Delhi District Court
Dalip Verma vs Harjeet Singh on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV SHARMA
JSCC-CUM-ASCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS/DELHI
CNR No. DLNW030002962013
CS SCJ No. 222/2013 59261/2016
Sh. Dalip Verma
S/o Lt. Sh. Brij Mohan Verma
R/o Mb-140, Sakarpur, Delhi
......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Harjeet Singh
S/o Megharam
R/o F-6/342-43, Sultanpur
Delhi.
2. Sh. Ram Singh
S/o Megharam
R/o F-6/342-43, Sultanpur
Delhi.
3. Sh. Mahender Singh
S/o Mange Ram
R/o B-18, Yadav Park,
Kamrudin Nagar, Rohtak Road,
Nangloi, Delhi.
4. Sub Registrar VI-D
Kanjawal, Delhi-81,
Near Police Station
....Defendants
CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 1/28
Date of Institution : 08.03.2013
Judgment reserved on : 02.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on : 30.03.2026
JUDGMENT
30.03.2026
1. Suit Dismissed.
2. The plaintiff has not been able to justify the correctness of his claims, in law. As such therefore, the plaintiff case is seen to be lacking merit. In view of the same, he is not held entitled to the relief sought.
3. It is noted that initially, the suit filed was for simplicitor injunction. Through amendment application filed later however, it was converted into one seeking declaratory reliefs as well, apart from that for injunction. Facts stated in such amended plaint shall therefore be referred in the succeeding part of the judgment wherever required, unless stated otherwise explicitly.
4. Pithily put, the case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of property bearing no. 85-B measuring 50 Sq. Yds., situated in the area of village Madan Pur Dabas Abadi Known as Bhagya Vihar, Delhi through registered GPA, Will dated 15.02.2000, Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Affidavit of one Sh. Mahender Singh / defendant no. 3. It is averred that the above said property was purchased in installments from Sh.
CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 2/28 Mahender Singh, a dealer / colonizer of Bhagya Vihar, Delhi and the payments were duly received by defendant no. 3 & associates. It is further averred that the Bhagya Vihar Colony had only one gate of entrance and exit, and at the time of plotting it had plots numbered 1 to 113 of 200 Sq. Yds each but later the colonizer / dealer divided them into four plots of 50 Sq. Yds. for convenience. It is stated that after completing the installment payments, Mahender Singh handed over the possession of above said plot to the plaintiff, which falls in Gali no. 4 and is the only plot in the whole colony. It is further stated that about one and a half years ago, plaintiff's father constructed the neev of the said property, raised the front wall up to 4 feet, installed an iron gate and thereafter, locked the property. As per the plaintiff, he had been continuously visiting the property from the date of its purchase, but due to the illness of his father and certain unavoidable circumstances, he could not visit the property for the last four to five months. Thereafter, when the plaintiff visited the property on 10.01.2013, he was shocked to learn from the residents of the colony that one Sh. Harjeet / defendant no. 1, in collusion with the property dealer / colonizer, was attempting to take illegal possession of the property. Considering the circumstances being as such, the plaintiff met the defendants and apprised them that he is the absolute owner of the property, however, the defendants paid no need and instead, quarreled with the plaintiff, and extended threats to grab and take over possession of the property. It is further contended by the plaintiff that he came to know from the written statement filed by defendant no. 1 CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 3/28 that Sh. Ram Singh / defendant no. 2, brother of defendant no. 1, is claiming himself to be the owner of the said property, but the documents and site plan filed alongwith the written statement by defendant no. 1 shows that the documents filed by defendant no. 2 are neither concerned with the suit property nor do they pertain to the plot which falls in Gali No. 4 of the colony, therefore, the alleged documents are false, fake, forged and fabricated. Accordingly, the defendants, in collusion with each other, are attempting to grab the suit property of the plaintiff on the basis of these false and fabricated documents and the claim of defendant no. 2 is baseless and infructuous, since he had never been in possession of the suit property. Moreover, defendant no. 1 intentionally and deliberately didn't file the complete chain of documents along with the written statement and took advantage of the fact that the plaintiff resides far away from the suit property. It is further submitted that upon enquiry from the adjacent plot owners of plot nos. 85A, 86 and 87, the plaintiff came to know that all the said plots, including plot no. 85-B (50 Sq. Yds.), fall in Khasra No. 41/16, and the Khasra Number incorrectly mentioned in the plaintiff's documents is due to an error caused by defendant no. 3 in connivance with the officials of defendant no. 4. It is also claimed that defendant no. 3 had admitted in his written statement to the unamended suit, about the sale and handing over possession of the said property. As such therefore, the plaintiff exhausted all available remedies against the defendants and left with no CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 4/28 other solution, filed the present suit. In the amended plaint, following reliefs were sought:
a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring the plaintiff exclusive owner of the property bearing no. 85 B measuring 50 Sq direction East-road, West-other plot, North-other's plot an South- other's plot situated in area of village Madan Pur Dabas Delhi Abadi known as Bhagya Vihar And;
Also declare the alleged documents GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and deed of will all executed on 02.03.2012 by Satish Kumar in favour of the defendant no. 2 as null, void, non operative, not binding upon the title of the plaintiff and consequentially cancelled.
b) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 4 thereby directing the defendants to put right the Khasra no. 41/16 instead of khasra no. 42/20 in all the ownership documents of plot 85B measuring 50 sq. Yds. Direction East- road, West-other plot, North- other's plot an South- other's plot situated in area of village Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi Abadi Known as Bhagya Vihar which was executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff on 15.02.2000.
c) Pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants thereby jointly and severally restraining and directing of the defendants, their agents servants, family members, legal heirs, successors. Employee, administration assigns etc not to create any CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 5/28 hindrance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and not do any act or deed or thing which infringes the right of the plaintiff to use the above said property, in any manner as he may so desire.
d) Cost of the suit may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
5. WS came to be filed by defendants no. 1 & 2 to both unamended & amended plaints. Defendant no. 3 filed WS only qua unamended suit with defendant no. 4 filing no document altogether by contending that they had nothing to do with the present matter. In the WS filed by defendants no. 1 and 2, it is claimed that the plaintiff version was completely false. It is averred by the defendants that the amended plaint is not maintainable as the same had been filed beyond the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and gave a different version of facts which was not part of the amendment application. It is further argued that the amended plaint is against the spirit of the original suit as the plaintiff initially relied on a registered GPA showing Khasra No. 42/20 in Village Madanpur Dabas, Delhi, abadi known as Bhagya Vihar, Delhi, having road in east side and other plots on other sides, but in the amended suit filed, the plaintiff had diverted the actual cause by alleging Khasra Number being 41/16, making its case suspicious and unreasonable. Further, it is also stated that under the garb of a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff was seeking a decree of possession as well as declaration without paying the appropriate court fee. As per the defendants, the CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 6/28 property out of Khasra No. 41/15, Plot No. 85-B in Village Madanpur Dabas, Bhagya Vihar, Delhi, is in the name of defendant no. 2, Ram Singh, who purchased it through proper documents and is in exclusive possession, having constructed a boundary wall thereon. Moreover, the defendants also claimed that they had submitted a correct site plan prepared by the RWA showing the status of properties in Bhagya Vihar Phase-III, Madanpur Dabas, Delhi, which falsify the allegations made by the plaintiff. Further, as per the defendants, the plaintiff had submitted an improper site plan, whereas, the defendants had provided a sketch of the property (part of Khasra No. 41/15, Plot No. 85-B) along with documents of nearby property owners. It is further claimed that the property was purchased by Defendant No. 2 and complete chain of documents had already been filed on record, through which he came into possession. In this regard, photographs alongwith documents have also been filed on record. It is further submitted that the plaintiff's suit is barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, as the plaintiff had no personal interest in the property and sought to show wrong number of the property by the amended suit filed on record. Further, the defendants argued that the plaintiff is diverting the actual issue by changing the Khasra No., whereas he admittedly purchased the property out of Khasra No. 42/20, Village Madanpur Dabas adadi known as Bhagya Vihar, which is entirely distinct from the property of defendant No. 2 situated in Khasra No. 41/15, and such conduct is misleading and barred by the principle of estoppel. It is CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 7/28 further submitted that the plaintiff's claim is barred by law of limitation, as his documents are of the year 2000 and any objection should have been raised within three years. Moreover, defendant no. 1 filed the written statement on 29.04.2013, and by the next date of hearing i.e. 05.07.2013, all relevant facts had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff, who thereafter remained silent for a long period and filed the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 after more than 03 years, i.e. in September 2016, making it barred by Limitation. With such submissions, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. In the replication filed, all arguments of the defendants no. 1 and 2 were denied.
