SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

In The Matter Of :­ vs Sh. Amar Singh on 30 July, 2018

Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.


SUIT NO. :­ 65/2015
UNIQUE CASE ID NO. :­ 611840/2016

Smt. Ashok Kumari
W/o Sh. Jai Prakash
R/o B­87, MIG Phase­IV,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi­110052. ….Plaintiff


1. Sh. Amar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Bidha Ram
R/o 6754, Third Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,

2. Smt. Maya Devi
W/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o 6754, Fourth Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,

3. Sh. Vikas @ Vicky
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 1 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

R/o 6754, Third Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,

4. Sh. Deepak @ Ganesh @ Goldy
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o 6754, Fourth Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,

5. Sh. Vijay @ Kalu
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o 6754, Fourth Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,

6. Sh. Sanjay @ Chocha
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Singh
R/o 6754, Fourth Floor,
Block No.10, Street No.2,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
Delhi. ….Defendants


Date of institution of the Suit : 06/07/2012
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 04/07/2018
Date of Judgment : 30/07/2018

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 2 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.


By   way   of   present   judgment,   this   court   shall   conscientiously

adjudicate   upon   suit   for   possession,   damages/   mesne   profit   and

permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The

plaintiff has prayed for passing a decree of possession in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the suit property i.e.

third floor and fourth floor of the property bearing no. 6754, Block No.

10, Street No.2, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi, shown in red colour in

the   site   plan.   The   plaintiff   has   also   prayed   for   passing   a   decree   of

damages/   mesne   profits   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff   and   against   the

defendants @ Rs.12,000/­ per month w.e.f. May 2010 to May 2012 i.e.

total   amount   of   Rs.2,88,000/­   to   onwards   i.e.   till   handing   over   the

peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has

also prayed for passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of

the   plaintiff   and   against   the   defendants   thereby   restraining   the

defendants,   their   associates,   attorneys,   beneficiary,   legal   heirs,

representatives,   agents,   servants   etc.   from   creating   any   third   party

interest in the suit property.

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 3 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.


Succinctly the necessary facts for just adjudication of the present suit,

as stated in the plaint, are as under:­

(i) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of third floor and fourth

floor   (Barsati)   of   the   built­up   property   measuring   45   sq.

yds.   bearing   no.   6754,   Block   No.10,   Street   No.2,   Dev

Nagar,   Karol   Bagh,   Delhi   vide   Sale   Deed   dated

10/03/1993 (which was in the joint name of the plaintiff

and his brother namely Sh. Naveen Kumar) and registered

partition deed dated 04/05/2012.  

(ii) The  defendant  no.1  is  the  natural  father  of  the  plaintiff,

who gave the plaintiff in adoption in her childhood to one

Sh. Giri Raj Kishore and since the childhood, the plaintiff

is living in the society as daughter of Sh. Giri Raj Kishore.

Defendant no.2 is wife of the brother (natural brother) of

the plaintiff namely Sh.Rajender Singh and whereas, the

defendant nos. 3 to 6 are the sons of Sh. Rajender Singh.

Defendant no.1 alongwith defendant no.3 and his wife 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 4 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

namely   Smt.   Neetu   are   living   at   the   third   floor   of   the   property   of

plaintiff except one room wherein one tenant of the plaintiff is residing.

The defendant nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are residing at the fourth floor of the

said   property.     The   suit   property   i.e.   third   and   fourth   floors   of   the

property bearing no. 6754, Block No.10, Street No.2, Dev Nagar, Karol

Bagh, Delhi except one room (shown in green colour) on the third floor

which is in possession of the tenant of the plaintiff, is shown in red

colour in the site plan.  

(iii) In the month of April 1998, the plaintiff had borrowed a

sum   of   Rs.1,50,000/­   from   the   defendant   no.1   against

which the plaintiff gave the possession of the suit property

to   the   defendant   no.1   and   his   family   members/   other

defendants and it was agreed that the defendant would not

pay any rent against using the suit property and on the

rent   against   using   the   suit   property   and   on   the   other

hand, the plaintiff would not pay any interest on the said

borrowed amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ at the time of 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 5 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

returning the said amount to the defendant no.1 and accordingly, the

defendant   no.1   and   his   family   members   i.e.   defendant   nos.   2   to   6

started   residing   in   the   suit   property   of   the   plaintiff   under   the

ownership of the plaintiff.  

(iv) That   all   the   defendants   had   become   dishonest   and   with

intention to grab the suit property of the plaintiff, asked

the   plaintiff   to   return   the   aforesaid   amount   of   Rs.1.50

Lakh   alongwith   interest   amounting   to   Rs.11,50,000/­.

When   the   plaintiff   asked   the   defendant   as   to   why   he   is

claiming such huge amount from the plaintiff against the

borrowed amount of Rs.1.50 Lakh, then all the defendants

threatened the plaintiff that they would not vacate the suit

property of the plaintiff unless the plaintiff would pay the

aforesaid   illegal   amount   of   Rs.11,50,000/­   to   the

defendants   and   in   such   situation,   the   plaintiff   was

compelled to give undertaking to pay Rs.11.50 Lakh to the


(v) In   order   to   avoid   any   controversy   and   litigation,   the

plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.9.00 Lakh to the defendant

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 6 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

no.1 as per written undertakings dated 17/11/2011 and

01/02/2012   duly   signed   by   the   plaintiff   and   defendant

nos.   1   and   3   and   as   per   the   undertakings,   remaining

amount of Rs.2.50 Lakh was to be paid/ returned by the

plaintiff   to   the   defendant   no.1   on   15/04/2012.     On

15/04/2012, when the plaintiff asked the defendant no.1

to receive the aforesaid balance amount of Rs.2.50 Lakh

and asked all the defendants to vacate the suit property of

the   plaintiff,   then   all   the   defendants   flatly   refused   to

vacate the suit property of the plaintiff as they wanted to

grab the suit property of the plaintiff despite this fact that

all   the   defendants   have   no   right   or   interest   on   the   suit

property of the plaintiff.  

