Delhi District Court
Geeta And Ors vs Mahender Pal Bansasl on 20 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016
CNR No. DLSW010019132016
IN THE MATTER OF:
MAHENDER PAL BANSAL
(THROUGH LRS) ......Plaintiff
1. ANITA BANSAL
W/O MAHENDER PAL BANSAL
2. VAIBHAV BANSAL
S/O MAHENDER PAL BANSAL
BOTH R/O G-21, SHYAM PARK, NAWADA,
UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110059
3. NIDHI GUPTA
D/O MAHENDER PAL BANSAL
R/O FLAT NO. 907, BLOCK G,
RAINBOW VISTAS ROCK GARDEN,
GREEN HILLS ROAD, MOOSAPET,
BEHIND IDL FACTORY, BALANAGAR,
KV RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA-500018
Versus
1. GEETA
W/O HEERA LAL
RICHA 2. HEERA LAL
GUSAIN
SOLANKI
S/O DHANNA LAL
Digitally signed by
RICHA GUSAIN
SOLANKI
Date: 2025.09.20
05:12:35 +0530
BOTH R/O RZ-17, A-BLOCK,
DURGA PARK, GALI NO.9,
PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI-110045 ....Defendants
CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr
CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 1/26
AND
CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017
CNR No. DLSW010202122018
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. GEETA
2. HEERA LAL ....Plaintiffs
Versus
MAHENDER PAL BANSAL
(THROUGH LRS) ....Defendants
Date of institution of CS DJ ADJ No. 19.04.2016
516401/2016
Date of institution of CS DJ ADJ No. 25.05.2016
1227/2017
Date of reserving judgment in both suits 11.08.2025
and 20.09.2025
Date of judgment 20.09.2025
JUDGMENT
By this common judgment, I shall decide two suits, namely, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by Mahender Pal Bansal, and the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by Geeta and Heera Lal. For the purpose of clarity, hereinafter, Mahender Pal Bansal shall referred to as "the plaintiff" whereas Geeta and Heera Lal are referred to as "the defendants." The brief facts of the two suits are:-
Digitally PLAINT OF MAHENDER PAL BANSAL (516401/16) signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI Date:
1 The plaintiff claims to have purchased a plot measuring SOLANKI 2025.09.20 05:12:42 +0530 150 yd.², bearing old no. 22, J Block in Khasra no. 41/1, Bharat CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 2/26 Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi, now numbered as E-218, E Block (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property" ), from one Sudhir on 29.07.2009, vide notarised General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell (ATS), affidavit, possession letter, receipt, and Will.
2 Sudhir is stated to have purchased the suit property from Suresh Devi on 02.04.2008 through notarised GPA, ATS, and affidavit.
3 Suresh Devi had purchased the suit property from Vinay and Bal Kishan on 20.07.2007 vide notarised GPA, ATS, affidavit, receipt, possession letter, and Will. 4 Vinay and Bal Kishan had purchased it from Bindu Dogra on 02.06.1998 vide registered GPA, registered Will, notarised SPA, receipt, ATS, affidavit, and possession letter. 5 Bindu Dogra had purchased the suit property from Ram Chander and Ram Karan on 23.10.1990 through notarised GPA, ATS, affidavit, and registered receipt. 6 Ram Chander and Ram Karan are stated to be the original bhumidhars of the land.
7 The plaintiff asserts that after purchasing the suit property, he came into peaceful and lawful possession thereof and has been paying property tax since 21.10.2009. It is averred that the suit property consisted of a room and boundary wall with an iron gate. It is alleged that when the said construction was damaged and the plaintiff attempted to repair it, the defendants, along with some unknown persons, visited the suit property on 18.02.2016 Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI and restrained the plaintiff from carrying out construction, SOLANKI Date:
2025.09.20 05:12:46 +0530 claiming ownership thereof. At that time, the plaintiff's wife, Anita Bansal, called the PCR. Both parties were directed to visit CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 3/26 the police station the following day, but the defendants failed to produce any documents.
8 On 28.02.2016, another meeting was convened by the plaintiff in the presence of one of the previous owners, Bal Kishan. However, the defendants again did not appear. 9 On 01.03.2016, defendant no.1 allegedly visited the suit property with associates and once again directed stoppage of the repair work. When Anita Bansal contacted Raju Verma, the property dealer through whom the property was purchased, the defendants allegedly threatened both Anita Bansal and Raju Verma. On calling the PCR, the defendants and their associates fled, threatening to return.
