Delhi District Court
Ravi Kumar vs Gopi Lal on 17 April, 2025
DLSE010032762017
THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-03
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
(PRESIDED OVER BY: SACHIN MITTAL)
RCA DJ No. 43/2017
In the matter of:
Ravi Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal,
R/o 311-C/5, Govindpuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-19. .... Appellant.
VERSUS
1. Gopi Lal,
S/o Sh. Hari Ram.
2. Smt. Urmila,
W/o Sh. Gopi Lal.
Both residents of :
Teen Murthy Bhawan,
Shakti Nagar, near Shiva Talkies,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Sh. Ashok Kumar,
S/o Sh. Gopi Lal,
R/o HR-267-A/7,
Pul Prahladpur,
New Delhi-44. .... Respondents
Date of Institution : 28.04.2017
Date on which arguments concluded : 11.12.2024
Date of Judgment : 17.04.2025
Result : Allowed.
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 1 of 25
v.
Gopi Lal & Ors.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL 14:43:33 +0530
Date: 2025.04.21
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘the CPC‘) against the Judgment and
Decree dated 21.03.2017 (hereinafter ‘the impugned judgment’),
passed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge-04, District West, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi (hereinafter ‘the Ld. Trial Court’), in the suit, titled Ravi
Kumar v. Gopi Lal & Ors., CS SCJ No. 7136/2016, whereby the suit of
the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the Ld. Trial Court, against
the respondents, who were the defendants before the Ld. Trial Court,
was dismissed. The said suit before the Ld. Trial Court was for the
reliefs of recovery of possession and damages.
2. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff, Ravi Kumar, before the
Ld. Trial Court was based upon the claim that he was the owner of a
house built on a plot, admeasuring 50 sq. yds., bearing no. HR-267-A/7,
Pul Prahladpur, Near DDA Janta Flats, New Delhi, (hereinafter ‘the
suit property’). The appellant/plaintiff had purchased the said plot on
the basis of agreement to sell etc. from one, Sh. Sharmanand on
04.06.1984. The possession of the said plot was delivered to
appellant/plaintiff and then he raised the construction thereupon by the
end of the year 1987, in stages. He then inducted one, Srikishan as a
tenant in the suit property at the monthly rent of Rs.150/-, who vacated
it in the middle of 1994. He had become a member of “Pul Prahladpur
Residents Welfare Association” in the year 1989 and he had also been
making payment to the Association for the development of entire
colony. He had applied with the DESU for sanction of electricity
connection in the suit property and had also deposited a sum of
Rs.600/- as development charges on 01.08.1990. He had also applied
for the sanction of water connection in the year 1995 and had deposited
development charges. In the MCD record, the suit property is assessed
in the name of appellant/plaintiff. The respondent no.1/defendant no.1,
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 2 of 25
v.
Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2025.04.21
14:43:58
+0530
Gopi Lal and the respondent no.2/defendant no.2, Urmila are Fufa and
Bua respectively of the appellant/plaintiff, while the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3, Ashok Kumar is his cousin (son of
appellant/plaintiff’s Fufa and Bua). In January, 1995, the
appellant/plaintiff, upon the request by the respondents/defendants,
had allowed them to occupy the suit property for a period of three
months without any monetary consideration. On the expiry of the said
period, the appellant/plaintiff requested them to vacate the suit
property. Firstly, they avoided and then, they agreed to vacate it by the
end of May, 1995. However, they failed to vacate the suit property and
they are in wrongful possession thereof since April, 1995. The
appellant/plaintiff through his Advocate got a legal notice under
registered AD cover dated 29.06.1998 served upon the
respondents/defendants. He vide the said legal notice required the
respondents/defendants to vacate the suit property and to also make the
payment of damages for wrongful possession thereof. However, the
respondents/defendants failed to comply with the said legal notice.
Earlier thereto, the appellant/plaintiff had reported the matter to the
police officer. The respondents/defendants are in wrongful possession
of the suit property since April, 1995, and, therefore, they are also
liable to make the payment of damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per
month as per the prevalent market rent. This suit was filed in October,
1998. The appellant/plaintiff, due to financial constraints, is restricting
the claim towards damages upto Rs.2,500/- per month and thus, a total
sum of Rs.90,000/- from April, 1995 till July, 1998 alongwith interest
of Rs.10,000/- only, thus, totaling, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, is being
claimed. In the background of these facts, the appellant/plaintiff had
sought the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property
alongwith damages of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith future interest at the
rate of 18% per annum till realization.
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 3 of 25
v.
Gopi Lal & Ors. Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
MITTAL
MITTAL Date: 2025.04.21
14:43:48 +0530
3. The respondents/defendants, in order to defend the
aforesaid suit, had filed a common written statement. Their defence
was based upon the allegations/averments that the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3, Ashok Kumar, having purchased the suit property
on 23.02.1983, is the owner in physical possession of the same. The
appellant/plaintiff’s father, Kanhaiya Lal wanted the respondent
no.1/defendant no.1 to purchase a property in Delhi and, therefore, he
offered the plot of land beneath the suit property for purchase at a price
of Rs.17,000/-. Appellant/plaintiff’s father, who is the real Mama of the
respondent no.3/defendant no.3, had instructed him to bring his
witnesses to the transaction to Delhi. The respondent no.3/defendant
no.3, with the consent of his parents, accompanied the
appellant/plaintiff’s father alongwith purchase money to Delhi for the
purchase of the said plot of land. On 23.02.1983, the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3 reached alongwith two witnesses, namely Deen
Dayal and Brij Kishore at the residence of appellant/plaintiff’s father.
