Delhi District Court
Ravi Tej Kaur vs Mukesh Kumar Etc on 8 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAINA GUPTA,
ASCJ-JSCC-GJ, NORTH -WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.59967/2016
CNR no. DLNW030000812009
1.
Ravi Tej Kaur,
W/o Sh. Harjit Singh,
r/o H.no. 115, Model Town,
Sonepat, Haryana.
……Plaintiff
Versus
1.Mukesh Kumar,
s/o Sh. Daryao Singh,
R/o H.No. 1985, VPO Alipur,
Delhi-110036.
2. The Station House Officer,
P.S. Swaroop Nagar,
Delhi.
...Defendants
Date of Institution : 15.07.2009
Date of Reserving of Order : 25.01.2025
Date of pronouncing Order : 08.04.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
1. The present suit involves a dispute between the parties
with respect to a plot of land i.e. land measuring 1200 sq
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 1 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:05
+0530
yards situated out of khasra no. 320, village Siraspur,
Delhi, abadi known as khasra no. 320, gali no. 1 and 2
Kushak road, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. Both the plaintiff and
the defendant claim ownership over the suit property and
source their ownership from the common previous owner
namely Sh. Om Prakash.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. The plaintiff’s case is that she purchased a land measuring
2340 sq yards situated out of khasra no. 320, village
Siraspur, Delhi from Sh. Om Prakash s/o Mam Chand, r/o
Village Siraspur, Delhi vide registered sale deed dated
14.10.1986 duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi
vide registration no. 8882, book no. I, Volume no. 5014 on
pages no. 162 to 164 dated 14.11.1986. After the
registration of sale deed the plaintiff entered peaceful and
vacant possession of the entire property i.e. 2340 sq yards.
Out of 2340 sq yards, about 740 sq yards was acquired for
constructing the road by the government and the plaintiff
donated a land measuring 400 sq yards to Gurudwara Sh.
Guru Singh Sabha (Regd.) on which presently a
Gurudwara is existing. Now, the plaintiff is in possession
of the land measuring 1200 sq yards and the same is shown
in red colour in the site plan filed by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff has approached the court as defendant no. 1
has tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property
in June, 2009 and is trying to trespass in the property. The
plaintiff has made calls at 100 number police in June, 2009
and also on the intervening night of 11.07.2009 and
12.07.2009. On 12.07.2009 plaintiff made written
complaint against the defendant no. 1 in the police station.
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 2 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:07
+0530
4. The plaintiff contends that the defendant no. 1 has forged
and fabricated documents and has alleged himself to be the
owner of the suit property. He is ascertaining his right of
ownership on the basis of registered sale deed dated
28.12.2007, therefore the plaintiff has sought the relief of
decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated
28.12.2007 allegedly executed by Sh. Satyawan in favour
of the defendant no. 1 with respect to the suit property is
null and void and having no binding effect on the rights of
the plaintiff over the suit property and further that the
plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the remaining
land measuring 1200 sq yards as duly shown in red colour
in the site plan on the basis of the registered sale deed
dated 14.10.1986. The plaintiff has also sought the
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendant no.1 from interfering into peaceful possession
with the plaintiff in the suit property.
5. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court
fees and jurisdiction for the relief of declaration at Rs.
200/- each and the relief of injunction at Rs. 130/- only.
Total court fees of Rs. 15+ Rs. 30 has been filed by the
plaintiff.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT
6. The defendant no.1 also claims to be owner as well as in
physical possession of the suit property. The defendant no.
1 submits that he purchased the suit property i.e. land
measuring 1200 sq yards or 24/96 share out of khasra no.
320(4-16) situated in the Revenue Estate of village
Siraspur, Delhi from one Sh. Satyawan, s/o Sh. Ved Singh,
r/o VPO Singhu, Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 4,
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 3 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:58
+0530
40,000/- through a registered sale deed i.e. registration no.
13186 book no. 1 volume no. 1262 at page no. 187 to 191
dated 28.12.2007 with the Sub Registrar North-West at
Alipur, Delhi. The mutation in respect of the above sale
deed of agricultural land has also been sanctioned in the
name of defendant no. 1 in the Revenue record of village
Siraspur, Delhi.
7. The defendant no. 1 also traces his ownership from the
common owner Sh. Om Prakash s/o Sh.Mam Chand. It is
stated that one person namely Sh. Kishan Lal had
purchased the land measuring 1200 sq yards from Sh. Om
Prakash s/o Mam Chand through a registered sale deed
with registration no. 1886 dated 14.11.1986 and
accordingly mutation in respect of the said land was also
sanctioned in the Revenue record of Village Siraspur,
Delhi vide mishal no. 291/NT/N86-87. Thereafter Sh. Ved
Singh purchased the same from Sh. Kishan Lal through a
registered sale deed vide registration no. 10559, Add. Book
no. 2, Volume no. 501 at page no.12 to 18 dated
15.12.1997. The mutation in respect of the land was done
in the name of Sh. Ved Singh.
8. After the death of Sh. Ved Singh, his son Sh. Satyawan
inherited the suit property from him. The plaintiff claims to
have purchased the suit property from Sh. Satyawan by
virtue of the sale deed mentioned above. It is stated that
the defendant no. 1 is the recorded owner as well as in
possession of the suit property since its purchase and
before that the previous owner was also in possession of
the suit property as per the Revenue record. Further it is
stated that NOC was also issued by the revenue departmentDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 4 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:56
+0530
in every sale purchase of the agricultural land in question.
Further, it is submitted that an order has been announced in
favour of defendant no. 1 regarding construction of the
boundary wall upto the height of 3 feet on the suit property
and the same was sanctioned only after proper verification
regarding the ownership and possession of the suit
property of the defendant no. 1. It is stated that in the
application filed for obtaining the permission for boundary
wall, it is clearly indicated that a Gurudwara is situated in
the East side and the remaining land is agricultural land.
9. The defendant has denied the entire case of the plaintiff. It
is also contended that there is no entry in the revenue
record in favour of the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff is
in possession of the suit property and this creates a doubt
about the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is also submitted that
the plaintiff in the plaint has stated that she purchased land
measuring 2340 sq yards while in the complaint to the
SHO of PS Saroop Nagar, she stated that she purchased a
plot of 1600 sq yards. The defendant has specifically
denied that government had acquired any land out of
khasra no. 320 and there is no entry in revenue record
regarding the acquisition of the land by the government.
Further there is no compensation paid to the recorded
owner as per the revenue record.
10.The defendant no. 1 has also raised objections with respect
to maintainability of the suit that the suit property being
agricultural land, this court has no jurisdiction and the
same is barred under Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is
submitted that the plaintiff should have approached the
Additional Divisional Magistrate (ADM) for the
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 5 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:14
+0530
demarcation of the land which falls under Khasra no. 320
and therefore the suit is not maintainable under the
Specific Relief Act.
11.Objection has also been raised with respect to the valuation
of the suit property. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1
has paid the stamp duty on Rs. 4,40,000/- at the time of
registration of his sale deed and therefore this court does
not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit.
12. Objection with respect to limitation has also been taken by
the defendant and it is contended that the suit is barred by
limitation.
REPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
13.In replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the averments
made in the plaint and has denied the entire case of the
defendant. It is submitted that the entries in the revenue
record are meant for the purpose of collection of Land
Revenue and that the mutation in favour of the plaintiff
does not confer any title upon the plaintiff. It is contended
that when the land use is turned from agricultural to
residential colony the land does not remain agricultural
land and becomes residential land. The colony in which
the suit land is situated is thickly populated and more than
85% of the plots have been constructed by the owners. The
plaintiff has also constructed a portion of the said plot and
she is in the constructive possession since the date of
purchase.
14. It is submitted that every khasra comprises of 4840 sq
yards and the land of the defendant may be somewhere
else. The defendant no. 1 purchased the land on
28.12.2007 much later than the plaintiff. It is contended
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 6 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:09
+0530
that after execution of the sale deed by Sh. Om Prakash s/o
Sh. Mam Chand in favour of the plaintiff, he did not have
any right,title or interest remaining with him to transfer to
the subsequent purchaser.
15. It is submitted that the plaintiff is already in possession of
suit property, therefore the valuation for the purposes of
court fees as per market rate is not needed.
