Delhi District Court
Ibrar Ahmad vs Pawan Deep Singh Ans on 23 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS AUNRADHA JINDAL, ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDGE SMALL CAUSE
COURT-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTH,
NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 82852/2016
IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH
CNR No. DLST03-000285-2014
Ibrar Ahmad
S/o Late Mohd. Muslim
R/o Plot No. AB, AB Market,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Kamal Cinema,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029. .....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Pawandeep Singh
S/o S. Charanjit Singh,
R/o AB-12B, AB Market,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Kamal Cinema,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029. .....DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 10.10.2014
Date of reserving judgment : 10.02.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.04.2025
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 1 of 45
The Case
1.The present case revolves around a long-standing dispute over the possession and ownership of a piece of land situated at Plot No. AB, Block AB, Near PNB Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The plaintiff, has been residing in the suit property along with his family for several decades, claiming possessory rights over the land. He asserts that he was allowed to reside on the property as a guard by local market shopkeepers nearly 30 years ago, with no salary or formal employment terms. Over the years, he and his family have lived in the property uninterrupted, treating it as their home.
2. In 2005, the defendants, who had no prior connection to the property, allegedly introduced themselves as its rightful owners. They later reaffirmed this claim in 2011, offering the plaintiff Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation if he vacated the premises. Despite making partial payments, the defendants subsequently resorted to coercive tactics, attempting to forcibly evict the plaintiff and his family. The plaintiff contends that no legal proof of ownership was ever presented by the defendants and that he was misled into signing certain documents under duress and false assurances.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 2 of 45
3. The dispute escalated in 2014 when the plaintiff reported threats and attempts of dispossession to the police. The situation further deteriorated when the defendants allegedly encroached upon a significant portion of the suit property, reducing the plaintiff's possession from 500 square yards to 150 square yards. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, and protection of his possessory rights, while the defendants filed a counterclaim challenging the plaintiff's claims and asserting ownership.
4. The case thus raises critical questions about adverse possession, fraudulent misrepresentation, and property rights. The plaintiff contends that he has acquired ownership through long, continuous, and uninterrupted possession, while the defendants insist that he was merely a permissive occupier with no legal entitlement.
5. This Court has duly considered the final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties. The Court has meticulously examined the entire record, giving careful attention to the pleadings, the evidence presented, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties as well as written submission filed on behalf of defendant. Each aspect of the case has been analysed in light of the relevant facts and law, ensuring that all material brought before the Court has been fully reviewed and assessed in reaching a fair and just decision.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 3 of 45 The Plaint
6. The plaintiff, a law-abiding and peace-loving citizen of India, has been residing at Plot No. AB, Block AB Market, near Punjab National Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029 along with his family for the past 30 years. The suit property, measuring 150 sq. yards, consists of a jhuggi, a bathroom, and an open vacant area. The site plan and photographs of the property are annexed for reference.
7. Over these decades, the plaintiff has remained in continuous, uninterrupted, and peaceful possession of the suit property without any interference from any third party. His occupancy is supported by official documents, including his bank account with New Bank of India (since 1985), election ID card, income tax card, passport, Aadhaar card, and similar identification documents for his wife and other family members. These records establish a clear and longstanding possessory right over the suit property.
8. The plaintiff, having resided and exercised ownership over the property openly, exclusively, and continuously for the past 30 years, asserts that he has acquired ownership by way of adverse possession under the settled principles of CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 4 of 45 law. The defendants, despite having no legal right, title, or interest in the suit property, have repeatedly attempted to encroach, disrupt, and forcibly take over the property with the collusion of certain police officials.
9. On multiple occasions, the defendants have threatened, harassed, and obstructed the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and his family. They have deliberately prevented him from undertaking necessary construction and repairs in the property, despite its deteriorating condition. Further, the defendants have even interfered with the plaintiff's religious practices and obstructed access to and from the property by unlawfully locking the entrance gate with two locks, restricting the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and his family members.
10.The situation escalated on 14.08.2014, when the defendants, accompanied by two accomplices, stormed into the suit property, issued threats, and forcibly attempted to evict the plaintiff's family by throwing out their household belongings. The plaintiff and his family were only saved by the intervention of neighbors, following which the defendants fled the scene, vowing to return and forcibly take over the property.
11.Again, on 22.09.2014, at around 3:00 PM, the defendants arrived at the suit property, verbally abused the plaintiff using filthy language, engaged in a quarrel, and once again CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 5 of 45 attempted to throw out his belongings, demanding that he vacate the premises immediately.
12.The threats escalated on 01.10.2014, when the defendants threatened to falsely implicate the plaintiff's children in fabricated criminal cases and even issued death threats if the plaintiff and his family did not leave the property. Fearing for his safety, the plaintiff promptly approached PS Safdarjung Enclave and lodged a formal complaint (DD No. 62B dated 01.10.2014). However, despite bringing the matter to the attention of the police, no action was taken against the defendants.
13.The harassment continued on 06.10.2014, a significant day when the plaintiff and his family were celebrating Id-ul- Zuha. The defendants arrived early in the morning at around 7:00 AM, threatened the plaintiff not to celebrate the festival, and began throwing out his household belongings. In distress, the plaintiff and his wife rushed to PS Safdarjung Enclave, whereupon the SHO deputed ASI Ravi Shankar to visit the property. The officer prepared a site plan and instructed both parties not to engage in any conflict. However, despite police intervention, the defendants resumed their unlawful conduct and continued to instigate quarrels.