The appellant/plaintiff’s father introduced the respondent no.3/
defendant no.3 to the seller; they signed the documents in the presence
of the said two witnesses; the consideration was paid to the seller; and
the witnesses also signed the documents. The said documents were
retained by appellant/plaintiff’s father for attestation. Thereafter, they
all left to take physical possession of the suit property. The suit
property was having one room on a plot of 50 sq. yds. and the same was
handed over to the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 and thus, the
transaction was completed. The respondent no.3/defendant no.3 then
left for his native place as the suit property was to be looked after by
appellant/plaintiff’s father. The documents pertaining to the suit
property were also left with appellant/plaintiff’s father. With the
passage of time, the value of the suit property increased and the
intention of appellant/plaintiff changed. Appellant/plaintiff’s father
offered to the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 to sell the suit property in
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 4 of 25
v. Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2025.04.21
14:44:04
+0530
the name of the appellant/plaintiff, which offer was refused. The
respondent no.1/defendant no.1 requested appellant/plaintiff’s father to
return the documents of the property, which he refused on one pretext
or the other. The family of appellant/plaintiff owned two more plots
bearing no.161 and 210 in Gali No. 6 & 4, in the same vicinity, and all
these three properties including the suit property were being looked
after by a labourer, Srikishan on the instruction of appellant/plaintiff’s
father as the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 was living in Bharatpur,
Rajasthan. The appellant/plaintiff with his family was living at a far
away place in East of Kailash. The respondent no.3/defendant no.3 kept
on requesting the appellant/plaintiff’s father for returning the
documents of the suit property, which were ultimately returned in the
end of 1992. The respondent no.3/defendant no.3 then shifted
alongwith family from his native place to the suit property. He added
one more room to the existing structure on the suit property. He
thereafter made improvements in the suit property. He has been
residing with his family in a portion of the suit property and has been
running his business in the remaining portion. The relations between
the families of appellant/ plaintiff and respondents/ defendants became
bitter. The appellant/ plaintiff threatened to forcibly dispossess the
respondent no.3/ defendant no.3 from the suit property. Respondent
no.3/ defendant no.3, therefore, had to file a suit for permanent
injunction against the appellant/plaintiff and a complaint before the
police. The legal notice sent by the appellant/plaintiff was duly replied.
The previous seller, Sharmanand, having already sold the suit property
to the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 on 23.02.1983 had no right to
resell the same to the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff never
raised any construction in the suit property; Srikishan was not a tenant
in the suit property; and he did not vacate it in middle of 1994. It is
denied that the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 had entered the suit
property in January, 1995, with the permission of appellant/plaintiff’sRCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 5 of 25
v.
Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:43:52 +0530
father. The water connection is in the name of the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3; he has also deposited a sum of Rs.7,400/- with
Delhi Vidyut Board for installation of electricity connection; and the
house tax in respect of the suit property is also levied in his name. The
respondent no.3/defendant no.3 and his family members have their
election cards, ration cards and identity cards at the address of the suit
property. All other allegations in the plaint have been denied and it has
been alleged in the written statement that the appellant/plaintiff is not
entitled to any relief as sought.
4. The Ld. Trial Court had framed following issues for trial:
(i) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties? OPD
(ii) Whether the suit property belongs exclusively to defendant no.3,
if so its effect? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary
objection no.3 taken in WS? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession as
prayed for? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages with interest, if yes,
at what rate and for which period? OPP
(vi) Relief.
5. The appellant/plaintiff, in order to prove his case,
examined: (i) Prem Singh Rajput, President of Pul Prahladpur, RWA,
as PW-1; (ii) Anil Kumar Gupta, Draftsman of the site plan, as PW-2;
(iii) himself as PW-3; (iv) his Uncle/Chacha, Narayan Singh as PW-4;
(v) Ashok Kumar, Patwari as PW-5; (vi) his father, Kanhaiya Lal as
PW-6; (vii) Srikishan as PW-7; and (viii) K.C. Bhushan, Section
Officer of BSES as PW-8. The first witness, PW-1 was the President of
Pul Prahladpur RWA and he tendered in evidence counter foil of the
receipt bearing no.670 dated 17.04.1989 (Ex.PW1/1) issued by the
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 6 of 25
v. Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:43:38 +0530
RWA to the appellant/plaintiff towards the deposit of development
charges. The second witness, PW-2 proved the site plan (Ex.PW2/1) of
the suit property. The third witness, PW-3 was the appellant/plaintiff
himself and he tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW3/A towards
his examination in chief. He tendered in evidence: the agreement to
sell, Ex.PW3/1; receipt of sale consideration, Ex.PW3/3; site plan,
Ex.PW3/4; receipt no.198983 dated 01.08.1990 issued by the Delhi
Vidyut Board towards deposit of development charges of Rs.600/- for
installation of electricity connection, Ex.PW3/5; the water bills for the
period from 2002 to 2005 issued by the Delhi Jal Board, Ex.PW3/6 and
Ex.PW3/7; Fard Jama Bandi issued by the Patwari, Ex.PW3/8;
mutation letter issued by the MCD, Ex.PW3/9; receipt towards deposit
of annual subscription with the RWA, Ex.PW3/10; copy of the legal
notice, postal receipts and AD cover, Ex.PW3/11, Ex.PW3/12 &
Ex.PW3/13; copy of sale deed dated 16.10.1985 between Partap Singh
and Hari Mohan in favour of M/s R.K. Sharma & Co., Mark A; and a
copy of sale deed dated 09.12.1986 executed by M/s R.K. Sharma in
favour of M/s Naresh & Co., Mark B. The fourth witness, PW-4 was
the Chacha/Paternal uncle (Mama of the respondent no.3/defendant
no.3). He had deposed that he had allowed the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3 and his wife to reside in his property till
December, 1994, after which they shifted to the suit property. The fifth
witness, PW-5 was the Patwari and he tendered in evidence a copy of
Khasra Girdawari, Ex.PW5/A. The sixth witness, PW-6 was
appellant/plaintiff’s father and he supported the case of
appellant/plaintiff. The seventh witness, PW-7 was one of the attesting
witnesses to the documents, agreement to sell, GPA, receipt etc.