ISSUES
16.On completion of the pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed on 25.02.2016:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as
prayed for in prayer no. (i) and (ii) of the amended
plaint ? (OPP).
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent
injunction as sought in prayer clause B ? (OPP)
iii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (OPP)iv. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain this suit? (OPD)
v. Whether jurisdiction of this Court is barred by virtue ofSection 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act ? (OPD)
vi. Whether the defendant has better title over the suit landas alleged on the basis of sale document dated
27.12.2007 or 28.12.2007 ? (OPD)
vii. Relief.
REPORT OF THE LOCAL COMMISSIONER
17.Before the commencement of the trial, the local
commissioner was appointed by the court vide order dated
27.01.2010 to visit the suit property and ascertain as to
who is in actual physical possession of the suit property
and what is the extent of construction existing there.
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 7 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:08
+0530
Accordingly, a report was filed by Sh. Abdul Gaffar
Advocate. In the report he stated that on visit to the suit
property on 31.01.2010 at about 10.30 am he recorded the
statements of some neighbours and also took photographs
of the suit property. Two of the witnesses Sh. Paramjeet
Singh and Sh. Gopal Singh stated that the plaintiff is the
owner of the suit property and she often visits the same.
On the contrary two of the witnesses namely Mohd.
Younus and Sh. Narender Singh stated that they have seen
Sh. Mukesh Kumar, defendant sometimes doing
cultivation work. However, all the witnesses stated that no
construction activity was done ever in the plot and this fact
was also personally verified by the local commissioner. It
is stated that it is apparent from the pictures of the suit
property that no construction activity exists in the suit
property. It is an open plot without boundary wall and is
not possessed by any of the parties. There is no cultivation
activity present nor there is any crop or vegetation except
wild greenery.
18.None of the parties have examined the local commissioner
in support of their case. Further, no objections to the report
of the local commissioner have also been filed. It is not in
dispute between the parties that the suit property is an open
and vacant plot of land.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE:
19.In order to prove her case, plaintiff has examined herself as
as PW-1. She also examined seven other witnesses i.e.
PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. The
PW-1 tendered evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW-1/A
and relied upon the documents Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/7.
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 8 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:05
+0530
In the affidavit the averments in the plaint have been
reiterated. The documents relied upon are as follows:-
i. Ex. PW-1/1 is the site plan
ii. Ex. PW-1/2 is the sale deed dated 14.10.1986
iii. Ex. PW-1/3 is the Original complaint dated 12.07.2009
given to the SHO which was duly acknowledged by the
police which bears his signature at point C.
iv. Ex. PW-1/4 iss the complaint given by the GurudwaraSri Guru Singh Sabha (regd) to the SHO, PS Swaroop
nagar (objected to the mode of proof)
v. Ex. PW-1/5 is the letter sent by the said gurudwara tothe Ld. Civil Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
vi. Ex. PW-1/6 is the complaint dated 05.02.2015 sent bywitness to the SHO and other higher authorities which
bears her signature at point D and E.
vii. Ex. PW-1/7 are the Postal receipts.
20.PW-1 has been cross examined at length by the Ld.
Counsel for the defendant.
21.PW-2 i.e. Sh. Paramjeet Singh tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A which bears his signatures at
point A and B and relied upon documents already exhibited
PW-1/4 and Ex. PW-1/5. He stated in his affidavit that he
is the neighbour of the plaintiff for about 4-5 years and
earlier he has also been the President of Gurudwara Shri
Guru Singh Sabha Management Committee. He submitted
that the plaintiff donated 400 sq yards of land out of
Khasra no. 320 village Siraspur to the Gurudwara Shri
Guru Singh Sabha. The Gurudwara Committee has raised
Gurudwara on the said land. He also submitted that out of
the 2340 sq yards purchased by the plaintiff, landDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 9 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:08
+0530
measuring 740 sq yards was acquired by the government
for construction of roads. He submitted that the suit
property is located in thickly populated residential colony
where more than 85 % plots were constructed by their
owners and there is also a boundary wall around the plot.
The plaintiff also got fixed a submersible pump on the plot
later on which was illegally removed by the defendant no.
1. During the occasions of Puranmasi and Gurupurav, the
suit property in possession of the plaintiff is used by the
gurudwara for the purposes of kirtan and langar with the
permission of the plaintiff.
22.The witness was cross examined at length by the Ld.
Counsel for the defendant. During cross examination, he
stated that in 1986 he alongwith his family were residing
in Jahangir Puri but in the year 2000 he shifted to Saroop
Nagar and he is well known to the plaintiff because he
goes to the shop of the plaintiff to purchase bed sheets and
curtains. He saw the title documents of the plaintiff when
she donated 400 sq yard land to the Gurudwara
Committee. There is gurudwara at the northern side and
vacant plot at the southern side. There are residential
houses at the eastern and western side. He deposed that no
written document was taken from the plaintiff to show
donation of land measuring 400 sq yards. There is no
written document to show that kirtan or gurupurab were
performed at the suit property. He admitted it to be correct
that the suit property is lying vacant.
23.PW-3 Sh. Daljeet Singh also tendered his affidavit Ex.
PW-3/1. He also relied upon the document which was
already Ex. PW-1/5. In his affidavit, he also deposed on
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 10 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:56
+0530
similar lines as PW-2. In his cross examination by Ld.
Counsel for the defendant he stated that he is not a witness
to the sale deed dated 14.11.1986. He knows the plaintiff
because he used to purchase cloths from her shop. He
stated that the property of 400 sq yards was donated to the
gurudwara by the plaintiff approximately 20 years back
and no documents were executed in his presence with
regard to the donation of 400 sq yards for gurudwara. He
also stated that he had not seen any document with regard
to acquisition of 740 sq yards by the government. The
defendant no. 1 started claiming to be the owner of suit
property for the last 7-8 years. He also stated that he has
not seen any agricultural activities in the suit property as
the land is surrounded by residential area. He stated that
the plaintiff purchased 2340 sq yards land to reside there
and not for agricultural activities.
24.PW-4 Sh. Anoop Singh brought the summoned record i.e.
sale deed dated 14.10.1986 executed by Om Prakash in
favour Ravi Tej Kaur vide registration no. 8882 in
additional book no. 1, Vol. 5014 on pages 162-164,
registered on 14.11.1986. Copy of the same was on record,
already Ex. PW-1/1. He stated that the same was correct
according to the record brought by him. As per his record,
no sale deed vide registration no. 8882 dated 14.11.1986 in
respect of the suit property was registered.
25.PW-5 Sh. Bijender Singh was also a summoned witness.
He deposed that he remained in PS Swaroop Nagar w.e.f.
November 2015 to October 2017. He was Sub Inspector at
that time. Since October 2017, he was posted at District
Line Ashok Vihar. He stated that the record pertaining to
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 11 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:58
+0530
the complaint dated 12.07.2009 sent by Smt. Ravi Tej Kaur
against Sh. Mukesh Kumar acknowledged by the PS
Swaroop Nagar has been destroyed. He deposed that he
did not have any knowledge regarding the said complaint
and there was no record maintained with respect to the
same. Another complaint dated 05.02.2015 in continuation
of the earlier complaint dated 12.07.2009 as mentioned
above was not marked to him. He does not know to whom
the said complaint dated 05.02.2015 was assigned for
investigation. He had not carried out any investigation on
the aforesaid complaint. He later said that he had filed ATR
regarding the investigation on the basis of the complaint
dated 05.02.2015. He had made investigation only on the
complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C filed by the
complainant against the accused person including the
defendant herein from the court of ld. MM. He had
recorded the statement of the daughter in law of late
Sh.Om Prakash who sold the property in question to the
plaintiff. He has not filed the said statement in this case.
He had also recorded the statements of Sh. Guru Singh
Saheb, Sh. Paramjit Singh and Sh. Parvinder Singh. Sh.
Paramjit Singh and Sh. Parvinder Singh have also given
the letter dated 18.11.2016 to him which bears their
signatures at point B and point A, respectively. The said
letter is exhibited as PW-5/1. He had also recorded the
statement of Sh. Satyawan, his wife and the mother of Sh.
