Delhi District Court
Habib Khan@ Abdul Mujeeb Khan vs Zeenat Khan on 27 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUKHVINDER KAUR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNE010024202023
RCA DJ No. 24/2023
HABIB KHAN @ ABDUL MUJEEB KHAN
S/o Late Ahmed Saeed Khan
R/o H.No. C-257, Gali No. 9,
Shastri Park, Delhi-110053.
..... Appellant
Versus
1. SMT. ZEENAT KHAN
W/o Late Kaisar Khan
2. SAMI KHHAN
S/o Late Kaisar Khan
3. ZULFIAQAR KHAN
S/o Late Kaisar Khan
4. WASIM KHAM
S/o Late Kaisar Khan
All R/o H.No. C-257,
1st & 2nd Floor, Gali No. 9-8,
Near Hanuman Mandir,
Shastri Park, Delhi-110053.
.......Respondents
Appearance: Sh. Himanshu, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Ashok K.Sagar, Ld. Counsel for respondents.
Date of institution : 18.08.2023
Arguments concluded on : 13.08.2025
Date of judgment : 27.08.2025
Digitally
signed by
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.08.27 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 1 of 18
16:48:43
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed the instant Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for the sake of brevity) against the judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed by Ld. ASCJ/GJ/JSCC Judge (NE), KKD Courts, Delhi, in Suit No.4367 of 2015. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been contested by the respondents, who have filed their reply to the appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Before proceeding on merits, it shall be appropriate to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the application it is pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal from 01.05.2023 to 30.07.2023 (90 days) deserves to be condoned as the appellant is an old aged person who frequently remains ill and bedridden and as such could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Furthermore, the delay was caused due to delay in receiving the certified copy of the civil suit filed by the appellant.
3. In the reply to the application, it has been pointed out that the delay is not of 90 days but of 101 days since the appeal has been filed on 11.08.2023 and not on 30.07.2023. It is further stated that the appellant has not filed any documents for supporting his averment of illness and to show that he was bedridden. It is also stated that the appellant has abused the process of law and misled the court and as such he cannot be Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date: RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 2 of 18 2025.08.27 16:48:51 +0530 allowed to take advance of his own wrong and cause wrongful loss to the respondents. It has therefore been prayed to dismiss the application with cost.
4. Arguments advanced by Counsels for both the parties have been duly considered and record has been meticulously perused. Relevant law and judgments have also been gone through.
5. It is pertinent to mention that after the objection was taken by the respondents, the appellant has filed his medical treatment papers.
6. It shall be appropriate to reproduce Section 5 of Limitation Act, which runs as under:
"5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation.--The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section."
7. In support of his application, the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani & Ors., 1996 SCC (3) 132, wherein it was held:-
"The expression "sufficient cause" should be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay".
Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.08.27 16:48:57 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 3 of 18 +0530
8. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case titled Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. 1987 AIR 1353, wherein it was held:-
"The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in the matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-
"Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period."
9. It was further held:-
"2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties;
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner".
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Krishna Continental Ltd Vs. Balkrishan Sharma, FAO Nos.123- 130/2005 and CM No.6836/2005, announced on 08.08.2007, Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.08.27 16:49:02 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 4 of 18 +0530 wherein it was held that there should be some extenuating circumstances justifying the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
11. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. Manjit Singh & Ors., Interim Application Appeal No.3258, 3259 of 1992 and Suit No.1440 of 1983, wherein the application for seeking condonation of delay of about 31 days was dismissed for the reason that no explanation was offered for the delay.
12. The gist of the case law relied by counsel for both the sides is that there has to be sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal or application and the provision should be interpreted liberally.
