 to the effect that original of these documents are not available with her.
89. So, the said documents being photocopies cannot be stated to be proved as per the Evidence Act because the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the pre-requisite for leading secondary evidence as per section 65 of the Evidence Act. Further, if the original documents were not available with the plaintiff at the time of her evidence, the plaintiff could have moved an application to bring the original documents on record at any subsequent stage during the trial.
90. Therefore, in the absence of any admissible documents showing the ownership of the plaintiff over the property in question, the plaintiff clearly cannot be held entitled for the relief of possession and injunction as prayed for by her in her plaint.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 36 OF 50 18.02.2026
91. If for the sake of arguments, the aforesaid documents i.e. general power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit, duly registered Will and money receipts, marked as Mark-A to Mark-E respectively are read in favour of the plaintiff, even then, it is settled position of law that these documents cannot confer any title on a person over immovable property, because ownership of the immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- can only be transferred by way of registered sale deed as per section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon authoritative pronouncement of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana & Anr, AIR 2012 SC 206.
92. Therefore, the plaintiff has evidently failed to establish, through cogent documentary evidence, any right, title, or interest in the suit property in question. Furthermore, none of the revenue records summoned and produced in evidence in the present case reflect the plaintiff's name as rightful owner/possessor in relation to the suit property. Though, it is settled position of law that any entries in revenue record can never be the proof of ownership of any person over the immovable property, however, said fact has been highlighted to indicate that the plaintiff has failed to bring any iota of evidence to show her ownership over the property in question and to show that she is entitled for the relief of possession and injunction as sought by her in her plaint.
93. In addition, in the said alleged sale documents dated 30.09.1981 executed by erstwhile owner in favour of plaintiff, the description of property purchased by the plaintiff is indicated as piece of land measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing plot no.12/15 Khasra CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 37 OF 50 18.02.2026 no.937 situated in Village Burari, Delhi. Whereas in the present plaint the plaintiff has additionally mentioned that the said plot is situated in "Gali No.8, Sant Nagar" which description is not mentioned in the aforesaid sale documents of the plaintiff. Further, from the bare perusal of the site plan Ex. PW1/A relied upon by the plaintiff, the proper identification of the property is not possible due to non-mentioning of any identifiable landmark place and exact direction and distance of suit property from said landmark. During the cross-examination, plaintiff clearly admitted that the total area of khasra no. 136/10/2 is 03 bighas and 10 biswas and further admitted that the plot number in the above mentioned khasra number has never been given by any Govt. Authority. Plaintiff even expressed her ignorance about site plan Ex. PW1/A during her cross-examination by stating that she does not know what is document Ex. PW1/A.
94. Moreover, no evidence has been led on behalf of plaintiff to even prove that suit property forms part of old khasra no. 937 and to lead evidence on this aspect was important because specific case of defendant no. 1 was that the suit property forms part of old khasra no. 1060.
95. Further, in her amended plaint, the plaintiff has claimed the suit property was initially part of old khasra no.937, which khasra number 937 is now new Khasra No. 136/10/2 after chakbandi. It will be discussed later while making discussion on issue no.5 that the plaintiff has even failed to prove that the said khasra no.937 has been changed to new khasra no.136/10/2 as allegedly claimed by the plaintiff in her petition.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 38 OF 50 18.02.2026
96. Therefore, even due to lack of proper identification of suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
97. As discussed earlier while giving findings on issue no. 1 & 2 that the plaintiff has suppressed complete facts regarding her past litigation with predecessor-in-interest namely Trilok Chand Jain of the defendant no. 1, which facts were brought and proved on record by defendant no. 1 by placing on record judgement dated 08.08.2001 Mark A and order dated 13.09.2002 Ex. DW4/1. The plaintiff has baldly denied the suggestion in her cross-examination that her application of restoration of previous civil suit filed by her against Mr. Trilok Chand Jain & Ors. was dismissed with cost vide order dated 13.09.2002, which denial clearly shows that the plaintiff has deposed against the record.
98. In addition, the plaintiff has made bald averments in the plaint as well as her evidence regarding the factum of compromise in the past with predecessor-in-interest namely Trilok Chand Jain of the defendant no. 1, which averments were against the facts proved on record by defendant no. 1. Moreover, when questioned, the plaintiff herself gave evasive responses regarding the alleged past compromise with Mr. Trilok Chand Jain, professing ignorance as to the date, month, or year of such compromise and even as to whether the compromise had been reduced into writing or not.
99. These facts on record clearly put a dent on the credibility of plaintiff as a witness.
100. At this stage, the court deems it appropriate to mention other false/wrong submissions/averments made by the plaintiff in her plaint as well as during her evidence, which further impeaches the credibility of the plaintiff as witness and which disentitles her to CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 39 OF 50 18.02.2026 seek any relief from this Court. The necessary facts in this regard are being discussed in ensuing paragraphs.