Satyawan. Except that, he had not carried out any
investigation on the said complaint of the plaintiff.
26.PW-6 Sh. Parmod was also a summoned witness who is
the son of Late Sh. Om Prakash. He stated that during theDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 12 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:11
+0530
lifetime of his father he had seen him writing and signing
etc. His father knew English and Hindi. His father used to
sign in Hindi. He identified the signatures of his father on
the sale deed dated 14.10.1986 at 3 pages.
27.Initially the plaintiff evidence was closed after
examination of the above witnesses, however, the plaintiff
moved an application for leading rebuttal evidence u/o
XVIII Rule III r/w Section 151 CPC after the closure of
evidence of defendant. The same was allowed vide order
dated 28.02.2020 and the plaintiff examined two more
witnesses PW-7 and PW-8.
28.PW-7 Sh. Naveen Kumar was also a summoned witness
who brought the register containing the original registered
Will dated 02.11.1998, executed by Ved Singh s/o Sh.
Uday Dayanand in favour of Naresh Kumar, S/o Sh. Daya
Nand in respect of Plot no. 6, 8 and 10 measuring 306 sq.
yards, out of total land measuring 1200 sq. yard, out of
khasra no. 320 situated in the area of village Siraspur,
Delhi. He had also brought the copy of the original
registered Will and the photocopy of the same was Ex.
PW-7/A (objected to mode of proof). He also brought
record pertaining to the registered GPA dated 02.11.1998
executed by Ved Singh in favour of Naresh Kumar vide
registration no. 62778 volume 1788 pages 174-175, book
no. 4, villaged Jatti Khurd, Sonepat, Haryana. He had also
brought the photocopy of the said registered GPA and the
same is Ex. PW-7/B (objected to mode of proof). He
deposed that he had not dealt with this record. He had no
knowledge about the present suit as to which property
relates to the said suit.
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 13 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:03
+0530
29.PW-8 Sh. Vikas Tushir is son of Sh. Naresh Kumar. He
deposed that his father died on 20.08.2012. He does not
know what business he was doing. He identified his
signatures on the document Mark A at point A. He stated
that he gave the statement to the IO after having read the
case sheet. He submitted that he does not know anything
about the present case and he does not want to be a witness
for any of the parties. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff put two documents i.e. Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-
7/B to the witness and asked the witness to identify the
signatures of his father (objected to by Ld. Counsel for
defendant). Witness submitted that he was not in a position
to appear before the court as he had to take care of his
younger brother who was suffering from fourth stage
Cancer. His examination was deferred for the next date and
on 11.07.2024, the witness further submitted that his
statement was recorded on 24.08.2022 in criminal case
titled Ravi Tej Kaur vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Complaint
case no. 10881/2016 which was pending in the court of Sh.
Gaurav Kataria, MM, Rohini Court, Delhi. The witness
identified his signatures on the copy of evidence recorded
before the Ld. MM earlier marked as A and now Ex. PW
8/1. The witness was questioned that in the said statement,
he had identified the signatures of his father on documents
Ex. CW 8/1 which are related to property of plot of land
measuring 306 sq. yards out of Khasra no. 320, situated in
Siraspur, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. The witness answered
that no documents were shown to him while recording of
evidence.
30.Thereafter, plaintiff’s evidence was closed vide order dated
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 14 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:06
+0530
11.07.2024.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
31.The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and also
examined 08 other witnesses. He tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A wherein the averments made
in the written statement have been reiterated. He has also
placed reliance on following documents:-
i. Sale deed dt. 28. 12.2007 in affidavit it has marked
as PW-1/2 now same is de-exhibited as Ex. DW1/1
(OSR);
ii. Mutation / Revenue record dt. 14.06.2007 in
affidavit it has marked as PW1/3 now same is de-
exhibited as Ex, DW1/2. In fact it is Khatoni of the
year 2003-04:
iii. Sale deed executed by Sh. Kishan Lal in favour of
Sh. Ved Singh dt. Nil vide registration no. 10559
registered all dt. 15.1297 marked as Mark A:
iv. Original Khatoni for the year 1990-91 bearing
mishal no. M-726/CO97-98 order dt. 30.03.1998 in
affidavit it has marked as PW-1/4 now same is de-
exhibited as Ex. DW-1/3:
v. Photocopy of certified copy of sale deed dt.
14.10.1986 executed by Sh. Om Prakash in favour
of Sh. Kishan Lal marked as Mark B:
vi. Certified copy of report of patwari for the year
1986-87 vide M.No 291/NTN86 87 as Ex. DWI/4;
vii. Certified copy of proceeding regarding
identification in respect ofKhasra No. 320, Village
Siraspur, Delhi as Ex. DW-1/5
viii.Original order dt. 09.06.09 passed by SDM NarelaDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 15 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:15
+0530
as Ex. DW-1/6:
ix. Photocopy of report of Patwari dt. 03.06.2009 and
photocopy of application for grant of permission
regarding boundary wall marked as Mark C and D;
x. Original of Khasra Girdawari for the year 2007.08and 2008-09(two copies) as Ex. DW-1/7 (colly):
6 Photographs as Ex. DW-1/8 (colly):
(AIl the documents which are exhibited and mark
Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/8 are objected to regarding
the mode of proof and the exhibition of the same)
32.DW-1 has been cross examined at length by the Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff.
33.DW-2 Sh. Hukam Singh, Junior Assistant, Sub
Registrar office was a summoned witness who had
brought the original record of sale deed dated 28.12.2007
and the same is Ex. DW-1/1.
34.DW 3 Sh. Chhattar Pal Singh, Kanungo, Record Room
had brought the mutation record vide misal no.
M790/2007-08 dated 18.01.2008, Village Saraspur
Mukesh Kumar vs Satyawan, the photocopy of the same is
Ex. DW-3/A (colly) (26 pages OSR). The witness was
cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he
deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present
case.
35.DW 4 Sh. O.P. Sayal, Bailiff brought the summoned
record i.e. boundary wall permission dated 09.06.2009
which is Ex. DW-1/6 dated 14.08.2019 from SDM, Alipur
Office, Delhi. The witness was cross examined by the Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no
personal knowledge of the present case. During cross
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 16 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:01
+0530
examination, the witness deposed that the area of Siraspur
is urbanized and there are several residential buildings and
the commercial buildings in the said area. He had not
visited any site.
36.DW 5 Sh. Arvind Kumar, Patwari brought the
summoned record i.e. O-4 register containing O-4 shumar
number 300 of Khata Khatoni no. 497/562 bearing order
dated 18.01.2008 in mishal no. 790/2007-08 in respect of
Khasra no. 320(4-16) Village Siraspur, Delhi from name of
Satyavan s/o Sh.Ved Singh to Sh. Mukesh Kumar s/o Sh.
Daryao Singh, having 24/96 share, which comes to 1 bigha
4 bishwa. Copy of the same is Ex. DW-5/1. The witness
was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he
deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present
case.
37. DW 6 Sh. Sandeep Kadyan, Patwari from SDM office,
Alipur, Delhi brought the register of Khatoni of Village
Siraspur of the year 2003-04. The documents Ex. DW-6/1
to Ex. DW-6/3 were exhibited by him (objected to
regarding the admissibility as well as the mode of proof).
The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge
of the present case.
38. DW 7 Sh. S.N. Bagri, Record Keeper, Kanungo, SDM
office brought the summoned record i.e. report dated
04.09.2009. He stated that he cannot identified the
signature of the person who prepared the report dated
04.09.2009 and the same was marked as mark Y. The
witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff and he deposed that he has no personal knowledge
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 17 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:09
+0530
of the present case.
39.DW 8 Sh. Vikas Kumar, Data Entry Operator, office of
Sub Registrar VI-A, Pitampura brought the certified
copy of sale deed executed by Sh. Kishan Lal in favour of
Sh. Ved Singh registered on 15.12.1997 vide registration
no. 10559 additional book no 1, pages 12 to 18 and the
same was Ex. DW-8/1 (objected to regarding the mode of
proof and admissibility of the document). The witness was
cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and he
deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present
case.
