Delhi District Court
Ranbir Singh vs Bir Singh on 11 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKAS GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE-05 (EAST DISTRICT),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 1389/16
CNR No. DLET01-000966-2011
Ranbir Singh
S/o Late Sh. Dulichand
R/o IX/7607, Gali no. 14
Amar Mohala, Gandhi Nagar
Delhi. .........Plaintiff
Versus
1. Bir Singh S/o Sh. Khushi Ram
R/o IX/5180, Old Seelampur
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31.
2. Subhash Chand
S/o Late Sh. Dulichand
R/o IX/5180, Old Seelampur
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31.
3. Nirmal Devi @ Sushma
R/o 1048, Noida, Sec-32
Gautam Budh Nagar
Uttar Pradesh. ...........Defendants
Date of Institution : 24.11.2011
Date of final arguments : 03.06.2024
Date of decision : 11.09.2024
Final decision : Dismissed VIKAS Digitally signed
by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2024.09.11
16:58:33 +0530
CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 1 of 27
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will adjudicate the plaintiff's suit, addressing the claims for declaration, as well as for permanent and mandatory injunctions.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS PER PLAINT (Amended plaint as returned by Senior Civil Judge):
Briefly, the essential facts required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the plaint, are as follows:
2. The plaintiff asserts ownership and possession of the suit property bearing no. IX/4196, located in Village Seelampur, Gali No. 18/3, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 110031. This ownership is based on a registered Will, agreement to sell, receipt, possession letter, and affidavit, all executed on 01.07.2002. The suit property is shown in red on the site plan annexed to the plaint. Defendant No. 1 is the plaintiff's step-brother, and Defendant No. 2 is his real brother. They own an adjoining shop/property, which is highlighted in green in the site plan. Defendant No. 3, though unrelated to the matter at hand, has allegedly colluded with Defendants No. 1 and 2 to delay proceedings, VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 16:58:43 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 2 of 27 and was included in the suit upon the court's order. During the pendency of the suit, the relief of declaration was added.
The plaintiff claims to be a bona fide purchaser of the suit property through a registered General Power of Attorney dated 01.07.2002, along with supporting documents. Since the purchase, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession of the property, using the vacant area as a milk dairy, keeping cows and buffaloes, and constructing various structures such as a garage and shed. The plaintiff maintains that his possession has been continuous, peaceful, and in the knowledge of the defendants and the general public, establishing both factual and possessory title over the disputed property.
In March 2009, while the plaintiff was out of town, Defendants No. 1 and 2 allegedly opened an illegal door (marked as AB on the site plan) into the plaintiff's property with the intent to harass and blackmail him. Upon his return, the plaintiff confronted the defendants, who gave an undertaking before the local community to close the door. Despite this, the defendants failed to do so, leading to further tension. On 23.08.2009, the plaintiff attempted to construct a boundary wall on his property, at which point defendants No. 1 and 2, along with some anti-social elements, gathered outside the property, hurled abuses, and tried to dispossess VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 16:58:53 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 3 of 27 the plaintiff by obstructing the construction. The plaintiff called the police and managed to retain possession with the help of bystanders and neighbours.
Subsequent incidents occurred on 11.09.2009, where the defendants and anti-social elements attempted to remove the plaintiff's livestock from the property. Despite the plaintiff's call for police assistance, no help was provided, and only through the intervention of neighbours was the plaintiff able to retain possession. Since then, Defendants No. 1 and 2 have been issuing continuous threats to dispossess the plaintiff and create third-party interests in the suit property, allegedly in collusion with local police.
The plaintiff states that defendants No. 1 and 2 have no legal right, title, or interest in the suit property and seeks a permanent injunction to restrain them from interfering with his peaceful possession. The plaintiff states that the cause of action arose in March 2009 when the illegal door was opened and was further aggravated on 23.08.2009 and 11.09.2009 with the defendants' attempts to dispossess him. In light of the facts, the plaintiff requests this Hon'ble Court to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from taking possession or creating any third-party interest in the property. A mandatory injunction is also sought for the removal of the illegal door.
