Delhi District Court
Amarjeet Singh vs Mohan Dass Talreja on 14 May, 2026
CNR No. DLCT01-007155-2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)- 03: CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURT (EXTENSION BLOCK): DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 1182/2022
In the matter of :-
Sh. Amarjeet Singh
S/o Shri Inder Singh
Sole Proprietor M/s Thukral Tyres
C/o: Shop No.6583, M.M. Road,
Bara Hindu Rao,
Delhi-110006. ......Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Mohan Dass Talreja
(since deceased) through his L.R.
i. Shri Ashok Talreja
S/o Late Shri Mohan Dass Talreja
R/o: C-1/41, Ashok Vihar-II,
Delhi-110052
ii. Smt Raj Kumari
W/o Shri Mohan Dass Talreja
R/o: C-1/41, Ashok Vihar-II,
Delhi-110052
iii. Smt. Kiran Raheja
W/o Shri Siri Chand
R/o: C-2/116, Ashok Vihar-II,
Delhi-110052
iv. Smt. Sarika Nangia
W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar
R/o : CD-1, Pitampura, Delhi.
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 1/44
Digitally signed
Devendra by Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:05:46
+0530
v. Smt. Yogita Advani
W/o Shri Ravi Advani
R/o House No.11, Road No.8
Punjabi Bagh Extension
Delhi .....Defendants
Date of Institution : 28.04.2022
Date on which Judgment reserved : 08.05.2026
Date on which judgment pronounced : 14.05.2026
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Before this Court set to adjudicate on myriad issues flagged on behalf of both the parties, let the Court to spell out laconically the landscape of the pleadings.
(A) Pleadings of the Parties:-
2. This is a suit for declaration and permanent/ prohibitory injunction filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
3. Succinctly stated facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a senior member of the family and is the elder son; he has a younger brother and a sister. It has been further averred that the father of plaintiff Shri Inder Singh is trading in old tyres and tubes in the name and style of M/s Indra Tyres and is the owner of Shop No.6580 and 6581, Kothi Mem, opposite DCM Shop, Delhi. It has been further averred that father of plaintiff is engaged in this business since the year 1942 as they shifted as refugee in Delhi from Chinyot near Layalpur, CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 2/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:06:15 +0530 now in Pakistan. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is helping his father in this business and the father of plaintiff wants to settle the plaintiff in the business as plaintiff was got married with Ms. Parmajeet Kaur on 14.02.1982.
4. It has been further averred that at the time of the unfortunate assassination of late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India on 31.10.1984, the shop No.6583, admeasuring 25 sq. yards, M M Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi was under the possession of one Shri Gurbax Singh and due to the disturbances occurred thereafter on 01.11.1984 in Delhi, Shri Gurbax Singh abandoned this shop after taking his chairs and tables and shifted to Ludhiana (Punjab) and even did not lock the premises. It has been further averred that the plaintiff took possession by entering into the said shop and put his locks on the main door and started his business of trading in old tyres & tubes under the name and style of M/s Thukral Tyres and started earning his bread and butter from this business. It has been further averred that the shop was taken into possession by the plaintiff on 05.11.1983 and since then, the plaintiff is in an uninterrupted and hostile possession of this shop.
5. It has been further averred that the defendant had visited the premises on 13.04.1990 and made inquiries about the plaintiff that as to how he came in possession of the shop in question but never objected to the plaintiff qua his possession or taken any action i.e. lodging of any police report or filing of any suit or case against the plaintiff. It has been further averred that the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has claimed himself CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 3/44 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14 16:06:26 +0530 to be the owner of the suit shop and also verified this fact that the defendant is the owner having the title documents and also the fact that the defendant is working and doing business from various shops falling in New Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
6. It has been further averred that after 13.04.1990, the defendant or his attorney or any of his person did not come to demand any rent or charges from the plaintiff and the plaintiff is getting regularly the license renewed and doing his business without any break and paid house-tax also of the property in question. It has been further averred that due to construction of flyover at Azad Market, the suit shop is now reduced from 25 sq. yards to 12 sq. yards as the Govt. has acquired the same and thereafter, the plaintiff repaired the shop for its use from 01.11.2010 till 04.11.2010. It has been further averred that the defendant or any of his representative never came to put any objection or hindrance in respect to possession of plaintiff.
7. It has been further averred that the defendant had visited the suit shop on 02.01.1998, 05.01.1998 and 06.04.2000 and asked the plaintiff to pay the user charges but the plaintiff refused to make such payment saying that he is in possession of this premises in his own right and is having a hostile possession against him. It has been further averred that despite knowing that the plaintiff has entered the premises in question, the defendant did not take any action of getting the plaintiff evicted since 05.11.1984 and 13.04.1990 and plaintiff is enjoying this possession and defendant is having the notice of the same from other neighbourers i.e. shops falling adjacent to this premises, which has also been purchased by the defendant.
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 4/44
Digitally
signed by
Devendra Devendra
Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:06:34
+0530
8. It has been further averred that after the acquisition of the premises by the Central Govt. to make flyover, 13 sq. yards was taken by concealing the facts from the Land Acquisition Collector in this regard and the notice of the same was issued to the plaintiff under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act but somehow the defendant managed to get the compensation and the plaintiff inquired the same from the Land Acquisition Collector North in this regard, thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendant in the first week of May, 2015 to give compensation qua the property in question to the plaintiff and this cause annoyance to the defendant and at that relevant time, the defendant threatened the plaintiff that he will file a case for getting the property vacated and will file for his bonafide requirements, if the plaintiff will persist his demand of the amount of compensation i.e. around Rs.6,45,000/-. It has been further averred that on 10.10.2015 and 24.02.2016, the plaintiff after making inquiry had visited the residence of defendant but the defendant refused to make payment of compensation amount.
9. It has been further averred that at the time of plaintiff's visit on 24.02.2016, the defendant was not in a good condition and was almost not able to talk and plaintiff was allowed to meet him for a minute and finding his condition, the plaintiff did not re-visit him for claiming this amount as the father of the plaintiff was also an aged person and being a person giving due respect to his elder and due to medical condition of the defendant, the plaintiff has forgotten the compensation amount. It has been further averred that the plaintiff was shocked and surprised to receive summons of the eviction petition under CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 5/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:06:41
+0530
bonafide requirements filed by the defendant on 05.04.2022 and again by post on 09.04.2022 which case is pending before the Court of Dr. Shirish Aggarwal, Ld. ACJ-cum-ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi bearing ARC No.130/2022. It has been further averred that the plaintiff left with no other alternative, has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking declaration that the plaintiff became owner by way of an adverse possession/ hostile possession as the period of 12 years had been passed from 05.11.1984 and from 13.04.1990.
