Delhi District Court
Shambhu Dayal Sharma vs Smt. Rama Sharma Anr on 29 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 16079/2016
CNR NO: DLSW01-001308-2016
In the matter of :
Sh. Shambu Dayal Sharma
S/o Late Birdhi Chand Sharma
R/o: 19/238, Sarai Basti,
Delhi - 110035 ....Plaintiff
Versus.
1. Smt. Rama Sharma
W/o Sh. Anil Kumar
R/o; A-15, Jeewan Park,
New Delhi - 110059
2. Sh. Anil Sharma
S/o Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma
R/o: A-15, Jeevan Park,
New Delhi - 110059. .....Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 31.07.2013
Final Arguments Heard on : 13.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.11.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, CANCELLATION OF SALE
DEED DATED 04.07.2012, RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
AND INJUNCTION
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 1 of 37
Digitally signed
SUMIT by SUMIT
DALAL
DALAL 2025.12.02
Date:
16:15:20 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, I shall dispose of the suit filed by the Plaintiff, Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma, seeking a decree of declaration, cancellation of Sale Deed, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction against the Defendants. The subject matter of the dispute is the freehold property bearing No. A-15, Jeevan Park, New Delhi-110059, measuring 150 sq. yards. The Plaintiff, who is the father-in-law of Defendant No. 1 and father of Defendant No. 2, has challenged the validity of the registered Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 (registered on 07.07.2012) executed in favor of Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff alleges that the said document is void ab initio as it was obtained by the Defendants through fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation under the guise of executing a Power of Attorney for reconstruction purposes, and is further vitiated by the total absence of the sale consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- recited therein. Only Defendant No. 1 contests the suit, claiming absolute ownership by virtue of the said registered Sale Deed, asserting it was a voluntary transaction for valid consideration paid in cash.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. The Plaintiff, Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma, has instituted the present suit seeking a decree of declaration, cancellation of Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction against the Defendants.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 2 of 37
Digitally signed
SUMIT by SUMIT
DALAL
DALAL Date:
2025.12.02
16:15:25 +0530
The Plaintiff is the father-in-law of Defendant No. 1, Smt. Rama Sharma, and the father of Defendant No. 2, Sh. Anil Sharma.
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the freehold property bearing No. A-15, Jeevan Park, New Delhi-110059, measuring 150 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property"). He avers that he purchased the said vacant plot vide a registered Sale Deed dated 29.01.1972 from his own funds. Subsequently, he raised a two-storey construction comprising the ground floor and the first floor from his own earnings and savings.
4. The Plaintiff pleads that he allowed his elder son (Defendant No. 2) and daughter-in-law (Defendant No. 1) to reside in a specific portion of the Suit Property, comprising two rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor, purely on a permissive basis as licensees due to close family relations . The remaining portion of the property, including a shop and other residential rooms, was let out to various tenants, and the Plaintiff used to realize the rent himself, though occasionally authorizing Defendant No. 2 to collect it on his behalf.
5. The Plaintiff specifically pleads that he is an illiterate senior citizen (aged about 72 years at the time of filing), suffering from old-age ailments and weak eyesight. He cannot read or write either Hindi or English and can only affix his signatures in Hindi. He asserts that he reposed blind faith and Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 3 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:15:30 +0530 trust in the Defendants, who were living with him and managing his affairs.
6. It is alleged that the Defendants, with a malafide intention to usurp the property, induced the Plaintiff to agree to a proposal for the redevelopment/reconstruction of the property into four stories through a collaboration with a builder. The Defendants represented to the Plaintiff that to facilitate the obtaining of sanctions and dealing with the builder, he would be required to execute a General Power of Attorney in their favor.
7. Believing the representations of the Defendants to be true, the Plaintiff accompanied them to the office of the Sub- Registrar, Janak Puri, in the first week of July 2012. It is alleged that the Defendants, taking advantage of the Plaintiff's illiteracy, obtained his thumb impressions and signatures on several pre- typed papers. The Plaintiff categorically avers that the contents of these documents were neither read over nor explained to him, and he signed them under the bona fide belief that he was executing a Power of Attorney for the redevelopment project.
8. The Plaintiff states that when the proposed construction did not commence for several months, he made inquiries in April 2013. The Defendants allegedly turned hostile, started misbehaving, and stopped passing on the rental income collected from the tenants. Suspicious of their conduct, the Plaintiff approached his son-in-law, Sh. Ajay Sharma, who made inquiries at the Sub-Registrar's office. It was only on 31.05.2013, upon obtaining a certified copy, that the Plaintiff discovered that Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 4 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:15:36 +0530 the document executed was not a Power of Attorney but a registered Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 (registered on 07.07.2012), purporting to transfer the entire Suit Property in favor of Defendant No. 1.
9. The Plaintiff impugns the Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 on the following grounds:
a. Void for Want of Consideration: The Sale Deed recites a consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakhs). The Plaintiff categorically asserts that this recital is false and fictitious. He pleads that he never received any such amount, nor did the Defendants have the financial capacity to pay such a huge amount in cash.
b. Non-Est Factum: The deed was executed under the fundamental misconception regarding the nature of the document (Power of Attorney vs. Sale Deed) induced by fraud and undue influence.
c. Factual Inaccuracies: The Plaintiff highlights that the deed contains incorrect details, such as the wrong parentage of the Plaintiff and a false recital regarding the handing over of "vacant physical possession," whereas tenants were actually occupying major portions of the property.
