Pawan Sharma vs Aditya Poddar And Anr on 7 March, 2026

[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Pawan Sharma vs Aditya Poddar And Anr on 7 March, 2026

IN THE COURT OF SH. SOMITRA KUMAR, DISTRICT
JUDGE-06 (EAST DISTRICT), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI

Unique ID No.: DLET01-005364-2020
Suit No. 555/2020

In the matter of:-

1.Sh. Pawan Sharma
S/o late Sh. Y.K. Sharma,
R/o H. No. 189, J-Extn.,
Gali No.6, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092.

............Plaintiff

vs.
1. Sh. Aditya Poddar
R/o A-24, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092.

2. East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Shahdara (South) Zone,
Vishwas Nagar, Delhi
Through its Deputy Commissioner.

3. Ms. Rama Poddar
W/o Sh. Shiv Prasad Aggarwal
R/o A-24, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
........Defendants
SOMITRA
KUMAR

Date of institution of the suit : 12.10.2020
Date of Reserving judgment : 15.01.2026 Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR

Date of pronouncement : 07.03.2026 Date:
2026.03.07
05:33:51
+0530

Decision : Dismissed.

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 55
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

1. By way of the present judgment, this court shall
adjudicate upon a suit for possession, permanent and mandatory
injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in respect
of one collapsed shop, portion measuring area 32 sq. yrds.
situated in property no. G-31 (New MPL. No. G-53), G-Block,
Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 (as shown in green
color in the site plan annexed with the plaint). The present
dispute pertains to the identity of the property of which the
plaintiff seeks possession. The plaintiff claims that the aforesaid
property is part of the old plot no. G-31, G-Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092, whereas the defendants no. 1 and 3
claim it is part of the old plot no. G-33 and G-34, G-Block,
Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. There is no dispute
between the parties to the suit that at present the disputed
property bears municipal no. G-53, G-Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. In view of the aforesaid factual
situation, the aforesaid property which is the subject matter of
the present suit shall be referred to as suit property or disputed
property or property in question interchangeably.
CASE OF PLAINTIFF
2. The case of the plaintiffs as averred in the plaint is that
the plaintiff is the owner of property bearing No. G-31 (New
MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg,
Delhi-110092 vide Registered Relinquishment Deed dated
02.01.2015 (hereinafter referred as 'the said property' as shown
SOMITRA
KUMAR

in red color in the site plan). Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 55 Date:
2026.03.07
05:34:04
+0530
3. It is further averred in the plaint that the mother of the
plaintiff, namely Smt. Savita Devi was the absolute and
exclusive owner of the said property, having purchased the said
entire property from its erstwhile owner, Sh. Som Prakash Rekhi
vide registered GPA dated 05.03.1973; that Smt. Savita Devi
died intestate on 09.03.1981, leaving behind the plaintiff, one
other son, Sh. Mohan Sharma and her husband Sh. Y.K. Sharma
as her legal heirs; that the father of the plaintiff also expired on
11.10.2009, leaving behind the plaintiff and Sh. Mohan Sharma
as his only legal heirs; thereafter, the brother of the plaintiff
relinquished his share in the said property in favour of the
plaintiff vide Registered Relinquishment Deed dated 02.01.2015
and hence, by virtue of the said relinquishment deed, the
plaintiff became the owner of the said property.

4. It is further averred that there are three shops situated on
the said property, out of which, one shop measuring area of 32
sq. yrds. collapsed about two and a half years ago, as it was in a
dilapidated condition, and since then, the said shop has been in
the same condition.

5. It is further averred that the defendant is a land grabber
and the defendant forcibly entered into the said property and
started inspecting the same; that the defendant misbehaved with
the plaintiff when the plaintiff asked for his introduction and
explanation for entering the said property and claimed himself
as the owner of the suit property i.e. the portion measuring area SOMITRA
KUMAR

32 Sq. yrds. Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:

Page No. 3 of 55
2026.03.07
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. 05:34:14
+0530
6. It is further averred that on 06.10.2020, the defendant
came to the said suit property along with some masons and
labourers, and he also brought some building material and
started raising construction in the said property; that the plaintiff
asked the defendant to stop construction on the said property as
he had no right, title and interest in the said property, however,
the defendant did not listen to the request of the plaintiff and
continued to raise unauthorized and illegal construction for
which no permission has been obtained.

7. It is further submitted that, seeing no other option, the
plaintiff, for two consecutive days on 06.10.2020 and
07.10.2020, made a PCR Call to the police official and narrated
the entire facts to the police officials, and showed his ownership
documents to the police and requested the police officials to
stop the construction work. However, the said police officials
did not help and failed to stop the said unauthorized and illegal
work of the construction in the property of the plaintiff being
done by the defendant and also failed to get the said property
evicted from the defendant stating that the police did not have
power to stop construction work and that the defendant is a very
influential person and having good links with the higher police
official.

8. It is further averred that the plaintiff again requested the
defendant to stop the construction work and to handover the
peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff but
SOMITRA
KUMAR

instead of paying any heed to the request of the plaintiff, the
Digitally
signed by

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 55
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:34:22
+0530
defendant threatened the plaintiff that he would grab the said
property by raising the construction work and he would kill
plaintiff and his family members in case any complaint is made
against him citing his good links with the officials of EDMC
and the police and no official of any department would take any
action against him; and that the defendant threatened to create
third party interest in the said property.

9. It is further averred that the defendant has no right, title,
or interest in the said property of the plaintiff in any manner
whatsoever, and the defendant has no right to raise a
construction over the said property; however, the defendant has
taken possession of the said shop measuring an area of 32 sq.
yrds. forcibly, illegally and unlawfully with the sole intention to
grab the same despite having no right or interest.

10. It is further averred that the defendant is raising the illegal
and unauthorized construction in the said property by ignoring
the building by-laws and he has also not got sanctioned of the
site plan but despite the knowledge of the same, the officials of
defendant No. 2 are not taking any action against the said illegal
and construction, hence, unauthorized said illegal and
unauthorized construction is liable to be demolished with
immediate effect and the defendant is also liable to be evicted
from the said property. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file
the present suit praying for possession, a permanent and SOMITRA
KUMAR

mandatory injunction against the defendants in respect of the Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:34:31

suit property.
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 55
11. Before issuance of summons in the matter, vide order
dated 17.10.2020, defendant no. 3, SHO, PS Laxmi Nagar was
deleted from array of parties.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1

12. Upon service of summons for the settlement of issues of
this suit, defendant No. 1 contested this suit by filing his written
statement. In the written statement of defendant no.1, it is
pleaded that the plaintiff has not approached the court with
clean hands and concealed the material facts; that defendant no.
1 is not the owner of the property in question, nor ever did he
claim to be the owner thereof.

13. It is further averred that that the mother of the defendant
No.1 i.e. the defendant no. 4 (now defendant no. 3) is the owner
of the property in question, however, the plaintiff has falsely
claimed to be the owner of the property in question; that the
plaintiff is not the owner and was never in the possession of the
property in question; that the plaintiff has fabricated the
relinquishment deed dated 02.01.2015 in connivance with his
brother Sh. Mohan Sharma because the plaintiff claimed therein
that his father had left behind only two legal heirs; that the
plaintiff had obtained one Surviving Member Certificate bearing
no. 90668821268355 dated 27.05.2015 from the office of SDM
(Preet Vihar), Delhi-110031, on the basis of concealment and
misrepresentation about the details of all the legal heirs of his
deceased father, late Sh. Y. K. Sharma and the Ld. SDM (East),
Delhi vide order dated 18.06.2019, cancelled the aforesaid SOMITRA
KUMAR

Surviving Member Certificate; that the plaintiff has not Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 55 Date:
2026.03.07
05:34:43
+0530
challenged the said cancellation to date, and as such, it has
attained finality.

14. It is further averred that the plaintiff has filed the
relinquishment deed dated 02.01.2015 which mentions a sale
deed executed by M/s Delhi Adarsh Financiers Ltd. in favour of
the Sh. Som Prakash Rekhi vide registration no. 6648 in Addl.
Book No. 1 Vol. No. 265 on pages 283-286 dated 18.08.1955 in
the office of sub-registrar Delhi; that the sale deed has been
placed on record by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has also
placed on record the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, all
dated 05.03.1973, executed by some Sh. Som Prakash Rekhi in
favour of the mother of the plaintiff Smt. Savita Devi with
respect land bearing old no. 31, measuring 94 sq. yards out of
khasra no. 74, 75, 78 situated in the abadi of G-block Laxmi
Nagar, Vikas Nagar, in the area of Shakarpur, Illaqa Shahdara,
Delhi-110092, but he has not placed on record any other
document to show that he was ever in possession of the property
in question.

15. It is further averred that the plaintiff has made false
claims about the ownership of the property in question because
the property in question is different from the alleged property of
the plaintiff. The property in question is part of the property sold
by M/s Adarsh Financers Ltd. to Sh. H.R. Makkar i.e, plot nos.
33 & 34, area measuring 400 sq. yards, khasra no. 74, 75, 78
situated in the abadi of G-block Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, in
the area of Shakarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110092 vide Sale SOMITRA
KUMAR

Deed, registered on 18.08.1955 vide registration no. 6649 in
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 55
05:34:52
+0530
Addl. book no. 1 Vol. no. 265 on pages 287-290 in the office of
SR, Delhi. Thereafter, Sh. H.R. Makkar out of 400 sq. yards of
plot nos. 33 & 34 (New MPL. No. G-53) sold an area measuring
120 sq. yards, on 21.03.1974, to Smt. Savita Devi and executed
GPA, Agreement to Sell and Receipt all dated 21.03.1974. Smt.
Savita Devi sold the said property area measuring 120 sq. yards
to Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma on 28.08.1978 by executing GPA,
Agreement to Sell and Receipt all dated 28.08.1978 Sh. Rakesh
Kumar Sharma.