10. It has been further averred that from the eviction petition, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has filed rent receipts in the form of counter-foils of the plaintiff about payment of rent of Rs.50/- per month in order to show the status of the plaintiff as tenant, the defendant has also filed a copy of the sale deed executed by Smt. Raj Kumari in favour of defendant with regard to the property in question on 01.02.1971 and in the eviction petition, the defendant has shown the creation of tenancy by Smt. Raj Kumari in favour of the plaintiff, but perusal of the sale deed shows that there is no recital that the plaintiff is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.50/- per month.
11. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has never signed any counter-foils in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari and all these counter-foils of the rent have been forged and fabricated in order to file an eviction petition and to get the plaintiff evicted from the property in question, despite the fact that the ownership of the defendant qua the suit property stands extinguished by virtue of expiry of 12 years as prescribed under Section 27 of the Limitation Act and Article 64 & 65 of the Schedule to the CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 6/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:06:47
+0530
Limitation Act. Thus aggrieved by the act of defendant, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit with the following prayers:-
(a) The plaintiff be declared owner by way of an adverse possession/ hostile possession as the period of 12 years had been vanished from 05.11.1984 and from 13.04.1990 in respect of shop No. 6583, MM Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan;
(b) The plaintiff seeks further relief of declaration that the counter-
foils as filed by the defendant in the eviction petition which has now been filed alongwith the list of documents in the present suit does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff or his family member and the same have been forged and fabricated by the defendant in order to get the property evicted and to teach a lessor for claiming the compensation from the defendant of the 13 sq. yards of the property in question 1990 in respect of shop no.6583, MM Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-06 as shown in red colour in the site plan;
(c) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent and prohibitory injunction whereby the defendant, his associates, family members, assignees, legal representatives, be restrained from creating any third-party interest in respect of shop No. 6583, MM Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan;
(d) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent and prohibitory injunction whereby the defendant, his associates, family members, assignees, legal representatives, be restrained from taking possession forcefully or through by following the due process of law including the eviction petition filed by them in respect of shop No. 6583, MM Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan;
12. The defendant has contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement. By way of preliminary objection, it has been averred that the present suit has been filed with CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 7/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:06:54
+0530
malafide intention and ulterior motive to extort money from the defendant and to illegally and unauthorizedly grab the property of the defendant as well as counter blast to pressurize the defendant to withdraw the eviction petition filed against the plaintiff in respect of the suit shop. It has been further averred that since the plaintiff was a minor, hence no rent receipt @ Rs.50 per month was issued in his favour nor the plaintiff or his father ever demanded any receipt from the defendant. It has been further averred that the counterfoils of the rent receipts issued by the defendant bear the signatures of the plaintiff.
13. It has been further averred that initially the said property purchased by the defendant was approximately 57 sq. yards, however during the course of construction of Rani Jhansi flyover/ corridor, certain area from the entire property consisting of two shops on the ground floor and the portion on the first and second floor were acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, District Central, Delhi under an Award bearing No. 11/LAC/N/11-12 and in pursuance of the said acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector had also compensated the defendant in respect of the land so acquired from his said property. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has himself placed on record the reply dated 08.04.2015 alongwith their letter dated 19.04.2023 to his application under Right to Information Act from the said Authority wherein the said Authority had clearly and categorically informed him that due compensation/payment in respect of the suit shop which also forms part of the property of the defendant had already been paid by it to the owner of the said property. It has been further averred that since 19.04.2013 CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 8/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:07:03
+0530
till date, neither the plaintiff has initiated any action against the defendant for recovery of the said amount before the competent Civil Court nor the defendant has received any information/ summons of any such proceedings.
14. It has been further averred that when the Land Acquisition Collector after duly satisfying itself of the rightful claim of the defendant over the said property had allowed his claimed compensation for acquisition of the portions from the said property including that from the suit shop, the said decision became final and binding upon everyone including the plaintiff as he never initiated any legal proceedings to challenge or question the same. It has been further averred that after the defendant retired, his son Shri Ashok Talreja took over his business of wholesale supplier of general merchandise and started running the said business under the name and style of M/s. Mohan Dass Ashok Kumar since last more than 7/8 years and has been running the same from ground floor portion of Shop No. 5412B, situated at New Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff after receiving the summons of the eviction petition filed by the defendant vide Eviction Petition No.130/2022 titled as "Shri Mohan Dass Talreja Vs. Shri Amarjeet Singh", raised this false and frivolous ground of being the owner of the suit shop and has filed the present suit as a counter blast to the said petition.
15. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has also alleged that his signatures on the counterfoils of the rent receipts issued by the defendant are forged and fabricated in order to file the aforesaid eviction petition, however an CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 9/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:07:11 +0530 examination/comparison of the signatures of the plaintiff even with the naked eye on the plaint as well as on the documents filed by the plaintiff as well as the signatures of the father of the plaintiff Shri Inder Singh on the documents filed by the plaintiff are the same and identical signatures which have been affixed by the plaintiff and his father on the counterfoils of the rent receipts. It has been further averred that the defendant is the absolute and exclusive owner of the said entire property bearing Municipal No. XIII/6582 to 6584, situated at M.M Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, of which the suit shop forms a part. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has neither any right, title or interest in the suit shop nor is entitled to claim himself as the owner of the suit shop on the basis of alleged adverse possession. It was, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed for in the present suit and that the present suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
16. On merits, it has been submitted that the present suit is barred under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act as it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that he has neither initiated any pre-litigation mediation proceedings prior to filing of the present suit nor he has filed any application before this Court seeking exemption from initiating pre-litigation mediation or urging any urgent relief as provided for in the said provision of law and therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed u/o VII Rule 11 of CPC with exemplary costs. It has been further averred that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has failed to disclose any commercial dispute between the parties within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. It has been further averred CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 10/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:07:21 +0530 that the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant as tenant and landlord respectively regarding the suit shop is governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It has been further averred that no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendant. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has failed to file any document which either reflects his ownership in respect of the suit property or any document which shows that the plaintiff has been claiming his possession in respect of the suit shop to be hostile and open qua the defendant. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is allegedly claiming himself to be the owner of the suit shop on the basis of adverse possession, however the plaintiff in the entire pleadings has failed to show even a single instance where he has claimed the ownership of the suit shop, with hostility/ hostile assertion and open title against the true owner/ defendant.
17. It has been further averred that while filing the present suit, the plaintiff has miserably failed and neglected to mention in the pleading as to when his possession in respect of the suit shop became hostile qua the defendant. It has been further averred that the plaintiff and his father had been tendering and paying the monthly rent in respect of the suit shop to the defendant and they have been signing various rent receipts in the name of the plaintiff. It has been further averred that the mere fact that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration against the defendant clearly shows that the plaintiff has admitted the defendant to be the true owner of the said property of which the suit shop forms a part of. It has been further averred that a tenant in any premises cannot become the owner of said premises CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 11/44 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14 16:07:31 +0530 merely by his tenure of occupation of the said premises. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff was a trespasser in the suit shop and a trespasser even by virtue of his illegal and unauthorized occupation for a long extent of time cannot become the owner by virtue of adverse possession.
