Delhi District Court
Brahm Dev Gogna vs Mohd. Farhad Alahi on 23 July, 2025
CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019
Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARAN SALWAN, CIVIL JUDGE-03,
DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. :- 3622/2019
CNR No. :- DLCT03-008300-2019
In the matter of;
Sh. Brahm Dev Gogna (Deceased Now)
S/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Gogna
R/o-121, Second Floor, Inderpuri, Delhi-110012
LRs of deceased plaintiff:
1. Smt. Saroj Kumari Gogna (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Brahm Dev Gogna,
R/o D-901 9th Floor, Plot No.6A Set-11
Sri Durga CGHS Ltd Dwarka Sector-12
South West Delhi-110078
2. Sh. Anil Gogna (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Brahm Dev Gogna
R/o D-901, 9th Floor, Plot No.6A Set-11
Sri Durga CGHS Ltd Dwarka Sector-12
South-West Delhi-110078
3. Smt. Sunita Sachar (Daughter)
W/o Late Sh. Pawan Kumar Sachar,
All R/o D-36, Upper Ground Floor,
Dwarka Sector-8, South-West, Delhi-110077
4. Sh. Arun Gogna (Deceased Son)
LRs of Late Sh. Arun Gogna are as:
(a) Smt. Amita Gogna (Wife)
(b) Sh. Akash Gogna (Son)
(c) Sh. Anchit Gogna (Son)
All R/o A-121, Second Floor,
Inderpuri, Central, New Delhi-110012
..... Plaintiff
Versus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 15 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi Mohd. Farhad Alahi S/o Mohmood Alahi R/o Z-26 C, Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi-110008 ...Defendant Date of Institution of Suit : 30.11.2019 Date of Decision : 23.07.2025 Suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction.
Judgment (ex-parte) :-
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction instituted by Sh. Brahm Dev Gogna (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against Mohd. Farhad Ilahi (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). The suit was instituted by Sh. Brahm Dev Gogna, but the plaintiff expired and vide order dated 05.04.2022 of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure'1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) was allowed and the Legal Heirs of the plaintiff (in short LR's) were impleaded.
Brief Facts:
2(a) As per the averments made in the plaint, the brief facts are that the plaintiff was in possession of shop no. 3581, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi since 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said property'). It is averred that the said property was owned by Sh. Ram Dayal S/o Sambhu Dayal. It is averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff extended a loan of Rs. 1,320/- to Sh. Ram Dayal and a loan agreement dated 08.10.1959 was executed by Sh. Ram Dayal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 2 of 15 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi and it was agreed that the loan would be paid in installment of Rs. 30/- p.m. alongwith interest @ 0.25 % per month. It is averred that Sh. Ram Dayal failed to repay the loan amount and consequently, the plaintiff was allowed to occupy the said property as a tenant and an agreement dated 06.05.1965 was executed whereby the plaintiff was recognized as a tenant and was given permission to carry out repairs and renovation and the rent agreed to be paid was Rs. 30.50 paise.
(b) It is averred that the plaintiff continued to be in uninterrupted possession of the said property since the creation of tenancy till date. It is averred that Sh. Ram Dayal expired in 1968 leaving behind his widow Smt. Gulabo Devi as his sole legal heir who was collecting the rent of the said property and was issuing rent receipts. It is averred that Smt. Gulabo Devi expired on 12.01.1978 and thereafter, nobody came to collect the rent and the plaintiff remained in uninterrupted possession of the said property where he was doing the business of watch shop and repair shop under the name and style of 'Roxy'.
(c) It is averred that the son of the plaintiff Sh. Arun Gogna died on 09.10.2010 and the plaintiff suffered mental trauma and thereafter, the plaintiff shifted to London with his other son and returned to India in June 2013 and the said property was lying locked during this period. It is averred that the plaintiff has been visiting India on and off and started sitting in a shop to earn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page 3 of 15 (Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi livelihood. It is averred that the plaintiff employed the defendant to repair watches and for providing services to the plaintiff in repairing watches and to help the plaintiff in the business. It is averred that the defendant is working as an employee on commission basis and whatever earnings were made from watch repairing, the plaintiff paid commission to the defendant. It is averred that the status of the defendant is of a licensee / employee on commission basis. It is further averred that defendant has no right in the said property.