16. It is further averred that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
constructed the said property, out of which he sold the ground
floor measuring 40 sq. yards, two sides open to Sh. Arun Kumar
Gupta for consideration and executed an Irrevocable GPA
having registration no. 20304 in Book no. 4, Vol. no. 3493 on
pages 163-167 dated 16.11.1995 in the office of SR-IV, Delhi
and Will Deed dated 16.11.1995 registered as document No.
35992 in Book no.3 Vol. no. 1327 on page no. 32 in the office
of SR-IV, Delhi. The said Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta got an
electricity connection installed in his name and also paid house
tax of the same on 03.03.2005 to EDMC, and also started
paying house tax of the said ground floor portion of the said
property in question. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma sold first floor
thereof to Ms. Shaifali Gupta and Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta, on
29.10.2011, second floor to Mrs. Sangeeta Goel, third floor to
Sh. Sudesh Kumar Singh on 14.05.2009, and the roof rights
were retained by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma with himself.
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:35:00
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 55
17. It is further averred that Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta sold the
ground floor of the property in question to mother of the
answering defendant i.e. the defendant No.4 (now defendant no.
3) through registered Sale Deed dated; 26.10.2012; that since
there was some typographical error in the said sale deed dated
26.10.2012 with respect to the khasra numbers as such the same
was got rectified through registered rectification deed dated
12.11.2012 by the mother of the answering defendant.

18. It is further averred that the mother of the answering
defendant let out her ground floor portion to M/s V.B. Mobile
Services Pvt. Ltd., through a registered Leave & License
Agreement dated 26.03.2013 at a monthly license fee of Rs.
57,000/. It was further given on lease through Leave & License
Agreement dated 02.02.2014 to Mr. Akshay Arya, proprietor of
M/s A-1 Gold Buyer at a monthly license fee of Rs. 51,000/.
Thereafter, the said ground floor was again given on license to
Sh. Amit Kumar and Sh. Mukesh Kumar, through a registered
Leave & License Agreement dated 09.08.2016, at a monthly
license fee of Rs. 50,000/-. The mother of the answering
defendant got an electricity connection installed at the ground
floor of the property in question in the year 2012 itself without
any hindrance of any nature from anyone. The mother of the
answering defendant has also been paying the house tax of her
portion.

19. It is further submitted that all floors of the property in
question unfortunately collapsed on 02.07.2017. The property in
question, prior to its collapse, was owned and occupied in the
Digitally

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 55 SOMITRA signed
SOMITRA
KUMAR
by

KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:35:09
+0530
following manner, i.e. the ground floor of the new property
bearing no. G-53, out of the khasra no. 74, 75, 78 situated in the
abadi of G-block Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, in the area of
Shakarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110092 area measuring 40 sq.
yards owned and occupied by the defendant No. 4 (now
defendant no. 3) and the first floor thereof owned and occupied
by Ms. Shaifali Gupta and Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta, second
floor owned and occupied by Mrs. Sangeeta Goel, third floor
owned and occupied by Sh. Sudesh Kumar Singh and the roof
rights owned and occupied by Sh. Rakesh Kumar. The plaintiff,
even after the collapse of the property in question on 02.07.2017
did not make any claim till the time defendant No. 4 (now
defendant no. 3) started raising construction in October 2020.
The plaintiff has abused the process of law by making a false
claim over the property in question, and therefore, the plaintiff's
suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

20. It is further averred that apparently the fabricated
documents produced by the plaintiff along with the present suit
pertain to a distinct property bearing old no. 31 having area
measuring 32 sq. yards and not part of the property bearing old
nos. 33 & 34 having area measuring 40 Sq. yrds.; that the
plaintiff has not produced even a single document to show that
he or his predecessor has any connection whatsoever or
was/were ever in possession of the property in question; that
even prior to 02.07.2017, the plaintiff never claimed any right,
title or interest over the property in question; that the above
named persons have been directly or indirectly enjoying their
SOMITRA
KUMAR

uninterrupted and peaceful possession over their respective
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 55 Date:
2026.03.07
05:35:17
+0530
portion/ floor of the property in question prior to 02.07.2017;
that after collapse of the property in question Delhi Police
registered an FIR No. 299/2017 with P.S. Shakarpur U/section
336/337/188 IPC and during the course of investigation names
of all the owners (including mother of the answering defendant)
of the property in question were disclosed, however, name of
the plaintiff is not there; that it seems that the intentions of
plaintiff became dishonest when the mother of the answering
defendant started raising construction in October 2020 after the
collapse of the property in question on 02.07.2017 and then the
plaintiff started raised his false claims over the property in
question; that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the property in
question as the fabricated title documents filed by him pertains
to the property bearing old no. 31 measuring 94 sq. yrds and the
property in question is a part of old properties nos. 33 & 34
measuring 120 sq. yrds.

21. It is further averred that the plaintiff visited the property
in question on 06.10.2020 and threatened defendant no. 1 to part
with possession of the ground floor of the property in question
or else pay Rs. 2 crores failing which the plaintiff would
implicate defendant no. 1 in false and frivolous case; the
plaintiff called the police when defendant no. 1 refused to
succumb to threats of the plaintiff and did not accede to his
illegal demands. The entire game plan of the plaintiff was
exposed when the title documents of the property in question
and prior communication with the police were shown to the
SOMITRA
police; and that the present false and frivolous suit has been KUMAR

Digitally signed

filed by the plaintiff to pressurize defendant no. 1.
by SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:35:30
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 55
22. It is further averred that the present suit has not been
properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction
hence, the same is liable to be rejected; that the as the market
value of the suit property is not less than Rs. 500,00,000/-, thus,
this Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present suit; that the suit is bad for the non-joinder
of the necessary parties; that the present suit is without any
cause of action against the answering defendant as such the
present suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

23. Rest, all the allegations made in the plaint are denied by
defendant no.1. However, in reply on merits, it is also submitted
that the plaintiff and his brother Sh. Manmohan Sharma have
fraudulently with their dishonest intentions did not disclose the
name of their other sibling in the Relinquishment deed dated
02.01.2015, therefore, the said relinquishment deed is void
document being obtained fraudulently on the basis of
concealment of material particulars; that mother of the plaintiff
at the time of her death had no right, title or interest in the
property in question, accordingly, the plaintiff or his brother and
other siblings have no right, title or interest in the property in
question; that story of defendant no. 1 being an influential
person having good link with police and EDMC is false and
concocted which is evident from the fact that defendant no. 2
not only booked the property of defendant no. 4 (now defendant
no. 3) but also took further action thereon; and that defendant
no. 1 has no right, title and interest over the property in question
as such the question of raising any construction by him does not SOMITRA
KUMAR

arise. Digitally signed
by SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:35:39
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 55
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2

24. In the written statement of the defendant no.2/East Delhi
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "EDMC"), it is pleaded that
the present suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has not served the
statutory notice under section 477/478/DMC Act prior to filing
the present suit; that the present suit is not maintainable as no
cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and against
the answering defendant as such suit is liable to be dismissed
being without cause of action qua answering defendant; that the
present suit is bad for mis-joinder / non-joinder of the necessary
party. Moreover, Defendant No.2, i.e. East Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Shahdara (South) Zone, Vishwas Nagar, through
its Deputy Commissioner, is neither a necessary nor a proper
party in the present suit. It is averred that the EDMC could only
be sued through the Commissioner, EDMC, being the Executive
Head of the Institution. Hence, the present suit is liable to be
dismissed on this sole ground alone. It is averred that suit
property bearing No. G-53 (Part), Main Vikas Marg, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi was inspected on 16.10.2020 by the area Junior
Engineer (Building)-II, Shahdara (South) Zone, EDMC and
during the inspection, it was noticed that the
owner/occupier/builder of the above property was raising the
unauthorized construction in the shape of ground floor and
projection on municipal land. Therefore, the answering SOMITRA
KUMAR

defendant booked the unauthorized construction vide file Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA

No.242/B/UC/SH/S/2020 dated 16.10.2020. In this regard, a KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:35:48
+0530

show cause notice dated 16.10.2020 u/s 343/344 of DMC Act

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 55
was issued & served upon the owner/occupier/builder of the
above property; that a work stop notice dated 19.10.2020 was
also sent to the SHO, P.S., Laxmi Nagar, Delhi with request to
stop the unauthorized construction activities at the suit property
and copy of the same was also sent to the
owner/occupier/builder. However, the owner/occupier/builder
neither gave a reply to the above show cause notice dated
16.10.2020 within the stipulated period nor stopped the
unauthorized construction activities. Hence, the demolition
notice/order dated 28.10.2020 u/s 343 of DMC Act was issued
& served upon the owner/occupier of the above property, and a
reply to the same is awaited. It is also averred that further action
would be taken as per the provisions of the DMC Act.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT NO.3

25. Vide order dated 05.12.2020, Smt. Rama Poddar was
impleaded as defendant in the present suit and as per amended
memo of parties, Smt. Rama Poddar is defendant no. 3 in the
present suit. After her impleadment, the plaintiff did not amend
the plaint, however, defendant no. 3 filed her written statement.
In the written statement of defendant no.3, it is pleaded that she
is the owner of the property in question. All the averments in the
written statement of defendant no. 3 are verbatim reproductions
of averments in the written statement of defendant no. 1.