18. It has been further averred that the in view of the provisions of Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, this Court cannot restrain the defendant from prosecuting the judicial proceedings of eviction petition which are pending prior to the institution of present suit. It has been further averred that the present suit is based on false and frivolous allegations and is devoid of any merits. It was, therefore, prayed that being a gross misuse and abuse of process of law and Court, the present suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
19. The plaintiff filed the replication reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying the contra averments made in the written statement. It has been averred that the written statement cannot be taken on record as the same was not supported with proper affidavit of admission/ denial of documents and the fresh affidavit of admission/ denial of documents is not permissible as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It has been further averred that the WS is not verified as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the defence of the defendant cannot be taken on record. It has been further averred that the cause of actions still continue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. It was, therefore, prayed that the WS filed by the defendant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 12/44 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14 16:07:38 +0530
20. The Plaintiff as well as the defendant filed their respective admission/ denial on affidavits.
21. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the suit, defendant/ Mohan Dass Talreja has expired on 15.07.2023. Thereafter, an application U/o XXII Rule 4 of CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to bring on record the LRs of the deceased defendant. Vide order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Court, the said application was allowed and the LRs of deceased defendant were permitted to be substituted in placed of deceased defendant in the suit. No fresh written statement was filed on behalf of the LRs of the deceased defendant and they adopted the written statement filed by Late Sh.Mohan Dass Talreja.
22. Further, alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff had also filed an application U/o XXXIX Rule 1&2 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking interim reliefs in respect of prayer clause (c) and (d) of the plaint. However, vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Predecessor Court, the said application was allowed only to the extent that the LRs of deceased defendant, their associates, family members, assignees are restrained from taking possession of suit property without following due process of law.
(B) Issues:-
23. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act? (OPD) CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 13/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:07:45 +0530
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of adverse possession/ hostile possession, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? (OPP)
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that the counterfoils filed by defendant in eviction petition are forged and fabricated, as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? (OPP)
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (c) of the plaint? (OPP)
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (d) of the plaint? (OPP)
6) Relief.
(C) Evidence:-
24. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. He reiterated the averments made in plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Details of documents Exhibit No.
1. Electricity bills in the name of Sh. Gurbax Ex.PW1/1 Singh
2. Trade License in the name of M/s Thukral Ex.PW1/2 Tyres (colly)
3. House tax payment receipts in respect of Ex.PW1/3 suit property in the name of Sh. Amarjeet Singh
4. Copy of self assessment challan form of Ex.PW1/4 income tax pertaining to assessment year 1988-1989
5. Copy of income tax assessment order dated Ex.PW1/5 28.09.1998 pertaining to assessment year CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 14/44 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14 16:07:54 +0530 1988-1989
6. Copy of income tax assessment order dated Ex.PW1/6 09.08.1991 pertaining to assessment year 1990-1991
7. Copy of challan No.7 of income tax Ex.PW1/7 pertaining to assessment year 1991-1992
8. Copy of income tax assessment order dated Ex.PW1/8 20.01.1992 pertaining to assessment year 1991-1992
9. Copy of challan No.7 of income tax Ex.PW1/9 pertaining to assessment year 1995-1996
10. Copy of challan No.7 of income tax Ex.PW1/10 pertaining to assessment year 1996-1997
11. Copy of income tax assessment order dated Ex.PW1/11 26.05.1999 pertaining to assessment year 1998-1999
12. Copy of income tax assessment order dated Ex.PW1/12 17.07.2001 pertaining to assessment year 1999-2000
13. Copy of challan of income tax return dated Ex.PW1/13 22.01.1999 pertaining to assessment year 1999-2000
14. Copy of income tax assessment order dated Ex.PW1/14 03.07.2002 pertaining to assessment year 2001-2002
15. Copy of challan of income tax return dated Ex.PW1/15 18.03.2000 pertaining to assessment year 2000-2001
16. Copy of Saral Form No.2D of income tax Ex.PW1/16 pertaining to assessment year 2004-2005
17. Copy of Saral Form No.2D of income tax Ex.PW1/17 dated 30.12.2006 pertaining to assessment year 2006-2007
18. Copy of Saral Form No.2D of income tax Ex.PW1/18 dated 31.08.2006 pertaining to assessment year 2005-2006
19. Copy of income tax order dated 29.03.2007 Ex.PW1/19 pertaining to assessment year 2006-2007
20. Copy of site plan of the suit property Ex.PW1/20
21. Four photographs of the shop of the Ex.PW1/21 defendant (colly)
22. Copy of Directory of Old Tyre Dealers Ex.PW1/22 Association at Rani Jhansi Road, New CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 15/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:08:01 +0530 Delhi
23. Copy of documents pertaining to Award Ex.PW1/23 No.11/LAC/N/11-12
24. Copy of post office passbook in the name Ex.PW1/24 of Sh. Amarjeet Singh pertaining to A/c No.21556
25. Copy of income tax return dated Ex.PW1/25 28.07.2008 pertaining to assessment year 2007-2008
26. Copy of summons alongwith the eviction Ex.PW1/26 petition filed by the defendant (colly)
25. PW1 was cross examined at length. However, cross examination of PW1 shall be discussed at the later part of the judgment.
26. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, PE was closed.
27. DW1 Shri Ashok Talreja, son of deceased defendant has been examined to prove the defence on behalf of the defendant. He reiterated the facts averred in the written statement in his affidavit Ex.DW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
S.No. Document Exhibit No.
1. Copy of Aadhar Card Ex.DW1/1
2. Copy of the registered Will dated Ex.DW1/2 10.12.2021 of Sh. Mohan Dass Talreja
3. Copy of sale deed dated 01.02.1971 in Ex.DW1/3 favour of the defendant Mohan Dass Talreja executed by Smt. Raj Kumari
4. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/4 10.01.1996 (OSR)
5. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/D1 13.01.1997
6. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/6 20.12.1997 (OSR) CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 16/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:08:08 +0530
7. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/D3 03.03.2000
8. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/D2 01.03.2001
9. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/9 06.03.2002 (OSR) Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/D4 17.03.2003 Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/11 03.03.2004 (OSR)
8. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/D5 07.03.2005
9. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/D6 03.03.2006
10. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/D7 26.03.2008
11. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/8 11.04.2012
12. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/16 27.04.2015 (OSR)
13. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/17 30.03.2018
14. Counterfoils of the rent receipt dated Ex.DW1/18 15.03.2020 (OSR)
15. Copy of Eviction Petition No. 130/2022 Ex.DW1/19 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff
16. Copy of Application for Leave to Defend Ex.DW1/20 filed by the plaintiff in the Eviction Petition No.130/2022
28. DW1 was cross examined on behalf of the plaintiff at length. However, his cross examination shall be discussed at the later part of the judgment.
29. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant . Therefore, DE was closed.
30. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Praveen Suri, Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Madhur Sapra, Counsel for CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 17/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:08:14
+0530
defendant. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of parties.
31. During the course of arguments, counsels for plaintiff and defendant reiterated respective averments made in the plaint and written statement and also referred to documents filed on behalf of respective parties as well as evidence adduced on record by them.
32. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff is seeking a declaration of ownership by way of adverse possession/hostile possession in respect of the suit shop and of a permanent prohibitory injunction. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff's open, continuous and hostile possession of the suit shop for a period exceeding the statutory limitation has extinguished the defendant's title and matured into his own indefeasible ownership. It has been further submitted that plaintiff's possession of the suit shop commenced on 05.11.1984 and this possession was not latent but open, visible and notorious, as is evident by the plaintiff immediately putting his locks and starting his business of M/s Thukral Tyres. It has been further submitted that plaintiff's possession has been continuous, without any break or interruption and exclusive, as no other person has exercised any possessory rights over the property. It has been further submitted that defendant became fully aware of the plaintiff's open and hostile possession on 13.04.1990 and despite this knowledge and despite subsequent visits on 02.01.1998, 05.01.1998 and 06.04.2000, where the plaintiff explicitly asserted his hostile possession by refusing demands for user charges, the defendant deliberately failed to take any legal CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 18/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:08:22 +0530 action to evict the plaintiff or recover possession for a period exceeding 12 years. It has been further submitted that defendant's prolonged inaction, despite clear knowledge, constitutes acquiescence to the plaintiff's adverse claim. It has been further submitted that plaintiff has consistently paid house tax for the suit shop and obtained/renewed trade licenses in the name of M/s Thukral Tyres since 1984 and these documents, including Ex.PW1/2 (Colly), Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/19 and Ex.PW1/25 are not merely administrative compliances but are strongly corroborative evidence of the plaintiff's open, continuous and hostile possession. It has been further submitted that the defendant's ownership rights over the suit shop have been irrevocably extinguished by virtue of the expiry of the statutory period of 12 years, as prescribed under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Articles 64 & 65 of its Schedule, from 05.11.1984 (date of taking possession) and, at the very latest, from 13.04.1990 (date of defendant's knowledge of hostile possession).
33. It has been further submitted that eviction petition has been filed by the defendant nearly 38 years after the plaintiff took possession and after 32 years after the defendant gained knowledge of hostile possession, as a clear counter-blast to the plaintiff's legitimate demand for compensation for the acquired land. It has been further submitted that the defendant, in the said eviction petition, had filed forged and fabricated rent receipts/counter foils in a desperate attempt to falsely establish a landlord-tenant relationship between him and the plaintiff.
However, the plaintiff has consistently and vehemently denied CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 19/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:08:30 +0530 ever signing any such counter-foils or being a tenant. It has been further submitted that defendant's belated claim that the plaintiff was a tenant under Smt. Raj Kumari and then attorned to him is a false and desperate attempt to create a non-existent tenancy. It has been further submitted that the sale deed dated 01.02.1971 (Ex.DW1/3) by which the defendant purportedly purchased the property from Smt. Raj Kumari, clearly states that physical possession was handed over to the defendant, with no mention of any existing tenancy of the plaintiff or Shri Gurbax Singh and this directly contradicts the defendant's narrative. It has been further submitted that the defendant's story about Shri Gurbax Singh vacating in 1970 and the plaintiff's father requesting tenancy for the plaintiff (then a minor) is a concocted afterthought, not pleaded in the eviction petition and is entirely contrary to the recitals of the sale deed. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff's cross-examination clearly and consistently denies any tenancy or payment of rent to anyone, including Smt. Raj Kumari or the defendant, and the burden of proving the same lies upon the defendant and the defendant has failed to discharge this burden. It has been further submitted that there is inconsistencies in the testimony of DW1/defendant's son which clearly demonstrate the unrealiability and fabricated nature of the defendant's evidence regarding tenancy in the form of counter-foils/rent receipts. It has been further submitted that the defendant illegally and unjustly received compensation for 13 sq. yards of the suit shop that was acquired by the Government and plaintiff's legitimate demand for this compensation in May 2015 was the direct and immediate cause of the defendant's annoyance and subsequent malicious filing of the eviction petition. The CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 20/44 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14 16:08:37 +0530 Land Acquisition Collector's determination is based on recorded title and not on the equitable and statutory rights accrued through adverse possession. Thus, it is prayed that suit of the plaintiff be decreed. Counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon following judgments in support of the submissions:-
(i) Ravinder Kumar Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729
(ii) Gurudwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Sirthala reported in (2014) I SCC 669
34. Per contra, Counsel for defendant has submitted that plaintiff's application U/o XXXIX Rule 1&2 of CPC seeking interim relief was disposed off by Ld. Predecessor vide its order dated 15.04.2025, holding that since eviction petition has already been filed by the defendant, prior to the filing of the present suit, hence, the question of the plaintiff being dispossessed without due process of law, does not arise and only allowed the said application to the extent that the LR's of the deceased defendant be restrained from taking possession of the said shop, without following the due process of law. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff had thereafter preferred FAO (COMM) No. 138/2025 against the said order, however, the same was unconditionally withdrawn by the plaintiff and thus the order dated 15.04.2025 has since attained finality. It has been further submitted that the present suit is absolutely false, frivolous, baseless and has been filed by the plaintiff merely as a counter blast of the eviction petition filed by the defendant. It has been further submitted that plaintiff in his evidence had also summoned one Ms. Kavita from the Central Licensing CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 21/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:08:45 +0530 Department, MCD, howver, neither she was examined by the plaintiff, nor the record brought by her exhibited on the record of the case and the plaintiff during the cross-examination of the defendant, had further summoned Shri Moinuddin from BSES and Shri Krishan Kumar from Property Tax Department, MCD, and the record brought by them was confronted to DW1 during his cross-examination.
