Delhi District Court
Ajooba vs Dhanpal Jain on 28 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLNE01-003356-2024
RCA DJ No.30/2024
SH. AJOOBA
S/o Gulam Hussain
R/o H.No. 62, Gali No. 4
Shastri Park, Delhi - 110053 .... Appellant
(Defendant no. 8 in
the original suit)
Versus
SH. DHANPAL JAIN
(Deceased through LR Sh. Sukhmal Jain)
S/o Late Shyam Lal Jain
R/o B-5/228, Nand Nagari
Delhi - 110093 .... Respondent
(Plaintiff in the
original suit)
Date of institution : 19.11.2024
Arguments concluded on : 07.04.2026
Date of judgment : 28.04.2026
AND
CNR No. DLNE01-000312-2025
RCA DJ No.02/2025
SH. DHANPAL JAIN
(Deceased through LR Sh. Sukhmal Jain) .... Appellant
(Plaintiff in the
original suit)
RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs)
RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors
Page 1 of 30
Digitally signed
by SANJAY
SHARMA
SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:13:17
+0530
Versus
SH. CHARAN SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
(Defendants in
the original suit)
Date of institution : 01.02.2025
Arguments concluded on : 07.04.2026
Date of judgment : 28.04.2026
JUDGMENT
This order shall dispose of two appeals, one preferred by the plaintiff and another by the defendant, against the same impugned judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed by Shri Rinku Jain - Ld. ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in CS No. 4495/15 (Old. Civil Suit No. 76/2009).
2. The facts giving rise to the two appeals are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff Shri Dhanpal Jain against ten defendants, as mentioned in the array of parties in the suit. It was averred in the plaint by the plaintiff Shri Dhanpal Jain that he is the owner in possession of the property bearing Municipal No. F-103, Gali No. 4, Shastri Park Delhi
-110053 (Old No. F-43), ad-measuring 200 sq. yards, falling in RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 2 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:13:26 +0530 Khasra No. 56 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
3. As per the case of the plaintiff, he purchased the suit property from one Shri Risal S/o Gabdu vide registered sale deed dated 10.1.1966. The plaintiff built a room with boundary walls and employed one Ram Murat Mishra as a Caretaker, besides one Nageshwar Mishra as a Watchman who was also allowed to reside there. The plaintiff further averred that the suit property is also assessed to house tax by the MCD and that the suit property as well as the adjoining properties, belonging to one Shanti Devi and Mange Ram, fall in Khasra No. 56 of Village Ghonda Chauhan Khadar.
4. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the documents of title of the suit property which are in possession of the defendants, are all forged and fabricated. It was submitted that the title documents of the suit property in possession of defendant No. 8 namely Shri Ajooba find their origin from the chain started from execution of title documents by defendant No. 1 Shri Charan Singh on 14.6.1991.
5. The defendants contested the suit by filing separate written statements wherein it was claimed that the plaintiff is not the RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 3 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:13:31
+0530
owner of the suit property as the date of registration of title documents in favour of the plaintiff is 10.1.1966 while the date of execution of title documents of his neighbours namely Smt. Shanti Devi and Mange Ram is 11.1.1966. Thus, it was claimed that despite the date of registration of the neighbours being of a later date, still the documents of title in favour of the plaintiff depict the property of Shanti Devi in east side and that of Mange Ram on south side of the plaintiff's property which is impossible. Hence, it was claimed that the plaintiff filed the suit in collusion with Shanti Devi and Mange Ram.
6. The plaintiff also mentioned a chequered history of litigation over the suit property. It was stated that firstly defendant no. 5 filed a suit seeking permanent injunction claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property and when the plaintiff filed an application for impleading himself as a party in the said suit, defendant no. 5 withdrew the said suit on 17.07.2003 without the said application being decided. However, a local commissioner was appointed in the said suit by the court concerned who filed his report dated 13.05.2003 wherein it was mentioned that one Sh. Ram Murat Mishra was residing in a room built in the said property and that the RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 4 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:13:37 +0530 property belonged to the plaintiff herein.
