Delhi District Court
Rati Ram vs Bhuley Ram on 7 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT No.:- 8687/2016
CNR No.:- DLET03-000035-2006
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Lt. Sh. Ratiram
Now represented by:
1. Ramesh Chand (expired)
Now represented through LR's:
(a) Smt. Santosh Devi - Wife
(b) Sh. Ketan Chaudhary- Son
(c) Ms. Payal Chaudhary- Daughter
2. Shyam Singh
3. Gajraj Singh (expired)
Now represented through LR's:
(a) Smt. Davendri Devi (Wife)
(b) Smt. Preeti (Daughter)
(c) Smt. Rekha (Daughter)
(d) Smt. Pooja (Daughter)
(e) Arun (Son)
4. Maharaj Singh
5. Ratan Lal
6. Ranbir Singh
7. Rohtash Singh
All R/o- Village Subhanpur, Patti Gurjran
Ashar, P.O. Karawal Nagar, District North
East, Delhi-110094
T
..........Plaintiff (through his LRs) PRIYADARSHINI
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:07:38 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 1 of 37
Versus
1. Bhuley Ram.
2. Lal Chand
3. Satpal (expired)
Now represented through LR's:
(a) Smt. Jastwani Devi (Wife)
(b) Bijender (Son)
(c) Gajender (Son)
(d) Smt. Neetu (Daughter)
(e) Monu Chaudhary (Son)
4. Bhagmal
All sons of Late Hukum Singh.
5. Vijay Pal
6. Ajay Pal
Both S/o Bhuley Ram
7. Lalit Chaudhary S/o Sh. Lal Chand
8. Sumit Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagwal
All R/o- Village Subhanpur, Patti Gurjran Ashar,
P.O. Karawal Nagar, District North East,
Delhi-110094.
..........collectively referred
to as the Defendants
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of Institution: 19.07.2006
Date on which judgment was reserved: 02.08.2025
Date of judgment: 07.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment I shall dispose of a suit for perpetual
injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Before
Digitally signed
by T
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 2 of 37 T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:07:44 +0530
adjudicating upon the issues framed, I feel it necessary to dwell
upon the plethora of pleadings in the present suit.
PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. The facts of present case, are summarized below:
a) The late plaintiff was engaged in the business of
agriculture, dairy, farming, gardening and other allied jobs
which was the ancestral business of the plaintiff and the
plaintiff belonged to the farmer community.
b) Sh. Balwant was the Bhumidar of the agricultural
land consisting of Kh. No. 541, 542, 543, 544, 545 and
546, 600, 469, 610, 611, 613, 616, 619, 618 and Khata No.
32 alongwith Khasra No. 606 situated in the revenue estate
of village Sabhapur Patti Gujran, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi.
After the death of Balwant, the Bhumidari rights devolved
on the aforesaid land on their two sons (Sh. Nanwa and Sh.
Ram Singh) in equal share to the extent of ½ and they were
in cultivatory possession of the same.
c) Sh. Nanwa (son of Balwant) expired leaving behind
his brother Sh. Ram Singh. The property of Sh. Nanwa
was devolved upon his two sons namely Sh. Hukam Singh
and Sh. Rati Ram in equal shares to the extent of ½ share
each. Further, Sh. Hukam Singh expired leaving behind his
four sons namely Bhuley Ram (defendant no.1), Sh. Lal
Singh (defendant no.2), Sh. Satpal (defendant no.3) and
Sh. Bhagmal (defendant no.4) and the Bhumidari rights
were devolved upon them as per Section 50 of DLR Act in
Digitally signed
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 3 of 37 T
PRIYADARSHINI
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:07:52 +0530
equal shares.
d) Sh. Ram Singh expired later on and his rights, title
and interest in the property were devolved upon
survivorship by the surviving male lineal descendant Sh.
Rati Ram and the mutation to that effect was effected on
01.04.1978 in the revenue record and the name of the
Plaintiff Rati Ram is figured in the revenue record.
e) The plaintiff was in the actual physical possession,
use and occupation and in cultivatory possession of the
land and was using the same for its beneficial enjoyment.
The plaintiff raised the cattle shed on the part of the land of
Khasra No. 606 and in order to protect the crops from wild
animals, the boundary wall and partly fencing was also
made by erecting cemented poles and barbed wire by the
plaintiff. plaintiff was regularly sowing Rabi and Kharif
crops and installed a tube-well for irrigation and a hand
pump for animals. The iron gate was also installed for
security purpose. The khora, khunta, kurli were also there
and the part is being used for storing the fodder, drying the
cow-dungs and other allied agriculture purpose.
f) Union of India acquired 1-06 Biswas of land in the
aforesaid Khasra number vide award no. 83/86-87 and the
compensation was assessed to the plaintiff to the extent of
½ share. Thus, the plaintiff was now in possession of
266/469 Biswas in Khasra No. 606 min. and sown Jawar
and Bajra in the said land.
g) Defendants on 07.07.2006 made a false police call
and the plaintiff was taken to the police station and
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 4 of 37 T
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:07:57 +0530
threatened to enter the private land of the deceased
plaintiff and harvest crops. However, when the plaintiff
showed the documents to the police officials, the situation
came under control, although, defendants openly
threatened the plaintiff to come with the force and harvest
the crops forcibly on the private land of the plaintiff. Due
to the aforesaid conduct of the defendants, proceedings
under Section 107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 was also pending before SEM Seelampur, Delhi.
h) In this background, the plaintiff filed a suit for
permanent injunction praying that the defendants be
restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession, use,
occupation, enjoyment and cultivatory possession in
Khasra No. 606 to the extent of ½ share measuring
266/469 bounded by boundary wall and barbed wire as
shown in site plan and also not to damage the holding in
any manner whatsoever of Khasra No. 606 situated in
revenue estate of Village Sabhapur Patti Gujran, Shahdara,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Suit Land”).