Digitally signed by 10 The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are land grabbers RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.09.20 and has filed the present suit seeking a decree of permanent 05:12:51 injunction restraining them from dispossessing him from the suit +0530 property or obstructing construction work. The plaintiff further seeks a declaration in his favour, declaring "the title of the suit property by virtue of settled in complete chain of documents." WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY GEETA & HEERA LAL (516401/16)
11 The defendants, in their common written statement, have contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff is a land grabber who has forged documents of the suit property. It is their case that Ram Chander and Ram Karan, the original bhumidhars, sold the suit property to the defendants on 11.03.1990 through notarised ATS, GPA, receipt, and Will. The defendants assert that they have been in possession of the suit property since then, having constructed a room, boundary wall, and installed a hand pump. They further allege that the plaintiff CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 4/26 attempted to dispossess them in January 2016 and again on 14.03.2016, for which they lodged police complaints. PLAINT OF GEETA & HEERA LAL (1227/17) 12 The defendants have reiterated similar facts in their plaint as stated in their written statement in CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016. Additionally, it is pleaded that defendant no.1 purchased the suit property admeasuring 154 yd.² , being plot no. 6, out of Khasra no. 41/1, Village Kakrola. It is further alleged that on 15.05.2016, the plaintiff threatened the defendants' labourers engaged in construction at the suit property. 13 Hence, the defendants seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their possession over the suit property, and a decree of declaration RICHA declaring the chain of documents dated 23.10.1990, 02.06.1998, GUSAIN SOLANKI and 29.07.2009 as null and void.
Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKIDate: 2025.09.20 WRITTEN STATMENT FILED BY MAHENDER PAL 05:12:55 +0530 BANSAL (1227/17) 14 The plaintiff reiterated his own case, as noted earlier, in the written statement. It is additionally pleaded that the room, boundary walls, and hand pump had been installed not by the defendants but by the previous owners, namely Bal Kishan and Vinay Arora.
ISSUES IN CS DJ ADJ NO. 516401/2016 15 Vide order dated 29.01.2020, nine issues were framed by Ld Predecessor Court:
"i. Whether the plaintiff purchased the immovable property admeasuring 150sq.yds., bearing Old No.22,Block-J, Khasra No.41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (New No.E-218, Block-E, as per colony lay out plan) from Sudhir, which is bounded as under:
CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 5/26 North: 20 ft Road South: 10 ft. Gully East: Other's Plot West: Other's Plot ... OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of immovable property admeasuring 150sq.yds., bearing Old No.22, Block-J, Khasra No.41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (New No.E-218, Block-E, as per colony lay out plan)?...OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff has under valued the suit property to evade court fees and the suit is barred by the provisions of Suit Valuation Act?...OPDs iv. Whether the suit preferred by the plaintiff is barred by Digitally signed by Law of Limitation?...OPDs RICHA v. Whether no cause of action has arisen in favour of the RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.09.20 05:13:00 +0530 plaintiff to prefer the present suit against the defendants?...OPDs vi. Whether the plaintiff has preferred the present suit on the basis of false, forged and fabricated documents?...OPDs vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration being declared as the owner in title and settled possession of the suit property admeasuring 150sq.yds., bearing Old No.22, Block-J, Khasra No.41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (New No.E-218, Block-E, as per colony lay out plan)?...OPP viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossession, interfering, causing obstruction in the construction work on the suit property admeasuring 150sq.yds., bearing Old No.22, Block-J, Khasra No.41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (New No.E-218, Block-E, as per colony lay out plan) against the defendants? ...OPP ix. Relief, if any"
ISSUES IN CS DJ ADJ NO. 1227/2017
16 Four issues were framed vide order dated 10.03.2023:
"i)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable without CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 6/26 seeking declaration of her own chain of documents? ...OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare the chain of documents as mentioned in relief clause (2) of the suit as null and void? ...OPP
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
iv)Relief"
EVIDENCE 17 Common evidence was led in the two suits, which is recorded in the file of CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016. 18 Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
18.1 PW1/Anita Bansal entered the witness box as PW1. She Digitally tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
upon the following documents:
2025.09.20
05:13:06
+0530
S. No. Documents Marked as
1. Chain of documents dated 28.07.2009 Ex.PW1/1
2. Site plan of the suit property Ex.PW1/2
3. House tax receipts Ex.PW1/3 and Mark C
4. Copy of documents dated 23.10.1990 Mark A
5. Copy of police complaint filed by the Mark B plaintiff
6. Certified copy of the chargesheet Ex.PW1/5
7. Chain of documents dated 02.06.1998, Ex.PW1/6 (colly) 23.07.2007 and 02.04.2008 18.2 PW2/Rajender Kumar @ Raju, tendered his affidavit Ex.
