Delhi District Court
Manjeet Kaur vs Gurmeet Singh on 30 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE -02, WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Civ DJ no. 378/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-004238-2019
DLWT010042382019
1. Sh. Manjeet Kaur
W/o Sh. Amritpal Singh
2. Sh. Amritpal Singh
S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh
Both presently staying at
4076, 4th floor, Mahagun Mywoods,
Noida Extension, U.P.
.........Plaintiffs
Versus
Sh. Gurmeet Singh
S/o Sh. Narain Singh
R/o C-52, Hari Nagar,
Clock Tower, New Delhi-110064
Also at
CB-8, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower,
New Delhi-110064
......... Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 28.05.2019
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 03.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 30.07.2025
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 1 /47
SUIT UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT FOR
SEEKING POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY , DAMAGES
OF Rs. 30,000/- ALONG WITH FUTURE CHARGES @ 15000/-
PER MONTH AND Rs. 50,000/- TOWARDS COMPENSATION.
JUDGMENT
1) Vide this judgment, I shall decide, the present suit, filed by the plaintiff for seeking specific Relief Act for seeking possession of the property i.e. First floor with roof rights measuring 95 sq. yds i.e. (79.43 sq. meters) and roof right of third floor area ad-measuring 50 sq. yards i.e. (41.80 sq. meters) out of built-up property bearing Municipal No. CB-8, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi 110064 with common right to use the main entrance, passage and stairs fitted with electricity, water and sewerage connections in running conditions alongwith the proportionate share of the land underneath. (hereinafter referred as suit property). Plaintiff has also claimed damages of Rs. 30,000/- towards illegal/unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property by the defendant w.e.f. 08.04.2019 till filing of the present suit along with future charges @ Rs. 15000/- pm from the date of filing of the suit till actual handing over the physical possession of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff and to pass a decree in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs towards compensation on account of mental pain agony and financial losses.
2) The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that plaintiff no. 2 became the owner of the suit property vide G.P.A dated 19.10.1993 executed by his father Sh. Ranjeet Singh who Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 2 /47 resides in Mumbai and authorized him to sell the property as one of the many conditions and as such he became the owner of the suit property.
3) It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant in collusion and connivance with Sh. Joginder Kumar, proprietor of M/s Fitwell Properties, who had an evil eye upon the suit property as they wished to grab the same from the plaintiffs and further to construct a multi-storey building upon the suit property with the motive to earn huge amount of money. It is further averred that plaintiffs too wanted to sell the suit property as in the evening of their lives, they decided to reside with their only daughter at Noida after purchasing their own house in Noida from the sale proceeds of the suit property.
4) It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant alongwith Sh. Joginder Kumar visited the plaintiffs several times and shown his interest in purchasing the suit property. Accordingly, on 31.08.2018, terms of sale were settled between the plaintiff no. 2 and defendant, in the presence of aforesaid property dealer, who himself was instrumental in the deal between the parties. The format of receipt-cum agreement dated 31.08.2018 was filled up as per the terms settled between the parties and the plaintiff no. 2 had received Rs. 1,00,000/- in advance as an earnest money and the remaining amount of Rs. 56,00,000/- was to be paid by the defendant within a period of 120 days i.e. till 31.12.2018 and the sale deed was to be executed/ deal was to be completed by 31.12.2018.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 3 /47
5) It is further averred in the plaint that on 14.11.2018, the defendant conveyed the plaintiff no. 2 that he could not arrange the balance consideration amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- and showed his inability to pay the amount by 31.12.2018 and requested plaintiff no. 2 to grant him 20-25 days for arranging the funds/amount. Plaintiff no. 2 conceded the defendant's request and thereafter a new agreement dated 15.11.2018 was executed between the defendant and plaintiff no.2 which again witnessed by Sh. Joginder Kumar, the abovesaid property dealer, and it is agreed that sale deed was to be executed between the parties on 25.01.2019 only after making the full and final payment of remaining sale consideration by the defendant to plaintiff no. 2.
6) It is further averred by the plaintiff that on 17.11.2018, the defendant further paid Rs. 4 lakhs to the plaintiff no. 2 vide receipt prepared by defendant himself. It is further averred that in the last week of December, 2018, the defendant once again approached the plaintiff no. 2 and conveyed that he was getting problem, in sanctioning of loan from the banks as plaintiff no. 2 being GPA holder of the suit property. The defendant further suggested that a Gift Deed be executed in favour of plaintiff no.1 by plaintiff no. 2, then the problem would be solved as then plaintiff no. 1 would be the absolute owner of the suit property and the banks would have no objection in sanctioning him the loan against the suit property on the basis of Gift Deed.
7) It is further averred in the plaint that upon defendant's suggestion, the plaintiff no. 2 executed a Gift deed in favour of Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 4 /47 plaintiff no. 1 with the bonafide intention to accommodate the defendant for bank loan, which was duly registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar and the entire registration fee of Rs. 98,000/- was paid by the defendant himself. The said Gift Deed was executed on 09.01.2019, at the behest of the defendant.
8) It is further averred by the plaintiff that on 20.01.2019, the defendant once again conveyed the plaintiff no. 2, his inability for arrangements of the funds and further sought a period of 30 days for payment of the remaining sale consideration, the above said request was declined by plaintiff no. 2 as the plaintiff no. 2 was not intended to extend the time for payment of balance sale consideration amount and as such, he sent a legal notice dated 21.01.2019 whereby directed the defendant through his counsel Sh. A.S. Chaudhary, Advocate, to remain present at the office of concerned Sub-Registrar on 25.01.2019 alongwith the remaining consideration amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- for the payment as well as for the execution of the sale deed. The notice dated 21.01.2019 was duly served upon the defendant.
9) It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiff no. 2 had also received message on whats app from Sh. Joginder Kumar, property dealer wherein he acknowledged the receipt of the legal notice dated 21.01.2019 and defendant replied the said notice through said property dealer vide same message and assured the plaintiff no. 2 that he will be appearing on 25.01.2019 before the Sub-Registrar for the execution of sale deed and for payment of the remaining consideration amount.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 5 /47
10) It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs were present at the office of Sub-Registrar-II-B, Jankapuri, New Delhi on 25.01.2019 and they marked their presence in the office vide receipts no. 38590 and 38591, both dated 25.10.2019. It is further averred that though the defendant appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar, but neither showed any demand draft to the plaintiffs towards the remaining sale consideration amount nor shown his willingness and readiness in actually effecting the deal. It is further averred that the defendant had neither kept the papers ready for the execution of the sale deed nor purchased the requisite stamp duty of Rs. 3,40,000/-. Thereafter the plaintiffs returned from the office of Sub-Registrar without effecting the deal which caused a great mental trauma and pain to the plaintiffs as they were unable to understand the misdeeds and tactics of the defendant.