26. Replication has not been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to
written statement of the defendants.
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date: 2026.03.07
05:35:59 +0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 55
FRAMING OF ISSUES
27. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the
following issues were framed on 20.08.2022.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for a
decree of possession concerning the suit property, as prayed for?
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitled for
a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction as prayed for?
OPP
3. Whether the defendants prove that the present suit is not
properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?
OPD
4. Whether the defendants further proves that the suit is bad
for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties of the suit?
OPD
5. Whether the defendants further prove that present suit is
filed without cause of action and is liable to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC?OPD
6. Relief.

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE

28. In support of his claim the plaintiff examined seven
witnesses. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. In his
examination in chief, PW1 Sh. Pawan Sharma deposed in the
line of plaint and tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A in his evidence
and relied upon the following documents in support of the
plaint:-
1. Ex. PW1/1-site plan.
2. Mark PW1/2-Photocopy of relinquishment deed.
3. Mark-PW1/3- photocopy of GPA dated 05.03.1973.
4. Mark- PW1/4- photocopy of Sale deed dated 18.07.1955.
5. Mark- PW1/5- photocopy of true English Translation of the
sale deed dated 18.07.1955. SOMITRA
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date: 2026.03.07
05:36:12 +0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 55
6. Mark-PW1/6 copy of the Death certificate of the mother of
the plaintiff.
7. Mark-PW1/7- photographs (total 8).
8. Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) -Aadhar Card.
11. PW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for
defendant no.1 and 3 as well as Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2.

29. Sh. Parvesh Khatri, Record Keeper from Registrar-VIII,
Geeta Colony, Delhi was the summoned witness and examined
as PW-2. He has brought on record the original sale deed vide
registration no. 17217 in book no.1, Vol no. 4910 on page no.
187 to 193 dated 16.09.2010, Ex.PW-2/A (OSR). PW-2 was
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 3.

30. Shri Naveen, Record Keeper. Department of Delhi
Archives, 18A, Satsang Vihar Marg. Special Institutional Area,
New Delhi-63 was the summoned witness and examined as
PW-3. He brought the summoned record General Power of
Attorney vide registration No. 1621, additional book no.4,
volume No. 45. page 91 to 92 registered on 08.03.1973, Ex.
PW3/A (OSR). Copy of the document brought by him is Ex.
PW3/A-1. PW3 also brought on record Sale Deed in Urdu
bearing registration no. 6648, additional book no. 1. volume no.
265. page no. 283 to 286 registered on 08.08.1955, Ex. PW3/B.
PW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1
and 3.

31. Sh. Mahesh Babu, Record Keeper, Office of Sub-
SOMITRA
KUMAR

Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR

Registrar-VIII-A, Preet Vihar, Delhi was the summoned witness
Date:
2026.03.07
05:36:19
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 55
and examined as PW-4. He brought the summoned record i.e.
original relinquishment deed dated 02.01.2015 executed by Mr.
Mohan Sharma in favour of Mr. Pawan Sharma registered at
book no. 1, Vol. No. 423, registration no. 21, page no. 41 dated
02.01.2015, Ex.PW-4/1 (OSR). PW-4 was cross-examined by
Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 3.

32. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sub-Registrar from Birth and Death
Dept., Mandir Marg, New Delhi was the summoned witness and
examined as PW-5. He brought the summoned record i.e.
attested copy of death certificate of late Smt. Savita, registration
no. 729 is Ex.PW-5/1.

33. Thereafter, vide a separate statement of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff's evidence was closed on 12.10.2023.

34. However, vide order dated 28.02.2025, the plaintiff was
permitted to lead additional evidence. Pursuant to this, the
plaintiff summoned and examined PW-6 and PW-7.

35. Sh. Tarun Kadyan, Patwari, SDM Office, Preet Vihar,
Delhi was the summoned witness and examined as PW-6. He
brought the summoned record i.e. surviving member certificate
(SMC) vide its number 90660000258850 issued on 27.11.2024
along with the documents furnished by the applicant namely Sh.
Pawan Sharma at the time of applying the said certificate.
Attested copy of the same are Ex.PW6/1 (Colly. running into 21
pages). PW-6 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the
defendants. SOMITRA
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:36:27
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 55
36. Sh. Jaswant Kumar, Junior Clerk, BSES Yamuna Power
Ltd., Division Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, was a summoned
witness and examined as PW-7. He has brought the summoned
record i.e. electricity bill of CA no. 151718736 in the name of
Sh. Mohan Sharma dated 04.06.2016 along with other relevant
record. Attested copy of same are Ex.PW7/1 (Colly. running
into 35 pages back to back). PW-7 also brought on record the
attested copy of final bill and meter reading chart of electricity
connection with CA no. 151718736. PW-7 was cross examined
by Ld. Counsel for the defendants.

DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE

37. Defendant No. 1 & 3 examined eleven witnesses.
Defendant No. 1 & 3 have examined Defendant No. 1 as DW-1.
In his examination in chief, DW1 Sh. Aditya Poddar deposed in
line with the written statement filed in this suit and he tendered
his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon
the following document:-
1. Copy of sale deed dated 08.08.1955 along with
translation, Ex.DW-1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of executed GPA, Agreement to Sell and receipt all
dated 21.03.1974, Mark A to C (Colly).
3. Copy of executed GPA, Agreement to Sell and receipt all
dated 28.08.1978, Mark D to F (Colly).
4. Copy of irrevocable GPA dated 16.11.1995, Ex.DW-1/4
(OSR). Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA

5. Copy of Will dated 16.11.1995, Ex.DW-1/5. SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:36:33
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 55
6. Copy of electricity bill in the name of Sh. Arun Kumar
Gupta, Mark G.
7. Copy of the mutation letter, Mark H.
8. Copy of house tax receipts in the name of Sh. Arun
Kumar Gupta, Mark I (Colly).
9. Copy of sale deed dated 24.10.2011, Mark J.
10. Copy of sale deed dated 26.10.2012, Ex. DW-1/10 (OSR).
11. Registered rectification deed dated 12.11.2012, Ex. DW-
1/11 (OSR).
12. Copy of registered Leave & License Agreement dated
26.03.2013 and dated 02.02.2014 (notarized) and dated
09.08.2016 , Mark K to M.
13. Copy of demand note dated 23.11.2012 for new
electricity connection, Mark N.
14. Copy of house tax receipts, Mark O (Colly).
15. Copy of police complaints dated 03.10.2020 and
11.10.2020 with SHO PS Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, Ex.
DW-1/17 (Colly)(OSR).

38. DW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff.

39. Sh. Gopal Dutt, Record Keeper from Sub-Register-IV,
Seelampur, Delhi was the summoned witness and examined as
DW-2. He brought the summoned record i.e. irrevocable GPA
dated 16.11.1995 which is already Ex.DW-1/4. He has also
brought the summoned record i.e. Will dated 16.11.1995 already
Ex.DW-1/5. DW-2 compared the Ex. DW1/4 and Ex. DW1/5
with the original record brought by him and found it to be the
Digitally
signed by

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 55 KUMAR
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:36:40
+0530
same and correct as per record brough by him. DW-2 was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

40. Sh. Mahesh Babu, Record Keeper from Sub-Register-
VIIIA, Preet Vihar, Delhi was the summoned witness and
examined as DW-3. He brought the summoned record i.e.
original leave and license agreement dated 05.08.2016, and the
same was compared with the document already marked as
Mark M, and found it to be same and correct as per record
brought by him and the certified copy of Mark M is now
Ex.DW-3/1. DW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff.

41. Sh. Deepak Upadhyay, Area Zonal Inspector from MCD,
Shahdara South-Zone, East Delhi was the summoned witness
and examined as DW-4. He brought the summoned record i.e.
copy of mutation letter dated 03.03.2005 in the name of Sh.
Arun Kumar Gupta. He has seen and compared the record
brought by him with the document already marked as Mark H
and the copy of the same, Ex.DW-4/1. He also brought copy of
house tax receipts in the name of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta which
are already marked as Mark I (Colly), which are same and
correct as per record brought by him. Copies of the House Tax
Receipt are now Ex.DW-4/2 (Colly). He also brought copy of
statement of house tax receipts in the name of Smt. Rama
Poddar which already marked as Mark O (Colly), the entries
shown in the statement are same and correct as per record
brought by him. Copy of statement is Ex.DW-4/3. DW-4
deposed that as per the record, Smt. Rama Poddar is the
Digitally
signed by

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 55
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:36:48
+0530
recorded tax payer of shop at property no. G-53, Ground Floor,
Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Copy of mutation
letter dated 12.11.2020, Ex.DW-4/4. DW-4 was cross-examined
by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. During cross-examination,
DW-4 deposed he cannot tell what is the old number of the
property no. G-53, Vikas Mark, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
During cross examination, DW-4 also placed on record a sale
deed dated 26.10.2012 executed by Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta in
favour of Smt. Rama Poddar already Ex.DW-1/10, which is
available in our record and provided by Smt. Rama Poddar.

