Delhi District Court
Bimla Devi vs Ganesh on 11 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLNT030009212015
CS SCJ/536282/2016
In the matter of :
Smt. Bimla Devi
w/o Sh Jai Kishan,
R/o H No. 332, Gali no.4,
Jharoda Majra, Burari
Delhi.
.......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ganesh
s/o Not Known
R/o Plot No. 59, Panshali,
Kailash Vihar, Delhi 110081.
2. Sh. Uruda Kumar
s/o Sh Iqbal "Tenant"
R/o Khasra No. 18/3 & 4,
Village Panshali,
Kailash Vihar, Delhi-110081.
3. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
Through Its Chairman
Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi 110009.
......Defendants
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA
SHARMA 2026.05.11
16:56:24 +0530
CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 1/18
Date of Institution 02.09.2015
Date of conclusion of arguments 29.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of Order 11.05.2026
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION, PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking reliefs of declaration, possession, and mandatory as well as permanent injunction in respect of the property in dispute. The plaintiff prays for a declaration that the title documents executed in favour of defendant no.1, pertaining to a plot of land admeasuring 30 square yards out of Khasra No. 18/3 and 18/4 situated within the revenue estate of Village Panshali, in the abadi known as Kailash Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), are null, void, and illegal.
Further, the plaintiff seeks possession and permanent injunctions against defendants no.1 and 2, directing them to hand over peaceful, vacant, and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, and restraining them, their heirs, nominees, or any other persons claiming through them, from selling, alienating, or creating third-party interests in the suit property.
Additionally, the plaintiff seeks an injunction against defendant no.3, directing the officials of defendant no.3 to remove the electricity connection installed at the suit property in the name of defendant no.3. NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.05.11 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:56:28 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 2/18 Plaintiff's pleadings
2. Brief facts of the present suit as per plaint are :
(a) It is averred that plaintiff is sole and absolute owner of the suit property being purchased by her mother Smt Chander Kala w/o Late Sh Bhagwanta for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- vide documents dated 22.02.2013 and she is in possession of the same since then. Smt Chander Kala purchased the suit property from its erstwhile owner Sh Ram Singh vide documents dated 21.09.2000.
Upon inspection of the suit property on 22.05.2015, plaintiff found out that defendant no.2 was residing at the suit property, being let out to him by defendant no.1, claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property. The defendant no.1 has also got installed electricity meter in his name at the suit property. The plaintiff reported this matter with PS Shahbad Dairy with request to take action against defendant for illegally installing the electricity meter in his name but no action was taken. Thereafter, defendant no.3 visited and confronted defendant no.1 with respect to her ownership over the suit property, however, defendant no.1 threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences.
(b) The plaintiff is sole, absolute owner of the suit property and defendant no.1 after executing forged documents trespassed and let out the suit property to defendant no.2 without any right, title or authority over the suit property. Hence, the present suit.
Relief
3. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks the following reliefs: NITISH by Digitally signed NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 16:56:32 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 3/18
(a) A decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 thereby declaring the title documents in favour of defendant no.1 qua the suit property on the basis of which defendant no.1 is claiming his ownership over the same, as null and void.
(b) A decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 and 2 directing them to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
(c) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2 restraining them, their heirs, associates, etc from selling, alienating, letting, sub-letting, mortgaging, transferring and from creating third party interest in the suit property.
(d) A decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.3 directing its officials for removing the electricity connection installed at the suit property in the name of defendant no.3.
(e) Costs of the suit. Defendant's Version
4. Litigation by its very nature has two side to a story. To give its version, defendants have filed their separate written statements.
I. Written statement of defendants no.1 and 2.
(a) The present suit is not maintainable being filed without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed u/o VII Rule 11 CPC as the defendant is not the owner of the suit property. The present Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 SHARMA 16:56:35 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 4/18 suit of the plaintiff is based of concocted averments and same is filed to harass and extort money from the defendants.