11) It is further averred in the plaint that plaintiffs shifted some of their household articles like luggage, bed sofa-set, LED TV to their daughter's house at Noida, Uttar Pradesh on 20.01.2019 (whereas other articles like utensils, almirah, fridge, chairs, table and other misc. goods of the plaintiffs are still lying in the suit property) as they were assured that remaining consideration amount would be paid by the defendant on 25.01.2019 at the time of execution of the sale deed and keys would then be handed over to the defendant after vacating the suit property on 25.01.2019.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 6 /47
12) It is further averred that on 28.01.2019, the plaintiffs have come to the suit property with a view to reside over there, however, on 02.02.2019, the defendant alongwith the abovesaid property dealer Sh. Joginder Kumar and four musclemen entered the staircase of the suit property. The defendant addressed the plaintiff no. 2 in un-parlimentary language and threatened him. Thereafter on the same day, the plaintiff no. 2 lodged a police complaint to this effect with DCP, West District, Police Headquarters, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 vide complaint no. 1264 dated 02.02.2019 and sent a legal notice dated 28.01.2019 to the defendant and the defendant gave its false and frivolous reply dated 31.01.2019. On 03.02.2019, the plaintiffs went to their daughter's house at Noida, U.P.
13) It is further averred in the plaint that on 16.02.2019, the plaintiff no. 1 came to visit the suit property alongwith her daughter Ms Naina for cleaning the house, all of sudden, the defendant and his family members arrived at the spot and tried to take forcible possession of the suit property but they could not succeed in their attempt but the defendant and his son left no stone unturned to give colour to their malafide intention. It is further averred that the defendant caused a blow on the breast of the plaintiff no. 1 and torn her cloths. His son abused the plaintiff no. 1 and her daughter in un-parliamentary language and passed some obscene gestures to the plaintiff no. 1. Tyres of their car were deflated by the defendant.
14) It is further averred that a call at 100 number was made, ASI Surendra Dutt came from P.S. Hari Nagar who was at ease Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 7 /47 with the defendant and his family members. The plaintiff no. 1 and her daughter were then taken to police station but in the police station, the plaintiff no. 1 and her daughter were made to wait for 7-8 hours. It is further averred that ASI Surendra Dutt came to them at about 8.30 P.M and threatened them to settle the matter with the defendant. The plaintiff no. 1 and her daughter got scared/worried and observed that police officials would not report the matter and as such they left the police station by 9:00 P.M and went to Nodia.
15) It is further averred in the plaint that on 05.03.2019, one of the neighbours of the plaintiffs, namely Mrs Manju called the plaintiff no. 1 telephonically and informed her at about 11.45 A.M that some unknown persons in the presence of Gurmeet Singh/defendant are trying to break the lock of the main door of the suit property and are trying to illegally enter the suit property, however, PCR was called but no action was taken by the local police officials.
16) It is further averred that due to some exigencies, plaintiffs could not come to visit the suit property on 05.03.2019 & 6.03.2019, and when on 07.03.2019, they visited the suit property, they were shocked to see that a new lock was there at the main door and they were unable to enter their own house. The plaintiffs went to P.S. Hari Nagar and filed a complaint dated 07.03.2019 vide DD No 39A. ASI, Suredra Dutt called the plaintiffs and defendant to the police station to settle their dispute amicably but the defendant said he did not want to settle the matter as there is nothing to settle as he has already taken Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 8 /47 the possession of the suit property in the manner, he wanted to have, furthermore, the defendant in front of plaintiffs and police officials Sh. Surendra Dutt admitted that the had broken and changed the locks of the house of the plaintiffs, despite this, no action was taken against the defendant and on the contrary the ASI Surendra Dutt remarked ' GOLI TO NAHI MARI KISI NE KABJA KAR LIYA TO KAR LIYA, KABJA DILANE KA KAM HAMARA NHI HAI". Thereafter, the plaintiffs lodged a complaint on 08.03.2019 with the P.S, Hari Nagar, Delhi vide reference no. 81700151900476.
17) It is further averred in the plaint that on 03.04.2019, the plaintiff no. 1 had given a complaint dated 03.04.2019 for seeking the police protection to change the lock on her premises as being its lawful owner and as such the plaintiff no. 1 opened the locks on 05.04.2019 by showing the title documents to the police officials and took the possession of the suit property by putting her own locks.
18) It is further averred in the plaint that on 08.04.2019 at about 10:00 A.M., the plaintiff no. 2 got the information telephonically that under the instructions of defendant, few labourers are bringing luggage and other household articles into the house of the plaintiff i.e. suit property by again breaking the locks of the suit property and trespassed into the suit property. The plaintiffs reached the spot and called the PCR at about 11 A.M but no action was taken against the defendant by police. On 10.04.2019, the plaintiff once again reached the P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi and compelled the police official that they will call Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 9 /47 media person, only then the FIR no. 0176/2019 U/s 447/448/34 IPC was lodged by the police officials on 10.04.2019 against the defendant, his son and son-in-law.
19) It is further averred that in the meantime, as the defendant and his associates were in a planning to take the forcible and unauthorized possession of the suit property, the plaintiff no. 2 filed a civil suit for injunction against the defendant, Sh. Joginder Singh, SHO, P.S. Hari Nagar, and ASI Surender Dutt on 22.02.2019 vide suit no. 351/2019, which is pending in the court of Sh. Pranav Joshi, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, however, since, the defendant had taken the possession of the suit property illegally, unlawfully & unauthorizely firstly on 05.03.2019 and ultimately on 08.04.2019, therefore, the said suit has become infructuous and plaintiff no. 2 will withdraw the same from the Hon'ble Court.
20) It is further averred in the plaint that defendant alongwith his family members has trespassed into the suit property without any permission or license of the plaintiff and occupying the suit property without making any payment for the use and occupation of the same. The defendant has been continuously requested by the plaintiffs to restore back the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs but the defendant did not pay any heed and due to which, plaintiffs are compelled to live on rental premises alongwith their daughter and compelled not to purchase a new house for them. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present for seeking relief of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, relief of damages towards Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 10 /47 illegal/unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property by the defendant, compensation towards mental pain, agony, trauma and financial losses and relief of permanent injunction against the defendant.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT, AS PER HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT:
21) After service of summons, the defendant appeared in the court and filed his written statement by taking preliminary objection that the present suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 of CPC as the defendant has already filed a civil suit no.123/2019 on 16.02.2019 for declaration, Specific performance, damages and permanent injunction against the plaintiff which is pending subjudice before the court of Ms Sugandha Aggarwal, Ld. ADJ, West. It is further contended that the matter in issue in this present suit is also directly and substantially in issued in the above mentioned suit filed by the defendant.
22) It is further contended that the present suit is not maintainable on law as well as on facts. Admittedly, the parties have entered into an Agreement to sell dated 15.11.2018 and the plaintiff has already received a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs from the defendant out of total sale consideration of Rs. 57 lakhs and handed over the possession of the property in question to defendant on 20.01.2019 and since then, the defendant is in possession of the same.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 11 /47
23) It is further contended that the the plaintiffs want to take advantage of their own wrongs. The plaintiff no. 1 is neither the owner of the suit property nor is in possession after 20.01.2019. It is further averred that the defendant has been put in possession of the suit property by the plaintiff no. 2 on 20.01.2019 in part performance of Agreement to sell dated 15.11.2019.
24) It is further contended that the present suit is without cause of action and plaintiff is guilty of concealment of true facts and the plaintiff has already handed over the possession of the suit property to the defendant, hence the suit is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC.