14.The defendants have no legal authority, ownership, or interest in the suit property, yet they continue to illegally CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 6 of 45 threaten, harass, and attempt to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff and his family. Their repeated unlawful activities have left the plaintiff with no alternative but to seek the intervention of this Hon'ble Court for protection of his lawful rights.
15.The cause of action for filing the present suit first arose on 14.08.2014, when the defendants first attempted to forcibly evict the plaintiff. It arose again on 22.09.2014, when they verbally abused and threatened him. It continued on 01.10.2014, when the plaintiff was compelled to approach the police station for protection, and again on 06.10.2014, when the defendants disrupted the plaintiff's religious festival and renewed their threats. The threats and harassment continue to persist, necessitating the present legal proceedings.
16.The defendants reside and conduct their activities within the jurisdiction of this Court, thereby making this Court competent to adjudicate the present suit. The prescribed court fees for the reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction have been duly affixed.
17.In light of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Court may be pleased to:
a) Grant a decree of mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 7 of 45 representatives, and associates from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property. This includes prohibiting them from obstructing necessary repair and construction work, restricting ingress and egress, and unlawfully locking access to the property.
b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff and his family from the suit property by unlawful means.
c) Award costs of the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
d) Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
Written Statement-cum-Counter Claim on Behalf of Defendants No.1 & 2
18.The defendants, through this written statement-cum-
counter claim, wish to place on record the true facts of the matter and refute the baseless and misleading allegations made by the plaintiff. The present suit, devoid of merit and filed with malicious intent, is an attempt by the plaintiff to unlawfully claim possession of property owned by the defendants.
19.The defendants were never served with summons for the present suit, nor were they aware of its pendency. The existence of the case only came to light on 14.12.2014, when a dispute arose over the re-installation of CCTV cameras for security purposes. The plaintiff, agitated by CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 8 of 45 this, initiated a quarrel, leading the defendants to call the police. In the presence of the police officials, the plaintiff first disclosed the pendency of this case. Without delay, the defendants are now filing their written statement-cum- counter claim within the statutory period. However, as a matter of abundant caution, a separate application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is also being filed for condonation of any possible delay. The plaintiff's suit is legally untenable, lacks substantive merit, and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
20.The plaintiff has failed to establish any legitimate cause of action, making the suit liable for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff has misrepresented facts and concealed material information. The suit, disguised as one for mandatory and permanent injunction, is effectively seeking declaration and possession without affixing the appropriate court fees. This deception alone warrants dismissal under Section 35-A CPC with exemplary costs.
21.The site plan submitted by the plaintiff is inaccurate and misleading. Contrary to the plaintiff's claim of possessing 150 sq. yards of property, the reality is that the plaintiff has only occupied a small temporary jhuggi measuring approximately 8x12 feet (10-12 sq. yards). The entire plot owned by Defendant No.1 measures 500 sq. yards, and under the garb of this suit, the plaintiff is attempting to CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 9 of 45 encroach upon the remaining portion. This malafide intent renders the suit liable for dismissal.
22.The plaintiff was never an owner or a rightful possessor of the property but was instead employed as a security guard (Chowkidar) around 10-12 years ago to safeguard the premises. However, this crucial fact has been deliberately omitted from the suit.
23.The documents submitted by the plaintiff, Aadhar Card, Voter ID, and bank passbook, are misleading and inconsistent. None of these documents provide the correct address corresponding to the defendants' legally owned property. The plaintiff has willfully attempted to mislead the Hon'ble Court by submitting forged or unrelated documents.
24.On 27.05.2011, the plaintiff executed a written agreement with Defendant No.1, confirming his status as a security guard and agreeing to vacate the jhuggi in exchange for financial assistance of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The plaintiff received Rs. 75,000/- in instalments, but instead of vacating the premises, he has dishonestly refused to comply with the agreement and has now initiated frivolous litigation to unlawfully claim ownership.
25.The plaintiff has grossly undervalued the property to evade proper court fees. The actual value of the suit property CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 10 of 45 exceeds Rs. 50,00,000/-, which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the disguised relief of declaration and possession necessitates the payment of requisite court fees, which has not been complied with, making the suit legally unsustainable.
26.The plaintiff himself lodged a complaint before the Delhi Minority Commission, falsely alleging that he had worked for Defendant No.1 for 24 years without salary. This statement is contradictory and factually incorrect, as Defendant No.1 is only 39 years old and could not have possibly employed the plaintiff when he was just 14 years of age. This inconsistency further exposes the fabricated nature of the plaintiff's claim.
27.The assertion that the plaintiff has been in continuous, uninterrupted possession for 30 years is entirely false. The plaintiff was only permitted to reside in a small corner of the property as a service benefit during his employment. His occupation was temporary and contingent upon his employment, which has since been terminated.
28.The plaintiff's reliance on adverse possession is legally unsound. He fails to satisfy the necessary conditions of hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession. Moreover, his simultaneous claim of being an employee of the defendants contradicts his assertion of adverse possession.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 11 of 45
29.The plaintiff is not only refusing to vacate the premises but is actively attempting to bring in outsiders to occupy the property, further hindering the defendants' rights over their lawful ownership. The plaintiff has attempted to alter the structure of the premises by breaking the boundary wall to create an unauthorized entry, which was rightly resisted by the defendants.
30.On 06.10.2014, the plaintiff attempted to sacrifice a goat (Bakra) on the premises, which was objected to by the defendants, who are Sikhs and strict vegetarians. The plaintiff, angered by this, lodged a false police complaint that was rightly dismissed for lack of merit. The plaintiff has falsely alleged incidents of threats, violence, and forceful eviction on 14.08.2014, 22.09.2014, and 01.10.2014. These claims are unsubstantiated, exaggerated, and fabricated solely to gain undue advantage in litigation.