VIKAS Digitally signed by
VIKAS GARG
GARG Date: 2024.09.11
16:59:01 +0530
CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 4 of 27
Additionally, the plaintiff seeks the removal of the illegal door (marked AB) and a declaration confirming his possessory title over the disputed property. Furthermore, the plaintiff seeks the costs of the suit and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT No. 1 & 2 NAMELY BIR SINGH AND SUBHASH CHAND AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT :
Briefly, the essential facts required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the Written Statement, are as follows:
3. The defendants raise several preliminary objections to the plaintiff's suit, asserting it is not maintainable. They state that the plaintiff has failed to produce any valid documents proving title to the suit property, instead relying on allegedly forged and fabricated photocopies. When directed by the court to file original documents, the plaintiff failed to do so.
The defendants contend that the plaint is vague, as the plaintiff has not demonstrated right to title or possession of the property, nor specified the capacity in which he seeks declaration. They also state that the suit is improperly valued for court fees and jurisdiction, falling below the actual value based on government circle rates, thus exceeding the court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit property, located in Shanti VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG 16:59:13 +0530 Date: 2024.09.11 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 5 of 27 Mohalla, Raghubarpura Zone, Shahdara South zone, falls under Category "F" with circle rates of Rs. 38,640/- per sq. meter (revised from Rs. 32,200/-). The defendants calculate the property's value at Rs. 70,19,600/- for 260 sq. yards (217 sq. meters), far exceeding the plaintiff's valuation of Rs. 11 lacs. Additionally, they point out discrepancies in the property measurements stated in the suit and site plan.
The defendants further allege that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands, intentionally suppressing facts. They claim mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties, noting that a 70 sq. yard portion of the property is owned by Nirmal Sharma, who has a pending injunction suit against both the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants assert their ownership, stating that Defendant No. 1 purchased 260 sq. yards via registered GPA and Will dated 10-04-1992, later selling portions to Defendant No. 2 (65 sq. yards) and another party (60 sq. yards). They accuse the plaintiff of fraudulently procuring documents by misrepresenting identities, specifically mentioning an incident involving one Ms. Sushma being wrongly personified as Nirmal. When this was exposed in court, the plaintiff claimed to have lost the papers and sought to amend the suit to claim title on the basis of possession instead of ownership. The defendants emphasize that these factors, along with alleged attempts by the plaintiff to forcibly VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 16:59:25 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 6 of 27 dispossess them and ongoing criminal proceedings (a Kalendra U/S 107/150 CrPC), further undermine the suit's validity and maintainability. They state that the entire claim is false and baseless, given that Nirmal Sharma herself owns only 100 sq. meters of land, making it impossible for her to have sold 260 sq. yards to the plaintiff as claimed.
The defendants vehemently deny the allegations made by the plaintiff regarding his ownership and possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 1 asserts that he is the rightful owner and in possession of the property located at IX/4196, Village Seelampur, Gali No. 18/3, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31. The plaintiff has fraudulently fabricated forged documents related to this property and neighboring properties, particularly concerning a 70 sq. yard portion owned by one Nirmal Sharma. The documents presented by the plaintiff, including the GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell, and possession letter, are all forged and fabricated. Despite being given opportunities in both the current and prior suits, the plaintiff has failed to produce the original documents before the Hon'ble Court. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not raise any objections when Defendant No. 1 lawfully sold portions of the property to Defendant No. 2 and Smt. Chanderwati through registered GPAs, indicating that the plaintiff's claims are baseless.