(vi) The defendants had given threats to the plaintiff to kill her

and   her   family   members   if   she   would   take   any   action

against the defendants for vacating the suit property.   In

this regard, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint against 

all the defendants on 29/04/2012 in police station Prashant Nagar. 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 7 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

(vii) The defendant no.1 alongwith other defendant nos. 2 to 6

have   claimed   interest   on   the   amount   of   Rs.1.50   Lakh,

therefore, the plaintiff also has the right to claim damage/

rental   charges   against   use   of   the   suit   property   of   the

plaintiff   by   all   the   defendants,   therefore,   the   plaintiff   is

legally entitled to get damages/mesne profit @ Rs.12,000/­

per month from all the defendants jointly and severally for

the   period   of   last   three   years   onwards,   which   is   legally

recoverable from the defendants, however, the plaintiff is

waiving/   relinquishing   damages/   mesne   profit   @

Rs.12,000/­   per   month     for   a   period   of   one   year   under

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.   Therefore, he is claiming damages/

mesne   profit   @   Rs.12,000/­   per   month   for   the   last   two

years onwards.  

(viii) The   plaintiff   was/   is   ready   to   pay/   return   the   balance

agreed amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ to the defendants at the

time of vacating the suit property of the plaintiff, however,

the defendants would not ready to accept the same, hence

the plaintiff shall not be liable to pay any interest on the

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 8 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

aforesaid   amount   of   Rs.2.50   Lakh   when   she   will   pay/

return the same to defendant no.1 as per the undertaking

at the time of vacating the said property.   The amount of

Rs.2.50   Lakh   shall   be   adjustable   with   the   amount   of

damages/   mesne   profits   of   last   two   years   onwards   @

Rs.12,000/­ p.m.  

(ix) The defendants failed to vacate and hand­over the peaceful

possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, the plaintiff

got issued a legal notice dated 17/05/2012 but despite the

service   of   legal   notice,   the   defendants   neither   complied

with the notice nor replied the same till the date of filing of

the   suit.     After   receiving   the   notice,   the   defendants,   in

collusion,   are   threatening   to   the   plaintiff   to   create   third

party interest in the suit property just to defeat the right of

the  plaintiff  in  the  suit  property  and hence,  the  plaintiff

has   apprehension   that   the   defendants   may   create   third

party   interest   in   the   suit   property.     It

has   been   stated   that   the   defendants   have   become

unauthorized occupants in the suit property and therefore,

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 9 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

all   of   them   are   jointly/   severally   liable   to   pay  damages/

mesne profit @ Rs.12,000/­ per month, w.e.f. May 2010 till

handing­over   the   vacant   and   peaceful   possession   of   the

suit property to the plaintiff.  Hence, the present suit.


Summons for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants and

the defendants have filed common written statement. Succinctly, the

case of the defendants is as under:­

(i) The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands

and has suppressed the true and material facts.   All the

false,   frivolous,   baseless   and   fabricated   allegations   have

been   leveled   by   the   plaintiff   in   the   suit   with   ulterior

motives to create false evidence and to mislead this court

and to harass and black­mail the defendants and to cause

them more and more mental tortures and agonies.

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 10 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

(ii) The plaintiff has got no right, title, interest or locus­standi

in the suit property and she has filed the false suit just to

harass and black­mail the defendants and to extort money

from them and to throw out them from their own property

as the defendants are living in the suit property in their

own rights as owners of the same.  

(iii) The   suit   of   the   plaintiff   is   false,   frivolous,   malafide   and

without any substance or cause of action and the same is

liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11 CPC.  

(iv) It has been stated that value of the suit property is more

than   Rs.1.50   Crores   and   the   plaintiff   has   not   paid   the

advalorem court fee over the suit property.  In view of the

huge   value   of   the   suit   property,   the   suit   is   beyond   the

pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and the same deserves

to be dismissed with special cost u/s. 35­A CPC. The suit

is false, groundless and malafide on the face of it and the

same is not maintainable.

(v) On merits, the contents of the plaint have been denied and

it   has   been   stated   that   in   the   year   1949,   at   the   age   of

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 11 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

11 years, the defendant no.1 came to live with his elder

sister   namely   Son   Devi.   The   mother­in­law   of   Smt.   Son

Devi, namely Smt. Surjo Devi executed a Will with regard

to   the   abovesaid   property   in   favour   of   Smt.   Son   Devi.

Later on, Smt. Surjo Devi died and Smt. Son Devi got the

said  property   mutated   in  her  name  and  thus,   Sh.  Amar

Singh   and   his   entire   family   members,   including   the

plaintiff,   Smt.Ashok   Kumari   started   living   in   the   said


(vi) Smt. Surjo Devi had purchased the suit property for a total

sale consideration of Rs.450/­ and this property was got

purchased by Smt. Surjo Devi through defendant no.1 and

at that time, the defendant no.1 and his family members

started living in the said property.   At that time, the said

property   was   having   only   one   room   and   verandah   and

Kachi Barsati and later on, the defendant no.1 alongwith

his   sons   have   spent   a   huge   amount   of   money   over   the

construction   of   the   said   property   from   time   to   time   and

they    all,    including    the    present    plaintiff,    being

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 12 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

the daughter of defendant no.1, continued living in the said property

and upto the year 1992, the defendant no.1 spent a lot of money over

the construction of the said property and got constructed the ground

and first floors of the said property.  

(vii) The   husband   of   Smt.   Son   Devi   had   absconded   in   the

company   of   some   other   lady   and   since   then,   his

whereabouts are not known and the entire responsibility of

Smt. Son Devi fell on the shoulders of defendant no.1.  It

has further been stated that defendant no.1 is the natural

father   of   the   plaintiff   and   for   some   years,   Shri   Giri   Raj

Kishore  kept  the  plaintiff  with him  but  after  some  years

when she was of the marriageable age, she returned to the

company of the defendant no.1 and then defendant no.1

and his wife had performed her marriage and spent a lot of

money over her marriage.  

(viii) The relationship between the parties has not been denied

and   it   has   been   stated   that   defendant   no.1   alongwith

defendant no.3 and his wife Smt. Neetu are living at the 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 13 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

third   floor   of   the   said   property.    

The defendant nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 are residing at the fourth floor of the

said property. It has further been stated that alongwith Smt. Son Devi

(owner   of   the   said   property),   all   the   defendants   with   their   family

members used to live in the property bearing no. 6754, Block No.10,

Street No.2, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi­110005 as joint owners

of the said property.  

(ix) It has been admitted that the plaintiff that the plaintiff had

borrowed a sum of Rs.1.50 Lakh from the defendant no.1

and the possession of the said property was handed over

to   the   defendant   no.1,   however,   the   defendants   are   the

lawful occupants in their own rights in the said property.

The   story   of   the   plaintiff   of   non­payment   of   rent   by   the

defendants and non­payment of interest by the plaintiff is

false, forged and fabricated.  There was no question of the

defendants paying any rent to the plaintiff as the property

belonged     to     Smt.   Son     Devi     and     after     her

death,  the said property  devolved  upon  the  defendant

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 14 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

no.1 as her husband had run away in the company of some other lady

and   Smt.   Son   Devi   did   not   leave   any   other   legal   heir   except   the

defendant no.1.  