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS
3. In the written statement, the defendants have taken certain
preliminary objections namely, that the present court has no
jurisdiction in view of Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act;
that appeal is already pending disposal before Deputy
Commissioner, North West; that the present proceedings are
barred under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 5 of 37 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:01 +0530
(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) in view of the pendency of
the proceedings before Ld. SDM; and that suit is otherwise bad
for misjoinder of necessary parties. The other specific defences
averred by the defendants are listed below:
a) The plaintiff is not having any ancestral business
and has no business except farming. It is admitted that Sh.
Balwant was the owner of the land and that Bhumidari
rights of Sh. Balwant came to his sons, namely, Sh. Nanwa
and Sh. Ram Singh. Estate of Sh. Nanwa devolved on the
plaintiff late Sh. Rati Ram and the sons of Mr. Hukam
Singh. The defendants being successor-in-interest of Sh.
Balwant, Sh. Nanwa and Sh. Hukam Singh, have inherited
the share.
b) It is averred that there is no question of devolution
of Sh. Ram Singh’s property by survivorship as he has
already bequeathed/partitioned/given his property to his
two nephews and the plaintiff during his lifetime in two
equal shares.
c) It is also averred that no mutation was ever
sanctioned because the certified copies of the same were
not available with the concerned department. Moreover,
the said mutation was forged by the plaintiff regarding
which information was also conveyed to the Ld. Deputy
Commissioner, North West. Further, mutation has been
fraudulently shown only in one Khasra. Defendants denied
that the revenue officer prepared the records as per the
Land Revenue Act.
d) The property of Ram Singh has been occupied by
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 6 of 37 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:08:05 +0530
his two nephews namely Mr. Hukam Singh and the
plaintiff and they are cultivating the land in their respective
one-half share. It is denied that the plaintiff is in actual and
physical possession, use and occupation of the land as the
defendants are in possession of ½ share of Ram Singh and
are in actual, physical and cultivatory possession of ½
share of Ram Singh in all the Khasra Numbers. Defendants
denied that plaintiff raised cattle shed in respect of part of
the land of Suit Land in order to protect the crops from
wild animals, boundary. They also denied the fact that
boundary wall was fenced and it is the defendants who
fenced the boundary. Defendants also denied that there is
no tubewell and handpump in the Suit Land and an iron
gate is installed by the plaintiff therein.
e) Defendants also denied that the plaintiff is in
possession of 266/469 Biswas of the Suit Land and has
sown the crop of JWAR and BAJRA over the land.
f) Defendants denied that they made a false call to the
police. In fact, the call was made due to the act of the
plaintiff. Defendants denied the suggestion that they
threatened the plaintiff to enter into the land as they are
enjoying the same and have been harvesting the corps
since 1960, hence, no question of entering is ever arising.
g) The plaintiff and his family members are threatening
the defendants to dispossess them from their share which
was given to them by their father and grandfather Sh. Ram
Singh, during his lifetime.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:09 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 7 of 37
REPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
4. The plaintiff has denied the averments of the defendants.
The plaintiff has denied that Ram Singh bequeathed the property
to his nephews. The plaintiff has also denied that the either
Hukam Singh or his legal heirs are in possession of ½ share of
Ram Singh. The plaintiff has also denied that the property was
partitioned in 1960. It is averred that the mutation was sanctioned
in favour of the plaintiff in 1978 and there was no bequeathal by
Sh. Ram Singh as averred.
COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
5. An application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
on the ground that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in view of
the provisions of Section 185 of the Land Reforms Act, 1954 as
the suit pertains to agricultural land. The defendants have averred
that Entry 18 of Schedule I of the Land Reforms Act includes suit
for injunction which can be tried before the Revenue Assistant
and not before the Civil Court. The defendants also relied upon
the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Nathu vs. Hukam
Singh [21 (1982) Delhi Law Times 219] and averred that the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has averred that the right of transfer
of interest by a Bhumidar (if his Bhumidari rights is in
agricultural land) is controlled only by the provision of the Land
Reforms Acr 1954. The application was dismissed vide order
dated 03.08.2006 with the following observation:
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:13 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 8 of 37
“A bare reading of Section 83 provides for that in lieu of
suing for ejectment, the Gaon Sabha or land holder may
sue for injunction with or without compensation. The
injunction as provided for in Section 83 of the Act means
the suit for mandatory injunction and not for perpetual
injunction. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court for
entertaining a suit for perpetual injunction qua agricultural
land is not barred under the provisions of Section 185 and
Entry no. 18 of Schedule I of the Act.”
6. Two applications were filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC by
the defendants during the course of proceedings. One for
impleadment of LRs of Mr. Doonger as defendants and the other
for impleadment of Gram Sabha as defendants. Both applications
were dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2008. An appeal was
preferred by the defendants which was dismissed vide order
dated 19.08.2008 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In the said
order, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed:
“The plaintiff had filed a suit that plaintiff was in peaceful
possession of half portion of Khasra No. 606 in the
Revenue Estate of Village Sabha Pur Shahdara, Delhi and
he wanted that he should not be dispossessed by the
defendant without due process of law. The defendant
moved these applications alleging that LRs of Mr. Doongar
and Gram Sabha were the necessary parties since the land
was shown in the revenue record to be owned by Gram
Sabha as Mr. Doongar was the earlier co-owner in the
Digitally signed
by T
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 9 of 37 T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:08:18 +0530
revenue record, since Mr. Doongar had died his LRs
should also be brought on record.