7. Defendant no. 9 herein also filed another suit no. CS 527/2002 against defendant no. 5 herein for permanent injunction which was dismissed for non-prosecution. In that suit also, the plaintiff filed an application for impleading himself as a party but again it was not decided. In both the suits, the suit property was stated to be falling in Khasra No. 58.
8. On 08.05.2003, the watchman employed by the plaintiff herein was abducted and FIR bearing no. 140/2003 was registered at PS Seelampur. There were other civil litigations inter se the defendants of the suit but in none of the suits/cases referred to herein above, the question of title of the suit property was either raised or decided though, the plaintiff tried to implead himself as a party in most of the cases. This necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit in question.
9. The suit against defendant No. 1 was dismissed vide order dated 14.5.2009 on the ground that it was filed against a dead person. It was claimed by the defendants that father of defendant No. 1 was the original owner of the suit property who executed the RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 5 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:13:44 +0530 documents of title in favour of defendant No. 2, who further sold it to defendant No. 3 and likewise the property kept on changing hands until defendant No. 7 executed documents of title of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 8 on 31.12.2004.
10. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 16.4.2012, all the defendants except defendant No. 6 and 10 were proceeded against ex-parte and the defence of defendant No. 6 was struck off. Subsequently, defendant No. 10 was also proceeded against ex-parte. Later, defendant No. 8 Shri Ajooba put in appearance and was left as the only contesting defendant.
11. After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed.
The plaintiff led his evidence and relied upon certain documents. However, before the plaintiff could be cross-examined, he expired and his sole LR namely Shri Sukhmal Chand Jain was substituted, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and was duly cross- examined. The plaintiff further examined 15 more witness in support of his case.
12. Defendant No. 8 Shri Ajooba examined himself as DW1 and he also relied upon various documents. He also examined RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 6 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:13:50 +0530 Patwari from the Office of the SDM, Seelampur as DW2.
13. After hearing arguments, Ld. ACJ/ARC/CCJ passed the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2024 vide which the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed with respect to the relief of injunction and all the defendants including defendant No. 8, their successors, attorneys etc. were restrained from creating any interruption/ hindrance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Further the defendants were also restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
14. However, the Ld. Trial Court after evaluating the evidence at length, though held that the set of documents in favour of defendant no. 8 and chain of documents in favour of all other defendants ought to be declared null and void, but denied the relief of declaration for declaring the said documents as null and void on the ground that the said relief was barred by law of limitation.
15. Thus, the plaintiff Sh. Dhanpal Jain through his LRs filed one of the appeal bearing no. RCA DJ 02/2025 to agitate that the relief of declaration was wrongly denied by the Ld. Trial Court despite holding that he was entitled for the said relief. Similarly, the RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 7 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:13:57
+0530
defendant no. 8/Sh. Ajooba filed the other appeal bearing RCA DJ 30/2024 submitting that the decree of permanent injunction was wrongly passed against the defendants by the Ld. Trial Court.
16. The appeal filed by defendant No. 8 Shri Ajooba is primarily on the ground that the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises and against the facts on record; Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the suit of plaintiff was barred by limitation; that the Ld. Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction to consider the merits of the documents of defendant/appellant after holding that plaintiff/respondent is not entitled to relief of declaration qua the said documents; has proceeded in a preconceived manner to make adverse observations; Ld. Trial Court had failed to appreciate that plaintiff had sought the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, but as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy wherein it was held that where the title of the plaintiff is under cloud, merely seeking permanent injunction is not permissible under law and plaintiff has to seek declaration of his ownership/title from the Ld. Trial court; that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the Ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate that suit of RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 8 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:14:02
+0530
plaintiff/respondent is liable to be dismissed in view of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act for want of consequential relief of possession; that the plaintiff/respondent was not in possession of the suit property.