(x) The defendants are living in the said property since very

beginning in their own rights and the plaintiff has got no

right,   title,   interest   or   locus­standi   in   the   said   property.

Further, it is stated that plaintiff has not refunded the loan

of Rs.1.50 Lakh to the defendant no.1 in spite of demands.

It   has   been   stated   that   plaintiff   had   obtained   some

signatures   and   thumb   impressions   of   the   defendants

namely   Sh.   Amar   Singh   and   Vikas   @   Vicky   on   some

papers  and it is  apprehended  that the  same  might  have

been misused by the plaintiff.  Further, it has been stated

that   the   tenant   in   the   said   property   is   under   the

defendants,   who   are   the   lawful   owners   and   in   physical

possession of the suit property.  

(xi) It is a matter of surprise and highly unbelievable that just

within six months, after the first sale of ground floor, Smt.

Son   Devi   sold   the   remaining   property   to   the   plaintiff

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 15 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

and no details of the alleged remaining portion have been


(xii) That on the date of alleged sale i.e. 10/03/1993, the suit

property   consisted   of   only   ground   floor,   first   floor   and

Barsati   at   the   first   floor   and   further   at   that   time,   the

defendants alongwith the plaintiff were residing on the first

floor and Barsati of the said property as the ground floor of

the suit property had already been sold by Smt. Son Devi

to some third party for Rs.4,70,000/­ and after six months

thereafter, the alleged sale was shown by Smt. Son Devi in

favour of the plaintiff for the remaining portion of the said

property and the sale consideration has only been shown

only Rs.70,000/­, which is highly unbelievable on the face

of it.  This shows that the alleged sale deed is false, forged

and sham document.  

(xiii) Thereafter,   defendant   no.1   and   his   sons   and   other

defendants had spent a lot of money over the construction

of   the   second   floor,   third   floor   and   Barsati   of

the  said property and they are living therein. This also

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 16 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

shows that the alleged sale deed/ alleged transaction is false, forged

and fabricated and consequently, even the partition deed is also false

and fabricated and since the very beginning till date the defendants

were/ are living on the second floor, third floor and Barsati of the said


(xiv) The plaintiff has not placed on record any site plan of the

alleged sold portion and the allegations of the plaintiff are

wrong, false and fabricated.  The defendants are not liable

to   vacate   and   hand­over   the   possession   of   the   suit

property   to   the   plaintiff   or   to   pay   the   damages/   mesne

profits @ Rs.12,000/­ p.m.  There is no unauthorized use

of the suit property.  

(xv) The notice of the plaintiff is wrong, false, uncalled for and

unwarranted   and   the   same   was   duly   replied   by   the

defendants vide reply dated 28/05/2012.   It has further

been   stated   that   defendants   are   lawful   owners   and   in

physical possession of the suit property in their own 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 17 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

rights and plaintiff has no right to cast clouds over the rights of the

plaintiff qua the suit property.


The plaintiff filed replication and controverting the assertion made in

the WS and reiterated the contents of the plaint.   It has been stated

averred :­

(a) The plaintiff was born in 1954 and hence, she cannot say as to

whether   the   defendant   no.1   came   to   live   with   his   elder   sister

Smt. Son Devi in the year 1949.  

(b) When the plaintiff was living with her adoptive mother Smt. Son

Devi,   she   as   well   as   her   adoptive   mother   got   constructed   the

ground   and   first   floor   of   the   property   in   question   in   the   year

1986.  Smt. Son Devi spent the entire money over the marriage

of   the   plaintiff.     When   the   defendants   used   to   live   in   the

property, Smt. Son Devi was the exclusive owner of the property.

(c) The aforesaid Smt. Son Devi sold the property in the joint names

of plaintiff and Sh. Naveen Kumar on 10/03/1993 and Smt. Son

Devi was expired on 14/01/2006.  

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 18 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

(d) It has been denied that plaintiff has not refunded the amount of

Rs.1.50 Lakh to the defendant no.1 and it is submitted that the

plaintiff has already returned Rs.9.00 Lakh including interest.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld.

Predecessor of this Court on 01/07/2013:­


1. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts?   If

so, its effects. OPD.

2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of


3.   Whether   the   plaintiff   has   not   valued   the   suit   property   for   the

purpose of court fees? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession of the suit

property? OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ mesne profits ? If so,

at what rate and for which period? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction,

as prayed? OPP.

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 19 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

7. Relief.


Plaintiff,   in   order   to   prove   her   case,   led   plaintiff   evidence   and   got

examined   herself   PW­1   and   tendered   her   evidence   through   affidavit

Ex. PW1/A.  She has relied upon the following documents:­

(a) Sale Deed dated 10/03/1993 as Ex.PW­1/1;

(b) Partition Deed dated 04/05/2012 as Ex.PW­1/2;

(c) Site Plan as Ex.PW­1/3;

(d) copies   of   written   undertakings   dated   17/11/2011   and

01/02/2012 as Ex.PW­1/4 and Ex.PW­1/5 respectively;

(e) copy of complaint dated 29/04/2012 as Ex.PW­1/6;

(f) Legal notice dated 17/05/2012 as Ex.PW­1/7;

(g) six postal receipts and speed post as Ex.PW­1/8 (Colly.);

(h) six track reports of speed post as Ex.PW­1/9 (Colly.).  

Plaintiff besides herself has also examined the following witnesses:­

(a) Sh.   Mahender   Singh   as   PW­2,   who   tendered   his   evidence

through affidavit Ex.PW­2/A.

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 20 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

(b) Sh. Naveen Kumar as PW­3, who tendered his evidence through

affidavit Ex.PW­3/A.

(c) Sh. S.K. Sharma, LDC from the office of Sub­Registrar­III, Asaf

Ali Road, Daryaganj, Delhi as PW­4.

(d) Sh. Khube Ram, Constable, Belt No. 1531/C from P.S. Prashant

Nagar, Delhi as PW­5.

(e) Sh. Rajpal, Sub­Registrar­III, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi as PW­6.

(f) Sh.   Naveen   Gandas,   Record   Lifter,   Department   of   Delhi

Archives, New Delhi as PW­7.

(g) Sh. D.C. Tuteja, Advocate as PW­8.

To  rebut  the  case  of  the  plaintiff,  defendants  led  DE  and examined

defendant no.1 as D1W1, who tendered his evidence through affidavit

Ex.   D1.     He   has   relied   upon   copies   of   the   entries   of   purchase   of

material for construction of the property which is Mark “S” (Colly.).