10. Consequently, the Plaintiff terminated the license of the Defendants and has filed the present suit praying for a decree declaring the Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 as void and for its cancellation. He further seeks a declaration of his title, a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from creating Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 5 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:15:41 +0530 third-party rights, and a decree for recovery of possession of the portion of the property illegally occupied by the Defendants.
DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE
11. Defendant No. 2, Sh. Anil Sharma, was proceeded ex parte and his right to file the written statement was closed vide order dated 11.02.2014. Only Defendant No. 1, Smt. Rama Sharma, contested the suit by filing a detailed Written Statement. She vehemently denies the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. Her primary line of defence is that the present suit is a product of collusion between the Plaintiff and his elder son, Defendant No. 2 (who is the husband of Defendant No. 1). She avers that Defendant No. 2 is a habitual drinker who used to physically abuse her. She alleges that upon her failure to fulfill his illegal demands, Defendant No. 2 conspired with his father (the Plaintiff) to institute this false litigation with the sole motive to harass her and unlawfully oust her from the suit property. She further alleges that the Plaintiff is acting at the instigation of his son-in-law, Sh. Ajay Sharma, who has an evil eye on the property.
12. Defendant No. 1 asserts that she is the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing No. A-15, Jeevan Park, New Delhi. She pleads that the Plaintiff executed the registered Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 (registered on 07.07.2012) in her favor out of his own free will, choice, and consent, in the presence of two witnesses. She places heavy reliance on the registration of the document, contending that the Plaintiff Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 6 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 DALAL 16:15:47 +0530 appeared before the Sub-Registrar, admitted the execution of the deed, and acknowledged the receipt of consideration. She argues that the Sub-Registrar and his staff invariably explain the nature of the document to the executant, and therefore, the Plaintiff's plea of being misled into signing a Sale Deed under the guise of a Power of Attorney is untenable.
13. Defendant No. 1 categorically states that the transaction was a genuine sale for a valid consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakhs). She avers that she paid the entire amount in cash to the Plaintiff prior to the execution of the deed. Regarding the source of funds, she pleads that she arranged this substantial amount by selling her jewelry (Stridhan) and by taking loans from her relatives and acquaintances, including one Sh. Ashok. She relies on the recital in the Sale Deed where the Plaintiff has admitted the receipt of the said amount.
14. Defendant No. 1 denies the Plaintiff's narrative regarding the "redevelopment project" or "collaboration with a builder" as a cooked-up story. Instead, she provides a specific reason for the sale. She alleges that the Plaintiff was in dire financial need because his younger son (Sh. Sunil Kumar) had a habit of gambling and had incurred huge debts. She claims the Plaintiff sold the property to her to discharge these liabilities and to secure money for his own needs. She further avers that the Plaintiff had similarly sold another property in Alwar belonging to his wife for Rs. 23 Lakhs to meet these financial obligations.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 7 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:15:56 +0530
15. Defendant No. 1 specifically denies the Plaintiff's claim that she is residing in the property as a licensee. She asserts that she is in possession as an absolute owner. Furthermore, she disputes the Plaintiff's claim of having constructed the property. She avers that after purchasing the property (and/or occupying it), it was she who raised the construction from time to time using her own separate funds and expenses, and that she has been collecting rent from the tenants in her own right as the owner.
16. Defendant No. 1 also raised following legal objections:
a. Bar of Limitation: She contends that the suit, filed in 2013 challenging a deed executed in 2012, is an afterthought. b. Irrevocability: She argues that a registered Sale Deed cannot be cancelled or declared void merely on the allegations of non-payment of consideration, as the title passes upon registration.
c. Maintainability: She objects that the suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiff, having divested himself of title and possession, has no locus standi to seek an injunction or possession.
d. Valuation: She also raises a technical objection that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees.
REPLICATION
17. The Plaintiff filed a detailed Replication to the Written Statement of Defendant No. 1, wherein he vehemently Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 8 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 DALAL 16:16:00 +0530 denied the preliminary objections and the defence set up by the Defendant. The Plaintiff reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made in the Plaint as true and correct.
18. The Plaintiff specifically denied receiving the alleged sale consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakhs) or any other amount from Defendant No. 1. He termed the recital of payment in the Sale Deed as false and fabricated. He further challenged the financial capacity of Defendant No. 1, pleading that she has never done any job or business, was merely a housewife, and never had any independent source of income to pay such a huge amount in cash.
19. The Plaintiff categorically denied the allegations that his younger son had any gambling habits or that the suit property was sold to discharge any such debts. He further clarified the issue regarding the Alwar property, stating that it belonged to his wife, who sold it for Rs. 9,51,000/- (and not Rs. 23 Lakhs as alleged) and deposited the proceeds into her own bank account, having no connection to the present dispute.
