Delhi District Court
Neeraj Saxena vs Ved Prakash on 21 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RINKU JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCA SCJ No. 4/2025
CNR No. DLCT03-001394-2025
In the matter of:-
SH. NEERAJ SAXENA
S/O LATE SH. VEER SINGH SAXENA
R/O B-73, GALI No.1,
MAJLIS PARK, ADARSH NAGAR
NEW DELHI-110033 ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
SH. VED PRAKASH
S/O LATE SH. TULSI RAM
R/O V-2/146, YAMUNA VIHAR,
DELHI-110053 ....RESPONDENT
Date of Institution : 06.03.2025
Reserved for Judgment : 25.07.2025
Date of Decision : 21.08.2025
Decision : DISMISSED
FIRST APPEAL U/S 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1
CPC ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT NEERAJ SAXENA
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2025 PASSED BY LD.
CIVIL JUDGE-01, DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
COURT
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal impugns the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the then Ld. Civil Judge-01, Central, whereby the suit filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground that appellant had no cause of action. The appellant RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 1 of 10 herein was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant therein. For the sake of clarity and convenience, parties shall be referred to by their nomenclature in the main suit.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present adjudication as outlined in the plaint are that the defendant is the real maternal uncle (mama) of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is running a shop since 2009 bearing No.2807, Ground Floor, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi admeasuring 5.37 sq meters (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). Due to family circumstances, plaintiff and his mother were not financially strong therefore, they shifted to the parental home of plaintiff's mother in the year 1987. That the plaintiff, owing to his family situation, started supporting the family business of the defendant from a very young age. That plaintiff wanted to take a shop on rent/pagri but he did not have enough resources and approached the defendant for help.
3. It is further stated that later plaintiff took the suit property on rent under pagri system from one Sh. Kuldeep Singh who was a tenant of Dhanuka Trust. Plaintiff paid Rs.32,00,000/ to Sh. Kuldeep Singh as pagri amount of which Rs.16,00,000/- each was paid by plaintiff as well as defendant. That the plaintiff invested the money from his savings and the sale proceeds of his mother's jewelry.
4. It is further stated that the suit property was taken on monthly rent of Rs.75/- and the receipt was issued in the name of defendant as he was known to previous owner Sh. Kuldeep Singh and plaintiff had faith on defendant. That Rs.16,00,000/- which were paid by the defendant at the time of taking the said shop on RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 2 of 10 pagri were in the form of interest free loan to the plaintiff being a family member.
5. It is further stated that defendant had promised to get a sale deed of the suit property registered in the name of the plaintiff when the plaintiff will return Rs. 16,00,000/- to the defendant in installments. That plaintiff had started his business in the suit property and also obtained a TIN number and a landline connection at the address of suit property.
6. It is further stated that in the year 2015, the plaintiff was in relation with a girl of different religion and showed his willingness to settle with her, but his entire family was against it. It is further stated that in the year 2015/16, M/s Dhanuka Trust was liquidating its properties and the plaintiff was offered to purchase the suit property. That plaintiff and his family members agreed to purchase the suit property and the same was purchased in the name of defendant as he was the well-wisher of the plaintiff & his family members and as the rent slip was also in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff was not in a financial position to pay Rs.16,00,000/- which were advanced to him as interest free loan by the defendant. That a sale deed in respect of the suit property was executed in the name of the defendant by the consent of all family members including the plaintiff.
7. It is further stated that in the year 2018, the defendant approached the plaintiff and asked him to execute a rent agreement in respect of the suit property as he needed to show some white money transactions in his account and the plaintiff agreed for the same and executed a rent agreement dated 07.02.2018. That it was also agreed between the plaintiff and the RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 3 of 10 defendant on 07.02.2018 that the plaintiff shall pay Rs.16,00,000/- in installments and after receiving the entire amount, the defendant shall execute the sale deed in the joint name of plaintiff and his mother.
8. It is further stated that plaintiff repaid the loan of Rs.16,00,000/- to the defendant in installments in cash by December 2019. That in the January 2020, the plaintiff requested the defendant to execute a sale deed of the suit property as per promise but the intention of defendant became malafide and defendant issued a legal notice dt. 13.10.2020 on false and frivolous grounds and claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff was stated to be a tenant in the suit property on the basis of rent agreement dt. 07.02.2018. The said suit was contested by the plaintiff herein. The defendant has deliberately misused the rent agreement dt. 07.02.2018 which was executed under undue influence and misrepresentation. Plaintiff is running his shop as owner, has never paid any rent to anyone and is in uninterrupted possession since 2009. Hence, the present suit seeking decree of declaration thereby declaring the rent agreement of the suit property dt. 07.02.2018 as null and void and be cancelled.
9. Summons of the present suit were issued. Defendant entered appearance and filed his WS. He also filed an application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of plaint on the grounds
(i) suit being barred by law of limitation, (ii) suit being valued incorrectly and non-payment of proper court fees and (iii) suit for simplicitor declaration without consequential relief is not maintainable.
RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 4 of 10
10. Ld. Trial Court rejected the plaint vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025 holding that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by the law of limitation as the cause of action to file the suit arose on the date of execution of the rent agreement dated 07.02.2018, when the right to sue first accrued. Ld. Trial Court further held that the suit had not been properly valued and plaintiff has paid deficit court fees. Ld. Trial Court also held that the suit for declaration was not maintainable in the circumstances as mentioned in the plaint.
11. The impugned order has been primarily assailed on the following grounds that:-
(a) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the limitation is a mixed question of fact & law and could not have been decided at the stage of adjudicating an application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Appellant relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh B. Desai Vs. Vipin Vadilal Mehta 2006 (5) SCC 638. Also that the pleadings of the defendant could not have been read while deciding the application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC.
(b) Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the limitation to get a document declared as null and void will start upon having knowledge of same being executed by committing fraud/misrepresentation.
(c) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that plaintiff did not admit the tenant-landlord relationship between him and the defendant. Moreover, no rent receipt had been filed by the defendant which makes it clear that the payments made were towards repayment of interest free loan and not for payment of rent.
(d) Ld. Trial Court did not grant any time to correct the suit valuation and to pay the deficit court fees.
RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 5 of 10
12. I heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides. I have perused the record.
13. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property in the name of the defendant and paid half sale consideration of the suit property. The remaining half had been borrowed from the defendant, interest free. It had been orally agreed that defendant shall transfer the title of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff after the repayment of loan amounting to half of the total sale consideration of the suit property i.e. Rs.16,00,000/-. Meanwhile, in the year 2018, upon asking of the defendant, plaintiff executed a rent agreement of the suit property, as a tenant. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he repaid the loan in the month of December 2019 and requested the defendant to transfer the title of the suit property in his name. However, in the month of October 2020, defendant filed a suit for eviction against the plaintiff herein. Plaintiff in return has filed the suit in hand before the Ld. Trial Court for declaration simplicitor to declare the said rent agreement of the suit property as null and void.
14. At the very threshold it is pertinent to mention that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC casts a duty on the Court to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of the infirmities provided in the clauses on Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, even without the intervention of the defendant. Reliance is placed on Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137. It is also a settled position of law that only the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the WS would be RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 6 of 10 irrelevant and cannot be adverted to. Reliance is placed on Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through LRs & Ors., AIR 2020 SC 3310 in this regard.
15. In the case in hand, Ld. Trial Court has held that the present suit is barred by the law of limitation as the cause of action to file the suit accrued when the rent agreement dated 07.02.2018 was executed and not when the plaintiff came to know about the alleged fraud/misrepresentation at the hands of the defendant. Although, plaintiff has admitted of executing the rent agreement dated 07.02.2018, yet, at the same time, plaintiff has also pleaded that a fraud has been played upon him by the defendant. The fact whether the period of limitation started to run at the time of execution of the rent agreement or at the time when defendant filed the suit and plaintiff received the notice of the same cannot be ascertained without taking of the evidence, as there is a categorical pleading of fraud being played upon the plaintiff by the defendant. This clearly is not a pure question of law where it can be said that the period of limitation started to run from the date of execution of the rent agreement only. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the Ld. Trial Court in holding the present suit to be barred by the law of limitation, without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence, at the stage of deciding the application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC is bad in the eyes of law.
16. As far as the ground of appeal that plaintiff was not given time to correct the suit valuation and for filing the deficit Court Fees also deserves to be allowed as the bare perusal of the provision contained in order 7 Rule 11 (b) & (c) CPC, the suit is RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 7 of 10 to be rejected only when the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation of the suit or he fails to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time fixed by the Court. However, in the case in hand, no time has been granted to the plaintiff to correctly value the suit and file the deficit court fees.
17. As far as the third ground on which the application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC had been allowed i.e. the maintainability of the suit without claiming the consequential relief, is concerned.
18. In Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors. on 25 March 2008 (Appeal Civil 6191 of 2001) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 8 of 10 are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.
But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case"
19. In view of the settled law as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that defendant has raised a cloud on the title of the plaintiff by refusing to acknowledge the plaintiff as owner of the suit property and by further filing a suit for eviction against the plaintiff claiming himself as the owner/landlord and plaintiff as the tenant. Therefore, it was imperative upon the plaintiff to have filed a suit for declaration of his title/ownership along with the relief of specific performance of execution of title documents in his favour, in terms of the oral agreement, against the defendant.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the suit filed by the plaintiff before the Ld. Trial Court is barred considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed above.
21. This Court is in agreement with the conclusion RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 9 of 10 arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court as far as the ground of rejection regarding maintainability of the suit for simplicitor declaration, without claiming the consequential relief, but for different reasons as discussed above and the finding arrived at by this Court.
22. In view of reasons given above, it is held that although the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant herein finds force, yet, the suit filed by the appellant is otherwise not maintainable and is liable to be rejected being barred by the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (supra).
23. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
24. No order as to costs.
25. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
26. The appeal file after due compliance be consigned to the Record Room. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of the judgment. Digitally signed by RINKU JAIN RINKU Date:
Announced in open Court JAIN 2025.08.21
16:57:47
on this 21st Day of August, 2025 +0530
(RINKU JAIN)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
RCA SCJ No. 4/2025 NEERAJ SAXENA Vs. VED PRAKASH Page No. 10 of 10