PW2/A, wherein he deposed that Bal Kishan and Vinay Arora had sold the suit property to Smt. Suresh through him on 20.07.2007. He further deposed that Smt. Suresh thereafter, sold the suit property to Sudhir on 02.04.2008, and subsequently Sudhir sold the same to Mahender Pal Bansal on 28.07.2009, also through him. He identified his signatures on the chain of CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 7/26 documents dated 20.07.2007, 02.04.2008, and 28.07.2009. He further deposed that on 01.03.2016, upon request of Anita Bansal, he went to the suit property, where he found defendant no.1 and her family members quarrelling with Mahender Pal Bansal and Anita Bansal. He stated that he made a call to the PCR, pursuant to which Mahender Pal Bansal lodged a written complaint in his presence.
18.3 PW3/Kailash, deposed that he had acted as a property dealer in the transaction between Sudhir and Mahender Pal Bansal in respect of the suit property. He identified his own signatures as well as those of Sahib Singh, Sudhir Kumar, and Mahender Pal Bansal on the chain of documents dated Digitally signed by 28.07.2009.
RICHA RICHA 18.4 PW4/Sudhir Kumar, deposed that he had purchased the GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.09.20 05:13:11 +0530 suit property from Smt. Suresh in April 2008. He identified his own signatures as well as those of Smt. Suresh, Anil Maan, and Rajender on the chain of documents dated 02.04.2008 Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that he sold the said property to Mahender Pal Bansal and identified his signatures on the chain of documents dated 28.07.2009.
18.5 PW5/an official witness from the Court of the Learned JMFC, South-West, produced the chargesheet and FIR of Case No. 151/17, PS Dwarka North, which were exhibited as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B. 19 On behalf of the defendants, five witnesses were examined:
19.1 Geeta (defendant no.1) and Heera Lal (defendant no.2) entered the witness box as DW1 and DW2 respectively. They tendered their evidence by way of affidavits, Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW2/A, and relied upon the following documents:
CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 8/26 S.No. Particulars of documents Documents marked as
1. Site plan of the suit property Ex DW1/1
2. Copy of the ATS dated 11.03.1990 Mark A
3. Copy of the GPA dated 11.03.1990 Mark B
4. Copy of the receipt dated 11.03.1990 Mark C
5. Copy of the Wills dated 11.03.1990 Mark D and Mark E
6. Khatoni of the suit property Ex DW1/7
7. Photographs of the suit property with their Ex DW1/8 and certificate Ex DW1/10
8. Police complaints filed by the defendants Mark F 19.2 DW3/Ajab Singh deposed that his son K.P. Babu had sold RICHA GUSAIN the suit property in the year 1990 for ₹36,000 and that his son SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN had passed away on 31.12.1990.SOLANKI
19.3 DW4/Ganpat Lal deposed that he was the brother of Date: 2025.09.20 05:13:16 +0530 defendant no.2 and that in the year 1990, he had met two property dealers- KP Singh and Raju regarding purchase of a plot ad-measuring about 150 yd.² 19.4 DW5/an official witness from the Court of Ld JMFC, South-
West, brought the original documents of copies Mark A to Mark E as Ex DW5/1 (colly) and the affidavit dated 11.03.1990 as Ex DW5/2.
FINDINGS:
20 Issue-wise findings are as under:
21 Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal:"iii. Whether the plaintiff has under valued the suit property to evade court fees and the suit is barred by the provisions of Suit Valuation Act?...OPDs"
21.1 The plaintiff has not assigned any specific market value to the suit property as such; rather, he has valued the individual reliefs sought by him. The relief of declaration has been valued at ₹17,20,000/-, in accordance with the consideration reflected in the chain of documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. The defendants CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 9/26 have not adduced any evidence to establish that the value of the suit property, as on the date of institution of the suit, was different from what has been shown by the plaintiff. 21.2 In view thereof, there is no material on record to suggest that the suit has been undervalued. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
22 Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal:"iv. Whether the suit preferred by the plaintiff is barred by Law of Limitation? ...OPDs"
22.1 The defendants have taken the plea that the suit instituted RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. However, no explanation Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 or particulars have been furnished in the written statement as to 05:13:22 +0530 the basis for such a plea.