20. The Plaintiff denied the allegation that the suit was filed in collusion with Defendant No. 2 or at the instigation of his son-in-law. He maintained that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 were acting in concert to usurp his property. The Plaintiff reiterated that he was deceived into signing the Sale Deed under the misrepresentation that it was a Power of Attorney for reconstruction purposes. He denied that Defendant No. 1 ever raised any construction on the property or that she was in Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 9 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:16:04 +0530 possession as an absolute owner. He maintained that the Defendants were merely licensees and that the registered document is void ab initio.
ISSUES
21. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed ON 24.07.2024:
a. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree adjudicating the sale deed dated 4.7.2012 registered on 7.7.2012 in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of property No.A-15, Jeevan Park. Delhi-110059 as void and for its cancellation as prayed in para 37(a) of the plaint? OPP b. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration against the defendants as prayed in para 37(b) of the plaint? OPP c. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for injunction as prayed in para 37(c) of the plaint? OPP d. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of possession in respect of portion shown in yellow colour in the site plan of property No.A-15, Jeevan Park, Delhi 110 059, as prayed in paragraph 37(d) of the plaint? OPP e. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from the defendants from the date of the suit till recovery of possession and if so at what rate? OPP f. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been correctly valued and proper Court fees has not been paid thereon? OPD g. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC? OPD Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 10 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:16:10 +0530 h. Whether the suit for injunction is not maintainable as alleged in paragraph 13 of the Preliminary Objections? OPD i. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
22. In support of his case, the Plaintiff examined three witnesses.
a. PW-1 Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma (Plaintiff), b. PW-2 Sh. Ajay Sharma, Son-in-law of the Plaintiff. c. PW-3 Sh. S.B. Sharma, Advocate, Former Counsel for Defendant No. 1.
23. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit in Hindi (Ex. PW-1/A) and its translated copy in English (Ex. PW-1/A1). In his affidavit, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint regarding his ownership, the fraudulent execution of the Sale Deed, and non-payment of consideration.
24. PW-1 also relied upon the following documents:
a. Ex. PW-1/1 (also Ex. P-2): Original Sale Deed dated 29.01.1972 in his favor.
b. Ex. PW-1/2 (also Ex. P-1): Site Plan of the suit property. c. Ex. PW-1/3 (also Ex. P-3): Certified copy of the impugned Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 11 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.12.02 16:16:19 +0530
25. PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1 on 10.06.2016, 05.10.2016, 08.12.2016, and 03.02.2017.
26. PW-2, Sh. Ajay Sharma, is the son-in-law of the Plaintiff. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A). He deposed regarding the Plaintiff's illiteracy, old age, and the discovery of the fraud upon obtaining the certified copy of the deed on 31.05.2013. Despite multiple opportunities, PW-2 was never cross-examined on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1.
27. PW-3, Sh. S.B. Sharma, Advocate is a former Counsel for Defendant No. 1. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that he had filed a petition under the DV Act on behalf of Smt. Rama Sharma (Defendant No. 1) against her husband (Defendant No. 2). He tendered the documents Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/3 which are the Affidavits supporting the complaint, application U/s 23(2) DV Act, and the Income & Assets Affidavit of Smt. Rama Sharma, identifying her signatures on them. PW-3 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1 on 30.05.2023.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE 28. In support of her defence, Defendant No. 1 examined two witnesses. Defendant No. 2 had already been proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 11.02.2014 and did not lead any evidence. Witness for Defendant No. 1 were as follows:
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 12 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:16:25 +0530 a. DW-1 Smt. Rama Sharma (Defendant No. 1), b. DW-2 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Civil Defence Volunteer, Sub- Registrar Office-II, Basai Darapur, New Delhi.
29. DW-1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit in Hindi (Ex. DW1/A). In her affidavit, she deposed that she is the absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased it from the Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- paid in cash. She denied the allegations of fraud and claimed the funds were arranged through the sale of jewelry and loans.
30. DW-1 relied upon the certified copy of the Sale Deed, which was marked as Ex. DW2/A (referred to as Ex.
DW1/1 in her affidavit). During cross-examination, she was also confronted with and identified her signature on the complaint to the Mahila Ayog (Ex. DW1/P1) and the reply to the SHO (Ex. DW1/P3).
31. She was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff on 30.07.2022, 11.04.2023, and 20.04.2023.
32. DW-2, Sh. Vijay Kumar, is the Civil Defence Volunteer, Sub-Registrar Office-II, Basai Darapur, New Delhi. DW-2 was a summoned witness who brought the record of the registered Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012. He deposed that the certified copy already on record (Ex. P-3) is the same as the summoned record. He also placed on record a photocopy of the said document as Ex. DW2/A. Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 13 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 DALAL 16:16:28 +0530
33. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff on 30.07.2022, wherein he admitted that he had no knowledge about the procedure of registration and that the document was not registered in his presence.
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 1 - WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE ADJUDICATING THE SALE DEED DATED 4.7.2012 REGISTERED ON 7.7.2012 IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT NO.1 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO.A-15, JEEVAN PARK. DELHI-110 059 AS VOID AND FOR ITS CANCELLATION AS PRAYED IN PARA 37(A) OF THE PLAINT? OPP
34. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff challenges the registered Sale Deed (Ex. P-3, also exhibited as Ex. DW2/A) on the premise that it was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, and without payment of any consideration. The Defendant No. 1 contends that the Sale Deed is a valid registered document executed for a consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakhs) paid in cash.