25) It is further contended that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that plaintiff no. 1 is neither necessary nor proper party to the present suit, since plaintiff no. 2 has already entered into an agreement to sell dated 15.11.2018 with the defendant for selling the suit property and the said agreement was in force till 25.01.2019, the Gift Deed dated 09.01.2019 executed by plaintiff no. 2 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 is void ab-initio and does not create any right in favour of plaintiff no. 1.
26) On merit, all the contents of the plaint are denied as wrong and the defendant reiterated the objections taken herein in above and prays that the suit may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice with cost.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 12 /47
27) Plaintiffs have filed replication to the above said written statement filed by defendant and they denied all the objections taken by the defendant and reiterated the contents of his plaint.
ISSUES
28) From the pleadings of the parties, following issues for adjudication have been framed on 22.08.2023:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act in respect of the suit property on the ground that she was forcibly dispossessed? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the defendant from 08.04.2019 till the actual handing over of the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the defendant on the ground of mental pain and agony?
4. Relief EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFFS.
29) On 01.04.2024, the plaintiff no. 2 examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW-1/A and reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the plaint. PW-1 has relied upon the following documents.
i).Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) : Copy of GPA dated 19.10.1993 in his favour.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 13 /47
ii). Ex.PW1/4: Site Plan.
iii). Ex. PW-1/5: The copy of receipt-cum-
agreement dated 31.08.2018. (document is exhibited being admitted by the defendant in his written statement).
iv).Ex.PW1/6:Copy of Agreement dated 15.11.2018. ( document is exhibited being admitted by the defendant in his written statement).
v).Ex.PW1/7 (OSR): Copy of Gift Deed dated 09.01.2019.
vi). Ex.PW1/8: Office copy of legal notice dated 21.01.2019.
vii).Ex.PW1/9 & 10: Whatsapp messages from Joginder Kumar alongwith certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. (objected to by ld. counsel for the defendant on ground of mode of proof).
viii) Mark A & Mark B: Copies of receipt no.
38590 and 38591 both dated 25.01.2019.
ix). Ex.PW1/13: Office copy of legal notice dated 28.01.2019.
x) Mark C: Copy of complaint dated
02.02.2019.
xi) Mark D (Colly) (six in number): Photo
copies of photographs with newspaper dated 05.02.2019.
xii) Mark E (Colly) (Sixteen in number):
Photo copies of photographs with newspaper dated 05.02.2019.
xiii)Mark F & G (Colly): Copies of Complaint dated 07.03.2019 and 08.03.2019.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 14 /47
xiv) Mark H : Copy of complaint dated 03.04.2019.
xv) Ex. PW-1/20: Copy of FIR No. 0176/2019 under section 447/448/34 IPC dated 10.04.2019 (Exhibited as the defendant admitted the same in his written statement.
Xvi) Mark I : Copy of PCR complaint
30) The plaintiff no. 2 has been duly cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant.
31) On 20.01.2025, the plaintiff no. 1 examined herself as PW-2 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW-2A and reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the plaint. PW-2 has relied upon the following documents:
i). Ex.PW2/1 & 2 : original complaint dated 02.02.2019 & 03.04.2019 to DCP, West ( already marked as Mark C & H in the testimony of PW-1).
ii). Ex.PW2/3: original newspaper "Hindustan Times" dated 16.02.2019.
iii). Ex.PW2/4 & 4:original newspaper "Navbharat Times" dated 05.02.2019.
(Abovesaid documents have been objected by Ld counsel for the defendant, on the ground of mode & manner of proof).
32) The plaintiff no. 1 has been duly cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the defendant.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 15 /47
33) Ms Chanjot Kaur, the daughter of plaintiffs appeared as PW-3 and she has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-3/A and supported the case of the plaintiffs. PW-3 has relied upon the following documents:
i). Ex.PW3/1 (Colly): Photographs dated 05.02.2019 and 16.02.2019.
ii).Ex.PW2/3 and PW-2/4: The newspaper dated 05.02.2019 and 16.02.2019, have already been exhibited in the testimony of PW-2, so, there is no need to re-exhibit the said newspaper as Ex. PW-3/2 & 3.
iii). Ex.PW3/4: Print out of text message regarding receiving information from PCR.
iv). Ex.PW3/5: Certificate under section 65-B of said printout of text message.
(Abovesaid documents have been objected by Ld counsel for the defendant, on the ground of mode & manner of proof).
PW-3 has been cross-examined on behalf of defendant.
34) Sh. Anil, Record Clerk from the office of SR-II B, Janakpuri has appeared as PW-4 and proved the slip No. 38590 & 38591, moved in the name of applicant Manjeet Kaur and Amritpal Singh on 25.01.2019. PW-4 further deposed that the entries mentioned in the computer system/DORIS and the certified copy of the relevant entries is Ex. PW-4/1 & Ex. PW- 4/2 respectively. PW-4 further deposed that the above said Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 16 /47 entries are duly attested by the Joint-Registrar, in his presence and he identified his signatures at point A.
35) ASI Lal Singh, from the P.S. South Campus has appeared as PW-5 and brought DD entry No. 39 A dated 07.03.2019 regarding complaint filed by Ms Manjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Amritpal Singh before the P.S. Hari Nagar. PW-5 has also brought the copy of charge sheet filed in FIR no. 0176/2019 in P.S. Hari Nagar, under section 447/448/34 IPC, same is signed by him at point A. PW-5 further deposed that he was the IO in the said matter and the above case is pending for trial in the court no. 355, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The original DD entry no. 39 is Ex. PW-5/1, copy of the charge sheet is Ex. PW-5/2.
36) Ms Florance Talbot, ASI Metro, 119, PS IG1A Metro appeared as PW-6 and brought the summoned record i.e. DD No. 38 dated 03.04.2019 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW-6/1.
37) Vide separate statement of ld. counsel for the plaintiffs, evidence on behalf of plaintiffs stands closed on 12.03.2025.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT
38) The defendant has examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A and he reiterated and re-affirmed the objections taken by him in his written statement. DW-1 has relied upon the following documents;
I) Ex. DW-1/1: Receipt of Rs. 6 lac.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 17 /47
ii) Mark A & B: Certified copies of the receipts. Iii) Mark C: Copy of his bank statement.
iv) Mark D & Mark E: Copies of True type transcript of the message sent to the plaintiff no. 2 on 22.01.2019 and 23.01.2019.
v) Ex. DW-1/2 (OSR): Stamp duty of Rs.
1,28,750/-.
vi) Ex. DW-1/3: Print out of acknowledgment slip dated 24.01.2019.
vii)Mark F: Copy of true typed transcript of message sent to the plaintiff no. 2 on 25.01.2019.
viii) Mark G and Mark H: Original cash receipt no. 38604 dated 25.01.2019 with his affidavit dated 25.01.2019.
ix) Mark I and J: Copies of two complaints
dated 28.01.2019.
x) Ex. PW1/DX-1: Copy of his reply dated
31.10.2019 ( the said document is already
exhibited in the testimony of PW-1).
xi) Mark K: Copy of suit bearing No. Civ DJ
No. 123/2019 titled" Gurmeet Singh Vs
Amritpal Singh" pending before this court.
xii) Ex. DW-1/4 to Ex. DW-1/8: Original photographs:
xiii) Ex. DW-1/9 ( Colly): Two Newspapers.
xiv Ex. DW-1/10: certificate under Section 63 BSA.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 18 /47 DW-1/Defendant has been duly cross-examined on behalf of ld. counsel for the plaintiffs.