22.2 On the contrary, the plaintiff has specifically averred that the dispute with respect to the suit property arose on 18.02.2016, when the defendants came to the property and asserted their rights over the same. Even as per the case of the defendants, the dispute arose in January 2016. Accordingly, the cause of action for filing the present suit for permanent injunction and declaration accrued only in January/February 2016. The present suit, having been instituted in April 2016, cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
22.3 This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
23 Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal:"i. Whether the plaintiff purchased the immovable property admeasuring 150 sq.yds., bearing Old No.22,Block-J, Khasra No.41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (New No.E-218, Block-E, as per colony lay out plan) from Sudhir, which is bounded as under:
North: 20 ft Road South: 10 ft. Gully CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 10/26 East: Other's Plot West: Other's Plot ... OPP Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal: "vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration being declared as the owner in title and settled possession of the suit property admeasuring 150sq.yds., bearing Old No.22, Block-J, Khasra No.41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (New No.E-218, Block-E, as per colony lay out plan)?...OPP"
23.1 The plaintiff asserts that he purchased the suit property from Sudhir and thereby became its owner. To substantiate this claim, the plaintiff has relied upon the notarised GPA, ATS, affidavit, possession letter, receipt, and Will, all dated 28.07.2009, Ex. PW1/1 (colly), executed by Sudhir, along with Digitally signed by RICHA the preceding chain of documents Ex. PW1/6 (colly). RICHA GUSAIN 23.2 It is a settled proposition of law that none of the GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.09.20 05:13:27 +0530 aforesaid documents constitute instruments of transfer of immovable property within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Transfer of ownership in immovable property can only be effected through a duly registered sale deed, which admittedly is not in existence in favour of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, it is inconsequential to examine the genuineness of the prior chain of documents exhibited as Ex. PW1/6 (colly) at this stage. Even if it is assumed that such chain of documents was genuine and that Sudhir had any title in the suit property, the only document capable of transferring the same to the plaintiff would have been the Will. However, since Sudhir is very much alive and has deposed as PW4 in the plaintiff's suit, the Will cannot operate as a conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. 23.3 Consequently, it cannot be held that the plaintiff "purchased" the suit property, nor can he be declared to be the owner thereof.
CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 11/26 23.4 The issue of possession has been framed separately and shall be dealt with under that head. 23.5 Both these issues are, accordingly, decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
24 Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal: "vi. Whether the plaintiff has preferred the present suit on the basis of false, forged and fabricated documents?...OPDs"
Issue in the suit of Geeta: "ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare the chain of documents as mentioned in relief clause (2) of the suit as null and void? ...OPP"
24.1 These issues may be conveniently adjudicated together. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI The plaintiff has relied upon the chains of documents Ex. PW1/1, Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 Mark A, and Ex. PW1/6, whereas the defendants have placed 05:13:32 +0530 reliance on documents Ex. DW5/1 and Ex. DW5/2. Each side has alleged that the documents relied upon by the other are forged and fabricated.
24.2 However, it is an admitted position that Ram Chander and Ram Karan were the original bhumidhars of the land of which the suit property forms a part.
24.3 Plaintiff's documents:
24.3.1 At the outset, it is noted that the defendants have specifically disputed only three sets of documents, namely those dated 23.10.1990, 02.06.1998, and 29.07.2009, while not challenging the intermediate chains of documents dated 20.07.2007 and 02.04.2008. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and completeness, the entire chain of documents shall be examined.
24.3.2 The plaintiff asserts that Bindu Dogra acquired possession of the suit property from Ram Chander and Ram CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 12/26 Karan on 23.10.1990 vide notarised GPA, ATS, affidavit, and registered receipt. In FIR No. 151/17, PS Dwarka North, pertaining to the dispute over the suit property, the original documents in favour of Bindu Dogra were seized (page 67 of the chargesheet Ex. DW5/B) by the Investigating Officer and got verified. The verification report forms part of the chargesheet Ex. PW5/B. As per the report, the registration of the receipt dated 23.10.1990 was confirmed by the office of the concerned Sub-
Registrar (page 190 of Ex. PW5/B). The GPA and affidavit of the same date are duly notarised.
RICHA GUSAIN 24.3.3 The plaintiff further claims that Bindu Dogra sold the suit SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN property to Vinay Arora and Bal Kishan on 02.06.1998 through SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:13:37 +0530 registered GPA, registered Will, notarised SPA, receipt, ATS, affidavit, and possession letter, and that possession was handed over. The registration of the GPA and Will was verified from the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar (page 196 of Ex. PW5/B). The remaining documents of 02.06.1998 are notarised. 24.3.4 Learned Counsel for the defendants contended that none of the plaintiff's witnesses deposed to the presence of a notary at the time of execution, and therefore, the documents cannot be said to be duly notarised.
24.3.5 This contention lacks merit for two reasons: firstly, when the witnesses were questioned regarding who was present at the time of execution, they naturally mentioned the parties, their family members, and attesting witnesses, and not ancillary persons such as the typist or notary. Secondly, while the defendants have challenged the documents of the plaintiff, they have adduced no evidence to establish that the notarial stamp is forged.
CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 13/26 24.3.6 It must be noted that a presumption attaches to notarised documents under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act. In Kamla Rani v. Texmaco Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine Del 128 , it was held:
"33. Authentication by a notary public is a solemn act performed by the notary public whose duty is to ensure that the executant is the person before him and is identified to his satisfaction. Once a document is authenticated by a notary public, it will be presumed that the document was duly executed and was in order..."