This court heard the final arguments, as advanced by Ld. counsel for

the defendants and perused the material available on record. The Ld.

counsel   for   the   plaintiff   was   given   the   opportunity   to   address   the

arguments but he has failed to address the arguments. However, the

written arguments/submissions were already on the record.

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 21 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.



2. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of

The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants but they have

failed to lead any evidence regarding this issue. The defendants have

also failed to demonstrate why the plaint is required to be rejected.

Otherwise   also,   for   the   purpose   of   Order   7   Rule   11   CPC   only   the

averments made in the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff are

to be looked into. The averments in the plaint which are also stated

above vividly depict the cause of action for filing of the suit in favour of

the plaintiff against the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is decided

in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.


3. Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit property for the purpose
of court fees? OPD.

The defendants have alleged in the written statement the valuation of

the suit property is Rs.1,50,00,000/­ (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs

only) but the defendants have failed to lead any evidence on this 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 22 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

aspect. The valuation which is averred by the plaintiff in the plaint has

not   been   rebutted   by   the   defendants   by   leading   any   evidence.

Accordingly,  this  issue  is  also decided  in favour of  the plaintiff and

against the defendants.

ISSUE NOS.1, 4, 5 AND 6

1. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts?  If so,
its effects. OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession of the suit
property? OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages/ mesne profits ? If so, at
what rate and for which period? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction,
as prayed? OPP.

The   aforesaid   issue   nos.   1,   4,   5   and   6   are  interrelated   and   inter­

connected to each other and accordingly, they are decided together:­


i. Smt.   Surjo   Devi   had   purchased   the   suit   property   and   she   was

owner   of   the   property.   In   the   written   statement,   it   was   averred

that   defendant   no.1   has   contributed   towards   purchase   of   the

property   but   it   was   admitted   by   defendant   no.1   in   his   cross

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 23 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

examination that he did not contribute anything in the purchase of

the property by Smt. Surjo Devi.

ii. The   mother­in­law   of   Smt.   Son   Devi,   namely   Smt.   Surjo   Devi,

executed a Will with regard to the abovesaid property in favour of

Smt. Son Devi.  Later on, Smt. Surjo Devi died and Smt. Son Devi

got the said property mutated in her name.

iii. The   defendants   have   never   challenged   the   registered   Sale   Deed

(Exhibit PW­1/1) dated 10.03.1993 by filing the counter­claim or by

separate   suit,   although,   the   defendants   claimed   in   the   written

statement that the Sale Deed dated 10.03.1993 is false, fabricated

and forged document.


The   defendants   have   strenuously   argued,   which   they   have   also

agitated   in   the   written   statement,   evidence   by   way   of   affidavit   and

written   arguments   that   the   said   sale   deed   is   a   false,   forged   and

fabricated   document.   The   defendants   have   not   pleaded   the

entire/complete   particulars,   as   per   the   mandate   of   Order   6   Rule   4

CPC read with Order 8 Rule 2 CPC. It is apt to refer the Judgment

passed  in  Bishundeo  Narain    Anr.  v.  Seogeni  Rai    Jagernath,

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 24 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

AIR 1951 SC 280, while dealing with the issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court


“….in cases of fraud, ‘undue influence’ and coercion,
the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars
and the case can only be decided on the particulars
as laid. There can be no departure from them in evi­
dence.   General   allegations   are   insufficient   even   to
amount to an averment of fraud of which any court
ought to take notice however strong the language in
which they are couched may be, and the same ap­
plies to undue influence and coercion.”

The   provisions   of   Order   6   Rule   4   and   Order   8   Rule   2   CPC   are

reproduced herein for apposite understanding:­

       Pleadings generally

“4. Particulars to be given where necessary.–In all cases in
which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud,
breach   of   trust,   wilful   default,   or   undue   influence,   and   in   all
other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such
as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates
and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.”

[Written statement, set­off and counter­claim]


“2.   New   facts   must   be   specially   pleaded.–The  defendant
must raise by his pleading all matters which show the suit not 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 25 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

be maintainable, or that the transaction is either void or void­
able in point of law, and all such grounds of defence as, if not
raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or
would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint, as, for in­
stance, fraud, limitation, release, payment, performance, or facts
showing illegality.”

The defendants alleged in para no.1 in reply on merits of the written

statement   that   the   Sale   Deed   (Exhibit   PW­1/1)   is   false,   forged   and

fabricated. On the basis of the said reply, the defendants want to raise

the ground of suit not being maintainable and showing the illegality of

the Sale Deed by making averment in reply to para no.1. However, in

terms of provisions under Order 6 Rule 4 read with Order 8 Rule 2

CPC,   it   is   the   mandatory   duty   of   the   defendants   to   provide   the

complete   particulars   regarding   false,   forgery   and   fabrication.   The

defendants   have   made   the   bald   averment   without   specifying   the

details, in what manner the Sale Deed Ex.PW­1/1 is a false, forged

and fabricated document. The defendants were also required to prove

that how come the registered Sale Deed, which was executed by Smt.

Son   Devi   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff,   is   a   false,   forged

and   fabricated   document.   The   entire   cross­examination   of   the

defendants   was   based   on   the   facts   which   were   never   pleaded   or

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 26 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

averred by the defendants and the defendants cannot be allowed to

take shelter of the bald or vague averments.

As submitted above at the cost of repetition that the bald allegations

were raised in the written statement, that the Sale Deed being false,

forged and fabricated document but no particulars, as required under

Order 6 Rule 4 read with Order 8 Rule 2 CPC, were pleaded or averred

by the defendants. It is admitted case of the parties that the mother­

in­law of Smt. Son Devi, namely Smt. Surjo Devi, was the owner of the

property   and   she   had   executed   a  Will   with   regard   to   the   abovesaid

property in favour of Smt. Son Devi.   Later on, Smt. Surjo Devi died

and Smt. Son Devi got the said property mutated in her name. The

defendants   have   categorically   admitted   this   fact   in   the   written


The   plaintiff,   in   order   to   prove   the   Sale   Deed   Exhibit   PW­1/1,   has

examined herself as PW­1 and has also examined Shri D.C. Tuteja,

Advocate PW­8 (attesting witness of Ex. PW­1/1). 

Sh.   D.C.   Tuteja,   Advocate,   who   had   attested   the   said   Sale   Deed   as

witness, has categorically identified the signatures of the vendor i.e.

