Delhi District Court
Naveen Chauhan vs Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan on 18 March, 2026
CS SCJ 83045/16
NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT MITTAL, CIVIL JUDGE-01
(SOUTH) SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No :- 83045/16
CNR No. :- DLST03-000053-2011
SH. NAVEEN CHAUHAN
S/o Late Ram Chander
R/o H.No. A-1/59, Third Floor,
Freedom Fighter Cultural Centre
IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai
New Delhi ......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander
R/o H.No. A-1/59, Second Floor,
Freedom Fighter Cultural Centre
IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai
New Delhi ......DEFENDANT NO. 1
2. SMT. CHETNA CHAUHAN
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan
R/o H.No. A-1/59, Second Floor,
Freedom Fighter Cultural Centre
IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai
New Delhi ......DEFENDANT NO. 2
3. SMT. SHASHI KUMARI
D/o Late Sh. Ram Chander
R/o H.No. A-1/59, Ground Floor,
Freedom Fighter Cultural Centre
IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai
New Delhi ......DEFENDANT NO. 3
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT
ANKIT MITTAL
Page no. 1 of 38 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18
16:53:51
+0530
(Ankit Mittal)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 83045/16
NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
Date of Institution : 25.05.2011
Date of Decision : 18.03.2026
Decision : DISMISSED
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff for the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunction.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the present suit has been filed only against defendant no. 1 & 2. Thereafter, ap- plicant/ defendant no. 3 had moved an application u/O I Rule 10 CPC for her impleadment as defendant no. 3 in the present suit which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 11.08.2011 and defendant no. 3 Ms. Shashi Kumari was im- pleaded as defendant no. 3 in the present suit. AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT
3. Succinctly, the case of plaintiff is that he has purchased the suit property/ plot bearing no. A-1/59, measuring 200 sq. yards situated in Abadi Village, Neb Sarai, New Delhi presently known as Freedom Fighter Cultural Centre, IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Property") in the year 1998 with defendant no. 1 as a joint property according to the respective shares. It is averred that the suit property is constructed upto third floors including basement. It is averred that defendant no. 1 is the elder brother of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 is the wife of Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 2 of 38 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:53:57 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN defendant no. 1. It is averred that the suit property was constructed in the year 2000 by the father of the plaintiff and the family of the plaintiff and the defendants along with their parents had shifted in the suit property in the month of October, 2001. It is averred that the suit property had transferred in the name of his father Sh. Ram Chander and his mother Smt. Rajwati by virtue of Gift Deed. It is averred that the relevant documents regarding the suit property were executed in their names and due to this the parents of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 became the lawful owner of the suit property. It is averred that all the original documents of the suit property are in possession of the defendant no. 1.
4. It is averred that the plaintiff and defendants are in continuous possession of the suit property since 1998 but presently the plaintiff is residing with his family alongwith his mother and sister (i.e. defendant no. 3) at Ground Floor of the suit property and the suit property was partitioned by way of Family Settlement by the father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in the year 2003. It is averred that according to the Family Settlement, the first floor and third floor of the suit property, became in the share of the plaintiff and the second floor and basement of the suit property became in the share of the defendants. It is averred that the ground floor became in the share of the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.
1. It is averred that the sister of the plaintiff (i.e. defendant no. 3) and defendant no. 1 is also residing at ground floor. It is averred that Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Page no. 3 of 38 MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:54:04 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN after the death of the father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 on 24.10.2004, the defendants started maintaining the separate mess.
5. It is averred that that the first floor and third floor of the suit property is let out by the plaintiff to the tenant. It is averred that the tenant has paid the rent to the plaintiff by way of cheque, but the plaintiff had deposited the said cheque in the joint account as the wish of his mother for maintenance of the building and other expenses. It is averred that the basement of the suit property is divided half of the share to the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. It is averred that the plaintiff had also maintained office at basement in his shared area and employed three persons on job. It is averred that defendant no. 1 used the filthy language to the employees of the plaintiff, for getting the illegal benefit and harassing the plaintiff. It is averred that in the month of December, 2009, defendant no. 1 had started beating the employees of the plaintiff without any rhyme and reason. It is averred that plaintiff had objected to the same to which defendants had stated that the basement is in their share and told the plaintiff to vacate the same, but the matter was sort out by the help of the mother and sister of the plaintiff (i.e. defendant no. 3) and defendant no. 1.