executed by the previous owner, Sharmanand in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff. He also claimed to be the tenant in the suit property
till the middle of 1994. The eighth witness, PW-8 was an official from
the BSES and he produced in evidence the register showing theRCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 7 of 25
v. Digitally
Gopi Lal & Ors. signed by
SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:43:43
+0530
payment of Rs.600/- deposited by the appellant/plaintiff towards
sanction of electricity connection. All these witnesses were cross-
examined on behalf of the respondents/defendants.
6. The respondents/defendants, in order to prove their
defence, examined: (i) Kunwar Sain, S/o Late Deen Dayal as DW1; and
(ii) himself as DW2. The first witness, DW-1 tendered his affidavit-in-
evidence, DW1/A towards his examination in chief, wherein he stated
that his father, Late Deen Dayal had informed him that he was the
witness in the documents pertaining to the suit property executed in
favour of the respondent no. 3/ defendant no. 3. The witness, DW1 also
stated that he can recognize the signatures of his father. The second
witness, DW2 was the respondent no. 3/defendant no. 3 himself, who
tendered his affidavit-in-evidence, DW2/A towards his examination in
chief. He relied upon the documents pertaining to the suit property
executed in his favour i.e. GPA, Ex.DW2/1; Agreement, Ex.DW2/2;
Affidavit, Ex.DW2/3; Receipt, Ex.DW2/4; copy of electoral Form,
Mark A; DVB receipt, Mark B; Electricity Bills, Mark C & D; and
water connection bills, Mark E to Mark H. Both these witnesses were
cross-examined on behalf of the appellant/ plaintiff.
7. The Ld. Trial Court decided the first issue, “Whether the
suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties? OPD” against the respondents/
defendants on the ground that they failed to even point out as to which
necessary party was not joined in the suit. The issue no. 3, “Whether
the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection no. 3 taken
in W.S.? OPD” and the issue no. 4, “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recovery of possession as prayed for? OPP” were taken up together.
The Ld. Trial Court while relying upon the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and those of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
held that a mere execution of GPA, agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit
etc. does not transfer right, title or interest in an immovable property.
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 8 of 25
v. Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:44:13 +0530
The Ld. Trial Court held that as the appellant/ plaintiff on the basis of
such documents cannot claim to be the owner of the suit property, he
can also not seek the relief of recovery of possession against the
respondents/ defendants. Ultimately, the Ld. Trial Court decided both
these issues against the appellant/plaintiff and in favour of the
respondents/ defendants. Regarding the issue no. 2, “Whether the suit
property belongs exclusively to defendant no. 3? if so, its effects?
OPD” the Ld. Trial Court observed that the respondent/ defendant, in
the absence of any registered sale deed and merely on the basis of
documents like agreement to sell, GPA etc., cannot claim ownership in
the suit property. This issue was accordingly decided against the
respondents/ defendants. The issue no. 5 was “Whether the plaintiff is
entitled to damages with interest? if yes, at what rate and for which
period? OPP” Since the appellant/ plaintiff was not held entitled to the
relief of recovery of possession of the suit property, the Ld. Trial Court
held that the question of awarding damages along with interest does not
even arise. Thus, the appellant/ plaintiff was not held entitled to any of
the reliefs sought in the plaint. Ld. Trial Court vide the impugned
judgment dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff.
8. The appellant/ plaintiff being aggrieved with the
impugned Judgment of the Ld. Trial Court preferred the present appeal.
9. This appellate Court allowed both the parties to lead
additional evidences. Accordingly, following further witnesses were
examined: (i) Rajesh Kumar as CW-1; (ii) Bhopal Singh Rawat as
CW-2; (iii) Rohit as CW-3; (iv) Anil Kumar as CW-4; (v) Om Prakash
as CW-5. Apart from these witnesses, one, Brij Kishore and the
respondent no. 3/ defendant no. 3 were also examined. The first
witness, Rajesh Kumar, CW-1 was the Public Relation Inspector from
Lajpat Nagar Post Office. He was summoned as the appellant/ plaintiff
had taken a plea that the alleged documents, GPA, agreement to sell,
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 9 of 25
v. Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Gopi Lal & Ors. SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2025.04.21
14:44:08
+0530
Receipt etc. in favour of the respondent no. 3/ defendant no. 3
mentioned the address of Pul Prahladpur with pin-code of 110044,
however, the said pin code was allotted to the area of Pul Prahladpur
much later. The witness, CW-1 produced in evidence a report, Ex.
CW1/P-1 (colly.) as per which the pin-code 110044 of Pul Prahladpur
was since 29.11.1979. The second witness, CW-2 was representative of
one, Rama Kant Sharma, whose father, Late Uma Shankar Sharma was
the owner of Shiva Talkies, situated at Bharatpur, Rajasthan. The
appellant/ plaintiff had also taken a plea that the residential address of
the respondent no. 3/ defendant no. 3 in the impugned documents,
GPA, agreement to sell, Receipt etc. mentions the address of the
respondent no. 3/ defendant no. 3 to be near Shiva Talkies, however, as
per the appellant/ plaintiff, the said Shiva Talkies was not even in
existence in the year 1983 when these documents were allegedly
executed. The witness, CW-2 did not produce anything relevant in the
evidence. The third witness, CW-3 was the clerk from the Ministry of
Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Notary Cell). He was
summoned to produce the seals, certificate of Notary official who had
allegedly attested the documents, GPA, agreement, Receipts etc. in
favour of the respondent no. 3/ defendant no. 3. This witness deposed
that the said Notary official had died on 10.10.1986. The 4 th witness,
CW-4 produced in evidence a Sale Deed dated 01.04.1983, Ex.