Smt.   Son   Devi   as   well   his   signature   and   other   witness   namely

Gurjamal. The said witness has candidly proved the execution of the

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 27 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

Sale Deed by Late Smt. Son Devi and the same was never challenged

at any point of time by her during her lifetime. The defendants have

failed   to   shake   the   testimonies   of   PW­1   and   PW­8   in   material


The defendant no.1 in his deposition has stated that he has not visited

the office of Sub­Registrar for execution of the Sale Deed and the same

was   executed   in   his   absence.   However,   the   defendant   no.1   has

candidly   admitted   in   the   cross­examination   that   another   witness

namely Sh. Gujarmal is a friend of defendant no.1.

The   defendants   were   the   third   parties   to   the   said   Sale   Deed   and

admittedly, the said Sale Deed was not executed in their presence. The

defendants have failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to

demolish the said Sale Deed.   The defendants have failed to bring on

record any evidence including the evidence of expert witness that the

Sale Deed does not bear the signatures of Late Shri Son Devi. On the

contrary, the plaintiff has successfully proved the Sale Deed Ex.PW­

1/1 by cogent and convincing evidence. 

The plaintiff has even called the witnesses i.e. PW­6 and PW­7 from

the   Sub­Registrar   Offices   in   order   to   prove   the   registration   but   the

said witnesses were putting the burden on each other. The PW­6 has

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 28 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

submitted   that   the   summoned   record   has   been   transferred   to

Department   of   Delhi   Archives,   18A,   Satsang   Vihar   Marg,   Qutab

Institutional Area, New Delhi and PW­7 submitted that record has not

been transferred to Department of Delhi Archives 18A, Satsang Vihar

Marg, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi. However, the original Sale

Deed was produced before the Court and PW­8 who was the attesting

witness to the said Sale Deed was also examined by the plaintiff in

order to prove the Sale Deed ­ Ex. PW­1/1.

The defendants have also failed to challenge the said registered Sale

Deed   Ex.PW­1/1   by   filing   the   separate   case   or   counter­claim.   The

defendants   were   having   the   opportunity   to   seek   a   declaration   for

cancellation of the said document but they have failed to do so.  The

contention   of   the   defendants   in   the   written   statement   is   that   they

came to know about the Sale Deed for the first time only when the

legal   notice   was   served   upon   them.   Even   assuming   for   the   sake   of

arguments that they came to know about the Sale Deed for the first

time when the legal notice was served upon them, still they have not

chosen   to   file   any   case   challenging   the   said   Sale   Deed   Ex.PW­1/1

either by filing independent suit or counter­claim in the present case.  

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 29 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

The   defendants   have   also   candidly   admitted   the   ownership   of   the

plaintiff in the Suit property in undertakings Ex. PW­1/4 and Ex.PW­

1/5.   The   detailed   discussions   and   findings   regarding   the   said

undertakings are done hereinbelow. In reply to para no.6 of the plaint,

the defendants have first of all admitted that the possession of the suit

property   was   handed­over   to   defendant   no.1   and   in   the   same   para

contended   that   defendants   are   the   lawful   occupants   in   their   own

rights in the said property. The defendants were blowing hot and cold

in the same breath. The reply of the defendants is totally oxymoron i.e.

contradictory statements which cannot stand together. The defendants

have   in   effect   admitted   the   ownership   in   para   no.5   of   the   reply   on


Considered from any view point and also in my considered opinion,

the plaintiff has successfully proved Ex.PW­1/1 i.e. Sale Deed dated

10/03/1993   vide   which   Smt.   Son   Devi   had   sold   the   suit   property

jointly to the plaintiff and Shri Naveen Kumar.


The   defendants   have   vehemently   argued   that   the   plaintiff   was   not

adopted   by   Smt.   Son   Devi   and   Shri   Giri   Raj   Kishore.     It   is   an

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 30 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

admitted   case   of   the   parties   that   Smt.   Son   Devi   and   Shri   Giri   Raj

Kishore, the husband of Smt. Son Devi were issueless.  The defendant

no.1, who is the real father of the plaintiff, has categorically admitted

in   his   cross­examination   (done   on   15/05/2014)   that   in   the   school

records of the plaintiff, the name of Shri Giri Raj Kishore as father of

the plaintiff is recorded.  It is also admitted that he has no document

to show that the plaintiff continued to be her daughter.

It is well settled principle of law that there is no requirement of formal

written document for the Adoption Deed. The adoption can be done

simply by giving and taking of a child in terms of Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act. 

It is also admitted in the evidence by way of affidavit as well as written

statement   filed   by   defendants   that   the   plaintiff   remained   with   Smt.

Son   Devi   and   Shri   Giri   Raj   Kishore,   however,   it   is   stated   that   she

remained for sometime and after that she came back with Shri Amar

Singh.   However,   the   defendants   have   failed   to   produce   any   cogent

evidence to disprove the fact that the plaintiff was not adopted by Smt.

Son Devi and Shri Giri Raj Kishore.

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 31 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

The plaintiff has also examined PW­2 Shri Mahender Singh (who is the

grandson of defendant no.1) and PW­3 Shri Naveen Kumar (who is the

son of the plaintiff) to prove that the plaintiff was, in fact, living with

Smt. Son Devi and Shri Giri Raj Kishore and the plaintiff was living

with them as their daughter.

The defendants are not able to shake the testimonies of PW­1, PW­2

and PW­3 in material particulars regarding the fact that the plaintiff

was   not   the   adoptive   daughter   of   Smt.   Son   Devi   and   Shri   Giri   Raj

Kishore. It is further admitted by defendant no.1 himself that in the

school records also, name of Shri Giri Raj Kishore is recorded as father

of the plaintiff.  Thus, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff has been

able to prove that she was the adopted daughter of Late Smt. Son Devi

and   Shri   Giri   Raj   Kishore   by   leading   the   cogent   and   convincing

evidence. Otherwise also, the plaintiff has proved Ex.PW­1/1 i.e. Sale

Deed by which the plaintiff and Sh. Naveen Kumar became owners of

the suit property.

 UNDERTAKINGS   DATED 17.11.2011 AND 01.02.2012 (EX.PW1/4

The aforesaid undertakings are the germane of the present case. The

entire   contention   of   the   plaintiff   is   that   the   said   undertakings   were

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 32 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

forcefully   taken   from   the   plaintiff.   She   has   also   lodged   a   complaint

dated 29/04/2012 Ex.PW­1/6. The defendants have taken a stand in

the written statement that the said undertakings were never executed

or signed by the all the defendants. There is a categorical stand of the

defendants in the written statement as well as in the evidence that the

plaintiff has concocted the story regarding the undertakings and it is

also   averred   that   the   plaintiff   has   obtained   some   signatures   and

thumb impressions of the defendants namely Sh. Amar Singh and Sh.