42. Sh. Shri Niwas, MTS, Sub-Register-VIII, Geeta Colony,
Delhi was the summoned witness and examined as DW-5. He
brought the summoned record i.e. copy of leave and license
agreement dated 26.03.2013. He has seen and compared the
record brought by him with the document already marked as
Mark K, which is the same and correct as per the record brought
by him. Copy of the same is Ex.DW-5/2. DW-5 also compared
the record brought by him with the document already
Ex.DW-1/11 (registered rectification deed dated 12.11.2012),
which is the same and correct as per the document brought by
him. DW-5 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

43. Sh. Rajinder Singh, Record Attendant from Department
of Delhi Archives was the summoned witness and examined as
DW-6. He brought the summoned record i.e. copy of the sale
deed dated 08.08.1955 and compared with the documents Ex.
DW1/1 already on record and found it to be correct as per
record brought by him. Copy of the sale deed brought by DW-6
Digitally

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 55 signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:36:56
+0530
is Ex.DW-6/1 (containing 3 pages). DW-6 was cross-examined
by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff,

44. Sh. Kuldeep Singh, MTS from Sub-Registrar-VIII, Geeta
Colony, Delhi was the summoned witness and examined as
DW-7. He brought the summoned record i.e. copy of the sale
deed dated 26.10.2012 and compared with the documents Ex.
DW1/10 already on record and found it to be correct as per
record brought by him. Copy of the sale deed dated 26.10.2012,
brought by DW-7 is Ex.DW-7/1. DW-7 was cross-examined by
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

45. Sh. Yashpal Dua, Assistant Grade-I from BSES Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi was the summoned witness and examined as
DW-8. He brought the summoned record of CA No. 100971853
and deposed that as per record the electricity connection vide
said CA No. 100971853 was installed in the house of Arun
Kumar Gupta at G-53, Ground Floor, Vikas Marg, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi-110092. The record of the said connection was
burnt/destroyed due to fire on 11.12.2016 in their office. A fire
report in this regard was made on 11.12.2016. Copy of fire
report, Ex.DW8/1. Letter/Report dated 20.12.2023 with regard
to the destruction/burning of record, issued by their business
Manager (D) LNR, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. is Ex.DW8/2.
DW-8 also brought the summoned record of CA No.
150600605 and deposed that as per record the said CA No.
150600605 is in the name of Smt. Rama Poddar. He has brought
the attested copies of electricity bill dated 24.07.2017 along with
new connection service form, election ID card of Smt. Rama
Digitally
signed by

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 55 KUMAR
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:37:06
+0530
Poddar and Sh. Arun Gupta, NOC issued by Sh. Arun Kumar
Gupta in favour of Smt. Rama Poddar, registered Irrevocable
GPA dated 16.11.1995, Ex.DW8/3 (colly). DW-8 was cross-
examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

46. Thereafter, vide a separate statement of the defendant, the
defendant's evidence was closed on 12.07.2024.

47. However, vide order dated 24.11.2025, defendant no. 1 &
3 were permitted to lead additional defendant evidence.
Pursuant to this, defendant no. 1 & 3 examined defendant
witness DW-9, DW-10 and DW-11.

48. Sh. Jaswant Kumar, Junior Clerk, Division Laxmi Nagar,
BSES YPL, Delhi is a summoned witness and examined as
DW-9. He has brought the summoned record i.e. twelve
electricity bills pertaining to CA no. 150600605 for the period
from February 2014 to January 2015. Attested copy of the same
are Ex.DW9/1 (colly.). DW-9 was cross-examined by Ld.
counsel for the defendant.

49. Sh. Ramraj Singh, Relationship Manager, from ICICI
Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi, is a summoned witness and examined
as DW-10. He deposed that the summoned record i.e. bank
statement of account bearing no. 003701015507 in the name of
Smt. Rama Poddar, prior to March 2015, is not available with
his bank as per the bank's record retention policy. He has also
brought the letter dated 03.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Branch
Digitally signed
by SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2026.03.07
05:37:13
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 55
Manager, ICICI Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi, in this regard, which
is Ex. DW10/A.

50. Sh. Shiv Prasad Aggarwal, S/o Late Sh. Ramji Lal was
examined as DW-11 and tendered an affidavit Ex.DW11/A in
his evidence and relied upon the following documents:

1. Copy of his Aadhar card is Ex.DW11/1 (OSR).
2. Copies of bank statement of account bearing no.
003701015507 for the period from 01.04.2013 to
31.03.2015 Ex.DW11/2 (colly).
3. Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.DW11/3.
4. Customer details of account no. 003701015507 issued by
ICICI Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi, Ex.DW11/4.

51. DW-11 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
plaintiff.

52. During the trial of the present matter, the court also
summoned official from the Town Planning Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to produce record of
certified/attested copy of the relevant record (including layout
plan/site plan or any survey) of the old and new numbers
allotted to the properties in G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas
Marg, in the area of village Shakarpur, Illaqua Shahdara,
Delhi-110092 including the property in question i.e. G-53, G-
Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg in the area of village
Shakapur, Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi-110092. In response to the
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 55 Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:37:21
+0530
court summons, Sh. Maneesh Rajpal, Assistant Town Planner,
Town Planning Department, MCD, Delhi, appeared, and he is
examined as court witness CW1. CW1 placed on record a layout
plan and deposed that, as per their records, the property bearing
No. G-53, G Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, falls in the approved
layout plan of Laxmi Nagar Complex. The said layout plan was
approved vide resolution No.119 dated 01.02.1983 by DDA. He
has brought the attested copy of the said layout plan, the same is
Ex.CW-1/1 (OSR). As the attested copy of the layout plan Ex.
CW-1/1 (OSR) was not a clear copy of the layout plan; CW-1
was summoned again with a clearer copy of the layout plan.
CW-1 placed on record a better version of the original layout
plan of Laxmi Nagar Complex, showing G block. Attested copy
of the same is Ex.CW1/2 (OSR). CW1 deposed that in the
layout plan Ex. CW1/2 (OSR), property bearing no. G-53 is
shown at point A. He also deposed that the Town Planning
Department, MCD, Delhi, is not in possession of any document
which shows the old number of the property bearing G-53, G
Block, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.

53. Thereafter, the court summoned an official from the Delhi
Development Authority (DDA) to produce a record
certified/attested copy of the relevant record (including layout
plan/site plan or any survey) of the old number allotted to the
property bearing no. G-53, G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas
Marg, Delhi-110092. In response to the court summons, Ms. SOMITRA
KUMAR

Swati Sharma, Deputy Director (Planning), Zone E & O, Delhi
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA

Development Authority, appeared and she was examined as
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:37:28
+0530

court witness CW2. CW2 deposed that as per their records, the
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 25 of 55
layout plan for property bearing No. G-53, G Block, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi is not available with their unit/department,
therefore, their department cannot provide any information
about the old number of property bearing No. G-53, G Block,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.

54. The court also issued notice to Assessor and Collector,
Headquarters, MCD to produce before the court a
certified/attested copy of the relevant record (including layout
plan/site plan or any survey) of the old and new numbers
allotted to the properties in G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas
Marg, in the area of village Shakarpur, Illaqua Shahdara,
Delhi-110092, including the property in question i.e. G-53, G-
Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg in the area of village
Shakapur, Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi-110092. In response to the
court notice, Sh. Deepak Upadhyay, Area Zonal Inspector
(AZI) from Shahdara South Zone, MCD, Geeta Colony, Delhi
appeared and filed attested copy of the complete file of
property bearing no. G-53 and G-56, both situated in G-
Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg in the area of village
Shakapur, Illaqua Shahdara, Delhi-110092. The said
documents filed by Sh. Deepak Upadhyay were taken on
record.

FINAL ARGUMENTS:

55. Final arguments were advanced at length by Sh. Agredeep SOMITRA
KUMAR

Goel, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, Sh. Hari Kishan, Ld. Digitally signed
by SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date: 2026.03.07
05:37:38 +0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 55
Counsel for the defendants no. 1 & 3, and Sh. Satendra Kumar,
Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2/MCD. During final arguments,
Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 3 relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smriti Debbarma
(Dead) Through LR vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma & Ors.
reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 9.

FINDINGS:
56. I have considered the submissions and perused the record
carefully. The issue wise findings, in this suit, are as follows:

ISSUE NO. 1 & 5:-

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled
for a decree of possession concerning the suit
property, as prayed for? OPP

5. Whether the defendants further prove that
present suit is filed without cause of action and
is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11
CPC?OPD

57. Issues no. 1 & 5 are interconnected. Therefore, the said
issues are taken up together for discussion and decided together.
The onus to prove issue no. 1 was on the plaintiff and the onus
to prove issue no. 5 was on the defendants.

58. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the property
bearing no. G-31 (new MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 of which the suit property is part of.
SOMITRA
KUMAR

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 55 Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:37:46
+0530
The plaintiff also claims that he was in possession of the suit
property until he was dispossessed by defendant no. 1 on 06-
07.10.2020. On the contrary, it is the case of defendant no. 1
(son of defendant no. 3) and defendant no. 3 that defendant no. 3
is the owner of the suit property/property in question and
defendant no. 3 has been in possession of the same since its
purchase on 26.10.2012 from Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta through a
registered sale deed.