CW-4/A (OSR) executed by Sh. Pratap Singh in favour of M/s Neel
Kamal Chaya Chitarpath, Bharatpur and a Sale Deed dated 16.10.1985,
Ex. CW-4/B (OSR) executed by R.S. Sharma and Company (Delhi Pvt.
Ltd.) in favour of M/s Naresh and Company, Dahi Wali Gali,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan. This witness was examined at the instance of
appellant/plaintiff for the purpose of proving that as on the date of
execution of alleged documents on 23.02.1983 in favour of the
respondent no.3/defendant no.3, Shiva Talkies was not even in
existence. Pertinently, the address of the respondent no.3/defendantRCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 10 of 25
v. Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:44:24 +0530
no.3 in the said documents mentions Shiva Talkies. The 5 th witness,
CW-5 was an official from Indian Security Press, Nasik. The Ld.
Predecessor, vide Order dated 20.02.2019, had directed the Indian
Security Press, Nasik to file a report with respect to the genuineness or
otherwise of the stamp papers upon which the respective documents in
favour of the appellant/plaintiff and respondent no.3/defendant no.3
were printed. The witness, CW-5, produced in evidence a report dated
03.04.2019, Ex. CW-5/A. In the said report, the date of first printing
and dispatch from the Indian Security Press of stamp papers was
mentioned. It was further stated in the report that all the stamp papers
were found genuine. Pertinently, the stamp paper of Rs. 2/-
denomination upon which the Agreement to Sell dated 04.06.1984 in
favour of the appellant/plaintiff was printed, was stated to have been
first printed on 01.04.1987 and to have been first dispatched on
08.05.1987. At the same time, it was also stated that the said stamp
paper was genuine. The report was, thus, confusing and misleading.
Further, the witness, CW-5, when confronted with similar stamp papers
executed in the year 1975, stated that he cannot make any comment
regarding the same. One Brij Kishore was also examined on
07.09.2018. He was one of the witnesses in the GPA, Agreement to
Sell, Receipt, all dated, 23.02.1983, executed in favour of the
respondent no.3/defendant no.3. He deposed that he was an attesting
witness to the said documents and that the same were executed/signed
in the year 1983 near the suit property. The respondent no.3/defendant
no.3 had also entered the witness box and he tendered in evidence his
matriculation certificate and marksheet, Ex. CX3/1 and Ex. CX3/2
(OSR) showing his date of birth to be 01.07.1962.
10. I have heard Sh. Vishal and Sh. Rahul Sharma, Ld.
Counsels for the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. M.N. Siddiqui, Ld.
Counsel for the respondents/defendants. I have carefully perused the
judicial record as well.
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 11 of 25
v.
Gopi Lal & Ors. Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
MITTAL
MITTAL Date: 2025.04.21
14:44:18 +0530
11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, relying upon the
counter-foil of receipt issued by the Pul Prahladpur RWA and upon the
receipt towards deposit of development charges with the DVB for
installation of electricity connection, submitted that the
appellant/plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property. He also
relied upon the water bills issued by the Delhi Jal Board and upon the
fard jamabandi issued by the Patwari. He then relied upon the Mutation
Letter issued by the MCD in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. Ld.
Counsel submitted that the testimony of the witness PW-4 proves that
the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 had been residing with him till
December, 1994 and that it was only in January, 1995 that he shifted to
the suit property as a permissive user. Ld. Counsel laid a lot of
emphasis upon the argument that the pin code of Pul Prahladpur i.e.
110044, which finds mention in the alleged documents dated
23.02.1983 in favour of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3, was
allotted only in the year 1986-87. Similarly, he submitted that the
address of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 in the said documents
mentions Shakti Nagar, which was not in existence at that time. He then
argued that Shiva Talkies, which also finds mention in the address of
the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 in the documents in question had
come into existence in the year 1985 i.e. after the execution of the
alleged documents. Ld. Counsel also submitted that alleged documents
in favour of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 have been printed on
forged and fabricated stamp papers. Basis these submissions, Ld.
Counsel argued that the alleged documents executed on 23.02.1983 in
favour of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 are forged documents. He
also argued that the copy of the GPA dated 23.02.1983 as filed by the
respondent no.3/defendant no.3 in his suit against the
appellant/plaintiff bears two notary stamps, however, a copy of the said
GPA filed in the present suit bears only one notary stamp. Ld. Counsel
also drew the attention of the Court towards affidavit allegedly
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 12 of 25
v.
Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors.
SACHIN by SACHIN
MITTAL
MITTAL Date: 2025.04.21
14:44:28 +0530
executed by the previous owner, Sharmanand in favour of the
respondent no.3/defendant no.3, wherein the contents of affidavit have
been printed after leaving the space for notary stamp. He submitted that
this proves that the document was got notarized even before printing
and execution of the affidavit. Ld. Counsel submitted that the
respondent no.3/defendant no.3 in his written statement had stated that
the documents pertaining to the suit property in his favour were
executed at the house of appellant/plaintiff’s father, while, he, in his
cross-examination on 06.09.2011, deposed that the said documents
were prepared on the suit property. Basis these submissions, Ld.