(d) It is averred that the plaintiff visited India in October, 2019 and decided to close the business and informed the defendant that his services would no longer be required and should stop coming to the said property. It is averred that the defendant agreed and allowed the plaintiff to close the business.
(e) It is averred by the plaintiff that when the plaintiff visited the said property, he found that goods belonging to the plaintiff were misplaced and certain new items/stocks were present in the said property. It is further averred that the plaintiff found another lock alongwith a chain put on the lock placed by the plaintiff making it impossible for him to open the said property. It is averred that the plaintiff became suspicious about the intentions of the defendant and tried to reach out to him but the defendant evaded the same. It is averred that the plaintiff received a phone call from the local police station informing him that a complaint is filed against him by the defendant. It is averred that the plaintiff visited the police station and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi explained the misconduct of the defendant, to which the police authorities replied that since the nature of the matter is civil, the plaintiff should seek and avail civil remedies.
(f) It is averred that the defendant has been sending goons to threaten the plaintiff of dire consequences if the defendant is not allowed to use the said property. It is averred that the defendant has no right to come to the said property and interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. It is averred that the lock of the defendant is causing hindrances in the use of the said property / shop by the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
"a) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and his agents be passed restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit shop i.e.3581, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi.
b) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and his agents restraining them from using the suit shop bearing no. 3581, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi.
c) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and his agents restraining them from creating any third party interest of any kind in respect of suit shop bearing no. 3581, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi.
d) a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant and his agents directing the Defendant to remove his lock and chain put by him on the main door of the suit shop bearing no. 3581, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, Delhi above the lock of the Plaintiff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi Any such other or further orders may kindly be passed and reliefs granted as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
Service of the Defendant
3. The defendant was duly served with summons of the suit by way of e-mode and Ld. Counsel for the defendant appeared in Court Proceedings. However, Written Statement was not filed by the defendant and therefore, the defence of the defendant was struck off and the defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.11.2021 of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
Plaintiff's Evidence
4. To substantiate its case, the LR's of the plaintiff examined two witnesses:
(a) Smt. Amita Gogna as PW-1
(b) Sh. Anil Gogna as PW-3
5. Smt. Amita Gogna was examined as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A, which bears her signatures at point A and B. She relied upon the following documents: -
1. Site plan of the suit property Ex. PW 1/1.
2. Photocopy of loan settlement agreement between Sh. Ram Dayal and deceased Plaintiff Sh. Brahm Dev Gogna dated 08.10.1959 Mark A (Ex. PW 1/2 is de-exhibited).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi
3. Photocopy of rent agreement executed by Sh. Ram Dayal in favour of deceased plaintiff dated 06.05.1965 Mark B (Ex. PW 1/3 is de-exhibited).
4. Photocopies of rent receipts issued by Sh. Ram Dayal and Smt. Gulabo Devi from 1965-1973 Mark C (6 pages colly) (Ex. PW 1/4 is de-exhibited).
5. Photocopy of death certificate of Smt. Gulabo Devi Mark D (Ex. PW 1/5 is de- exhibited).
6. Photocopy of electricity bill dated 20.02.2015 in the name of deceased plaintiff Mark E (Ex. PW 1/6 is de-exhibited).
7. Photocopies of electricity bill dated 16.10.2019 in the name of deceased plaintiff Mark F (Ex. PW 1/7 is de-exhibited).
8. Photocopy of property tax receipt issued by NDMC in the name of deceased plaintiff dated 06.11.2018 Mark G (Ex. PW 1/8 is de-exhibited).
9. Photocopy of property tax receipt issued by NDMC in the name of deceased plaintiff dated 01.11.2019 Mark H (Ex. PW 1/9 is de-exhibited).
10. Photocopy of ownership details as shown on NDMC official Website pertaining to suit property dated 06.11.2018 Mark I (Ex. PW 1/10 is ex-exhibited).
11. Photocopy of ledger account maintained by deceased plaintiff Mark J (Ex. PW 1/11 is de-exhibited).
12. Photocopies of bill and account statements maintained by deceased plaintiff with various customers Mark K (colly) (Ex. PW 1/12 is de-exhibited).
13. Photocopies of tax invoices issued by Indian Overseas Co. Pvt. Ltd. dated 31.05.2013 Mark L (Ex. PW 1/13 is de- exhibited).
14. Photocopies of tax invoices issued by Oberoi and Sons dated 31.07.2010 Mark M (Ex. PW 1/14 is de-exhibited).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi
15. Photocopy of credit note dated 04.11.2010 Mark N (Ex. PW 1/15 is de-exhibited).
16. Photocopies of receipt and goods return notes of deceased plaintiff Mark O (Ex. PW 1/16 is de-exhibited).
17. Photocopy of letter dated 17.11.2019 written by deceased plaintiff Mark P (Ex. PW 1/17 is de-exhibited).
18. Photocopy of United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Passport of deceased plaintiff Mark Q (Ex. PW 1/18 is de-exhibited).
19. Photocopies of Aadhar Card of deceased plaintiff Mark R (Ex. PW 1/19 is de- exhibited).
20. Photocopy of aadhar card of defendant Mark S (Ex. PW 1/20 is de-exhibited).
21. Photocopy of aadhar card of deceased Arun Gogna Mark T (Ex. PW 1/21 is de-exhibited).
22. Photocopy of aadhar card of Amita Gogna Ex. PW 1/2 (OSR) (Ex. PW 1/22 is de-exhibited).
23. Photocopy of aadhar card of Akash Gogna Ex. PW 1/3 (OSR) (Ex. PW 1/23 is de-exhibited).
24. Photocopy of aadhar card of Anchit Gogna Ex. PW 1/4 (OSR) (Ex. PW 1/24 is de-exhibited).
25. Death certificate of the plaintiff dated 15.02.2022 Brahm Dev Gogna Mark U.
26. Death certificate of Late Sh. Arun Kumar Gogna dated 07.10.2010 Ex. PW 1/5 (OSR).
6. Thereafter, an application for leading additional evidence was filed on behalf of PW-1 which was allowed vide order dated 09.01.2024 of the Ld. Predecessor Court and PW-1 Ms. Amita Gogna tendered her additional evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi PW1/B and relied upon documents Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/6 and Mark A to Mark D already exhibited by PW-3 Anil Gogna.
7. Thereafter, the LR's of the Plaintiff examined another witness Sh. Anil Gogna as PW-3, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A and B and relied upon the following documents:
1. Rent receipts dated Ex. PW3/1 04.02.1973, 23.02.1969, (colly) (OSR) 05.02.1973, 13.01.1971, (mentioned as
08.02.1966, July 1965, Ex. PW1/25 in 13.08.1965, 05.09.1968 the evidence and 07.10.1965. affidavit) 2. Watter Bill Ex. PW3/2 (colly) (OSR) (mentioned as Ex. PW1/26 in the evidence affidavit)
3. Property Tax Receipt Ex. PW3/3 (colly) (OSR) (mentioned as Ex. PW1/27 in the evidence affidavit)
4. Electricity Bill dated Ex. PW3/4 20.02.2015 and 16.10.2019 (colly) (OSR) (mentioned as Ex. PW1/28 in the evidence affidavit) 5. MTNL Bill datd Ex. PW3/5 20.04.2003 (colly (OSR) (mentioned as Ex. PW1/29 in the evidence affidavit)
6. Shop bill dated 17.08.2019, Ex. PW3/6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi 25.08.2010 (colly (OSR) (mentioned as Ex. PW1/30 in the evidence affidavit)
7. Photocopy of four rent MarkA to Mark receipts D.
8. Thereafter, again an application for leading additional evidence of PW-1 was filed and was allowed vide order dated 18.09.2024 and PW-1 tendered her additional evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/X bearing her signatures at point A and B. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of loan settlement agreement Earlier marked as between Sh. Ram Dayal And plaintiff Mark A now dated 08.10.1959 exhibited as Ex.
PW1/2 (OSR).
2. Copy of rent agreement executed by Earlier marked as Sh. Ram Dayal in favour of plaintiff Mark B now dated 06.05.1965 exhibited as Ex.
PW1/3 (OSR) (de-
marked)
3. Electricity Bill dated 20.02.2015 in Earlier marked as name of plaintiff Mark E now exhibited as Ex.
PW1/64. Electricity bill dated 16.10.2019 in Earlier marked as the name of plaintiff Mark F now exhibited as Ex.
PW1/75. Ownership details as shown on Earlier marked as NDMC website pertaining to suit Mark I now exhibited property dated 06.11.2018 as Ex. PW1/10
6. Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Ex. PW1/11 Evidence Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi
9. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, PE was closed on 18.09.2024.
10. I have heard the ex-parte arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and have also perused the record carefully.
Findings:
11. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff was in possession of the said property since 1959. It is averred by the plaintiff that the owner of the said property was Sh. Ram Dayal who took loan from the plaintiff but could not repay the loan and consequently, the plaintiff was allowed to occupy the said property as a tenant for rent of Rs. 30.50 paise and an agreement dated 06.05.1965 was executed between them. It is averred that after the death of Sh. Ram Dayal, his widow Smt. Gulabo Devi was collecting rent from the plaintiff and after her death, no one came to collect rent. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had employed the defendant on commission basis and when the plaintiff decided to close the business, he informed the defendant that he is no longer required and put his lock on the said property. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the goods belonging to him were misplaced from the said property and also found another lock alongwith a chain put on the lock placed by the plaintiff. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant is sending goons to threaten the plaintiff of dire consequences if the defendant is not allowed to use the said property and would dispossess the plaintiff from the said property.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 11 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi
12. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from:
(a) Dispossessing the plaintiff from the said property.
(b) Using the said property
(c) Creating third party interest in the said property.
13. Further, the plaintiff has also prayed for the relief of manda-
tory injunction directing the defendant to remove his lock and chain put by him on the main door of the said property.
14. Before appreciating evidence and deciding the issue, it is im- perative to discuss the onus of proof in civil trial. In Civil Trial, the obligation is on the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove his claim on preponderance of probability against the defendant. As per the principles of Indian Law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or as- serting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Vishesaraswami & V.P. Tem- ple & Anr. (VI (2003) SLT 307, observed that whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved' as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circum- stances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It was observed in A. Raghavamma & Another vs. Chenchamma &
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 12 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi Another, AIR 1964 SC 136, there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon a per- son who must prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evolu- tion of evidence. It was observed in Rangammal vs. Kuppuswami and others, Civil Appeal No. 562 of 2003 , observed that burden of proof lies on person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the fact is proved by the plaintiff.
15. To obtain the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove the following:
Firstly, the plaintiff must show that he has legal right or obligation in his favour.
Secondly, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant has caused damage or breach or is likely to cause damage or breach to his legal right or obligation.
16. To prove the case, the LR of the plaintiff, Smt. Amita Gogna examined herself as PW-1 and has relied upon several docu- ments. She has placed on record the copy of loan settlement agree- ment between the plaintiff and Sh. Ram Dayal (Ex. PW1/2), Copy of rent agreement executed by Sh. Ram Dayal in favour of the plaintiff (Ex. PW1/3), Electricity Bills in the name of plaintiff (Ex. PW1/6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 13 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi and Ex. PW1/7), photocopy of Property Tax Receipt issued by NDMC in the name of the deceased plaintiff (Mark G and Mark H).
17. PW-3, Sh. Anil Gogna placed reliance on the rent receipts (Ex. PW3/1), Water Bill (Ex. PW3/2), Property Tax Receipt (Ex. PW3/3), Electricity Bill (Ex. PW3/4). However, PW-3 has failed to corroborate the version of the plaintiff that the defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiff, create third party interest and is using the said property.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the LR's of the plaintiff have failed to prove that the defendant is using the said property, that the defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiff or is trying to create third party interest in the said property. The plaintiff has not placed any documentary evidence or examined any witness to corroborate his case.
19. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant has fixed his lock and chain on the lock of the plaintiff. For the relief of mandatory injunction, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has fixed the lock. The plaintiff has not even placed on record any photograph to show that there is lock and chain on the lock of the plaintiff.
20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has not proved his case. The fact that the defendant did not contest the mat- ter does not mean that the version of the plaintiff is the gospel truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 14 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi CS SCJ No.: 3622/2019 Brahm Dev Gogna Vs. Mohd. Farhad Alahi As per Section 104 of Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam'2023, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case. Even if the proceedings are ex-parte, the plaintiff is bound to prove its case.
21. Therefore, in view of the above-discussion, the plaintiff has not proved his case and accordingly is not entitled to the relief claimed.
RELIEF:
22. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed. In view of the above-discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dis- missed.
23. No order as to Cost.
24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
25. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compli-
ance. Digitally signed
by CHARAN
SALWAN
CHARAN Date:
SALWAN 2025.07.23
16:54:40
+0530
Pronounced in open court: (Charan Salwan)
Dated: 23.07.2025 Civil Judge-03, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 15 of 15 (Charan Salwan)Civil Judge-03, Central, Delhi