13. The law on the point of limitation was exhaustively discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), SCP (Civil) No.31248 of 2018, announced on 08.04.2024, wherein it was held:-
"12. In view of the above provision, the appeal which is preferred after the expiry of the limitation is liable to be dismissed. The use of the word 'shall' in the aforesaid provision connotes that the dismissal is mandatory subject to the exceptions. Section 3 of the Act is peremptory and had to be given effect to even though no objection regarding limitation is taken by the other side or referred to in the pleadings. In other words, it casts an obligation upon the court to dismiss an appeal which is presented beyond limitation. This is the general law of limitation. The exceptions are carved out under Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act but we are concerned only with the exception contained in Section 5 which empowers the courts to admit an appeal even if it is preferred after the prescribed period provided the proposed appellant gives 'sufficient cause' for not preferring the appeal within the period prescribed. In other words, the courts are conferred with discretionary powers to admit an Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 5 of 18
2025.08.27 16:49:10 +0530 appeal even after the expiry of the prescribed period provided the proposed appellant is able to establish 'sufficient cause' for not filing it within time. The said power to condone the delay or to admit the appeal preferred after the expiry of time is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is shown based upon host of other factors such as negligence, failure to exercise due diligence etc".
14. It was further held:-
"17. It must always be borne in mind that while construing 'sufficient cause' in deciding application under Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The decree-holder treats the decree to be binding with the lapse of time and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights".
15. It was further held:-
"18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a 'sufficient cause' for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party".
16. It was further held:-
"21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal Digitally signed by approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.08.27 16:49:16 +0530 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 6 of 18 should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as 'liberal approach', 'justice-oriented approach' and 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation".
17. It was further held:-
"22. It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors., that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal".
18. It was further held:-
"23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds".
19. After discussing the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time it was summed up as under:-
"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:2025.08.27 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 7 of 18
16:49:23 +0530 period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision".
20. Now reverting back to the instant case it has to be seen whether the appellant has been able to show the sufficient cause for the delay of 101 days caused in filing the appeal. It has been vaguely pleaded that appeal could not be filed in time since the appellant is old aged person who frequently remains ill and bedridden and further since there was delay in receiving the certified copy of the civil suit filed by the appellant. The medical Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 8 of 18 Date:
2025.08.27 16:49:29 +0530 record reveals that the appellant was admitted in Saint Stephen Hospital from 31.01.2023 to 06.02.2023, thereafter the documents of follow-up upto 20.02.2023 have been placed on record. There is no medical documents pertaining to the illness of the appellant after 20.02.2023, except for X-Ray report dated 06.05.2023, which appears to be normal as it is reported therein that there is no evidence of spondylolisthesis or lysis. Hence, there is no document in support of averment for the relevant period i.e. w.e.f 01.05.2023 to 11.08.2023 i.e. of the period after the judgment was announced by Ld. ASCJ/GJ/JSCC Judge (NE) till the appeal was filed. The appellant has also not mentioned as to when the certified copy of the civil suit was applied by the appellant and when the same was received. Thus, it is apparent that the application seeking condonation of delay has been drafted in a casual manner which only shows lackadaisical approach of the appellant and as such the appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal.
21. Applying the law laid down in the judgment of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (supra), I am of the view that the application is without any merits. Hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant is dismissed and is disposed of accordingly.
22. Before discussing the grounds of appeal on merits, it shall be pertinent to reproduce the brief facts. The instant suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, damages and mesne profit has been filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) against defendant/respondents no.1, 2, 3 and 4 i.e. wife and children of his late brother Kaisar Khan, claiming that he is the owner of Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.08.27 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 9 of 18 16:49:35 +0530 house bearing No.C-257, measuring 40 Sq. Yards, situated in Gali No.9-8, Near Hanuman Mandir, Shastri Park, Delhi-110053 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') as the same was purchased by him from erstwhile owner Sh. Babu Khan vide registered sale documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell and Receipt. After purchasing the plot, he got constructed property upto second floor and set up a button factory on the ground floor and since then he is in use, occupation and physical possession of the property. In the month of July 1997, he permitted the defendants to live on the 1 st and 2nd floor of the property as licensee for a period of 2 to 3 years with license fee @ Rs.3,000/- per month. The period was extended by the plaintiff as the defendants were not able to arrange any other place of residence, however the defendants did not pay a single penny as licence fee despite repeated demands. On 20.11.2011, plaintiff revoked the licence of the defendants and asked them to vacate the suit property, however the defendants extended threat to the plaintiff to kill him and made ownership claim over the suit property. They also tried to forcibly dispossess him from the Digitally signed by ground floor of the suit property. Hence, the present suit.