59. In view of the contentions and counter contentions of the
plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 3 in respect of the possession
and title of the suit property or disputed property or property in
question, the respective stands of the plaintiff and defendant no.
1 and 3 in respect of the possession and title of the suit property
or disputed property shall now be examined.

60. As regards the plaintiff's contention of possession of the
suit property, the plaintiff has not produced any cogent and
credible evidence to show his possession of the suit property. A
close examination of the plaint and evidence by way of
affidavit, Ex. PW1/A shows that essential pleadings and
deposition qua possession of the suit property or the entire
property bearing no. G-31 (new MPL No. G-53), G-Block,
Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 is missing in the plaint
as well as in the evidence by way of affidavit of the plaintiff,
Ex. PW1/A. In the plaint and evidence by way of affidavit, the
plaintiff only averred about his ownership of the property
bearing no. G-31 (new MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092.
Digitally signed
by SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2026.03.07
05:37:52
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 55
61. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination conducted on
18.04.2023, deposed that the other two shops, as shown in the
site plan, are in his possession and the same are on rent; that his
younger brother Mohan Sharma looks after the other two shops
and he may be aware of the names of the tenant, rent agreement
and monthly rent. In his cross-examination conducted on
04.05.2023, the plaintiff further deposed that he, along with his
family member are also in possession of the remaining portion
of plot no. 31 measuring 200 sq. yds apart from the portion of
96 sq. yds. and their house is built on the same and his brother
looks after the same, and his brother has given the same on rent.
However, the plaintiff failed to examine his brother, Sh. Mohan
Sharma, to prove possession of the said two shops and the
remaining portion of plot no. 31, measuring 200 sq. yds. During
said cross-examination, the plaintiff even failed to disclose
details of tenants in said two shops and in the said remaining
portion. It is inexplicable that the properties of which the
plaintiff claims to be the owner and in possession through his
brother, he does not even know basic details about the tenants in
the said portion. Further, the plaintiff also failed to produce any
document to show either he or any of his family members was
ever in possession of the other two shops on the ground floor as
shown by him in the site plan, or that the aforesaid remaining
portion of plot no. 31 is possessed by him or his brother or any
of his family members.

62. The plaintiff in his cross-examination conducted on
04.05.2023 further deposed that the shop in question (of which
SOMITRA
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 55 KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date: 2026.03.07
05:37:59 +0530
the suit property at the ground floor is part of) before its
collapse had a ground floor, first floor and second floor. The
ground floor of the shop in question was in his possession and
on first and second floor, the family of his brother used to
reside. However, no document has been filed on record to show
the plaintiff's possession of the suit property, i.e., the shop on
the ground floor. Further, no details have been provided either
in the plaint whether the suit property, i.e., the ground floor
portion, was lying vacant, or there was some tenant in the said
shop on the ground floor.

63. In fact, the plaintiff in his cross-examination conducted
on 16.05.2023 admitted that he has not filed any document
regarding the electricity connection and water connection
installed at plot no. 31, of which he claims the suit property to
be part of. As regards the payment of the house tax for the plot
no. 31, the plaintiff/PW1 in his cross examination conducted on
16.05.2023 deposed that he is not aware whether he or his
mother ever paid any house Tax for plot no. 31. In this
testimony during cross examination, he claimed that his brother
Sh. Mohan Sharma looked after everything relating to the said
property, however, the plaintiff has not examined his brother Sh.
Mohan Sharma as a witness to establish whether any house tax
in respect of the property bearing no. G-31 (new MPL No.
G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 was
ever paid by his brother Sh. Mohan Sharma.

64. Furthermore, the plaintiff deposed that his brother's
family resided on the first and second floors. During cross-
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 30 of 55 Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:38:07
+0530
examination of DW1/defendant no. 1, it was suggested by Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff that before the collapse of the said
building no. G-53, (old no. 31), real brother of the plaintiff,
namely Mohan Sharma and his family members, i.e. Kalpana
Sharma, Ritik Sharma and Tannu Sharma, were residing on the
first and second floors of the shop in question. During the trial
of the present suit, the plaintiff, on his application, was
permitted to lead additional evidence. The plaintiff, in his
additional evidence, summoned a witness Sh. Jaswant Kumar,
Junior Clerk, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Division Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi, who brought on record an electricity bill dated
04.06.2016 with CA No. 151718736 in the name of Sh. Mohan
Sharma, along with the application form for new connection and
accompanying documents, Ex. PW7/1 (Colly). As per the said
electricity bill dated 04.06.2016, the said electricity connection
is installed at the address G-53, Old No. G-31, First Floor, G-
Block, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Near Walia Nursing Home,
Delhi-110092.

65. In connection with the aforesaid additional evidence
adduced by the plaintiff, it is pertinent to note that there is
neither such averment that his real brother or his family resided
on the first and second floor of the property in question in the
plaint nor is there a deposition in the evidence by way of
affidavit, Ex. PW1/A to this effect. Therefore, the said
testimony of the plaintiff in his cross-examination is not only
beyond pleadings but also beyond the testimony of the plaintiff
in his evidence by way of affidavit. Further, the plaintiff failed
to examine his real brother Sh. Mohan Sharma or any member
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 31 of 55 Digitally signed by
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date: 2026.03.07
05:38:16 +0530
of his family to establish the possession of first and second floor
of the property on which the suit property was situated. Further,
the plaintiff has failed to produce any cogent and credible
evidence to establish his or his brorther's possession of the
aforesaid first and second floor. Moreover, the said electricity
bill in the name of his brother is only relevant to the possession
of the first or second floor of the structure in which the suit
property is situated at the ground floor. The said evidence does
not pertain to the suit property or the disputed property, and
hence, the same does not establish the possession of the suit
property by the plaintiff.

66. As regards the claims of the defendant no. 1 and 3 that
defendant no. 3 was in possession of the dispute property or suit
property or property in question (i.e. shop in question),
defendant no. 1 brought in evidence copy of mutation letter
dated 03.03.2005, Mark H, issued by Municipal Corporation of
Delhi in respect of shop at GF bearing no. G-53, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi in the name of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta from whom
defendant no. 3 claimed to have purchased the suit property;
copies of house tax receipts for the period from March 2005 to
October 2012, Mark I (Colly) in respect of Shop, G-53, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi, in the name of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta; copy of
house tax receipts Mark O (Colly) in the name of Smt. Rama
Poddar (defendant no. 3) in respect of Shop, G-53, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi-110092. Defendants no. 1 and 3 proved the said
mutation letter, copies of house tax receipt in the name of Sh.
Arun Kumar Gupta and copy of house tax receipt in the name of
Smt. Rama Poddar by examining the defendant witness DW4,
Digitally
signed by

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 32 of 55 SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:38:22
+0530
Sh. Deepak Upadhyay, Area Zonal Inspector from MCD,
Shahdara South-Zone, East Delhi. DW4 brought the summoned
record i.e. copy of mutation letter dated 03.03.2005, Ex.
DW-4/1, in the name of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta in evidence,
copies of the House Tax Receipt Ex.DW-4/2 (Colly) in the
name of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta, a copy of the statement of
house tax receipts in the name of Smt. Rama Poddar (defendant
no. 3) Ex.DW-4/3. The aforesaid documents brought on record
by DW4 establish that Smt. Rama Poddar (defendant no. 3) is
the recorded house taxpayer of the shop at property no. G-53,
Ground Floor, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.

67. The defendants also examined the summoned witness Sh.
Yashpal Dua, Assistant Grade-I from BSES Yamuna Power
Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, as DW8. DW8 deposed that as per their
record, an electricity connection with CA No. 100971853 was
installed in the name of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta at G-53, Ground
Floor, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-10092; however, the
record of the said connection was burnt/destroyed due to fire on
11.12.2016 in the BSES office. DW8 file on record fire report,
Ex. DW8/1 and letter/report dated 20.12.2023 with regard to
destruction/burning of record issued by Business Manager (D)
LNR, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Ex. DW8/2. Further, DW8
also deposed that, as per their records, the electricity connection
with CA No. 150600605 is in the name of Smt. Rama Poddar.
DW-8 brought in evidence, attested copy of the electricity bill
dated 24.07.2017, along with the new connection service Form,
the election ID card of Smt. Rama Poddar and Sh. Arun Gupta,
NOC issued by Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta in favour of Smt. Rama SOMITRA
KUMAR

Digitally signed
by SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 33 of 55
05:38:31 +0530
Poddar, registered Irrevocable GPA dated 16.11.1995 in respect
of the aforesaid electricity connection with CA No. 150600605
in the name of Smt. Rama Poddar. The said documents were
collectively exhibited as Ex. DW8/3 (colly). A Perusal of Ex.
DW8/3 (Colly) shows that the electricity connection with CA
No. 150600605 was installed in the name of Smt. Rama
Poddar/Defendant no. 3 at G-53, Ground Floor, Vikas Marg,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, which is the address of the suit
property. Further, Ex. DW8/3 (colly) also comprises an
Inspection Report (For New Connection) wherein the property
at which the connection was provided is shown as a corner
property (L-type). Therefore, documents, Ex. DW8/3 (Colly)
establish that the electricity connection with CA No. 150600605
was installed in the name of Smt. Rama Poddar/Defendant no. 3
at the suit property, of which the plaintiff seeks relief of
possession by filing the present suit.

68. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff during the final argument
referred to the FIR No. 299/2017 registered with P.S. Shakarpur
under sections 336/337/188 IPC, Ex. DW-1/P-1 after the
collapse of the suit property. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff that in the said FIR filed on record by defendant Nos. 1
and 3 themselves, the name of the plaintiff's brother Sh. Mohan
Sharma and his family members have been mentioned as
persons who were rescued from the debris of the property in
question, and this establish that plaintiff's brother and his family
were in possession of the suit property.
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:38:39
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 34 of 55
69. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff
failed to file any documents showing possession of the suit
property in question. Therefore, in the absence of any other
document, merely because the brother of the plaintiff and his
family members have been named in the aforesaid FIR, Ex.
DW-1/P-1 as being recovered from the debris of the property in
question, does not prove the possession of the brother and
family members of the plaintiff of the property in question.
Furthermore, inexplicably, the plaintiff failed to examine his
brother to prove the important fact that his brother was in
possession of the suit property.

70. The defendants no. 1 and 3 also examined summoned
witnesses DW3 Sh. Mahesh Babu, Record Keeper SR VIIIA,
Preet Vihar, Delhi and DW5 Sh. Shri Niwas MTS, SR VIII,
Geeta Colony, who proved registration of leave and license
agreement dated 05.08.2016, Ex. DW3/1 and leave and license
agreement dated 26.03.2013, Ex. DW5/2 respectively between
defendant no. 3 and licensees in respect of the disputed
property.

71. Therefore, defendants no. 1 and 3 by examining
summoned witnesses from DW4 and DW8 has established that
the suit property/disputed property/property in question i.e one
shop at ground floor measuring 32 sq. yds. situated in the
property bearing no. G-53, G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas
Marg, Delhi-110092 was mutated in the name of Sh. Arun
Kumar Gupta, who defendant no. 1 and 3 claim to be the
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 35 of 55
Digitally signed
by SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:38:46
+0530
predecessor in title of defendant no. 3 in respect of the disputed
property. The said summoned witnesses also brought in
evidence house tax receipts and a statement of house tax
payment of the house tax paid by Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta and
defendant no. 3. Further, DW8 from the BSES also brought in
evidence documents, including electricity bills, showing the
installation of the electricity meter at the suit property in the
name of defendant no. 3/Smt. Rama Poddar. Furthermore, DW3
and DW5 proved the execution of the leave and license
agreement by defendant no. 3 in favour of the licensee in respect
of the disputed property well before the collapse of the property
in question.

72. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff/PW1, in his
cross-examination conducted on 16.05.2023 deposed that he had
given an application against defendant no. 1 in P.S. Laxmi
Nagar in the year 2017 (again said in 2020), complaining that
defendant no. 1 is a land grabber. However, no copy of such an
application has been filed on record by the plaintiff. Further, in
the cross-examination conducted on 16.05.2023, PW1 deposed
that he can bring complaints dated 6.10.2020 and 7.10.2020, as
deposed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his affidavit. However, in
cross-examination conducted on 10.07.2023, PW1 deposed that
he could not find the said complaints. Furthermore, the plaintiff
did not make any attempt to summon a record of the local police
station to establish the lodging of the said complaints to the
local police. Therefore, there is no evidence on record of any
complaint to the police authorities by the plaintiff that defendant
no. 1 illegally grabbed the property of the plaintiff. SOMITRA
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:38:54
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 36 of 55
73. Thus, testimony of the aforesaid summoned witnesses
examined by defendant no. 1 and 3 as well as the absence of any
cogent and credible evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, it is
established that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit
property prior to its collapse, and the said property has been in
possession of defendant no. 3 prior to its collapse and thereafter.
Hence, the plaintiff's contention that he was dispossessed by
defendant no. 1 of the suit property on 06-07.10.2020 is without
merit.

74. As regards the plaintiffs' contention of being the owner of
the suit property, it is seen that the plaintiff averred in the plaint
as well as deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.
PW1/A that the plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing
No. G-31 (New MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas
Marg, Delhi-110092 vide Registered Relinquishment Deed
dated 02.01.2015, Ex. PW4/1 (OSR); that the mother of the
plaintiff, namely Smt. Savita Devi was the absolute and
exclusive owner of the said property, having purchased the said
entire property from its erstwhile owner, Sh. Som Prakash Rekhi
vide registered GPA dated 05.03.1973 (Ex. PW3/A(OSR); that
Sh. Som Prakash Rekhi was the owner of the said property by
virtue of a registered sale deed dated 18.07.1955, registered on
08.08.1955, Ex. PW3/B; that Smt. Savita Devi died intestate on
09.03.1981, leaving behind the plaintiff, one other son, Sh.
Mohan Sharma and her husband Sh. Y.K. Sharma as her legal
heirs; that the father of the plaintiff also expired on 11.10.2009,
leaving behind the plaintiff and Sh. Mohan Sharma as his only
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 37 of 55 SOMITRA
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
SOMITRA KUMAR
Date: 2026.03.07
05:38:59 +0530
legal heirs; thereafter, the brother of the plaintiff relinquished
his share in the said property in favour of the plaintiff vide
Registered Relinquishment Deed dated 02.01.2015 and hence,
by virtue of the said relinquishment deed, Ex. PW4/1 (OSR), the
plaintiff became the absolute owner of the said property.
75. On the other hand, it is the case of defendant no. 1 and 3
that defendant no. 3 is the owner of the property in question as
the suit property/property in question was part of the property
sold by M/s Adarsh Financers Ltd. to Sh. H.R. Makkar i.e, plot
nos. 33 & 34, area measuring 400 sq. yards, khasra no. 74, 75,
78 situated in the abadi of G-block Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg,
in the area of Shakarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110092 vide
registered Sale Deed, dated 8.08.1955, Ex. DW1/1 (OSR); that
thereafter, Sh. H.R. Makkar out of 400 sq. yards of plot nos. 33
& 34 (New MPL. No. G-53) sold an area measuring 120 sq.
yards, on 21.03.1974, to Smt. Savita Devi and executed the
GPA, Agreement to Sell and Receipt, all dated 21.03.1974
(Mark A to Mark C); that Smt. Savita Devi sold the said
property area measuring 120 sq. yards to Sh. Rakesh Kumar
Sharma on 28.08.1978 by executing GPA, Agreement to Sell
and Receipt all dated 28.08.1978 (Mark D to F); that Sh. Rakesh
Kumar Sharma constructed the said property, out of which he
sold the ground floor measuring 40 sq. yards, two sides open to
Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta for consideration and executed a
registered Irrevocable GPA dated 16.11.1995, Ex. DW-1/4
(OSR) and registered Will Deed dated 16.11.1995, Ex. DW1/5
(OSR); that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma sold the first floor
thereof to Ms. Shaifali Gupta and Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta, on
29.10.2011, second floor to Mrs. Sangeeta Goel, third floor to
SOMITRA
Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 38 of 55 KUMAR

Digitally signed
by SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:39:05 +0530
Sh. Sudesh Kumar Singh on 14.05.2009, and the roof rights
were retained by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma with himself; that
Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta sold the ground floor i.e. property in
question to defendant no. 3 through registered Sale Deed dated
26.10.2012, Ex. DW1/10 (OSR); that since there was some
typographical error in the said sale deed dated 26.10.2012 with
respect to the khasra numbers as such the same was got rectified
through registered rectification deed dated 12.11.2012, Ex.
DW1/11 (OSR) by defendant no. 3.

76. The plaintiff in his cross examination conducted on
18.04.2023 deposed that Plot no. 31, municipal no. G-53
measures 200 sq. yds and at the time of filing the present suit,
the whole plot was in his possession. The said deposition of the
plaintiff is contrary to facts as the plaintiff himself sought the
possession of the suit property from defendant no. 1, which as
per the case of the plaintiff, is part of the said plot no. 31.
Further, the plaintiff in his plaint and evidence affidavit, Ex.
PW1/A stated that he is the owner of the property bearing no.
G-31 (New MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas
Marg, Delhi-110092 vide Relinquishment Deed
dated.02.01.2015, Ex. PW4/1(OSR). The plaintiff/PW1, in his
cross-examination conducted on 18.04.2023, also deposed that
his brother relinquished his share in plot no. 31 in favour of him.
However, perusal of the Relinquishment Deed dated
02.01.2015, Ex. PW4/1(OSR) executed by the brother of the
plaintiff in his favour shows that the same is only for 96 sq. yds
of the portion of the plot no. 31. A perusal of the said
relinquishment deed also shows that the said deed recites about SOMITRA
KUMAR

Digitally

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 39 of 55 signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:39:12
+0530
the ownership of the Smt. Savita Devi of only 96 sq. yds of the
property bearing no. G-31 and New MPL No. G-53. In the said
deed, there is no mention that Smt. Savita Devi purchased 200
sq. yds of plot no. 31 from Sh. Som Prakash Rekhi. Moreover,
the site plan, Ex. PW1/1, filed along with the plaint, also
mentions three shops only, which measure 96 sq. yds of the said
property bearing no. no. G-31 (New MPL No. G-53), G-Block,
Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. The registered GPA
dated 05.03.1973, Ex. PW3/A relied upon by the plaintiff
specifies the measurement of plot no. 31 as 200 sq. yds, but in
the description of the property, the said GPA also mention in
brackets "in roadside land measuring 96 sq. yds." Therefore,
from the recital of the said GPA dated 05.03.1973, Ex. PW3/A,
it is not clear whether the said GPA pertains to the entire 200 sq.
yds. or it pertains to only 96 sq. yds. portion towards the
roadside. Thus, in the absence of any mention of the remaining
portion of plot no. 31, it is not clear how the plaintiff can claim
himself to be the owner of the entire property measuring 200 sq.
yds of plot no. 31, G-Block, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092.