Vikas @ Vicky on some papers and it is apprehended that the same

might have been used by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is an influential

rich person with political support. However, it is pleaded and argued

that   an   amount   of   Rs.1,50,000/­   (Rupees   One   Lakh   fifty   thousand

only) was borrowed by the plaintiff from the defendants.  In para no. 7

of the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that she has paid an amount of

Rs.9,00,000/­   as   per   undertakings   dated   01/02/2012   and   the

balance   amount   of   Rs.2.50   Lakh   was   required   to   be   paid   by   the

plaintiff to defendant no.1 on 15/04/2012.   In reply to this para, it

has been averred by the defendants that the defendant no.1 Sh.Amar

Singh and his son namely Shri Rajender Singh from their own funds

have made the construction over the said house and the plaintiff has

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 33 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

not refunded the huge amount of money to the defendants Shri Amar

Singh and Sh. Vikas.

The perusal of the undertaking Ex.PW­1/4 reveals that the amount of

Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) was borrowed

by   the   defendants   in   the   year   1998   to   the   plaintiff   and   the   said

amount was increased from Rs.1.50 Lakh to Rs.11.00 Lakh.  The said

undertaking was signed by defendant no.1 and Shri Vikas. It is also

recorded   in   the   said   undertaking   that   an   amount   of   Rs.4,50,000/­

(Rupees Four Lakh and fifty thousand only) has already been received

and the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/­ (Rupees Seven Lakh only)

was required to be paid. It is also recorded in the undertaking that the

plaintiff   is   the   owner   of   the   property   alongwith   Shri   Naveen   Kumar

and   the   said   property   was   mortgaged   in   lieu   of   the   payment   of

Rs1,50,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty thousand only) to the plaintiff. 

Similarly,   in   the   undertaking   Ex.PW­1/5,   it  has   been   recorded   that

an   amount   of   Rs.9,00,000/­   (Rupees   Nine   Lakh   only)   has   been

received   by   the   defendants   and   the   balance   sum   of   Rs.2,50,000/­

(Rupees Two Lakh fifty thousand only) was required to be paid by the

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 34 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

plaintiff to the defendants. The said undertakings were also signed by

the defendant no.1 and Shri Vikas @ Vicky i.e. defendant no.3.  

The   said   documents   revealed   that   an   amount   of   Rs.1.50   Lakh   was

advanced   as   loan   to   Smt.   Ashok   Kumari   i.e.   the   plaintiff   by   the

defendants,   however,   it   is   also   stated   in   the   documents   that   the

property is mortgaged with them.

In case, the amount of loan is Rs.100/­ and above and in order to

secure the said loan, an immovable property is given as security, then

the mortgage document other than mortgage by title deeds has to be

compulsorily   registered   under   the   mandate   of   Section   59   of   the

Transfer of Property Act.  

In this case, there is no pleading, ground or averment raised by the

defendants that the said property in question was mortgaged by the

plaintiff   to   the   defendants   at   any   point   of   time.     Moreover,   the

Mortgage   Deed   was   required   to   be   compulsorily   registered   in

accordance with law i.e. under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property

Act. There is no registered document on the record which shows that

the   property   is   mortgaged.     Per   contra,   the   entire   case   of   the

defendants   was   based   on   the   premise   that   they   are   owners   of   the

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 35 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

property and the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the said

property.  The  defendants  have  utterly  failed  to  prove  on  record  any

ownership document in their favour.  

The cumulative effect of the said undertakings Ex.PW­1/4 and Ex.PW­

1/5 depicts that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Fifty

thousand   only)   was   taken   as   a   loan   by   the   plaintiff   and   she   has

already returned an amount of Rs.9,00,000/­ (Rupees Nine Lakh only)

to the defendants against the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/­. Thus, the

plaintiff has returned almost six times of the original principal amount

to the defendants.  

That factum of ownership of the plaintiff and Sh. Naveen Kumar of the

suit property has been categorically and candidly admitted in the said

documents by defendant no.1 and Shri Vikas @ Vicky­defendant no.3.

The   said   undertakings   have   also   been   categorically   admitted   by

defendant no.1 in his cross­examination.  

The said undertakings were in the knowledge of the defendants but

they have failed to file any counter­claim or claim in respect of the

balance   due   amount.   As   demonstrated   above,   the   said   document

cannot be considered as a mortgage document in any circumstances

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 36 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

whatsoever. As per the said documents, the defendants have admitted

the co­ownership of the plaintiff in the property in question.

In   the   cross­examination   dated   15.05.2014,   the   defendant   no.1

submitted   that   Smt.   Ashok   Kumari   i.e.   plaintiff   has   returned

Rs.3,00,000/­ as well as a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­ and Rs.99,600/­ out

of   total   borrowed   amount   of   Rs.11,50,000/­.   The   said   undertakings

dated   17.11.2011   and   01.02.2012   (Ex.PW1/4     Ex.PW1/5

respectively)   were   also   admitted   and   further   the   said   undertakings

were executed  for return  of money by  Smt.  Ashok Kumari to them.

The defendant no.1 also admitted that the said undertaking bears his

signature   alongwith   signature   of   his   son   Vikas   and   witnesses

Mahender   Singh   and   Naveen   Kumar.   The   witnesses   to   the   said

undertakings   i.e.   Mahender   Singh   and   Naveen   Kumar   were   also

examined as PW­2 and PW­3 respectively. 


The   defendants   have   vehemently   argued   that   the   property   was

constructed   by   the   funds   of   defendant   no.1   and   his   sons.     It   is

contended   that   defendant   no.1   and   his   son   has   carried­out   the

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 37 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

construction of the ground floor and first floor of the said property and

the entire money on the construction was spent by them. 

The   defendant   no.1   has   failed   to   place   on   record   any   documentary

evidence or even failed to prove even a single document to fortify the

fact that the ground floor, first floor and barsati floor of the property

45 sq. yds. bearing no. 6754, Block No.10, Street No.2, Dev Nagar,

Karol Bagh, Delhi were constructed by defendant on.1 and his sons.

The   copy   of   entries   of   purchase   of   material   which   is   alleged   to   be

Mark­S has not been proved in accordance with law. The same is only

marked   document.   The   defendants   have   failed   to   lead   any   cogent

evidence in this respect. 