24.3.7 It is also profitable to refer to the case of Rajeshwarhwa vs Sushma Govil, AIR1989 Del 144 wherein it was observed:
"When a seal of the Notary is put on the document, Section 57 of the Evidence Act comes into play and a presumption can be raised regarding the genuineness of the seal of the said Notary, meaning thereby that the said document is presumed to have been attested by a competent Notary of that country."
24.3.8 Although the presumption under Section 57 is rebuttable, the defendants have neither challenged the documents on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, or forgery, nor led any evidence to rebut the presumption.
24.3.9 The next set of documents that the plaintiff relies on are notarised GPA, ATS, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and Will RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI dated 20.07.2007 through which Suresh Devi acquired the suit property from Vinay and Bal Kishan. The execution of these Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:13:43 +0530 documents was proved through PW2-Rajender who is an attesting witness in this chain of documents. 24.3.10 The plaintiff further claims that Suresh Devi then sold and handed over the suit property to Sudhir on 02.04.2008 vide notarised GPA, ATS and affidavit. The execution of these documents was proved through PW2-Rajender who is an attesting witness in this chain of documents, and PW4-Sudhir, who identified the signatures of the seller and both attesting CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 14/26 witnesses in the same.
24.3.11 Finally, the plaintiff claims that he purchased the suit property and got its possession from Sudhir on 29.07.2009, under notarised GPA, ATS, affidavit, possession letter, receipt and Will. The execution of these documents have been proved by Sudhir himself who vouched for their authenticity as PW4, as well as by PW3 who is an attesting witness in these documents.
24.3.12 Ld Counsel for the defendants has highlighted the discrepancies in the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses. It is argued that PW1 stated that she had seen the suit property only on 29.07.2009, that is, the same day when the documents Ex PW1/1 were executed, but it is not plausible that a person would buy an immovable property on the same day as seeing it. It is further argued that contrary to PW1, PW3 deposed that they showed the suit property to the plaintiff 3-4 days before the deal, and PW4 deposed that the same was shown one month before the deal. It is further argued that the witnesses deposed that the sale RICHA GUSAIN consideration was paid in cash and cheque or by demand draft, SOLANKI whereas the receipt dated 29.07.2009 mentions about cash Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:13:48 +0530 payment only. Ld Counsel has argued that there also exists discrepancy as regards the order in which the witnesses signed the documents.
24.3.13 The discrepancies in the witnesses' statements, as pointed out by the defence, are minor and attributable to lapse of memory over time. The testimonies of the witnesses were recorded after 13 years of the execution of documents. They do not go to the root of the matter, particularly when the defendants themselves were unable to recall similar details of their own alleged CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 15/26 transaction, like when they visited the suit property, when the earnest money was paid, the dates on which the sale consideration was paid, when the documents were executed, etc. 24.3.14 Accordingly, the plaintiff has successfully discharged the initial burden of proof with respect to his documents, while the defendants have failed to establish why these documents ought to be declared null and void. They have not even explained why these documents are liable to be declared null and void; their only contention is that these documents have been created by the plaintiff to usurp the suit property. However, they did not examine any witness who could show that the documents executed by the bhumidars Ram Karan and Ram Chander were not genuine or unreliable for any reason. 24.3.15 Ld Counsel for the defendants has argued that the plaintiff was not seeking a declaration regarding the documents Ex DW5/1 and Ex DW5/2 of the defendants and therefore, the documents of the defendants are automatically RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI proved.
Digitally signed by24.3.16 I do not concur with this argument. There is RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:13:52 +0530 no law which provides that documents stand proved for all times and occasions, three years after their execution. Rather, the documents of the defendants are very much in dispute in the present suits since the plaintiff has claimed relief of declaration of his title.
24.3.17 It is a fundamental principle of evidence law that the burden of proof in a suit lies upon the party who would fail if no evidence were produced on either side. The burden of establishing entitlement to relief of declaration lay upon the defendants, in accordance with Section 102 of the Indian CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 16/26 Evidence Act. However, it appears that the only basis for disputing the plaintiff's documents is that the defendants claim that they had purchased the suit property from the bhumidhars. This cannot be a reason to doubt the plaintiff's documents. We may also now evaluate the documents of the defendant. 24.4 Defendants' documents:
24.4.1 The defendants claim purchase of the suit property from Ram Chander and Ram Karan on 11.03.1990 vide notarised ATS, GPA, affidavit, receipt, and Will. However, during the investigation of FIR No.151/17 PS Dwarka North, the investigating officer had all the stamp papers relied upon by both parties verified. The verification by the Indian Security Press revealed that the stamp papers used in the GPA and ATS were not genuine (page 218 of Ex PW5/B).