101. As stated, the plaintiff has initially filed the present suit on 08.08.2007 by specifically stating in original plaint that the suit property falls in khasra no.937 and not in khasra no.136/10/2 and it was specifically stated that the property of defendant no.1 forms part of khasra no.136/10/2 and therefore, the suit property shown in the site plan, which is part of kharsa no.937, pertains to plaintiff. With these averments, the plaintiff has specifically sought a declaration to the effect that the suit property falls in khasra no.937 instead of khasra no.136/10/2. It is also highlighted earlier that the defence of the defendant no. 1 was that the suit property falling in old khasra no. 1060 belongs to defendant no.1 and in his initial WS itself, defendant no. 1 has relied upon one report dated 30.05.1983 so as to plead that old khasra number 1060 has changed now to new khasra no.136/10/2.
102. Even in the demarcation report dated 19.12.2007 filed by Tehsildar concerned in compliance of order dated 01.09.2007 of this court, it has been specifically mentioned that as per the revenue record, the suit property presently falls in khasra no.136/10/2. Later on, the plaintiff after relying upon the RTI reply of revenue department dated 23.07.2008 Ex.PW1/H stated that the an RTI was filed by her husband Phiraya Lal with the Revenue Department and it was revealed vide said RTI reply dated 23.07.2008 that old khasra no. 937 is now known as khasra no. 136/10/2. Said reply dated 23.07.2008 was also exhibited during the evidence of PW2 as Ex.PW2/1. Perusal of said reply dated 23.07.2008 reveals that vide said RTI, details of new Khasra CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 40 OF 50 18.02.2026 number after chakbandi in respect of old khasra number 937 were sought by husband of the plaintiff and in reply to said question, the new khasra numbers of old khasra number 937 after chakbandi were mentioned as 136/10/1/1, 10/1/2, 10/2, 10/3, 10/4 and 137/6.
103. It is further clear from the record that said RTI reply dated 23.07.2008 was made the basis by the plaintiff to move an application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC with the averments that by way of said RTI reply, plaintiff has come to know that the new khasra number pertaining to old khasra no. 937 is khasra number 136/10/2 and accordingly, believing the said version of the plaintiff, the court vide order dated 05.05.2012, allowed the said application of the plaintiff and allowed her to amend her plaint.
104. But interestingly, the said factum about the knowledge of plaintiff about new khasra number in respect of old khasra number 937 only through RTI reply dated 23.07.2008 is completely against the facts proved on record. In this regard, the defendant no. 1 in her written statement has mentioned about some past litigations initiated by husband Phiraya Lal of the plaintiff against few persons in the year 1994 vide civil suit no.32/94, which civil suit was dismissed by concerned court on 19.01.2005. Though the purpose of defendant no. 1 in mentioning the factum of past litigations by husband of plaintiff, was to highlight the habit of plaintiff and her husband in initiating false and frivolous litigations against various people so as to harass them, however, the details of said past litigation reveals that plaintiff/her husband had the knowledge regarding new khasra number in respect of old khasra no. 937 way back in the year 1994 itself.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 41 OF 50 18.02.2026
105. In this regard, defendant no.1, during his evidence summoned DW-2 Bal Krishan Sharma (a private witness who was one of the defendants in said past case filed by husband of plaintiff) and DW-2 tendered the certified copy of judgment dated 19.01.2005 passed in said civil suit as Ex.DW2/1. Despite opportunity, the said witness DW-2 was not cross examined on behalf of plaintiff and therefore, the genuineness of said document Ex.DW2/1 remained uncontroverted.
106. Now perusal of Ex.DW2/1 reveals that a civil suit bearing no.32/94 was filed by husband of the plaintiff against three persons (including witness DW-2 herein) seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction as well as a decree of possession in respect of a plot bearing no.12/14 measuring 200 sq. yds. falling in khasra no.937, Gali No.8, situated in Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. Perusal of the site plan Ex.PW1/A as filed by the plaintiff in the present case indicates that the said plot bearing no.12/14 is immediately adjacent to the suit property in question in this case and is stated on the south side of the suit property in question and, therefore, the same is also part of khasra no.937 as per the case of the plaintiff.
107. But interestingly, in para no.2 of the said judgment Ex. DW2/1, while mentioning the brief case of the plaintiff in that case, it has been recorded that the new number of the said khasra no.937 is 136/10/3. It is apt to reproduce para no.1 of the said judgment dated 19.01.2005 Ex. DW2/1, as passed by the concerned court, in the aforesaid suit filed in the year 1994 by husband of the plaintiff against few other persons and the same is as under:-
"Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining defendant no.3 from raising and CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 42 OF 50 18.02.2026 constructing any plot ad-measuring 200 Sq. Yds in Khasra no. 937, Plot No. 12/14, new Khasra no.136/10/3 and Gali no.8, situated in Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi and from parting with, the possession of any 3 rd person and directing defendant no.1 and 2 to demolish unauthorised and illegal construction as shown in the site plan and restore the plot in its original position and also for possession of the said plot."