35. It has been further submitted that the relief that the defendants be restrained from taking possession of the suit shop legally under the eviction proceedings, is barred under Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act and hence, cannot be granted by this Court. It has been further submitted that Sh. Mohan Dass Talreja prior to the filing of the present suit, had filed his eviction petition, hence the prayer of the plaintiff to the extent that he be not dispossessed forcefully or without due process of law, was already infructuous at the time of filing of the present suit. It has been further submitted that this Court being the court of civil jurisdiction has no power/jurisdiction to try and decide the matters/issues which fall within the purview of the power of the Rent Controller, which are relationship of landlord and tenant, fixation of standard rent and eviction of tenants. It has been further submitted that law is trite in respect of adverse possession that onus to prove the same is upon the person, who pleads the same. It has been further submitted that a perusal of the plaint, the evidence affidavit and the cross-examination of the plaintiff itself would show that the plaintiff besides simply pleading certain dates when he alleges that Shri Mohan Dass Talreja came to know about the adverse possession of the plaintiff does not CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 22/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:08:53 +0530 inspire confidence. It has been further submitted that in view of Section 104 of BSA, 2023, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove that he is the owner of the suit shop by virtue of adverse possession; that he has not entered into the possession of the property with the consent of the owner of the suit shop; that he has since been in hostile possession of the suit shop and that he had entered into the possession of the said shop at the time of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi in the year 1984.
36. It has been further submitted that plaintiff although in his cross examination has submitted that he has been paying the house tax in respect of suit shop since he has been in occupation thereof, i.e. since 1984, however, the one and only house tax receipt that he has filed is of the year 2016, whereunder he had deposited the house tax for the period from 2004-05 to 2015-2016 which clearly shows that the plaintiff deposited the same only upon him coming to know that in the year 2015 that the claim has been received by the defendant, merely with a view to fabricate and create some document to allege ownership. It has been further submitted that since the plaintiff had always been a tenant in the suit shop and had been paying rent to the defendant/Shri Mohan Dass Talreja, against which he had been issuing rent receipts to the plaintiff, and thus,since the plaintiff was always in permissive possession by the defendant, hence, the question of the defendant losing his ownership right does not arise, or the provisions of Section 27 r/w Article 64&65 of the Limitation Act does not apply, as merely long period of occupation does not culminate into ownership. It has been further submitted that neither the plaintiff has sought permission CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 23/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:09:01
+0530
of the Court to examine a handwriting expert, nor filed any report of any handwriting expert to dispute the signatures of the plaintiff and his father on the counterfoils of the rent receipts to be forged and fabricated; nor filed/lodged any complaint with the police authority on the ground of forgery. Further, the onus to prove that his and his father's signatures on the counterfoils were forged and fabricated was on the plaintiff and merely by denying the same neither discharged his onus nor shifts the burden upon the defendant. It has been further submitted that comparison of the signature of the father of the plaintiff, Shri Inder Singh on the documents at pages no.107 and 108 forming part of Ex.PW1/23 with the counterfoils of rent receipts clearly show that all the said signatures are same and have been signed by the same person i.e. Shri Inder Singh. Similarly, comparison of the signature of the the plaintiff on admitted documents i.e. the plaint, affidavit and statement of truth with those on the counterfoils of rent receipts clearly show that all the said signatures are same and have been signed by the same person i.e. the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that ITRs filed by the DW1 during his evidence Ex.DW1/P-3 clearly shows that the original owner was reflecting the rent received by him in his income under the Income under House Property. Thus, it is prayed that the present suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Reliance is placed on behalf of the defendant upon the following judgments:-
(i) Ramesh Chand Sharma vs. R.S. Aggarwal reported in 1982 (2) RCR 107
(ii) Radha Devi vs. Deep Narayan Mandal reported in 2003 3 BBCJ (SC) 272 CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 24/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:09:07
+0530
(iii) T. Anjanappa vs. Somalingappa reported in (2006) 7
SCC 570
(iv) Hansraj vs. Jagminder Singh & Ors. reported in
2017 LAWPACK (Del) 62401
(v) Tirath Singh vs. Delhi Wakf Board reported in 2011
LAWPACK (Del) 41994
(E) Analysis of Evidence and Findings:-
37. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have also perused the record as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.
38. Before returning the finding upon issues, from the pleadings of the parties and documents relied upon on behalf of the parties, the settled position of law and relevant provisions of law are reproduced for ready reference :-
39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as A.P. State Wakf Board Through Chairperson vs. Janaki Busappa & Others, Civil Appeal No.1946 of 2013 DOD: 24.04.2026 [2026 INSC 413] has held that:-
32. It is also necessary to advert to the settled principle that a plaintiff seeking declaration of title must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. The Respondents, in the present case, having approached the Tribunal seeking declaration and injunction, were required to establish a clear and lawful title to the suit property. However, as noticed hereinabove, the very document relied upon by them militates against their claim. The High Court, in reversing the findings of the Tribunal, has effectively shifted the burden upon the Appellant, which, in the facts of the present case, is legally untenable.
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 25/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:09:13 +0530
33. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in P. Kishore Kumar (supra), wherein it has been reiterated that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies squarely upon the plaintiff to establish a clear and legally sustainable title, and such a claim cannot succeed merely on perceived weaknesses in the defendant's case. The failure to produce cogent title documents is fatal to the claim.
34. The aforesaid position is further reinforced by the settled principle under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as elucidated by this Court in Rangammal v.
Kuppuswami (2011) 12 SCC 220, wherein it has been held that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the party who asserts it, and until such burden is discharged, the opposing party is under no obligation to establish its case. It has been further emphasised that a court cannot proceed on the weakness of the defence unless the party on whom the burden lies has first discharged the same. Applying the said principle to the present case, the Respondents, having asserted title to the suit property, were under a legal obligation to establish the same by cogent evidence, which, as noticed hereinabove, they have failed to do.
35. Insofar as the aspect of possession is concerned, the material on record does indicate that the Respondents had adduced evidence of cultivation and existence of standing crops. However, it is equally well settled that mere physical possession, in the absence of lawful title, would not entitle a party to the relief of declaration or injunction. Such possession, even if assumed, cannot be treated as lawful. Furthermore, we deem it necessary to make reference to the report dated 06.10.2007 of the District Judge, Kurnool, submitted before the High Court. The said report records the existence of compound walls, minarets and other features indicative of an Edgah, lending support to the case of the Appellant that the property was being used for religious purposes. The High Court, in contrast, has inferred possession in favour of the Respondents primarily on the basis of standing crops, without adverting to the legal character of such possession or the relevant admissible material on record, which, in our view, is not in consonance with settled principles.
40. Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is reproduced as under:-
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 26/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:09:22 +0530 "Section 41. Injunction when refused. --An injunction cannot be granted--
(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings;
...."
41. Further, it is the cardinal principle of law that a civil suit is to be decided on the principle of probability and in this regard, reliance may be placed upon para 41 of the judgment in case titled as Nand Kishore vs. DDA, RFA No. 240/2017, CM No. 19118/2021, decided on 29.11.2021 which is reproduced as under for ready reference:-
"13. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit before the trial court in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit for injunction, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. As held in Raj Kumar Singh &Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla. reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418. "A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. In the case of Vishnu Putt Sharma Vs. Dava Sapra. reported in (2009) 13 see 729. the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
"8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis- a-vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "
preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 27/44
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
2026.05.14
Sharma 16:09:28
+0530
14. Section 101 of the Evidence Act. 1872 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. In view of Section 103 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lied on any particular person. Further, 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. As held in judgment reported as Uttam Chand Kothari Vs. Gauri Shankar Jalan. AIR 2007 Gau. 20. admission in the written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. In view of this legal position of the Evidence Act, it is clear that it is for the appellant to prove that he has right, title or interest in the suit property.