39) DW-2 Sh. Jasminder Singh appeared as DW-2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-2/A and he supported the case of defendant and DW-2 relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex. DW2/1: Photograph of plaintiff no. 2
ii) Ex. DW-2/2: Certificate under Section 63 of BSA Act bearing his signatures at point X and Y DW-2 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of plaintiffs.
40) Sh. Manmohan Singh, appeared as DW-3 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-3/A and he supported the case of the defendant.
41) DW-3 has been duly cross-examined on behalf of ld.
counsel for the plaintiffs.
42) Ms. Neelam Pandey has appeared before the court as summoned witness/DW-4 and proved the authority letter issued by Chief Operating officer, Stock Holding Corporation and authority letter has been marked as Mark X. She also brought the print out of verification report in respect of e-stamp certificate bearing no. IN-DL-33243255192937R for Rs.128750/- issued in the name of Mrs. Manjeet Kaur as first party and Sh. Gurmeet Singh & Ors as second party, photocopy Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 19 /47 whereof is already Ex DW-1/2 (OSR) and the verification report has been exhibited as Mark Y. After that, DW-4 has been duly cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
43) Ms. Preeti Kumar, Senior Assistant Sub-Registrar-IIB, Janakpuri, has been appeared before the court as DW-5 and she proves the certified copies of acknowledgment slip regarding appointment in the office of sub-registrar and the same have been exhibited as Ex DW-5/A and Ex DW-5/B. She further deposed that the acknowledgment bearing no. ID no. 892319003133 used to be generated by the customer concerned. She further deposed that if the sale deed has been presented in the office of sub-registrar then the record would be made in the sub-registrar office but in our office, there is no record in respect of abovesaid Id. After that, DW-5 has been duly cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
44) Sh. Arjun Singh, Daftri, Canara bank has appeared before the court as summoned witness/DW-6 and proved the certified copy of bank statement bearing no. 3160101005706 of Sh. Gurmeet Singh for the period of 01.01.2019 to 31.01.2019 and the same has been exhibited as Ex DW-6/A. After that, DW-6 has been duly cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
45) Sh. Kamal, Ahlmad has appeared before the court as summoned witness/DW-7 and brought the summoned case file Civ DJ no. 123/19 titled "Gurmeet Singh Vs Amrit Pal Singh & Anr" and copy of the plaint of the said file has been exhibited as Ex DW-7/A and copy of agreement to sell dated 15.11.2018 Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 20 /47 along with its back side has been exhibited as Ex DW-7/B and Ex DW-7/B-1. Thereafter, DW-7 has been duly cross examined on behalf of the ld counsel for the plaintiff.
46) HC Vivek Kumar Sharma, has appeared before the court as summoned witness/DW-8 and stated that summoned record have been destroyed by the order of Asstt. Commissioner of Police dated 25.11.2024 and placed the photocopy of the said order along with details regarding weeding out of old record of PS Hari Nagar Delhi. As per the details, the old record up to 31.12.2020 has been destroyed and copy of order dated 25.11.2024 has been marked as Mark DW-8/A and details on the back of said order has been exhibited as Mark DW8/B. Thereafter, DW-8 has been duly cross examined on behalf of the ld counsel for the plaintiff.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
47) I have heard Ld counsel for the plaintiffs and ld counsel for defendant and have perused entire record, including pleadings, documents and testimonies of the witnesses recorded in court from both sides and written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as on behalf of the defendant along with supporting judgments have been duly considered while passing the judgment.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFFS.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 21 /47
48) It is submitted on behlaf of plaintiffs that the defendant and his witnesses admitted that no possession letter was given to the defendant by the plaintiffs, in any manner and the defendant also admitted that the defendant has not paid the full and final sale consideration amount to the plaintiffs so how it can be possible that without taking full and final consideration sale amount, the plaintiffs will give the possession of the suit property to the defendant. It is further submitted that the defendant was trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property since 05.03.2019 and at last the defendant trespassed the suit property on 08.04.2019 and regarding this a complaint was lodged on 08.04.2019 by the plaintiffs and FIR No. 176/2019 P.S U/s 447/448/34 IPC Hari Nagar was registered on 10.04.2019 against the defendant, his Son Sh. Jaswinder Singh and son in law i.e. Sh. Arjinder Singh.
49) It is further submitted on behlaf of plaintiffs that the defendant has filed a Civil Suit No. 123/2019 against the plaintiffs and in that suit, the Hon'ble Court issued the summons/notice to present plaintiffs and the same was served by the Bailiffs of the Hon'ble Court upon the plaintiffs on 25.02.2019, at the address i.e. CB-8, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi-110064. Hence, it is proved that the plaintiffs had the possession of the suit property on that date i.e. 25.02.2019.
50) It is further submitted on behlaf of plaintiffs that DW2 i.e. Sh. Jaswinder singh has admitted in his cross examination that the Police came on the suit property on 16.02.2019 which was called by the plaintiffs and the DW2 has identified the Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 22 /47 persons, who were present, at the spot, in the photographs produced by the plaintiffs, in Hon'ble court and it is also proved that the possession on the suit property was of plaintiffs till dated 08.04.2019 and after trespass on the suit property by the defendant, the plaintiffs immediately lodged complaint against the defendant, his son and his son in law, who forcefully dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit property on 08.04.2019 and the Police lodged FIR bearing No.-176/2019 U/S 447/448/34 of IPC against the defendant, his son and his son in law on 10.04.2019 and thereafter the plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendant for possession of the suit property.
51) It is further stated in the written submissions that the defendant's witnesses are not credible as they change their talks in the witness box and their own affidavits and their cross examination are different version on same facts and the witnesses of the defendant stated false and fabricated facts before the Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that because of this, the plaintiffs filed the perjury case against the defendant, DW2 and DW3 as perjury is the serious criminal offence, which can not be remedied and making false statement to the court has to invite adverse action and it is pertinent to mention here that the defendant and his son have edited massages and photographs for illegal motive and produced them before the Hon'ble court and for this also a perjury case will be filed against the defendant and his son.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 23 /47
52) It is further stated in the written submissions that charge Sheet has been filed in the FIR Case No-176/2019 before the Concerned Ld. JMFC, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and in this charge Sheet, statement of the Police's Witnesses, namely Smt. Manju, Smt. Kusum W/o Sh. Updesh R/o CB-8, 3rd Floor, Hari Nagar, Delhi and Sh. Gurjeet singh S/o Sh. Gurmeet Singh R/o C-186, Hari Nagar, New Delhi have been recoded U/S 161 of Cr.P.C and they stated that the defendant, his son and his son in law were keeping household articles in the house of the plaintiffs and the possession on that day was of plaintiffs. So, it is also proved that till dated 08.04.2019 the plaintiffs had the possession on the suit property and the defendant forcefully trespassed the suit property by breaking the lock of the suit property and regarding this a FIR no. 176/2019 U/s 447/448/34 of IPC PS Hari Nagar was lodged against the defendant & Ors by the concerned police officials and in said FIR case, the defendant/accused, his son and his son in law were granted bail and this FIR bearing no. 0176-2019 is pending for 27.08.2025 before Ms. Baharti Garg, JMFC, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and the said court also took cognizance of the incidents on 02.02.2019 and 16.02.2019 on the Protest Petition of the plaintiffs and the said protested petition has been converted into the Complaint case 3645/2020 which is pending for 30.08.2025.