It is undisputed that the land in question is alleged to be
agricultural land known by khasra number etc. and the
Civil Judge cannot enter into the controversy about the
ownership of the land. The jurisdiction of Civil Court to
decide ownership is specifically barred by the provisions
of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and thus the controversy
before the Civil Judge would be confined to the issue
whether there was any threat of forcible dispossession to
the plaintiff at the hands of the defendants. No other
person would be a necessary party in such a suit. The trial
court rightly dismissed the applications. I find no force in
the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.”
ISSUES
7. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated
05.09.2013, the following issues were framed:
Issue no.1 – Whether the plaintiff has concealed the
material facts from this Court as stated by the defendants
in the preliminary objection of the written statement filed
on record? OPD
Issue no.2 – Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief
of perpetual injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff in the
plaint? OPP
Issue no.3 – ReliefDigitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINICS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 10 of 37
Date: 2025.08.07
16:08:23 +0530
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
8. Sh. Ramesh Chand examined himself as PW1, Sh. Shyam
Singh as PW2, Sh. Giriraj Singh, Halka Patwari, SDM Ofice,
Karawal Nagar as PW3, Sh. Babu Ram, Extension Officer,
Agriculture, Block Development office as PW4, Sh. Ashok
Kumar, Senior Judicial Assistant, In-charge Record Room
(Civil), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as PW5 and Sh. Amit, Junior
Judicial Assistant, Office of Financial Commissioner, Delhi as
PW6. PW1 has led his examination in chief by way of affidavit
which is Ex. PW1/A. He also placed on record copy of the
Khatoni Ex. PW1/1 (4 sheets), copy of Khasra Girdhawari Ex.
PW1/2, copy of Naksha Muntazanin Ex. PW1/3 (colly), copy of
Site Plan Ex. PW1/4, Photographs of the property Ex.PW1/5
(colly), copy of the summons in suit no. 1474/06 Ex. PW1/6,
copy of suit filed by Bhule Ram Ex. PW1/7, copy of appeal filed
by Bhule Ram Ex. PW1/8, copy of reply in the appeal Ex.
PW1/9, photographs Ex. PW1/10 (colly), copy of report of the
video dated 05.03.2007 Ex. PW1/11, copy of report in ID no. 393
Ex. PW1/12, copy of case filed u/s 145 of the Code Ex. PW1/13
and copy of the report of SHO dated 13.06.2006 Ex. PW1/14. He
was partly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for defendants on
16.05.2015, 03.12.2015 and 05.03.2016. However, the cross-
examination of the said witness was not concluded by Ld.
Counsel for the defendants. Accordingly, the opportunity to cross
examine the said witness was closed vide order dated 03.08.2017.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:27 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 11 of 37
9. PW2 Sh. Shyam Singh tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit i.e. Ex. PW2/A. He also relied upon the same
documents that were exhibited and relied upon by PW1. He was
duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2.
10. PW3 Sh. Giri Raj Singh brought the summoned record i.e.
Khatoni of the year 1985-1986, Village Sabhapur, Shahdara, in
respect of the Suit Land and placed on record the copy of the
same i.e. Ex PW3/1(OSR). He also brought the Khasra
Girdhawari of the year 2017-2018 and Shizra in respect of
Village Sabhapur, Shahdara i.e. Ex. PW3/2 (colly) (OSR) and Ex.
PW3/3 (OSR) respectively. He also filed copy of his office
identity card i.e. Ex. PW3/4(OSR). Despite grant of opportunity,
no questions were asked by the defendants.
11. PW4 Sh. Babu Ram, Extension Officer, Agriculture
brought the summoned record of ID No. 393 dated 15.02.2007
and ID No. 394 dated 15.02.2007. He also compared the copy of
Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12 with the record and produced the
true copy i.e. Ex. PW4/1 and Ex. PW4/2, which bears the
signature of Block Development Officer Yogesh Pal Singh. He
also filed his office identity card i.e. Ex. PW4/3(OSR). Despite
grant of opportunity, no questions were asked by the defendants.
12. PW5 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Senior Judicial Assistant, Incharge
Record Room (Civil), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi brought the
summoned record i.e. the original file of the suit no. 1474/2006
Digitally signed
by T
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 12 of 37 T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:32 +0530
titled as Bhuley Ram & Ors vs. Rati Ram & Ors. Copy of the
said suit/plaint as well as application filed by the plaintiff therein
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC already Ex. PW1/7. It is
averred that the same has been compared with the contents of the
original case file brought by him i.e. Ex. PW5/1 (colly). The
aforesaid case file also contains the order dated 27.02.2007 of the
then Ld. Civil Judge, KKD Courts, Delhi i.e. Ex. PW5/2 (colly
three pages). Despite grant of opportunity, no questions were
asked by the defendants.
13. PW6 Sh. Amit brought the summoned record of the appeal
no. 11/06 titled as Bhuley Ram and others vs. Rati Ram and
another filed by the defendant in the court of Deputy
Commissioner, Delhi i.e. Ex. PW6/A (colly). Reply filed by Rati
Ram alongwith photographs in the said appeal are Ex. PW6/B
(colly 14 pages) (OSR). Copy of order dated 24.05.2016 in
appeal no. 11/06 titled as Bhuley and others vs. Rati Ram and
another is Ex. PW6/C (colly three pages) (OSR) and copy of the
second appeal no. 190/16 is Ex. PW6/D (colly 24 pages)(OSR).