108. Bare perusal of the said judgment Ex. DW-2/1 reveals that it was clearly within the knowledge of husband of the plaintiff way back in the year 1994 itself that the new khasra number of old khasra no.937 is 136/10/3, whereas in the present case filed in the year 2007, the plaintiff has clearly alleged that she had come to know about the new khasra number bearing 136/10/2 in respect of old khasra no.937 only on the basis of an RTI reply of revenue department, as received by her husband in the year 2008.
109. The aforesaid facts on record clearly indicates that the plaintiff has made completely false averments in her application for amendment and by making such false averments, she has been able to obtain an order for amendment of plaint from this court and reiterated the averments regarding new khasra number in her plaint as well as evidence. The plaintiff made the aforesaid false averments for reasons best known to her, however, it appears that the same were prompted by the unfavourable demarcation report dated 19.12.2007 submitted by the concerned Tehsildar in compliance with the Court's order dated 01.09.2007, wherein it was recorded that the suit property falls within Khasra No. 136/10/2.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 43 OF 50 18.02.2026
110. Notably, in the RTI reply dated 23.07.2008 issued by the Revenue Department, the new khasra numbers corresponding to old Khasra No. 937 after chakbandi were specified as Khasra Nos. 136/10/1/1, 136/10/1/2, 136/10/2, 136/10/3, 136/10/4, and 137/6. Despite this, the plaintiff amended her plaint by mentioning only Khasra No. 136/10/2 as the new khasra number in place of old Khasra No. 937, apparently with the intention of aligning her pleadings with the demarcation report dated 19.12.2007, which stated that the suit property formed part only of Khasra No. 136/10/2.
111. Therefore, the conduct of the plaintiff in suppressing and concealing material facts in general as highlighted above, coupled with making the false averments to the effect that she has come to know about new khasra number in respect of old khasra no.937 only through an RTI reply dated 23.07.2008 received by her husband from the revenue department, completely impeaches the credibility of plaintiff as a witness and completely demolishes her case. Due to such suppression and wrong averments, the plaintiff has been able to drag the defendants in this litigation for more than one and a half decade. These facts on record clearly disentitles the plaintiff to seek the equitable relief of possession and injunction as sought by her in this case. Therefore, both the issues no. 6 & 7 are decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No.5 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
112. Onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. In this regard, in view of the discussion made while giving findings on issue no. 6 and 7, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove her right, CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 44 OF 50 18.02.2026 interest or title over the suit property in question by producing the admissible documents of her title and therefore, she has failed to show her locus to seek relief sought by way of prayer no.(a) made in her plaint, in pursuance of which prayer, the present issue was framed. Therefore, only on the basis of this ground, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any adjudication on the present issue. However, this Court deems it appropriate to discuss this issue in brief on merits and on the basis of evidence led on behalf of parties.
113. In this regard, the entire evidence led on behalf of plaintiff is restricted to the aspect that old khasra no.937 has been given new khasra no.136/10/2 but, as stated above, the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to show that the suit property as indicated in the site plan forms part of khasra no. 937. In addition, perusal of the evidence, which will be discussed in ensuing paragraphs, reveals that the plaintiff has even failed to prove that the old khasra number 937 has been changed to new khasra no.136/10/2 after chakbandi.
114. Firstly, the plaintiff has alleged her knowledge about the new khasra number in respect of old khasra no.937 on the basis of RTI reply dated 23.08.2007 Ex.PW2/1, but as discussed earlier, in the said reply, the revenue department has given various new khasra numbers in respect of old khasra no.937, which new khasra numbers are 136/10/1/1, 136/10/1/2, 10/2, 10/3, 10/4. So, the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property in question is part of specifically khasra no.136/10/2, is not made out even as per the case set up by plaintiff herself in the amended plaint. In other words, plaintiff has failed to give any basis as to how she has assumed that the suit property i.e. plot bearing no.12/15 falling in CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 45 OF 50 18.02.2026 old khasra number 937, forms part of new khasra no.136/10/2 only and not part of any other new khasra numbers as indicated in the RTI reply. Further, as stated above, in the previous suit bearing no.32/94 filed by husband of the plaintiff against few persons, the adjacent plot bearing no.12/14 (the plot indicated as immediately adjacent towards south of the suit property in site plan Ex. PW1/A in this case), is stated to be part of new khasra no.136/10/3.
115. Now, various witnesses from the Revenue Department have been examined on behalf of plaintiff to prove new khasra number in respect of old khasra no.937. In this regard, PW2 Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Patwari has specifically stated that he has brought the summoned record i.e. Khatoni of village Burari for the year 1993- 94 in respect of khasra no. 136/10/1/1, 136/10/1/2, 10/2, 10/3, 10/4 and as per the said witness, the old khasra number in respect of the said khasra numbers is khasra no. 937 and said khatoni was exhibited as Ex.PW2/2 (colly.) during evidence of said witness. But PW-2, in his cross examination clearly as under-
"it is correct that the old Khasra numbers have not been specified in Ex.PW2/2 (colly) specifically with regard to Khasra no. 136/10/1/2. It is correct that from the record as placed by me it is not clarified that the khasra numbers 136/10/1/1, 10/1/2, 10/2, 10/3, 10/4 and 137/6 are the part of old Khasra no. 937."
116. Similarly, PW3 also tendered various documents in his evidence pertaining to khatoni, chakbandi and field book of old khasra no.937 & 1060 but perusal of the said documents nowhere clarifies that the suit property in question specifically falls in new khasra no.136/10/2. During cross examination of said witness CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 46 OF 50 18.02.2026 PW-3, even the court asked a specific question that whether khasra no.937 & 938 were changed to khasra no.136 & 136/10/2, whereupon witness stated that he has no knowledge about the same.
117. Likewise, the evidence of PW4 Sh. Santosh Dutt Tiwari, Patwari office of Civil Lines, Burari also could not establish that the suit property allegedly falling in old khasra no.937 became part of new khasra no.136/10/2. The relevant portion of cross examination of the said witness is being reproduced as under:-
"I cannot say which land and kasra no. was allotted in lieu of khasra no. 1060 or 937. (witness is shown the first page of Ex. PW4/2 and asked by the court whether previous khasra numbers as mentioned in column no. 1938-937 were changed to new khasra no. 136/10/2 as mentioned in column no. 2, witness stated that new khasra number may be one of the new khasra numbers but it can not besaid with certainty that how many khasra numbers were made from old khasra no. 938-937, that can be ascertained from old sizra/map)"
118. Therefore, from the aforesaid evidence on record, the plaintiff has firstly failed to prove that the suit property i.e. plot bearing no.12/15, Gali No.8, Sant Nagar is part of old khasra no. 937 and plaintiff has further failed to prove that the old khasra no. 937 has changed to new khasra no.136/10/2. Accordingly, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 47 OF 50 18.02.2026 Issue No. 8 - Relief
119. Since, the issues no. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, have been decided against the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
Imposition of cost -
120. Before parting with the matter, it is pertinent to observe that, in light of the findings recorded in paragraphs 97 to 111 hereinabove, it is evident that the plaintiff made incorrect averments before this Court. It is also clear that the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the true facts about the disposal of previous litigation between her and three persons including the predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.1, on merits and falsely claimed that the said suit was disposed of on account of compromise between the plaintiff and predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.1. On the basis of such misstatements and suppression of facts, plaintiff has initiated this second round of litigation against the defendants herein and also succeeded in prolonging the present litigation for over one and a half decades, despite having neither any equity nor any valid cause of action in her favour. Consequently, this Court finds the present suit to be wholly frivolous.
121. Although the plaintiff's conduct in making incorrect and false averments in her plaint and in her evidence renders her prima facie liable for perjury, but the court is restraining itself to initiate perjury proceedings against the plaintiff. However, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in various cases including Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 249, the court deems it CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 48 OF 50 18.02.2026 appropriate to impose appropriate cost while dismissing the present suit filed by the plaintiff. Before quantifying cost, it would be apt to mention the following observations o Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr. Lrs.& Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 370 -
"82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi and Others (supra) aptly observed at page 266 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that Court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least be minimized if exemplary cost is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pages 267-268 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 49 OF 50 18.02.2026
122. So, the Court is of the opinion that imposition of exemplary cost on the plaintiff in the present matter is not only desirable but mandatory duty to cast upon the court. Accordingly, the plaintiff is burdened with the cost of Rs. One lakh (out of which the plaintiff shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to defendant no. 1 and plaintiff shall deposit Rs. 50,000/- with District Legal Service Authority, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi).
123. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff qua defendant no. 1, 3 & 4 stands dismissed with cost of Rs. One lakh (out of which the plaintiff shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to defendant no. 1 and plaintiff shall deposit Rs. 50,000/- with District Legal Service Authority, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi). Plaintiff shall pay/deposit the said cost within 02 months from today. Suit qua defendant no. 2/Sumit Jain has already been dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2008 of the court.
124. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open Court Digitally
signed by
on this 18th Day of February, 2026 Gopal Gopal Krishan
Date:
Krishan 2026.02.18
15:26:52
+0530
(GOPAL KRISHAN)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS SCJ No. 593801/2016 VIJAY LAXMI Vs. BIR SAIN JAIN & ORS. PAGE NO. 50 OF 50
18.02.2026