35. To determine the validity of the instrument, this Court must analyze the evidence on three distinct pillars:
a. The vulnerability of the Plaintiff and the fiduciary relationship;
b. The factual veracity of the payment of consideration; and Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 14 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 DALAL 16:16:33 +0530 c. The legal consequence of non-payment of consideration in light of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
A. PLAINTIFF'S VULNERABILITY AND FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP Illiteracy and Old Age (Admitted/Proved):
36. The Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. In his evidence affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A1), he deposed that he is an illiterate person who cannot read or write Hindi or English and can only sign in Hindi. This fact stands corroborated and proved by the testimony of PW-2 (Sh. Ajay Sharma). In paragraph 2 of his affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), PW-2 specifically deposed that the Plaintiff is illiterate and suffers from weak eyesight due to old age. Nothing has come across in the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2 which creates a doubt on the veracity of the deposition of the said witnesses regarding Plaintiff's illiteracy and physical infirmity. Therefore, the Plaintiff's illiteracy and physical infirmity stands proved Fiduciary Relationship:
37. It is an admitted fact that the Defendant No. 1 is the daughter-in-law of the Plaintiff. DW-1 (Defendant No. 1), in her cross-examination dated 11.04.2023, admitted that the Plaintiff was residing with her at the suit property (Vol. he was coming to and fro quite often). This domestic arrangement establishes a relationship of "active confidence." Under Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where one party is in a position of Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 15 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:16:37 +0530 active confidence and the transaction appears unconscionable (alleged sale of property without consideration), the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction shifts to the party in the dominant position (here, the beneficiary Defendant No. 1).
B. FACTUAL FINDING ON CONSIDERATION
38. The Sale Deed (Ex. P-3) contains a specific recital that the entire sale consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/- was received by the Vendor from the Vendee as "CASH IN ADVANCE... prior to the execution of this Sale Deed." The validity of the deed hinges on the truthfulness of this recital.
Plaintiff's Denial:
39. PW-1 categorically deposed that he never received any amount. In his cross-examination dated 05.10.2016, he specifically denied the suggestion that he received Rs. 41 Lakhs from Defendant No. 1.
Defendant's Failure to Prove Capacity (Falsity of Recital Proved):
40. Once the receipt was denied, the onus shifted to Defendant No. 1 to prove she possessed such a huge amount in cash and actually paid it. Her testimony (DW-1) is riddled with contradictions and has been thoroughly impeached:
a. Incapacity to Pay: DW-1 admitted in her cross- examination dated 30.07.2022 that she is only a Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 16 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 DALAL 16:16:43 +0530 "housewife." Further, in her cross-examination dated 20.04.2023, she admitted, "I am not an income tax payee."
b. Impeachment by Previous Statement (Ex. PW3/1 to PW3/3): The Plaintiff examined PW-3 (Sh. S.B. Sharma, Advocate), the former counsel of Defendant No. 1. PW-3 proved the certified copies of an affidavit of assets/income (Ex. PW3/3) filed by Defendant No. 1 in a previous Domestic Violence petition, wherein she declared her income as merely Rs. 10,000/- per month. Although DW-1 denied filing this petition during her cross-examination on 20.04.2023, this denial is proved to be false by the testimony of PW-3 (cross-examined on 30.05.2023), who identified her signatures and confirmed she signed in his presence. This Court relies on PW-3. A person earning Rs. 10,000/- per month cannot unexplainedly amass Rs. 41 Lakhs in cash.
c. Fictitious Source of Funds: DW-1 claimed she arranged funds by taking a loan of Rs. 17 Lakhs from one "Ashok". However, her testimony during cross-examination dated 20.04.2023 exposes this as a fabrication: "I do not know his address i.e. of Ashok of Najafgarh... I cannot tell the name of father of Ashok." Furthermore, in her cross- examination dated 11.04.2023, she admitted "No receipt was obtained" for the cash payments made over 2 to 2.5 months. It is legally and factually impossible to believe that a housewife borrowed Rs. 17 Lakhs in cash from a person whose father's name or address she does not know, without executing any valid receipt. Ashok was never examined.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 17 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:16:48 +0530 d. Unproven Jewelry Sale: She claimed to sell jewelry worth Rs. 15 Lakhs through a third party to a jeweler she never met ("I had not visited the shop" - Cross-examination dated 20.04.2023). No jeweler was examined.
Finding of Fact:
41. Based on the admissions of DW-1 regarding her status as a housewife/non-IT payee in cross-examinations dated 30.07.2022 and 20.04.2023, failure on part of the Defendant No. 1 to bring any proof of loan and jewelry sale and the unimpeachable evidence of PW-3 regarding her low income, this Court holds that Defendant No. 1 had no financial capacity to pay Rs. 41,00,000/-. Consequently, the recital in Ex. P-3 regarding "Cash in Advance" is a false statement. It is proved that no consideration was passed to the Plaintiff.
C. LEGAL FINDING: VALIDITY OF SALE DEED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION
42. The Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 1 relied on the judgments in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali AIR 2020 SC 3310 and Vidyadhar v. Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573 to argue that non-payment of price does not render a registered sale deed void, and the remedy is only a suit for recovery of money.