In reply to para no.7 of the plaint, the defendants have contended that

the construction over the said house raised by the defendant no.1 Shir

Amar Singh and his son namely Shri Rajinder Singh etc. from their

own funds  resources and the plaintiff has not refunded the huge

amount of money to the defendants – Sh. Amar Singh and Sh. Vikas.

Even   for   the   sake   of   arguments,   it  is   assumed   that  defendant   no.1

and his sons have constructed the property but they have not filed

any separate claim or counter­claim for recovery of the said 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 38 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

construction   amount.     In   case   they   have   constructed   the   property,

which admittedly does not belong to them and was belonged to Smt.

Son   Devi,   then   the   only   claim   which   left   with   them   is   to   claim   the

amount of construction but they have failed to do so.

However,   in   my   considered   opinion,   there   is   not   even   a   scintilla   of

evidence which the defendants have proved on record to demonstrate

that they have carried­out the construction, as alleged by them in the

Written Statement or in the evidence of DW­1.


The   case   of   the   plaintiff   is   that   the   plaintiff   has   purchased   the

property   jointly   with   Shri   Naveen   Kumar   (Son   of   Amar   Singh)   vide

Exhibit PW­1/1. The property was divided by them vide Partition Deed

vide   Exhibit   PW­1/2.   Accordingly,   vide   said   Partition   Deed,   Shri

Naveen   Kumar   became   exclusive   owner   of   the   1st  and   2nd  floors   of

property bearing no.6745, Gali No.2, Dev Nagar, Block­10, Delhi and

the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of 3rd and 4th floors of the said

property with terrace rights.

The   said   Partition   Deed   was   proved   by   the   plaintiff   by   examining

herself, PW­3 Shri Naveen Kumar and PW­4 Shri S.K. Sharma,     

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 39 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

official   from   Sub­Registrar   Office.   The   said   Partition   Deed   dated

4.5.2012 is a registered document and the same has been proved on

record by the Executants of the said document. In view of the said

Partition Deed Exhibit PW­1, the plaintiff became exclusive owner of

the suit property in question. 


The entire case of the defendants, as averred in the written statement

and evidence, is that they are owners of the suit property in question.

However, they have failed to place on record even a single document to

show that they are the owners of the suit property. There is categorical

admission on the part of the defendants that Smt. Surjo Devi was the

original owner of the property and after her, Smt. Son Devi was the

owner of the property. There is not even iota or scintilla of evidence

which   has   been   produced   on   record   by   the   defendants   regarding

devolution of their ownership from the said persons. The defendants

have miserably failed to prove their ownership in the suit property. 

The plaintiff, as demonstrated above, proved her ownership in the suit

property. This Court has returned the findings, as adumbrated above

that the plaintiff has duly proved the Sale Deed Ex. PW­1/1             

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 40 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

and   Partition   Deed   Ex.   PW­1/2.   It  is   not   in   dispute   that   defendant

no.1   is   the   brother   of   Late   Smt.   Son   Devi   and   real   father   of   the

plaintiff. The other defendants are also related to Late Smt. Son Devi

and   the   plaintiff   and   accordingly,   they   are   near   relatives   of   the

plaintiff.     The   defendants   at   the   most   can   be   termed   as   Permissive

users in the suit property being near relatives of Late Smt. Son Devi

and the plaintiff.   The principles of Permissive user are described as


It is apposite to mention here the dictums of the Hon’ble Apex Court

reported   as   “A.Shanmugam   Vs.   Ariya   Kshatriya   Rajakula   Vasathu

Mudalaya   Nandhavana   Paripalanai   Sangam   AIR   2012   SC   2010”  

“Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De

Sequeria  AIR  2012  SC  1727”.  The  Three  Judge  Bench  Judgment  of

“Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes” of the Hon’ble Apex Court has

held to the following effect in paras no.70 and 101:­

“70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must
give   all   such   details   as   enumerated   hereunder.   They   are   only
illustrative and not exhaustive. 

(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property;

(b) title of the property;

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 41 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

(c) who is in possession of the title documents;

(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession;

(e) the date of entry into possession;

(f)   how   he   came   into   possession   ­   whether   he   purchased   the
property   or   inherited   or   got   the   same   in   gift   or   by   any   other

(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration;
if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or
lease amount;

(h)   If   taken   on   rent,   license   fee   or   lease   –   then   insist   on   rent
deed, license deed or lease deed;

(i) who are the persons in possession/ occupation or otherwise
living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or
servants etc.;

(j)   subsequent   conduct,   i.e.,   any   event   which   might   have
extinguished   his   entitlement   to   possession   or   caused   shift
therein; and

(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue
in possession.

“101. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as

1. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to
stay   in   the   premises   gratuitously.   Even   by   long   possession   of
years or decades such person would not acquire any right or in­
terest in the said property.

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 42 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

2. Caretaker,   watchman   or   servant   can   never   acquire   interest   in
the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or
servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.

3. The   Courts   are   not   justified   in   protecting   the   possession   of   a
caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the
premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or
as a servant. 

4. The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to
the   person   who   has   valid,   subsisting   rent   agreement,   lease
agreement or license agreement in his favour.

5. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on
behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatso­
ever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or

The Hon’ble Apex Court has followed the aforesaid Judgments in Civil

Appeal no. 150 of 2017 Behram Tejani  Ors. Versus Azeem Jagani

dated   January   6,   2017   by   the   para   nos.9,   13   and   14   of   the   said

Judgment are reproduced as under:­

“9.   Appearing   for   the   defendants­appellants   Mr.   Dushyant   Dave,
learned Senior Advocate submitted that the High Court had erred
in granting interim relief in favour of the respondent. He submitted
that   the   reliance   on  Rame   Gowda   (Dead)   by   LRS.  v.  M.
Varadappa   Naidu(Dead)   by   LRs.   And   Anrs.1   was   completely
erroneous; that the respondent, at best, was a relative staying with
a gratuitous licensee; and that the case was covered by the decision
of   this   Court   in  Maria   Margarida   Sequeira   Fernandes   and
others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead ) through LRS.2.Ms.
Indu   Malhotra,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   for
the plaintiff­respondent submitted that the respondent had been    

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 43 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

in settled possession and as such was entitled to protection. In her
submission,   the   matter   was   fully   covered   by   the   decision   of   this
Court in Rame Gowda (supra).”

“13. The matter was further elaborated in subsequent decision
of this Court in Maria Margarida (Supra) as under :­

“97. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as

(1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to
stay  in the  premises  gratuitously.  Even  by  long  possession  of
years or decades such person would not acquire any right or in­
terest in the said property.