6. It is averred that in December, 2010 the defendants again gave a threat to the plaintiff to vacate the basement and to disconnect the electricity connection from the portion of the plaintiff. It is averred that the defendant has stated that the Digitally signed by ANKIT Page no. 4 of 38 ANKIT MITTAL Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:54:10 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN electricity would be disconnected in case the bill is not paid. It is averred that the plaintiff stated to the defendant no.1 for depositing the electricity bills, which became to the share of the defendants, but the defendant no. 1 flatly refused the same. It is averred that plaintiff had deposited the electricity bill and from the said day the plaintiff had paid the total electricity bill for maintaining his business and dignity of the family for avoiding inconveniences, which was created by the the defendants. It is stated that plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from the defendants electricity charges from the defendants. It is averred that in the month of January, 2011, the defendant disconnected the water connection just to harass the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff approached to the defendants to which they had started beating the plaintiff and given a continuous threat to disconnect the water connection and stated that to take the separate water connection. It is averred that in the month of May, 2011, the defendant had broken the furniture of the office of the plaintiff and also damaged and also picked up some articles from the office of the plaintiff and refused to return the same. It is averred that the defendant no.1 and his wife gave threat to the tenant of the plaintiff to vacate the first floor and third floor of the suit property otherwise they will face the dire consequences. Having left with no other option, the present suit is filed seeking following reliefs:-
(i) To pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the Digitally signed by ANKIT Page no. 5 of 38 ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:54:16 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN defendant no. 1 and 2, their assignees, servants, agents etc. from dispossessing the plaintiff and creating a third party interest in suit property i.e. A-1/59, measuring area 200 sq. yds. situated in Abadi Village Neb Sarai, Freedom New Delhi presently Fighters Cultural known as Centre, I.G.N.O.U. Road, Neb Sarai, New Delhi, and further restrain from interfere in peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property, as shown in Red colour in Site Plan;
(ii) To pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant no. 1 and 2, their assignees, servants, agents etc. for peaceful use and enjoyment of the tenants in the tenanted premises and office of the plaintiff situated at basement of the suit property i.e. A-1/59, measuring area 200 sq. yds. situated in Abadi Village presently Neb Sarai, known as Cultural Centre, New Delhi Freedom Fighters I.G.N.O.U. Road, Neb Sarai, New Delhi as shown in Red Colour in Site Plan;
(iii) Cost of the suit ; and
(iv) Any other relief.
AVERMENTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2:-
7. Per contra, it is stated that by defendant no. 1 and 2 that the present suit is not maintainable as the suit is hit by Section 41(h) and (i) of Specific Relief Act. It is stated that the suit is bad for non-
Digitally signed by Page no. 6 of 38 ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:54:22 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN joinder of necessary party. It is stated that there is no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and same is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is stated that the plaintiff along with defendants, mother and sister of the plaintiff and defendant are residing at A-1/59, FFCC IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai, New Delhi from the day of existence of the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff and defendant no. 1 were the joint / co-owners of the property and had purchased the same by virtue of General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell and other connected documents such as possession certificate on July, 1999. It is stated that the suit property was occupied and possessed by the whole family which includes the father of the plaintiff and defendant along with families of plaintiff and defendant with mother and sister of the plaintiff and defendants. It is stated that the property was never divided nor partitioned nor shared and no specific and/ or particular share was ever allotted to any of the family members. It is stated that the construction was done in the year 2001 & 2002 and not in the year 2000. It is stated that suit property was transferred by defendant no. 1 and plaintiff in the name of their father and mother by virtue of GPA and Will duly registered in the year 2004. It is stated that no family settlement was ever taken place in the year 2003. It is stated that after the death of father of plaintiff and defendant no. 1, the plaintiff and defendants became entitled 1/8th share of the undivided property of 50% of undivided property owned by father of plaintiff Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 7 of 38 Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:54:28 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN and defendant no. 1 along with mother of plaintiff and defendant no.
1. It is stated that plaintiff had deliberately and intentionally not made mother of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 as party to the present suit. It is stated that plaintiff is trying to usurp the undivided property more than his legal share. It is stated that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. All the other averments of the plaint have been denied. Thus, it is prayed that suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
AVERMENTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO. 3:-
8. Per contra, it is stated that by defendant no. 3 that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has no locus standi to file the present suit. It is stated that plaintiff has failed to file any document or evidence to prove his right, title and interest in the suit property. It is stated that present suit is a collusive suit between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 & 2. It is stated that plaintiff gave a statement before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case bearing no. CS (OS) 2016/2011 titled as Rajwati Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. on 03.11.2011 that he agreed to shift on the third floor of the suit property. Hence, the prayer for mandatory injunction as sought by the plaintiff has become infructuous. It is stated that plaintiff and defendant no. 1 had executed GPA dated 04.10.2004 in favour of Smt. Rajwati and Late Sh. Ramchndra Singh jointly and severally wherein plaintiff Digitally signed by Page no. 8 of 38 ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:54:34 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN and defendant no. 1 had given the power to plaintiff no. 1 and her father to do all the acts including sell or dispose of the suit property. It is stated that after the death of her father, the behaviour of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 was changed. It is stated that after the death of Sh. Ramchandra Singh, Smt. Rajwati had executed agreement to sell, GPA, Affidavit, Receipt and possession letter dated 14.01.2011 in favour of defendant no. 3 and hence, she became the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. All the other averments of the plaint have been denied. Thus, it is prayed that suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
REPLICATION
9. In the replication, all the averments of the WS have been denied by the plaintiff.
ISSUES
10. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 14.07.2011:-
(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 41(h) and (i) of Specific Relief Act? OPD
(ii) Whether any family settlement has taken place between the parties in the year 2003? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction? OPP Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Page no. 9 of 38 MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:54:40 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
(v) Relief, if any.
11. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.01.2013, one additional issue was also framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court i.e.
(vi) Whether the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous? OPD3
12. It is pertinent to mention that during trial of the present case, defendant no. 3 had stopped appearing before this Court, therefore, she was proceeded against ex-parte by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 24.05.2019. Thereafter, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3 had moved an application for setting aside the ex- parte order dated 24.05.2019 which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 20.01.2020.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
13. To prove his case, plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He placed reliance upon the following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1 i.e. site plan.
