Interim Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 470/24 Ashok Goyal Vs. Satish Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 1 of 5
Civ Suit 470/24
Ashok Goyal Vs. Satish Kumar Aggarwal
05.06.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, the maintainability of the suit shall be
decided.
2. At the outset, it is observed that during the pendency of the
present suit, the dispute between Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No.
1 was amicably settled. Consequently, upon a statement made by
Plaintiff No. 1, Plaintiff No. 1 was deleted from the array of parties
vide order dated 24.12.2025. Accordingly, the present suit now
survives only qua Plaintiff No. 2 and the defendants. For the sake
of convenience, plaintiff no. 2 shall be referred to as ‘the plaintiff’
in the present order.
3. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit seeking the relief
of permanent and mandatory injunction with respect to illegal
illegal construction at the suit property, i.e. property bearing old
No. 5/A, New No. B-1352 B- Block New Ashok Nagar
Delhi-110096 admeasuring 25 ft. x 72 ft. It is the case of the
plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit property. It is stated
that Defendant No. 1 was known to the plaintiffs and acted as the
mediator when the suit property and another property were
purchased by the plaintiffs. It is averred that taking advantage of
their good relations, defendant No.1 obtained signatures of the
plaintiffs on certain documents without disclosing their contents
on 19.06.2023. It is further alleged that the said signatures have
been misused by Defendant No. 1 and that no consideration
-- 1 of 5 --
Civ Suit 470/24 Ashok Goyal Vs. Satish Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 2 of 5
amount has been received by the plaintiffs. It is further stated that
the original title documents dated 16.02.2023 qua the suit property
are also in the possession of defendant no. 1. It is further averred
that plaintiff no.1 was out of station and when he came back on
10.06.2024, he discovered that Defendant No. 1 was raising
unauthorized construction at the suit property in violation of law.
It is further stated that when the construction continued despite
complaints made to MCD and police, the plaintiffs were
constrained to file the present suit.
4. In the WS, Defendant No. 1 has pleaded that the suit
property was purchased by him from the plaintiffs by virtue of a
GPA and allied documents all dated 19.06.2023. It has been
argued on behalf of defendant no. 1 that since the plaintiffs are
admittedly not in possession of the suit property and since a cloud
has been raised on the title of the plaintiffs, the present suit for
simplicitor injunction is not maintainable.
5. On the other hand, the plaintiff has argued that the
documents relied upon by Defendant No. 1 are forged and
fabricated and do not confer any ownership rights upon him. It is
contended that even otherwise, the documents being in the nature
of GPA and allied papers do not transfer title, and therefore the
ownership of the suit property continues to vest with the plaintiff.
Reliance is made on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in
Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs vs Suresh Chand (Civil Appeal No.
6377 of 2012).
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions. Record
has been carefully perused.
-- 2 of 5 --
Civ Suit 470/24 Ashok Goyal Vs. Satish Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 3 of 5
7. It is indeed settled law that a GPA, by itself, does not
convey title. However, in the present case, Defendant No. 1 is not
merely relying upon a GPA in isolation but has claimed transfer of
rights on the basis of the entire set of documents, together with
delivery of possession. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the
plaintiff is blowing hot and cold at the same time, inasmuch as he
claims ownership over the suit property on the basis of GPA and
allied documents but denies the ownership of defendant no. 1 on
the basis of similar documents contending that they do not confer
any rights.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, upon a careful
scrutiny of the pleadings and the material on record, a clear cloud
is raised over the title/rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
property. The plaintiff asserts ownership and alleges that the
documents relied upon by Defendant No. 1 are forged and
fabricated. On the other hand, Defendant No. 1 claims rights in the
suit property on the basis of GPA and allied documents allegedly
executed by the plaintiff. It is also an admitted position that the
possession of the suit property is not with the plaintiff but with
defendant no. 1.
9. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Anathula
Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors (2008) 4
SCALE 718, that where the plaintiff is not in possession and the
title is under a cloud, a simplicitor suit for injunction is not
maintainable and the proper remedy is to seek declaration and
consequential reliefs. The relevant paragraph is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:
-- 3 of 5 --
Civ Suit 470/24 Ashok Goyal Vs. Satish Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 4 of 5
17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for
prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as
under :
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he
does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession,
with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy.
Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but
he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a
consequential injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of
dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction
simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only
with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly
and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be
decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in
cases where de jure possession has to be established on the
basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the
issue of title may directly and substantially arise for
consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be
possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for
injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and
appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as
noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the
averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there
is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or
examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for
injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and
issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact
and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to
the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of
title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title,
and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead
evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward,
the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a
suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the
normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits
for injunction.
But persons having clear title and possession suing for
injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more
cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because
some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or
tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its
-- 4 of 5 --
Civ Suit 470/24 Ashok Goyal Vs. Satish Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 5 of 5
discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into
title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more
comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of
the case.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case and keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff is admittedly
not in possession of the suit property, this court is of the opinion
that the dispute between the parties involves serious questions
relating to title, which cannot be adjudicated in a simplicitor suit
for injunction.
11. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy for the
plaintiff is to seek a declaration of his rights in respect of the suit
property along with consequential reliefs of possession and
injunction. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to appropriately
amend the plaint before the NDOH.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
05.06.2026
-- 5 of 5 --