Counsel submitted that the impugned Judgment may be set aside and
the reliefs sought in the plaint may be granted in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff.
12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents/defendants,
while placing reliance upon the Judgments, Suraj Lamp and Industries
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656; Bishan Chand v. Ved
Prakash since deceased through LRs and Anr., RSA 131 of 2018
(decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 14.09.2018); Saroj
Aggarwal vs. Mehar Singh and Ors., RSA 36 of 2018 (decided by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 10.10.2018); and Samriti Debbarma
(Dead) through LR v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Ors., Civil Appeal
No. 878 of 2019 (decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court), argued that
it is a settled law that a mere execution of unregistered agreement to
sell, GPA, affidavit etc. does not transfer an ownership in an
immovable property. He submitted that the entire case of the
appellant/plaintiff for the recovery of possession and damages is based
upon the alleged agreement to sell, affidavit, GPA etc, all, dated
04.06.1984, which are unregistered documents. He, lastly, submitted
that the appellant/plaintiff having failed to prove his ownership over
the suit property through valid registered document is not entitled to the
reliefs sought.
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 13 of 25
v.
Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:44:36 +0530
13. Having heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and having
carefully perused the judicial record, now, I proceed to decide the
present appeal.
14. The suit before the Ld. Trial Court was for the relief of
recovery of possession of the suit property alongwith damages.
15. A suit for possession of an immovable property can be
filed either on the basis of previous possession, or on the basis of title.
16. When the suit is on the basis of previous possession, the
period of limitation, as provided under Article 64 of the Schedule
annexed to the Limitation Act, 1963, is 12 years from the date of
dispossession by the defendant.
17. When the suit is on the basis of title, the period of
limitation, as provided under Article 65 of the Schedule annexed to the
Limitation Act, 1963, is 12 years from the date when the possession of
the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. A suit for possession on
the basis of title can be explained by two illustrations. Suppose, a
person ‘A’ claiming to be a lawful owner of a property allows another
person ‘B’ to reside in the said property as a Licensee upon the payment
of monthly license fees. After some time, the said Licensee ‘B’ stops
the payment of monthly license fees and refuses to vacate the property.
In such a case, the owner ‘A’ is required to file a suit for possession on
the basis of his title against ‘B’ within 12 years from the date when the
Licensee ‘B’ stopped paying the monthly license fee and started
claiming adversely to the owner ‘A’. Let us take another example. Two
sons, ‘A’ and ‘B’ inherit a property from their deceased father. While
‘A’ is living in the said property, ‘B’ is living in another city due to his
job. Initially, after the death of father, there was no dispute between ‘A’
and ‘B’. After some time, ‘B’ shifts to the same city wherein the said
inherited property is situated. ‘B’ wants to reside in some portion of the
said property. However, ‘A’ does not allow ‘B’ to shift in the said
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 14 of 25
v.
Gopi Lal & Ors. Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2025.04.21
14:44:31
+0530
property and rather, claims that he is the sole owner of the said
property. ‘A’ also refuses the demand of ‘B’ for partition of the said
property. In such a case, ‘B’ is required to file a suit for possession on
the basis of title/co-ownership within 12 years from the date ‘A’
refused to agree to the partition of the said property.
18. A person may claim title over an immovable property
either on the basis of a registered documents, such as Sale Deed, or Gift
Deed, or Relinquishment Deed, or Family Settlement; or on the basis of
unregistered documents, such as a Court’s Decree/consent Decree, or
Memorandum of Family Settlement; or the title may be simply a
possessory title.
19. It is required to be noted that the nature of reliefs in a suit
depends upon the cause of action furnished by the act/omission of the
defendant. In other words, if the defendant dispossess the plaintiff
forcibly or without due process of law, the plaintiff is required to file
suit for possession on the basis of previous possession. On the other
hand, if the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the
plaintiff, a suit for possession on the basis of title is required to be filed.
The pleadings, issues and burden of proof, all, depend upon the cause
of action alleged and reliefs sought in a suit.
20. In the present case, the suit before the Ld. Trial Court was
not a suit for possession on the basis of previous possession because the
cause of action alleged in the plaint was not dispossession of the
plaintiff by the defendant. The suit before the Ld. Trial Court was based
upon the title as the plaintiff was claiming title over the suit property
with the allegation that the possession of the defendant had become
adverse to the plaintiff.
21. In the present case, the documents, Agreement to Sell,
GPA and affidavit etc, all, dated 04.06.1984, in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff, being unregistered documents, there cannot be a
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 15 of 25
v.
Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors.
SACHIN by SACHIN
MITTAL
MITTAL Date: 2025.04.21
14:45:40 +0530
dispute, in view of the settled legal position, that such documents did
not create/transfer ownership in the suit property in favour of the
appellant/ plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff, thus, on the basis of these
documents, cannot claim title over the suit property. However, as said
earlier, title can also be a simply possessory title without any document,
registered or unregistered. A possessory title may be the basis for a suit
for possession on the basis of previous possession as well as for a suit
for possession on the basis of title. If the defendant has dispossessed the
plaintiff, the suit for possession on the basis of previous possession/
possessory title is to be filed; if the possession of the defendant has
becomes adverse to the plaintiff, then the suit for possession on the
basis of title/ possessory title is to be filed.