53) It is further stated in the written statement that neither receipt cum agreement dated 31.08.2018 is registered and nor New Agreement dated 15.11.2018 is registered.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 24 /47
54) It is further stated in the written statement that it is proved that on 08.04.2019, the plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the suit property without their consent and without due process of law by the defendant.
55) It is further stated in the written statement that the cause of action to file the present suit arose 05.03.2019 when the one of the neighbors of the plaintiffs Mrs. Manju informed the plaintiff no.1 at about 11.45 AM that some unknown persons in the presence of the defendant are trying to break the lock of the main door of the suit property and trying to illegally enter the suit property. It further arose on 07.03.2019 when the plaintiffs visited the suit property and found that new locks have been put by the defendant, on the suit property and defendant took the possession of the suit property Illegally. unlawfully and unauthorized. It further arose when a complaint was lodged with P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi vide DD No.39A which was marked to ASI Surendra Dutt. It further arose when no action was taken by the ASI Surendra on the aforesaid complaint. It further arose when a complaint dated 08.03.2019 was made by the plaintiffs with SHO P.S. Hari Nagar, Delhi vide reference No.81700151900476. It further arose on 03.04.2019 when the plaintiff no.1 sought the police protection vide its complaint dated 03.04.2019. It further arose on 05.04.2019 when the plaintiff no.1 opened locks of the suit property lawfully, in the presence of police officials. It further arose on 08.04.2019 when the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant through his laborers were putting luggage in the suit property illegally and unauthorizedly. It further arose on 10.04.2019 when an FIR Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 25 /47 bearing No.176/2019 U/s 447/448/34 IPC was lodged against the defendant, his son and son-in-law. The cause of action arose on each and every date as and when the plaintiffs requested the defendant to restore back the possession of the suit property but to no avail, rather he threatened the plaintiffs for dire consequences. The cause of action is still continuing since the period of six months from dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property by the defendants herein has not been elapsed.
56) Ld counsel for plaintiffs has replied upon the judgment in a case titled Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs. and another, (2004) 1 SCC 769: 2003 Legal Eagle (SC) 1066, a three-Judge Bench of this Court.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT.
57) It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that from the bare perusal of the issues as framed in the present suit, it is clear that to succeed in their present case u/s 6 Specific Relief Act, the onus lies upon the plaintiffs to prove their forcible dispossession from the Suit property but the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove the same. It is further averred that the question of title or better title to the Suit Property is neither to be decided in the instant Suit nor it is to be considered in a Suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act as per settled law. It is further stated that needless to say, in proceedings U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court does not conduct a regular and Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 26 /47 elaborate trial but adopt summary Procedure and case to be decided on documentary evidenced and not an oral evidence.
58) It is further averred that in fact vacant physical possession of the suit property was voluntarily handed over by the plaintiff No. 2 in the presence of Plaintiff no. 1 on 20.01.2019 and the instant Suit as filed by the plaintiffs is false, fabricated and nothing but an afterthought and a counter-blast to the suit for Specific Performance which the defendant has already been filed on 15.02.2019 much prior to the filing of the present suit which has been filed on 27.05.2019.
59) It is further averred that the fact that the instant suit is a sheer fabrication and it is clear from the fact that the plaintiff no. 2 had already transferred ownership/title of the suit property in favour of plaintiff no. 1 by way of Gift Deed dated 09.01.2019 but in none of the above documents, the plaintiffs have disclosed the material fact.
60) It is further averred that falsehood of the plaintiffs case is apparent as the Complaint dated 02.02.2020 is made by the plaintiff no. 2 claiming himself to be owner of the suit property whereas the plaintiff no. 2 has already transferred the ownership/title of the suit property to the plaintiff no. 1 by way of Gift Deed dated 09.01.2019. Similarly the Notice dated 28.01.2019 ( Ex. PW-1/13) is also issued by the plaintiff no. 1 claiming himself to be the owner of Suit property.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 27 /47
61) It is further averred that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case of any forcible dispossession of the Suit property by defendant. It is settled law that " he who seeks equity must come with clean hands". It is submitted that the relief under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act is an equitable relief. However, in the instant case the plaintiffs have not come before this Hon'ble Court with any clean hand particularly as the plaintiffs have intentionally filed documents which are incomplete e.g. the plaintiffs themselves filed Agreement to Sell dated 15.11.2018 accompanied by an incomplete receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- signed by the plaintiff no. 2 without filing the back side of the said receipt.
62) It is further averred that from the above legal submissions it is thus clear that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their forcible dispossession from the Suit property by the defendant. Rather, the facts and circumstances supported by documentary evidence lead to an inescapable conclusion that vacant physical possession of the Suit property was voluntarily handed over to the defendant on 20.01.2019 by the plaintiff no. 2 in presence of plaintiff no. 1 voluntarily and out of their own volition and consent. As such there was no forcible or wrongful dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit property as claimed by them in the instant suit and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
63) Ld. counsel for the defendant has relied upon the following judgments:
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 28 /47
i) Sukhjeet Singh Vs Sirajunnisa (AIR 2001 Madhya Pradesh 59).
"Section 6 SR Act not attracted- Possession was given of total volition- Same does not come within embit of Section 6".
ii) The society of the Holistic Child Development India Vs. The Church of North India Synod- (2010) 167 DLT 216 "In proceedings U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court does not conduct a regular and elaborate trial but adopt a summary procedure. Case to be decided on documentary evidenced and not oral evidence".
iii) Ravinder Chaudhary Vs Kishan Kumar Pauchauri [2018 (171) DRJ 138]
64) " Plaint as filed U/s 6 of the SR Act prays for grant of other reliefs as well like decree for charges towards illegal/unauthorised use/occupation, decree of money towards compensation and decree towards future charges ( refer Pg. 81-82 of paper book), while no relief other than relief of possession maintainable in Section 6 suit".
iv) Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. vs Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan & Ors (2013) 9 SCC 221.
" Question of title or better right for possession does not arise for adjudication in a suit under provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act".
FINDINGS
65) My issues-wise findings are as under:
Issue no.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 29 /47 Act in respect of the suit property on the ground that she was forcibly dispossessed? OPP
66) The onus to prove issue no. 1 is upon the plaintiffs. In order to prove the said issue, the plaintiffs have examined six witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. Amritpal Singh ( plaintiff no. 2), PW-2 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur ( plaintiff no. 1), PW-3 Ms Chanjot Kaur ( daughter of plaintiffs), PW-4 Sh. Anil, Record Clerk, PW-5 ASI Lal Singh and PW-6 ASI Florance Talbot.