40.DW 9 Sh. Hira Lal, Preservation Assistant, Department
of Delhi Archives brought the summoned record i.e. Sale
Deed dated 14.10.1986 alleged to executed by Om Prakash
in favour of Kishan Lal. The same was Ex. DW-9/1
(objected to regarding mode of proof as original of the
alleged sale deed has not been filed or shown to the
witness). The witness was cross examined by the Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff and he deposed that he has no
personal knowledge of the present case.
41.Thereafter, defendant’s evidence was closed on
28.02.2020.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
42. Detailed arguments have been heard on behalf of both the
parties and written arguments have also been filed.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 3:- Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(OPP)
43. This issue is taken up first being preliminary in nature.
44.To decide this issue, it is necessary to give a brief history
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 18 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:03
+0530
of the proceedings that took place before the court.
Initially, on 15.07.2009, the plaintiff had filed a suit for
seeking simplicitor permanent injunction that the
defendant be restrained from interfering in the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The
defendant filed written statement on 02.09.2009 wherein
he also claimed ownership over the suit property by virtue
of the sale deed dated 28.12.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff
moved an application U/o 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment
of plaint on 18.09.2012 and sought the relief of declaration
that she is owner in possession of the suit property and the
sale deed dated 28.12.2007 alleged to have been executed
by Satyawan in favour of Defendant no.1 in respect of the
suit property is null and void.
45.The defendant no. 1 has taken the objection that the
information regarding the registration of Sale Deed and the
claim of ownership was given to the plaintiff by filing
written statement on 02.09.2009 but the application for
amendment was filed on 18.09.2012 and therefore, the
relief of declaration has become time barred. It is
contended that as per the mandate of article 56/58 of First
schedule of the Limitation Act 1963, the limitation to file a
suit for declaration is 3 years from the date of knowledge
to the plaintiff. After filing of the written statement by the
defendant on 02.09.2009 the plaintiff had knowledge of
the claim of ownership as well as the sale deed in favour of
the defendant no.1. Therefore the plaintiff was obliged to
move an application under order 6 rule 17 CPC within 3
years from 02.09.2009, however the same application was
moved only on 24.09.2012 making the relief of declaration
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 19 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:02
+0530
claimed by the plaintiff as time barred. It is further argued
that if the plaintiff had filed a fresh suit for declaration in
the same nature the suit would have been barred by
limitation therefore the plaintiff could not have sought the
same relief indirectly by way of an application under order
6 rule 17 CPC. Further, it is argued that the plaintiff has
not led any evidence to prove that the suit is not barred by
limitation.
46.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has
advanced arguments that the application under order 6 rule
17 CPC has already been allowed vide order dated
14.10.2014 and the same order has not been challenged. It
is contended that the cause of action is continuing and
therefore the suit is not barred by limitation.
47. At the time of adjudication of the application u/o 6 rule 17
CPC, the defendant had taken the above objections as well.
The court in the order dated 14.10.2014 while allowing the
application U/o 6 rule 17 CPC observed that the question
of limitation was not required to be decided at the stage of
amendment and parties can raise the same during trial.
According, an issue on the question of limitation was
framed by the court on 25.02.2016 and the onus is on the
plaintiff to prove that the suit is within limitation.
48. The present suit is for seeking declaration of ownership as
well as for seeking declaration that the sale deed in favour
of the defendant executed by Sh. Satywan is null and void.
The limitation for filing a suit for declaration is given
under article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and
the same is three years from the time when the right to sue
first accrues. Further, under article 56 to declare the
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 20 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:01
+0530
forgery of an instrument issued or registered, the limitation
is three years from the time when the issue or registration
becomes known to the plaintiff under article 56 of the
Limitation Act. Further, the limitation to cancel or set aside
an instrument is also three years from the time when the
facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled
or set aside, first become known to him under article 59 of
the Limitation Act. Though in the present case, the plaintiff
is seeking declaration that the sale deed/instrument in
favour of the defendant be declared as null and void, the
declaration is in the nature of cancellation of the
instrument or declaration that the instrument is forged,
covered under article 56 or article 59 of the schedule to the
Limitation Act. In both the scenarios the limitation is three
years from the date when the existence of the sale deed
came into the knowledge of the plaintiff. Further the right
to sue for relief of declaration arose in favour of the
plaintiff as soon as a cloud was cast upon the title of the
plaintiff on the filing of the written statement by the
defendant and the limitation for the same is also three
years. Thus, filing of the application for amendment of
plaint after a period of three years from the date of filing of
written statement was time barred.
49.Generally, the doctrine of relation back is applicable to the
amendments allowed by the court as per which it shall be
deemed that once the amendment is allowed, the
amendment in the plaint was there on the date of
institution of the suit itself. However, the general principle
is not applicable universally and has exceptions. No party
can introduce a fresh relief by way of amendment which
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 21 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:02
+0530
he or she cannot do independently by filing a separate suit
because of the reason of bar of limitation. Thus, in the
present case although the amendment has been allowed,
the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that the reliefs
sought by him were within limitation.
50.The Ld. Counsel for the defendant in his written arguments
has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Visham Bhar vs
Lakminarayana, AIR 2001 S.C. 2607, (2001) 6 SCC
163. In this case, the suit was originally filed for seeking
declaration that the sale by the mother of the plaintiffs of
their property while they were minor was void ab initio,
however, later by an amendment a prayer was made that
the sales are voidable and the same be set aside. The trial
court applied the doctrine of relation back and decreed the
suit of the plaintiff as if such a prayer was there on the date
of the institution of suit. The Supreme Court set aside the
judgment of the trial court and held that the suit for setting
aside the transfer could be taken to have been filed on the
date the amendment of the plaint was allowed and not
earlier than that. Relevant excerpts from the judgment are
reproduced for ready reference:-
“Regarding the suit filed by Vishwambhar it was filed within
the prescribed period of limitation but without the prayer for
setting aside the sale deeds. Since the claim for recovery of
possession of the properties alienated could not have been
made without setting aside the sale deeds the suit as initially
filed was not maintainable. By the date the defect was
rectified (December, 1985) by introducing such a prayer by
amendment of the plaint the prescribed period of limitation
for seeking such a relief had elapsed. In the circumstances
the amendment of the plaint could not come to the rescue of
the plaintiff.
From the averments of the plaint it cannot be said that all the
necessary averments for setting aside the sale deeds executedDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 22 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:06
+0530
by Laxmibai were contained in the plaint and adding specific
prayer for setting aside the sale deeds was a mere formality.
As noted earlier, the basis of the suit as it stood before the
amendment of the plaint was that the sale transactions made
by Laxmibai as guardian of the minors were ab initio void
and, therefore, liable to be ignored. By introducing the
prayer for setting aside the sale deeds the basis of the suit
was changed to one seeking setting aside the alienations of
the property by the guardian. In such circumstance the suit
for setting aside the transfers could be taken to have been
filed on the date the amendment of the plaint was allowed
and not earlier than that.”
51.Another landmark judgment on this subject is in the case
of Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu and Anr, AIR 2002
S.C. 3369, (2002) 7 SCC 559. In this case, the plaintiff
had originally filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging
possession over the suit property. However, once the
defendant pleaded that he was in possession, the plaintiff
after a period of 11 years after the filing of the suit sought
to amend the suit and also seek relief of declaration of title
and consequential relief of recovery of possession. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the amendment
incorporating the relief of declaration of title and recovery
of possession only from the date of application for
amendment and not on the date of filing of the suit.
52.Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Nawal Kishore Mehta @ Nawal Mehta vs. Shashi
Bansal @ Babli, 2014 IV AD(Delhi) 409. The facts of the
case were that a suit for declaration, injunction and
recovery of arrears of rent was filed by the plaintiff and
plea was taken that relief of declaration that the documents
of the defendant were forged and fabricated was time
barred. Prior to filing of civil suit, proceedings before the
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 23 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:57
+0530
Additional Rent Controller took place wherein the
defendant had filed a written statement but the final order
of the court of Additional Rent Controller was passed later.
It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that the limitation
to seek declaration that the documents relied upon by the
defendant were forged and fabricated began to run only
when the final judgment of the Additional Rent Controller
was passed and not from the date of the filing of the
written statement. It was held that until the conclusion of
the proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller, the
cause of action in favour of the plaintiff was continuing.