He also filed his office identity card i.e. Ex.PW6/E(OSR). He
was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
14. In support of his case, the defendants examined eleven
witnesses. DW1 Sh. Vijay Pal tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. copy of
Khasra Girdawari of year 1978-1979, copy of the order dated
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 13 of 37 2025.08.07
16:08:36 +0530
17.12.2007 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Ex.
DW1/2(colly three pages), copy of Demarcation Report dated
08.02.2008 prepared by Tehsildar, Seelampur, Delhi i.e. Ex.
DW1/3(colly three pages), copy of the Map prepared by the
Tehsildar, Seelam Pur, Delhi i.e. Ex. DW1/4, copy of order dated
12.09.2008 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi i.e. Ex.
DW1/5 (colly three pages), copy of the Khasra Girdawari of year
2006-07 Ex. DW1/6, copy of Khasra Girdawri of year 2011-2012
Ex. DW1/7, Certified copy of the order dated 27.03.2012 passed
by the court of Financial Commissioner, Delhi i.e. Ex. DW1/8.
He also relied upon the document which is already exhibited as
Ex. PW2/DA, which is the copy of the Khata Khatoni. He was
duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
15. DW2 Sh. Braham Singh tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit ie. Ex. DW2/A and relied upon the document i.e. copy
of his voter ID card Ex. DW2/1(OSR). He was duly cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
16. DW3 Sh. Rajinder tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit i.e. Ex. DW3/A and relied upon the document i.e. copy
of his Aadhar card Ex. DW3/1(OSR). He was duly cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
17. DW4 Sh. Giri Raj Singh, Halka Patwari brought the
Khatoni record in respect of Khasra no. 613 and 616 of Village
Sabhapur i.e. Ex. DW4/1(OSR). He also asserted that as per
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 14 of 37
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:08:40 +0530
record, Gram Sabha should be in recorded possession over the
Suit Land. On being asked as to who is the owner/Bhumidar of
Khasra no. 613 and 616 of Village Sabhapur as on date, he said
as the Revenue record/Khatoni i.e. Ex. DW4/1, the name of the
owners are mentioned in the said document. He also asserted that
as per document Ex. DW4/1, Sh. Ram Singh is the
owner/bhumidar of Khasra no. 616 and 616, Village Sabhapur,
Delhi. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff. During examination, Ld. Counsel for the defendants
was permitted to re-examine the witness, which was allowed.
DW Sh. Giri Raj Singh has filed copy of Form P-4/ Girdhawari
in respect of Suit Land i.e. Ex. DW4/2(colly two pages) (OSR).
He deposed that as per his record, Ex. DW4/2 Gram Sabha is in
cultivatory possession. He was again cross examined by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff.
18. DW5 Sh. R. L. Meena, Tehsildar Karawal Nagar brought a
letter from his office i.e. Ex. DW5/A and as per the letter,
mutation file bearing no. 344/NT/D dated 25.04.1978 and O4
register pertaining to Suit Land could not be traced with the
record keeper in his office. He was cross examined by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff.
19. DW6 Sh. Kulwant, LDC, posted at the Office of Financial
Commissioner, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi brought the relevant
record pertaining to the case titled as Bhuley and others vs. Rati
Ram (deceased) and others. As per the record, there is a CAI
form pertaining to application for obtaining certified copy of the
Digitally signed
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 15 of 37 T
PRIYADARSHINI
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:08:44 +0530
mutation records of the Suit Land i.e. Ex. DW6/A(colly six
pages) (OSR). He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff.
20. DW7 Sh. R.N. Meena, Tehsildar, Karawal Nagar brought
the summoned i.e. Demarcation Report dated 08.02.2008 and
submitted that the aforesaid record is not traceable in the office
and report to this effect Ex. DW7/A (colly three pages). Despite
grant of opportunity, no questions were asked by the defendants.
21. DW8 Sh. Ram Kishan, former Halka Patwari/Kanoongo
deposed that on the instruction and letter from BDO, he prepared
the Demarcation Report i.e. already Ex.DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4,
which bears his signatures at point A, B and C. He was duly
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
22. DW9 Sh. Narender Kumar, Kanoongo, Revenue Record
Room, Tis Hazari brought the summoned record i.e. Khatoni of
Khasra no. 334/215/258/259 and 388/324 in Khata no. 31 of
Revenue State of Sabhapur, Delhi for the year 1964-65 i.e. Ex.
DW9/1, for the year 1969-1970 i.e. DW9/2(OSR), for the year
1977-79 i.e. Ex. DW9/4(OSR) and for the year 1982-83 i.e. Ex.
DW9/5 (OSR). He also brought the summoned record i.e. Khasra
Girdhawari of Khasra no. 334/215/258/259 and 388/324 in Khata
no. 31 of Revenue Estate of Sabhapur, Delhi for the year 1949-56
Ex.DW9/6(OSR) and for the year 1956-58 Ex. DW9/7(OSR). He
also brought summoned record i.e. Khasra Khatoni of the Suit
Land for the year 1964-64 i.e. Ex. DW9/8(OSR), for the year
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 16 of 37
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:08:49 +0530
1968-69 i.e. Ex. DW9/9(OSR), for the year 1973-74 i.e. Ex.