The plaintiff's fraudulent actions are further exposed by the VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 16:59:35 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 7 of 27 fact that he wrongfully affixed the photograph of one Ms. Sushma, impersonating her as Nirmal Sharma, in order to fabricate ownership documents. When Ms. Sushma appeared before the Hon'ble Court to reveal the truth, the plaintiff deceitfully claimed that the papers had been lost and attempted to amend the suit under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking to assert rights of possession instead of ownership. This entire claim by the plaintiff is not only false but also vexatious. The plaintiff's attempts to forcibly dispossess Defendant No. 1 and Nirmal Sharma from the property, despite the latter being a tenant of Defendant No. 1, resulted in legal proceedings under Sections 107/150 CrPC. Given the plaintiff's fraudulent conduct and lack of any legitimate claim to the property, the present suit is baseless and deserves dismissal with heavy costs. The defendants prays for dismissal of the suit.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT No. 3 NAMELY SMT.
SUSHMA W/O LATE SH. SATPAL AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT :
Briefly, the essential facts required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the Written Statement, are as follows:
4. In response to the plaintiff's suit, Defendant No. 3 raises several preliminary objections and challenges the merits of VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2024.09.11 GARG 16:59:45 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 8 of 27 the claim. The defendant asserts that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has failed to produce any valid documents establishing his title to the suit property. The defendant claims that the plaintiff's documents are forged and fabricated, lacking a credible chain of ownership. The defendant alleges that her signature on the documents was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, and the details in the documents do not pertain to her, suggesting the documents were prepared under false pretenses.
Defendant No. 3 further contends that she never executed any sale documents in favor of the plaintiff, nor did she own the property described as 260 square yards in Khasara No.
10. The defendant asserts that she had no connection with the property in question and were misled by the plaintiff into signing documents under false pretenses. They emphasize that the details in the documents, including the name and address, are incorrect and pertain to someone else.
The defendant argues that the plaint is vague and should be dismissed as the plaintiff does not have the right title or possession of the property. The suit is also criticized for improper valuation and lack of proper court fees, rendering it liable to dismissal. Additionally, the defendant claims that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed true facts, further undermining the suit's VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 16:59:56 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 9 of 27 validity.
On the merits, defendant No. 3 denies the allegations in the plaint, particularly those related to the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the suit property. The defendant asserts that the documents presented by the plaintiff, including a General Power of Attorney, Will, and agreement to sell, are forged and were never filed properly with the court. The defendant also disputes the site plan provided by the plaintiff, asserting that it is inaccurate and does not reflect the actual ownership or location of the property.
Finally, defendant No. 3 states that the suit is not maintainable under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and is barred under Section 6 of the CPC due to improper valuation and jurisdictional issues. The defendant requests that the suit be dismissed with heavy and exemplary costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Issues:
5. After the completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 09.01.2020:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is owner of property bearing no. IX/4196, village Seelampur Gali no. 18/3, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-
VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS
GARG
GARG Date: 2024.09.11
17:00:05 +0530
CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 10 of 27
31? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession of property bearing no. IX/4196, village Seelampur, Gali no. 18/3, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant
(s) threatened to dispossess him from the property ?
OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP
6. Whether the suit is not valued properly for court fee and jurisdiction?OPD
7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD
8. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence:
6. To prove his case, the plaintiff, Sh. Ranbir Singh, testified as PW-1 and submitted his evidential affidavit, marked as Ex. PW-1/A, during his examination-in-chief. In this affidavit, he reiterated the contents of the plaint. He relied on the following documents:-
1. GPA dated 01.07.2002 as Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR).
VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS
GARG
GARG Date: 2024.09.11
17:00:17 +0530
CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 11 of 27
2. Agreement to sell dated 01.07.2002 as Ex. PW- 1/2 (OSR).
3. Deed of Will dated 01.07.2002 as Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR).
4. Payments receipts & possession letter as Ex.
PW-1/4 (OSR)
5. Pay receipts dated 30.06.2003 as Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR).
6. Physical possession letter from MCD as Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
7. Receipt bearing no. 674463 as Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR).
8. MCD challans are de-exhibited as Ex. PW-1/8 is now marked as Mark A (colly).
9. Deed of Will dated 17.07.1992 as Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR).
10. Certified copies of few photographs showing the possessory title as Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR).