31.In view of the above, in the counter claim, the defendants seek an order for possession and permanent injunction against the plaintiff, directing him to:
a) Immediately vacate the unauthorized jhuggi and remove all belongings from the premises.
b) Be restrained from creating any third-party rights over the suit property.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 12 of 45
c) Be prohibited from altering the structure, interfering with the boundary wall, or engaging in any unlawful activities.
32.In the present suit, it is prayed, that this Court may be pleased to:
a) Dismiss the plaintiff's suit with exemplary costs for being an abuse of process.
b) Grant the defendants' counter-claim by:
Directing the eviction of the plaintiff from the suit property.
Issuing a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the property. Awarding litigation costs in favor of the defendants. Passing any other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
Replication to the Written Statement
33.The Plaintiff submits this replication in response to the written statement filed by the Defendants, denying all allegations and asserting the legitimacy of his claim. The Plaintiff categorically denies all preliminary objections raised by the Defendants, stating that their assertions are baseless and unsupported by any evidence. The suit for injunction is maintainable as the Plaintiff has approached this Court seeking legitimate relief, without requiring any declaration regarding his legal character or status.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 13 of 45
34.The Defendants' claim that the Plaintiff was engaged as a Chowkidar in the premises is entirely false. The Plaintiff was employed as a guard by local market shopkeepers around 30 years ago, without receiving any salary but merely being provided a place to reside, i.e., the suit property. In 2005, the Defendants fraudulently represented themselves as the owners of the suit property, a claim they reiterated in 2011, promising the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in compensation for his continued occupation. However, the Defendants never provided any ownership documents. The Plaintiff, being a poor and vulnerable individual, believed their assurances and received only Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter, the Defendants resorted to intimidation and coercion to force him out of the premises. The Defendants have no right, title, or interest in the suit property and lack the legal standing to challenge the Plaintiff's possession. The claim that there existed an employer-employee relationship is entirely false and was created by the Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations. Any agreement entered into was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion.
35.The allegations questioning the authenticity of the Plaintiff's documents are unfounded. The suit property is commonly referred to as Plot No. AB, with no specific numerical designation. The Defendants' assertion that it is AB-12B or 714/13, Village Kharera, is a fabrication CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 14 of 45 designed to mislead this Hon'ble Court. The Defendants have failed to provide even a single document proving ownership of the suit property. The Plaintiff's complaint before the Minorities Commission was based on the mistaken belief, induced by the Defendants' misrepresentations, that they were the rightful owners. However, upon realizing the truth, the Plaintiff asserts that he was never an employee of the Defendants, nor was he occupying the property as a licensee.
36.The agreement that the Defendants claim to have executed with the Plaintiff was fraudulently obtained. The Plaintiff, being illiterate, was induced to sign without understanding its contents, based on false promises of compensation. The Defendants' failure to produce any ownership documents further proves their fraudulent intent. The claim that the Plaintiff was a licensee or had any employer-employee relationship with the Defendants is entirely false. The Rs. 75,000 paid to the Plaintiff was given based on fraudulent misrepresentations and does not confer any ownership rights upon the Defendants. The claim that the suit property is AB-12B is incorrect, as AB-12 is a distinct property forming part of a municipal market, located at least 250 meters away from the suit property. The Plaintiff has been in uninterrupted possession of the entire 500- square-yard plot for over 30 years. It was only after the Defendants fraudulently claimed ownership that they encroached upon 350 square yards, constructing makeshift CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 15 of 45 structures to create an illusion of ownership. Their claim of using the property for residential and commercial purposes is unsubstantiated and unsupported by any documentary evidence.
37.The Plaintiff reiterates that the suit has been properly valued. Since the Plaintiff is in possession of the property, he does not need to seek declaratory relief. It is the Defendants who claim ownership and require a declaration to that effect, which they have failed to obtain. The complaint before the Minorities Commission was made based on the fraudulent representations of the Defendants and cannot be used as evidence of their ownership. The Plaintiff has been in continuous possession of 500 square yards of land with his family for 30 years. In 2011, the Defendants fraudulently took control of 350 square yards. The complaints referred to by the Defendants are baseless and were filed to harass the Plaintiff.
38.The Plaintiff denies all allegations made in the written statement and reaffirms the contents of the plaint as true and correct. The contentions raised by the Defendants are mere repetitions of their preliminary objections, which have already been addressed in detail. The Plaintiff categorically denies the Defendants' allegations that he attempted to break the boundary wall. The boundary wall was constructed by the Plaintiff at his own expense, and the front door has always been used for ingress and egress.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 16 of 45 The claim that the Plaintiff blocked a toilet pipe or engaged in any wrongful activity is entirely false. The Plaintiff remains in possession of a 150-square-yard structure, with a proper tin shed and open area, as clearly shown in the site plan and photographs submitted with the plaint.
39.In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff prays that this Court be pleased to decree the suit in his favor, dismiss the Defendants' baseless claims, award costs in favor of the Plaintiff, and grant any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.
Determination of Issues
40.On the basis of pleadings, following issues were identified:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in clause a? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed in clause b? OPP
4. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 17 of 45 PW-1/Ibrar Ahmed/Plaintiff No. 1
41.PW-1, tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit, exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A, bearing his signatures at points 'A' and 'B'. In support of his case, he relied upon the following documents:
Ex.PW-1/1 - Site Plan of the suit property. Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly) - Photographs of the suit premises. Ex.PW-1/3 to Ex.PW-1/7 - Copies of bank passbooks from New Bank of India and Indian Bank, Aadhaar cards, PAN Card, and Voter Cards.