DW9/10(OSR), for the year 1980-81 i.e. Ex. DW9/11(OSR), for
the year 1954-58 i.e. Ex. DW9/12(OSR). He did not file the
record i.e. Khasra Girdawari of the Khasra no. 334/215/258/259
and 388/324 for the year 1959 to 1991 as the same was stated to
be destroyed vide orders which are Ex. DW9/13(colly). He was
duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
23. DW10 Sh. S. K. Verma, Patwari from the Office of SDM
Karawal Nagar produced the summoned i.e. Khatoni and Khasra
Girdawari of the Khasra bearing no. 334/215/258/259 and
388/324 (Khata no.31) of the Revenue Estate Sabhapur for the
year 1986-87 which is Ex. DW10/1, for the year 2016-17 which
is Ex. DW10/2 (colly two pages) and for the year 2021-2022
which is Ex. DW10/3 (colly two pages). He was duly cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
24. DW11 Sh. Manoj Kumar, Lekhpal, Tehsil Loni, UP
deposed that the requisite record is not available with them and
same is lying in Record Room, Ghaziabad. He was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff.
25. After conclusion of defence witnesses, the DE was closed
vide order dated 01.09.2022. Final arguments have been heard on
behalf of both the parties. The pleadings as well as evidence and
all the annexed and exhibited documents, record and written
arguments have been carefully perused.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:08:55 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 17 of 37
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
Issue no.2 – Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
perpetual injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiff in the plaint?
OPP
Re: Law relating to permanent injunctions
26. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the
following in relation to permanent injunction:
“38. Perpetual injunction when granted —
(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or
referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction
may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach
of an obligation existing in his favour, whether
expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the
court shall be guided by the rules and provisions
contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade
the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the
court may grant a perpetual injunction in the
following cases, namely:
a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for
the plaintiff;
b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining
the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused,
by the invasion; Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:00 +0530CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 18 of 37
c) where the invasion is such that compensation in
money would not afford adequate relief; and
d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a
multiplicity of judicial proceedings.”
27. The present suit has been filed for injunction simplicitor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following in
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy [AIR 2008 SC 2033] with
respect to suits filed for simplicitor injunction:
11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for
permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to
file a suit for declaration and/or possession with
injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We
may refer to them briefly.
11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession
of a property and such possession is interfered or
threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction
simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his
possession against any person who does not prove a
better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a
person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an
injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he
is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for
possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an
injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the
relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief
of possession. T
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:09:04 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 19 of 37
11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to
the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the
defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of
dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to
sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of
injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or
in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to
establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to
file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration
will be necessary only if the denial of title by the
defendant or challenge to plaintiff’s title raises a cloud on
the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise
over a person’s title, when some apparent defect in his
title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a
third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for
declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title
to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has
clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without
any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent
title, merely denies the plaintiff’s title, it does not amount
to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will
not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration
and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the
plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a
wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for
injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in
his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him,
Digitally signed
by TCS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 20 of 37
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:08 +0530
which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff’s
title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the
plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration.
Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare
injunction, with permission of the court to file a
comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He
may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief,
even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the
suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue
of title.
…..21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits
for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property,
is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and he does
not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession,
with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy.
Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud,
but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession
with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of
dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction
simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only
with possession, normally the issue of title will not be
directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for
injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on
possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 21 of 37 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:09:13 +0530
established on the basis of title to the property, as in the
case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and
substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding
thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of
possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for
injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and
appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied
as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the
averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where
there is no issue relating to title, the court will not
investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of
title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are
necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves
complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the
court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of
comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of
deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title,
and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead
evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-
forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding
title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the
exception to the normal rule that question of title will not
be decided in suits for injunction.
But persons having clear title and possession suing for
injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more
cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 22 of 37
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:17 +0530
because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a
claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court
should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it
will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to
plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit,
depending upon the facts of the case.”
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jharkhand State Housing
Board vs. Didar Singh and others [(2019) 17 SCC 692] has held
that:
“The issue that falls for our consideration is: “Whether the
suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when the
defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff?” It is well
settled by catena of Judgments of this Court that in each
and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the
plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff
has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere
injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a
genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a
cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in
those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for
bare injunction.”
29. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Vikas Wadhwa vs.
Pradeep Kumar and others [AIR Online 2018 DEL 2758]
wherein it was observed that:
“A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of the judgments of
the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar‘s case (supra)CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 23 of 37
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:22 +0530
shows that a person who is in possession can protect his
possession against the world at large except the true owner.
As against the true owner the equitable remedy of
injunction is not to be granted in favour of a plaintiff who
is not in lawful possession. In a suit where a plaintiff only
claims injunction, but where title of a plaintiff is seriously
disputed and which requires examination of complex
questions of law and facts, then a simplicitor suit for
injunction will not lie and it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to seek a declaratory relief with respect to the
ownership of the suit land before seeking injunction with
respect thereto. The Supreme Court has also however held
that if a suit is simplicitor for injunction but the parties
proceed on the basis of title itself being in issue and
accordingly the case is contested by leading evidence by
the respective parties, then in such a case the simplicitor
suit for injunction can be said to include the aspect of title
which has to be decided. Thus, in any suit for injunction
filed with respect to an immovable property where title of
the suit property is disputed, courts have to examine the
aspect of title which is directly in issue and it is only if the
plaintiff is found to have title to the suit property, only then
the plaintiff will be entitled to injunction, of course
provided that the plaintiff is also found to be in actual
physical possession of the suit property at the time of filing
of the suit.”
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:26 +0530
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 24 of 37
30. Applying the above legal position w.r.t. cases seeking
simpliciter injunction to the facts of the present case, the
following issues have to be seen:
a) Whether the plaintiff has exclusive and legal
possession of the Suit Land?
b) Whether title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed
and requires examination of complex questions of law and
fact?