14. During cross-examination of PW1, it is stated by PW1 that he purchased the suit property in the year 1998 from a lady. It is stated by PW1 that he had taken the ownership documents from the seller and all the documents are with his elder brother i.e. defendant no. 1 who used to keep all the documents. It is stated by PW1 that he had not given a written notice to the defendant no.1 for returning the documents because they were living in joint family all Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 10 of 38 Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:54:58 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN documents were with one member. It is stated by PW1 that prior to filing of this suit, he did not file any complaint in respect of the defendant no.1 for not returning his property documents. It is stated by PW1 that he purchased the property for approx. Rs.8 lakhs. It is stated by PW1 that he had purchased the property from a lady by way of Agreement to sell, Will, Affidavit and other related documents which were executed in SDM Office, Tehsil Mehrauli with stamp duty but he does not remember the date. It is stated by PW1 that he had tried to obtained a certified copy of the registered documents from the SDM Office but as the date of execution of documents was not known, the documents could not be provided to him. It is stated by PW1 that he had applied to the SDM Office in November, 2010. It is denied by PW1 that the consideration amount was paid by the defendant no.1 and not by him. It is stated by PW1 that he does not remember whether the consideration for the suit property was Rs.4 lakhs. It is stated by PW1 that some part of Rs.4 lakhs was paid by him in cash and some part by cheque. It is denied by PW1 that he is deliberately not telling the same as no payment was made by him. It is stated by PW1 that the execution of documents was witnessed by his father. It is stated by PW1 that there was another witness i.e. father of the lady. It is stated by PW1 that he had seen the documents before signing but as it was joint family the documents were not seen to that extent and it was based on trust. It is stated by PW1 that the Income Tax for the year 1998-
Digitally
signed by
Page no. 11 of 38
ANKIT
ANKIT MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18
16:55:05
+0530
(Ankit Mittal)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN 99 must have been showing the consideration.
15. It is stated by PW1 that he had paid the cash towards part of consideration after withdrawing the same from State Bank of Travincore. It is stated by PW1 that he has not filed any statement of account to show that he has paid any amount towards the consideration. It is stated by PW1 that he came to know from the written statement that in the year 1998 talks were going on about the purchase but the purchase took place in the year 1999. It is stated by PW1 that after filing of the written statement, he did not amend his suit to show the property was purchased in the year 1999. It is denied by PW1 that his name has been included in the property documents only as a brother or that he did not pay any consideration for the purchase of the same or it is for this reason that he does not remember the date or year of execution of the documents. It is stated by PW1 that in site plan Ex. PW 1/1, the portion at A, B, C and D is being used as a store. It is stated by PW1 that the portion A, B, C and D and the kitchen are of the same size and could have been used as a kitchen but as there is no need of two kitchen using the same as a store. It is stated by PW1 that he cannot tell whether the portion at point E, G, G and H on the 2nd floor does not exist as it is in the possession of defendant no.1. It is stated by PW1 that he has not filed any proof to show that the construction was started and completed in the year 2000. It is denied by PW1 that the construction in the suit property was carried out by defendant no.1 Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 12 of 38 Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:55:12 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN in the year 2002 from his own funds. It is stated by PW1 that he had individually invested money in the construction but did not count the same as the money was given to our farther as it was a joint family. It is stated by PW1 that electricity connection was obtained for the suit property in the year 2002 for ground floor and 1st floor in the year 2003 and the electricity connection for 2nd and 3rd floor were taken in or after 2004.
16. It is stated by PW1 that he has not filed any document in respect of the family settlement. It is stated by PW1 that there is suit for partition by his mother and sister in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in respect of the suit property. It is stated by PW1 that he has not made his mother a party to the present suit. It is stated by PW1 that he has not placed on record any rent receipt issued by him. It is stated by PW1 that he does not have any document issued by his mother or defendant no. 1 or any other legal heir giving No Objection in his favour for collecting rent. It is stated by PW1 that he had made a complaint in December, 2010 in respect of threats by the defendants. It is stated by PW1 that he has made a police complaint in respect of disconnection of water connection in January, 2011. It is stated by PW1 that he has not placed on record any complaints or MLC in respect of incidents dated 23.02.2011 or 27.02.2011.
17. It is stated by PW1 that the suit property was purchased in the year 1999 whereas the negotiations were started in Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Page no. 13 of 38 MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:55:19 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN the year 1998. It is stated by PW1 that the property was purchased by him and his brother namely Sh. Raj Kumar. It is stated by PW1 that his age was around 30 at the time of purchase of the property. It is stated by PW1 that he had started doing private tuition to the school children from 1989. It is stated by PW1 that he has started two companies namely Camtel India as a partnership firm since 1994 after leaving his job and second company CNS Comsoft Systems Pvt Ltd. since 1997. It is stated by PW1 that he can not tell how much income he earned by these two companies. It is stated by PW1 that he had purchased the suit property from one widow lady who was residing with her father at Satya Niketan, Delhi. It is stated by PW1 that the value of the suit property was Rs. 8 lacs. It is stated by PW1 that he has paid Rs. 4 lacs towards the sale consideration and remaining Rs. 4 lacs paid by his brother Raj Kumar. It is stated by PW1 that they had executed registered GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit, possession letter etc. It is stated by PW1 that he did not file any documents as he does not possess the same at the time of filing of suit because all the documents are in possession of defendant no. 1/Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan.