67) It is the admitted case of the parties that plaintiff no. 2 and defendant had agreed to sell & purchase the suit property for total sale consideration amount of Rs. 57 lakhs.
68) It is also admitted fact of the parties that the above said deal of sale & purchase of the suit property was finalized through Sh. Joginder Singh, Proprietor of M/s Fitwell Properties on 31.08.2018. It is also admitted fact of the parties that on that day, an amount of Rs. One lakh as an earnest money was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff no. 2. It is also admitted by the parties that the defendant and the plaintiff no. 2 had executed agreement to sell on 15.11.2018 and plaintiff no. 2 received an amount of Rs. 4 lacs from the defendant.
69) As per defendant, on 18/19.12.2018, he had paid further amount of Rs. 29 lacs to the plaintiff no. 2 against acknowledgment obtained on the back side of the receipt executed on 15.11.2018 and since plaintiff no. 2 has already received amount of Rs. 35 lacs from the defendant out of the Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 30 /47 total sale consideration amount of Rs. 57 lacs, the plaintiff no. 2 handed over keys of two rooms, kitchen and bathroom of the first floor of the suit property to the defendant on 20.01.2019.
The plaintiffs have disputed the above said facts and have denied the receiving of amount of Rs. 29 lacs from the defendant on 18/19.12.2018 and also denied the acknowledgment made on the back of the receipt dated 15.11.2018. The plaintiffs have also denied the handing over of possession of the suit property to the defendant on 20.01.2019.
70) As per plaintiffs, on 16.02.2019, the defendant and his family members tried to take forcible possession of the suit property but they could not be succeeded in their attempt and thereafter on 05.03.2019 they received information from the neighbours regarding attempt of defendant to break open the locks of the main gate of the suit property and thereafter 7.03.2019, when the plaintiffs came to the Suit property, they found the new locks at the main door and due to which they could not enter the suit property. Thereafter, plaintiffs opened the locks of the suit property on 5.04.2019 by showing title documents to the police.
71) The plaintiffs have alleged that on 8.4.2019, at about 10 A.M., plaintiff no. 2 got information regarding trespass in the suit property committed by the defendant by breaking open the locks and plaintiffs reached at the spot and made complaint to the police and thereafter an FIR NO. 016/2019 U/S 447/448/34 IPC was lodged against the defendant. The present suit has been filed seeking possession of the suit property from the Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 31 /47 defendant as defendant has forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit property on 08.04.2019.
72) The main question for determination in the present case is that whether plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property on 08.04.2019 and whether the defendant has forcibly dispossesed the plaintiff from the suit property on 08.04.2019.
73) For deciding the issue no. 1, this court deems it fit to discuss the law on the applicability of Section 6 of Sepcific Relief Act and relevant judgements are mentioned as under:
74) In a case titled "Balvinder Singh Vs Kamal Kishore, C.R.P. 86/2021, decided on 24.12.2021, Hon'ble High court of Delhi has discussed the purpose of Section 6 of Sepcific Relief Act and observed as under:
18. In the opinion of this Court, it is for cases like the one presently before this Court that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has been enacted. The purpose and import of section 6 is to give quick and immediate relief to any person who has been dispossessed. The limitation is also, therefore, fixed as six months from the dispossession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors. v.
Gulbahar Sheikh And Others, (2004) 4 SCC 664 has held that Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a provision to give immediate succour to the person who has been incorrectly dispossessed from the property which was under his possession. The Court observed as under:
"A proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession. Questions of title or better rights of possession does not arise for adjudication in a suit under Section 6 where the Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 32 /47 only issue required to be decided is as to whether the Plaintiff was in possession at any time six months prior to the date of filing of the suit. The legislative concern underlying Section 6 of the SR Act is to provide a quick remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the arena of law. The same is evident from the provisions of Section 6(3) which bars the remedy of an appeal or even a review against a decree passed in such a suit."
19. Furthermore, the intent of the legislature while enacting the said provision is also clear as no appeal from orders and decrees passed under Section 6 of the Act is provided. In view of the legislative bar placed by Section 6(3) of the Act no appeal/ review of the order/judgment can be entertained by this Court against the order passed by the Trial Court under section 6. This view finds support from Supreme Court decision in Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Ors. v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 221 wherein it has observed:
"A proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession. Questions of title or better rights of possession does not arise for adjudication in a suit under Section 6 where the only issue required to be decided is as to whether the Plaintiff was in possession at any time six months prior to the date of filing of the suit. The legislative concern underlying Section 6 of the SR Act is to provide a quick remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the arena of law. The same is evident from the provisions of Section 6(3) which bars the remedy of an appeal or even a review against a decree passed in such a suit."
75) In a case titled Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs. and another, (2004) 1 SCC 769: 2003 Legal Eagle (SC) 1066, the three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while discussing the Indian Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 33 /47 law on the applicability and scope of Section 6 of Specific Relief Act has observed as under:-
"8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner."
13. The crux of the matter is that a person who asserts possessory title over a particular property will have to show that he is under settled or established possession of the said property. But merely stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. Settled possession means such possession over the property which has existed for a sufficiently long period of time, and has been acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession does not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. Settled possession must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. There cannot be a straitjacket formula to determine settled possession. Occupation of a property by a Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 34 /47 person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual legal possession. The possession should contain an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
76) From the settled law, it is clear that in a suit for possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, question of title is irrelevant. In the present case, the plaintiffs have to prove that they were in possession of the suit property and were dispossessed without their consent and without due course of law by the defendant and they filed the presen suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, within 06 months from the date of their dispossession.
77) PW-1 has relied upon photocopies of photographs with Newspaper dated 05.02.2019 marked as Mark D (Colly) and Mark E (colly). Mark D and Mark E are the photocopies of photographs, therefore, these are not admissible in the evidence of PW-1, due to non production of original digital photographs with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
78) PW-2 has exhibited original complaint dated 02.02.2019 as Ex PW-2/1 and original complaint dated 03.04.2019 as Ex PW-2/2. Ld counsel for defendant has objected the exhibition of both complaints on the ground of mode and manner of proof. Both complaints have been brought in original in the court. Ex PW-2/1 has been given by Plaintiff no. 2 and Ex PW-2/2 was given by plaintiff no. 1. So, the objection of Ld counsel for defendant stands over-ruled as these complaints have been validly exhibited.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 35 /47
79) PW-2 further deposed that original Newspaper "Hindustan Times" dated 16.02.2019 as Ex PW-2/3 and original Newspaper "Navbharat Times" dated 05.02.2019 as Ex PW2/4. Ld counsel for the defendant has objected the said exhibits i.e. both Newspapers, on the ground of mode and manner of proof. Both Newspapers are original, so, the objection of Ld counsel for the defendant stands over-ruled as these have been validly exhibited. The abovesaid newspapers have been filed just to prove the date of publication of said newspapers and not the contents of the newspapers.