43. This Court finds that the reliance on Dahiben (supra) is misplaced in the factual matrix of this case. The principle in Dahiben (supra) applies where the price is Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 18 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:16:52 +0530 "promised" or "part-paid" as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. In such cases, the intention is to transfer title immediately, reserving a right to recover the balance price. However, in the present case, the Sale Deed (Ex. P-3) does not contain a promise to pay in the future; it contains a specific (and now proven false) recital that the price was already paid in advance.
44. This Court is guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar (2021) SCC Online SC 1097, relied upon by the Plaintiff. In Kewal Krishan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where a sale deed recites that consideration has been paid, but evidence establishes that the purchaser had no earning capacity and no payment was actually made, the sale deed is void and transfers no title.
45. Applying the ratio of Kewal Krishan (supra):
a. The transaction was ostensibly a cash sale. b. The purchaser (Defendant No. 1) is proved to have no independent income/capacity (as per cross-examination dated 20.04.2023 and 30.07.2022). c. The payment recital is proved to be sham. d. Therefore, there was no "price paid" and no "price promised" (as the deed claimed it was already paid). e. Absent the essential ingredient of 'price' under Section 54, the document Ex. P-3 is not a valid sale deed in the eyes of the law.
Conclusion:
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 19 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL 16:16:56 +0530 Date: 2025.12.02
46. The Plaintiff, being an illiterate senior citizen, has successfully rebutted the presumption of validity attached to the registered document. It is proved that the Sale Deed (Ex. P-3) was executed without any consideration. A sale deed without consideration is void ab initio.
47. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the issue is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1. The Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 is held to be a void document.
ISSUE NO. 2(2) WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE FOR DECLARATION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS AS PRAYED IN PARA 37(B) OF THE PLAINT? OPP
48. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Plaintiff. In paragraph 37(b) of the Plaint, the Plaintiff has sought a decree declaring that the defendants have no right to deny his legal rights and character to the property bearing No. A-15, Jeevan Park, New Delhi, and that he continues to possess the same right and title which existed prior to the execution of the void sale deed dated 04.07.2012.
49. This issue is consequential to the findings returned on Issue No. 1.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 20 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:17:02 +0530
50. This Court has already adjudicated Issue No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1. It has been held that the registered Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 (Ex. P-3) is a void document ab initio for want of consideration, as the recital of prior payment was found to be sham and the Defendant No. 1 was proved to have no financial capacity to pay the alleged consideration of Rs. 41,00,000/-.
51. The legal effect of a document being declared void ab initio is that it is non-est in the eyes of the law from its very inception. It does not transfer any right, title, or interest. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan (supra), a sale deed executed without consideration is void and confers no title upon the vendee.
52. Since the Sale Deed (Ex. P-3) has been declared void and liable to be cancelled, the title to the suit property never legally passed to Defendant No. 1. Consequently, the status of the title reverts to the position that existed immediately prior to the execution of the void instrument.
53. It is an admitted position that prior to the execution of the disputed Sale Deed, the Plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 29.01.1972 (Ex. P-2). Since the subsequent transfer vide Ex. P-3 is void, the Plaintiff's title under Ex. P-2 remains intact and subsisting.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 21 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:17:08 +0530
54. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he is the lawful owner of the suit property and the defendants have no right, title, or interest in the same on the basis of the void Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012.
55. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The Plaintiff is held entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed.
ISSUE NO. 3(3) WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE FOR INJUNCTION AS PRAYED IN PARA 37(C) OF THE PLAINT? OPP
56. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Plaintiff. In paragraph 37(c) of the Plaint, the Plaintiff has sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit property bearing No. A-15, Jeevan Park, New Delhi. The Plaintiff further seeks to restrain the defendants from realizing rent from tenants or parting with possession to any third person .
57. The adjudication of this issue is a direct legal consequence of the findings returned on Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2.
58. This Court has already held in Issue No. 1 that the Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 (Ex. P-3) is a void document ab initio for want of consideration. Consequently, in Issue No. 2, it has been held that the Plaintiff remains the absolute owner of the Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 22 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:17:12 +0530 suit property, and the Defendant No. 1 did not acquire any valid title through the said void instrument.
59. Under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour. Since the Plaintiff is the declared owner, he has a legal right to enjoy his property without interference. Conversely, the Defendants, having no right, title, or interest in the property, have no authority to deal with it.
60. The Plaintiff pleaded a reasonable apprehension that the defendants might attempt to sell or transfer the property on the basis of the registered Sale Deed to defeat his rights . Given that Defendant No. 1 asserted absolute ownership in her Written Statement and admitted to being in possession and collecting rent, the threat to the Plaintiff's rights is real and subsisting. If the Defendant No. 1 is not restrained, she may create third-party interests which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and cause irreparable injury to the Plaintiff.
61. Furthermore, regarding the prayer to restrain the defendants from realizing rent, DW-1 admitted in her cross- examination dated 20.04.2023 that she was collecting rent from tenants (approx. Rs. 32,000/- to Rs. 45,000/-). Since her title is declared void, she has no legal right to appropriate the usufructs (rent) of the property.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 23 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.12.02 16:17:17 +0530
62. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to the protection of his proprietary rights through a decree of permanent injunction.
63. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The defendants are hereby permanently restrained from selling, alienating, transferring, or creating any third-party rights in the suit property or realizing rent from the tenants.
ISSUE NO. 4(4) WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE OF RECOVERY OF POSSESSION IN RESPECT OF PORTION SHOWN IN YELLOW COLOUR IN THE SITE PLAN OF PROPERTY NO.A-15, JEEVAN PARK, DELHI 110 059, AS PRAYED IN PARAGRAPH 37(D) OF THE PLAINT? OPP
64. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Plaintiff. In paragraph 37(d) of the Plaint, the Plaintiff seeks a decree for recovery of possession of the portion of the suit property shown in yellow colour in the site plan (Ex. PW-1/2, also marked as Ex. P-1).
65. The Plaintiff's case is that he is the absolute owner of the property and had permitted his son (Defendant No. 2) and daughter-in-law (Defendant No. 1) to reside in the said portion merely as licensees out of love and affection. He contends that since the Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 is void, the Defendants Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 24 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.12.02 16:17:22 +0530 have no right to continue in possession and their license stands terminated.
66. Per contra, Defendant No. 1 in her Written Statement claimed absolute ownership and possession based on the registered Sale Deed (Ex. P-3). She relied on the recital in the Sale Deed which states that "actual physical, vacant possession... has been handed over to VENDEE".
67. This Court, while adjudicating Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2, has already held that the Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 (Ex. P-3) is void ab initio for want of consideration. Consequently, the title to the property never passed to Defendant No. 1 and remains vested in the Plaintiff by virtue of his original Sale Deed dated 29.01.1972 (Ex. P-2). Therefore, Defendant No. 1 cannot claim a right to possession as an owner.
68. Since Defendant No. 1 is not the owner, her status in the property must be determined. The Plaintiff (PW-1) deposed that the Defendants were licensees. DW-1 (Defendant No. 1), in her cross-examination dated 11.04.2023, made a crucial admission regarding her status prior to the alleged sale. She stated: "It is correct that I was putting up in the house before sale deed as I am the daughter in law of plaintiff. (Vol. I do not know as to whether I was licencee or not)."
69. This admission confirms that her initial entry and residence in the property were permissive, based on her relationship as a daughter-in-law in the house of her father-in-
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 25 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:17:26 +0530 law. Since the subsequent "sale" is declared void, her status did not ripen into ownership and legally reverts to that of a permissive user or gratuitous licensee.
70. The recital in the Sale Deed (Ex. P-3) that "vacant possession" was handed over at the time of sale is proved to be factually incorrect by DW-1's own admission in cross- examination dated 11.04.2023 that she was already residing there since 1997. This reinforces the finding that the recitals in Ex. P-3 were sham.
71. In his cross-examination dated 08.12.2016, PW-1 admitted: "I have not given any notice to cancel the license to reside at the suit premises to defendant nos.1 & 2." However, it is a settled principle of law (Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh 2008 AIR SC 673) that the filing of a suit for eviction/possession itself constitutes a notice to quit. The Plaintiff clearly expressed his intention to terminate the license by instituting this suit and seeking possession in Para 30 and Prayer 37(d) of the Plaint. Therefore, the lack of a pre-suit formal notice is not fatal to the relief of possession.
72. The Plaintiff is the proved owner of the property. The Defendants have no valid title or right to possess the property against the wishes of the true owner, as her license stands terminated by the institution of this suit.
73. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The Plaintiff is entitled to a Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 26 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.12.02 16:17:31 +0530 decree of recovery of possession in respect of the suit property (portion shown in yellow in the site plan Ex. PW-1/2).ISSUE NO. 5
(5) WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO MESNE PROFITS FROM THE DEFENDANTS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUIT TILL RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND IF SO AT WHAT RATE? OPP
74. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Plaintiff. In paragraph 37(e) of the Plaint, the Plaintiff claimed a decree for damages/compensation and undertook to pay the requisite court fees upon the determination of the actual amount by this Court . In the Written Arguments, the Plaintiff has quantified this claim at Rs. 1,00,000/- per month.
75. This Court, while deciding Issue No. 4, has held that the status of the Defendants was that of a licensee and that the said license stood terminated upon the institution of the present suit. Once the license is terminated and the title of the Defendants is declared void (as held in Issue No. 1), the possession of the Defendant becomes wrongful and unauthorized.
76. Under Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a person in wrongful possession of property is liable to pay mesne profits, which are those profits which the person in wrongful possession actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 27 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:17:37 +0530 profits. Since the Plaintiff has been deprived of the use and occupation of his property due to the wrongful acts of the Defendant No. 1, he is entitled to mesne profits.
77. The Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit (i.e., 31.07.2013, the date of termination of license) until the date of actual delivery of vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.
78. The analysis and findings on the quantum is as follows:
a. Plaintiff's Claim vs. Evidence: The Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- per month in the written arguments. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the Plaintiff (PW-1) did not lead any specific documentary evidence, such as a lease deed of the vicinity or a valuer's report, to substantiate this high rate of damages. A mere assertion in arguments cannot substitute evidentiary proof. b. Available Evidence on Record: The Court must look at the oral testimony to determine a reasonable rate.