18. It is stated by PW1 that he and his brother i.e. defendant no. 1 have constructed the suit property in the year 2000. It is stated by PW1 that he has spend about Rs. 12,00,000/- in the construction of the suit property. It is stated by PW1 that the total cost of construction of suit property is about Rs. 24,00,000/- to Rs.
Digitally
signed by
ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL
Page no. 14 of 38 Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18
16:55:26
+0530
(Ankit Mittal)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN 25,00,000/- approximately. It is stated by PW1 that he has transferred the suit property in the name of his father Sh. Ram Chandra and his mother Smt. Rajwati by executing the Gift Deed. It is stated by PW1 that he does not remember the exact date of the execution of the aforesaid Gift Deed but it was in August, 2004. It is stated by PW1 that he and his brother had executed the General Power of Attorney on August, 2004 in favour of his father and mother without consideration and the same is marked as MarkA. It is stated by PW1 that the family settlement was arrived among him, his brother i.e. Defendant no. 1 namely Raj Kumar and his father Late Sh. Ram Chander Singh in the year 2003. It is stated by PW1 that in the family settlement, it was decided only in respect of respective portions of the suit property for the purpose of residing. It is stated by PW1 that as per the terms of family settlement, the first and third floor were in his possession and he was deriving rent from the same and on the ground floor, all the family members were staying together. It is stated by PW1 that in the family settlement, it was decided that the mother and father will reside at the ground floor in case the family members no more reside together as a joint family. PW1 cross-examination was concluded on 01.09.2016. Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed.
19. Thereafter, defendant no. 3 had moved an application for recalling PW1 for cross-examination by defendant no. 3 which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated Digitally signed by Page no. 15 of 38 ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:55:32 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN 11.01.2017.
20. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3. During cross-examination, it is stated by PW1 that the suit property was purchased in the year 1999 whereas the negotiations were started in the year 1998. He states that the property was purchased by him and his brother namely Sh. Raj Kumar. He states that his age was around 30 at the time of purchase of the property. He states that he had started doing private tuition to the school children from 1989. He states that he has no idea how much amount he earned by giving a tuition. He states that he has started two companies namely Camtel India as a partnership firm since 1994 after leaving his job and second company CNS Comsoft Systems Pvt Ltd. since 1997. He can not tell how much income he earned by these two companies. He states that he had purchased the suit property from one widow lady who was residing with her father at Satya Niketan, Delhi. and the value of the suit property was Rs. 8 lacs and he paid Rs. 4 lacs towards the sale consideration and remaining Rs. 4 lacs paid by his brother Raj Kumar. He states that he had made the payment in cash. He had taken the receipt from the previous owner of the suit property but he does not have same. They had executed registered GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit, possession letter etc. He did not file any documents as he does not possess the same at the time of filing of suit because all the documents are in possession of defendant Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 16 of 38 Date: MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:55:38 +0530 (Ankit Mittal)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN He states that he has not filed copy of the GPA.
21. He states that he and his brother i.e. defendant no. 1 have constructed the suit property in the year 2000. He has spend about Rs. 12,00,000/- in the construction of the suit property. He states that the total cost of construction of suit property is about Rs.24,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- approximately. He admits that he has transferred the suit property in the name of his father Sh. Ram Chandra and his mother Smt. Rajwati by executing the Gift Deed. However, the Gift Deed was not validly executed, was executed by mistake and was without any consideration. He does not remember the exact date of the execution of the aforesaid Gift Deed but it was in August, 2004. However, Gift deed was without consideration. He denied that after execution of the Gift Deed in August, 2004, his father and mother became the owners of the suit property as the Gift Deed was without consideration. He admits that he and his brother had executed the General Power of Attorney on August, 2004 in favour of his father and mother without consideration and the same is marked as Mark-A. He states that the family settlement was arrived among him, his brother i.e. Defendant no.1 namely Raj Kumar and his father Late Sh. Ram Chander Singh in the year 2003. He states that in the family settlement, it was decided only in respect of respective portions of the suit property for the purpose of residing. He states that the first and third floor were in his possession and he was deriving rent from the same. On the ground Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 17 of 38 Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:55:45 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN floor, all the family members were staying together. He states that in the family settlement, it was decided that the mother and father will reside at the ground floor in case the family members no more reside together as a joint family. He does not have any documents to prove that he had made a payment of Rs.4,00,000/- as sale consideration for the suit property since this document is around twenty years old. He cannot tell exactly what was his monthly income in 1999. However, he used to earn enough such that he could have purchased the suit property. He states that his source of income was business. He cannot tell even by approximation as to what was his yearly income in 1998 since he was in the business of Software Development and Import and mostly transaction took place in cash. Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed on 25.08.2017.
DEFENDANT NO. 1 & 2 EVIDENCE:
22. On the other hand, in support of their case, Defendant no. 1 examined himself as DW-1 and tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex. DW1/A. He has placed reliance upon following documents i.e.
(i) Mark A i.e. Copy of charge sheet of FIR no. 586/2004;
(ii) Mark B i.e. Copy of FIR bearing no. 46/17;
(iii) Mark C i.e. Photocopy of Revocation/ cancellation deed of defendant no. 1 dated 18.08.2011;
(iv) Mark D i.e. Photocopy of Revocation/ cancellation deed of Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Page no. 18 of 38 MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:55:55 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN plaintiff dated 20.07.2011;
(v) Mark E i.e. Photocopy of order dated 03.11.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 2016/11;
(vi) Mark F i.e. Photocopy of electricity bill dated 11.01.2019;
(vii) Mark G (colly) i.e. Copy of the maintenance charges of society;
(viii) Mark H (colly) i.e. Copy of three photographs of basement of the suit property.