24.4.2 The Indian Security Press also reported that the revenue RICHA GUSAIN stamp (of 20 paisa) on the receipt, though genuine, was not SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI issued until 1992 (pages 218 and 78 of Ex PW5/B) - two years Date: 2025.09.20 after the purported execution. Thus, the documents could not 05:13:57 +0530 have been executed on 11.03.1990. Further, one of the purported sellers, namely Ram Chander has signed across the said revenue stamp. Hence, it is obvious that the signatures of Ram Chander, even if presumed genuine, were not obtained on 11.03.1990, when the said document is mentioned to be attested by the Notary Public.
24.4.3 Ld Counsel for the defendants has argued that the chargesheet Ex PW5/B is still to be proved in the criminal trial and therefore, no reliance can be placed on it. 24.4.4 I find no substance in this argument. The contention that the chargesheet Ex. PW5/B cannot be relied upon until proved in CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 17/26 the criminal trial is without merit, since the reports were issued by a government authority. No ground has been raised by the defendants as to why such reports are unreliable. 24.4.5 Moreover, the attesting witnesses to the defendants' documents do not support their case. There were two witnesses in all these documents (except affidavit.) KP Singh, one of the witnesses, had died in December 1990, making it impossible for him to have signed on stamp papers issued only in 1992.
While, DW3 (father of KP Singh) entered the witness box, he did not identify the signatures of his son or any other person in the chain of documents dated 11.03.1990. Rather, he stated that his son KP Singh had sold some property to the defendants and empathetically denied the suggestion that his son was never the RICHA GUSAIN owner of the suit property. However, the chain of documents SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN dated 11.03.1990 Ex DW5/1 and Ex DW5/2 are not executed by SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:14:02 +0530 KP Singh in the favour of the defendants; these purportedly reflect that Ram Karan and Ram Chander had "sold" the suit property to the defendants.
24.4.6 Similarly, the defendants, as DW1 and DW2 also stated that they had purchased the suit property, not from the bhumidhars, but from the property dealers. Defendant no.2 rather admitted that he never even met the bhumidhars- Ram Chander and Ram Karan. He also stated that he had been given the chain of documents including the stamp papers by KP Singh. This would be impossible considering that the stamp papers had not even been issued in the lifetime of KP Singh. 24.4.7 The other attesting witness, Ganpat Lal (DW4), admitted that he never saw KP Singh sign any document. He deposed that he met KP Singh only once, in the fields at the time of CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 18/26 negotiations, and KP Singh did not sign any document in his presence. He further deposed that defendant no.2 and KP Singh talked about for its purchase but he did not know what happened thereafter. In other words, he did not know about the actual "sale". He too did not identify his son's signature in any of the documents Ex DW5/1 and Ex DW5/2.
24.4.8 Therefore, the documents dated 11.03.1990 in favour of the defendants stand disproved.
24.5 In light of the above, it cannot be held that the plaintiff has relied on false, fabricated, or forged documents. The defendants are not entitled to a declaration that the chains of documents dated 23.10.1990 (in favour of Bindu Dogra), 02.06.1998 (in favour of Vinay Arora and Bal Kishan), or 29.07.2009 (in favour of Mahender Pal Bansal) are null and void. 24.6 Both these issues are, therefore, decided in favour of the RICHA plaintiff and against the defendants. GUSAIN SOLANKI Digitally signed by 25 Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal: "ii. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of immovable property admeasuring 150 sq.yds., RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:14:10 +0530 bearing Old No.22, Block-J, Khasra No.41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (New No.E-218, Block-E, as per colony lay out plan)?...OPP"
Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal: "v. Whether no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff to prefer the present suit against the defendants? ...OPDs"
Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal:"viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossession, interfering, causing obstruction in the construction work on the suit property admeasuring 150sq.yds., bearing Old No.22, Block-J, Khasra No.41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi (New No.E-218, Block-E, as per colony lay out plan) against the defendants?...OPP"
Issue in the suit of Geeta: "iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP"
CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 19/26 25.1 These issues are interrelated and are, therefore, being adjudicated together.
25.2 Before addressing the question of possession, it is pertinent to note the difference in the description of the suit property as given by the parties. The plaintiff asserts that the suit property is a plot ad-measuring 150 yd.², comprising boundary walls, an iron gate and a room, which, according to him, had been constructed by the previous owners, namely, Bal Kishan and Vinay Arora. The plaintiff has relied upon the site plan Ex. PW1/2 and contends that the suit property now bears No. E-218 (Old No. 22, Block-J) and is situated in Khasra No. 41/1, Bharat Vihar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi, with the following boundaries:
◦ North: 20 ft. road ◦ South: 10 ft. street ◦ East: Other's plot ◦ West: Other's plot 25.3 26 The defendants, on the other hand, contend that the suit property ad-measures 154 yd.² and bears Plot No. 6, out of Khasra No. 41/1, Village Kakrola. Their site plan is Ex. DW1/1.