11. MCD payments receipts as Ex. PW-1/10 (OSR).
12. Booking application dated 14.08.2007 as Ex. PW-1/11 (OSR).
13.Few MCD payments receipts are de-exhibited as Ex. PW-1/12 is now marked as Mark B (colly).
14. Demand cum allotment letter issued by Digitally signed MCD as Ex. PW1/12 (OSR). VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2024.09.11
17:00:25 +0530
CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 12 of 27
15. Affidavit is de-exhibited as Ex. PW-1/15 is marked as Mark C.
16. Undertaking is de-exhibited as Ex. PW-1/16 is now marked as Mark D.
17. Possession letter is de-exhibited as Ex. PW- 1/17 is now marked as Mark E.
18. Order dated 10.06.2011 passed in Civil Suit titled Nirmala Sharma Vs. Ranbir Singh in the court of Sh. Raj Kumar. Sr. C.J., KKD, Delhi, as Ex. PW-1/13 (OSR).
19. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Nirinal Sharma as Ex. PW-1/14 (OSR).
20. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Sushma @ Nirmala Devi is Ex. PW-1/15 (OSR). 21 Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Desh Raj as Ex. PW-1/16 (OSR).
22. Examination-in-chief and cross-examination of Dinesh as Ex. PW-1/17 (OSR).
PW-1 was cross-examined in detail by the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1.
7. By order dated 19.12.2023, the right of defendants No. 2 and 3 to cross-examine PW-1 was closed. Subsequently, on 20.02.2024, defendant No. 2 and 3 were declared to be proceeding ex-parte. Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2024.09.11
17:00:33 +0530
CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 13 of 27
Defendant Evidence:
8. In support of his case, Defendant No. 1, Sh. Bir Singh, appeared as DW1 and submitted his affidavit in evidence, marked as Ex. D1W1/1, during his examination-in-chief, wherein he reaffirmed the contents of his written statement.
He underwent extensive cross-examination by the plaintiff's learned counsel.
Arguments:
9. I have attentively heard the rival contentions of both parties, meticulously examined the record, and carefully considered the relevant legal provisions and applicable judicial precedents.
The counsel for the plaintiff builds his case on two primary foundations: ownership through documentation and possession. Regarding ownership, the counsel contends that the plaintiff has rightful ownership of the suit property by virtue of sale documents marked as exhibits Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/6. These documents include a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Will, receipt, and agreement to sell.
Anticipating potential challenges to these documents, the counsel preemptively addresses the applicability of the Suraj Lamp Case [Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 17:00:41 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 14 of 27 Haryana and Anr, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13917 of 2009]. He argues that this judgment, which affects the validity of certain property transactions, operates prospectively and not retrospectively. As the plaintiff's documents predate the Suraj Lamp judgment, the counsel asserts that they remain valid and enforceable.
The second pillar of the plaintiff's case rests on the claim of long-settled possession. To substantiate this claim, the counsel points to exhibits Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/17, which has been filed as evidence of the plaintiff's possession. The counsel emphasizes that the plaintiff's claim is twofold:
ownership through documents and ownership through long- settled possession.
Drawing the court's attention to the site plan, the counsel notes that while it is present in the judicial file, the plaintiff has not explicitly relied on it in his evidence. Nevertheless, the counsel uses the defendants' own site plan to bolster the plaintiff's case. He highlights that this plan shows the plaintiff as the owner in possession of an area measuring 141.08 sq yards and 68.94 sq yards.
In conclusion, the counsel summarizes the plaintiff's claim:
ownership and possession of a total of 210 sq yards out of the whole property bearing the number IX/4196. He clarifies Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2024.09.11 17:00:49 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 15 of 27 that while the entire property may be larger, the plaintiff's claim is limited to this 210 sq yard portion.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff also attempted to rely on the concept of "better title" to support his claim.
The counsel for defendant No. 1 raises several critical points challenging the plaintiff's claim to the suit property. Firstly, he highlights a significant discrepancy in the plaintiff's claim. While the plaintiff asserts acquiring the property from Smt. Nirmal Devi, who allegedly owned only 100 sq. yards through a will dated 17.07.1992, the plaintiff inexplicably claims ownership of 260 sq. yards. This contradiction undermines the credibility of the plaintiff's entire claim.