23. DW-1 was cross examined by Ld. counsel for plaintiff. It is stated by DW1 that the documents are filed to rebut the allegations raised on behalf of plaintiff. It is stated by DW1 that he is an accused in FIR no. 586/04, however, along with the plaintiff. It is stated by DW1 that an FIR no. 45/17 was lodged against him and his son. It is stated by DW1 that another FIR no. 68/17 was also lodged against him. It is stated by DW1 that FIR no. 586/04 u/S 406/409/420/467/468/471/120B IPC Mark A/DW1 is pending before Ld. ACMM, THC. It is stated by DW1 that he has not filed the first charge sheet in the case. It is stated by DW1 that the said FIR was filed against him by Maruti Udhyog Ltd. where he used to work. It is stated by DW1 that his wife/ defendant no. 2 and he were implicated in FIR no. 68/17 Mark B/DW1. It is stated by DW1 that he has not stated about the involvement of plaintiff in FIR no. 586/04 and 46/17 in his WS. It is stated by DW1 that the family members have started residing in the ground floor of the property Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 19 of 38 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:56:02 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN since November 2002. It is stated by DW1 that after filing of WS, plaintiff and he both have revoked the power of attorney.
24. It is stated by DW1 that in suit bearing no. 15/16 titled as Naveen Chauhan v. Raj Kumar Chauhan decided by the court of Dr. Ajay Gulati, Ld. ADJ, Saket Courts, it has been stated that 'the defendant is the absolute owner of the property bearing no. A-1/59, Freedom Fighter Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi. Certified copy of the same is exhibited as Ex. D1/DW1. It is stated by DW1 that plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are co-owners of the suit property. It is stated by DW1 that he is the owner of the suit property since July 1999. It is stated by DW1 that he has a registered GPA and Will in his favour. It is stated by DW1 that the said documents were executed by the seller in July 1999. It is stated by DW1 that he is the co-owner of the suit property by virtue of GPA which was executed by the same seller.
25. It is stated by DW1 that the original of the said GPA dated 14.07.1999 lying with mother and he filed the photocopy of the same marked as Mark D1/DW2. It is stated by DW1 that connected document are there apart from this GPA which are lying with my mother that is agreement to sell, receipt of payments, possession letter and affidavit of seller. It is stated by DW1 that he has the receipts of the payments of house tax since inception of the suit property paid by him only. It is stated by DW1 that he does not have any other document except GPA dated 14.07.1999 which is in Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 20 of 38 Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:56:08 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN the name of Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan and Shri Naveen Chauhan. It is stated by DW1 that the certificate issued by association of block mentioned in the GPA is lying with his mother and the certificate is in his name and does not contained the name of Sh. Naveen Chauhan. It is denied by DW1 that the certificate is in the name of the seller Smt. Anuradha Chitkara.
26. It is denied by DW1 that he is not sole owner of the suit property and he does not have the ownership documents in his favour. It is stated by DW1 that he has revoked the GPA in favour of his father and his mother and plaintiff has also revoked the same. It is stated by DW1 that at the time of revocation, his father was not alive. It is stated by DW1 that after filing of the suit, the plaintiff had put lock on the door of cabin and he has prepared another cabin for himself but before that both were in occupation of the same cabin. It is stated by DW1 that the original documents of the suit property are already filed before the Hon'ble High Court in Suit No. 2016/2011. It is stated by DW1 that he has also filed the copy of the documents in this case i.e. the registered GPA however, he does not remember the contents of the GPA or whether it is related to absolute ownership or co-ownership. It is stated by DW1 that he does not know the exact date when he submitted the documents before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is stated by DW1 that the registered GPA was executed on 14.07.1999. It is stated by DW1 that he does not know whether it is related to the absolute ownership Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 21 of 38 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:56:14 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN of the suit property or not. It is stated by DW1 that he does not know the contents of the GPA. It is stated by DW1 that the registered GPA of the said property is lying with his mother. However, he does not know the contents of the GPA. It is stated by DW1 that he does not know if GPA related to absolute ownership and GPA related to co-ownership are separately lying with his mother. It is stated by DW1 that he does not know if she has handed over the same to someone else. It is stated by DW1 that there is no requirement to take permission from the co-owner as he has not contributed any amount for the purchase of the suit property as well as for the construction of the suit property. It is stated by DW1 that he has not specifically mentioned that he claimed 50% i.e. half portion of the basement in his written statement. It is stated by DW1 that the plaintiff has also not mentioned the 50% share of the basement as he has only mentioned that the defendant has tried to dispossess from his part possession as he has also not mentioned the cabin part also and actually the plaintiff is holding only a single cabin having a separate lock and key till date.