Re: Exclusive Possession of the Suit Land by the Plaintiff
31. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the proof of possession is
essential as in order to restrain the defendant from interfering
with plaintiff’s possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that
as on the date of the suit he was in lawful and exclusive
possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or
disturb such lawful possession. The plaintiff has relied on the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rama Gowda
vs. M. Vardappa Naidu [AIR 2004 SC 4609] wherein it was held
that person in settled possession is entitled to protect his
possession. Whilst the plaintiff has averred that he was in
exclusive cultivatory possession of the Suit Land, per contra, in
their written statement, the defendants have denied that the
plaintiff is in actual and physical possession, use and occupation
and in cultivatory possession of the land. The defendants have
averred that the they are in actual, physical and cultivatory
possession of ½ share of Ram Singh. It is also averred that the
defendants have fenced their half share. Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
T
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:09:31 +0530CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 25 of 37
32. Whilst the plaintiff has argued that defendants have not
filed any documentary proof of possession and no applications
have been filed by the defendants before the Revenue Authorities
requesting them to record the defendants’ possession in favour of
the Suit Land, it is pertinent to note that the initial onus to prove
exclusive and lawful possession is on the plaintiff. In support of
their claim re: exclusive possession, the plaintiff has relied on:
a) The proceedings under Section 145 of the Code
were initiated in respect of the Suit Land and the
proceedings concluded in the plaintiff’s favour after
the site inspection was done by the SDM. This
Report is Ex. PW1/14 wherein it has been
conclusively observed that the plaintiff Rati Ram
has exclusive possession of the Suit Land.
b) The Report dated 05.03.2007 of Block Development
Officer which is Ex. PW1/12 wherein possession of
Rati Ram has been verified.
c) As per the Khatoni which is Ex. PW1/1, area
admeasuring 266/469 in the Suit Land has been
mutated in favour of the plaintiff Late Sh. Rati Ram
and the LRs of the plaintiff are in possession of the
Suit Land.
d) The plaintiff has placed on record photographs of
the Suit Land which are Ex. PW1/5.
e) The Block Development Officer in his Reports
which are Ex. PW4/1 and PW4/2 have reported that
the possession of Suit Land is with the plaintiff.
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 26 of 37 PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.07
16:09:35 +0530
33. In support of their claim that the plaintiff is not in
exclusive possession of the Suit Land and that the defendants are
also enjoying joint cultivatory possession with the plaintiff in the
Suit Land, the defendants have relied upon the following:
a) PW1 Mr. Ramesh Chand has admitted in his cross-
examination that the entire Suit Land is lying idle without
any cultivation since 2006. Therefore, cultivatory
possession has been denied by PW1.
b) PW1 Mr. Ramesh Chand has admitted in his cross-
examination that he has not got any site plan concerning
any land.
c) PW2 in his cross-examination stated that he can
produce documents/Girdhawari to show that the plaintiff is
cultivating the land since 2007, however, no documents
were produced despite grant of opportunity.
d) PW2 has admitted in his cross-examination that “It
is correct that the Plaintiffs are not the exclusive owner or
in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 606 and 607”. This
admission ought to be read against the case of the plaintiff.
e) In the revision petition filed by the plaintiff under
Section 187 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Ex.
DW1/8) against the vesting order, it was held by the
Financial Commissioner vide order dated 27.03.2012 that
the Plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence in the
form of revenue records such as Khasra Girdhawari to
prove cultivatory possession. The appeal petition was
accordingly dismissed summarily. T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 27 of 37 Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:39 +0530
f) DW2 Mr. Braham Singh s/o Surjit @ Surji has been
examined as a witness. He has deposed that he is in
cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 555 which is
adjoining the Suit Land. His father Surjit s/o Tekaram is
also mentioned as co-Bhumidar of the Suit Land
comprising of 2 bighas land. He has deposed that North
Side of the Suit Land is in possession of the defendants
and the South Side of the Suit Land is in possession of the
plaintiff with each having possession of six bighas and 13
biswas each. DW3 Rajinder has also deposed on the same
lines as DW2.
g) As per Ex. DW4/2, the Gram Sabha is in cultivatory
possession of the Suit Land. DW4 has also initially
deposed that entry regarding possession in P-4/ Girdhawari
(Ex. DW4/2) is recorded only after issuance of warrants of
possession by the Block Development Officer.
Subsequently, during cross-examination, he also stated that
entry in the Girdhawari can be done even prior to issuance
of warrants of possession.
34. The onus was on the plaintiff to establish that he was in
exclusive possession of the Suit Land. For the following reasons,
the plaintiff’s averments re: exclusive possession stand
unsubstantiated:
a) Firstly, the plaintiff has relied upon Exhibit PW-1/14
which is a police report filed by Police Officials in the
petition under Section 145 of the Code. The plaintiff has
not examined the official i.e. Mr. B.P. Sharma who hasCS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 28 of 37 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:43 +0530
prepared the report. A police report is essentially hearsay
unless the person who has prepared it is examined in Court
[Re: Adhikanda Behera and another vs. Dhaneswar Swain
and others 1978 CriLJ 265]. Moreover, the police report
appears to be a photocopy document and cannot be relied
upon as evidence.
b) Secondly, the photographs (Ex. PW1/5) placed on
record by the plaintiff to establish possession cannot be
read in evidence as they have not been proved in as per
provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In P. Rama
Srinivasa Rao vs. N. Raghavan [(2006) 3 MLJ 625], it has
been held that photographs are admissible only if the
photograph has been properly verified on oath by a person
able to speak to its accuracy. It has also been observed that
photographs should not be admitted in evidence without
examining the person who took the photographs and the
negatives of the same being produced on record or at
whose instance the photographs were taken.
c) Thirdly, Khasra Girdhawari is a document which
shows the possessory details w.r.t. cultivation. The Khasra
Girdhawari on record of the year 2006-07 which is Ex.