...
18. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003) 8 SCC 752. As held:-
"Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of testing of "proved", " disproved" and" not proved" as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the valuation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the difference. In a suit for possession of property based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving- his title beyond any reasonable doubts, that would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden of proof would stand discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title. The present case being a civil one, the plaintiff could not be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 28/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:09:37 +0530 him would be enough to shift the onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged. In the opinion of this Court the plaintiff has succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case."
42. In the light of aforesaid legal proposition and relevant provisions of law, before returning the issue-wise findings, now it is to be seen as to whether to prove his entitlement for the relief of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of adverse possession/hostile possession, the evidence led on behalf of plaintiff is sufficient to declare him owner of the property in dispute alongwith the relief of prohibitory and permanent injunction.
43. In a suit on the basis of adverse possession/hostile possession, the plaintiff is required to prove that his possession is continuous for more than 12 years, known to the original owner that the plaintiff is possessing the property in question as owner without any kind of interference in the ownership right of the plaintiff.
44. In the present matter, it is the admitted position of fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years prior to filing of the present suit. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff took the possession of the suit property when one Mr. Gurbax Singh shifted from the suit premises and abandoned the suit shop in the month of November, 1984. The date of possession has been mentioned as 05.11.1983 CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 29/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:09:44 +0530 in the pleadings as well as affidavit in examination in chief which appears to be a typographical error as according to the plaintiff this possession was taken after the unfortunate assassination of Late Smt. Indira Gandhi on 31.10.1984. Therefore, for the purposes of record, it appears that according to the plaintiff, he took the possession of the suit shop on 1984. However, the defendant has vehemently denied this stand of the plaintiff and alleged that one Sh. Gurbax singh was in occupation of the suit shop and had sometime in the year 1970 vacated the suit shop and since the father of the plaintiff Sh. Inder Singh was running his business of tyres and tubes from two adjacent shops bearing no.6580 and 6581, on his request the suit shop was let out to him for his family business and later on at the request of the father of the plaintiff, the said Smt. Raj Kumari, the then owner of the property, let out the suit shop in the name of the plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs.50/-.
45. Thus from the averments of the parties itself, the suit shop was in possession of the plaintiff and his father at least since the year 1984 and the present suit has been filed in the year 2022 and therefore, from the pleadings itself it is admitted fact that the possession of the plaintiff qua the suit property was for about more than 35 years prior to filing of the present suit, satisfying the first condition of adverse possession of more than 12 years from the date of claim for title on the basis of adverse possession.
46. Now it is to be seen as to whether the possession of the plaintiff could be said to be adverse/hostile qua the original owner. Since the plaintiff has not claimed the possession adverse to the previous owner but has claimed his possession adverse to CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 30/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:09:52 +0530 the defendant/purchaser of the suit shop, therefore, the entire evidence are to be seen to be sufficient to conclude the possession of the plaintiff as adverse/hostile against the present defendant.
47. According to the plaintiff, for the first time on 13.04.1990 the defendant had visited the suit shop and made inquiries about the plaintiff as how the plaintiff came into possession of the suit shop but never objected to the plaintiff qua his possession or not taken any action i.e. lodging of any police report or filing of any suit/case against the plaintiff. Further version of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had come to know that the defendant has claimed himself to be owner of the suit shop and thereafter verified this fact that the defendant is the owner having the title documents and is working and doing business from various shops near the suit shop but the defendant or his attorney never came to demand any rent or charges from plaintiff after 13.04.1990 and plaintiff is getting regularly his license renewed with the address of suit shop and paying the house tax. Thus, according to the plaintiff the cause of action first started running from 13.04.1990 for the purposes of his hostile possession.
48. As per the further version of the plaintiff in the pleadings as well as evidence in examination-in-chief, the defendant again visited the suit shop of the plaintiff on 02.01.1998, 05.01.1998 and 06.04.2000 and asked the plaintiff to pay the user charges but plaintiff refused to make such payment stating that he is in possession of this premises in his own right and is having a hostile possession against the defendant as he is CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 31/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:10:00 +0530 enjoying the possession since 05.11.1984 to the notice of the defendant. Thus, from the pleadings, the claim of the plaintiff qua the adverse possession is since 05.11.1984 i.e. from the date of possession. However, this date of 05.11.1984 cannot be treated to be the first date for claiming of hostile possession for the reason that even in his cross-examination, PW1 has testified that at the time of visit on 13.04.1990, the plaintiff did not disclose his hostile possession to the defendant. This date can only be treated to be the date when plaintiff according to him came into possession of suit shop.
49. Further, according to the plaintiff, part of the suit shop was acquired by the Government for the purposes of construction of flyover and the compensation was granted and this compensation was granted to the defendant and plaintiff made protest qua the compensation amount of around Rs.6,45,000/- in the year 2015-16 but the defendant refused to make payment. Thus, according to the plaintiff his first cause of action has arisen on 05.11.1984 and lastly it has arisen on 05.04.2022 when a notice of eviction petition was received from the Court of Ld. ACJ-cum-ARC, District Central in ARC No.01/2020.
50. However, from the pleadings, it is clear that there is no averment in the entire plaint regarding any kind of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff and therefore, the relief pertaining to prayer clause (d) for restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession is not made out.
51. Now adverting to the issue of declaration of title in CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 32/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:10:06 +0530 favour of the plaintiff, it is clear from the testimony of PW1 that when PW1 was testified regarding the meaning of word 'adverse possession' in his cross-examination dated 06.06.2025, he replied that he does not know. A person having no knowledge of the concept of adverse possession is seeking relief of the adverse possession. This may be because of legal advice as is evident from the cross-examination dated 24.07.2025 when even before putting a question, this witness has put his own version that by hostile possession mentioned in para 3 of his affidavit, Ex.PW1/A, he means to say that it was without any interference. If a person is seeking relief of adverse possession for maturing his title qua the suit property, it must be known to him that this relief of declaration of title is only based upon the issue of adverse possession and it appears that in the intervening period between two dates of cross-examination, he took the advice and even before starting of his cross-examination he described the meaning of hostile possession as a tutored witness raising serious doubt about veracity of his version.