(b) Defendant has further submitted that Sh Ram Singh was legal owner of the suit property, who sold the property bearing khasra no.18/10, area 50 sq yards having boundaries as North- Others Plot, South-15 ft road, East-Others plot and West-Road 15 ft to one Smt Malti and Smt Malti sold 50 sq yards to Sh Sh Ram Kishan. Thereafter, Sh Ram Kishan sold the same to Smt Krishna Devi, who sold it to Smt Sheela Rani. Thereafter, Smt Sheela Rani sold 30 sq yards to the defendant no.1 having boundaries as East- remaining portion of defendant no.1 plot i.e. 20 sq yards, South-15ft road, North-Others Plot and West-15 ft road against due consideration in the presence of attesting witnesses and thereafter, he applied for electricity connection with defendant no.3, who after due verification, installed the electricity meter in his name over the suit property as defendant no.1 is the real owner of the suit property. The suit property which has been claimed by plaintiff in the present suit is not the defendant's property as the site plan filed by plaintiff is different from the site plan filed by defendants no.1 and 2 and as per documents filed by the plaintiff, the suit property does not exist. The suit is liable to be dismissed being bad for non- joinder and mis joinder of parties. Rest of the contents of the plaint are denied in toto.
II. Written statement of defendant no.3.
(a). Defendant no.3 stated that the present suit is liable to be dismissed being barred by mis joinder and non joinder of parties. It is further stated that a request for newNITISH connection KUMAR was received Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 16:56:40 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 5/18 f.rom supply address 60019125347 from defendant no.1 on 07.03.2015 and after completion of formalities, new connection was released in the name of defendant no.1. Rest of the averments made in plaint are denied in toto.
Replication
5. Replication has been filed on behalf of plaintiff to the written statements of defendants reiterating and re-affirming the contents of the plaint and denying the contents of the written statements of defendants.
Issues
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed for trial vide Order dated 10.05.2018 :
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed in the plaint ? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is sole & absolute owner of plot of land 30 sq yards out of Khasra no.18/3/4 situated in the Village Panchshali abadi known as Kailash Vihar, New Delhi which was purchased by the plaintiff by her mother named Chander Kala on 22.02.2013 & took the possession in above said suit property ? OPD
3) Whether the mother of the plaintiff is the actual owner of the suit property as per the documents filed by the plaintiff?
OPD
4) Whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try & entertain the present suit?OPD NITISH by Digitally signed NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 16:56:44 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 6/18
5) Whether the defendant is the owner of the portion of 30 sq yards, out of the 50 sq yards of land falling in khasra no.18/10, property no.57, Gali no.5, two side open, situated in area of Village Panchshali, Delhi? OPD
6) Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
7. In order to prove her case the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and duly tendered her duly sworn in affidavit as Ex. PW1/A-1 and relied on the following documents :-
S No. Document Description Exhibit 1. Site plan Ex.PW1/1 Ex.PW1/2 to 2. Customary title documents Ex.PW1/6 Copy of complaint to PS 3. Ex.PW1/7 Shahbad Dairy 4. Will Ex.PW1/8 Death Certificate of 5. Ex.PW1/9 husband of plaintiff 7.1 Sh Prem Shankar has also been examined by plaintiff as
PW2 vide his duly sworn in affidavit in evidence Ex.PW2/A. Both PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined by ld counsel for the defendants.
Thereafter, PE was closed and matter was proceeded to DE.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.11 16:56:49 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 7/18 Defendant's evidence
8. In order to substantiate his defense, defendant no.1 examined himself as DW1, and duly tendered his duly sworn in affidavit as Ex. DW1/A and relied on the following documents :-
S No. Document Description Exhibit No.
1. Copy of Aadhar card Ex.DW1/1 2. Electricity bill Ex.DW1/2 3. Site plan Ex.DW1/3 Copy of property document
4. executed by Sh Ram Singh Ex.DW1/4 (OSR) in favour of Malti Devi Copy of property document
5. executed by Malti Devi in Ex.DW1/5 (OSR) favour of Ram Kishan Copy of property documents executed by Sh Ram Kishan
6. Ex.DW1/6(OSR) in favour of Smt Krishna Devi Copy of property documents
7. executed by Krishna Devi in Ex.PW1/7(OSR) favour of Sheela Rani Copy of property documents
8. executed by Sheela Rani in Ex.PW1/8(OSR) favour of Ganesh 8.1 Defendant further examined Sh Ramesh Yadav as DW2 vide his duly tendered duly sworn in affidavit as Ex. DW2/A and relied on his Aadhar card, a copy of which is exhibited as Ex.DW2/1 (OSR).Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.05.11 16:56:53 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 8/18 8.2 Defendant also examined Sh Lal Dhar Chauhan as DW3 vide his duly sworn in affidavit as Ex.DW3/A and relied on copy of complete property document and copy of his Aadhar card which are marked as Mark A and B, respectively.