PW1/2 indicates the Gram Sabha as the tenure holder. No
Khasra Girdhawari records have been filed showing
cultivation by the plaintiff subsequent to 2006. As the
Gram Sabha is mentioned as the tenure holder, the plaintiff
is an unauthorized occupant as the plaintiff has not
established lawful possession.
d) Fourthly, DW2 Mr. Braham Singh s/o Surjit @ Surji
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 29 of 37
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:47 +0530
has been examined as a witness. He has deposed that he is
in cultivatory possession of Khasra No. 555 which is
adjoining the Suit Land. His father Surjit s/o Tekaram is
also mentioned as co-Bhumidar of the Suit Land
comprising of 2 bighas land. He has deposed that North
Side of the Suit Land is in possession of the defendants
and the South Side of the Suit Land is in possession of the
plaintiff with each having possession of 6 bighas and 13
biswas each. DW3 Rajinder has also deposed on the same
lines as DW2. These are independent witnesses and
nothing material has been elicited from their cross-
examination.
e) Lastly, in his cross-examination, PW2 has admitted
that plaintiff is not the exclusive owner or in exclusive
possession of the Suit Land and Khasra No. 607.
35. In arguendo, even if the averment of the plaintiff is
admitted that the plaintiff has established possession and the
defendants have not filed any record re: his co-possession of the
Suit Land, it is the opinion of this Court that the Suit Land is not
identifiable and hence, no duly executable decree can be passed
in favour of the plaintiff. Order VII Rule 3 of CPC provides that
“Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the
plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to
identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by
boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the
plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers”. In Bandhu Das
vs. Uttam Charan Pattnaik [AIR 2007 Ori 24] it was held: T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 30 of 37 Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:51 +0530
“A bare reading of the above provision makes it is crystal
clear that what exactly the land or the area over which the
dispute exists is a question which goes into the root of the
matter relating to subsistence of the case. In absence of
such description in the plaint or supply of the map by
annexing the same to the plaint and the evidence to the
above effect, no Court would pass a decree, as such a
decree would be in executable or would be rendered
otiose. Even if the Court finds that the plaintiff had title
and possession in respect of the suit land, in absence of
proper description, as mentioned in Order 7 Rule 3, C.P.C.,
the decree cannot be executed.”
36. Therefore, a decree for permanent injunction can be
granted only where the Suit Land is identifiable thereby
rendering a decree of permanent execution executable. From a
careful reading of the file, it is apparent that Suit Land as alleged
by the plaintiff is not clearly identifiable. Firstly, PW1 Ramesh
Chand has admitted in his cross-examination that the land, as per
record, of Sh. Rati Ram and Hukum Singh are separate.
However, details of the separate land have not been given by
PW1. No site plan re: the separate land of Hukum Singh has also
been filed. The witness has not even stated which Khasra number
falls in the name of Mr. Hukum Singh and which falls within the
name of Mr. Rati Ram. He has specifically deposed “I cannot tell
any of the Khasra number which could have been in the name of
Sh. Nanwa”. Secondly, it is clear from the Nakal Khatoni of
1985-1986 filed on record i.e. PW1/1 that in addition to the T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 31 of 37 Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:09:56 +0530
plaintiff, the Suit Land is also shown in the name of Surji s/o
Tekram, Mamraj s/o Bhola and Doongar. In the Revenue
Records, till the year of vesting of the land, the land has been
shown as joint one along with the said co-sharers. None of these
persons or their LRs have been examined by the plaintiff to
clarify the aspect of possession and the demarcation of land.
Thirdly, DW8 Mr. Ram Kishan, former Halka Patwari has
deposed that he prepared the demarcation report which is Ex.
DW1/4 and as per the said report, the room marked at point D is
in Khasra no. 607. In fact, the site plan is Ex. PW1/4 and PW2
has admitted that no demarcation has been done between the Suit
Land and Khasra No. 607, he cannot say whether the room,
toilet, boring, house constructed by him falls within Suit Land or
Khasra No. 607. PW2 has himself admitted in his cross-
examination that he has not described the Suit Land in an
identifiable manner. Whilst the plaintiff has denied the veracity
of the manner in which the demarcation has been done, this Court
is not the proper forum for said objections and the fact remains
the Suit Land is unidentifiable and a decree passed w.r.t. the said
Suit Land would be rendered non-executable.
37. In a nutshell, it is concluded that the plaintiff/LRs of the
plaintiff have not been able to discharge their onus that they are
in exclusive and lawful possession of the Suit Land by leading
cogent and admissible evidence and that the Suit Land has been
described in an identifiable manner meriting a decree in their
favour.
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 32 of 37 Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:10:00 +0530
Re: Whether title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed and
requires examination of complex questions of law and fact?
38. The LRs of the plaintiff have averred their title by way of
mutation entry in the Revenue Records. The plaintiff has relied
on the Khatoni which is Ex. PW1/1 wherein his name is
mentioned as one of the land owners and the name of the
defendants or their father Mr. Hukum Singh does not figure in the
said document. It is also averred that no documentary proof has
been filed by the defendants in support of their averment that
prior to his death, Ram Singh had partitioned all the properties
among Hukum Singh and Rati Ram equally. It is stated that DW1
Vijay Pal has also admitted that no Will has been executed by
Ram Singh in this regard. It is further averred that title of the
plaintiff is further corroborated by the fact that on the vesting of
the land on the Gram Sabha, compensation was assessed in the
name of the plaintiff. In view of the above, it is argued that
plaintiff has better title on the Suit Land and therefore, question
of cloud on title does not arise.