The facts of this case are distinguishable from the instant
case. Herein there is no on-going previous proceedings and
the cause of action to sue arose when cloud was cast upon
the title of the plaintiff by filing of the written statement by
the defendant on 02.09.2009.
53.The facts of the case in Sampath Kumar (Supra) are
similar to the facts of the instant case. In this case also the
original suit was filed on 15.07.2009 and despite taking of
defence of ownership and possession in the written
statement filed on 02.09.2009, the plaintiff sought
amendment to the suit through an application u/o 6 rule 17
CPC only on 24.09.2012 which was beyond the period of
three years from the date of knowledge of the sale deed in
favour of the defendant as well as knowledge of the cloud
being cast on the title of the plaintiff.
54.The rights of the defendant acquired under law of
limitation cannot be extinguished through an amendment.
If on 24.09.2012 the plaintiff could not have filed a suit for
seeking declaration of ownership and that the sale deed in
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 24 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:00
+0530
favour of the defendant is null and void for the reason that
the same was barred by limitation, he cannot seek the same
relief through an amendment in the existing suit. In such a
case, the amendment must be taken to be from the date of
amendment and not prior to that. In view of the discussion
above this court is of the view that the doctrine of relation
back cannot apply to the amendment allowed vide order
dated 14.10.2014 and the same must be treated as if the
relief was sought only on 24.09.2012 on which date it was
barred by limitation.
55.For the reasons stated above, it is held that the plaintiff has
failed to prove that the relief of declaration is claimed
within limitation. Further without claiming the relief of
declaration, the original suit filed for simplicitor injunction
was not maintainable. Therefore, issue no. 3 is decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 4:- Whether this court has no pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? (OPD)
56. The onus of proving this issue is on the defendant. The
defendant has contended that he purchased the suit
property by virtue of the sale deed dated 28.12.2007 and
has paid the stamp duty on Rs. 4,40,000/-. It is argued that
the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration that the said
Sale Deed be declared as Null and Void and further the
plaintiff be declared an owner of the suit property and
therefore, the plaintiff was required to value the suit
property on the market value which is not less than Rs.
4,40,000/.
57.The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court
fee and jurisdiction and for the relief of declaration at Rs.
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 25 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:55
+0530
200/- each and for the relief of injunction at Rs. 130/-.
58.Arguments on the issue of valuation of the subject matter
of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction as well as court
fees have been heard on behalf of both the parties. In this
regard, it is submitted on behalf of defendant that the
plaintiff has failed to prove that she is in physical
possession of the suit property and therefore she was
obliged to seek the consequential relief of possession and
value the suit accordingly. Further it is argued that the
plaintiff is seeking declaration that the sale deed in favour
of the defendant be declared as null and void. The sale
deed dated 18.12.2007 is for a consideration amount of Rs.
4,40,000/- and the plaintiff was required to value the suit
for the purposes of court fees as well as jurisdiction at the
said amount in the plaint. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel
for the plaintiff has advanced arguments that the plaintiff is
in possession of the suit property and therefore, the
plaintiff was not required to value the suit at the market
value of the suit property for the purposes of jurisdiction as
well as court fees.
59.At the cost of reiteration it is necessary to state the reliefs
being sought by the plaintiff: –
“A. Pass a decree for declaration in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants;
i. Thereby declaring/holding that the plaintiff is
owner and in possession of the remaining piece of
land measuring 1200 sq yards.
ii. Thereby declaring/holding that the sale deed
dated 28.12.2007 alleged to have been executed by
Sh. Satyawan in favour of the defendant in respectDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 26 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:08
+0530
of the suit property is null and void and has no
binding effect on the rights of ownership of plaintiff
over the said land.
B. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in
favour of plaintiff and against the defendants thereby
restraining the defendants from interfering in the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit
property”.
60.The court fees in a case for a declaratory decree and
consequential relief is determined by Section 7 (iv) (c) of
the Court Fees Act. Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees
Act is reproduced for ready reference:-
“Section 7 (iv) (c): to obtain a declaratory decree
or order, where consequential relief is prayed;
According to the amount at which the relief
sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of
appeal.
Provided further that in suits coming under sub
clause (c), in cases where the relief sought is in
with reference to any property such valuation
shall not be less than the value of the property
calculated in the manner provided for sub clause
(v) of this Section.”
61.The present suit is for seeking declaration that the plaintiff
be declared as owner of the suit property and that the
documents i.e. the sale deed covering immovable property
are void and consequential reliefs are being sought.
Therefore, the present suit is with reference to property
and therefore, the valuation for the purposes of court fees
shall not be less than the value calculated under section 7
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 27 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:10
+0530
(v) of the Court Fees Act. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case
of Purshottam Dass and Ors. Vs. Har Narain and Anr,
AIR 1978 Delhi 114. In this case, a suit for declaration
that a Will was null and void was filed on behalf of the
plaintiff, and it was held that the relief being sought was in
essence in relation to an immovable property.
62.Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced for
ready reference:
“53. The question arises as to what are those properties and
whether they are covered within the meaning of word
“property” as stated in the proviso. As noticed earlier, in the
averments in the plaint, the property covered by the will
relates to immovable property of Ramdwara and the
properties attached thereto as well as agricultural land and
cash. It is the title to these properties which the defendants
claim by virtue of the will which is being disputed by the
plaintiffs. The immovable property and the agricultural land
are certainly properties within the meaning of the second
proviso and their valuation can be calculated in the manner
provided by clause (v) of Section 7. The title of the
defendants to the cash covered by the will is not within the
purview of the expression “any property” in the second
proviso but that does not mean that the said proviso would
cease to be applicable completely because “cash” is the part
of the property in relation to the relief sought.
54. The question then arises how the suit will be valued
where part of the relief sought is with reference to the
expression “any property” covered by the second proviso
and partly not covered by it. The second proviso would be
applicable to the extent where the relief sought is with
reference to “any property” within the meaning of the second
proviso and the valuation of the suit in relation to “any
property” not covered by the proviso will be governed by the
substantive part of this statutory provision, namely Section
7(iv)(c) but it cannot be said that the second proviso would
be totally inapplicable. It would still be applicable to the
extent the relief sought is with reference to any property
within the meaning of the second provision”
63.In the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh &
Ors Supra also it has been held that when a consequential
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 28 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:59
+0530
relief alongwith relief of declaration is sought, the court
fee shall be computed accordingly to the amount at which
the relief sought is valued in the plaint u/s 7 (iv) (c) of the
Court Fees Act. The proviso to it makes it clear that when
the declaration with consequential relief is with reference
to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the
value of the property calculated in the manner provided for
by clause (v) of Section 7.
64.In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking decree of
declaration alongwith relief of permanent injunction. The
relief of permanent injunction is consequential to the relief
of declaration as the same cannot be sought independently
and flows directly from the decree of declaration.
Therefore, the present case is covered by section 7 (iv) (c)
of the Court Fees Act.
65.Further, even if the relief of declaration is taken to be
independent and it is considered that the relief of
permanent injunction is not consequential, then also the
plaintiff was required to value the suit for the purposes of
jurisdiction at the market value of the suit property. In this
regard, reliance is placed upon Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi Rules in Volume I, Chaper III, Part C wherein Rule
no.7 is as follows:
“Suits in which the plaintiff in the plaint asks for a
mere declaration without any consequential relief in
respect of property other than assessed to land
revenue.
Value – (a) For the purposes of the Court-fees Act,
1887, as determined by the Act.
(b) For the purposes of the Suits Valuation Act,
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 29 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:04
+0530
1887, and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – the market
value of the property in dispute, at the date of
institution of the suit, subject to the provisions of
Part I of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the rules
in force under the said Part, so far as those
provisions are applicable”.
66. Therefore, even when only relief of declaration is sought,
the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction is at the
market value of the suit property only. In such a scenario
when only declaration is sought without any consequential
relief, the plaintiff may pay fixed court fees but still the
suit is to be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at the
market value of the suit property only. But the facts of this
case are different, the plaintiff is also seeking
consequential reliefs which flow from the primary relief of
declaration.