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.08.27
16:49:41
23. On the other hand, the defendants pleaded that plaintiff was +0530 never in possession of any part/portion of the property at any point. Defendant no.2 to 4 are having button factory and all machines and tools lying in the factory pertain to them. They pleaded that they are living in the suit property since a long time and have proof of their residence including electricity bills, water bills and election I.D. Card in the name of defendant no.2.
They pleaded that copy of the ownership documents of the property was submitted in BSES Yamuna Power Limited department at the time of applying for electricity meter and the RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 10 of 18 original documents are in possession of the plaintiff. They also pleaded that the ownership documents filed by the plaintiff revealed that the documents pertain to property No.A-45, Shastri Park, Delhi (out of Khasra No.94), which is totally different from the suit property. They asserted that the area of suit property is 33 Sq. yard. They denied the claim of the plaintiff to the effect that they were licencees and had agreed to pay license fee @ Rs.3,000/- per month. They pleaded that plaintiff has no right to get vacated the suit property as they are legal heirs of late Sh. Kaisar Khan who was the actual owner of the suit property. After the death of Kaisar Khan in the year 1982, the genuine documents in respect of the suit property were in possession of the plaintiff as defendant no.2 to 4 are minor and defendant no.1 was not having any knowledge about the same and he deliberately concealed the same and wants to take undue advantage of the situation.
24. After completion of the pleadings, Ld. Trial Court framed following issues vide order dated 27.09.2016:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction against defendant No.1,2,3 and 4 for restraining them from selling or creating any third party interest or taking forcible possession of the ground floor of the suit property? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction against defendant No.1,2,3 and 4 for directing them to vacate the suit SUKHVINDER property? OPP KAUR Digitally signed by
3. Relief.SUKHVINDER KAUR Date: 2025.08.27 16:49:50 +0530 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 11 of 18
25. After considering the evidence on record and arguments advanced by Counsel for both the parties, Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the suit primarily for the reason that plaintiff has sought the relief on the assertion that he is the owner and in possession of the suit property, whereas the title documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not confer any title on the plaintiff and he also failed to prove his possession over the suit property either as whole or any part. Apart from that, Ld. Trial Court has also given finding that the identity of the suit property is not established and furthermore the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form since there is a cloud over the title of the suit property as the defendants have also claimed themselves as the owners of the property.
26. At the outset, it is the own case of the plaintiff that when he had asked the defendants to vacate the suit property, they threatened him and laid ownership claim over the suit property. The defendants in their written statement have also taken the plea that they are having button factory on the ground floor and they are the legal heirs of late Sh. Kaisar Khan who was the actual owner of the suit property and after the death of Sh. Kaisar Khan in the year 1982, the original documents in respect of the property were in possession of the plaintiff as defendant no.2 to 4 were minor and the defendant no.1 was not having any knowledge about the same. They have pleaded that they are having ration card, electricity bill and water bill in their own name at the address of the suit property where they are living since long and copy of ownership documents of the suit property were submitted in BSES Yamuna Power Limited department at the time of applying for the electricity meter.
Digitally
signed by
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.08.27
16:49:56 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 12 of 18
+0530
27. In view of the plea taken by the defendants, I do not find any error in the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that simplictor suit for permanent and mandatory injunction is not maintainable. As the title of the plaintiff is under cloud, the plaintiff was required to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction. Reliance placed on the judgment titled Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors. Civil Appeal No.6191/2001, decided on 25.03.2008 by Hon'ble Supreme Court is also appropriate.
28. The appeal inter alia has been filed primarily on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to correctly identify the suit property. It is stated that the suit property bearing No.C-257, measuring 40 Sq. Yards, situated in Gali No.9-8, Near Hanuman Mandir, Shastri Park, Delhi is different from the property bearing No.C-257, measuring 79 Sq. Yards, situated in Gali No.9, Near Hanuman Mandir, Shastri Park, Delhi, where the appellant currently resides. Apart from that the impugned order has been challenged also on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly adjudicated that the appellant is not the owner of the suit property as the GPA and agreement to sell are unregistered. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the very fact that before the year 2000, GPA, Agreement to Sell and Receipt (registered before Sub Registrar) was the valid mode of transferring the property in Delhi. It is averred that the court has wrongly relied upon on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case titled Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., SLP © No.13917 of 2009 as the law down in the said case was not applicable prospectively to avoid the hardship. It is further Digitally signed by averred that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 13 of 182025.08.27 16:50:00 +0530 respondent no.1, who is defence witness did not come forward for cross-examination which leads to presumption in favour of the plaintiff.