52. When PW1 was cross-examined as to whether he has any document of his possession since 05.11.1984 with him or submitted before the Government Authority, he has replied in his cross-examination in negative. Interestingly in his further cross-
examination, he has testified that the electricity connection in the suit shop is in the name of said Sh. Gurbax Singh till date and PW1 has not applied for the change of electricity connection in his name. It is within the common knowledge of one and all for the change of the name of electricity connection, one has to produce the documents of his ownership, tenancy or in the form CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 33/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:10:12 +0530 of affidavit regarding the nature of occupation. For the reason best known to PW1, the said electricity connection was never changed in the name of the plaintiff despite claim of ownership on the basis of uninterrupted possession.
53. In his cross-examination, PW1 has denied his possession prior to the year 1971 i.e. year of the purchase by the plaintiff of the suit shop from the erstwhile owner Smt. Raj Kumari and has also denied payment of any rent since the year 1971 and issuance of the rent receipt in the name of PW1 since 10.01.1996.
54. Witness PW1 when tested regarding the obtaining of trade license and deposit of house tax qua the suit shop no.6583, he gave the evasive answer of submitting of any title documents qua the suit shop as address and for the purposes of assessment of the house tax and in voluntary statement he told that all these works were look after by his younger brother Sh. Rajender Singh and when he was cross-examined as to whether the said Rajender Singh got any document or affidavit signed by PW1, he replied in negative. As a matter of fact, the said Rajender Singh was never examined to prove taking action on behalf of the plaintiff who according to the plaintiff was solely responsible to carry out the paper works for trade license and house tax and therefore, from the version of plaintiff himself it can be said that the best evidence has been withheld on behalf of the plaintiff which is sufficient to raise adverse presumption that no such document was ever submitted showing the title or adverse possession of the plaintiff as if there would have been any documents, that would have been produced either by the plaintiff or through said CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 34/44 Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14 16:10:20 +0530 Rajender Singh. As a matter of fact, when this witness PW1 was testified regarding the mutation of the name of the suit shop in the MCD, he has categorically admitted that he has never applied for mutation of his name in the MCD records.
55. As a matter of fact, though PW1 has claimed that he started depositing the house tax since the year 1984 i.e. immediately after possession of the suit shop, however, when he was cross-examined, by volunteered statement he has testified that he has placed on record the receipt dated 22.01.2016 reflecting payment of the house tax from 2004-2005. In the eyes of law, the payment of house tax in no way is the proof of title. In the present case, from the house tax receipt it is clear that even prior to 2016, not a single penny has been deposited qua the house tax receipt. The reason for paying the house tax for the first time thus, appears to be dispute regarding the compensation in the year 2015-16 as by that time it appears that plaintiff was occupying the suit property either as tenant or unauthorized occupants but by that time he has never claimed his possession over the suit property as adverse/ hostile.
56. In the year 2010, the acquisition proceedings was started and according to PW1 he has received notice about 1-2 month prior to such acquisition but he did not initiate any proceedings before any authority against the said acquisition. In a proceeding for acquisition, a person who claims to be the owner of the property in question would not make any objection regarding the compensation, does not appear to be rational. As a matter of fact, a letter dated 19.04.2013 forming part of Ex.PW1/23 was received qua the acquisition and compensation CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 35/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:10:27 +0530 of part portion of the suit premises and admittedly the compensation for the said acquisition was granted in favour of the defendant which was never objected by the plaintiff before any competent authority as admitted in the cross-examination by PW1. This fact itself demolish the entire story of the hostile possession of the suit premises by the plaintiff. It is admitted case that award of compensation was never challenged by plaintiff and thus, it can be safely held that this award attained finality wherein the defendant was granted compensated being owner of suit shop.
57. Contrary to the pleading, in the cross-examination, PW1 has testified that at the time of visit on 13.04.1990, no conversation took place between the defendant and plaintiff and his father. Thus, the very foundation of the claim that there was inquiry by the defendant on 13.04.1990 about the status of the plaintiff had shaken as when there was no conversation between the plaintiff party and defendant, there was no question of inquiry about the status and character of possession of the plaintiff. It was for the plaintiff to prove that on 13.04.1990 there was conversation between the parties regarding the status and character of the possession of the plaintiff. However, plaintiff has miserably failed to prove it in his cross-examination. As a matter of fact, it is the maintained position of the defendant that the plaintiff was occupying the suit premises since the year 1971 or before that as tenant and therefore, his claim appears to be more probable that the plaintiff was occupying the suit property as a tenant. Therefore, it can be safely held that no cause of action qua the adverse possession since 13.04.1990 started to run as claimed CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 36/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:10:34 +0530 by the plaintiff.
58. According to PW1, it was within his knowledge through neighbours that defendant was the owner of the entire property of which his shop no. 6583 was a part. In one breathe, PW1 in his cross-examination has claimed that on 13.04.1990 the defendant demanded a rent from him and in another breathe he again testified that the defendant had visited the suit shop but did not demand the rent. He has further admitted that he has never approached defendant to inform that he is the owner of the suit shop and it was informed him when defendant visited the suit shop. This claim of the defendant in his cross-examination dated
03.09.2025 is contradictory to his earlier cross-examination dated 14.08.2025 wherein he has testified that no conversation took place between them. The contradictory testimony of PW1 qua the issue of visit and conversation itself raises serious doubt about the veracity of the testimony of PW1.
59. Finally, when a direct question was put to PW1 that as to when the defendant was informed that plaintiff is the owner of the suit shop no.6583, the PW1 has testified that his father in his visit to the defendant informed him that they are the owners but when he was asked about the date, month and year of visit by his father to the shop of the defendant, he failed to disclose any date, month or year of such visit. This testimony of the PW1 itself again raises serious doubt regarding his claim of ownership on the basis of adverse possession when he himself has failed to specify any date, month or year of the disclosure of the fact about the adverse possession of plaintiff qua the property known to one and all including the original owner of the suit property.
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 37/44
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
2026.05.14
Sharma 16:10:41
+0530
60. Even from the pleading and evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff, it is clear that in the alleged visit in the year 1998 and 2000, the defendant was demanding rent and therefore, it cannot be said that by that time the character of possession of the plaintiff got matured as hostile and adverse. Thus, from the testimony led through PW1, plaintiff has failed to prove the claim that since the year 1984/1990, the plaintiff occupied the suit shop as owner as he has failed to disclose any date, month or year of his claimed possession as hostile/adverse against the defendant to the knowledge of the defendant. It is settled principle of law that possession howsoever long does not become adverse and hostile unless and until it is proved that the possession claimed as adverse and hostile was known to the defendant.
61. Apart from oral testimony, in order to prove adverse possession, reliance has also been placed upon documents i.e. electricity bill Ex.PW1/1. However, this document is of no help to the plaintiff as the same is in the name of Mr. Gurbax Singh. Instead of that this document raises an adverse presumption that the plaintiff was not occupying the suit shop by virtue of adverse possession.