67. Further, the relief of declaration that the sale deed be
declared null and void is in the nature of relief of
cancellation of sale deed and in this regard Rule 10 of Part
C, Chapter III of the Delhi High Court rules is applicable
and the valuation for the purposes of the jurisdiction is at
the value of the subject matter of the suit. In this case, the
consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed dated
28.12.2007 (Ex. DW-1/1) is Rs. 4,40,000/- and the
plaintiff was required to value the suit for the purposes of
court fees as well as jurisdiction at the said amount.
68. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, this Court
finds that the plaintiff has not valued the suit for the relief
of declaration as well as consequential reliefs correctly and
the calculation of the plaintiff of the valuation of the suit
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 30 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:11
+0530
for the purposes of jurisdiction as well as court fees is
grossly inadequate. If the plaintiff had valued the suit
correctly for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 4,40,000/-,
the same would have been beyond the pecuniary
jurisdiction of this court i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/-. The plaintiff
was in knowledge of this defence taken by the defendant
and an issue regarding the same was also framed by the
court. But she did not take any steps to correct the
valuation.
69. In view of the discussion above, defendant has
successfully proved that this court has no pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Accordingly, issue
no. 4 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the
defendant.
ISSUE NO. 5:- Whether jurisdiction of this court is
barred by virtue of section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms
Act? (OPD)
70. The Defendant has raised preliminary objection that the
present suit is not maintainable before the civil court as the
suit property is an agricultural land and the plaintiff ought
to apply for demarcation to the Revenue Authorities. Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff has advanced arguments that the
suit property ceased to be a rural area vide notification of
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi dated 23.04.1982.
Copy of the notification has been placed on record and it is
submitted that the area falls in Revenue Estate, Badli,
North Zone. Further, vide notification dated 16.05.2017 at
Sr. no. 46, Village Siraspur ceased to be a rural area. In this
regard, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has placed reliance upon
several judgments wherein Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 31 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:11
+0530
has held that once the land has been urbanized, proceedings
under Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 would not be
maintainable.
71. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has
advanced the arguments that at the time of filing of the suit,
the village Siraspur was not urbanized. He submitted that
in the notifications placed on record by the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff itself, it is clear that the name of village Siraspur is
not mentioned in the notification dated 23.04.1982 and as
per the notification date 16.05.2017, the area was
urbanized only in 2017. It is contended that if village
Siraspur was already urbanized in 1982, there was no
requirement for the government to issue another
notification for urbanization of the same in 2017. In this
regard, he has placed on record a copy of an Unstarred
question no. 678 taken up in the Lok Sabha with respect to
urbanization of villages which was answered on
05.03.2002 that village Siraspur has been recommended for
urbanization, however Government of Delhi is yet to
approve the proposal. Therefore, it is contended that at the
time of filing of the suit, there was no notification with
respect to urbanization of the suit property.
72. In the written arguments filed on behalf of defendant, it is
submitted that the present suit is with respect to the
declaration of Plaintiff’s Bhumidari rights which issue can
be decided only by the revenue authorities and the
jurisdiction of the civil court is barred u/s 185 r/w schedule
I, Article 4/18/19 of DLR Act.
73. The case of the plaintiff has been that the suit property is
not an agricultural land, and no cultivation has been carried
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 32 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:13
+0530
out on the land for last many years. Witnesses PW 2, PW 3
as well as DW 4 deposed before the court that there are
residential houses around the suit property and there is one
Gurudwara on one side. DW 4 deposed that the area of
Siraspur is urbanized. When the notification with respect to
urbanization of village Siraspur had already been passed,
whether in the year 1982 or in the year 2017, at present no
revenue authority has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the present issue. It is only a civil court which can decide
upon the issue of ownership on the basis of title of the
parties. The present suit is filed based on sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff and this court has the jurisdiction to
decide the same being not expressly barred by any law.
74. Further, it is important to note that the suit property has lost
the character of an agricultural land for the last several
years. All the witnesses who have been questioned upon
the aspect of existence of residential properties except the
defendant himself have unanimously answered that there
are residences in existence in the vicinity of the suit
property. Therefore, it is evident that the user of the land is
as residential and not agricultural. It is the defendant alone
who has stated before the court that the land was being
used for cultivation of jowar however no evidence has been
led by the defendant in support of his submission. Further
in the sale deed Ex. DW1/1 in favour of the defendant it
has been mentioned that the defendant has purchased the
land for residential purpose. Therefore, in view of the
current user of the land as residential and also existence of
a notification urbanising the suit property this court holds
that provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act are not
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 33 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:05
+0530
applicable, and the jurisdiction of this court is not barred.
Accordingly, issue no. 5 is decided against the defendant
and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration as prayed for in prayer no. (i) and (ii) of the
amended plaint? (OPP).
75. Although the suit for the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed
in view of the findings on issue no. 3 and 4, however, in
view of rule 2 order XIV, the court must pronounce
judgment on all the issues notwithstanding that a case may
be disposed of on a preliminary issue.
76. The plaintiff has successfully proved the sale deed Ex.
PW-1/2(OSR) executed in his favour by Sh. Om Prakash
on 14.10.1986 registered on 14.11.1986 in respect of a
piece of land measuring 2340 sq yards out of khasra no.
320 of village Siraspur, Delhi by producing the original
sale deed as well as by examining PW4, the Registrar and
PW-6 Sh. Pramod, the son of the vendor Sh. Omprakash
who identified the signatures of his father on the sale deed
Ex. PW-1/2.
77. The plaintiff’s case is that out of 2340 sq yards she
donated 400 sq yards of property to the gurudwara Shri
Guru Singh Sabha (Reg) and 740 sq yards was acquired by
the Government for construction of road. The plaintiff has
not led any documentary evidence to prove the same. PW-
2 and PW-3 officials on behalf of the gurudwara
committee have been examined who stated that the
plaintiff had donated land measuring 400 sq yards to the
gurudwara however no details regarding the mode of
donation have been mentioned. Further, PW-1, PW-2 and
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 34 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:07
+0530
PW-3 unanimously deposed that there are no documents
evidencing the said donation of land. Further no document
regarding acquiring of any portion of the plaintiff’s land
by the government has been placed on record. Under
section 122 and Section 123 of the Transfer of Property
Act, a gift of immovable property must be affected by
registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor
and attested by at least two witnesses. Therefore, no gift
with respect to an immovable property can be made orally
and requires registration and attestation by at least two
witnesses. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff that she
donated/gifted land measuring 400 sq yards to the
gurudwara cannot be accepted in the eyes of law.
78. Further, the acquisition of land measuring 740 sq yards
without any kind of documents, cannot be believed.
Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that land
measuring 400 sq yards was donated to the gurudwara and
that land measuring 740 sq yards was acquired by the
government.
79. In the sale deed of the plaintiff, Ex. PW-1/2 it is stated that
the property measuring 2340 sq yards under sale is
bounded as under:-
North- property of Budhan,
South- Property of Surender Kumar,
West-Road,
East- Property of Bodhan Singh.
80.Ever since the purchase of the land measuring 2340 sq
yards in 1986 the plaintiff has not constructed the same
and there is no demarcation of the land of the plaintiff.
Further, there is not a single revenue entry in favour of the
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 35 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:59
+0530
plaintiff. Now the plaintiff has filed the present suit for
declaration of ownership with respect to a portion of 1200
sq yards out of 2340 sq yards. The plaintiff has not led any
evidence to prove that she is in possession of the portion
shown in red in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1. In the site plan
the cardinal directions are not given. Assuming that top is
north, the red portion is bounded by the following
properties: –
North- Others built up plots,
South- Road 20 feet wide,
West- Built up gurudwara
East- Road 30 feet wide.
81. There is no evidence led on behalf of plaintiff to ascertain
that in the khasra no. 320 the plaintiff is the owner in
possession of the land as shown in red in the site plan and
it is the same property which the plaintiff had acquired
vide sale deed Ex. PW-1/2. The boundaries of the
properties as mentioned in the sale deed and the site plan
do not match. The plaintiff has failed to prove that her
property was acquired by the Government for construction
of the road or that the gurudwara shown on the West side
of the suit property is constructed on land originally
owned by her. Further, it is not stated who is the owner of
the adjoining plot in the north of the suit property.