29. Ld. Trial Court has discussed in the impugned judgment the validity of the title documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff are unregistered GPA, Agreement to Sell and registered Receipt of Rs.30,000/-. Though, I agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for appellant that the reliance on the judgment Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (supra) is misplaced as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court had no retrospective effect and the finding in the said case was "immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property", however Ld. Trial Court has correctly appreciated the fact that the registered receipt relied upon by the plaintiff does not prove anything concerning the transfer of the suit property in hand. The Receipt proves at the maximum that Babu Khan had received Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff. There is no mention anything regarding the transaction against which the payment was made. In that eventuality, there cannot be any presumption that the payment of Rs.30,000/- was in respect of the sale consideration of the suit property. Furthermore, the unregistered agreement to sell does not confer any title in the said property as the agreement to sell requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, which reads as under:-
Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.08.27 16:50:04 +0530 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 14 of 18 "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory-
(1)The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely,
(a)instruments of gift of immovable property;
(b)other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;
(c)non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and
(d)leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
(e)[non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.08.27 16:50:09 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 15 of 18 +0530 property:] [Inserted by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10".
30. Further, Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which deals with the effect of non-registration of documents that are required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act, runs as under:
"49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered
- No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),] [Added by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10.] to be registered shall
(a)affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b)confer any power to adopt, or
(c)be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the [Specific Relief Act, 1877] (3 of 1877), [xxx] or as evidence any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument".
31. Thus, an unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence to prove any transaction affecting the property or any collateral transaction. As the unregistered Agreement to Sell relied upon by the plaintiff has no evidentiary value, it does not confer any title on the plaintiff, and hence the contention of Ld. Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.08.27 16:50:14 RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 16 of 18 +0530 Counsel for appellant regarding the practice of transfer of immovable property by agreement to sell, GPA and receipt is not sustainable.
32. Reliance has also been placed by Ld. Trial Court on the judgment titled Balram Singh Versus Kelo Devi, Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that- an unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence and a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable on the basis of the same. Thus, this court does not find any error in the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff (appellant herein) do not confer any title on the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for appellant has also failed to point out any evidence on record to establish the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
33. Furthermore, Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment has also discussed the reasons for dispute over the identify of the suit property on the basis of evidence of PW-1. Pertinently, in the appeal also it is pleaded that the suit property bearing No.C-257, measuring 40 Sq. Yards, situated in Gali No.9-8, Near Hanuman Mandir, Shastri Park, Delhi, is different from the property bearing No.C-257, measuring 79 Sq. Yards, situated in Gali No.9-8, Near Hanuman Mandir, Shastri Park, Delhi, which itself shows that the identity of the suit property is not ascertained. Even if the contention of Ld. Counsel for appellant is believed to be correct, the appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove that two properties bear the same property number. The plaintiff/appellant has also not proved the site plan, as has been observed by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment.
SUKHVINDER Pertinently, Order 7 Rule 3 CPC categorically lays down KAUR Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER KAUR RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 17 of 18 Date: 2025.08.27 16:50:19 +0530 "Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers".
34. Perusal of the evidence of PW-1 reveals that he has given contradictory statements in respect of use and occupation of the suit property. In his cross-examination he has even taken contradictory stand to the effect that defendants are in use and occupation of the ground floor and the 1st floor of the suit property, as against the pleadings to the effect that defendants are in use and occupation of 1st and 2nd floor of the suit property. Hence, there is no error in the finding of the Ld. Trial Court to the effect that identity of the suit property could not be established by the plaintiff. In the absence of identity of the property, no relief can be granted in respect to the same.
35. In view of above discussion, the appeal is also devoid of merits. Hence, the same is dismissed.
36. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT KAUR Date:
On 27th August, 2025 2025.08.27
16:50:25
+0530
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS: DELHI RCA DJ 24/23 Habib Khan @ Abdul Mujeeb Khan Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors. Page 18 of 18