Order 23

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 21 CS 44/24 SANTOSH Vs. DDA AND ANR.
27.11.2025.
Present : Sh. Dhananjay Kumar Singh and Sh. Prateek Verma,
Ld. Counsels for plaintiff alongwith plaintiff in
person.
Sh. Animesh Kumar Gaba and Sh. Shiva
Khandelwal, Ld. Counsels for DDA.
Sh. Shashank Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
no.4 through VC with Ld. Proxy Counsel, Sh. Tejas
Negi in person.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that application
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 is pending since long. He
submits that his application may be disposed of as plaintiffs are
suffering due to delay in disposal of the said application.
That the instant suit has been filed by plaintiff
seeking declaration regarding mutation dated 12.10.2023 and
registered relinquishment deed dt. 02.11.2022 registered in the
office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi as null &
void.
It is submitted that Sh. Sarjit was the
owner/bhumidar of land situated in Village Nangal Dewat,
Mahipal Pur, which was acquired by Defendant no.1 in the year
2007 and in lieu thereof he was allotted a vacant plot bearing
No.27, Block-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi measuring 550 Square
meters in 2007. Sh. Sarjit died interstate in the year 1976 leaving
behind his legal heirs as per family pedigree filed with the plaint.
Upon oral family settlement, mutual partition, took place
Contd...2.
-- 1 of 6 --
:: 2 ::
between the legal heirs Late Sh. Shrichand, Rajkaran received his
shares i.e. 45.8 square meters, his brother Arya Kumar gave his
share 45.8 square meters to Sh. Rajkaran through a
relinquishment deed and Rajkaran Sehrawat became the owner of
91.6 square meters of the said plot in total 550 square meters.
Thereafter, Rajkaran, who is father-in-law of plaintiff no.1,
constructed a house on 91.6 square meters, out of total land
measuring 550 square meters and started residing with his family
members. Rajkaran died interstate on 01.05.2023 as he suffered
from mental problems and he left behind his wife, two sons, two
daughters-in-law, two grand son and two grand daughters. The
younger son of Sh.Rajkaran, Neeraj passed away on 08.10.2021
leaving behind is wife i.e. plaintiff No.1, son as plaintiff no.2 and
daughter as plaintiff no.3. Sh. Rajkaran was working as a
property dealer and was associated with defendant no.4 and were
having good friendship. Sh. Rajkaran handed over all original
documents related to the suit property to defendant no.4 on good
faith. As such, the entire file having the documents of the
property are in possession of defendant no.4. After the death of
Sh. Rajkaran, the defendant no.4 came to suit property and asked
to vacate and handover the physical possession of the suit
property telling that he had all the original documents in the suit
property and Rajkaran had already transferred the said property
in his favour.
It is submitted that defendant no.4 is a man of means
and having good connections and is trying to forcibly grab the
Contd...3.
-- 2 of 6 --
:: 3 ::
suit property and plaintiffs apprehend that he may create 3rd party
interest on the basis of forged and fabricated documents in
respect of the suit property. On 19.09.2023, plaintiff no.2 visited
the office of defendant no.4 to seek return of the documents of
the property in question. However, he was threatened and asked
to vacate the suit property. Thereafter, defendant no.2 reported
the said matter to the police. Thereafter, plaintiff no.1 filed a suit
for permanent injunction against defendant no.4 before Ld.
Senior Civil Judge. Thereafter, on 01.11.2023, plaintiff received a
letter from defendant no.1, DDA informing that the suit property
has been mutated by DDA on the grounds of various
relinquishment deeds.
It is submitted that since 2019 till 01.05.2023,
Rajkaran was not mentally fit to execute any document in favour
of any person as he was treated by the Neurology Department of
RML Hospital. Ld. Counsel has drawn the attention on the
medical record filed with the plaint to this effect. It is submitted
that defendant no.4 has created forged signatures of Rajkaran and
Anand Singh has obtained forged signatures of Rajkaran in
connivance of defendant no.4 for execution of relinquishment
deed which was used for mutation of the suit property.
It is submitted that defendant no.3 has no right, title,
interest in the suit property and he conspired with defendant no.4
for forging the relinquishment deed. The said act has been
intimated to the police.
It is urged that defendants, their attorney, agents,
Contd...4.