Furthermore, the counsel points out that the plaintiff has consistently failed to specify the exact area of the suit property in both the plaint and evidence, which appears to be a deliberate concealment of facts. This omission raises suspicions about the validity of the plaintiff's claim.
He further contended that a crucial admission by the plaintiff during examination significantly weakens his case. The plaintiff acknowledged the existence of a gate providing access to defendant No. 1 between the suit property and another property owned by the defendant. This admission directly contradicts the plaintiff's assertion of settled and VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 17:00:59 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 16 of 27 undisturbed possession. Citing the Supreme Court case of Poona Ram vs. Moti Ram & Ors. (decided on 29.01.19), the counsel emphasizes that title on the basis of possession requires possession to be effective, undisturbed, and to the knowledge of the owner. The plaintiff's claim fails to meet these criteria, particularly given that he resides in a different property and has admitted to the defendant's access to the suit property.
The counsel further argues that the plaintiff has failed to produce any public documents or witnesses to substantiate his claim of settled possession. No property tax receipts, house tax records, or revenue records have been presented to support the plaintiff's case. The counsel cites the Madras High Court case of Savitri vs. Rajendran (decided on 25.01.22), which emphasizes the importance of revenue records in establishing possessory title claims.
Lastly, the counsel draws attention to a certified copy of a court order dated 10.06.2011, exhibited by the plaintiff himself, where both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were parties. The commentary by the learned Civil Judge in this order regarding possession and title documents adversely affects the plaintiff's claim in the present suit.
In conclusion, the counsel asserts that the plaintiff has failed to prove settled and established possession over the suit property for the required period of twelve years preceding VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 17:01:08 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 17 of 27 the filing of the suit. The admission regarding defendant No. 1's gate on the suit property is sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff's possession, if any, was not undisturbed. Therefore, the counsel argues that the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed.
Analysis and Issues-wise Findings:
10. Issues 1, 2, 4 & 5 are interconnected and intertwined; therefore, they are addressed collectively.
Issue no. 1, 2, 4 & 5:
Identification of Property & Proprietary Title: The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a declaration, permanent injunction, and mandatory injunction concerning an immovable property. For such a suit, the property must be clearly identifiable, as no court can issue a ruling on a property that is not properly identified. Furthermore, Order 7 Rule 3 of the CPC mandates that the plaint must include a description of the immovable property, as stipulated in the rule reproduced below:
"Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property.-- Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers."
In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the observations made VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 17:01:17 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 18 of 27 by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case titled Bandhu Das And Anr. vs Uttam Charan Pattanaik, AIR 2007 ORI 24, which are as follows:
"9. For better appreciation of the point involved, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3. C.P.C. is quoted hereunder:
Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property
-Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.
A bare reading of the above provision makes it is crystal clear that what exactly the land or the area over which the dispute exists is a question which goes into the root of the matter relating to subsistence of the case. In absence of such description in the plaint or supply of the map by annexing the same to the plaint and the evidence to the above effect, no Court would pass a decree, as such a decree would be in executable or would be rendered otiose. Even if the Court finds that the plaintiff had title and possession in respect of the suit land, in absence of proper description, as mentioned in Order 7 Rule 3, C.P.C.. the decree cannot be executed. The defendants in the written statement took a specific objection that the suit is bad for lack of identification From the description as reproduced in the plaint, the measurement of the disputed land in relation to the settlement map has not been given nor has the sketch map been drawn to scale. The boundaries of the disputed land have not been mentioned. For both the plots, one boundary has been mentioned. Admittedly, the disputed plot is a part of Sabik Plot No. 104. P.W.2 in his evidence has specifically stated that the suit land is scattered in three places. In his cross-examination also he stated that he could not say the plot number, boundary and the extent of land. In view of the above, this Court feels that the decree is not executable and the suit is incompetent for want of proper description and sufficient identification."Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2024.09.11 17:01:25 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 19 of 27 In the present case, the plaint and the evidentiary affidavit lack specific averments regarding the area, dimensions (length and breadth), boundaries, neighboring properties, and exact location of the property. Although a site plan was filed with the plaint, it was neither exhibited nor proved in evidence, and it fails to provide the necessary details. The plaint only mentions the plot number IX/4196, Village Seelampur, Gali No. 18/3, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31 as the description of the property for which relief of declaration and injunctions is sought. The plaintiff has admitted that property number IX/4196 includes additional properties beyond the plaintiff's own, and the site plan even indicates the ownership/possession of the defendants in certain portions. Moreover, the total area of property number IX/4196 is not clearly stated.
