Delhi District Court
Govindan Memorial Charitable Trust vs Jacob Thomas on 12 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK MITTAL, LD. ASCJ-CUM-JSCC-
CUM GUARDIAN JUDGE, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI
CS No. 2147/24
CNR No.DLSW03-002582-2024
In the matter of:-
Govindan Memorial Charitable Trust
Through K. AjiKumar
B1/507, Janakpuri
Pratap Nagar,
New Delhi-110058.
......Plaintiff
VERSUS
Shri Jacob Thomas
s/o Thomas Chacko
53F, DDA F-Block
Bindapur, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi - 110075.
......Defendants
Date of Institution : 27.11.2024
Reserved for Judgment : 19.05.2025
Date of Decision : 12.06.2025
EX PARTE J U D G M E N T
Suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction
1.
This is a suit for decree of permanent and mandatory injunction filed
by plaintiff and against defendant thereby restraining defendant from
creating interfering into the peaceful and lawful ownership & possession of
suit property and to restrain the defendant from creating any third party
CS No. 14/23 Page no. 1 / 6
interest in the suit property and to direct the defendants to restore the
original status of the suit property.
Plaintiff’s Case
2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is that plaintiff is a
registered Charitable Trust from Kerala having its office building at B-1/507,
Janakpuri, South West, New Delhi-110058 (hereinafter referred to as suit
property represented by Sh K. Aji Kumar, r/o Thekkethil Neythushala Vedu,
Neerazhi Lane, Ullor, Medical College PO, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala). It
is stated that Sh K. Aji Kumar is the authorized representative of plaintiff.
Defendant is a resident of Delhi and is known to be involved in Real Estate
Business. The suit property belongs to plaintiff via Will executed by its
founder Chairman Sh. G. Sadasivan and the property tax of the suit property
is paid in the name of plaintiff through Sh. K. Ajikumar. The suit property is
used for annual board meeting and special meetings of trust members every
year and rest of the time the suit property remains locked. It is stated that
during the month of August 2024 plaintiff came to know that few real estate
agents are circulating messages mentioning the suit property for sale and
when plaintiff enquire through its present chairman and authorised
representative Sh K. Aji Kumar, plaintiff came to know about the
involvement of defendant and his role in creating fake message and trying to
sell the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff through its representative
contacted the defendant and asked him to stop circulating messages to sale
out suit property and informed him that the property is not for sale to which
defendant agreed that he will not share any message claiming sale of the
suit property to anyone in future. In the month of October 2024 plaintiff
CS No. 14/23 Page no. 2 / 6
again came to know that defendant is offering the suit property for sale by
claiming that he is the care taker of the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff
again contacted the defendant but defendant blocked the representative of
plaintiff from the telecommunication and message apps. It is stated that
plaintiff has information that various agents and buyers are coming to the
suit property for buying it but some strangers including defendant are
claiming as caretaker of the suit property. It is stated that plaintiff has also
informed about these unauthorized activities to PS Janakpuri but the issue
could not be resolved. Hence the present suit.
Defendant’s Case
3. Defendant was served summons of the suit on 10.12.2024 but
defendant failed to appear in the court and file WS despite various
opportunities. Accordingly, the right of defendant to file WS was closed vide
order dated 16.05.2025 and defendant was proceeded ex parte.
Plaintiff’s evidence
4. Sh Ajikumar examined himself as PW1, who in his affidavit by way
of evidence Ex.PW1/1 reiterated on oath the contents of the plaint. He has
relied upon the following documents:
a. Ex. PW-1/A is copy of Trust Deed. b. Ex. PW-1/B is authorization letter of PW-1. c. Ex. PW-1/C is copy of Aadhar card. d. Ex.PW-1/D is copy of property tax receipt of suit property.
5. Plaintiff closed his ex parte PE on 17.05.2025 and thereafter, final
arguments were addressed by Ld counsel for plaintiff.
CS No. 14/23 Page no. 3 / 6
6. I have gone through the judicial record. Now I shall give my findings.
7. Before the giving findings on the evidence led by the plaintiff and
submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff, it is important to note that
in the present case, the defendant has never appeared and was proceeded ex-
parte vide order dt. 16.05.2025. It is further noted that the Court is mindful
of the fact that in cases where the defendant is ex-parte, the Court needs to
be extra cautious, as it would not have the advantage of defence and before
passing the judgment, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiff should be
weighed carefully before arriving at the finding as to whether the plaintiff
has made out a case for a decree. The onus to prove the averments of the
plaintiff rests entirely upon the plaintiff who has to discharge the burden of
proof to establish its case, as per law. In civil litigation, it is sufficient for the
plaintiff to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. In Adiveppa V.
Bhimappa (2017) 9 SCC 586. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Adiveppa
(supra) has observed that:
“It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden is always on the
plaintiff to prove his case by proper pleadings and adequate evidence (oral
and documentary) in support thereof.”
Thus, the onus to prove its case and that the burden to prove the case as per
law entirely is upon the plaintiff, by way of documentary and oral evidence.
8. In the case in hand, in order to prove it’s case, the plaintiff has
examined it’s AR Sh. K. Aji Kumar as PW1 and exhibited copy of Trust
Deed (Ex.PW/A), Authorisation letter of PW1 (PW1/B), Aadhar Card of AR
(Ex.PW1/C) and copy of property tax receipt of property in question
CS No. 14/23 Page no. 4 / 6
(Ex.PW1/D). It is noted that present suit has been filed by the plaintiff
seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant from
interfering into peaceful and lawful ownership and possession of the suit
property and from creating third-party interest in the suit property. However,
plaintiff has neither proved the trust deed as original trust deed has never
been brought to the court at the time of ex-parte plaintiff evidence nor the
plaintiff could prove it’s ownership over the suit property. Though,
photocopy of a will in Malyalam language along with its translation in
English has been placed on record, which has allegedly been executed by
one G. Sadasivan and as per which all his properties has been bequethed in
favour of plaintiff’s trust, however, neither that will has been proved as per
rules of evidence nor the fact that G. Sadasivan was owner of property in
question at the time of execution of alleged will dt. 07.02.2013, has been
proved.
9. In view of above discussion, the plaintiff could not prove that plaintiff
is owner of property in question and as a owner he is entitled to relief claim
in the prayer clause.
10. Accordingly suit of plaintiff is dismissed.
11. Decree be prepared accordingly. Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
MITTAL
MITTAL Date: 2025.06.12
16:56:47 +0530
Announced in open court
on 12.06.2025 (MAYANK MITTAL)
ASCJ-cum-JSCC-cum-Guardian Judge
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS No. 14/23 Page no. 5 / 6
CS No. 14/23 Page no. 6 / 6