8.3 DW1 to DW3 were duly cross-examined by ld counsel for the plaintiff and DE was closed. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
9. I have heard the final arguments advanced by ld counsel for both the parties and have perused the record.
Analysis and Findings
10. Having heard the final arguments adduced on behalf of both the parties and upon careful examination of evidence and record, the findings of the court issue-wise are as under:
11. Issue no. 1-3 and 5
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed in the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is sole & absolute owner of plot of land 30 sq yards out of Khasra no.18/3/4 situated in the Village Panchshali abadi known as Kailash Vihar, New Delhi which was purchased by the plaintiff by her mother named ChanderKala on 22.02.2013 & took the possession in above said suit property ? OPD NITISH by Digitally signed NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 16:56:57 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 9/18
3.Whether the mother of the plaintiff is the actual owner of the suit property as per the documents filed by the plaintiff?
OPD
5.Whether the defendant is the owner of the portion of 30 sq yards, out of the 50 sq yards of land falling in khasra no.18/10, property no.57, Gali no.5, two side open, situated in area of Village Panchshali, Delhi? OPD Though onus of issue no.2 & 3, as per record, is mentioned to have been placed upon the defendant by the Ld. Predecessor, it is apparent that the same is a typographical error as the onus to prove the plaintiff's case cannot be placed on defendant. Thus, it has to be construed that onus of proving the issue no.2 & 3 was on plaintiff.
12. Issues 1, 2, 3 and 5 are taken up together because they all centre around the question of ownership and entitlement to the suit property. The plaintiff has sought a declaration that the documents in favour of defendant no.1 be declared as null and void, consequentially seeks that possession of the suit property be given to her and defendant no.1 and 2 be injuncted from creating any third party interest in the suit property and defendant no.3 be directed to remove the electricity connection in the name of defendant no.1.
The defendant, in turn, has claimed ownership through his own chain of documents. Unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant's documents are void and that she has a better right to possession, she could not succeed in the reliefs sought.
NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.05.11 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:57:03 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 10/18
13. For the relief of declaration, the plaintiff was required to prove that the documents relied upon by defendant no.1 are forged, fabricated or otherwise legally ineffective. It is the case of the plaintiff that her mother purchased the suit property in the year 2000 and transferred it to her in 2013, and therefore defendant no.1 could not have acquired any valid title.
14. In order to prove her case, PW-1 examined herself and relied on documents Ex PW1/2-1/6 which are GPA, agreement to sell etc and a site plan. PW-2 i.e. brother of plaintiff corroborated her version.
It is notable that the documents i.e. PW1/2-PW1/6 are in the nature of GPA, Agreement to Sell and receipts. It is settled law, as laid down in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656, and reaffirmed in Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr. , 2025 INSC 1059, that such documents do not confer ownership.
15. In the absence of a registered sale deed or other legally recognised conveyance, the plaintiff failed to establish that she or her mother were owners of the suit property.
It is also significant to mention that PW-1 in her testimony has stated that the suit property was purchased by her mother from one Ram Singh and that she had not filed any document of ownership of Ram Singh and that Ram Singh had executed GPA, ATS etc in favour of her mother.
Digitally signedNITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.05.11 16:57:06 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 11/18
16. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330; 2023 4 SCC 731, the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"When a document is produced as primary evidence, it will have to be proved in the manner laid down in Sections 67 to 73 of the Evidence Act. Mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence."
The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue.
In the instant case, apart from herself, the plaintiff examined PW-2 who stated that he was not present when the documents of suit property were executed by his mother in favour of plaintiff. No attesting witness of the Will was examined. Even otherwise, the alleged Will is legally deficient as it has not been attested by two witnesses.
17. Without proving her own title, the plaintiff could not succeed in having the defendant's documents declared null and void as a declaration of nullity presupposes that the plaintiff has a superior legal right. In view of the above, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she had better title to the suit property.
NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.05.11 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:57:17 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 12/18
18. However, as the plaintiff has also sought possession of the suit property, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment passed in Chander Dutt Sharma v. Prem Chand 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9903, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein it was held as under
with respect to a suit for possession:-
"20.....
(A) A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property can be filed either under Section 5 or under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
(B) A suit under Section 5, can be filed, either
(i) on the basis of prior possession and not on title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed, under Article 64 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, within twelve years from the date of dispossession; or,
(ii) based on title, under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, within twelve year from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
(C) A suit under Section 6, can be filed if any person is dispossessed from immovable property without his consent, otherwise than in due process of law, but within six months of the date of dispossession. .....
(E) A mere possession of immovable property, even if accompanied with GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc., does not constitute title to the immovable property. Reference, if any required in this regard can be made to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656 setting aside the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Asha M Jain Vs. Canara Bank (2001) 94 DLT 841. (F) The appellant/plaintiff, claiming only GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc. from respondents No.4&5 in his favour, thus had / has no title to the property.
(G) An agreement purchaser, has no right, title, interest in immovable property and has only a right to seek specific performance of such agreement. Reference if any required can be made to (i) Jiwan Dass Rawal Vs. Narain Dass AIR 1981 Del 291;
(ii) Deewan Arora Vs. Tara Devi Sen (2009) 163 DLT 520; (iii) Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh (2010) 167 DLT 806; and, (iv) SamarjeetChakravarty Vs. Tej Properties Private Limited 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3809.
.....
(I) Though the appellant/plaintiff, under Section 5, had a choice to sue either on the basis of prior possession or on the basis of title but the appellant/plaintiff, inspite of having no title to the property, filed the suit by drafting the plaint not on the basis of prior possession but NITISH Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date: 2026.05.11 SHARMA 16:57:21 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 13/18 on the basis of title. The appellant/plaintiff, throughout the plaint has described himself as purchaser of the property from respondents No.4&5. Owing thereto only, issue also framed in the suit was qua ownership of appellant/plaintiff and not qua possession of the appellant/plaintiff. Rather, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff today also, upon it being put to him as to why the appellant/plaintiff did not sue for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell, states that there was/is no need to sue for specific performance since the appellant/plaintiff was already owner in possession of the immovable property.
(J) Owing to the appellant/plaintiff having sued on the basis of title which the appellant/plaintiff did not possess, and not on the basis of prior possession, Issue No.1 got framed in the suit, was decided against the appellant/plaintiff.
(K) Though issues are to be framed by the Court but with the assistance of the counsels. If the appellant/plaintiff had sued for possession on the basis of prior possession and the Court had wrongly framed the issue treating the suit as on the basis of title, it was incumbent upon the appellant/plaintiff to apply for amendment of issues and which was not done by appellant/plaintiff.
(L) However, even if the appellant/plaintiff is treated as having sued for possession on the basis of prior possession and even if non seeking of an issue qua prior possession is ignored, the recovery of possession was sought not from respondents No.4&5 but from respondents No.1 to 3 and their mother Bhagwati and it was against respondents no.1 to 3 and their mother that the appellant/plaintiff was required to prove prior possession. For proving such prior possession against respondents No.1 to 3, admission of the respondents no.4&5, in their written statement or in the Agreement to Sell or in their evidence, could not be relied by the appellant/plaintiff. The respondents No.4&5 were not contesting the claim of appellant/plaintiff and rather filed a written statement admitting the material pleas in the plaint. A plaintiff, to prove case against defendant, cannot rely upon admission of another defendant who is not in contest with the plaintiff.
(M) The appellant/plaintiff was thus required to prove prior possession by some independent evidence.
(N) The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, on enquiry, admits that save for the recital in the Agreement to Sell of being delivered possession, there is no other evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff of being in possession of the property, to be able to sue for recovery of possession thereof on the basis of prior possession."
Thus, a suit for possession can be filed either on the basis of the title or on the basis of previous possession.
NITISH Digitally by NITISH signed KUMAR Date: 2026.05.11 KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 16:57:26 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 14/18
19. In the instant case, the plaintiff has asserted that her mother handed over possession to her in 2013 and that she discovered defendant no.2 was residing in the property in the year 2015. In her testimony, the plaintiff only produced a police complaint to support her grievance.