77. Further, in cross examination conducted on 18.04.2023,
PW1 states that he is the owner and in possession of the entire
property of 200 sq. yds. but in cross examination conducted on
4.5.2023, PW1 deposed that he sold a shop at point B in the site
plan, Ex. PW1/1, measuring 32 sq. yds. to Sunil Daral and
Sachin Shikara in the month of January or February 2020 and
handed over possession of the same to them. In his cross- SOMITRA
KUMAR

examination conducted on 04.05.2023, when the plaintiff/PW1
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR
Date:
2026.03.07
05:39:20
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 40 of 55
was confronted with contradictory depositions about the
possession of the entire 200 sq. yds of plot no. 31 during his
cross-examination on 18.04.2023, he deposed that what was
deposed on 04.05.2023 is correct. In view of the said deposition
of the plaintiff, the plaintiff contradicted his pleading in the
plaint as well as his testimony in his evidence by way of
affidavit, Ex. PW1/A , wherein he stated that he is the owner of
the property bearing no. 31 (new MPL No. 53) by virtue of
Relinquishment Deed dated 02.01.2015, Ex. PW4/1(OSR).

78. In view of the above said discussion, it is apparent that
the plaintiff has not disclosed material facts in the plaint as well
as his affidavit. In fact, he has concealed material facts of which
he had full knowledge at the time of filing the present suit. Even
in his cross-examination, the plaintiff has made contradictory
testimony regarding his ownership and possession of the said
property bearing no. G-31 (new MPL No. G-53), G-Block,
Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. In view of the said
averment in the plaint, testimony in his affidavit and in his
cross-examination, the plaintiff has not shown himself as a
witness who is worthy of credence.

79. Further, the plaintiff only led in evidence the registered
General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 05.03.1973, Ex.
PW3/A executed by Sh. Som Prakash Rekhi in favour of his
mother, late Smt. Savita Devi in respect of plot no. 31, G-Block,
Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, for his claim over the
title of the suit property through his mother, late Smt. Savita
Devi.
Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:39:27
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 41 of 55
80. As regards question, whether a General Power of
Attorney confer any title to the donee, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through
Director v. State of Haryana and Another reported as (2012) 1
SCC 656, held that, the sale and purchase of a property must be
done through a deed of conveyance, which is a sale deed.
Without this deed, no ownership or rights in the property can be
transferred. An agreement to sell, which is not a registered deed
of conveyance, does not meet the legal requirements under
sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and
such an agreement does not transfer any ownership or rights in
the property. Further, with regard to the power of attorney, it
was held in the above-mentioned judgment that the same is not
an instrument of transfer with respect to any right, title or
interest in an immovable property. The relevant extract of the
aforesaid judgement is quoted hereinunder:

"20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of
transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an
immovable property. The power of attorney is
creation of an agency whereby the grantor
authorises the grantee to do the acts specified
therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed
will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see
Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney
Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time
unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to
law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the
effect of transferring title to the grantee."

81. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment
titled Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. LRs. vs. Suresh Chand and Anr.
(2025 IN SC 1059), observed as follows: Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
SOMITRA KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.07
05:39:35
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 42 of 55
18. A power of attorney is a creation of an agency
whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the
acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which
when executed will be binding on the grantor as if
done by him. It is revocable or terminable at any
time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner
known to law. A General Power of Attorney does
not ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer of
an immovable property even where some clauses are
introduced in it, holding it to be irrevocable or
authorizing the attorney holder to effect sale of the
immovable property on behalf of the grantor. It
would not ipso facto change the character of the
document transforming it into a conveyance deed.

19. A power of attorney is not a sale. A sale
involves transfer of all the rights in the property in
favour of the transferee but a power of attorney
simply authorises the grantee to do certain acts with
respect to the property including if the grantor
permits to do certain acts with respect to the
property including an authority to sell the property.5

82. Moreover, in the judgment of Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed
Akhlaq Hussain (Neutral citation: 2023 INSC 1016, Civil Ap-
peal no. 1598 of 2023, Dod: 01.11.2023), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that on the basis of General Power of Attorney and
Agreement to sell, whether registered or unregistered, no title to
a immoveable property is acquired by a person. The relevant ex-
tract of the aforesaid judgment is as under:

10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to
be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the
case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains
that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable
properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell
or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of
Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that SOMITRA

a document which requires compulsory registration under
KUMAR

the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally Digitally
signed by
SOMITRA
KUMAR

enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis.
Date:
2026.03.07
05:40:02
+0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 43 of 55
Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the
Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said
that the respondent would have acquired title over the

property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (emphasis added).

83. In the present matter, the plaintiff has not led in evidence any other accompanying documents, such as the agreement to sell or receipt, which mentions the sale/purchase of the said property to the late Smt. Savita Devi for consideration. Al- though the recital of the said GPA, Ex. PW3/A states that the said GPA is irrevocable; there is nothing in the GPA, Ex. PW3/A that the said GPA was executed for valuable considera- tion to establish the same as an Irrevocable GPA securing or creating an interest in favour of the late Smt. Savita Devi with respect to the subject property of the said GPA. The plaintiff has failed to adduce any other documents in evidence to show that the GPA, Ex. PW3/A was executed for valuable consideration for securing or creating any interest in the subject property of the said GPA. The plaintiff has filed an unregistered agreement to sell dated 05.03.1973 along with the plaint. However, for rea- sons best known to the plaintiff, the said agreement to sell was not led in evidence. Therefore, the said agreement to sell re- mained unproven.

84. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and analy- sis, the claim of the title of the plaintiff over the suit property suffers from two infirmities. Firstly, the recital of the aforesaid Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2026.03.07 05:40:10 Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 44 of 55 +0530 GPA, Ex. PW3/A does not clearly reflect whether it pertains to 200 sq. yds. of the property or to 96 sq. yds of the roadside of the property bearing no. G-31 (new MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi- 110092. The deposition of the plaintiff during his cross-examination regarding being the owner of the entire 200 sq. yds. of the plot no. 31 is totally contrary to the averment in the plaint and testimony in his evidence by way of affidavit as well as documents filed on record by the plaintiff. Secondly, mere execution of a registered GPA, dated 05.03.1973, without securing or creating an interest in the sub-

ject matter of said GPA in favour of the late Smt. Savita Devi, does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the plain- tiff in respect of the subject matter of the said GPA as the chain through which the plaintiff claims ownership of the suit property is defective. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that possession of the said property bearing no. G-31 (new MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi- 110092 was ever handed over to the late Smt. Savita Devi by its predecessor in title, nor is there any pleading to this effect.

85. In view of the aforesaid cited judgments, the document which has been led in evidence by the plaintiff does not establish the title of the late Smt. Savita Devi to the property bearing no. G-31 (new MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi- 110092, through whom the plaintiff claims title in the said property. Hence, the plaintiff, based on the documents brought in evidence, failed to establish his title to the suit property. Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2026.03.07 05:40:18 +0530 Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 45 of 55

86. On the aspect of title of defendant no. 3 to the suit property, it is the case of defendant no. 3 that the property in question is part of plot no. 33 and 34, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. However, it is an admitted position that the property in question is a corner (L-type) property. As reflected in the Layout Plan of Part of Block G Laxmi Nagar annexed with the registered sale deed registered on 08.08.1955, Ex. DW6/1 through which defendant no. 3 claims title of the property in question, the plot no. 33 and 34 are not corner (L- type) plots. It is not the case of defendants no. 1 and 3 that the layout of the area in which the plot no. 33 and 34 are situated has changed, which has resulted in the land of plot no. 33 and 34 becoming corner (L-type) properties.

87. Further, in support of his contention that the new municipal number of the plot no. 33 and 34 is not G-53, the plaintiff brought in evidence a registered sale deed 15.09.2010, Ex. PW2/A executed by Smt. Rajni in favour of Smt. Anju in respect of the property bearing no. G-56, Plot No. 34, situated at Abadi of G-Block, main Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The said sale deed clearly reflects that the new municipal number for plot no. 34 is G-56, not G-53, contrary to what is claimed by defendant no. 1 and 3.

88. Furthermore, in the entire chain of documents of defendant no. 3, there are unregistered GPA, agreement to sell, and receipt, Mark A to Mark D. It is a settled position of law Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.03.07 05:40:25 +0530 Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 46 of 55 that no ownership rights are conferred by such unregistered documents.

89. Thus, the documents which have been brought in evidence by defendant nos. 1 and 3 do not pertain to the disputed property or the suit property, which is a corner (L-type) property. Hence, based on the documents led in evidence by defendant no. 1, it cannot be said that defendant no. 3 has acquired ownership title to the suit property or disputed property.

90. Another aspect which is to be noted that Smt. Rama Poddar, was impleaded as one of the defendants in the present suit by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2020 in view of the averment in the written statement of defendant no. 1 as well as documents filed on record by defendant no. 1 that the disputed property is in the name of defendant no. 3. After impleadment of Smt. Rama Poddar as one of the defendants in the present suit, a liberty was given to the plaintiff to amend the plaintiff. Despite impleadment of Smt. Rama Poddar defendant no. 3 as one of the defendants who claimed to be the owner and in possession of the disputed property, the plaintiff failed to amend the plaint to pray for any relief against defendant no. 3.