7. Upon pleadings being complete, issues for determination were framed by the court vide order dated 22.10.2018 as herein below :-
I) Whether the address of the suit property is property bearing no. 85-B, measuring 50 Sq. Yds. In Khasra No. 41/16, Village Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi area known as Bhagya Vihar or is property bearing no. 85-B, measuring 50 Sq. Yds. in Khasra No. 41/15, Village Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi area known as Bhagya Vihar? (OPP/OPD) II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction whereby direction can be given to defendant no.
2 and 4 to correct Khasra No. 41/16 instead of Khasra No. 42/20 in all the ownership documents of the suit property CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 8/28 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of plaintiff on 15.02.2000? (OPP) III) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration whereby documents of property regarding the ownership of the suit property? (OPP) IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration whereby documents of property regarding the ownership of the suit property? (OPP) - deleted vide ordersheet dated 14.01.2019 V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration whereby documents of property bearing no. 85-B, measuring 50 Sq. Yds. in Khasra no. 41/15m Village Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi area known as Bhagya Vihar executed on 02.03.2012 by Satish Kumar in favour of defendant Ram Singh can be declared null and void? (OPP) VI) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendant Harjeet and Ram Singh from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff of the suit property ? (OPP) VII) Relief?
8. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He also relied upon documents being:-
i) Registered GPA and Will dated 29.02.2000 : Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR)(Colly)
ii) Notarized Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit all dated 18.02.2000 : Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR)(Colly) CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 9/28
iii) Site Plan : Ex. PW-1/3
iv) Five Photographs : Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly)
v) Bayana receipt, plot installment card and seven receipts : Ex. PW- 1/5 (OSR) (Colly)
9. Further, the plaintiff examined two other witnesses also, being PW 2 and PW 3. They were summoned witnesses and brought the records i.e. certified copy of the Will which is registration no. 10937, Additional book no. III, Volume No. 1269. certified copy of GPA having registration no. 10789, additional book no. IV, volume no. 3046, already Ex. PW 1/1 and Aks-sizra of Village Madan Pur Dabas alongwith Khatoni of year 2003-04 of the Khasra no. 41/15 and 41/16 Ex. PW 3/1 (Colly).
10.PW 4 / Sh. Sunny @ Sony Dhaka was also examined by the plaintiff, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW 4/A.
11. The plaintiff and his witnesses were duly cross-examined, where after PE was closed on 31.08.2024.
12.The defendant examined himself as DW1, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW 1/A. He also relied upon documents being:-
i) Registered GPA in favour of Sh. Satish Kumar : Ex. DW 1/1
ii) Registered deed of Will executed in favour of Sh. : Ex. DW 1/2 CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 10/28 Satish Kumar
iii) Agreement to Sell : Ex. DW 1/3
iv) Affidavit of Sh. Mahender Singh : Ex. DW 1 / 4
v) Receipt issued by Sh. Mahender Singh in favour of Sh. Satish Kumar : Ex. DW 1/5
vi) GPA executed by Sh. Satish Kumar in favour of Sh. Ram : Ex. DW 1/6 Singh
vii) Agreement to sell executed by Sh. Satish Kumar in favour : Ex. DW 1/7 of Sh. Ram Singh
viii) Affidavit executed by Sh.