82. The cross examination of PW 1 dated 26.04.2016 is
relevant in this regard and important excerpts are
reproduced for ready reference:-
“I did not get the demarcation of the said plot done
from the said authorities. Till date, I have not made
enquiry regarding the aforesaid facts. The land whichDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 36 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:04
+0530
is acquired by the government was from my plot. I did
not file any document regarding this. I did not write
any letter to the authority for issuance of land
acquisition letter in my favour. There is no gift deed of
the land regarding the donation of the land to the
Gurudwara. I did not receive any compensation in
respect of the land acquired by the government. I have
not filed any case against the government to claim
compensation for the land acquired by the
government. I do not have any document to show that
I donated 400 sq yards land to gurudwara. I cannot
tell month and year of donation of land.
At this stage, site plan Ex. PW-1/1 is shown to the
witness and she is asked whose property is behind the
suit property to which the witness replied that she does
not know….
I applied to the Revenue Department for mutation. The
mutation of the property was done in our name. I do
not know whether documents regarding mutation of
the suit property have been filed or not. It is wrong to
suggest that our mutation application was rejected
and that is the reason for not filing mutation document
in the court record”.
83. From the cross examination of the plaintiff, it is clear that
plaintiff is not aware as to who is the owner of the
adjoining plot and she could not give satisfactory answer
with respect to either the gift made to the gurudwara or
acquisition of property by government for construction of
road. As per the sale deed Ex. PW-1/2 the area of 2340 sq
yards was bounded by road on only one side and was
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 37 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:15
+0530
bound by properties of other persons on other sides. The
property shown in the site plan is bounded by roads on two
sides and others properties on two sides. Plaintiff has not
proved that the property i.e. one of the roads and the
gurudwara are built upon the property originally owned by
her. Without any identification of the property to be the
same property which has been acquired by the plaintiff
under the sale deed, no decree of declaration that the
plaintiff is owner of the portion shown in red in the site
plan Ex. PW1/1 can be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
84. The plaintiff has also sought declaration that the sale deed
in favour of the defendant dated 28.12.2007 be declared as
null and void. From the perusal of the record as well as the
evidence led by the parties, it appears that Sh. Om
Prakash, the common previous owner from whom both the
parties derive title had executed two sale deeds with
respect to two portions of land out of khasra no. 320,
village Siraspur on the same day. The defendant has
produced on record the certified copy of the original sale
deed dated 14.10.1986 executed by Sh.Om Prakash in
favour of Kishan Lal Ex. DW-9/1. The said sale deed is of
the same date as in the favour of the plaintiff i.e.
14.10.1986 and the same was also registered on the same
date i.e. 14.11.1986. This sale deed is pertaining to 1200
sq yards of land out of khasra no. 320 of village Siraspur
and is stated to be bounded as under:-
North-Property of Nand Lal
South-Property of Usha Rani
West- Road
East-Property of Budhan SinghDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 38 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:12
+0530
85. From the description of the boundaries itself, it is apparent
that the sale deed is with respect to a different property
than which is described in the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff. Originally, the plaintiff had taken the stance that
the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the
defendant i.e. Sh. Kishan Lal is of a date subsequent to the
date of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and
therefore, the same was void. It was argued that after the
sale in favour of the plaintiff, the original owner Sh. Om
Prakash was not left with any interest in the property to
transfer the same in favour of the defendant. However,
after leading of evidence by both the parties it is clear that
the sale deeds in favour of plaintiff and Sh. Kishan Lal
were executed on the same date by Sh. Om Prakash and
they pertain to different portions of land out of Khasra no.
320.
86. At the stage of cross examination of Sh. Mukesh Kumar,
DW-1 i.e. the defendant, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
has put suggestion to him that it is correct that Sh. Om
Prakash owned a plot of land measuring 4840 sq yards i.e.
4 bigha 16 biswa in khasra no. 320 situated in village
Siraspur and the defendant admitted it to be correct. The
defendant deposed that after getting the certified copies of
the sale deeds he came to know that on 14.11.1986 two
sale deeds got registered before the Sub Registrar i.e. one
sale deed related to one plot land measuring 2340 sq yards
which was sold by Sh. Om Prakash to Ms. Ravi Tej Kaur
i.e. the plaintiff and another sale deed relating to 1200 sq
yards sold by Sh. Om Prakash to Kishan Lal. He further
deposed that it is apparent from the revenue record thatDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 39 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:14
+0530
after selling the land to the plaintiff and defendant no. 1
the previous owner still had a share of 1260 sq yards
available with him.
87.Thus, from the cross examination of the defendant, it is
clear that it is an admitted case of both parties that Sh. Om
Prakash was owner of a land measuring 4840 sq yards out
of khasra no. 320, village Siraspur and it is legally and
factually possible that he executed two sale deeds, one for
a plot of land measuring 2340 sq yards in favour of the
plaintiff and one for a plot of land measuring 1200 sq
yards in favour of Sh. Kishan Lal. Therefore, both the sale
deeds can stand in law and it cannot be said that one is
void because the same was executed subsequently.
88.The defendant has further produced on record the certified
copy of the sale deed dated 15.12.1997 executed by Sh.
Kishan Lal in favour of Sh. Ved Singh and the same is
exhibited by the witness on behalf of the Registrar DW-8
as exhibit DW-8/1. Further, it is the case of the defendant
that Sh. Satyawan s/o Sh. Ved Singh inherited the suit
property from his father and he purchased the same from
Sh. Satyawan through a sale deed Ex. DW-1/1 dated
28.12.2007. The original of the sale deed was produced by
the defendant during his examination and the registration
of the same was proved by DW-2 who brought the original
record of registration of the same.
89.The counsel for the defendant has advanced arguments that
it is not explained by the defendant how Sh. Satyawan
inherited the property of his father Sh. Ved Singh. It is
contended that no Will in favour of Satyawan or any kind
of relinquishment by other family members in favour of
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 40 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:14
+0530
Satyawan has been placed on record. Further, it has been
argued that Sh. Ved Singh during his lifetime has already
sold some portions of the land measuring 1200 sq yards to
different persons and therefore Sh. Satyawan could not
have inherited the 1200 sq yards of land.
90.In this regard the plaintiff has summoned the record of
registration of a Will (Ex. PW-7/A) dated 02.11.1988
executed by Sh. Ved Singh in favour of Naresh Kumar in
respect of plot no. 6, 8 and 10 measuring 306 sq yards out
of total land measuring 1200 sq yards out of khasra no.
320 situated in the area of village Siraspur. On the same
date, there was registry of GPA(Ex. PW-7/B) executed by
Sh. Ved Singh in favour of Naresh Kumar. Thus, on the
basis of the alleged registration of GPA and Will by Sh.
Ved Singh in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar it is argued that
Sh. Ved Singh was not left with the entire portion of 1200
sq yards which Sh. Satyawan could have inherited from his
father.
91.It is a settled law that mere execution of Will and GPA
with respect to a property is not a valid transfer of
property. But it is argued that now that Sh. Ved Singh has
expired the Will executed by him in favour of Sh. Naresh
Kumar has taken effect. The plaintiff never averred in his
plaint about the existence of these documents and there
was no opportunity for the defendant to specifically deny
the same. However, during the exhibition of the documents
they have been objected to on mode of proof. It was upon
the plaintiff to prove the Will allegedly executed by Sh.
Ved Singh in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar. Apart from the
witness who proved the registration of the Will, the
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 41 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:59
+0530
plaintiff has examined the son of Sh. Naresh Kumar
namely Sh. Vikas Tushir who was examined as PW-8.
During his examination in chief, the witness did not
identify the signatures of his father Sh. Naresh Kumar on
the documents Ex. PW-7/A and Ex. PW-7/B. Further the
witness was shown his earlier statement recorded in the
court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate wherein he had
earlier identified the signatures of his father on the said
documents but the witness deposed that at the time of
recording of statement before the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate, no documents were shown to him and he stated
that he did not identify the signatures of his father on any
document. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove
conclusively that Sh. Ved Singh had executed the Will
dated 02.11.1988 in favour of Naresh Kumar.
92.The defendant has produced his original sale deed Ex.