Mark A - A copy of the passport.
Mark B (Colly) - A copy of complaints dated 01.10.2014 and 06.10.2014.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-1
42.By way of evidence affidavit, PW-1, has affirmed that he is a law-abiding citizen of India and has been residing at the suit property, located at Plot No. AB, AB Market, Near Punjab National Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, for approximately 30 years along with his family. The property consists of a jhuggi and a bathroom, with the remaining portion lying vacant. He has submitted a site plan and photographs of the suit property.
43.PW-1 asserts that he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for over three CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 18 of 45 decades. He relies on various documents to substantiate his claim, including his bank account records dating back to 1985, election identity cards, income tax records, voter slips, passport, and Aadhaar cards of himself and his family members. He claims possessory rights over the suit property and asserts that he has acquired ownership through adverse possession.
44.PW-1 alleges that the defendants, despite having no right, title, or interest in the suit property, have been attempting to forcibly dispossess him and his family with the support of local authorities. He contends that the defendants have resorted to threats and intimidation, unlawfully interfering with his peaceful possession. They have allegedly obstructed his ability to carry out construction or repairs on the property, which is in a deteriorated condition. Additionally, they have interfered with his religious practices and attempted to restrict his ingress and egress by placing locks on the entrance.
45.PW-1 narrates specific incidents of harassment by the defendants. On 14.08.2014, the defendants, along with their associates, allegedly threatened him and his family, attempted to forcibly evict them, and began throwing their household belongings. However, with the intervention of neighbors, the attempt was thwarted, and the defendants left while issuing further threats. On 22.09.2014, the defendants allegedly returned to the suit property, engaged in a quarrel, used abusive language, and attempted to CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 19 of 45 forcibly remove PW-1's belongings while demanding that he vacate the premises.
46.On 01.10.2014, the defendants once again came to the property and issued threats that they would implicate PW- 1's children in false criminal cases or even resort to violence if he did not vacate immediately. Consequently, PW-1 lodged a complaint with the SHO, PS Safdarjung Enclave, vide DD No. 62B dated 01.10.2014, but claims that no action was taken.
47.On 06.10.2014, while PW-1 and his family were celebrating Eid-ul-Zuha, the defendants allegedly attempted to disrupt the celebration by issuing threats and trying to throw away their belongings. PW-1 and his wife reported the matter to the police, following which ASI Ravi Shankar visited the suit property, prepared a site plan, and instructed both parties to maintain peace. However, despite police intervention, the defendants allegedly continued to cause disturbances.
48.PW-1 asserts that the defendants have no legal claim over the suit property and, therefore, have no right to issue threats or forcibly evict him and his family. He maintains that his possession of the property is lawful and that he is entitled to relief as prayed for in the suit.
49.PW-1 contends that he has acquired ownership of the suit property through adverse possession and seeks protection against unlawful eviction. He claims that the defendants' CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 20 of 45 attempts to dispossess him have been illegal and arbitrary. The complaints lodged with the police, coupled with his long-standing possession, form the basis of his claim for relief in the present suit.
Cross-Examination of PW-1
50.During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he did not know English. The plaint had been read over to him by one M. M. Shukla, who had since passed away. PW-1 signed the plaint only after understanding its contents.
51.Regarding the photographs (Ex.PW-1/2 Colly), PW-1 could not recall the name of the person who had taken them but confirmed that they were taken in 2006 at his instance. Around 4-5 photographs had been taken. PW-1 did not remember the amount paid to the photographer, nor did he have a receipt for the payment. The negatives of these photographs had been destroyed. These photographs had been taken purely for his own record.
52.Regarding the site plan (Ex.DW-1/1), PW-1 did not recall when it had been prepared or who had prepared it. He could not confirm whether the person who prepared it had visited the site or had drawn it in court at his request. He also did not know whether such draftsmen sat in any court premises in Delhi or operated from the market. In the site plan (Ex.PW-1/1), the portion marked in red had been in CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 21 of 45 his possession, while the portion in blue had been occupied by Pawan Deep. The portion marked 'X' represented a bathroom, but PW-1 could not state its exact measurement. Similarly, he could not recall the size of the Jhuggi (marked as 'Y') in the site plan.
53.PW-1 denied the defendant's suggestion that the photographs (Ex.PW-1/2 Colly) did not pertain to the plot in question. He also refuted the claim that the site plan did not accurately depict the property. PW-1 did not recall whether he had filed a complaint at the police station before filing the present suit, nor did he remember the exact date when he filed the suit.
54.PW-1 reiterated that his Jhuggi did not have a specific number, but its address had been AB Block, Near PNB, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. He disputed the defendant's assertion that the plot was numbered AB-12B.
55.Regarding the agreement dated 27.05.2011, PW-1 confirmed that his signatures appeared at point 'A' and those of his wife at point 'B' on the document exhibited as Ex.PW-1/D1. Similarly, the receipt dated 07.06.2011 bore his signature at point 'A' and his wife's at point 'B' (now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/D2). Another receipt dated 20.08.2011 also contained their signatures (now exhibited as Ex.PW-1/D3). A complaint dated 04.08.2014, exhibited CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 22 of 45 as Ex.PW-1/D4, had been written in the handwriting of his daughter, Runak, at his instance. PW-1 stated that document Ex.PW-1/D1 had been blank at the time he signed it, and he did so at his residence. He never filed a complaint alleging that Defendant No.1 obtained his signatures on blank papers.
56.PW-1 did not remember the exact date, month, or year when he signed documents Ex.PW-1/D1 to D4, but confirmed that these documents had been signed on different dates. The document Ex.PW-1/D3 had been written in his son's handwriting, and its contents had already been written when he signed Ex.PW-1/D2 and Ex.PW-1/D3. PW-1 stated that he had filed a complaint with PS Safdarjung Enclave on 17.12.2014.
57.PW-1 stated that he had been 62 years old and was born in Darbhanga, Bihar. He did not remember when he shifted to Delhi, nor did he recall his exact age at that time. He had first moved to Delhi alone and had initially worked as a whitewasher in Kamal Cinema Market, a trade he continued to pursue. In 1988-89, since he had no fixed home, he had slept anywhere in the market. His wife had joined him in Delhi in 1984. At the time of moving to Delhi, he had no children. His first child had been born in 1986, on the road where he had been sleeping. PW-1 denied the suggestion that his child had been born in a hospital.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 23 of 45
58.The local residents, seeing his situation, had suggested that he construct a jhuggi on a vacant plot and start living there. He had followed their advice, and his first child had been born in the jhuggi in 1986. PW-1 disputed the claim that he had started living in the jhuggi only in 2005. When he had built his jhuggi, the entire plot had been vacant, and he had not sought permission from anyone before constructing it. Other people had also constructed jhuggis nearby, and he had followed suit. He had first heard in 2005 that the plot was allegedly owned by Charanjeet Singh, but he had never entered into any agreement to vacate it with him.
59.PW-1 had five children, all of whom had been born in the same jhuggi and not in a hospital. He claimed to possess a document proving his occupation of the plot since 1986 and stated that he had submitted it in court records. Upon reviewing the judicial file, he identified a photocopy of his passbook, now marked as Mark A, but he had not brought the original to court. This document contained his address as Jhuggi near AB-28, SIE Market, New Delhi.
60.PW-1 denied the claim that Mark A did not reflect the suit property's address. At the time of filing the present suit, he had provided his address as Plot AB, AB Block, Near PNB Bank, Safdarjung Enclave, Kamal Cinema, New Delhi. PW-1 acknowledged that none of the photographs CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 24 of 45 (Ex.PW1/2 Colly) visibly displayed the address of the suit property. However, he strongly denied the suggestion that these photographs did not pertain to the disputed property. He stated that he might still have the negatives, but he had not submitted them in court.
61.PW-1 did not have municipal birth certificates for his children, as they had been born at home, not in a hospital. He denied the suggestion that the money received from the defendant had been in exchange for vacating the suit property. He stated that the amount given to him by the defendant in Ex.PW1/D2, PW1/D3, and PW1/D1 had been for "Daan" (financial assistance) for his daughter Rukshana, who remained unmarried and was around 22-24 years old.
PW-2/Smt. Rehmati Begum/wife of Plaintiff No. 1
62.PW-2 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-
2/A and did not exhibit any document.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-2
63.Smt. Rehmati Begum, wife of the plaintiff, deposed that she has been residing with the plaintiff in the suit property since its inception and is well-acquainted with the facts of the case. She affirmed that approximately 30 years ago, local market shopkeepers had engaged the plaintiff as a CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 25 of 45 guard but provided him only a place to reside in the suit property without any salary.
64.In 2005, the defendants/counter claimants appeared and introduced themselves as the owners of the suit property. They repeated the same claim in 2011 and assured the plaintiff that, in recognition of his services in guarding the property, they would compensate him with Rs. 5 lakhs if he vacated the premises. However, they never produced any ownership documents. The plaintiff, being a poor man, was misled by these promises. Eventually, the defendants induced the plaintiff into an agreement, made partial payments of approximately Rs. 75,000, and later resorted to coercive and high-handed tactics to force him out of the property.
65.She categorically denied that the plaintiff was ever an employee or chowkidar of the defendants/counter claimants. She asserted that the plaintiff initially occupied the entire plot measuring 500 square yards, comprising a jhuggi and an open area. However, after the defendants' claims of ownership, they took possession of a portion of the property and constructed makeshift structures. The plaintiff currently retains possession of 150 square yards, as accurately depicted in the site plan submitted by him.
66.Rehmati Begum contended that the agreement in question was procured through fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants/counter claimants. The plaintiff, an illiterate CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 26 of 45 man incapable of reading and writing, was not allowed to review its contents before signing. She reiterated that the plaintiff was never an employee of the defendants, nor do the defendants have any legal right, title, or interest in the suit property.
67.She further asserted that the plaintiff has possessory title over the suit property, whereas the defendants have none. The complaint made to the Delhi Minorities Commission was based on a misunderstanding created by the fraudulent misrepresentations of the defendants. The counterclaim filed by the defendants, according to her, is baseless and ought to be dismissed.
Cross-examination of PW-2
68.PW-2 stated that she was 55 years old, illiterate, and a housewife. She could not recall the exact year of her marriage with the plaintiff and had no documents to substantiate it. She clarified that during that time, marriages were not formally documented. She deposed voluntarily in the present matter.
69.Upon being asked about the contents of her affidavit Ex.
PW2/A, she initially stated that she had not prepared any affidavit but had signed 7-8 blank papers. However, upon being shown Ex. PW2/A, she acknowledged awareness of its contents and confirmed that she had signed it. She stated that it was prepared by her advocate at the Saket CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 27 of 45 Court premises, and she signed it willingly without anyone's coercion.
70.PW-2 stated that she came to Delhi in 1984 and, since then, had resided in the plot in question. Her husband had been looking after the market near the suit property. She confirmed that her husband had constructed a house on the plot before she joined him in Delhi. She asserted that her husband never worked as a guard in the market but merely looked after it without any remuneration. She maintained that there was no owner of the plot when she and her husband started residing there and that, to date, no one had established ownership over the plot. She reiterated that she had been residing in the suit property for over 39 years.
71.When asked about the total area of her constructed house, PW-2 stated that initially, the area was 500 sq. yards, but now only 150 sq. yards remained in their possession. She alleged that the remaining portion was taken by the defendants in 2011 after getting a few blank papers signed from them. Upon further questioning, she described the structure of the house, stating that it consisted of one room, one courtyard, one toilet, and one bathroom. She could not provide the exact dimensions of the room but stated that it was large enough to accommodate 3-4 beds.
72.PW-2 admitted that neither she nor her husband had filed any case to reclaim the portion of the land allegedly taken by the defendants. They had also not lodged any formal CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 28 of 45 complaint with any authority regarding the dispossession. However, she volunteered that they had approached the local MLA, Ms. Kiran Waliya, and later went to the police station, where her husband had filed complaints in 2014. She refuted the suggestion that neither she nor her husband had ever made any complaint regarding the alleged dispossession.
73.She confirmed that there was no boundary wall separating the portion in the defendants' possession from the part she claimed. She stated that there were two gates to access the entire plot--one at the front and another at the back. She mentioned that the main gate was in the area occupied by the defendants, while the second access was from a narrow alley (gali). She clarified that while she used the main gate, her children accessed the plot from the gali side by climbing over a waist-height wall.
74.She admitted that neither she nor her husband sought permission from the MCD before constructing their house. She acknowledged that the defendants had raised construction in the portion they occupied but stated that the construction was done overnight. However, she admitted that they did not file any complaint regarding this construction.
75.Upon being shown Ex. PW1/D1, PW-2 denied executing or signing the document. She also denied that the signatures at Point B belonged to her or that the signatures CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 29 of 45 at Point A belonged to her husband. Similar denials were made for documents Ex. PW1/D2, Ex. PW1/D3, and Ex. PW1/D4, stating that neither she nor her husband had executed or signed them. She expressed uncertainty regarding whether they had approached the Delhi Minority Commission in 2014 and whether they had received any notice dated 14.10.2014 from the commission (Ex. PW1/D5).
76.When asked whether Ex. PW1/D4 was in the handwriting of her daughter Ronak, she initially denied it but later stated that she and her husband had signed blank papers at the behest of Charanjeet Singh, which were later misused by the defendants. However, she again stated that she could not remember.
77.Regarding the financial transactions, PW-2 admitted that the defendants paid a total of Rs. 75,000/- to them in installments of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. However, she claimed that the amount was given as a donation for the marriage of their daughter, Ruksana, who got married in 2023. She denied the suggestion that this amount was financial assistance for vacating the suit property.
78.PW-2 confirmed that the suit property was described as AB Plot, AB Block, Near PNB Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, and insisted that it had no number other than AB. She stated that all five of her children were born in the suit property while she was CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 30 of 45 residing there with the plaintiff. She affirmed that none of them was born in a nursing home or hospital but at home. However, she was unsure whether she possessed their birth certificates. She denied concealing these documents from the court.
79.PW-2 rejected the suggestion that the suit property was AB-12B, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. She also denied that the plaintiff was an illegal occupant of the property or that he was merely a permissive occupier, allowed to reside there to guard the plot for the defendants. She refuted the claim that the plaintiff had no possessory rights over the suit property. She vehemently denied that the present suit had been filed with malafide intentions to grab the defendants' property or extort money from them. She categorically rejected the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
Defendants' Evidence
80.With the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the matter proceeded to the stage of defendants' evidence. However, despite repeated directions and grant of multiple last and final opportunities, the defendants failed to file their list of witnesses or evidence affidavits. Consequently, vide order dated 19.09.2024, their right to lead evidence was closed by the Court. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order dated 19.09.2024 and praying for a final opportunity CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 31 of 45 to adduce evidence. After carefully considering the submissions and perusing the record, the Court, by order dated 17.01.2025, dismissed the application, holding that the defendants had been granted sufficient opportunities and had consistently defaulted without any justifiable cause.
Final Arguments Submissions on behalf plaintiff
81.The plaintiff submits that he has been in open, peaceful, and continuous possession of the suit property, Plot No. AB, Block AB Market, near Punjab National Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, for over thirty years, along with his family. His long-standing occupation is supported by consistent documentary evidence including bank records, voter ID, Aadhaar cards, and photographs, all reflecting his residence and possession.
82.The plaintiff asserts that over these decades, his possession matured into ownership by way of adverse possession. Throughout this period, there was no interference until the defendants recently attempted, through threats, harassment, and unlawful means, to forcibly dispossess him without any legal authority. Multiple incidents of intimidation, obstruction, and interference were duly reported to the police, but no effective protection was provided, compelling the plaintiff to approach this Court.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 32 of 45
83.The defendants, despite claiming ownership, have failed to produce any title document or valid proof of ownership. Their claim rests on an alleged agreement and certain receipts, which the plaintiff has categorically disputed as having been obtained through coercion and misrepresentation. Even otherwise, the alleged payments made in 2011 cannot displace the plaintiff's continuous possession.
84.It was argued that possession is a substantive right, and settled possession cannot be disturbed without recourse to law. The defendants' attempt to take forcible possession without title or process of law must be restrained. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to protection of his possession and the reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction as prayed for. Following case laws were relied upon by the plaintiff:
Rahmati Begum Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. And Anr, W.P. (C) 9416/2018 and CM No. 36511/2018, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., Appeal (Civil) 6191 of 2001
85.Accordingly, it is was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Submissions on behalf of the Defendants CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 33 of 45
86.The defendants submit that the present suit, seeking mandatory and permanent injunction, is false, frivolous, and not maintainable. They state that the plaintiff was originally engaged by them as a chowkidar to safeguard the suit property for a monthly salary of Rs.1,600/-, which continued until 2011 when his services were terminated. The plaintiff was permitted to temporarily occupy a small corner of the plot, with basic shelter arrangements. However, after termination, he refused to vacate and instead demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. Under compelling circumstances, the defendants agreed, and an agreement dated 27.05.2011 was executed wherein the plaintiff agreed to vacate the premises. Part payment of Rs.75,000/- was made to the plaintiff, duly acknowledged through receipts and admitted by him during cross-examination.
87.Despite these facts, the plaintiff did not vacate and, instead, initiated false complaints against the defendants to harass and blackmail them. The defendants argue that since the plaintiff's possession was purely permissive and not based on ownership or tenancy rights, he cannot seek injunctive relief, particularly when he himself pleaded adverse possession, a plea that negates any lawful origin of possession and admits the ownership of another. The defendants contend that a mere suit for injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration where title is in dispute, citing authoritative judgments such as The Tehsildar, Urban Department Trust & Anr, Vs. Ganga Bai CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 34 of 45 Menariya (dead) Through Lrs & Ors., Civil appeal No. 722 of 2012; T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 5577 of 202. The plaintiff has further relied upon case laws such as Bharat Mal & Bharat Kumar Vs. Ram Avtar, RSA 309 of 2016;
M. Radheshyamlal Vs. Sandhya & Anr., Etc., Civil Appeal No 4322-4324 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 19059- 19061 of 2014); Sri Balappa S/o Late Gurappa Vs. State of Karnataka, RFA No. 771 of 2006 (INJ); Smt. Prem Lata Jain Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Barod, Misc. Petition No. 700 of 2022
88.Furthermore, it is submitted that identity proofs like Aadhaar cards, voter ID cards, and electricity bills relied upon by the plaintiff are insufficient to establish ownership. The defendants assert that they possess better title than the plaintiff, whose occupation amounts to illegal encroachment. Having admitted to executing the 2011 agreement and receiving payments, the plaintiff cannot now claim equity or seek protection.
89.In view of the above, the defendants submit that the plaintiff, being an encroacher without any lawful title or enforceable possession, is not entitled to the reliefs sought. They pray for dismissal of the suit with heavy costs and for the decree of possession in their favour under their counter-claim.
Analysis and Findings CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 35 of 45 Issue 1:
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants? (OPD)
90.The Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendnats.
91.Under the established principles of civil jurisprudence, the burden of proof rests upon the defendants to demonstrate that the plaintiff lacks a cause of action against them. A cause of action comprises the essential facts that, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to seek relief from the court. The mere assertion that the suit is not maintainable is insufficient; the defendants must substantiate their contention with cogent evidence.
92.In the present case, the plaintiff asserts continuous possession of the suit property for approximately three decades without interference. He further contends that the defendants have unlawfully attempted to dispossess him, thereby infringing upon his possessory rights. In support of his claim, the plaintiff has relied upon various documents indicating his residence at the suit premises and has lodged complaints before local authorities alleging interference by the defendants. These complaints indicate an existing dispute requiring judicial adjudication.
93.Conversely, the defendants argue that the plaintiff was merely a permissive occupier, allegedly engaged as a CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 36 of 45 security guard. They contend that the plaintiff had acknowledged their ownership and agreed to vacate the premises upon receipt of financial assistance, but subsequently refused to comply with this arrangement. However, the defendants have not placed on record any definitive ownership documents establishing their absolute title over the property or any legally enforceable agreement requiring the plaintiff to vacate the premises.
94.From the evidence on record, it is evident that a bona fide dispute exists between the parties regarding the nature of the plaintiff's possession, the alleged financial arrangement, and the defendants' purported ownership claims. The mere denial of the plaintiff's rights does not negate the existence of a cause of action when the dispute necessitates adjudication. The plaintiff's possession of the suit property and the alleged interference by the defendants constitute a legally cognizable claim, warranting judicial determination.
95.The defendants have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the plaintiff lacks a cause of action. Given that substantive legal and factual issues exist between the parties, the suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold for want of a cause of action. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 37 of 45 Issue 2:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed in Clause (a)? (OPP)
96.The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The relief clause (a) of the plaint reads as follows:
(a) pass the decree for mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by directing the defendants their legal heirs, representatives, servants not to put any hindrance in the peaceful possession by raising construction and repairing work and by stopping the egress and ingress of the plaintiff and his family members in respect of the suit property i.e. Plot No. AB, Block AB Market, near Punjab National Bank Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029 belonging to the plaintiffs.
97.The plaintiff, by way of the present suit, seeks a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants, their legal heirs, representatives, and servants not to cause any hindrance to the peaceful possession of the plaintiff by raising construction, carrying out repairing work, or obstructing the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and his family members over the suit property, namely Plot No. AB, Block AB Market, near Punjab National Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 38 of 45
98.In order to succeed in obtaining a decree of mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff is required to establish the following:
(i) Lawful possession or an established legal right over the property;
(ii) A wrongful act committed or threatened by the defendants;
(iii) That such wrongful act causes a substantial infringement of the plaintiff's rights;
(iv) That monetary compensation is not an adequate remedy;
(v) That the circumstances are exceptional, warranting intervention through a mandatory direction.
99.It is well settled that mandatory injunction is a discretionary relief that is granted only in cases where there exists a compelling necessity for the Court's intervention to undo a continuing wrong or to compel the performance of an obligation.
100. This Court respectfully notes the principles laid down in the case laws relied upon by the parties, however, upon evaluation of the material on record, it is seen that the plaintiff has placed reliance upon bank passbooks, Aadhar cards, PAN card, voter cards etc. However, the plaintiff has failed to produce any registered title deed, conveyance document, allotment letter, or lease agreement CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 39 of 45 to demonstrate ownership or lawful right to possess the suit property.
101. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff are indicators of occupation but not conclusive proof of lawful ownership or title. They only show that the plaintiff was residing at the suit property but do not necessarily establish that the plaintiff's possession was protected in law.
102. More importantly, the plaintiff has pleaded adverse possession, meaning he claims to have perfected his right by remaining in possession against the true owner without title. The plea of adverse possession, by its very nature, acknowledges that:
The title vests in another party (presumably the defendants or some third party), and The possession claimed is hostile, open, and continuous against the true owner.
103. A person claiming adverse possession must establish hostile possession to the knowledge of the true owner, continuous and uninterrupted, and with necessary animus possidendi (intention to possess as owner).
104. In the instant case, there is no clear pleading of when the adverse possession commenced, no evidence showing overt acts of hostility against the true owner, and no documentary proof to support the assertion of continuous hostile possession. Thus, the plea of adverse CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 40 of 45 possession remains vague, unsubstantiated, and cannot form the basis for a positive decree like mandatory injunction.
105. It is further important to note that the plaintiff has not produced any independent or credible evidence to demonstrate that there was resistance from the defendants during construction or repair works or that the defendants obstructed ingress and egress at the suit property. No independent witness testimony has been brought on record to prove any act of obstruction. The allegations remain vague, general, and unsupported by evidence.
106. In the absence of a proven wrongful act by the defendants, and in the absence of established lawful possession by the plaintiff, the equitable and discretionary relief of mandatory injunction cannot be granted.
107. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, even if the plaintiff suffered any minor inconvenience, the remedy would be through appropriate proceedings for possession or damages and not through a decree of mandatory injunction on vague and unsubstantiated claims.
108. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him. He has neither proved a lawful right capable of enforcement through mandatory injunction nor demonstrated specific acts of obstruction attributable to the defendants. Further, his plea of adverse possession militates against the nature of the mandatory relief sought.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 41 of 45
109. Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the prayer for mandatory injunction. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue 3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed in Clause (b)?
110. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
Clause (b) of the prayer clause of the plaint reads as follows:
(b) Pass the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants by restraining the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff and his family members from the suit property i.e. Plot No. AB, Block AB Market, near Punjab National Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029. Site plan is attached with the plaint.
111. The plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him and his family members from the suit property, i.e., Plot No. AB, Block AB Market, near Punjab National Bank, Kamal Cinema, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029, as described in the site plan attached with the plaint.
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 42 of 45
112. In order to succeed in obtaining a decree for permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must establish the following:
(i) That he is in peaceful, lawful possession of the property at the time of filing of the suit;
(ii) That there is a real and credible threat of dispossession by the defendants without authority of law;
(iii) That there are no competing superior rights established by the defendants justifying such dispossession.
113. The plaintiff claims that he is in possession of the suit property along with his family and apprehends unlawful dispossession by the defendants. However the plaintiff has failed to produce any registered title document, conveyance deed, or lease deed evidencing ownership or tenancy over the suit property.
114. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff, while suggestive of user, are not conclusive proof of lawful possession. The plaintiff has also taken the plea of adverse possession, thereby indirectly acknowledging that the title is not in his favour but alleging possession hostile to the true owner.
115. As per established legal principles, even a person in possession without title may seek protection against CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 43 of 45 forcible dispossession under law. It is well settled that even a trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. However, merely claiming possession is not enough. The plaintiff must also prove:
That his possession was actual, settled, and peaceful prior to the alleged threat.
That there is a real and imminent threat of unlawful dispossession by the defendants.
116. In the present case the plaintiff has not proved the precise nature, duration, or exclusivity of his possession. No independent witness has been examined to corroborate the apprehension of unlawful dispossession. Further, the plea of adverse possession taken by the plaintiff weakens the claim for an injunction, because a person claiming adverse possession must admit ownership of another party and prove hostile possession. In the absence of a proper plea and proof, the plaintiff cannot claim better rights merely on self-serving assertions. Permanent injunction, however, requires clear present rights capable of protection.
117. The plaintiff's lawful possession itself is doubtful and disputed. The threat of dispossession by the defendants is not convincingly established. The plaintiff has neither established ownership nor peaceful long-standing CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 44 of 45 possession recognized by law. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for grant of permanent injunction.
118. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief:
119. Based on the aforesaid analysis and findings, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. In view thereof, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed on 23.04.2025. by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date:
JINDAL 2025.04.23
13:02:28
+0530
(ANURADHA JINDAL)
ASCJ-cum-JSCC-CUM-GJ (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS SCJ 82852/16 IBRAR AHMAD VS PAWANDEEP SINGH 45 of 45