1. PW-1 (Plaintiff) in his cross-examination dated 05.10.2016 deposed: "There were 5-6 tenants who used pay between Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/- and used to be collected by deft. No. 1 and 2."
2. DW-1 (Defendant No. 1) in her cross-examination dated 20.04.2023 admitted: "The tenants used to give me Rs.35 to 40 thousands per month at that relevant time. Before registry it was around Rs.32,000/-..."
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 28 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL 16:17:42 +0530 Date: 2025.12.02 c. Assessment: The suit property occupied by the Defendants (Yellow portion in site plan Ex. PW-1/2) consists of a portion of the Ground Floor (two rooms, kitchen, etc.) and two rooms on the First Floor. This is a substantial residential portion comparable to the accommodation occupied by the tenants. While DW-1 admitted to a higher rental income from the building (Rs. 35k-40k total), her credibility has been impeached in previous issues. The Plaintiff's own testimony serves as a safer baseline. PW-1 stated tenants paid between Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/-. Considering the Defendants occupy approximately 4 rooms (2 on GF + 2 on FF) plus amenities, and taking a reasonable average based on the Plaintiff's own admission of the property's yield, this Court assesses the mesne profits at Rs. 10,000/- per month. This amount is reasonable, just, and supported by the preponderance of probabilities regarding the rental value of the property in that specific locality (Jeevan Park) during the relevant period.
79. Under Section 2(12) CPC, mesne profits include interest. Given the commercial nature of the loss (rental income), the Plaintiff is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the accruing monthly mesne profits.
80. The Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits. However, the claim of Rs. 1 Lakh per month is rejected for want of evidence. Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is held entitled to recover mesne profits Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 29 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:17:46 +0530 from Defendant No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month from the date of filing of the suit (31.07.2013) till the date of handing over of vacant possession, along with simple interest @ 6% per annum on the accrued amount.
81. Note: The Decree in regard to recovery of aforestated mesne profits will be executable subject to Plaintiff depositing the deficit Court Fees on the total calculated amount of mesne profits (from 31.07.2013 till the date of judgment).
ISSUE NO. 6(6) WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY VALUED AND PROPER COURT FEES HAS NOT BEEN PAID THEREON? OPD
82. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Defendants. In the Preliminary Objection No. 3 of the Written Statement, Defendant No. 1 contended that the suit is not maintainable as proper court fees have not been filed and the value of the suit property is more than what is shown in the plaint .
83. The Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction for the relief of cancellation of the Sale Deed and recovery of possession at Rs. 41,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakhs), which is the consideration amount mentioned in the disputed Sale Deed . Accordingly, the Plaintiff has paid an ad-valorem Court Fee of Rs. 1,64,000/-. For the reliefs of Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 30 of 37 SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:17:50 +0530 declaration and permanent injunction, the suit was valued at Rs. 200/- each, and appropriate fees were affixed.
84. The onus was specifically placed on the Defendant to prove that the valuation given by the Plaintiff is arbitrary or incorrect. A perusal of the record reveals that the Defendant No. 1 has made only a bald and vague averment in the Written Statement that the value is "more than as shown". She has neither specified what the correct market value should be nor led any documentary or oral evidence (such as a valuer's report or circle rate notification) to substantiate that the market value exceeded Rs. 41 Lakhs at the time of filing the suit.
85. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the valuation of the suit based on the apparent consideration amount of the impugned Sale Deed is proper and in accordance with the Court Fees Act, 1870.
86. The Defendant has failed to discharge the onus. The Plaintiff has correctly valued the suit on the basis of the value of the document sought to be cancelled and has paid the requisite ad-valorem court fees on the same. Accordingly, Issue No. 6 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
ISSUE NO. 7(7) WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 OF THE CPC? OPD Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 31 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL 16:17:55 +0530 Date: 2025.12.02
87. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Defendants. In Preliminary Objection No. 9 of the Written Statement, Defendant No. 1 contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as "no cause of action ever arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 at any point of time".
88. It is a settled principle of law that for the purposes of deciding an application or objection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the Plaint are to be looked into. The defense taken in the Written Statement is immaterial at this stage. The Court must treat the averments in the Plaint as true (demurrer test) to determine if a cause of action is disclosed or if the suit is barred by any law.
89. A "cause of action" consists of a bundle of facts which the plaintiff must prove to obtain relief. A perusal of the Plaint reveals that the Plaintiff has pleaded specific facts regarding his ownership, the fiduciary relationship with the defendants, the alleged fraudulent execution of the Sale Deed under the guise of a Power of Attorney, and the non-payment of consideration. The Plaintiff specifically pleaded in Para 34 that the cause of action arose on 31.05.2013 when he obtained the certified copy of the deed and discovered the fraud.
90. If these averments are accepted as true (as required for this test), they clearly entitle the Plaintiff to the reliefs of cancellation and possession. Therefore, the Plaint discloses a Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 32 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:17:59 +0530 clear and subsisting cause of action. The objection of the Defendant is without merit.