22. Now, I shall discuss the concept of possessory title. The
law attaches a great sanctity to the possession. The law helps a person
in possession even if she does not hold valid title documents. A person
in established possession is said to have a possessory title. The
possessory title is good against the whole world but against the person
holding better title. A person in hostile possession for more than 12
years even acquires a perfect title upon expiry of 12 years and such a
person in possession can even seeks declaration against the previous
title holder that now he has acquired a perfect title by adverse
possession. Even if a person in settled possession has not perfected his
title by the lapse of 12 years and by seeking declaration against the true
owner, his possessory title is good against the whole world but the true
owner. A trespasser or a person in possession without any authority
cannot defend the suit for recovery of possession against him by a
person holding possessory title on the basis of his claim that some
person, other than the one holding possessory title, is the true owner. It
is because, as stated earlier, the possession of a person holding
possessory title is good against the whole world except the true owner
holding better title.
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 16 of 25
v.
Gopi Lal & Ors. Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
MITTAL
MITTAL Date: 2025.04.21
14:44:41 +0530
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nair Service Society Ltd.
v. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 97, explained the
law to the effect that a defendant can not defend a suit seeking recovery
of possession against him on the basis of argument that some other
person, not the plaintiff, is the owner of the property.
“19. In our judgment this involves an incorrect approach
to our problem. To express our meaning we may begin by
reading Perry v. Clissold to discover if the principle that
possession is Prior possession is a good title of ownership
against all who cannot show a better good against all but the
true owner has in any way been departed from. Perry v.
Clissold reaffirmed the principle by stating quite clearly:
“It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of
land in the assumed character of owner and exercising
peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a
perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful
owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward
and assert his title by the process of law within the period
prescribed by the provisions of the statute of Limitation
applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished
and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.”
Therefore, the plaintiff who was peaceably in possession
was entitled to remain in possession and only the State could
evict him. The action of the Society was a violent invasion of
his possession and in the law as it stands in India the plaintiff
could maintain a possessory suit under the provisions of the
Specific Relief Act in which title would be immaterial or a
suit for possession within 12 years in which the question of
title could be raised. As this was a suit of latter kind title could
be examined. But whose title? Admittedly neither side could
establish title. The plaintiff at least pleaded the statute of
Limitation and asserted that he had perfected his title by
adverse possession. But as he did not join the State in his suit
to get a declaration, he may be said to have not rested his case
on an acquired title. His suit was thus limited to recovering
possession from one who had trespassed against him. The
enquiry thus narrows to this : did the Society have any title in
itself, was it acting under authority express or implied of the
true owner or was it just pleading a title in a third party? To
the first two questions we find no difficulty in furnishing an
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 17 of 25
Digitally signed
v. by SACHIN
Gopi Lal & Ors. SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:45:32 +0530
answer. It is clearly in the negative. So the only question is
whether the defendant could plead that the title was in the
State? Since in every such case between trespassers the title
must be outstanding in a third party a defendant will be placed
in a position of dominance. He has only to evict the prior
trespasser and sit pretty pleading that the title is in someone
else. As Erle, J. put it in Burling v. Read, (11 Q.B. 904)
“parties might imagine that they acquired some right by
merely intruding upon land in the night, running up a hut and
occupying it before morning”. This will be subversive of the
fundamental doctrine which was accepted always and was
reaffirmed in Perry v. Clissold. The law does not therefore
countenance the doctrine of ‘findings keepings'”.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somnath Burman v. S.P.
Raju, (1969) 3 SCC 129 held the plaintiff to be entitled to the relief of
recovery of possession, upon the proof of his prior possession, though
he was not able to prove ownership:
“9. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that
in a suit for possession brought on the basis of title, the
plaintiff cannot succeed unless he proves his title to the suit
property as well as its possession within twelve years.
According to the appellant, except in a suit under Section 9 of
the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff for succeeding in the
suit, has to prove both existing title to the such property and
its possession within twelve years. We are unable to accept
this contention as correct. In our opinion the possession of the
plaintiff prior to 1945 is a good title against all but the true
owner. The defendants who are mere trespassers cannot
defeat the plaintiff’s lawful possession by ousting him from
the suit property. Possessory title is a good title as against
everybody other than the lawful owner. In Ismail Arriff v.
Mahomed Ghouse [ILR 20 IA 99] the Judicial Committee
came to the conclusion that a person having possessary title
can get a declaration that he was the owner of the land in suit
and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering
with his possession. Therein it was observed that the
possession of the plaintiff was a sufficient evidence of title as
owner against the defendant.
10. In Naryana Row v. Dharmachar [ILR XXVI Mad
514] a bench of the Madras High Court consisting of
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 18 of 25
v. Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:45:24 +0530
Bhashyam Ayyangar and Moore, JJ., held that possession is,
under the Indian, as under the English law, good title against
all but the true owner. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is
in no way inconsistent with the position that as against a
wrong doer, prior possession of the plaintiff, in an action of
ejectment, is sufficient title, even if the suit be brought more
than six months after the act of dispossession complained of
and that the wrong-doer cannot successfully resist the suit by
showing that the title and right to possession are in a third
person. The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court
in Krishnara’v Yashvant v. Vasudev Apa’ji Ghotikar
(deceased) by 1.rs [ILR 8 Bom 371]. That was also the view
taken by the Allahabad High Court — see Umrao
Singh v. Ramji Das [ILR 36 All 51] ; Wali Ahmed
Khan v. Ajudhia Kandu [ILR XIII All p. 537] . In Subodh
Gopal Bose v. Province of Bihar [AIR (37) 1950 Pat 222]
the Patna High Court adhered to the view taken by the
Madras, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts. The contrary
view taken by the Calcutta High Court in Debi Churn
Boldo v. Issur Chander Manjee [ILR IX Cal p 39] ; Ertaza
Hossein and Another v. Bany Mistry [ILR IX Cal p
130] ; Purmeshur Chowdhry v. Brijo Lal Chowdhry [ILR
XVII Cal p. 256] . and Nisa Chand Gaita v. Kanchiram
Bagani [ILR XXVI Cal p. 579] in our opinion does not lay
down the law correctly”.