17. Plaintiff has pleaded in his appeal that the appeal of defendant No. 8 is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected in view of judgments delivered in Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.; P. Kshore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar in Civil Appeal No. 7210 of 2011; the appeal of defendant No. 8 is not maintainable as by virtue of provisions of Transfer of Property Act, the documents, GPA, Agreement to sell etc. shall not be held to be document of title. Further, it is averred that the relief of injunction is not covered under law of limitation; defendant No. 8 has not approached the court with clean hands and his motive is only to pressurize the plaintiff and to extort money and that appeal filed by defendant No. 8 is not maintainable in view of Section 96 of CPC as he has not challenged the judgment and decree rather has challenged the order dated 04.10.2024.
18. Other averments have been denied specifically and RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 9 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:14:09
+0530
categorically by both the parties in their respective replies.
19. Arguments advanced by Sh. Vivek Srivastava - Ld. Counsel for the defendant No. 8 (Appellant in RCA/DJ No. 30/2024) and Sh. RN Dubey - Ld. Counsel for plaintiff (Appellant in RCA/DJ No. 02/2025) have been duly considered and the trial court record has been meticulously gone through.
20. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being addressed in the present appeal as per their original status in the suit. Since Sh. Ajooba/Defendant No. 8 was the only contesting defendant, therefore, he is being addressed as Defendant.
21. A revisit to the evidence led by the parties before the Ld. Trial Court reveal that the contesting defendant had disputed the khasra in which the suit property is situate. He claimed it to be in khasra no. 58 whereas the case of the plaintiff is that it falls in khasra no. 56. The sale deed proved on record by the plaintiff dating back to 11.01.1966 mentions the suit property to be in khasra no. 56. The registration of the said sale deed was duly proved by PW3 from the Department of Archives. The said record and the sale deed could not be effectively challenged by the defendant. RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 10 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:14:15 +0530
22. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is situated in Village Ghonda Chauhan Khader. The defendant examined DW2 Sh. Giriraj Singh, Patwari, in the Office of SDM Seelampur. He proved the khatauni of the said village as Ex.DW2/1 and Aks-Sizra also of the said village of the year 1948-49 and also brought the file relating to khasra no. 56 & 58. In the cross examination, he deposed that village Ghonda Chauhan Khadar and village Ghonda Gujran Khadar are two different villages. He admitted that khatauni and Aks-Sizra of both the said villages are separate. He further admitted that khasra no. 58 also falls in village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, but there is no khasra no. 58 simplicitor in the said village. It means that khasra no. 58 is further bifurcated and demarcated and it was also deposed by the said witness that government is the owner of the land in khasra no. 1/58/1-2, 1-3 of various portions. The chain of documents produced by the defendant mentions the suit property to be falling in khasra no. 58 min simplicitor which does not match with the description of the khasra as mentioned by DW2 and his deposition that there is no khasra no. 58 simplicitor in village Ghonda Chauhan Khadar. Thus, the description of the property as mentioned in the title documents of the defendant is incorrect. RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 11 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:14:22 +0530
23. Defendant no. 8 who was examined as DW1 has claimed that he purchased the suit property from defendant no. 7 who gave him its possession on 31.12.2004. He has further claimed that before that defendant no. 1 was the erstwhile recorded owner of the suit property who sold it to defendant no. 2 who in turn sold it to defendant no. 3 and so on till it was sold by defendant no. 7 to defendant no. 8.
24. Thus, defendant no. 8 i.e. the contesting defendant claims the origin of the suit property to defendant no. 1 namely Sh. Charan Singh who never appeared or contested the suit since he had died before the filing of the suit. However, in the cross- examination, defendant no. 1 deposed that he had not seen any document of ownership in favour of Sh. Charan Singh in respect of the property in khasra no. 58 and then, also deposed that no document showing that property in question was ever mutated in the name of Sh. Charan Singh (defendant no. 1) were filed on record to show that he was the owner of the property in question. He admitted that he had never met Sh. Charan Singh. In his further cross-examination, he deposed that he was unaware that village Ghonda Chauhan Khadar and Village Ghonda Gujran Khadar are RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 12 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:14:27 +0530 two different villages or in which village, khasra no. 58 is located.