80) PW-3 has exhibited photographs dated 05.02.2019 and 16.02.2019 as Ex PW-3/1 (colly). Ld counsel for defendant has taken objection regarding their exhibits, on ground of mode and manner of proof. These photographs are digital photographs and not accompanied with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, so, these photographs are inadmissible in evidence. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in a case titled " Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gornatyal, AIR 2020, Hon'ble Supreme Court, 4908.
81) PW-3 has exhibited the print out of text messages regarding receiving information from PCR as Ex PW-3/4 and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of above print out message as Ex PW-3/5. I have perused the certificate Ex PW-3/5. This certificate does not fulfill the requirement of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. No detail Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 36 /47 and description of electronic devices used in taking the print out of PCR message have been mentioned and even name of cyber cafe owner/manager has also not been mentioned, so, it is not proper and valid certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, Ex PW-3/4 is inadmissible in evidence.
82) Plaintiff no. 2/PW-1 has deposed in his examination in chief that he became the owner of the suit property vide GPA dated 19.10.1993, executed by his father Sh. Ranjeet Singh in his favour. PW-1 further deposed that the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the suit property till 05.03.2019.
83) PW-1 further deposed in his examination in chief that on 20.01.2019, plaintiff shifted some of their house hold articles to their daughter's house to Noida as they were assured that balance sale consideration amount would be paid on 25.10.2019, at the time of execution of sale deed. PW-1 further deposed that on 28.01.2019 they came to the suit property with a view to reside there. He further deposed that on 02.02.2019, defendant alongwith property dealer Sh. Joginder and four musclemen entered the staircase of the suit property and used unparliamentary language against the plaintiffs and also threatened them.
84) PW-1 further deposed that on 5.3.2019 at about 11.45 A.M. one of his neighbours namely Mrs Manju telephonically informed him that some unknown persons, in the presence of defendant are trying to illegally entered the suit property by breaking the locks of the main door of the suit property. PW-1 Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 37 /47 further deposed that PCR was called but no action was taken by the local police officials against the defendant. PW-1 further deposed that on 5.3.2019 and 6.3.2019, he could not come to the property due to some exigencies but when he alongwith his wife came to the suit property on 07.03.2019, they were shocked to see that the new locks were affixed at the main door of the suit property and they were unable to enter their own house. Thereafter plaintiffs lodged complaint with the P.S. Hari Nagar on 08.03.2019.
85) PW-1 further deposed that on 3.4.2019, plaintiff no. 1 gave a complaint dated 3.04.2019 to the police for seeking police protection to change the lock of the suit property and thereafter on 5.4.2019, plaintiff no. 1 opened the locks of the suit property by showing title documents to the police and took the possession of the suit property by putting her own lock. PW- 2 also deposed on the same lines in her examination in chief. No eye witness has been examined by the plaintiffs to prove that they had opened the locks of the suit property on 03.04.2019 and had taken the possession of suit property on 03.04.2019. Even none of the police official in whose presence, the locks were opened and possession of the suit property was taken by the plaintiffs by showing the title documents, has been examined. There is no evidence on record regarding the above said fact except the bald statements of plaintiffs.
86) PW-1 has deposed in his affidavit that on 08.04.2019 at about 10.00 Am, the plaintiff no. 2 got the information telephonically that under the instructions of defendant few Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 38 /47 labours are bringing luggage and other household articles into the house of the plaintiffs i.e. the suit property by again, breaking the locks of the suit property and trespassed into the suit property. The plaintiffs reached the spot and called the PCR at about 11 Am. It is further deposed that the police officials came and stood there as mut spectators by not taking any action against the defendant and upon inquiry by the police, the labours pointed out that they were hired by Gurmeet Singh i.e. Defendant, still the police personnel did not take any action on 08.04.2019. PW-1 further deposed that feeling aggrieved by the illegal act of the defendant, the plaintiffs on 10.04.2019 once again reached the PS Hari Nagar, Delhi and requested the cops to take action on their complaint filed on 08.04.2019. PW-1 further deposed that the plaintiffs had also stated to the police officials that if they would not take any action against the illegal act of the defendant, they will be compelled to call media person, then only the FIR no 0176/2016 u/s 447/448/34 IPC was lodged by the police officials against the defendant, his son and son-in-law on 10.04.2019 .
87) During cross examination, PW-1 has deposed that he does not remember as from whom he had received the telephonic information on 08.04.2019 that few labours were bringing luggage and other household articles into the suit property, on the instruction of the defendant. PW-1 further deposed that he does not know from which mobile number, he had received the said information.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 39 /47
88) PW-2 has deposed in her cross examination that she does not remember the name of the person, who intimated them regarding opening of the locks by the defendant and the labours are keeping the goods in the suit property. she, voluntarily, deposed that they called the PCR and the PCR officials took the defendant to police station. PW-2 further deposed that her daughter had called at 100 number on that day but she does not remember her mobile number from which the call was made.
89) Plaintiffs themselves have not seen the defendant committing trespass into the suit property by breaking open the locks of suit property on 05.03.2019 and 08.04.2019. As per plaintiffs, it was Ms. Manju, who telephonically informed them about the incident dated 05.03.2019 of defendant trying to illegally entered into the suit property by breaking locks of the main door of suit property. The plaintiffs have not examined Ms. Manju as witness in the present case for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not examined any neighbours or other eye witness of incident dated 05.03.2019. Even, no PCR official, who attended the PCR call on 05.03.2019 has been examined by the plaintiffs. There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that on 05.03.2019, the defendant has committed trespass into suit property by breaking its locks on 05.03.2019.
90) Both plaintiffs have not disclosed the name of the person, who informed them about incident dated 08.04.2019. The plaintiffs have not examined that person, who gave information of incident dated 08.04.2019 as witness in the court. No eye-
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 40 /47 witness/neighbour of the suit property has been examined by the plaintiffs to prove incident dated 08.04.2019. No PCR official, who reached at the spot on 08.04.2019, has been examined by the plaintiffs.
91) The defendant/DW-1 has deposed, in his examination-in- chief that after receiving the aforesaid amount, the plaintiff no. 2 had approached him on 20.01.2019 and handed over the vacant possession of the suit property to him after removing most of their household articles except some damaged/broken articles. DW-1 further deposed in his examination-in-chief that since 20.01.2019, he is in exclusive possession of the suit property after the plaintiffs, voluntarily, handed over its vacant possession to him.
92) DW-2 has deposed, in his examination-in-chief that after receiving the aforesaid amount, the plaintiff no. 2 had approached his father on 20.01.2019 and handed over the vacant possession of the suit property to his father after removing most of their household articles except some damaged/broken articles.
93) DW-3 has deposed, in his examination-in-chief that the plaintiffs had, voluntarily, handed over vacant possession of the suit property on 20.01.2019 to the defendant after removing most of their household articles except some damaged/broken articles, in his presence while Sh. Jaswinder Singh, (son of the defendant), Sh. Arvinder Singh (son-in-law of the defendant), Sh. Inderpal Singh were also present there.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 41 /47
94) DW-3 has further deposed, in his examination-in-chief that after, voluntarily, handing over vacant possession of the suit property on 20.01.2019, the suit property always remained under exclusive occupation and possession and under lock and keys of the defendants.