91. Although not explicitly detailed in the objection, Defendant No. 1 relied on the judgment in Dahiben (supra) during arguments to contend that the suit is barred. In Dahiben (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected a plaint because the suit for cancellation was filed more than 5 years after the sale deed, violating the 3-year limitation period under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
92. In the present case, date of sale deed is 04.07.2012 and the suit is filed in July 2013. The suit was instituted approximately 1 year after the execution of the impugned document. Under Article 59, the limitation period to cancel an instrument is 3 years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled first become known to him. Even assuming the Plaintiff knew of the deed on the date of execution (04.07.2012), the suit filed in 2013 is well within the statutory limitation period. Therefore, the ratio of Dahiben (supra) regarding limitation does not apply to the facts of this case.
93. The Plaint discloses a valid cause of action, and the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. The Defendant has failed to point out any other law barring the suit. Accordingly, Issue No. 7 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 33 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.12.02 16:18:04 +0530 ISSUE NO. 8 (8) WHETHER THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS ALLEGED IN PARAGRAPH 13 OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS? OPD
94. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the Defendant No. 1. In Paragraph 13 of the Preliminary Objections of the Written Statement, Defendant No. 1 contended that the suit for the relief of injunction is not maintainable because the Plaintiff is neither in possession of the suit property nor does he have any right, title, or interest over the same .
95. The Defendant's objection is founded on the legal principle that a plaintiff who is not in possession of the property cannot maintain a suit for mere injunction without seeking the consequential relief of possession (as per the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the law laid down in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy). The Defendant argued that since she is the absolute owner via the registered Sale Deed and in possession, the Plaintiff has no locus standi to seek an injunction.
96. This Court, while adjudicating Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 2, has conclusively held that the Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 is void ab initio and that the Plaintiff remains the absolute owner of the suit property. Therefore, the Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff has "no right, title or interest" is legally unsustainable.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 34 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:18:08 +0530
97. Regarding possession, the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the Defendants are in possession of a portion of the property (shown in yellow in the site plan) as licensees. Crucially, the Plaintiff has not filed a suit for injunction simpliciter.
98. A perusal of the Prayer clause in the Plaint reveals that the Plaintiff has sought comprehensive reliefs:
a. Prayer (a): Cancellation of the Sale Deed. b. Prayer (b): Declaration of Title. c. Prayer (c): Permanent Injunction. d. Prayer (d): Recovery of Possession.
99. The objection raised in Paragraph 13 of the Preliminary Objections is misconceived. The bar on a suit for injunction applies only when a plaintiff, being out of possession, sues only for an injunction and omits to sue for the relief of possession which he is entitled to claim. In the present case, the Plaintiff has rightfully claimed the relief of Recovery of Possession (Prayer 'd') alongside the relief of Injunction. Therefore, the suit is fully maintainable in its present form.
100. Since the Plaintiff has sought the relief of possession and has established his title (while the Defendant's title document has been declared void), the suit for injunction seeking to restrain the Defendant from creating third-party rights or dealing with the property during the pendency of recovery is maintainable. The Defendant has failed to discharge the onus.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 35 of 37 Digitally signed SUMIT byDALAL SUMIT DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:18:15 +0530 Accordingly, Issue No. 8 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
ISSUE NO. 9: RELIEF
101. In view of the detailed findings returned on Issue Nos. 1 to 8, the suit of the Plaintiff succeeds.
102. This Court hereby passes a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants in the following terms:
a. Declaration & Cancellation: The Sale Deed dated 04.07.2012 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No. 1 in respect of property No. A-15, Jeevan Park, New Delhi-110059, registered as document No. 17087 in Additional Book No. 1, Vol. No. 20070 on pages 49 to 57 on 07.07.2012 in the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Janak Puri, New Delhi, is hereby declared VOID AB INITIO and is CANCELLED. The Sub-Registrar concerned is directed to make a note of this cancellation in the relevant books.
b. Declaration of Title: It is declared that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property bearing No. A-15, Jeevan Park, New Delhi-110059.
c. Recovery of Possession: A decree for recovery of possession is passed in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendants are directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the portion of the property shown in yellow colour in the site plan (Ex. PW-1/2) to the Plaintiff within two months from the date of this decree.
Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 36 of 37
Digitally signed
SUMIT by SUMIT
DALAL
DALAL Date:
2025.12.02
16:18:34 +0530
d. Permanent Injunction: A decree of permanent injunction is passed restraining the Defendants, their agents, or anyone claiming through them from selling, alienating, transferring, creating any third-party interest in the suit property, or realizing rent from the tenants. e. Mesne Profits: A decree for mesne profits is passed in favour of the Plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit (31.07.2013) till the date of actual delivery of possession, along with simple interest @ 6% per annum on the accrued amount. The Decree in regard to recovery of mesne profits will be executable subject to Plaintiff depositing the deficit Court Fees on the total calculated amount of mesne profits (from 31.07.2013 till the date of judgment).(Subject to filing of deficient Court Fees).
f. Costs: The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the suit.
103. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.11.2025. DIGITALLY SIGNED AND UPLOADED ON 02.12.2025.
SUMIT Digitally signed by SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date: 2025.12.02 16:18:40 +0530 (SUMIT DALAL) DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI Sh. Shambhu Dayal Sharma v. Smt. Rama Sharma and Anr. Page No. 37 of 37