25. Recently, the Delhi High Court in Saleem & Ors. V.
Wahid Malik, RSA 118/2022 held that law respects possessory rights
over immovable property even in absence of valid title:
“29. It is well settled that, in a suit for possession
simplicitor or a suit for injunction against dispossession
simplicitor, the plaintiff is not required to establish title or
ownership. The plaintiff is only required to establish a better
right to remain in possession of the suit property as compared
to the right of the defendant”.
26. I have already held herein above that the
appellant/plaintiff has not been able to establish his title over the suit
property on the basis of any valid documents, registered or
unregistered. It, however, needs to be examined whether he has been
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 19 of 25
v.
Gopi Lal & Ors. Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
MITTAL
MITTAL 14:44:46
Date: 2025.04.21
+0530
able to make out a case of possessory title over the suit property. As
discussed herein above, the possessory title is, in other words, a settled
possession over an immovable property. The defendant can defend a
suit for possession on the basis of possessory title either by disproving
the settled possession of the plaintiff, or by establishing his own title
over the property.
27. The case of appellant/plaintiff is that he, pursuant to
execution of documents, Agreement to Sell, GPA, affidavit, all, dated
04.06.1984, in his favour, was in possession of the suit property
through the tenant, Srikrishan, PW-7, who, in his testimony, not only
deposed that he was a attesting witness to the said documents, but he
also deposed that he was a tenant in the suit property till the middle of
1994. Further, the proof of : counter-foil of receipt bearing no. 670
dated 17.04.1989 (Ex. PW-1/1) issued by the RWA to the
appellant/plaintiff towards deposit of development charges; receipt no.
198983 dated 01.08.1990 (Ex. PW-3/5) issued by the Delhi Vidyut
Board to the appellant/plaintiff towards deposit of development
charges of Rs. 600/- for installation of electricity connection; the fard
jamabandi issued by the Patwari, Ex. PW-3/8; and the Mutation Letter
issued by the MCD, Ex. PW-3/9, all, prove that the appellant/plaintiff
was in possession over the suit property.
28. As against the case of the appellant/plaintiff, the case of
the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 is that he had taken the possession
of the suit property on 23.02.1983, pursuant to execution of the
documents, Agreement to Sell, GPA, receipt, affidavit etc, in his
favour. He further claims that he started residing in the suit property in
the year 1992 onwards when he got the said documents from the father
of the appellant/plaintiff. However, the respondent no.3/defendant no.3
has failed to prove any document, such as mutation document, utility
bills, or any other relevant document to prove his possession over the
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 20 of 25
v.
Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:45:18 +0530
suit property. The documents, Electoral Card, Mark A, DVB receipt,
Mark B, Electricity bills, Mark C and D, and Water connection bills,
Mark E to H, all, pertain to the period subsequent to the documents
tendered in evidence by the appellant/plaintiff. The fact in issue was as
to whether or not the respondent no.3/defendant no.3 had been residing
in the suit property since 1992 as claimed. However, the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3 has failed to prove so.
29. It is also noted that there are inherent contradictions in the
case/defence of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3. He in his written
statement filed before the Ld. Trial Court claimed that he alongwith
two witnesses had reached the residence of father of appellant/plaintiff
on 23.02.1983, where the seller, Sharmanand was also present; the
documents were signed there; the witnesses also signed there; and the
consideration was paid to the seller there. It has also been claimed that
then they reached the suit property for the purpose of taking the
possession of the same. The respondent no.3/defendant no.3, during his
cross-examination on 06.09.2011, however, deposed that the
documents were prepared, executed and the payment of sale
consideration was made at the suit property. He reiterated the said fact
during his cross-examination on 07.11.2012. Similarly, the alleged
attesting witness, Brij Kishore, who was examined before this
Appellate Court on 07.09.2018, also stated that the said documents
were signed near a house of the plot in question i.e. Pul Prahladpur.
These contradictions cast doubt over the defence of the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3.
30. Thus, I am of the considered view that while the
appellant/plaintiff has been able to establish his possessory title, the
respondents/defendants have failed to do so.
31. As regard the documents, such as Agreement to Sell,
GPA, receipt, affidavit etc, as relied upon by parties from both the
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 21 of 25
v.
Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2025.04.21
14:45:11
+0530
sides, the said documents being unregistered, do not create/transfer
ownership in the suit property. Having said this, proof of execution of
these documents creates some right in favour of the person in whose
favour these documents are executed. A party can also rely upon these
documents for the purpose of supporting its case of possessory title
because both parties are claiming to be in possession pursuant to
execution of these documents. The appellant/plaintiff has been able to
prove the execution of these documents, dated 14.06.1984, by
examination of the attesting witness, PW-7. As regard the report of
India Security Press, Nasik, tendered in evidence as Ex. CW-5/A, the
same is confusing and misleading because it has been stated therein that
the stamp papers of both the parties are genuine, at the same time, the
stamp papers upon which the documents in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff have been printed have been stated to have been
issued for the first time subsequent to the date of their execution i.e.