91. As the plaintiff failed to amend the plaint to pray for any relief against defendant no. 3, the contention of the plaintiff that in view of the non-examination of defendant no. 3 in the present Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2026.03.07 05:40:33 +0530 Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 47 of 55 matter, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against defendant no. 3 is also without merit.

92. Further, in view of the testimony of DW-11 Sh. Shiv Prasad Aggarwal, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that in the written statement of defendant no. 1 and 3, it is averred that the disputed property pertains to plot no. 33 and 34 (new mpl no. G-53), G-Block, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092, whereas DW-11 (who is the husband of defendant no. 3) deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. DW-11/A that defendant no. 3 is the owner of the ground floor bearing no. G-31 (New MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 stated that there is a typographical error in this regard in the evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. DW-11/A. However, a perusal of the cross-examination of DW-11 shows that in his cross-examination, DW-11 admitted that defendant no. 3 is the owner of the ground floor bearing no. G-31 (New MPL No. G-53), G-Block, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 on basis of documents filed on record. Moreover, DW-11 in the said cross-examination denied the suggestion that the ownership documents of defendant no. 3 filed on record are with regard to property no. G-34, New Municipal No. G-53, G- Block, Vikas Marg, Delhi and not of property no. G-31, New Municipal No. G-53, G-Block, Vikas Marg, Delhi which is contrary to the case of defendant no 1 and 3 as averred in their written statement.

                                                                          Digitally
                                                                          signed by
                                                                          SOMITRA
                                                                SOMITRA   KUMAR
                                                                KUMAR     Date:
                                                                          2026.03.07
                                                                          05:40:42
                                                                          +0530

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 48 of 55

93. The aforesaid testimony of DW-11 is relevant to support the case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 3 does not hold any ownership title of the suit property. However, as discussed above, it has been held that based on the documents led in evidence by defendant no. 1, it cannot be said that defendant no. 3 has acquired ownership of the suit property or the disputed property.

94. In view of failure of the both the sides to establish clear title to the suit property or disputed property; what is to be seen is the better title of the parties. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smriti Debbarma (Dead) Through LR (supra), wherein it is laid down as under:

34. In the above factual background, for the plaintiff to succeed, she has to establish that she has a legal title to the Schedule 'A' property, and consequently, is entitled to a decree of possession. The defendants cannot be dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better title and rights over the Schedule 'A' property. A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the entire world except the rightful owner. A decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendant nos. 1 to 12 have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the Schedule 'A' property. The defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.

35. The burden of proof to establish a title in the present case lies upon the plaintiff as this burden lies SOMITRA KUMAR on the party who asserts the existence of a particular Digitally signed by SOMITRA KUMAR state of things on the basis of which she claims Date:

2026.03.07 05:40:48 +0530 relief. This is mandated in terms of Section 101 of Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 49 of 55 the Evidence Act, which states that burden on proving the fact rests with party who substantially asserts in the affirmative and not on the party which is denying it. This rule may not be universal and has exceptions, but in the factual background of the present case, the general principle is applicable. In terms of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, if both parties fail to adduce evidence, the suit must fail. Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. The plaintiff could have succeeded in respect of the Schedule 'A' property if she had discharged the burden to prove the title to the Schedule 'A' property which squarely falls on her. This would be the true effect of Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it follows that the plaintiff should have satisfied and discharged the burden under the provisions of the Evidence Act, failing which the suit would be liable to be dismissed. Thus, the impugned judgment by the High Court had rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the High Court that the suit should be dismissed. We clarify that we have not interfered or set aside any observations of the High Court in re the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, or defendants' claim etc. Notably, M/s. Hotel Khosh Mahal Limited is not a party to the present proceedings. (emphasis added)

95. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the burden to prove that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property was on the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to take advantage in the deficiencies in the case of the defendants such as failure of the defendants to prove the ownership title of the suit property or disputed property, discrepancy in khasra Digitally signed by SOMITRA SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2026.03.07 05:40:56 +0530 Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 50 of 55 numbers in the chain of title documents of defendant no. 3 and non-examination of defendant no. 3 on behalf of the defendants.

96. In the present case, defendant no. 1 and 3 failed to establish the right, title and interest of defendant no. 3 in the suit property/disputed property based on the documents filed on record. However, the plaintiff also failed to establish his title to the suit property based on the document brought in evidence by him. The plaintiff has also failed to establish his possession of the suit property either through himself, his brother or his mother. The plaintiff has failed to bring on record any cogent and credible evidence to show the possession, let alone the suit property, but any part of the 200 sq. yds. of the plot no. 31, G- Block, Vikas Marg, Laxim Nagar, Delhi-110092, which the plaintiff claims to have been purchased by his mother, Smt. Savita Devi. The plaintiff has also not placed any document on record to establish his mother, Smt. Savita Devi ever acquired the possession of the aforesaid property. The plaintiff brought in evidence electricity bills for an electricity connection installed on the first floor above the suit property in the name of his brother Sh. Mohan Sharma. However, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to examine his brother. On the contrary, defendant nos. 1 and 3 brought documents on record, such as the mutation record, house tax receipts, electricity connection documents, and leave and license agreement, which on balance of probabilities show that defendant no. 3 and her predecessor in interest has been in possession of the suit property/disputed property. Therefore, the Digitally signed SOMITRA by SOMITRA KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.03.07 05:41:03 +0530 Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 51 of 55 factum of the possession of the suit property by defendant no. 3 has been established.

97. Thus, in the absence of any clear title of the plaintiff to the suit property and the absence of any evidence that either the plaintiff or his mother, late Smt. Savita Devi was ever in possession of the suit property; the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property. Hence, issue no. 1 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.

98. Further, as the plaintiff failed to establish title to the suit property as well as possession of the suit property, there is no basis for seeking relief of the possession of the suit property. Thus, the present suit lacks cause of action for seeking relief of the possession of the suit property. Hence, issue no. 5 is decided in favour of the defendant.

ISSUE NO. 2:-

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitled for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

99. The onus to prove the issue was on the plaintiff. As the plaintiff is not entitled to the possession of the suit property, he is not entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for.

100. As regards the relief of mandatory injunction is concerned, it is seen that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show any unauthorized construction was carried out Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 52 of 55 SOMITRA KUMAR Digitally signed by SOMITRA KUMAR Date: 2026.03.07 05:41:10 +0530 in the property in question. Further, defendant no. 2 averred in its written statement that there was an unauthorised construction at the property in question, and a demolition notice/order dated 28.10.2020 under section 343 of the DMC Act was issued and served upon the owner/occupier of the property in question. However, perusal of the record shows that defendant no. 2 has not led evidence in the present matter. Therefore, the averment qua unauthorized construction at the property in question remained unproven. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for. Hence, issued no. 2 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO. 3:-

3. Whether the defendants prove that the present suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD

101. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendant.

Defendant no. 1 & 3 in their written statement averred that the value of the suit property is not less than Rs. 5 crores; therefore, this court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. However, none of the defendants led any evidence in this regard. The evidence by way of affidavit of defendant no. 1, the only defendant who led defendant evidence, does not contain any deposition qua the suit not being properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. Further, the defendant, apart from mere averment in the plaint, has not placed any document on record in support of the said averment. Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 53 of 55 SOMITRA KUMAR Digitally signed by SOMITRA KUMAR Date:

2026.03.07 05:41:18 +0530 Hence, the contention of the defendants qua improper property valuation of the suit remained unproven. Hence, issue no. 3 is decided against the defendants.

ISSUE NO. 4:-

4. Whether the defendants further proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties of the suit? OPD

102. The onus to prove the said issue was on the defendants.

Defendants in their written statement averred that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties to the suit. However, no explanation has been provided by any of the defendants as to which necessary party has not been impleaded nor is there is any detail as to which party has been mis-joined in the present suit. Further, none of the defendants led any evidence in this regard. The evidence by way of affidavit of defendant no. 1, the only defendant who led defendant evidence, does not contain any deposition qua non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties to the suit. Hence, the contention of the defendants qua non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties to the suit remained unsubstantiated. Hence, issue no. 4 is decided against the defendants.

RELIEF

103. In view of the aforesaid findings, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, and hence the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. SOMITRA KUMAR Digitally signed by SOMITRA KUMAR Date:

2026.03.07 05:41:25 +0530

104. Parties to bear their own cost.

Suit No. 555/20 Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors. Page No. 54 of 55

105. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.



Announced in the open Court on                                      Digitally signed
                                                                    by SOMITRA
                                                                    KUMAR
                                                          SOMITRA
this 7th day of March, 2026                               KUMAR
                                                                    Date:
                                                                    2026.03.07
                                                                    05:41:33
                                                                    +0530

                                                     (Somitra Kumar)
                                         Presently ASJ (POCSO)-01
                                        EAST/ KKD COURTS, DELHI


                                           Earlier DJ-06, EAST/ KKD
                                           COURTS/ DELHI/07.03.2026




Suit No. 555/20   Pawan Sharma vs. Aditya Poddar & Ors.        Page No. 55 of 55

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Pawan Sharma vs Aditya Poddar And Anr on 7 March, 2026