The plaintiff has claimed ownership of the property based on a General Power of Attorney (GPA), an agreement to sell, and other related documents. However, these documents do not confer any legal title to the plaintiff. In Shakeel Ahmad vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 2023, dated 1st November 2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed:
"10 Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 17:01:34 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 20 of 27 that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882."
The plaintiff failed to prove the documents on which ownership was claimed. The defendants not only refused to admit these documents but also contested them as forged and fabricated. Although the plaintiff claimed that the GPA is a registered document, no certified copy was filed to substantiate this claim. The burden of proof for these documents rested on the plaintiff, who failed to discharge it. No independent witnesses were presented to validate the documents, and even the alleged seller, Ms. Nirmal Devi, was not examined. Defendant No. 1 further alleged that Ms. Nirmal Devi, wife of Sh. Desh Raj, was the owner of the suit property, making it essential for the plaintiff to file and prove the entire chain of documents to establish the title. However, this was not done, with only one WILL of Nanu Ram being submitted.
Interestingly, the so-called ownership documents of the plaintiff indicate that a property measuring 260 square yards VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG GARG Date: 2024.09.11 17:01:42 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 21 of 27 was transferred to the plaintiff by Nirmal Devi, wife of Sh. Desh Raj Sharma. These documents claim that Ms. Nirmal Devi acquired ownership of the property from Sh. Nannu Ram, son of Sh. Heera Lal, residing at 6205, Kuncha Shiv Mandir, Khari Baoli, Delhi. The plaintiff also filed a WILL dated 17.09.1992, executed by Sh. Nannu Ram, which purportedly bequeaths a 100 square yard portion of the property from Khasra No. 10, located in Gali No. 18, within the Abadi of East Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31. First and foremost, apart from the WILL (Ex. PW1/8), no other ownership documents related to Ms. Nirmal Devi have been filed or proven by the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the WILL as required by law. Even if the WILL is accepted, there is still a discrepancy in the property description. In the alleged sale documents, the plaintiff claims that Ms. Nirmal Devi, wife of Sh. Desh Raj Sharma, transferred ownership of a 260 square yard property to him. However, the WILL (Ex. PW-1/A) only bequeaths a property measuring 100 square yards, creating a significant inconsistency in the plaintiff's claim. The WILL of Nanu Ram (Ex. PW1/8) does not mention any boundaries, sides, dimensions, exact location, or neighboring properties. In contrast, the General Power of Attorney (GPA) and other so-called ownership documents do include a description of the boundaries and neighbors as follows: East
--land of others; West--20 ft. wide Gali; North--property Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG VIKAS GARG Date:
+0530 2024.09.11 17:01:52 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 22 of 27 of Sh. Jain; South--property of Sh. Nanu Ram. However, this description is vague and lacks clarity. Moreover, the boundaries and neighbors described in these documents do not match the details provided in the plaintiff's unproven site plan, further weakening the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff failed to provide or prove the area, location, sides, and dimensions of the property. It remains unclear which specific piece of property the plaintiff is seeking relief for through the declaration and injunctions. The plaintiff's claim of ownership is based on documents such as the GPA, which, as discussed earlier, do not confer any legal title. The WILL dated 01.07.2002 was not proven according to legal standards, and no chain of documents, apart from the WILL, was filed or substantiated. Additionally, the area and description of the property in the WILL (Ex. PW1/8) do not align with those in the alleged ownership documents, and the WILL (Ex. PW1/A) was also not proven as per law. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish ownership or proprietary title over the property.