(2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in
the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or
servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.

(3) The   courts   are   not   justified   in   protecting   the   possession   of   a
caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the
premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or
as a servant.

(4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to
the   person   who   has   valid,   subsisting   rent   agreement,   lease
agreement or license agreement in his favour.

(5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on
behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatso­
ever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or

“14. Thus, a person holding the premises gratuitously or in the
capacity as a caretaker or a servant would not acquire any right
or interest in the property and even long possession in that ca­

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 44 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

pacity would be of no legal consequences. In the circumstances
City Civil Court was right and justified in rejecting the prayer for
interim injunction and that decision ought not to have been set
aside   by   the   High   Court.   We   therefore,   allow   the   appeal,   set
aside the judgment under appeal and restore the Order dated
29.04.2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of
Motion No.344 of 2013 in Suit No.408 of 2013.”

The principles, as deduced above, vividly depict that no one           ac­

quires   title   to   the   property   if   he   or   she   was   allowed   to   stay   in   the

premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades,

such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said prop­

erty. Therefore, even if the defendants have shown their long posses­

sion from the documents, yet they would not acquire any right, title

and interest in the property. Although, the defendants have failed to

prove the documents regarding their long possession, yet in my con­

sidered opinion, the said documents are of no help to create any own­

ership rights in the said property. 

It is also held that the courts are not justified in protecting the posses­

sion of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in

the premises as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant and has to

give possession forthwith on demand. 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 45 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

The  defendants being  in permissive  user were/are  liable  to  give the

possession   forthwith   on   demand.   The   plaintiff   has   served   the   Legal

Notice dated 17.5.2012 on the defendants but they have failed to give

the   possession   to   the   plaintiff   on   demand.   Accordingly,   the   plaintiff

was constrained to file the present suit.


The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs.12,000/­ per month w.e.f. May

2010 to May 2012 towards arrears and pendentlite and future mesne

profits but the plaintiff has not led any independent evidence that the

suit property can fetch an amount of Rs.12,000/­ per month as rent.

The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff in her

affidavit   of   evidence   has   deposed   that   she   can   fetch   an   amount   of

Rs.12,000/­ per month from the said property. The defendants have

not even cross­examined the plaintiff on this aspect. The defendants in

their pleadings and defendant  no.1 in  his evidence only stated  that

since the defendants are the owners of the property in question, there­

fore, there is no question of any mesne profits or adjustment of mesne

profits with the sum of Rs.2,50,000/­ with the mesne profits.         

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 46 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

However, defendant no.1 in his evidence has not denied that the prop­

erty can fetch Rs.12,000/­ per month. 

Although,   no   independent   evidence   has   been   led  by   the   plaintiff   to

prove that she is entitled to the quantum of mesne profits, as claimed

by him but the plaintiff has proved that the defendants are in unau­

thorized possession of  the suit premises after service of Legal Notice

dated 17.5.2012 and therefore, she is entitled to claim mesne profits. 

In Surinder Singh v. Dr. Davinder Mohan, 2006 (4) R.C.R (Civil) 781 it

was held “mesne profits or compensation for the use and occupation of

the premises has to be  assessed at the same rate at which the land­

lord would have been able to let out the premises on being vacated by

the tenant. While determining the quantum of the  amount so receiv­

able by the landlord, the landlord is not bound by the contractual rate

of rent which was prevalent prior to the date of the decree.” 

In this case, the plaintiff has led her own evidence regarding the rate

of mesne profits and she was not cross­examined on this       aspect.

It has been proved by the plaintiff that the defendants are in unautho­

rized  possession   of   the   suit   premises,   so,   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to

claim mesne profits. Further, the amount so claimed by her seems 

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 47 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

reasonable and justified in the facts and  circumstances of the case.

However, as the defendants were not in unauthorized possession prior

to issuance of Legal Notice dated 17.5.2012 and they were enjoying

the   suit   premises   as   permissive   users   without   any   fee   prior   to   is­

suance of the said Legal Notice. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to

sum   of   Rs.12,000/­   per   month   w.e.f.   May   2010   to   May   2012.   The

plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits 12,000/­ per month from month of

June, 2012 till its handing over of possession by the defendants to the



The   plaintiff   has   examined   herself   as   well   Sh.   Khube   Ram   (PW­5),

Constable from Police Station Prashant Nagar, Delhi. The defendants

are   claiming   the   ownership   in   respect   of   the   property   and   in   this

manner, there is definitely threat to the plaintiff that the defendants

shall not create any third party right or part with the possession of the

suit   property   to   some   third   party.   The   plaintiff   has   lodged   the

complaint Exhibit PW­1/6 vide DD no.18A dated 29.4.2002 in Police

Station  Prashant  Nagar,  Delhi.  The  said  complaint  was  duly  proved

by the plaintiff. The defendants were not able to shake the      

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 48 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

testimonies of the said witnesses on material particulars. Considering

overall   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present   case   and   on   the

discussion made hereinabove, the plaintiff has also able to prove this

issue by cogent and convincing evidence. 

From the discussion, as adumbrated hereinabove, the Issue nos.1, 4

to 6 are decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.


From the discussions, as adumbrated hereinabove, I hereby pass the
following :­

(a) a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the

defendants is passed, thereby directing the defendants to hand­

over   the   vacant   and   peaceful   physical   possession   of   the   suit

property i.e. third floor and fourth floor of the property bearing

property bearing no. 6754, Block No. 10, Street No.2, Dev Nagar,

Karol Bagh, Delhi, shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW­


(b) a decree of recovery of damages/ mesne profits for unlawful and

unauthorized   use   and   occupation   of   the   suit   property   @

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 49 of 50
Ashok Kumari V. Amar Singh  Ors.

Rs.12,000/­ per month from 1st June, 2012 till realization of the

suit property by the plaintiff from the defendants. The plaintiff is

directed to pay the Court fee on the said amount till the date of

decision and only then decree would be executable in respect of

this relief. 

(c) a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and

against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their

legal   heirs,   relatives,   successors,   assigns,   attorneys,   agents,

associates   etc.   from   parting   with   possession   or   creating   any

third party right of the suit property i.e. third floor and fourth

floor of the property bearing no. 6754, Block No. 10, Street No.2,

Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi, shown in red colour in the site

plan Ex.PW­1/3.

Decree­sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

Announced in the open court         (ARUN SUKHIJA)
on 30/07/2018        ADJ­07 (Central)
   Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

Suit No. 65/2015                                                                      Page 50 of 50

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation