Delhi District Court
Inder Singh vs Pritam on 30 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE - 04
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ: 17/2024
CNR NO: DLSW01-001234-2024
INDER SINGH
S/O SH. FATEH SINGH
R/O: PLOT NO. A-12,
RAJU EXTENSION,
NEAR OLD PALAM ROAD,
KAKROLA, DELHI - 110078.
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
PRITAM
A-25, RAJU EXTENSION,
NEAR M.B.D. SCHOOL,
KAKROLA, NEW DELHI - 110078.
....RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.02.2024
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 20.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30.06.2025
Counsel for Appellant : Sh. Mahipal Singh
Counsel for Respondent : Sh. Gaurav Kumar
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AS
AMENDED UP TO DATE AGAINST
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT/ RDER DATED
21.12.2023, PASSED BY MS. DEEPIKA
THAKRAN, CIVIL JUDGE - II, SOUTH
WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI, IN CIVIL SUIT NO.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 1 of 32
987/2021 TITLED AS "INDER SINGH V/S
PRITAM"
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal filed by the Appellant (original Plaintiff), assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-II, South- West District, Dwarka Courts, in Civil Suit No. CS No. 987/2021, titled Inder Singh v/s Pritam whereby the suit of the Appellant for mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction was dismissed.
2. The genesis of the dispute before the Ld. Trial Court was the Appellant's claim over a 10-foot wide street, which he pleaded was his sole means of ingress and egress and over which the Respondent (original Defendant) had allegedly raised illegal constructions and created a new, unauthorized access point. The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the grounds that the Appellant had not approached the court with 'clean hands', having admitted to constructing his own ramp in the said street, and further, had nullified his claim of a private easementary right by admitting in his cross-examination that the street was a 'public street'.
3. This appellate court is, therefore, tasked with determining whether the Ld. Trial Court's appreciation of the evidence on record and its application of the principles of law and equity are legally sustainable or if the impugned judgment suffers from a material error warranting interference.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 2 of 32APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF'S CASE BEFORE THE LD.
TRIAL COURT
4. The summary of the Appellant/Plaintiff's case as per his plaint before the ld. Trial Court is as follows:
a. The Plaintiff, Inder Singh, a factory laborer, pleaded that on 28.10.2003, he purchased Plot No. 12-A, measuring 40 sq. yards, situated in Khasra No. 16/23, Village Kakrola, in a colony known as Raju Extension, New Delhi. He averred that since the time of purchase, he has been residing there with his family. The core of his case is a 10-foot wide street located to the North of his property, which he claims is his sole and exclusive means of ingress and egress, and is mentioned as such in his ownership documents.
b. He stated that the Defendant, Pritam, resides in the adjacent property, House No. A-25, which is a 100 sq. yard plot. The Plaintiff's central assertion was that for the past 30 years, the Defendant's property had its only door and access on a 25- foot road located to its East, and that the Defendant had no pre-existing door, window, or chajja (projection) on the southern side of his house, which faces the 10-foot street and the Plaintiff's property.
c. The cause of action, as per the plaint, arose in April 2021, when the Defendant demolished his old house and began RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 3 of 32 new construction. The Plaintiff alleged a series of illegal acts committed by the Defendant during this period:
1. Encroachment and Illegal Construction: It was pleaded that the Defendant illegally encroached upon the 10-foot wide street by constructing a wall approximately one foot into it, thereby reducing its width. Despite objections from the Plaintiff and neighbours, the Defendant allegedly continued the construction by force.
2. Unauthorized Openings: The Defendant, for the first time, illegally opened a new door and a window on the southern side of his house, directly in front of the Plaintiff's house and gate. He also constructed a chajja that projected over the street.
3. Nuisance and Loss of Amenities: The Plaintiff alleged that these new constructions unlawfully obstructed the sunlight and air to his property and severely violated his family's privacy. Furthermore, he pleaded that the Defendant operates a pottery kiln (bhatti) inside his house and that due to the newly opened window and door, smoke from the kiln now fills the Plaintiff's house, making it extremely difficult for his family members to breathe.
4. Apprehended Future Obstruction: It was averred that the Defendant has constructed his new house at a height of about 4 feet from the road level. The RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 4 of 32 Plaintiff expressed a strong apprehension that the Defendant would inevitably construct a permanent staircase in the narrow 10-foot street to access his new, elevated door, which would completely block the Plaintiff's gate and render the street impassable.
5. Threats and Intimidation: The plaint contains detailed allegations of harassment. It is alleged that when the Plaintiff objected, the Defendant (Pritam) and his wife (Sunita) quarreled with and threatened to kill him. A specific incident was cited from 20.06.2021. It was further alleged that the Defendant hired a gangster named "Bittoo" who, along with 5-7 other men and 3- 4 women, came to the Plaintiff's house on multiple dates (10.09.2021, 15.09.2021, 16.09.2021, and 17.09.2021) to terrorize the family. These individuals allegedly used abusive language towards the Plaintiff's 16-year-old daughter and threatened to kidnap her and the Plaintiff's wife, murder the family, and entrap them in false police cases. The Plaintiff stated that he made numerous complaints to the MCD, the SDM, and the local police regarding the illegal construction and threats, but no effective action was taken.
d. On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiff prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to close the new door and window and to remove the chajja and the RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 5 of 32 encroaching wall; a decree of prohibitory injunction to restrain the Defendant from constructing any stairs in the street; and a decree of permanent injunction against any future interference, along with a claim for damages.
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT
5. The suit was contested vehemently by the Respondent/Defendant, Pritam, who filed a detailed written statement opposing the claims on several factual and legal grounds. The defence taken by the Defendant is summarized as follows:
a. The Defendant began with preliminary objections, contending that the suit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It was pleaded that the Plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has deliberately concealed material facts while levelling baseless allegations. The Defendant asserted that the entire suit is a product of the Plaintiff's personal animosity and is an abuse of the process of law.
b. The cornerstone of the defence is the character of the 10-foot wide street. The Defendant pleaded that this street is not the Plaintiff's private property but is a "common passage" or gali that services multiple residences. He contended that several other houses are situated along this passage and their RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 6 of 32 inhabitants use it for ingress and egress. Therefore, the Defendant, as an owner of an abutting property, possesses an equal and legitimate right to use this common passage, including the right to open a new gate for access. The Defendant claimed that the suit was filed merely because his decision to exercise this right was "not acceptable by the plaintiff."
c. It was further contended that the lawsuit was motivated by the Plaintiff's jealousy and hostility. The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff was unable to digest the fact that the Defendant was renovating his larger property and was now utilizing two access points. This personal vendetta, according to the Defendant, was the real reason for the litigation, with the Plaintiff using one pretext or another to harass him and stop his construction.
d. On the specific allegations, the Defendant offered categorical denials. He vehemently denied having encroached upon the common passage by even an inch. Regarding the claim of nuisance from a pottery kiln (bhatti), the Defendant pleaded that this allegation was entirely false and misleading. He stated that he had left the business of manufacturing clay pots "long ago" and that one of the reasons for renovating his house was precisely because that business was now in the past. He asserted that no furnace or bhatti is operational in his house.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 7 of 32
e. The Defendant also denied that his newly constructed balcony or chajja caused any obstruction to the Plaintiff's light, air, or privacy, attributing these claims to the "insular mind set of the plaintiff." All allegations of threats, intimidation, and the hiring of "gundas" were vehemently denied as being fabricated, "self-made versions" of the Plaintiff. In this context, the Defendant pointed out a significant contradiction in the Plaintiff's own case: on one hand, the Plaintiff claims that police and MCD officials came and instructed the Defendant to stop his work, while on the other hand, he alleges that the Defendant is an influential person with good connections in the very same police and MCD departments.
f. Based on these contentions, the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed and prayed for the suit to be dismissed with heavy costs.
ISSUES FRAMED BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT
6. On completion of pleadings, Ld. Trial Court had framed following issues on 23.02.2023:
a. Issue No. 1 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? O.P.P. b. Issue No. 2 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? O.P.P. RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 8 of 32 c. Issue No. 3 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? O.P.P. d. Issue No. 4 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of damages/ mesne profits as prayed for? O.P.P. e. Issue No. 5 - Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. Before the Ld. Trial Court, Plaintiff examined only one witness i.e., himself. Plaintiff deposed as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW-1/1. The evidence affidavit of PW-1 is reiteration of the pleadings in the Plaint. Plaintiff has also relied upon the following documents :-
S.No. Documents Exhibited as
1. Copy of GPA (one page Ex. PW1/A (OSR)
only) dated 28.10.2023
2. Copy of aadhar card Ex. PW1/B
3. Copy of ration card Ex. PW1/C (OSR)
4. Copy of electricity bill Mark A
5. Photographs Ex. PW1/D (colly 1 to
3)
6. Copy of police complaint Mark B
dated 01.07.2021
7. Copy of police complaint Ex. PW1/E (OSR)
dated 22.06.2021
8. Copy of SDM complaint Ex. PW1/F (OSR)
dated 05.07.2021
9. Copy of postal receipts for Ex. PW1/G (OSR) complaint made to MCD Office dated 25.08.2021
10. Copy of complaint made to Mark C Special Task Force dated 08.05.2021
11. Copy of complaint made to Mark D RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 9 of 32 MCD, Najafgarh, dated 27.04.2021
12. Copy of complaint to MCD, Mark E Dhansa Stand
8. PW-1 was cross examined on 23.11.2023. Thereafter plaintiff's evidence was closed on the statement of ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT
9. Before the Ld. Trial Court, Defendant had examined himself as DW-1 and has tendered his affidavit in evidence which is exhibited as Ex. DW1/1. The defendant, DW-1, in his evidence affidavit (Ex. DW1/1) reiterated the pleadings made in the written statement. DW-1 has also relied upon the following documents:
a. Site Plan of Raju Extension - Exhibited as Ex. DW1/2 b. Photographs of the common street showing the ramp of the Plaintiff - Exhibited as Ex. DW1/3 (Colly) DW-1 was cross examined on 18.12.2023. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the defendant recorded on 18.12.2023, defendant's evidence was closed.
JUDGMENT OF THE LD. TRIAL COURT
10. The finding and decision of the Ld. Trial Court is summarized below:RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 10 of 32
a. The Ld. Trial Court, after summarizing the pleadings and evidence of both parties, took up all the substantive issues (Issues I to IV) together for adjudication, finding them to be interconnected. The suit was dismissed in its entirety, with the judgment being primarily based on the conduct and admissions of the Plaintiff himself.
b. The cornerstone of the judgment is the equitable doctrine that "he who seeks equity must do equity." The ld. trial court gave paramount importance to the Plaintiff's admission during his cross-examination that he had constructed a ramp and stairs, 2-3 feet in length, in the very street that was the subject matter of the suit. The Ld. Trial Court reasoned that since the Plaintiff himself had encroached upon the street, he had not approached the court with "clean hands" and was therefore not entitled to the discretionary relief of an injunction against the Defendant for similar acts.
c. Furthermore, the Ld. Trial Court held that the Plaintiff had demolished his own case by admitting that the disputed street was a "public street" used by several other residents. The court observed that the Plaintiff's title document (Ex. PW-1/A), while mentioning the street, did not grant him any exclusive ownership over it. Based on this admission, the court concluded that the Plaintiff could not claim any special or exclusive easementary right over a public street and thus had no legal basis to object to the Defendant using it.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 11 of 32
d. Regarding the specific claims of nuisance, the court found them to be unsubstantiated for want of "cogent and convincing evidence." It was held that the Plaintiff failed to file any proof to show that the Defendant's chajja obstructed light and air. The court also noted that the Plaintiff's claim of hardship due to smoke from a bhatti was undermined by his own admission that no one in his family was suffering from any respiratory issues.
e. In view of these findings, the Ld. Trial Court concluded that the Plaintiff, being an encroacher on a public street himself, was not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction against the Defendant. The suit was accordingly dismissed, though no order as to costs was made.
APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT
11. The Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree on several grounds of fact and law, contending that the decision of the Ld. Trial Court is "patently illegal, perverse and incorrect" and suffers from grave legal infirmities. It is argued that the judgment is based on a complete non-consideration of the Appellant's evidence and a selective and flawed reading of the admissions on record. The detailed grounds are summarized as follows:RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 12 of 32
a. The primary thrust of the appeal is that the Ld. Trial Court committed a material error in its appreciation of evidence. The Plaintiff/Appellant contends that the court selectively fixated on certain statements made by him (PW-1) during cross-examination, particularly his layperson's description of the street as "public" and his admission of having a ramp, while completely ignoring the far more crucial and legally significant admissions made by the Respondent (DW-1) which went to the very root of the dispute. The Appellant has pointedly drawn this court's attention to the Respondent's own sworn testimony, where he admitted that:
- Prior to his reconstruction in 2021, his only entry and exit gate was on the 20-foot road to the east.
- His own property documents do not mention or grant any right over the 10-foot wide street on his southern side.
- The 10-foot street was, in fact, created by the original owner of the adjacent vacant plot specifically as a passage for the people who purchased the new plots, a category to which the Appellant belongs.
b. The Plaintiff/Appellant argues that these admissions by the Respondent demolish the entire defence and conclusively establish the Appellant's case, a fact which the Ld. Trial Court erroneously failed to consider.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 13 of 32
c. Building on this, the Plaintiff/Appellant strenuously argues that the Ld. Trial Court completely failed in its duty to adjudicate his substantive claim of easementary rights. It is contended that his rights are threefold: firstly, an easement of necessity under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, as the 10-foot street is his only means of ingress and egress; secondly, an easement by implied grant, which was created for his benefit at the very inception of the plotting scheme, a fact admitted by the Respondent; and thirdly, an easement by prescription under Section 15 of the Act, to continue receiving light and air without disturbance, having enjoyed the same since 2003. The Appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S. Kumar Vs Ramalingam AIR 2019 SC 3654 to argue that a right of passage granted in an ownership document is a strong, non-extinguishable right, and the Trial Court failed to appreciate this legal principle.
d. Furthermore, the Appellant challenges the Trial Court's application of the "unclean hands" doctrine as being perverse and legally unsustainable. He argues that the court created a false equivalence between his ramp and the Respondent's new constructions. It is his case that his ramp has existed since 2003 to service his one and only legitimate access point. In stark contrast, the Respondent's act was to create a completely new, unauthorized access where none had RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 14 of 32 existed for over 25 years, thereby fundamentally altering the status quo. The Appellant contends that to deny him relief on this flawed comparison, while ignoring the far graver transgression of the Respondent, amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
e. On these and other related grounds, the Appellant has prayed for the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 to be set aside and for his original suit to be decreed in his favour with costs.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT
12. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, though not having filed a written reply, has strenuously opposed the appeal during oral arguments. The submissions made to defend the impugned judgment are summarized as follows:
a. The primary contention on behalf of the Respondent is that the appeal is devoid of merit as the Appellant's suit was rightly dismissed on the basis of his own self-destructive admissions. It is argued that the Ld. Trial Court committed no error in law or fact and that its judgment is well-reasoned. The foundational principle that a plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case was correctly applied, and the Appellant's case collapsed under the weight of his own testimony.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 15 of 32
b. It was argued that the Trial Court committed no error in giving primacy to the Appellant's admission that the street is a "public street." This admission, it is contended, is fatal and conclusive. It fundamentally alters the nature of the suit, rendering the Appellant's entire claim of a private easementary right (whether of necessity or implied grant) legally untenable. The Respondent's counsel submitted that once the street's character was admitted to be public, the Trial Court was correct in holding that there was no private right left to be adjudicated, and therefore, it rightly did not delve into a detailed analysis of the law of private easements.
c. Learned counsel further supported the Trial Court's application of the "unclean hands" doctrine, arguing that it was neither perverse nor legally flawed. It was submitted that the Appellant, having admitted to encroaching upon a public street by constructing his own 2-3 feet long ramp, could not seek the equitable and discretionary relief of injunction. It was argued that the court cannot be expected to protect the interests of a litigant who is himself in breach of his civic duties regarding the very subject matter of the suit. The court rightly refused to condone one illegality while penalizing another.