39. The defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff on the
following grounds:
a) Firstly, the title of the plaintiff is denied on the
ground that no presumption of title is raised by way of
revenue records. The defendants have relied upon the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jattu Ram vs.
Hakam Singh and others [MANU/SC/0399/1994] wherein
it was held that it is well settled that an entry in revenue
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 33 of 37
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:10:06 +0530
records does not confer title on the person whose names
appears in the Records. The defendants have relied upon
Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and others [1996 6 SCC 223],
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mutation
in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title,
nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does
is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to
pay the land revenue in question.
b) Secondly, it is averred that the plaintiff has not
placed on record the mutation file pertaining to the Suit
Land. DW5 Mr. R.L. Meena, Tehsildar Karawal Nagar,
deposed that no mutation file bearing no. 344/NT/D dated
25.04.1978 and O4 register pertaining to Suit Land could
be traced with the record keeper. He also deposed that as
per record keeper, Sadar Kanoongo Branch, Tis Hazari
Courts, there is no entry in the Goshwara Register
pertaining to the mutation. Sh. Kulvant, LDC at Office of
Financial Commissioner also deposed that file pertaining
to mutation of Suit Land is not available.
c) Thirdly, the title of the plaintiff is disputed on the
ground that the Suit Land vests on the Gram Sabha. In
support of this contention, it is averred that in the Khasra
Girdhawari, from the year 1998, the landholder is reflected
as Gram Sabha (Ex. PW1/2).
d) Fourthly, the defendants have argued that PW2 has
himself admitted that there is a title / ownership dispute
between the parties with respect to the Suit Land. In his
cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that plaintiff is not Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 34 of 37 16:10:10 +0530
the exclusive owner or in exclusive possession of Suit
Land or Khasra No. 607.
e) Fifthly, some of the other properties of Ram Singh
were sold such as Khasra No. 616 (which is near the Suit
Land) and the sale proceeds were equally shared between
the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff has admitted that
the defendants have 50% share in Ram Singh’s share.
f) Lastly, it is stated that the other properties of Mr.
Ram Singh such as Khasra No. 334/215/258/259 and
338/324 in Khata No. 31, Sabhapur, Delhi are under
cultivation by the plaintiff and defendants equally and
name of Mr. Ram Singh is still reflecting in the revenue
records. On the basis of parity, it is stated that the mutation
of the Suit Land is manipulated and forged.
40. The issue concerning validity of the mutation in favour of
Rati Ram (i.e. the late plaintiff) is pending consideration before
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as the defendants have already
filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4263 of 2023. Thus, the issue
about the validity of mutation is sub judice.
41. The issue of title has been strongly contested by both the
sides during trial. The defendants have raised dispute w.r.t. title
since the stage of filing the written statement. The title dispute is
sub judice in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The issue of title
is of the plaintiff is seriously disputed and requires examination
of complex questions of law and facts. Therefore, a simplicitor
suit for injunction will not lie and it would be necessary for the T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 35 of 37 Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:10:14 +0530
plaintiff to seek a declaratory relief with respect to the ownership
of the Suit Land before seeking injunction with respect thereto.
The Suit Land being an agricultural one, the parties have
proceeded on the basis of title itself being in issue and
accordingly, the case has been contested by leading evidence on
the aspect of title by the respective parties. Therefore, a
simplicitor suit for injunction will not lie in the present matter.
42. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Suit
Land is not identifiable, the plaintiff has not established exclusive
and legal possession of the Suit Land and the aspect of title is
directly and substantially in issue. Therefore, a decree of
permanent injunction cannot be passed in the present matter
applying the settled position of law discussed in detailed above.
Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.1 – Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material
facts from this Court as stated by the defendants in the
preliminary objection of the written statement filed on record?
OPD
43. It is averred by the defendants that the plaintiff has not
disclosed that the Suit Land was vested in Gram Sabha in the
year 1988 and the said order was challenged before the Ld.
Commissioner, which was dismissed. It is also averred that the
plaintiff has concealed that no partition has been effected with
respect to the property of Mr. Balwant after his demise. It is
further submitted that the background of the mutation in the T
PRIYADARSHINI
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 36 of 37
Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.07
16:10:17 +0530
name of Rati Ram has also not been entirely disclosed. It is the
considered opinion of this Court that the aforesaid facts do not
amount to material concealment as the present suit has only been
filed for permanent injunction. The aforesaid facts alleged to be
concealed pertain to title and are not relevant. In fact, after filing
of written statement, the plaintiff has fairly acceded and
addressed the aforesaid issues. In view of the same, the
defendants have not discharged their onus on the aspect of
concealment of material facts and issue no. 1 is decided against
the defendants.
44. In view of the findings on issue no. 2, the present suit is
dismissed.
45. Applications, if any, which are pending in the present
judicial file and have not been pressed by the parties are also
disposed of as dismissed as not pressed. File be consigned to
record room after completing the necessary formalities.
Digitally signed
by T
Announced in open court T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
on this 07th August, 2025. 2025.08.07
16:10:23 +0530T. Priyadarshini
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, DelhiThis judgment consists of 37 pages and each and every page of
this judgment is signed by me.
CS No: 8687/2016 Rati Ram vs. Bhuley Ram and others 37 of 37