-- 3 of 6 --
:: 4 ::
family members, associates be restrained from selling, alienating,
transferring, dispossessing forcibly the plaintiff from the suit
property or creating 3rd party interest in the said suit property till
the disposal of the instant suit.
The application is opposed on behalf of defendant no.4
submitting that the entire dispute of the subject matter relates to
1/6th share of Sh. Rajkaran. Rajkaran with the assent of all the
family members including plaintiffs voluntarily executed the
relinquishment deed on 02.11.2022 duly registered with
defendant no.2 in favour of co-owner Anand Singh leaving
plaintiffs with no interest in the suit property. The mutation letter
dtd. 12.10.2023 filed by the plaintiffs proved that the suit
property was mutated by DDA in favour of Rishipal, Bijender
and Satwahan, all sons of Ishwar and ors.
It is submitted that suit is barred by Section 41(j) of
Specific Relief Act as plaintiff has no personal interest in the
matter. It is submitted that the suit has been filed on the basis of
false and concocted averments. It is denied that plaintiff
constructed any house in the suit property. It is submitted that
possession of the plot was delivered to the owners after the death
of Rajkaran. By way of relinquishment deed of Rajkaran to the
extent of 1/6th share, Anand Singh became 2/3rd share holder of
the plot. In the pleadings, it is denied that oral agreement entered
between the plaintiffs as averred in the plaint.
It is submitted that Arya Kumar and his family took
Rs.40 lakhs and sold a share of suit plot to defendant no.4 and
Contd...5.
-- 4 of 6 --
:: 5 ::
Krishan Chand and Arya Kumar executed the relinquishment
deed of share in favour of Rajkaran so that he can transfer the
share of plot to defendant no.4 and Krishan Chand. Rajkaran
entered into a contract and agreed to transfer share of Arya
Kumar and he sold share. Rajkaran took Rs.52 lakhs and sold his
share of suit plot to defendant no.4 and Krishan Chand. Award
dated 15.01.2015 in favour of defendant no. 4 and Krishan Chand
substantiate the same. It is submitted that plaintiffs have failed to
show any prima-facie case nor they have established that balance
of convenience lies in their favour as defendant no.1 has
executed conveyance deed in favour of the owners.
Ld. Counsel for DDA i.e. defendant no.1 also
opposed the application submitting that there exists no cause of
action in favour of plaintiffs for filing the present suit. It is
submitted that relief of declaration has been wrongly claimed. It
is submitted that the suit is not maintainable.
It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel that plaintiff has
not served defendant no.1 with mandatory notice under 53 B of
the DDA Act, which itself is a ground for dismissal of the suit.
Ld. Counsel has relied upon a judgment;
59(1995) DLT 262 titled
as Ram Dulari Vs. DDA.
Ld. Counsel for defendant no.4 submits that the Written
submissions qua the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2
are as already on record and same be considered for disposal of
the said application. It is submitted that the suit is not
maintainable and the plea for grant of temporary injunction may
Contd...6.
-- 5 of 6 --
:: 6 ::
be rejected.
Arguments heard. Record perused carefully.
After going through the entire pleadings in light of
arguments of all the Learned Counsels, this Court is of a
considered view that the plaintiffs have successfully established a
prima-facie case in their favour as plaintiffs have shown a valid
cause of action in their favour for filing the present suit. The
disputed facts are a matter of trial which require evidence to be
led. Further, the balance of convenience lies in favour of
plaintiffs as the comparative hardship, inconvenience would be
more to the plaintiffs in case the interim relief is not granted to
them. Further, if the interim relief as prayed by the plaintiff is not
granted at the stage, the potential harm of irreparable loss may be
suferred by them. Therefore, considering the fact that injunctory
reliefs are equitable in nature and same are granted upon the
fullfillment of the criteria as discussed above, the application of
the plaintiffs for seeking interim injunction is allowed. The
defendants, their attorney, agents, family members, associates are
restrained from selling, alienating, transferring, dispossessing
forcibly the plaintiffs from the suit property or creating 3rd party
interest in the said suit property till the disposal of the instant
suit.
Be put up for framing of issues and Admission/Denial of
documents on 04.05.2026.
Announced in Open Court.
(Dr. Pankaj Sharma)
DJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal
NDD/PHC/ND/27.11.2025.
-- 6 of 6 --