27. It is stated by DW1 that he has not filed any site plan with his written statement and have filed the photographs of the Cabin alongwith his affidavit. It is stated by DW1 that the plaintiff has not mentioned about the cabin and photocopies with his plaint, so he has not filed with his written statement. It is stated by DW1 that there are also other connected documents apart from GPA which Digitally signed by ANKIT Page no. 22 of 38 ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:56:21 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN is lying with his mother and not in his possession right now and the registered GPA has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is stated by DW1 that there are four meters electricity meters installed in the suit property, one meter is common for basement and ground floor, one meter is for first floor, one meter is for second meter and one meter for the third floor. It is stated by DW1 that he has paid all the electricity bills for the basement and for the ground floor and plaintiff and defendant no. 3 are not contributing any amount for the electricity consumption. It is stated by DW1 that meter no. 102194320 is common for basement and ground floor since inception of the meter. It is denied by DW1 that the electricity department does not install electricity meter for the basement and he is using electricity illegally. It is denied by DW1 that he had not filed any ITR in the year 1998-1999.
28. It is stated by DW1 that his father was working as CBI as DSP. It is stated by DW1 that his father purchased only one property which is not mentioned in the present suit. It is stated by DW1 that the suit property was purchased by him out of his own source of income and it is denied that the suit property was purchased by his father in the name of plaintiff and defendant no. 1. It is stated by DW1 that the suit property was purchased in joint name due to love and affection and therefore, he included the name of his younger brother i.e. plaintiff. It is stated by DW1 that after the demise of his father the said GPA was revoked by him. It is stated Digitally signed by ANKIT Page no. 23 of 38 ANKIT MITTAL Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:56:28 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN by DW1 that they have paternal property in the Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandsehar. It is denied by DW1 that the property bearing no. A1/59, Neb Sarai was purchased by his father in the joint of plaintiff and him. It is further denied by DW1 that due to that his father had obtained the GPA in the joint name of father and mother. It is denied by DW1 that having absolute right the mother had transferred the property in the name of defendant no. 3 Shashi. DW1 cross-examination was concluded on 27.05.2022. DEFENDANT NO. 3 EVIDENCE
29. Further, Defendant no. 3 namely Smt. Shashi Kumari was examined herself as DW2 who tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex. DW2/1 and has relied upon following documents i.e.
(i) Ex. DW2/A i.e. Copy of GPA dated 06.10.2004; and
(ii) Ex. DW2/B (colly) i.e. Copy of agreement to sell, GPA, affidavit, receipt and possession letter all dated 14.01.2011.
30. DW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. It is stated by DW2 that he has filed the suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court with respect of properties i.e. (a) Plot no. 15, 16, 17, Khasra no. 475, Indira Enclave measuring area 300 sq. yards, (b) Flat no. 19B, Bair Sarai, DDA flat, (c) A-3 & 4, Freedom Fighter Cultural Centre, IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai, measuring area 200 sq. yards and (d) suit property no. A-1/59, Freedom Fighter Enclave, IGNOU Road, Neb Sarai, measuring area 200 sq. yards. It Digitally signed by Page no. 24 of 38 ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:56:34 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN is stated by DW2 that the suit filed by her before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in respect of above mentioned properties vide CS (OS) 2016/2011 tilted as Rajwati Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. It is stated by DW2 that the titled documents in respect of above mentioned properties are in the possession of defendant no. 1. It is stated by DW2 that no single document in respect of the above mentioned properties are in her possession. It is stated by DW2 that the suit property constructed up to basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. It is stated by DW2 that she is residing at the ground floor of the suit property. It is stated by DW2 that defendant no. 1 & 2 are residing at second floor of the suit property along with their family. It is stated by DW2 that the plaintiff is residing at the third floor by the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is stated by DW2 that the tenant is residing at the first floor of the suit property. It is stated by DW2 that the plaintiff collect the rent from the tenant of the first floor of the suit property. It is stated by DW2 that the basement of the suit property equally divided by plaintiff and defendant no. 1. It is stated by DW2 that there is no separate electricity meter in the basement area. However, there is electricity meter on the ground floor and defendant no. 1 Raj Kumar has illegally taken electricity supply from the ground floor electricity meter to the basement.
31. It is denied by DW2 that the suit property was purchased jointly by plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and the property Digitally signed by ANKIT Page no. 25 of 38 ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:56:40 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN papers are in the name of plaintiff and defendant no. 1. It is stated by DW2 that the property was purchased by her father out of his retirement and pension funds in the name of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and later in the year 2004, the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 had re-conveyed the title in the name of her father and mother. It is stated by DW2 that in the year 2004, her father had expired and lot of issues were created between her mother and plaintiff and defendant no. 1 related to property therefore, in the year 2011, her mother transferred the property in her name. It is stated by DW2 that she cannot recollect that exact year, however, the property was purchased around the year 1996 by her father. It is stated by DW2 that she does not know exactly what all title documents were executed in the name of plaintiff and defendant no. 1. However, GPA was executed in the name of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 at the behest of her father. It is stated by DW2 that the GPA and other property documents relating to suit property are in the custody of defendant no. 1.