14.06.1984. The witness, CW-5, further, failed to comment upon
similar stamp papers executed in the year 1975. Now, coming to the
documents dated 23.02.1983, executed in favour of the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3, the witness, DW-1, who was the son of one of the
attesting witnesses namely Deen Dayal, did not even state in his
affidavit-in-evidence that he can identify signature of his late father on
the documents in question. Further, the respondent no.3/defendant no.3
examined the 2nd witness to the documents only during the appellate
proceedings, who though, supported the case of the respondent
no.3/defendant no.3, he contradicted the respondent no.3/defendant
no.3 with respect to the place of execution of these documents. His
testimony is, thus, not found to be trustworthy. Further, in the affidavit,
Ex. DW-2/3 allegedly executed by the previous owner, Sharmanand in
favour of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3, the contents of affidavit
have been printed after leaving the space for notary stamp. This proves
that the document was got notarized even before printing and execution
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 22 of 25
v. Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2025.04.21
14:44:51 +0530
of the affidavit. The respondent no.3/defendant no.3, thus, has not been
able to prove valid execution of Agreement to Sell, GPA, affidavit,
receipt etc, all, dated 23.02.1983, in his favour.
32. Though, the witness CW-1 from the Lajpat Nagar Post
Office, who was examined during appellate proceedings, did not
support the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the pin code of Pul
Prahladpur i.e. 110044 was allotted subsequent to execution of
documents on 23.02.1983 in favour of the respondent no.3/defendant
no.3; the proof of a Sale Deed dated 01.04.1983, Ex. CW-4/A (OSR)
executed by Sh. Pratap Singh in favour of M/s Neel Kamal Chaya
Chitarpath, Bharatpur and a Sale Deed dated 16.10.1985, Ex. CW-4/B
(OSR) executed by R.S. Sharma and Company (Delhi Pvt. Ltd.) in
favour of M/s Naresh and Company, Dahi Wali Gali, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan, proves that the Theater, Shiva Talkies came into existence
after the year 1985, though, the same was mentioned in the documents
dated 23.02.1983 in favour of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3. It
indicates the said documents having been forged and fabricated.
33. In view of the above discussion, the appellant/ plaintiff is
held entitled to the recovery of possession of the suit property on the
basis that he has been able to prove his possessory title as well as the
fact that the possession of the respondents/ defendants became adverse
to him after April, 1995.
34. Now, I shall proceed to decide whether the
appellant/plaintiff is entitled to damages, if any.
35. Having held that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to the
recovery of possession, he is also held to be entitled to the recovery of
damages for the unlawful occupation of the suit property by the
respondent no.3/defendant no.3. The appellant/plaintiff, in the plaint,
had claimed the damages for the period from April, 1995 till July, 1998.
For the said period, he had confined his claim to Rs. 1,00,000/-, which
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 23 of 25
v.
Gopi Lal & Ors. Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN
MITTAL
MITTAL Date: 2025.04.21
14:45:07 +0530
were calculated at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month as per the then
prevailing rental value of the suit property. It is a settled law that it is
the obligation of the plaintiff claiming the damages/mesne profit at
certain rate to prove the basis for the said claim. The appellant/plaintiff,
in the present case, however, has failed to adduce any evidence, oral or
documentary, to prove that during the aforesaid period, the suit
property could fetch a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- per month. Further,
the appellant/plaintiff during his cross-examination on 10.07.2006
have stated that he did not know market price of the suit property as on
the date of the said cross-examination. He had further stated that he did
not remember the value of the suit property in 1998 i.e. the year when
the suit was filed. However, during the cross-examination, he had also
stated that the market rent of the suit property at the time of filing of the
suit might have been around Rs. 3000/- per month. However, as said
earlier, no evidence in this regard was adduced. The claim for
damages/mesne profit cannot be rejected out rightly merely on the
ground of failure of the plaintiff to adduce any evidence in this regard.
In such cases, the Court can take judicial notice of the prevalent rent. In
the present case, the suit property has been built upon a plot of 50 sq.
yards approximately. There is no clear evidence of exact construction
upon the suit property. On the basis of these facts, this Court has no
option but to make some guess. This Court takes judicial notice of the
fact that while the plaintiff has a tendency to seek the recovery of
damages/mesne profit at maximum possible rate, the defendant would
always defend the said claim by contending that the claimed rate is on
higher side. In such circumstances, it is held that the suit property
during the aforesaid period would have fetched a market rent of Rs.
15,00/- per month. The appellant/plaintiff is, thus, held entitled to the
recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (calculated at the rate of Rs. 1500/-
per month, multiplied by 40 i.e. the duration from April, 1995 till July,
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 24 of 25
v.
Gopi Lal & Ors.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN MITTAL
MITTAL 14:44:56 +0530
Date: 2025.04.21
1998). He is further held entitled to the simple interest at the rate of 6%
per annum upon the aforesaid amount till realization.
36. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Judgment
of the Ld. Trial Court is set aside. The present appeal, accordingly,
stands allowed. A Decree granting the following reliefs is hereby
passed:
(a) Recovery of possession of the suit property i.e. a house
built on a plot, admeasuring 50 sq. yds., bearing no. HR-267-A/7, Pul
Prahladpur, Near DDA Janta Flats, New Delhi (as described in the site
plan, Ex. PW-2/1 & Ex. PW-3/4); and
(b) Recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (calculated at the rate
of Rs. 1500/- per month, multiplied by 40 i.e. the duration from April,
1995 till July, 1998) towards damages, alongwith simple interest at the
rate of 6% per annum upon the aforesaid amount till realization.
37. The Decree-sheet be prepared and file be consigned to
Record Room thereafter.
Announced & dictated in
the open Court on 17.04.2025
(Sachin Mittal)
DJ-03/South-East District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi/17.04.2025
Certified that this Judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears my
signatures.
(Sachin Mittal)
DJ-03/South-East District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi/17.04.2025
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2025.04.21
14:47:24
+0530
RCA DJ No. 43/2017 Ravi Kumar Page 25 of 25
v.
Digitally signed
Gopi Lal & Ors. by SACHIN
SACHIN MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2025.04.21
14:45:01
+0530
[ad_1]
Source link