25. As regards the claim of contesting defendant that he purchased the suit property from defendant no. 7 namely Manoj Jain, the same was negated by defendant no. 7 himself in in his written statement that the defendant Ajooba purchased the suit property from defendant no. 5 Sh. Rajesh Kumar and he has no concern with it. This is contrary to document Ex.DW1/2 which has been executed by defendant no. 7 Manoj Jain in favour of defendant no. 8 i.e. Deed of Agreement regarding the suit property. Thus, the title of the contesting defendant itself is in cloud and the person from whom he claims to have purchased the suit property has denied to have sold it to him. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the so-called first owner Sh. Charan Singh was ever a registered Bhumidar or owner of the suit property or the land underneath and his name ever appeared in the mutation records of the concerned authority. Even otherwise, the chain of document so relied upon by the defendant, are only GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. which have no sanctity in law as the property cannot be transferred through the said documents without execution of the sale deed in terms of the judgment in Suraj Lamp's case.
RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 13 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date: SHARMA 2026.04.28 13:14:34 +0530
26. Ld. counsel for the defendant submitted that the documents of the defendant were executed in the year 2004 whereas the judgment in Suraj lamp's case came in 2011. He submitted that before the passing of the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Asha M. Jain Vs Canara Banka & ors 94(2001) DLT841 and other judgments, recognized the practice of transfer of property in Delhi and NCR by execution of such documents. Be that may but when such documents are pitted against registered sale deed, they have no value in the eyes of law. Furthermore, all the originals of the entire chain of documents starting from Charan Singh have not been brought on record nor proved as per law.
27. On the other hand, the plaintiff has successfully proved that he purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1966. The said sale deed has been duly proved through PW2 and otherwise, there is a presumption of its correctness under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, being more than 30 years old document.
28. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court rightly held that the RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 14 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:14:39
+0530
plaintiff is the rightful and registered owner of the suit property and the documents of title as also the chain of documents relied upon by the defendant no. 8/contesting defendant are bound to be declared null and void.
29. Once the Ld. Trial Court accepted the ownership of the plaintiff, the consequential relief of injunction was bound to follow and thus, the decree of permanent injunction was rightly granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
30. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 8 in his appeal that the Ld. Trial court erred in returning a finding that the documents of title in favour of defendant no. 8 and the previous chain of documents are liable to be declared null and void, once it was of the opinion that the said relief was barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel submitted that the question of limitation has to be decided at the threshold and if it is answered in negative, the opinion on the merits is not required to be given.
31. I differ with the said view since the issues framed before the Ld. Trial Court were in two parts. The issue no. 1 required the court to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled for a RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 15 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:14:45
+0530
decree of declaration as prayed for and the additional issue no. 5, required the court to decide the plea of limitation. As per the settled law and also contained in Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, irrespective of the facts, the court is required to decide all the issues so framed by it. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court rightly returned the finding regarding the entitlement or the claim of the plaintiff for declaring the documents in favour of the defendants as null and void (issue no. 1) and thereafter, returning the finding on issue no. 5 of limitation.
32. It was also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the relief claimed by the plaintiff to declare the report of the Local Commissioner dated 13.05.2003 in suit no. 452/2002, titled Rajesh Vs. Ansar & Ors., as illegal, incorrect etc., was also not available to the plaintiff being barred by limitation. This plea of the Ld. Counsel is contrary to the records of the Ld. Trial Court as no issue regarding the said declaratory relief was either framed or decided in the impugned order.
33. It was further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff never sought the relief of declaration to declare himself as the owner of the suit property. In my view, that RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 16 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:14:52
+0530
declaration was not required in view of the perfect title document of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Similarly, it was claimed that the plaintiff never sought declaration that the suit property falls in khasra no. 56 and not in 58. It has already been established that there is no simplicitor khasra no. 58 in village Ghonda Chauhan Khadar and the khatauni record of the suit property of the year 1966 and before proves that the suit property falls in khasra no. 56. Thus, the appellant has failed to prove that the suit property falls in khasra no. 58 and not in khasra no. 56. The testimony of DW2 is of no help to him since he has categorically deposed that there is no khasra no. 58 simplicitor in village Ghonda Chauhan Khadar whereas all the chain of documents relied upon by the appellant mention that the property is situate in khasra no. 58 simplicitor. He failed to lead any other independent evidence to prove that the suit property falls in khasra no. 58 simplicitor. The Ld. Trial Court therefore, rightly decided the issue no. 3 that the suit property falls in khasra no. 56.