d. In response to the grounds of appeal, the Respondent argued that the Appellant's reliance on the Respondent's admissions RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 16 of 32 is misplaced. Once the street is admitted to be public, the fact that the Respondent has no private documentary right to it is immaterial, as his right of access arises from his property abutting a public way. It was contended that the historical origin of the street does not prevent it from acquiring a public character over time, a fact which the Appellant himself has conceded.
e. Finally, it was urged that the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court represents a well-reasoned and plausible view of the facts and law before it. There is no perversity or manifest error in the findings that would warrant interference in the limited scope of an appeal. The Respondent accordingly prayed for the appeal to be dismissed with costs and for the impugned judgment and decree to be upheld.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
13. Based on the pleadings, evidence on record, the impugned judgment of the Ld. Trial Court, and the grounds of appeal, the following points of determination arise for adjudication by this Appellate Court:
a. Whether the Ld. Trial Court committed a material error in the appreciation of evidence by basing its findings exclusively on the admissions made by the Plaintiff (PW-1) while failing to consider the legal effect of the contrary and more crucial admissions made by the Defendant (DW-1) RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 17 of 32 regarding the historical non-existence of his southern gate and the absence of any right to the disputed street in his title documents?
b. Whether the Ld. Trial Court's application of the equitable "unclean hands" doctrine was perverse and legally unsustainable, by equating the Appellant's act of constructing a ramp for a pre-existing and legitimate access with the Respondent's act of creating a completely new, unauthorized access point where none existed for decades?
c. Whether the Ld. Trial Court erred in law by not adjudicating the Appellant's claim of an easementary right (of necessity and/or implied grant), particularly in light of the Respondent's own admission that the street was created by a third party for the specific benefit of the plots purchased by the Appellant and other similarly situated residents?
d. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 are contrary to the weight of the evidence on record, based on an incorrect application of law, and are therefore liable to be set aside?
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Point of Determination No. 1 - Whether the Ld. Trial Court committed a material error in the appreciation of evidence by RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 18 of 32 basing its findings exclusively on the admissions made by the Plaintiff (PW-1) while failing to consider the legal effect of the contrary and more crucial admissions made by the Defendant (DW-1) regarding the historical non-existence of his southern gate and the absence of any right to the disputed street in his title documents?
14. The primary grievance of the Appellant is that the Ld. Trial Court engaged in a selective appreciation of evidence, giving undue weight to the admissions of the Appellant (PW-1) while completely ignoring those made by the Respondent (DW-1). The Appellant contends that this selective approach has resulted in a perverse judgment.
15. It is a foundational principle of civil jurisprudence that the plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case. The burden of proof to establish the existence of a right and its infringement rests squarely upon the plaintiff who approaches the court. A plaintiff cannot seek to succeed based on the weaknesses, contradictions, or lacunae in the defendant's case if the plaintiff's own evidence fails to establish the very basis of his pleaded claim.
16. In the present case, the Appellant/Plaintiff pleaded his case on the specific premise that the 10-foot wide street was a passage over which he had a special, if not exclusive, right, essential for the enjoyment of his property. The entire suit for injunction was founded on the infringement of this private right. However, during his cross-examination, the Appellant (PW-1) RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 19 of 32 made two clear and unequivocal admissions against his own interest:
a. "It is correct that the said street is public street which is used by public for entry and exit purpose in their respective houses."
b. "It is correct that I have constructed a ramp and stairs in that street in front of my house which is 2 to 3 feet long."
17. The Ld. Trial Court has based its entire judgment on the legal effect of these two statements. This court must determine if that approach was a "material error." The admission that the street is a "public street" is not a minor or incidental statement; it strikes at the very heart of the Appellant's pleaded case. The moment the Appellant admits the passage is a public street, his claim transforms from one of protecting a private easementary right to a matter concerning rights on a public thoroughfare. A private claim of an easement of necessity or an implied grant cannot be sustained over a street that the claimant himself concedes is a "public street." The legal character of the right claimed is fundamentally altered by this admission.
18. Once the Appellant demolished the foundation of his own case, the admissions made by the Respondent (DW-1) must be viewed in this new context. While the Respondent did admit that his title deeds do not mention the street and that he had no prior gate, these facts become secondary. An owner of a property abutting a public street generally has a right of access to it. The fact RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 20 of 32 that the Respondent did not exercise this right for decades does not, in itself, extinguish it, especially when the nature of the street is admitted by the Appellant to be public. The Respondent's admissions about the origin of the street become a matter of historical fact, but the prevailing legal character of the street, as admitted by the Appellant himself, is what governs the present-day rights of the parties.
19. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court was not in error by identifying the Appellant's admission as the most dispositive piece of evidence on record. It correctly concluded that once the Appellant admitted the street to be public, his entire claim for an injunction based on a private or exclusive right became untenable. The court's failure to then elaborately discuss the Respondent's admissions cannot be termed a material error, because those admissions could not have resurrected a case that the Appellant himself had caused to fail. It was not a case of ignoring evidence, but of identifying the evidence that was fatal and conclusive to the suit.
20. An appellate court is generally slow to interfere with the trial court's appreciation of evidence, as the trial judge has the benefit of observing the demeanor of the witnesses. The Ld. Trial Court found the Appellant's own testimony to be the determinative factor. This is a plausible view based on a cardinal rule of evidence
--that a party's case is bound by its own admissions.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 21 of 3221. In light of this reasoning, this court holds that the Ld. Trial Court did not commit a material error warranting appellate interference. It based its decision on a clear and fatal admission by the Plaintiff which destroyed the very foundation of his plaint, rendering the alleged weaknesses in the Defendant's case irrelevant to the final outcome.
22. Therefore, this point of determination is decided in the negative and against the Appellant.
Point of Determination No. 2 - Whether the Ld. Trial Court's application of the equitable "unclean hands" doctrine was perverse and legally unsustainable, by equating the Appellant's act of constructing a ramp for a pre-existing and legitimate access with the Respondent's act of creating a completely new, unauthorized access point where none existed for decades?
23. The Appellant vehemently argues that the Ld. Trial Court created a false equivalence between his own conduct and that of the Respondent, thereby misapplying the "unclean hands"
doctrine. The contention is that the Appellant's ramp was for a long-standing, legitimate access, while the Respondent's new gate was an illegal usurpation of a right he never had.
24. The relief of injunction is purely equitable and discretionary. The doctrine "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands" is a fundamental tenet that governs the exercise of this discretion. It requires that a plaintiff seeking the court's aid RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 22 of 32 must not have engaged in inequitable conduct in relation to the very subject matter of the litigation.
25. The subject matter of the present suit, as defined by the Appellant's own admission in his cross-examination, is a "public street." The moment this character is assigned to the street, the legal lens through which the conduct of both parties must be viewed, changes. The dispute is no longer about private easementary rights between two individuals but about their respective actions concerning a public way.
26. The Appellant's admitted act is the construction of a "ramp and stairs...which is 2 to 3 feet long" in this public street. This is, by its very nature, an encroachment upon public land. The Appellant's justification in the cross examination that "everybody does the same" is not a defense recognized in law; rather, it is an admission of participation in a prevalent illegality. Therefore, when the Appellant approached the court, he was himself an admitted encroacher upon the public street.
27. The Ld. Trial Court was faced with a situation where a plaintiff, who is himself in breach of his civic duty by encroaching on a public street, seeks an injunction to restrain his neighbour in relation to the very same street. The Trial Court's reasoning that it cannot restrain the Respondent when the Appellant himself has committed a similar act is not perverse; on the contrary, it is rooted in the principle of equitable consistency. The law cannot be applied selectively. A court of equity cannot be seen to condone the RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 23 of 32 Appellant's existing encroachment while restraining the Respondent from a similar potential act.
28. The Appellant's attempt to distinguish between his "legitimate" access and the Respondent's "unauthorized" access is unconvincing in this context. Once the street is admitted to be "public," the right of access to it is generally available to all owners of abutting properties. The Respondent's act of opening a new gate is the creation of a new access point to a public way, which is not inherently illegal. The illegality, if any, arises from the encroachment onto that public way. In this regard, the Appellant is an admitted, existing violator.