Satish Kumar : Ex. DW 1/8 ix) Receipt issued by Sh. Satish Kumar in favour of Sh. Ram : Ex. DW 1/9 Singh x) Possession letter executed by Sh. Satish Kumar in favour : Ex. DW 1/10 of Sh. Ram Singh xi) Deed of Will made by Sh. Satish Kumar : Ex. DW 1/11 xii) Defendant also rely upon documents : Ex. PW1/DX2 and Mark X.
13.DW2 Ram Singh was examined by the defendant, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-2/A and also relied upon the document already Ex. DW-1.
CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 11/28
14.DW3 Satish Kumar was examined by the defendant, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW 3/A and also relied upon the documents already Ex. DW 1 / 3 (Colly) & DW 1/ 4 (Colly).
15.All the defendant witnesses were duly cross-examined, where after DE was closed on 20.11.2025.
16.Upon being examined as such, final arguments were advanced.
17.It is to be noted that during the course of final arguments on 02.02.2026, the plaintiff through its counsel dropped the declaratory reliefs claimed vide prayer clause A of the amended suit - pertaining to which Issues No. 3 and 5 were framed. Further, as noted above, Issue No. 4 was already deleted vide ordersheet dated 14.01.2019. As such therefore, findings with regards Issues No. 1, 2 and 6 only are required to be given.
18.Submissions heard. Case file perused.
Issue No. 06Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendant Harjeet and Ram Singh from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff of the suit property ? (OPP) CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 12/28
19.At the outset, it is to be noted that both sides, the plaintiff on one hand and the defendants no. 1 and 2 on the other, have laid claim over the suit property. They both have same set of customary documents (GPA/Agreement to Sell/Will/Affidavit/Possession Letter/Receipt) as well (albeit some such documents of the plaintiff are registered also). In fact, other than such rival claims of ownership on either sides, there is dispute between the parties regarding the identity of the suit property too vis vis the Khasra No. The plaintiff has averred that though its documents have the same recorded as 42/20 but it should actually be 41/16. The defendants no. 1 and 2 have contended that the piece of land parties are litigating about in fact belongs to Khasra No. 41/15. Position being as such, the plaintiff, rightly amended its suit from that for simplicitor injunction initially, to a comprehensive suit of declaration of title, defendant documents being declared null and void and direction with regards correction of the correct Khasra No. in its documents. The same is in line with the dictum of the Hon'ble SC in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2033 wherein it was clearly held, in sum and substance, that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. Despite the said position, during the course of final arguments, the plaintiff/Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff chose to drop the declaratory reliefs sought altogether (Issues No. 3 and 5) CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 13/28 Such reliefs were twin fold - with regards declaration of title of plaintiff himself and that of declaration of defendant documents as null and void, based upon which a contrasting claim of ownership was made by defendant no. 2. In view of the same, the very basis of the plaintiff suit was left totally hollow. It seems the plaintiff saw the fait accompli it faced since customary documents that it has, could not accrue any valid tittle in its favour. Law is well settled in this regard that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without proper registered sale deed documents, as enunciated in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 206 downwards uptil in Ramesh Chand (D) THR. LRs Vs. Suresh Chand & Anr. 2025 INSC 1059 recently. In fact, the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526 goes one step further by holding that the embargo put on registration of documents in some places also would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered title documents with respect to immovable property. Without establishing one's own ownership by getting the corresponding documents of the defendants adjudged as bad in law, the plaintiff case cries foul of the judgment in Anathula Sudhakar (supra).