34. Ld. Counsel further submitted that without seeking declaration of title, the plaintiff was not permitted to seek relief of permanent injunction. Again, at the cost of repetition it is stated that RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 17 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:14:58
+0530
the plaintiff was having the title of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed which is on a superior footing and legally recognized document as against the unregistered GPA etc. of the defendant, therefore, he was not required to claim declaration of ownership. The Ld. Trial Court rightly relied upon the title document of the plaintiff in granting permanent injunction though refusing the title documents of the defendants as null and void on the ground of limitation. It is a settled principle of law that limitation bars the remedy but not the right. Once the plaintiff was held to be the owner of the suit property, he had the right to injunct any person including the defendant from creating any third party interest therein.
35. It was further submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as no consequential relief of possession was sought. Again, in the opinion of this court, it was not required as the plaintiff claimed that he was always in possession of the suit property and that fact was also proved on record. At the trial, PW8 deposed that he was parking his old vehicles in the suit property when it was objected to by Sh. Sukhmal Chand Jain, LR of the deceased plaintiff.
RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 18 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date: SHARMA 2026.04.28 13:15:05 +0530
Thereafter, they both entered into an agreement under which he started parking his vehicles therein, with an undertaking to remove the vehicles when directed. He also deposed that the suit property is located in khasra no. 56 as also his dwelling unit. There was no cross-examination of this witness by the contesting defendant meaning thereby that the version of the said witness was admitted by the said defendant. It only proves that the suit property always remained in possession of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was not required to seek the relief of possession.
36. It was further contended that the plaintiff, in para 7 of the plaint stated that the defendant, in order to obtain possession of the suit property, kidnapped the chowkidar Nageshwar Mishra on 08.05.2003 for which FIR No. 140/2003 was registered which means that the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property in 2003 itself. It is clear from this submission itself that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property in 2003 when an attempt was made to dispossess him by the defendants by kidnapping the chowkidar but there is nothing to suggest that the attempt to dispossess was successful. On the contrary, the defendant on his own has failed to place on record any evidence to even remotely RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 19 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:15:11
+0530
suggest that he is in possession of the suit property. The mere fact that the plaintiff deposed in his cross-examination that he was not having any document such as ID proof, ration card etc. bearing the address of the suit property, is inconsequential since he never claimed that he resided therein. The fact that the plaintiff had allowed Ram Murti and Nageshwar Mishra to reside in the suit property could not be negated in his cross-examination which established that he was always in constructive possession of the suit property.
37. Once it has been proved on record that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit property and in possession thereof, his possession was bound to be protected and as such, the Ld. Trial Court rightly granted decree of permanent injunction in his favour and for restraining the defendant or any person claiming under him from creating any hindrance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff regarding the suit property, while deciding issue no. 2.
38. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/original defendant no. 8 and the only contesting defendant.
RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 20 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:15:20 +0530
39. The other appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Trial Court, dismissing his relief of declaration on the ground of limitation despite holding that he has a fit case to seek declaration for declaring the chain of documents in possession of the defendants as null and void.
40. It was observed by the Ld. Trial court while deciding issue no. 1 & 5 that the plaintiff came to know about the documents of title in favour of defendant no. 5 in the year 2002 itself and therefore, the right to sue accrued in the same year, but the present suit was filed in the year 2009. Thus, it was held that the suit having been filed beyond a period of three years as required by Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, was barred by limitation.
41. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff took recourse to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, submitting that the plaintiff was pursuing the remedy diligently before the forum/court where previous litigations were pending but since his claim was never decided in any of the litigation for one reason or the other, he filed the suit seeking declaration.
RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 21 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date: SHARMA 2026.04.28 13:15:25 +0530
42. In order to appreciate the contentions of the plaintiff, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act require consideration. The said section reads as under:-
"Section 14 (1): - In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it."
43. This section thus, provides that any time spent by the plaintiff in any previously instituted civil proceedings under mistaken belief that his right would be decided by that court, whether that court be a court of first instance, appeal or revision court, would be excluded while computing the limitation period when he files the case before the court of competent jurisdiction.
44. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that though the Ld. Trial court did not return any finding that the documents of the defendants were forged and fabricated but the trial of the suit has clearly demonstrated from the evidence led by the parties that the entire chain of documents starting from defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 8 were forged and fabricated as they were neither RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 22 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:15:32 +0530 registered nor contained the correct particulars of the suit property.
45. Since the finding as aforesaid is not a finding of law but of fact therefore, it was required to be returned by the Ld. Trial Court and this court cannot assume jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court to declare the said documents as forged and fabricated. In any case, neither the Ld. Trial Court nor this court has relied upon or accepted the documents of the defendants. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment in Pallav Seth Vs. Custodian (Civ. Appeal No. 2106/2001) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein it has been observed that "a party should not be penalized for failing to adopt legal proceedings when the facts or material necessary for him to do so have been willfully been concealed from him and also that, a party who has acted fraudulently, should not gain the benefit of limitation, running in his favour by such fraud."
46. As observed above, since there has been no categoric finding of fraud or forgery on part of the defendants, this judgment is of no help to the plaintiff. However, in order to appreciate the plea of the plaintiff under Section 14(1) of The Limitation Act, the RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 23 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:15:38 +0530 chain of events require consideration and elaboration.
47. There had been a chequered history of litigation in respect of the suit property initiated by different defendants at different times. The plaintiff for the first time, bonafidely asserted his right over the suit property and against the defendant while taking recourse to the provisions of Section 145 of the Cr.PC before the SDM, North East vide DD No. 50B. The said proceedings came to an end in July 2009. The order of the SDM was challenged before the court of Ld. ASJ, North East and the matter was remanded back to the Ld. SDM which is still pending. The documents of the defendant were questioned in the said proceedings, as disclosed by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and stated in the appeal.
48. The plaintiff again filed another proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC against defendant no. 5 on 19.06.2003 vide DD No. 19B and against defendant no. 7 on 18.05.2004 vide DD No. 23A. The SDM was also made a party to the suit. It was submitted that the plaintiff was diligently pursuing the said remedies without realizing that the SDM cannot adjudicate the dispute involving the RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 24 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:15:44
+0530
registered deeds or to declare the documents of the defendant as null and void. Reliance was placed on the judgment in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 wherein it was held that "Civil proceedings are of many kind and need not be confined to suits, appeals or applications which are made only in courts stricto sanso. This is made even more clear by the explicit language of Section 14, by which a Civil proceeding can even be a revision which may be to a quasi-judicial tribunal under a particular statute."
49. In Shanti Kumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi (2004) I SCC 438, it was held that "the proceedings under Section 145/146 of the Code have been held to be quasi-civil, quasi-criminal in nature or an executive or police action." Similarly, in Shri Dalbir Singh Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi) & Ors. 2001 Latest Case Laws 883 Delhi dated 16.07.2001, it was observed that "the question of title can neither be determined nor allowed to be agitated in these proceedings except so far as it may have a bearing on the question of actual possession. The proceedings under Section 145 of the Code are quasi-civil in nature and the scope of inquiry in these proceedings is limited to find out as to who was in possession on RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 25 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:15:49 +0530 the date of order......"
50. It is thus, clear from the aforesaid that since 2003, the plaintiff was pursuing quasi-civil proceedings before the appropriate forum and therefore, the period spent by the plaintiff in those proceedings was bound to be excluded while computing the limitation for the purposes of the suit.
51. Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the defendant never took the plea of limitation in his pleadings. However, this plea has no substance since an issue regarding a question of law can be framed by the court suo motu at any stage and even otherwise, finding on a question of law can be given by the court even without framing of issue.
52. The other litigations regarding the suit property are also required to be mentioned. The plaintiff stated that defendant no. 5 instituted a suit bearing CS No. 452/2002 titled Rajesh Vs Ansar & Ors. before the civil court claiming himself to be the owner. The plaintiff filed an application in the said suit for impleading him as a necessary party, for the reason that he always claimed himself to be the owner. However, before his application RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 26 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:15:54
+0530
could be decided, defendant no. 5 withdrew the said suit on 17.07.2003. Hence, the right of the plaintiff could not be decided. It is pertinent to mention that in the said suit, a Local Commissioner was appointed and he gave a report regarding the possession over the suit property in favour of the defendant. However, the report of the Local Commissioner is not a conclusive evidence unless made basis of judgment by the court and decree is passed thereafter. When the suit itself was withdrawn by the plaintiff, neither the said report can be read in evidence nor can be relied upon in any other proceedings.
53. Thereafter, respondent no. 9 filed another suit being CS No. 527/2002 titled Md. Nasir Vs Rajesh Kumar seeking permanent injunction on the plea that he was the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff again filed an application for his impleadment in the said suit as a necessary party which was allowed by the Ld. Civil Judge but the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.04.2005 and again, the right of the plaintiff could not be proved.
54. Defendant no. 7 Manoj Jain also filed another suit RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 27 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.28
13:16:00
+0530
bearing CS No. 143/2005 titled Manoj Kumar Jain vs Dhanpal Jain, but the said suit was adjourned sine die vide order dated 02.06.2005 on the ground that the earlier suit no. 527/2002 was already pending which was subsequently, dismissed for non-prosecution.
55. The above facts showcases that the plaintiff had been pursuing his remedy diligently before the regular civil courts as well, as and when he got the opportunity, but if his claim or right was not decided by any of the court in any suit or litigation, he cannot be put at fault. Ultimately, when none of the court was able to decide his title over the suit property in the aforesaid suits/civil proceedings, he filed the suit in question in the year 2009.
56. It is the case of the plaintiff that the proceedings initiated by him before the Ld. SDM were still pending when he filed the suit in March 2009. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff had been pursuing his remedy diligently though, before different and may be wrong forum to claim or get the documents of the defendants declared as null and void and as such, he deserved the benefit of Section 14 of The Limitation Act. I am thus, of the considered opinion that the Ld. Trial Court erred in rejecting the RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 28 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.04.28 13:16:06 +0530 relief of declaration, though holding in principle that his claim was justified, on the ground that the said relief claimed was barred by limitation. The time consumed by the plaintiff in pursuing various remedies as already discussed hereinabove, in different civil suits and proceedings, should have been and is directed to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for the grant of the relief of declaration as prayed in the suit.
57. In view thereof and in light of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned judgment and decree of the Ld. Trial Court dated 04.10.2024 is modified and issue no. 5 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation. The other part of the impugned judgment and decree is upheld. The chain of documents in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit property are hereby declared as null and void.
58. In terms of the above observations, the appeal filed by defendant Ajooba bearing RCA/DJ/30/2024 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiff Dhanpal Jain through LR Sh. Sukhmal Chand Jain bearing RCA/DJ/02/2025 is hereby allowed.
RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 29 of 30 Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SANJAY Date: SHARMA 2026.04.28 13:16:13 +0530
59. No order is passed as to cost. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
A copy of this order be placed in both the appeal files. Appeal files be consigned to Record Room and TCR be returned to the Ld. Trial Court along with a copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT On 28 th day of April, 2026 SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.28 13:16:20 +0530 (SANJAY SHARMA-I) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KKD COURTS: DELHI RCA DJ 30/2024 Ajooba Vs. Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) RCA DJ 02/2025 Dhanpal Jain (Deceased through Lrs) vs. Charan Singh & ors Page 30 of 30