They further claim that the construction over the suit property had been raised by them.
25.4 Neither party has adduced any cogent evidence to prove RICHA GUSAIN the exact measurement or the precise number of the suit property. SOLANKI Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Nevertheless, there is no dispute that both sides are claiming Date: 2025.09.20 05:14:15 +0530 rights over the very same plot.
25.5 A comparative analysis of the site plans Ex. PW1/2 and Ex.
DW1/1 shows that while the plaintiff's site plan does not indicate any measurements, the defendants' plan records the plot as measuring 22 feet by 63 feet (154 yd.²). However, the defendants CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 20/26 have failed to prove their site plan. It remains unclear as to who prepared the same, at whose instance, and whether the property was actually measured or the details were simply provided. 25.6 In cross-examination, defendant No.1/DW1 stated that the suit property measured about 150 yd.² and that she was unaware of its exact measurements. She also deposed that the suit property was surrounded by vacant land on all sides when she purchased it, which does not align with the site plan Ex. DW1/1. 25.7 Defendant No.2/DW2 similarly deposed that the suit property was about 150 yd.², but further stated that he paid sale consideration at the rate of ₹220 per yd.², amounting to ₹36,000 in total. On calculation, this would indicate an area exceeding 163 yd.². Furthermore, DW3 (the brother of defendant No.2), whose signatures are purportedly on the chain of documents Ex. DW5/1 and who allegedly inspected the suit property prior to purchase, also deposed that the suit property was about 150 yd.². These testimonies contradict the defendants' own site plan. 25.8 Accordingly, there is no justification for relying upon the site plan Ex. DW1/1. Resultantly, both site plans are of little assistance in ascertaining the suit property. In these circumstances, the chain of documents pertaining to the suit Digitally signed by property assumes significance in affirming its description. Since RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.09.20 the defendants' documents stand disproved, reliance must 05:14:19 necessarily be placed upon the documents filed by the plaintiff. +0530 25.9 The documents in favour of the plaintiff may not establish transfer of ownership, but they do demonstrate that possession of the suit property travelled consensually from the original bhumidhars to the plaintiff. The house tax receipt Ex. PW1/3 further corroborates the plaintiff's version, showing payment of CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 21/26 house tax on 21.10.2009 for the years 2004 to 2010. This lends support to the claim that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property since its purchase on 29.07.2009. These facts, taken cumulatively, indicate that the plaintiff has been in settled possession of the suit property since 29.07.2009. 25.10 Conversely, the defendants have not led any credible evidence to show that they are, or have at any time been, in possession of the suit property.
25.11 Both sides admit that a room and boundary walls with an iron gate exist on the suit property, though they have since become dilapidated. The plaintiff claims these were constructed RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI by the previous owners, Bal Kishan and Vinay Arora. PW1 has testified accordingly. PW2, the property dealer who brokered Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:14:23 +0530 three transactions concerning the suit property, also deposed that the construction had been carried out by Bal Kishan and Vinay Arora prior to 20.07.2007, when the property was handed over to Suresh Devi. PW4/Sudhir corroborated this by deposing that the construction existed when he purchased the property in 2008. 25.12 In contrast, the defendants assert that they had carried out the construction. DW1/Defendant No.1, however, took contradictory stands: at one stage she claimed to have constructed the walls immediately after her purchase in 1990, but later admitted in cross-examination that she had not raised any construction till date. DW2 deposed that construction was raised 4-5 weeks after purchase.
25.13 It is thus clear that the existence of the construction as on 20.07.2007 is not disputed. The burden lay upon the defendants to prove that the construction existed in 1990 or at least prior to 2007, so as to disprove the plaintiff's case. No such evidence has CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 22/26 been furnished.
25.14 A civil suit is decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, which in the present case heavily tilt in favour of the plaintiff. It is highly likely that the plaintiff, and not the defendants, has been in possession of the suit property since 2009.
25.15 It is well settled that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by the true owner and that too, only in Digitally accordance with due process of law. Reliance may be placed on signed by Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131 , RICHA RICHA GUSAIN GUSAIN SOLANKI SOLANKI Date:
2025.09.20 05:14:28 +0530 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person in settled possession, even without a lawful title, cannot be dispossessed by the owner except in due course of law. 25.16 In Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person in possession of land, exercising peaceable and ordinary rights of ownership, has good title against the whole world except the rightful owner. The Court cited the maxim "Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eum cui ius sit possessionis" (meaning, he that hath possession hath right against all but him that hath the very right) and held:
"A defendant in such a case must show in himself or his predecessor a valid legal title, or probably a possession prior to the plaintiff's and thus be able to raise a presumption prior in time."
25.17 In Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, (1995) 3 SCC 426, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that disputed questions of title are to be decided by due process of law, but the peaceful possession is to be protected from the trespasser without regard to the question of the origin of the possession. When the CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 23/26 defendant fails in proving his title to the suit land the plaintiff can succeed in securing a decree for possession on the basis of his prior possession against the defendant who has dispossessed him. Such a suit will be founded on the averment of previous possession of the plaintiff and dispossession by the defendant. 25.18 Reference may also be placed on the case of Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769 wherein it was held:
"8. .....In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted.... RICHA ...
GUSAIN 11. In the present case the trial court has found the plaintiff as SOLANKI Digitally signed by having failed in proving his title. Nevertheless, he has been found RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI to be in settled possession of the property. Even the defendant failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to Date: 2025.09.20 05:14:33 +0530 substantiate his entitlement to evict the plaintiff. The trial court, therefore, left the question of title open and proceeded to determine the suit on the basis of possession, protecting the established possession and restraining the attempted interference therewith. The trial court and the High Court have rightly decided the suit. It is still open to the defendant-appellant to file a suit based on his title against the plaintiff-respondent and evict the latter on the former establishing his better right to possess the property.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Division Bench decision in Dasnam Naga Sanyasi v. Allahabad Development Authority [AIR 1995 All 418] and a Single Judge decision in Kallappa Rama Londa v. Shivappa Nagappa Aparaj [AIR 1995 Kant 238] to submit that in the absence of declaration of title having been sought for, the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent was not maintainable and should have been dismissed solely on this ground. We cannot agree. Dasnam Naga Sanyasi case [AIR 1995 All 418] relates to the stage of grant of temporary injunction wherein, in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the court below declining the discretionary relief of ad interim injunction to the plaintiff on the ground that failure to claim declaration of title in the facts of that case spoke against the conduct of the plaintiff and was considered to be "unusual". In Kallappa Rama Londa case [AIR 1995 Kant 238] the learned Single Judge has upheld the maintainability of a suit merely seeking injunction, without declaration of title and on dealing with several decided cases the learned Judge has agreed with the CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 24/26 proposition that where the suit for declaration of title and injunction is filed, and the title is not clear, the question of title will have to be kept open without denying the plaintiff's claim for injunction in view of the fact that the plaintiff has been in possession and there is nothing to show that the plaintiff has gained possession by any unfair means just prior to the suit. That is the correct position of law. In Fakirbhai Bhagwandas v. Maganlal Haribhai [AIR 1951 Bom 380 : 53 Bom LR 163] a Division Bench spoke through Bhagwati, J. (as his Lordship then was) and held that it is not necessary for the person claiming injunction to prove his title to the suit land. It would suffice if he proves that he was in lawful possession of the same and that his possession was invaded or threatened to be invaded by a person who has no title thereof. We respectfully agree with the view so taken..."
(emphasis supplied) RICHA 25.19 Therefore, the plaintiff, having established his settled GUSAIN SOLANKI possession over the suit property since the year 2009, is entitled Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:14:37 +0530 to protection of such possession against all persons other than the true owner. The defendants, while admitting that they frequently visit the suit property and assert ownership rights, have failed to prove any title superior to that of the plaintiff. 25.20 Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiff has a valid cause of action in his favour, as he is in possession of the suit property, and he is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction to safeguard his possession. The defendants are hereby restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff, or from interfering with, or otherwise obstructing his possession of the suit property, as described in the plaint of SC DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016. Conversely, the defendants are not entitled to the relief of injunction, as they have failed to establish their possession over the suit property.
25.21 In view thereof, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
26 Issue in the suit of Mahender Pal:"ix. Relief, if any""
CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 25/26 and Issue in the suit of Geeta: "iv) Relief"
26.1 The suit filed by the plaintiff bearing CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 is partly decreed in above terms. The suit of the defendants bearing CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 is dismissed. 26.2 The costs of both suits awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RICHA 27 Decree sheets be prepared accordingly. GUSAIN SOLANKI 28 Both files be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI Date: 2025.09.20 05:14:42 +0530Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki) on 20th September, 2025 District Judge-02, South-West, Dwarka Courts New Delhi CS DJ ADJ No. 516401/2016 Mahender Pal Bansal v. Geeta & Anr CS DJ ADJ No. 1227/2017 Geeta & Anr vs Mahender Pal Bansal page no. 26/26