62. Documents Ex.PW1/2 are qua the trade license of Thukral Tyres, acclaimed firm of plaintiff with address at 6583 and interestingly upon the first copy of deposit of fees appears to be dated 19.04.1984 i.e. prior to date of alleged forcible possession by the plaintiff and thereby not only it negates the version of the plaintiff of his forcible possession on 05.11.1984 CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 38/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:10:47 +0530 but also substantiate the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff was in possession of the property prior to the said date and thereby probablises the version of defendant of occupation of the plaintiff of the suit shop as tenant. Moreover, these documents only prove the possession as plaintiff has failed to place on record any document showing obtaining the trade license on the basis of ownership/title documents of suit shop and therefore, these documents are not of much help to the plaintiff. Documents, Ex.PW1/3 are the house tax receipt and as discussed herein-above all these house tax receipts were got in the year 2016 for the year starting from the year 2004 and there is no supporting document that any title documents or even any affidavit has been filed to prove that the said house tax was assessed on the basis of any title documents or documents related to adverse possession. There are other documents like Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7, the copy of the self assessment form. Ex.PW1/9 to Ex.PW1/19 i.e. challan forms and assessment order and these documents are only self serving documents without having any corroborating documents of title or adverse possession of the plaintiff. These documents are merely proof of possession and cannot be said to be proof of adverse possession.
63. There is notice dated 02.04.2012 part of Ex.PW1/23 issued regarding acquisition alongwith other relevant applications. It is clear from the letter dated 19.04.2013, part of Ex.PW1/23, that the plaintiff was informed that in absence of any claim on his behalf, the payment of compensation was released in favour of the defendant. Thus, even in the year 2013, plaintiff was having knowledge that the defendant has been granted CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 39/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:10:55 +0530 compensation as owner of part of the suit premises and neither this notice was challenged nor any proceedings were initiated to challenge the award. Thus, from the above facts and evidence, it is clear that plaintiff never acquired the title over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession till the year 2013.
64. There is also claim of the plaintiff that the documents i.e. rent receipts relied upon by the present defendant in the eviction petition are forged and fabricated one but in the entire affidavit or in the pleadings there is no disclosure of any date, month or year of such forgery and fabrication. The only allegation is that it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff when the notice of the eviction petition was received. It has also been claimed that since the possession of the plaintiff as tenant was not there as claimed by the defendant prior to purchase of the property by the defendant and therefore, this fact has not been mentioned in the sale deed of the defendant. In the cross- examination, PW1 has only denied the signature upon the rent receipts/ counter foils, Ex.DW1/4 to Ex.DW1/18, Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D8 but has not led any evidence of forgery.
65. In his cross-examination, when DW1 was confronted about his writing and signature upon any of the counter-foils, he replied that the counter-foils Ex.PW1/D8, Ex.DW1/16, Ex.DW1/17 and Ex.DW1/18 are in his handwriting. Thus, except oral assertion, there is nothing brought on record in the evidence that as to how the rent receipts/counter foils are forged.
66. Even from the summoned record, in the cross-
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 40/44
Digitally signed
by Devendra
Devendra Kumar Sharma
Kumar Date:
2026.05.14
Sharma 16:11:02
+0530
examination of DW1, plaintiff himself has proved that the subject property was assessed in the name of deceased defendant/Sh. Mohan Dass Talreja since 01.04.1973 vide Ex.DW1/P2 and this document itself demolishes the case of the plaintiff regarding the assessment of house tax in the name of the plaintiff which appears to be got done in order to claim the title over the suit property after coming to know the compensation amount in favour of deceased defendant.
67. In the light of aforesaid discussion, issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:-
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act? (OPD)
68. Onus to prove this issue was upon defendant. As discussed in detail hereinabove, defendant has been able to prove that suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act as the said provisions specifically contemplates that none of the party can be limited for obtaining the relief in accordance with the law of land. In the present case, the deceased defendant had taken the recourse of law by filing the eviction petition which is lawful right and therefore, the defendant cannot be injuncted from pursuing the relief of eviction by filing the eviction petition before the Ld. Rent Controller. Therefore, it is held that the defendant has been able to prove this issue on preponderance of probabilities in his favour. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 41/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
Sharma 2026.05.14
16:11:11
+0530
ISSUE NO.2:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of adverse possession/ hostile possession, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? (OPP)
69. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. As discussed in detail hereinabove, plaintiff has failed to prove its entitlement to a decree of adverse possession/hostile possession on the basis of preponderance of probability as the plaintiff has failed to prove that the possession of the plaintiff was hostile and adverse and it was notorious and was within the knowledge of the defendant that the plaintiff is in possession of suit property since 05.11.1984/13.04.1990 as claimed in exclusion of all including the owner/defendant in his own rights. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO.3:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration that the counterfoils filed by defendant in eviction petition are forged and fabricated, as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? (OPP)
70. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. As discussed in detail hereinabove, plaintiff has failed to prove its entitlement to a decree of declaration that the counterfoils filed by defendant in eviction petition are forged and fabricated, as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint as except bald assertions, no evidence has been led that the said rent receipts/counterfoils are forged and fabricated having no signature of the plaintiff or of his father/family or that the CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 42/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:11:19 +0530 signature has been forged by the defendant. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (c) of the plaint? (OPP)
71. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. As discussed in detail hereinabove, plaintiff has failed to prove its entitlement to be owner on the basis of adverse possession and therefore the consequential relief prayed for in the form of permanent and prohibitory injunction in prayer clause (c) of the plaint cannot be granted as in absence of any title the plaintiff has no right to get the defendant injuncted not to create third party interest as the true owner has every right to create any third party interest as per law. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO.5:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction as prayed for in prayer clause (d) of the plaint? (OPP)
72. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. As discussed in detail hereinabove, from the pleadings itself it is clear that there was no allegation of forcible dispossession by the defendant. Further, as discussed in issue no.1, the plaintiff has no legal right to get the defendant injuncted, not to evict him by following due process of law. In view of the same, it is held that plaintiff has failed to prove this issue on the preponderance of CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 43/44 Digitally signed by Devendra Devendra Kumar Sharma Kumar Date:
2026.05.14 Sharma 16:11:26 +0530 probability. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
R E L I E F:-
73. In view of facts and circumstances discussed herein- above and taking the facts and circumstances in its totality alongwith evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case on preponderance of probability on the basis of ocular as well as oral testimony. Therefore, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to any of the relief as prayed in the present suit. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed.
74. In the circumstances discussed hereinabove, parties to bear their own costs.
75. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
76. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed Devendra by Devendra Dictated and pronounced Kumar Kumar Sharma Date:
in the open Court on Sharma 2026.05.14
14th May, 2026. 16:11:38 +0530
(DEVENDRA KUMAR SHARMA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS (COMM) 1182/22 Amarjeet Singh vs. Mohan Dass Talreja (since deceased) through LRs 44/44