Title on Basis of Possession: Firstly, as discussed above, the plaintiff failed to provide or prove the area, location, sides, boundaries, and neighboring properties, making it impossible to identify the property. If the property cannot be identified, determining possession is equally unfeasible.
VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS
GARG
GARG Date: 2024.09.11 17:02:01
+0530
CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 23 of 27
Secondly, the plaintiff's claim of ownership based on both proprietary and possessory title is contradictory and unsustainable. Possessory title is granted when the plaintiff lacks proprietary title, and for it to be valid, the plaintiff must prove continuous possession for a sufficient period, with the owner's knowledge. Given these facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted on the basis of possessory title in this case.
Documents: The plaintiff relied on the application and receipt for the allotment of an alternative plot for a dairy from the MCD. However, these documents are of no assistance to the plaintiff. Firstly, the documents only mention property number IX/4196, which, as previously discussed, is insufficient for identifying the specific property in question. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to substantiate these documents. Simply exhibiting the documents does not equate to proving them. In the present case, no witness has been examined to prove the records related to the application and receipt for the alternative plot. Additionally, these records cannot be relied upon as they are merely applications and receipts. There is no evidence that any physical verification of address confirmation was conducted by the authorities to substantiate the plaintiff's claim. Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.09.11 17:02:12 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 24 of 27 Better Title: As discussed earlier, the plaintiff has failed to prove his proprietary title. Additionally, no details regarding the area, location, sides, boundaries, or neighbors of the property have been provided or proven by the plaintiff. Without the ability to identify the property, determining possession becomes impossible. Consequently, the plaintiff has not established possession. Since the plaintiff has not demonstrated a superior legal right or ownership entitling him to possession, no relief based on a better title can be granted.
Fresh Contention: The plaintiff has introduced a new contention, asserting ownership of 210 square yards of property while relying on the defendant's site plan to support his case. These arguments, however, do not align with the plaintiff's pleadings or evidence and are inconsistent with the original case presented by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the arguments lack plausibility and are, therefore, rejected as baseless.
Conclusion on Issue no. 1, 2, 4 & 5: In light of the discussions on issues no. 1, 2, 4 & 5, all of these issues are decided against the plaintiff, as he has failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon him.
Issue No. 3: VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2024.09.11 17:02:22 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 25 of 27
The burden of proof rested on the plaintiff. During cross- examination, counsel for defendant no. 1 posited that defendant no.1 never threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, as the defendant was already occupying the property in question. The counsel further asserted that the plaintiff had neither filed nor produced any complaint regarding the alleged incident of 11.09.2009, suggesting that no such incident occurred.
The plaintiff failed to present any witnesses to prove the alleged incidents or provide evidence of any filed complaints. Consequently, the plaintiff was unable to substantiate their claims on this issue. Given the lack of evidence, this issue is resolved in favor of the defendants Issue no. 6 and 7:
The onus of proof for these issues rested on the defendants. However, they failed to present any evidence to support their position. Furthermore, no plausible explanation was provided by the defendants concerning these matters. During the proceedings, no arguments were advanced on their behalf to address or clarify the issues at hand. As a result, the defendants have failed to discharge their onus of proof. In light of these failures, both issues are decided against the defendants.Digitally signed
VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2024.09.11 17:02:30 +0530 CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 26 of 27 Relief:
Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence adduced, and arguments advanced by both parties, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Consequently, the suit is hereby dismissed in its entirety. Each party shall bear its own costs
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
Pronounced in the open court VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
on 11.09.2024 Date:
GARG 2024.09.11
17:02:36 +0530
(Vikas Garg)
District Judge-05 /EAST)
KKD, Delhi-11.09.02024
CS No.1389/16 Ranbir Singh Vs. Bir Singh & Ors. Page no. 27 of 27