95) During cross examination, DW-3 has deposed as follows:
On 20.01.2019 I was at my home in Delhi. On that day I had met Sh. Gurmeet Singh at CB/8, Clock Tower, Hari Nagar where the Sh. Gurmeet Singh had to take possession of the said property. I reached there at about 12:00 Noon. The possession of the said property was handed over to Sh. Gurmeet Singh in my presence. I myself went there on that day. I was not called by Sh. Gurmeet Singh. No document was prepared regarding handing over of the possession of the said property in my presence on that day. At that time Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Sh. Jasminder Singh, Sh. Arvinder Singh, Sh. Inderpal Singh and Sh. Joginder Singh of Fitwell Properties were present there. Sh. Amrit Pal and his wife were also present there at that time. No one has told me regarding handing over of the possession of the above said property. Sh. Amrit Pal Singh handed over the key of the said property to Sh. Gurmeet Singh at that time for giving possession of the said property to him. I do not know how many keys were handed over to Sh. Gurmeet Singh. Some broken articles were taken by the plaintiffs from the suit property while giving possession of the same to Sh. Gurmeet Singh in my presence at about 5 or 5.30 P.M on that day. I was present there from 4 P.M. to 5 P.M.
96) Plaintiff no. 2/PW-1 has also deposed that on 20.01.2019, they shifted some of the household articles to their daughter's house to Noida. The testimony of DW-1 to DW-3 is corroborated by the testimony of PW-1 regarding removing of Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 42 /47 some of the household articles by the plaintiffs from the suit property.
97) No suggestion in denial of abovesaid fact of voluntarily handing over the possession of the suit property by plaintiff no.
2 to defendant on 20.01.2019 has been given to DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. The testimony of DW-1 to DW-3 have remained unrebutted and unchallenged on the abovesaid fact.
98) DW-1 has deposed in his examination in chief that he replied legal notice dated 28.01.2019 sent by the plaintiff by sending reply dated 31.01.2019. He further deposed that in the reply dated 31.01.2019, he refuting the patently false and fabricated claims of the plaintiffs and narrating all the true and correct facts and circumstances right from initiation of sale transaction of the suit property by the plaintiff no. 2 with the DW-1 till intentional and deliberate failure of the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed despite having already voluntarily handed over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property in part performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.11.2018 after receiving more than 60% of the payment i.e. Rs. 35 lacs out of the total agreed consideration of Rs. 57 lacs. DW-1 has relied upon the copy of reply dated 31.01.2019 already exhibited as Ex PW-1/DX-1, in the testimony of PW-1.
99) During cross examination, PW-1/plaintiff no. 2 has admitted the receiving of reply dated 31.01.2019 from the defendant in respect of his legal notice dated 28.01.2019 and the copy of the reply of legal notice is exhibited as Ex PW-1/DX-1.
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 43 /47
100) From the testimony of witnesses, it is proved that reply dated 31.01.2019 of legal notice dated 28.01.2019 has been received by the plaintiff. No reply or rejoinder of the said reply dated 31.01.2019 was given by the plaintiff. No explanation has been tendered by the plaintiffs for not giving the reply of the said reply dated 31.01.2019 despite knowing the fact that the defendant is claiming the taking of possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs with their consent on 20.01.2019. The fact of not giving reply/rejoinder of the reply dated 31.01.2019 despite approaching the advocate for legal assistance, raises adverse inference against the plaintiffs regarding their version of not voluntarily giving possession of the suit property to the defendant on 20.01.2019. It is also improbable that a person without taking possession of property, would write in the reply that he has taken the possession of the property.
101) Merely registration of FIR and filing of charge-sheet against the defendant for offence of committing trespass into the suit property do not mean that offence of trespass under Section 447/448/34 IPC has been proved against the defendant. It is cardinal principal of criminal law that accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent till he is proved guilty.
102) I have perused the FIR no. 176/2019, Ex PW-1/20 and charge-sheet Ex PW-5/2, filed in the abovesaid FIR. The FIR and charge-sheet have been filed against the defendant, his son and son in law whereas the present suit has been filed only Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 44 /47 against defendant, his son and his son in law have not been made party in the present case. In the FIR, it is mentioned that on 08.04.2019 at around 10.00 Am, our neighbour Manju informed us by telephonically that Gurmeet singh, his son and his son in law has again trespassed our property again or carry out some illegal activities and they are not transferring household items to our house. Whereas PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed in their examination in chief that on 08.04.2019 at about 10.00 Am, the plaintiff no. 2 got the information telephonically that under the instructions of defendant, few labourers are bringing luggage and other household articles into the house of the plaintiffs i.e. the suit property by again breaking the locks of the suit property and trespassed into the suit property.
103) The plaintiffs has not mentioned in their evidence regarding trespass committed by son and his son in law of defendant along with the defendant on 08.04.2019. This is material contradiction in the version of FIR and statements of PW-1 & PW-2, which raises doubt upon the credibility of their testimony specifically in the absence of examination of any eye witness of the incident.
104) Ld counsel for the plaintiffs have argued that summons in the connected suit, have been served upon the defendants, who are plaintiffs, in the present case, at the address of the suit property on 25.02.2019. I have seen photocopy of summons of plaintiff issued in the connected suit, which have been filed by the plaintiffs. As per report of the process server, the Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 45 /47 defendants, who are plaintiffs in the present case, did not meet him at the given address of suit property. The process server has mentioned that the door of first floor was found locked and the person, at the ground floor, told to the process server that the first floor is locked since many days and residents have gone to unknown place and he does not know when they will return. So, the abovesaid contention, Ld counsel for the plaintiffs is not valid.
105) In view of foregoing discussions, it is held that plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have been forcibly dispossessed from suit property by the defendant, rather on the balance of probabilities, defendant is succeeded in proving that the plaintiffs have, voluntarily handed over the possession of suit property to the defendant on 20.01.2019. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2 & 3.
Issues no. 2:Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the defendant from 08.04.2019 till the actual handing over of the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff? OPP & Issue No. 3. :Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the defendant on the ground of mental pain and agony?
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 46 /47
106) It is settled law that in a suit filed unde Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, no relief except relief of possession can be added or given. Reliance is also placed upon judgement of Hon'ble High court of Delhi, passed in a case titled Qayamaddin Vs Jamil-Ud-din (2013), 201 DLT 758. Moreover, it is already held above in issue no. 1 that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have been dispossessed by the defendant from the suit property, so, the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain the decree of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the defendant from 08.04.2019 till handing over possession of suit property. Plaintffs are also not entitled to obtain compensation of Rs. 5 lacs from the defendant on the ground that mental pain and agony. In view of the abovesaid observation and findings on issue no. 1 against the plaintiffs, the issue no. 2 and issue no. 3 are also decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant.
RELIEF
107) In view of findings of issue no. 1 to 3, it is held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the reliefs, therefore, the present suit stands dismissed with cost.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court (SHIV KUMAR) Digitally
signed by
today on 30.07.2025 DJ-02, West Distt.Tis Hazari
SHIV SHIV KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.07.30
16:49:17
courts Delhi
+0530
Civ DJ no. 378-2019 Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Gurmeet Singh page no. 47 /47