DW-1/1 and has summoned the record of registration of
previous sale deeds in the chain through which he is
claiming to be the owner. Further, the defendant has
brought on record the entire history of revenue entries
made in favour of firstly Sh. Kishan Lal on purchase of the
property measuring 1200 sq yards out of khasra no. 320 in
village Siraspur in 1986, then in favour of Sh. Ved Singh
after execution of sale deed dated 15.12.1997, then in
favour of Sh. Satyawan after death of Sh. Ved Singh dated
14.06.2007 and lastly entry in favour of Sh. Mukesh
Kumar i.e. the defendant dated 14.07.2009.
93.It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff that the defendant has not conclusively proved the
entire chain of documents in his favour as he failed to
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 42 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:10
+0530
produce the originals and also examine witnesses to prove
the same. Further, it is argued that the existence of revenue
entries in favour of the defendant does not prove the title
of the defendant.
94.While appreciating evidence led by both the parties it is
important to keep in mind that the initial onus to prove her
case is upon the plaintiff. Firstly the plaintiff was required
to lead conclusive evidence that she is owner in possession
of the suit property. Any lack of evidence led on behalf of
the defendant cannot come to the rescue of the plaintiff in
proving her case as the plaintiff is required to stand on her
own legs. Therefore, in my view the defendant was not
required to prove the entire chain of documents through
which he is claiming ownership since 1986. It was for the
plaintiff to bring some cogent evidence on record to prove
that the sale deed Ex. DW-1/1 is forged and fabricated.
95.It is settled position of law that revenue entries are only a
prima facie proof of possession and do not confer any title
on the defendant merely on the basis of the same. In this
case, the defendant has also successfully proved the
registered sale deed in his favour Ex. DW-1/1. If the
evidence led on behalf of both the parties is weighed, the
balance is in favour of the defendant.
96.Therefore, in this case to seek decree of declaration of
ownership of the suit property as well as the decree that the
sale deed in favour of the defendant is null and void, the
plaintiff was required to lead positive evidence and
discharge the burden of proof on the scale of
preponderance of probabilities. In view of the discussion in
the foregoing paragraphs this court is of the view that the
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 43 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:13
+0530
plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the owner of the
portion marked in red as shown in the site plan Ex. PW-
1/1. Further, the plaintiff also failed to make out a case
why the sale deed in favour of the defendant must be
declared null and void. Therefore, issue no. 1 is decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of
permanent injunction as sought in prayer clause B ?
(OPP)
97.The relief of permanent injunction is consequential to the
relief of declaration. In view of the finding that the
plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration, the
plaintiff is also not entitled to relief of permanent
injunction. Before parting with this issue, it is also
necessary to note that the present suit is with respect to an
open plot of land. The possession as well as title of the
plaintiff has been denied by the defendant and the
defendant has also raised the claim that he is owner in
possession of the suit property. In such a case, it has been
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Anathulla Sudhakar vs P. Buchhi Reddi, AIR 2008,
Supreme Court, 2033 that if two persons claim to be in
possession of a vacant site one who is able to establish title
thereto will be considered to be in possession as against
the person who is not able to establish title. In cases of
vacant plot of lands, possession always follows title. Since
the plaintiff has failed to prove title over the suit property,
she cannot be said to be in possession of the same.
98.Accordingly, issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiff and
in favour of the defendant.
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 44 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:00
+0530
ISSUE NO. 6 Whether the defendant has better title over
the suit land as alleged on the basis of sale document
dated 27.12.2007 or 28.12.2007 ? (OPD)
99.In view of the discussion on the issue no. 1, it is evident
that the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff as well as the
defendant are permissible factually as well as legally. To
say that the defendant has better title over the suit property,
the defendant was also required to prove that the land
mentioned in his sale deed is the same land as shown in the
site plan of the plaintiff Ex. PW-1/1. In this case, the
defendant has not filed any site plan on record and from
the pleadings of the parties as well as report of the local
commissioner, it is clear that the property in question is an
open plot of land which is bound by roads on two sides
and built up portion on other two sides.
100. In the sale deed in favour of the defendant Ex. DW-1/1 the
property under sale is described as 24/96 share agricultural
land measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas out of khasra no.
320(4/16) situated in the revenue estate of village Siraspur,
Delhi-110042 as per the revenue record. In the sale deed
there is no description of the boundaries of the suit
property and there is no site plan attached alongwith the
same. Therefore, just by the perusal of the sale deed it
cannot be said that it is the suit property which is under
sale in the same.
101. In a case when there is a dispute with respect to a vacant
plot of land, demarcation of the suit property was
necessary. The defendant has placed on record one
demarcation report dated 04.09.2009 Ex. DW-1/5 showing
that the corner plot in the map in the report bounded by
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 45 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:12
+0530
roads on two sides is owned and possessed by the
defendant. However, the demarcation report Ex. DW-1/5
has not been proved by the defendant as per law. The
defendant was required to either examine the author of the
report or a person who identifies the signatures or
handwriting of the person who prepared the report.
Witness DW-7 was examined to prove the report however
during his examination he stated that he cannot identify the
signatures of the person who prepared the report dated
04.09.2009. Therefore, in my view the defendant could not
prove the demarcation report.
102. Further, the defendant has also adduced evidence to prove
that he was allowed to construct a boundary wall on land
in khasra no. 320(1-4) situated in the village Siraspur vide
order of the SDM, Narela Delhi dated 09.06.2009 Ex. DW-
1/6. This order has been duly proved by the defendant by
examining witness DW-4. However, alongwith this order
also there is no site plan to ascertain on which portion of
land in the entire khasra 320, the permission to construct a
boundary wall has been granted in favour of the defendant.
Admittedly at present no boundary wall exists on the suit
property.
103. After considering the evidence led by the defendant, I am
of the view that the defendant has also failed to lead
conclusive evidence to prove that the suit property as
shown in red in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1 is the same
property which is purchased by him through sale deed Ex.
DW-1/1. First and foremost reason is that in the sale deed
executed by Sh. Om Prakash in favour of Sh. Kishan
Chand Ex. DW-9/1, the land measuring 1200 sq yards is
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 46 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:55
+0530
stated to be bound by road on the west side and properties
of other persons on the other three sides. Further, in the
sale deed executed by Sh. Kishan Chand in favour of Sh.
Ved Singh Ex. DW-8/1, also the land measuring 1200 sq
yards is stated to be bound by road on the West side and
others property on the remaining three sides. Now, in the
sale deed in favour of the defendant, no description of the
boundaries of the properties has been given. The suit
property is two side open plot of land i.e. there is road on
the two sides and there is others built up property on the
other two sides. Thus, the description does not match with
the description of the property in the previous sale deeds in
the chain through which the defendant claims to be owner.
During his cross examination on 14.08.2019 the defendant
has clearly identified that a plot of land having two sides
open was shown to him for purchase. Therefore, it is clear
that it is an admitted position that the suit property is
having two sides open.
104. Therefore, in my view the defendant has also failed to
prove that the suit property is the same property which is
under sale in his sale deed Ex. DW-1/1. In a case of an
open plot of land it was necessary for the defendant to
prove the demarcation of the suit property in his favour
which he has failed to prove. In view of the discussion
above, in my view, it cannot be said that the defendant has
a better title over the suit property on the basis of the sale
document dated 27.12.2007. Therefore, issue no. 6 is
decided against the defendant and in favour of the
plaintiff.
Digitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 47 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:26:02
+0530
ISSUE NO. 7:-Relief
105. Considering the findings on issue no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the
suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Due to lack
of cogent evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim, this
Court finds that the plaintiff has not met the burden of
proof required to establish her entitlement to the relief
sought in the suit. Therefore, the reliefs sought by the
plaintiff, namely, declaration and permanent injunction
cannot be granted.
106. In view thereof, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order
as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance. Digitally signed
NAINA by NAINA
GUPTA
GUPTA 2025.04.09
Date:
13:30:07 +0530
(Announced in the open Court) (NAINA GUPTA)
th
on 08 April, 2025 ASCJ-JSCC-GJ (NORTH-WEST)
ROHINI COURTS DELHIDigitally signed
Suit No.59967/2016 Ravi Tej Kaur Vs Mukesh Kumar Etc. 48 of 48 by NAINA
NAINA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.04.09
13:25:57
+0530