29. The Ld. Trial Court did not create a false equivalence. It correctly identified the core misconduct as the act of encroachment on a public street. It rightly concluded that it would be inequitable to allow the Appellant, an admitted encroacher, to use the court as an instrument to prevent his neighbour from exercising similar, albeit new, rights of access. The doctrine of clean hands does not require a mathematical weighing of which party's conduct is "more" wrongful; it allows the court to refuse its aid to a litigant whose conduct in the matter is tainted by a similar illegality.
30. Therefore, the decision of the Ld. Trial Court to deny the discretionary relief of injunction based on the Appellant's own admitted conduct was a plausible and legally sustainable exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. It was not a perverse finding but a RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 24 of 32 principled refusal to lend its aid to a litigant who had not demonstrated that his own conduct with respect to the subject matter was beyond reproach.
31. This point of determination is accordingly decided in the negative and against the Appellant.
Point of Determination No. 3 - Whether the Ld. Trial Court erred in law by not adjudicating the Appellant's claim of an easementary right (of necessity and/or implied grant), particularly in light of the Respondent's own admission that the street was created by a third party for the specific benefit of the plots purchased by the Appellant and other similarly situated residents?
32. The crux of the Appellant's argument on this point is that the Ld. Trial Court abdicated its judicial duty by failing to analyze the substantial evidence on record that pointed towards the existence of a private easementary right in his favour. He contends that the court fixated on a single statement made by him, ignoring the larger context and the crucial admissions of the Respondent.
33. It is a cardinal principle of civil law, enshrined in Sections 101-103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who asserts its existence. The Appellant, having approached the court claiming the infringement of a private easementary right, bore the unequivocal burden of establishing the existence and nature of that right. A plaintiff's case RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 25 of 32 must stand on its own legs and cannot derive its strength from the weaknesses or lacunae in the defendant's case.
34. In this context, the role of admissions becomes paramount. As defined in Section 17 and given conclusive weight under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an admission is the most cogent piece of evidence against the party making it. A clear, unambiguous, and voluntary judicial admission made by a party under oath on a fact in issue can be considered as conclusive proof of that fact against him.
35. The Ld. Trial Court, in paragraph 9 of its judgment, has hinged its decision on the Appellant's own testimony during cross-examination. The Appellant (PW-1) stated in no uncertain terms: "It is correct that the said street is public street which is used by public for entry and exit purpose in their respective houses." This was not a standalone statement made in isolation. It was further buttressed by his admission that "There are five other houses, inhabitants of which are using the street."
36. The legal sequitur of such an admission is profound and dispositive. The law draws a clear and fundamental distinction between a private easement and a public right of way.
37. A private easement, as contemplated by the Indian Easements Act, 1882, involves a right which the owner of a dominant heritage possesses for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do something upon the land of a servient heritage (e.g., a RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 26 of 32 right of way). It is a private right vesting in a specific person or persons.
38. A public right of way, existing over a "public street,"
is a right belonging to the public at large. It is not dependent on the ownership of any dominant heritage. Such streets are typically vested in a public authority, and the rights thereupon are governed by public law (such as the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957) and not the private law of easements.
39. By his own admission, the Appellant took his claim out of the realm of private law and placed it squarely in the domain of public law. His assertion of a private easement (whether of necessity or implied grant) became legally irreconcilable with his own sworn testimony describing the street as "public." A court of law cannot adjudicate a claim for a private easement over a property which the claimant himself concedes is a public street. To do so would be to entertain a legal contradiction.
40. The Appellant argues that the court should have considered the Respondent's admission about the origin of the street. While the Respondent (DW-1) did admit that the street was historically created for a specific set of plot-holders, this historical fact cannot override the Appellant's conclusive admission as to the street's present legal character. The court is concerned with the rights of the parties as they exist today. The Appellant's own evidence established the present character of the street as "public,"
rendering the historical origin legally subordinate.RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 27 of 32
41. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court did not "fail" or "err" in its duty to adjudicate. On the contrary, it correctly identified that the Appellant's own evidence had rendered the issue of a private easement moot. Once the legal foundation of the claim was demolished by the claimant himself, there was nothing left for the court to adjudicate under that head. Proceeding to analyze the nuances of an implied grant or an easement of necessity would have been a futile academic exercise on a claim that was no longer legally tenable on the record.
42. The Ld. Trial Court rightly held the Appellant to his own solemn admission. It correctly concluded that since the street is public, the dispute must be viewed through that lens, where questions of private easements become irrelevant. The court's decision was a logical consequence of the evidence led by the Appellant himself.
43. For the foregoing reasons, this court finds no legal error or perversity in the Trial Court's approach. This point of determination is decided in the negative and against the Appellant.
Point of Determination No. 4 - Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 are contrary to the weight of the evidence on record, based on an incorrect application of law, and are therefore liable to be set aside?
44. This question requires the court to synthesize its findings on the preceding points and determine if the Ld. Trial Court's final decision warrants appellate interference. This court, RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 28 of 32 having adopted a view to test the resilience of the Trial Court's judgment, has already found in the negative on the specific grounds of challenge. This final point consolidates that reasoning.
45. The term "weight of evidence" does not imply a numerical counting of witnesses or documents in favour of one party over the other. It refers to the quality, credibility, and legal impact of the evidence when considered as a whole. An appellate court does not interfere with a trial court's finding merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted only when the trial court's view is found to be wholly untenable, perverse, or based on a clear misreading of evidence or misapplication of a settled legal principle.
46. This court has already concluded in its adjudication of the preceding points of determination:
a. That the Ld. Trial Court did not commit a material error by giving primacy to the Appellant's own fatal admission that the disputed street was a "public street." This admission, being conclusive against the maker, destroyed the very foundation of his pleaded case for a private easementary right. The court correctly recognized that the weaknesses in the Respondent's case could not be used to build a new case for the Appellant which he himself had demolished.
b. That the Ld. Trial Court's application of the "unclean hands"
doctrine was not perverse. Faced with a claimant who RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 29 of 32 admitted to encroaching upon a "public street," the court was well within its equitable discretion to refuse the relief of injunction against another person in relation to the very same public street. It is a sound and consistent application of equity to refuse aid to a party who is himself in breach of the duties he seeks to enforce.
c. That the Ld. Trial Court did not err in law by not delving into a detailed analysis of a private easementary right, as the claim had been rendered legally moot and untenable by the Appellant's own testimony.
47. When these findings are viewed together, a clear picture emerges. The Ld. Trial Court's judgment is based on a singular, powerful, and legally sound premise: a plaintiff who, by his own admission, destroys the factual and legal basis of his plaint cannot be granted relief. The entire edifice of the Appellant's suit was built on the claim of a private right over the 10-foot passage. The moment PW-1 admitted it was a "public street," that edifice collapsed.
48. The Ld. Trial Court rightly identified this as the central, dispositive issue. Its judgment is therefore not contrary to the weight of evidence; rather, it is founded upon the most weighty piece of evidence on record--a conclusive judicial admission against interest. The application of law flows logically from this finding of fact. If the street is public, then the legal framework of private easements is inapplicable, and the equitable considerations RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 30 of 32 for granting an injunction against a neighbour concerning a public way, especially when the plaintiff is himself an encroacher, tilt heavily against the plaintiff.
49. Therefore, this court finds that the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 are not perverse, are not based on an incorrect application of law, and are not contrary to the weight of the evidence on record. The judgment represents a plausible, reasoned, and legally defensible view based on the record as it stood before the Ld. Trial Court. No grounds for appellate interference have been made out.
50. This final point of determination is accordingly decided in the negative and against the Appellant.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
51. For the foregoing reasons, this court finds no merit in the present appeal.
52. The appeal is he reby dismissed.
53. The impugned judgment and decree dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-II, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, in Civil Suit No. 987/2021 titled "Inder Singh Vs. Pritam,"
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, is upheld.
54. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in the present appeal.
55. A decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 31 of 3256. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the Trial Court Record.
57. The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 30.06.2025 (Digitally signed and uploaded on 05.07.2025) Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.07.05 16:04:13 +0530 (SUMIT DALAL) DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 17/2024 Page 32 of 32