Thus, apart from her oral testimony, there is no independent evidence of possession to show that the plaintiff or her mother was in prior possession of the suit property. No revenue records, municipal entries, rent receipts or other documents have been filed to show occupation. The complaint to the police cannot be a testament to the fact that the plaintiff was in prior-possession.
20. Thus, it has to be concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove prior possession over the suit property.
Now, since the plaintiff has failed to establish ownership and has not proved prior possession, she cannot be granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the property. Similarly, the relief of mandatory injunction against the electricity company presupposes that the plaintiff is the owner or occupier entitled to object to the connection. In the absence of proof of ownership or possession, this relief also cannot be granted.
21. As regards issue no.5, the onus to prove the same was upon the defendant. The defendant no.1 has claimed ownership of 30 square yards out of 50 square yards in Khasra No.18/10 through a chain of GPA/ATS documents culminating in a transfer from Sheela Rani. The documents of the defendant no.1 suffer from the Digitally signed by NITISH NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 SHARMA 16:57:30 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 15/18 same infirmity as the plaintiff's as they are also not registered sale deeds and therefore do not confer ownership.
22. Pertinently, the defendant's claim relates to Khasra No.18/10, whereas the plaintiff's claim is over Khasra No.18/3 and 18/4, though both the parties allege that it is the same property. The boundaries described in the documents of defendant no.1 differ from those in the plaintiff's site plan. Thus, it transpires that the plaintiff and defendant have claimed the suit property to be falling in different Khasra numbers.
Neither the plaintiff nor defendant no.1 produced any demarcation report to assert as to in which Khasra number, the suit property is falling. However, as the documents are legally deficient, demarcation report, even if filed, would have offered little help.
23. The defendant no.1 has relied on electricity connection which has been admitted by plaintiff in the pleadings. The same established the possession of the defendant no.1 in the suit property. Mere having electricity connection in a property may suggest possession, but the same cannot be construed to confer any ownership in the name of defendant no.1. Thus, it can be safely stated that the defendant no.1 has also failed to prove title to the suit property.
24. In the result, neither party has been able to establish ownership in law. However, as it is the suit of the plaintiff, the Digitally signed by NITISH KUMAR NITISH KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 16:57:34 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 16/18 burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to prove its case sans the deficiency of the defence of the defendants.
The plaintiff has not discharged the said burden. The defendant no.1, who asserts ownership over suit property, has also failed to prove his claim.
25. Accordingly, issues no. 2 and 3 are decided against the plaintiff as the plaintiff has not proved that her mother was the actual owner or that she herself is the absolute owner of the suit property.
Issue no. 5 is decided against the defendant, as his documents do not establish ownership of the suit property either.
In view of issue no.2 and 3 being decided against the plaintiff, issue no.1 has to be decided similarly against the plaintiff.
26. Issue no.4 Whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try & entertain the present suit?OPD
27. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has valued the relief of declaration of declaring the documents of ownership of defendant no.1 as null and void at Rs 200/ for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as court fees.
As per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the plaintiff is required to state the amount at which he values the relief sought, and the court fee is payable accordingly. However, the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction is governed by the Suits Valuation Act, Digitally signed NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 SHARMA 16:57:39 +0530 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 17/18 1887, which mandates that the valuation must not be arbitrary but must bear a reasonable correlation to the subject matter of the suit.
28. In the present case, the declaration sought pertains to documents of ownership relating to immovable property. The valuation of Rs. 200/- for jurisdiction is manifestly not reflective of the market value of the property in dispute. As per settled law, when the relief of declaration directly affects proprietary rights in immovable property, the valuation for jurisdiction must be aligned with the value of the property, and not a nominal figure.
The defendant has specifically objected to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act, the valuation of Rs. 200/- cannot be accepted as the correct valuation for jurisdiction. Consequently, it has to be held that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction.
The issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Conclusion
29. As an upshot of the above discussion and in view of the findings on issue no. 1-3 and issue no.5, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court NITISH by NITISH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA on 11.05.2026. SHARMA Date: 2026.05.11 16:57:45 +0530 (Nitish Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/11.05.2026 CS SCJ 536282/2016 Bimla Devi vs Ganesh 18/18