20. Be that as it may, having abandoned the declaratory reliefs as aforesaid, the permanent injunction relief that the plaintiff argued for is to be considered given the material available on record. Foremost, the suit property itself, is CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 14/28 seen to be essentially, a vacant site, which in the terminology of the dictum of the Hon'ble SC in Anathula Sudhakar (supra) is not being physically possessed, used or enjoyed. The plaintiff documents clearly state that the property was purchased as a vacant plot. Subsequent to that, as per plaintiff evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A, it has only been claimed that the plaintiff father constructed the 'neev' of the plot, raised front wall about 4 feet by installing an iron gate and put a lock thereon. The photographs relied upon by the plaintiff Ex. PW1/4 (Colly) show the status of the plot that apart from a front wall, the plot is open up to the sky and at adjoining points as well, no walls of the plot itself exist but the property is surrounded by other properties, who have their own wall. In such a scenario, merely by raising a front wall and putting a gate thereon cannot be said to change the character of the underlying plot from vacant to that of a constructed site. Absence of a roofed structure with no proper enclosed walls from all sides clearly suggest that the suit property is a vacant site and a front wall only cannot be held to be determinative. If that be so, as held in Anathula Sudhakar (supra), in cases where dejure possession has to be established in the case of vacant sites, title has to be proved. In such cases, possession has been held to follow title as the same is directly and substantially in issue and without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. In the present case, the plaintiff dropped the declaratory relief of title and as such therefore, since no decision on merits is being given on that front, the question of possession as well CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 15/28 cannot be adjudicated in plaintiff favour. On this count itself therefore, the issue with regards permanent injunction is liable to be decided against the plaintiff.
21. Even if one were to discard the logic of vacant sites as well, then also, the plaintiff relief as to permanent injunction is not tenable since given the evidence on record, the plaintiff has not been able to establish settled possession at the site of the suit property. And this is when we consider the aspect of settled possession on ground, even dehors the aspect of incorrect Khasra No. that the plaintiff documents purportedly have, as the said issue as well goes for a toss since the plaintiff has chosen not to establish title, which would have necessitated a proper finding to be given thereon as to well as to settled possession of which Khasra No. one can legally talk about. Be that as it may, it is seen that the plaintiff purchased the suit property through customary documents in the year 2000 and as per his evidence affidavit, a front wall and gate were raised/put in place some one and half year back. The claim of the defendants was firstly made on the plot on 10.01.2013, that is to say, some 12-13 years passed in the interregnum, and for such period, the plaintiff was required to show settled possession. Far from doing so, the plaintiff admitted things to the contrary during his deposition. Though in the evidence affidavit, the plaintiff, in most general terms stated that he had been continuously visiting the suit property over the years, on 27.04.2019, during his cross examination, he conceded that he had never resided in the area of Bhagya CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 16/28 Vihar and that he had never applied for water or electricity connection in the suit property at any point in time. For last four-five months in fact, he also admitted that due to his father keeping unwell, he could not visit the property at all. Apart from that, the plaintiff has sought to rely upon testimony of PW4/Sunny to prove his case. The said witness testimony however is seen to be as unreliable. It is noted that the said witness claimed that he also had a plot in the same Khasra and had seen the plaintiff several times visiting the site of the suit property. Ld. Counsel for the defendants alluded to the overwriting in Khasra No. mentioned in the evidence affidavit Ex. PW4/A, which was not even initialled, to suggest its suspect nature. The witness clarified that some writing mistake occasioned the same. It is to be noted that merely since a random person comes to the court and deposes that he also had a plot in the same area, does not make his deposition believable. The witness did not prove that he had any such plot through documents to show that he was in a position to vouch for the plaintiff claims about his property as well. The court did not require the witness to disclose minute details but at least through some Address IDs, he was required to establish that he belonged to the same area/neighbourhood. Without doing any of these, the witness testimony remained hearsay, and not trustworthy. Ld. Counsel for the defendants was right in putting to the witness that he had no knowledge about the present case and had come to the court since he had some enmity with Defendant no. 3/Mahender Singh, to which the witness conceded to as well that there were 5-6 cases CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 17/28 pending between them. Other than this, the witness only generally stated that he had met the plaintiff several times in the area where the suit property is situated. Such claims however do not establish settled legal possession of the plaintiff. Just because a person is seeing the other in some area a few times over does not ipso facto prove the legal entitlement of such person to the said area and more so when, the former person, who is claiming on behalf of the latter, has himself not shown as to what nexus he had of being in the said area in first place. The remaining plaintiff witnesses did not depose anything on the issue of settled possession of the plaintiff and filed on record documents qua the property in question only. The defendants, in their WS as well during evidence laboured through the point that the suit property, about which the instant case has been filed falls in Khasra No. 41/15 and the plaintiff portion is in Khasra 42/20. On the aspect of possession also, they maintained during cross examination as well that in fact, they were in possession and not the plaintiff. As such therefore, defendant version, or the lack of it, cannot be taken to establish by way of substitution the settled possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff case has to stand on its own legs and there can be no quarrel with the said longstanding principle. Accordingly, it is no ground to argue that the defendants also have been unable to show their effective possession through evidence, documentary or oral. In fact, such a contention bolsters the view of the court, that given the rival stand of the defendants, the plaintiff should have established his title first and through that, the CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 18/28 question of possession could have been looked into holistically.