32. It is stated by DW2 that the GPA was executed in favour of her parents by the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in August 2004. It is stated by DW2 that the documents in respect of the suit property executed in her favour by her mother on the basis of GPA executed by plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in favour of her parents. It is stated by DW2 that no property / title document was executed by her father in her favour with regard to suit property during his Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Page no. 26 of 38 MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:56:47 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN lifetime. It is stated by DW2 that no property/ title document was executed by her father in favour of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 with regard to suit property during his lifetime. It is stated by DW2 that no property / title document was executed by her father in favour of LRs with regard to suit property during his lifetime. It is stated by DW2 that her mother had executed title document of the suit property in her favour i.e. GPA, receipt and some more documents which are presently part of the case file in a partition suit before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is stated by DW2 that GPA, agreement to sell, possession letter, affidavit and receipt are not registered. However, same have been duly notarized. It is denied by DW2 that she has the physical possession of ground floor only. It is stated by DW2 that she was not aware of the circle rate of the suit property at the time the property paper was executed in her favour. It is stated by DW2 that she does not know what was the market value of the suit property in the year 2011. It is stated by DW2 that she and her mother have been residing together ever since. It is stated by DW2 that she alone was looking after and taking care of all the needs of her mother. It is stated by DW2 that the sale consideration of agreement to sell Ex. DW2/B (colly) was Rs. 5.50 lacs paid by her periodically. It is stated by DW2 that consideration amount was paid after the execution of receipt Ex. DW2/B (colly).
33. It is stated by DW2 that the agreement to sell Ex.
DW2/B (colly) was notarized in Mehrauli in the presence of her Digitally signed by ANKIT Page no. 27 of 38 ANKIT MITTAL Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:57:17 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN mother. It is stated by DW2 that the receipt and possession letter was not notarized. It is stated by DW2 that the back side of affidavit Ex. DW2/B (colly) does not bear the name of the parties, purpose and in whose favour the document is being executed. DW2 cross- examination was concluded on 01.06.2023. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments. FINAL ARGUMENTS
34. Final arguments advanced by all the parties were heard.
The file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issue-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under: -
ISSUE NO. 1Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 41(h) and
(i) of Specific Relief Act? OPD ISSUE NO. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction? OPP ISSUE NO. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction? OPP & ISSUE NO. 4A Whether the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous? OPD3
35. All the issues are taken up together as they are interconnected with each other. In order to avoid repetition and Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 28 of 38 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:57:25 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN confusion, all issues are decided together. The burden to prove issues no. 3 & 4 is upon the plaintiff whereas burden to prove issues no. 1 & 4A is upon the defendants.
36. It is well settled principle of law of Evidence that the burden of proof in civil trial is the obligation on the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claims against the defendant and is based on preponderance of the probabilities. Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder V Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & another, VI(2003)SLT307 observed that whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved', as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as "A. Raghavamma & another V Chenchamma & another", AIR 1964 SC 136, there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 29 of 38 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:57:32 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Rangammal V Kuppuswami and others", Civil Appeal No 562 of 2003 observed that burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the fact is proved by the plaintiff. Thus, it can be said that the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues.
37. Further, it is relevant to mention Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which defines "burden of proof" and laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The Court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. Furthermore, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Page no. 30 of 38 MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:57:42 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
38. Further, it is relevant to mention the important judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Nagindas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram And Ors;
1974 AIR 471, wherein it discussed the probate value of admissions. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"..Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under s. 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the. foundation of the rights of the parties On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong..."
39. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction seeking the restraintment of defendant no. 1 & 2 from dispossessing him and from creating third party interest in the suit property and further restraining them from interfering in peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property. Further, he has also sought the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants no. 1 & 2 from interfering in the peaceful use Digitally signed by Page no. 31 of 38 ANKIT ANKIT Date:
MITTAL MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:57:49 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN and enjoyment of the tenants in the tenanted premises and the office of the plaintiff situated in the basement of the suit property.
40. At this stage, it will be relevant to mention the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Kanwal Kishore Manchanda & Anr. V. S.D.Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. 121(2005) DLT 98, wherein the expression "cause of action" has been succinctly explained. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:
"What then is a cause of action? Till there is no cause, there cannot be any action. For a cause, there has to be a right to sue. Infringement of a right or a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right would constitute a cause to bring an action. Whether a particular threat gave rise to a compulsory cause of action depends, upon the question whether that threat effectively invades or jeopardises the right. To constitute a cause of action, first is the coming into existence of a right and secondly , its infringement or threat to be infringed."
41. Therefore, in light of above, the plaintiff has to establish the cause of action in his plaint that he is in possession of the suit property and defendants have extended the threat of dispossession to him from suit property; without following due course of law, for seeking the relief of permanent injunction ie Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 32 of 38 Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:57:56 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN restraining the defendants from dispossessing or interfering in the possession of plaintiff with respect to suit property. Accordingly, the onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
42. In the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that he is in possession along with his mother and sister (defendant no. 3 in the present case) at the ground floor of the suit property. It is further alleged that the basement of the suit property is divided into half between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and they are in respective possession. Further, it is alleged by the plaintiff that the first floor of the suit property has been let out by the plaintiff to the tenant for which, he has claimed the relief of mandatory injunction in the prayer clause (b) of the plaint. Further, it will be relevant to mention that it is an admitted fact of the parties that there is a parallel partition suit is undergoing amongst them which is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the original side. Further, admittedly by the parties, by virtue of the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the position of parties were inter se changed in the suit property. The relevant paragraph of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is reproduced as under:-
"...The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff states that defendant no. 4 who was tenant has already handed over the possession of the floor of the suit property to defendant no. 1. The plaintiff and defendant no. 1 & 2 are present in person and they agreed that till further Digitally signed by Page no. 33 of 38 ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:58:02 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN order of this Court, the defendant no. 2 with his family who is at present residing with the mother of the plaintiff no. 1 be shifted to the third floor of the suit property as the mother of the parties is suffering from cancer and she needs the entire ground floor of the suit property. She has alleged that defendant no. 2 and his family is not allowing her to use the kitchen and other facilities. The defendant no. 2 has no objection to the same and undertakes to shift at third floor within three days. All the parties to the suit have ensured this Court that they shall maintain peace amongst themselves..."
