Delhi District Court
Sharda vs Chaman Lal Chauhan on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided By : Jitender, DJS
Civil Suit No: 1226/2023
Smt. Sharda
W/o Late Sh. Dhan Singh,
R/o 4/747, Gali No.12,
Near Maniram Mandir,
Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Chaman Lal Chauhan
S/o Late Sh. Dhan Singh,
R/o 1st Floor, 4/747, Gali No.12,
Near Maniram Mandir,
Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ... Defendant
SUIT FOR EVICTION, POSSESSION,
DECLARATION, AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.11.2023
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 11.11.2025
DATE OF DECISION : 15.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant, seeking the reliefs of eviction, possession, declaration and mandatory injunction. The exact prayer made by the plaintiff, in the plaint, is reproduced below:-
"In view of these facts and circumstances mentioned above Civil Suit No.1226/2023 Smt. Sharda v Sh. Chaman Chauhan Page No.1 of 7 and in the interest of justice, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. a. Pass a decree of eviction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant thereby declaring the Defendant as out of bound as debarred and Further declaring that the Plaintiff shall not being responsible for their ill deeds. b. Pass a decree of possession in favor of the Plaintiff and against both the Defendant thereby restraining the Defendant, their agent, servant, associates, attorney's, representative from entering into the suit property and all other movable and immovable properties of the Plaintiff. c. Pass a decree of Declaration that the defendant is debar from all the movable and immovable properties of the plaintiff.
d. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, their agents, servant, associates, attorney's, representative not to create nuisance in peaceful life of the Plaintiff, in the interest of justice. e. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
2. In order to justify the grant of the aforesaid reliefs/prayer, the plaintiff has inter-alia pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is the actual owner of the property situated at 4/747, Gali No.12, Near Maniram Mandir, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (hereinafter referred as the suit property); that the defendant is son of the plaintiff and in possession of first floor of the suit property; that the behaviour of the defendants was not cordial with the plaintiff and is habitual to beat the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has debarred the defendant from her movable and immovable properties by way of publication published in the newspaper 'Kaumi Patrika' dated 27.11.2023; that the defendant wants to grab the suit property of the plaintiff and that therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
Civil Suit No.1226/2023Smt. Sharda v Sh. Chaman Chauhan Page No.2 of 7
3. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this suit, the defendant has contested this suit by filing his written statement. In the written statement, it is inter-alia pleaded that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property; that the plaintiff wants to grab the share of the defendant in the suit property; that the suit property was acquired by the plaintiff from his deceased grandfather of the defendant and that therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff has not filed any replication qua the WS of the defendant.
5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge, on 23.10.2024:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for in prayer clause 'a' & 'c'? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession, as prayed for in prayer clause 'b'? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for in prayer clause 'd'? OPP
4. Relief."
6. In support of her case, the plaintiff has examined one witness viz. PW1 Smt. Sharda Chauhan. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1. PW1 Smt. Sharda Chauhan has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents viz. copy of aadhar card Ex.PW1/1(OSR), copy of complaint to SDM, Bunker Colony Nand Nagri, near Gagan Cinema, Delhi Ex.PW1/2 and newspaper Civil Suit No.1226/2023 Smt. Sharda v Sh. Chaman Chauhan Page No.3 of 7 dated 27.11.2023 Ex.PW1/3.
7. On the other hand, in support of his defence, the defendant has examined two witnesses viz. Sh. Chaman Lal Chauhan and Smt. Bharpai.
8. I had heard Dr. Radha Parihar, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. LAC for the defendants, on 11.11.2025. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs prayed for on the ground of her ownership and further that the defendants are the licensees in the suit property.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants has argued that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property.
The issue wise findings, in this case, are as follows :-
ISSUES NO.1 "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for in prayer clause 'a' & 'c'?
OPP"
10. Vide the present issue, it has to be ascertained whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of declaration as sought for. The Court is of the view that the present issue can be adjudicated without appreciating the rivalry evidences lead by the parties. The relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted by this Court (a) because as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, this Court can grant the relief of declaration only qua the right, title or interest of the plaintiff and not qua the right, title or interest of the defendant and (b) because the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff to debar the defendant Civil Suit No.1226/2023 Smt. Sharda v Sh. Chaman Chauhan Page No.4 of 7 from inheriting any of her self acquired properties, is to make a Will qua her self acquired properties. In my view, if this Court grants the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff, then it would be impinging upon the right of the plaintiff to make a Will in favour of the defendant, in the future. Also, in my view, if this Court, grants the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff, then it would be impinging upon the statutory right of the defendant to inherit the self acquired properties of the plaintiff, as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in case the plaintiff dies intestate.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the present issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. It is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration as prayed for in prayer clause 'a' & 'c' of the plaint.
ISSUES NO.2, 3 & 4 "2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession, as prayed for in prayer clause 'b'? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for in prayer clause 'd'? OPP OPP"
12. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff has inter-alia sought the possession of the suit property by way of injunction on the ground of being the absolute owner of the suit property and further that the defendant being the licensees of the suit property. Per contra, the defendant has contested the same while averring that the plaintiff is not the owner of suit property as his grandfather was the owner of the suit property.
13. In order to prove her claim, the plaintiff has not led any documentary evidence viz. title documents qua the suit property in her favour.Civil Suit No.1226/2023
Smt. Sharda v Sh. Chaman Chauhan Page No.5 of 7 In her cross examination, the plaintiff viz. PW1 Smt. Sharda Chauhan has herself admitted that she has not filed any document to prover her ownership qua the suit property. In absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff has relied upon a Ex.PW1/2 i.e. a complaint which is merely a complaint qua misbehaviour of the defendant. The plaintiff has neither examined any other witness in support of her case.
14. As far as the contention of the defendant that his grandfather is the owner of the suit property is concerned, although, the defendant has also not lead any documentary evidence, however, the initial burden of proving its case is always upon the plaintiff as per Section 104 & 105 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 101 r/w 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) and it is settled law that the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs rather than upon the weakness of the case of the defendant.
15. In view of the above, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to vacate the suit property. As far as the mandatory injunction qua the return of original documents is concerned, the same has already been discussed vide issue no.1 and the plaintiff has been held to be not entitled to a declaration to the effect thereby disentitling the plaintiff from the present relief.
16. Accordingly, the present issues no.2 and 3 are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. It is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession and mandatory injunction as prayed for in prayer clause 'b' & 'd' of the plaint.Civil Suit No.1226/2023
Smt. Sharda v Sh. Chaman Chauhan Page No.6 of 7 RELIEF
17. In view of the aforesaid findings, the present suit is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
18. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by JITENDER JITENDER Date:
2026.04.15 18:10:44 Pronounced in open Court (Jitender) +0530 today on 15.04.2026 Civil Judge-01/Shahdara District Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Note : This Judgment contains 07 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signed by JITENDER (Jitender) JITENDER Date:
2026.04.15 Civil Judge-01/Shahdara District 18:10:48 +0530 Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Civil Suit No.1226/2023 Smt. Sharda v Sh. Chaman Chauhan Page No.7 of 7