22. In Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 91 recently, it was held that merely on doubtful material and cursory evidence, it cannot be held that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the property, and that too in settled possession. It was also observed that stray or intermittent acts do not give such a right and settled possession must be effective and undisturbed.
23. Considering the above, taking into account the evidence on record also, it is clear that the plaintiff has been wholly unable to prove settled possession over the suit property. At the cost of reiteration, such possession has not been established on ground so to say, even if we do not consider argument of the plaintiff documents showing some different Khasra No. than the actual one being contested by the defendants. Looked at from whichever angle therefore, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Issue No. 6 is therefore decided against the plaintiff.
Issues No. 1 and 2 (I) Whether the address of the suit property is property bearing no. 85-B, measuring 50 Sq. Yds. In Khasra No. 41/16, Village Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi area known as Bhagya Vihar or is property bearing no. 85-B, measuring CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 19/28 50 Sq. Yds. in Khasra No. 41/15, Village Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi area known as Bhagya Vihar? (OPP/OPD) (II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction whereby direction can be given to defendant no. 2 and 4 to correct Khasra No. 41/16 instead of Khasra No. 42/20 in all the ownership documents of the suit property executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of plaintiff on 15.02.2000? (OPP)
24. First of all, it has already been noted above that plaintiff has no valid title documents to the suit property. He has no chain documents either, making it unsure that even the person from whom he purchased the property, defendant no. 3/Mahender Singh, had any valid title to begin with, to sell the same to the plaintiff. Such Mahender Singh though did not lead evidence and prove its version, had filed WS qua unamended plaint only with respect to the relief of simplicitor injunction and had contended that he had sold property to the plaintiff which fell in Khasra No. 42/20. Merely since he did not file WS later or prove its defence, it cannot automatically follow that what was allegedly sold by him to the plaintiff pertained to Khasra No 41/16 in view of the amended plaint filed later. This is so since as outlined above, plaintiff has not been able to prove his credentials qua the suit property in first place. Title declaration was most important to conclusively decide that the plaintiff property fell in Khasra No. 41/16 and not in Khara No. 42/20, as was stated in his own documents. To count for the CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 20/28 difference on such a substantial point, the plaintiff has made averments with alarming brevity and biting economy only, in the amended plaint as well as in his evidence affidavit. He has stated that when he enquired about the Khasra No. from the adjacent owner of plots bearing no. 85A, 86 and 87, he came to know that all such plots, including that of the plaintiff no. 85B fell in Khasra No. 41/16 and not 42/20 and there was a mistake in that regard in his documents caused by Defendant no.3 (Mahender Singh) in connivance with the officials of Defendant no. 4 (Sub Registrar office concerned). Apart from this solitary line, nothing has been stated by the plaintiff qua the circumstances under which there came the mismatch in the Khasra Nos, as stated in his own documents vis a vis what he now claims. Vide Issue No. 2 framed the plaintiff seeks correction of such mistake. Section 26 Specific Relief Act (SRA) provides for rectification on account of fraud or mutual mistake and ostensibly, the plaintiff case pertains to the category of fraud, the mistake having not been caused mutually. No categorical averments qua Section 26 SRA have been taken by the plaintiff as to the form and manner/the circumstances under which such correction must be allowed within the fore corners of the said provision, despite the section itself requiring the same. Taking the form of over substance principle and leaving it aside also, with respect to the argument of fraud itself, the plaintiff has not cared to establish its case in that regard at all. Legal precedents are replete that contention of fraud must be cogently established. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electrosteel CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 21/28 Castings Limited v. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and others (2022) 2 SCC 573 observed that in cases where a party claims fraud or misrepresentation, it has to specifically plead and prove the same. Order 6 Rule 4 CPC mandates the law in this regard also, interpreted consistently in a number of cases. It has been opined that general allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are insufficient to be considered and the parties are required to provide full particulars. A litigant who prefers allegation of fraud or other improper misconduct must place on record precise and specific details of these charges. In the present case, most surprisingly, the plaintiff has not only properly elaborated on the aspect of fraud committed by defendants. No 3 and 4, but he has not even stated that when did he get to know about the discrepancy. No date/time/month/year has been mentioned, in the pleadings as well as the evidence affidavit. It had purchased the suit property through its documents in the year 2000. The defendants, as per plaintiff pleadings made claim over the property in 2013. For such a long period, the plaintiff had no occasion to check/verify the Khasra No. of his property is most peculiar an argument. Even if the fraud was discovered later, when the defendant filed its WS etc, the pleadings should have been clear, categorical and unambiguous as to the date of knowledge of fraud. In fact, it is seen that whilst allowing the amendment application on 09.01.2017, through which relief with regards correction of Khasra No. was allowed to be incorporated, the Ld. Predecessor at the time had specifically kept open the limitation aspect to be decided CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 22/28 during trial. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 2 has correctly brought to the notice of the court that even if the date of knowledge is taken to be from the date of filing of their WS initially, which was on 29.04.2013, the amendment application which came to be allowed incorporating the relief of correction, was filed only in the month of September 2016, recorded in order sheet dated 02.11.2016, clearly beyond the period prescribed of 3 years. In view of the same, the said relief becomes suspect on the limitation aspect only. Seen from every perspective therefore, foremost from the standpoint that the plaintiff has no where clearly pleaded the date of knowledge of the fraud for documents pertaining to the year 2000, together with the fact that there are no background pleadings as to the manner in which such fraud was practised, correction as sought can not be allowed at the mere asking within the meaning of Section 26 SRA.
25. Even if one keeps aside the fraud aspect based upon which plaintiff claim of correction has been held to be not maintainable as aforesaid, the connected proposition qua Issue No. 1 is equally susceptible through which the real details of the suit property are sought to be culled out. Plaintiff has claimed such details to be plot no. 85B, measuring 50 sq. yds in Khasra No. 41/16 whereas the defendants contention is about them being plot no. 85B, measuring 50 sq. yds in Khasra No. 41/15. In this regard, it is noted that plaintiff himself admitted during his cross examination of never verifying from revenue authorities as CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 23/28 to what the real Khasra No. was. He also admitted that no Khasra no. was mentioned in his payment receipt/plot installment documents either. In fact, the plaintiff also conceded that Plot No. 94 was mentioned in his own documents Ex PW1/5 (OSR) (Colly) and not 85B. Upon being probed further, plaintiff even confirmed that no complaint was ever made to revenue authorities either for mismatch of Khasra and Plot no. from 2002-12. He likewise also accepted that though he had only asked from his neighbours and seen their documents to ascertain the real Khasra No., but had not filed any such documents on record to buttress its claims. So much so, the plaintiff agreed that he did not even check the previous chain documents before buying the suit property and had only seen the site plan. With such being the testimony of the plaintiff himself, it does not lie in his mouth to to turn around now and say that though he did not know for all these years, now he had come to know that the Khasra No. of his property documents was something else than the one stated therein. Plaintiff own documents state the plot no. also differently at different places for which specifically, no explanation has been forthcoming. Apart from the plaintiff, PW2 examined on its behalf brought the office copies of documents containing Khasra No. 42/20 only, on which nothing could turn. Even the Patwari examined as PW3, brought the aks e sizra with khatoni documents of Khasra No. 41/15 and 41/16 and merely stated that all such Khasras were adjacent to each other and nothing more. During cross examination of such witness, he stated that actual status of all Khasras could not CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 24/28 be stated and there was no sign to measure the land contained therein. Importantly, the witness also deposed that girdwari is used to measure and that too, on application of land owner. Considering the same, the said documents did not establish the plaintiff claims either with regards the actual no. of the Khasra in question. No girdawri document was available with plaintiff also, which as per PW3, could have given some credence, it at all to the plaintiff version. In view of the same, the plaintiff is seen to have remained woefully short in proving on record that the Khasra No. qua the suit property is 41/16 and not 41/15 or 42/20.
26. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied heavily instead on the apparent shortcomings in the defendant witnesses depositions, especially in relation to their site plan document Ex. PW4/D1/2. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that DW1/Harjeet during his cross examination, admitted the site plan Ex. PW4/D1/2 as that of Bhagya Vihar colony, stated that it was correct to say that there was only one plot in gali no 4 in Khasra No. 41/16 and Khasra No. 41/15 was in gali 5. Though the said witness side by side also stated that the plot in question was part of Khasra No. 41/15, but it agreed that he had placed on record no document for any material purchased/bill etc. for wall constructed/lock placed thereat, or with regards RWA. Similarly, for DW2/Ram Singh as well, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that even he with respect to the site plan agreed that gali no 4 corresponded to Khasra No. 41/16 and gali no 5 to Khasra No. 41/15 and that only one plot 85B CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 25/28 was there in Khasra No. 41/16, by pointing out the situational details of plot 85B at point A adjacent to 84B. With regards DW3/Satish also on similar lines, it was sought to be shown that he stated that plot no. 85B was in Khasra no. 41/16 and in the site plan, at point B, Khasra no. 41/15 was placed in gali 5.
27. The said approach of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff is totally misconceived. First of all, though it is true that defendant witnesses did make contradictory statements. But at the same time it must not be lost sight of that the overall tone and tenor of their case was contrary to the plaintiff version, which cannot be overlooked. Variance at some points & convergence at other, may create doubt, but cannot exonerate the plaintiff to first establish probables of its own case. As noted above already, it was the primary duty of the plaintiff to discharge the burden of proof qua its case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability first, so that the onus may have shifted on the defendants. In not asking for relief of declaration of ownership (and also with regards correct property description) and for adjudging defendant documents as null and void simultaneously, not even proving its settled legal possession, no semblance of a valid claim qua the suit property emanated in favour of the plaintiff to start with, leading to its utter failure in discharging his onus. Given that, to turn instead on alleged defendant case shortcomings, without the onus of proof shifting, can not be an argument which can be sustained. Apart from that as well, it is seen that the site plan in CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 26/28 question, Ex. PW4/D1/2 is a privately made document. It has not been proved through its author in accordance with law during trial and if that be so, reliance upon the same is misplaced. Irrespective, just as the plaintiff, the defendants are also relying upon customary documents, and that too unregistered, for showing their title/claim on the suit property and in support of the said claim only, they have made deposition qua the site plan. If that be so, as much as the plaintiff is not entitled to any valid legal claim based upon his customary documents, even the defendants, based upon their alternate set of documents cannot prove any right. Accordingly, them agreeing or disagreeing with any site plan, which furthers their case whose genesis lies in inadmissible customary documents only, does not enure anything to the advantage of the plaintiff. Rather, as has been held by the court already, the plaintiff should have cleared the air as it were with regards its title, through which valid claim of settled possession also would have been established, which in the process would have settled the issue of correct Khasra No. as well. But not to be. In view of the same, the incoherent testimony of defendant witnesses cannot become the crutches to support the plaintiff case, which has been held to have no legs. Considering the totality of circumstances therefore, Issues No. 1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiff as well.
RELIEF
28.From the discussion as here in above, the following order is passed :
CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 27/28 FINAL ORDER
a) Suit of the plaintiff is hereby Dismissed.
All the parties to bear their own costs.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open Court GAURAV
GAURAV SHARMA
on 30.03.2026. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.08
16:44:17
+0530
(Gaurav Sharma)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
North West/Rohini Courts/Delhi
30.03.2026
CS SCJ 59261/2016 Dalip Verma Vs. Harjeet Singh Pg. No. 28/28