43. It is pertinent to mention the order dated 09.02.2026 recorded by this Court in the present proceedings when the matter was listed for clarifications on the judgment and parties were asked about their current status of possession in the suit property and they told about their possession of their respective shares in the suit property. The said order of this Court dated 09.02.2026 is reproduced as under:-
"Matter is listed for clarifications, if any/ judgment.
Clarifications have been provided by the parties qua their admitted portions of the possession in the suit property.
All the parties submits that after the passing of the order dated 03.11.2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, mother Digitally signed by ANKIT Page no. 34 of 38 ANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:58:10 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN along with D3 is residing at ground floor of the suit property and has also clarified that the mother of the parties has passed away of 06.02.2023, thereafter, D3 namely Shashi Chauhan is residing at the ground floor of the suit property. Further, it has been clarified by all the parties that admittedly plaintiff is residing at third floor of the suit property whereas D1 & D2 are residing at second floor of the suit property.
Further, parties i.e. plaintiff as well as D1 & D2 have stated that tenants namely Naveen Aggarwal and Siddharth Aggarwal at first floor of the suit property, however, both plaintiff as well as D1 & D2 are claiming that they are the landlord of the said tenants.
Furthermore, parties i.e. plaintiff as well as D1 & D2 though have admitted that both the in the possession of the basement, however, both are claiming different share / portions of basement under their possession."
44. Thus, in view of the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and admissions made on behalf of parties, it is apparent that the status of the parties were changed subsequent to the institution of the suit and admittedly, the plaintiff is now in the exclusive possession of the third floor of the suit property and defendant no. 1 & 2 are in possession of second floor of the suit property whereas, defendant no. 3 is in exclusive Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 35 of 38 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:58:17 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN possession of the ground floor of the suit property. It is pertinent to mention that no amendment application was filed by the plaintiff during the trial in order to incorporate the said developments in the suit property. The said amendment was required in the present suit after the said developments in the suit property in order to determine that whether any new cause of action has accrued in favour of plaintiff or not, since the earlier cause of action on which the present suit was filed has rendered infructuous.
45. Moreover, the relief of permanent injunction as sought by the plaintiff is also not tenable on the ground that since, he has not pleaded any facts relating to subsequent developments in the plaint nor violation of his legal right by the defendants has come on record, since the possession of the plaintiff has been changed from the ground floor to the third floor of the suit property, therefore, in absence of such pleadings, no such relief can be granted to plaintiff on the settled principle of civil procedural law that no relief can be granted to parties beyond their pleadings. Thus, it can be said that the present suit is hit by the bar to the relief of injunction as mentioned u/S 41(i) of Specific Relief Act. Accordingly, the relief of permanent injunction as sought by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby declined and dismissed.
46. Further, it is pertinent to mention that plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction qua defendant no. 1 & 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the tenants at the Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT Page no. 36 of 38 MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:58:25 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN tenanted premises, though, he has couched the said relief in the phraseology of mandatory injunction. It is important to note that said tenants have not been made party in the present suit by the plaintiff and since the relief is being sought qua their possession, therefore, they were the necessary party to the present proceedings. Thus, in the absence of the said tenants as party in the present suit, therefore, no cause of action survives for the plaintiff to seek such relief from the defendants. Accordingly, said relief is not tenable under the eyes of law, therefore, same is dismissed for being devoid of merits. In light of above discussion, issue no. 1 & 4A are decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff whereas issues no. 3 & 4 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.ISSUE NO. 2
Whether any family settlement has taken place between the parties in the year 2003? OPP
47. Admittedly, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in order to protect his as well as his tenant's possession from the defendants, therefore, the material aspect to be determined is the possession of the parties and the violation of the same, therefore, no purpose will be served by giving the findings on the said issue as same is irrelevant for the adjudication of the present controversy between the parties. Accordingly, in exercise of power Digitally signed by Page no. 37 of 38 ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Date:
MITTAL 2026.03.18 16:58:33 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 83045/16 NAVEEN CHAUHAN VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the said issue is struck off from the present proceedings.ISSUE NO. 5
Relief
48. In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, docu- ments on record, pleadings of the parties, and evidence led, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is hereby dis- missed. No order as to costs.
49. It is clarified that the above findings have been given without prejudice to the legal right / remedy of the plaintiff to have a peaceful possession in the suit property since it is settled principle of law that a person in a settled possession cannot be dispossessed without following the due course of law.
50. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
51. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
Pronounced in open court: signed by
ANKIT ANKIT
Date:
MITTAL
MITTAL 2026.03.18
Dated: 18.03.2025 16:58:39
+0530
(Ankit Mittal)
CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/18.03.2025 Note:- This Judgment contains thirty eights pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signed by ANKITANKIT MITTAL MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:58:46 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/18.03.2025 Digitally signed by ANKIT ANKIT MITTAL Page no. 38 of 38 MITTAL Date:
2026.03.18 16:58:53 +0530 (Ankit Mittal) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi