Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-01,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of
RCA DJ No. 14/2026
CNR No. DLNE010004822026
Mohd. Hasam
S/o Nasiruddin
R/O E-156, (New Hero Honda Service Center),
Main 60 Foota Road,
Near NAV Prakash Public School,
Shaitan Chowk, Sri Ram Colony,
Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri, Delhi-110094 ….. Appellant
versus
Mohd. Yamin (Niryani Wala) (
sic Biryani Wala
)
S/o Nasiruddin (
sic Nazaruddin)
R/O E-156, (New Hero Honda Service Center),
Main 60 Foota Road,
Near NAV Prakash Public School,
Shaitan Chowk, Sri Ram Colony,
Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri, Delhi-110094 ….. Respondent
Date of institution : 10.02.2026
Reserved on : 22.04.2026
Date of Decision : 16.05.2026
JUDGMENT
Faking a document is easy; devil lies in proving it.
1. Judicial experience shows that to forge a document is very easy.
But, to prove that it is forged may take a lifetime for the
aggrieved person.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 1 of 60
-- 1 of 60 --
2. This case presents a stark example of the above quoted adage
where the respondent/defendant went on to forge certain
agreements to sell etc and then set up a false defence on the basis
of the said documents to deny the appellant/plaintiff his property.
3. It has been a long fight since 2014 for the appellant. The case has
seen at least 2 rounds of litigations before various Courts.
4. This is despite categorical admission of the respondent qua the
ownership of appellant and despite compelling evidence qua the
forgery committed by respondent. Appellant has been subjected to
circuitous and exhausting journey to reclaim his own property
only because the opponent knew that proving his forgery would
be a long haul process with very little for him to loose.
5. Appellant had set up a case of licensee-licensor relationship with
the respondent and
inter alia wanted a decree of mandatory
injunction against the respondent directing him to vacate the
property. Respondent resisted the suit
inter alia claiming that he
came in possession of the property in question, not as a licensee
but by virtue of two agreements to sell. Appellant claimed that the
said agreements are forged and led evidence to prove the said
fact.
6. The Ld. Trial Court,
inter alia held that the title of the plaintiff
was under cloud and did not even consider the admissions of the
respondent and the forgery committed by him. No finding on the
plea of forgery was returned and the suit was dismissed.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 2 of 60
-- 2 of 60 --
7. Thus, plaintiff/appellant is in first appeal against judgment and
decree dated 08.01.2026 passed in Civil Suit No. 101/2014
[which was eventually renumbered to 105210/15 (
sic 5210/15)
having CNR No. DLNE03-000368-2014] passed by the Court of
Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi (‘im
pugned judgment and decree’).
8. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to
by the nomenclature used before the Ld. Trial Court.
9. Brief facts: Shorn off unnecessary details, as noted above,
plaintiff had sued the defendant on licensee-licensor relationship.
It was his case that he is a co-owner of property bearing No.
E-156, (New Honda Service Center), out of Khasra no. 337, Near
Nav Prakash Public School, Main 60 Foota Road, Shaitan Chowk,
Sri Ram Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri, Delhi-110094 measuring
100 sq yards.
10. Plaintiff's daughter Hajra Firdaus is stated to be the other
co-owner.
11. Plaintiff claims that he alongwith the other co-owner purchased
the suit property from one Shahid Ahmed on 23.06.2003 by virtue
of documents detailed in table-I below:-
Table-I
S.No. Nature of document. Exhibit/mark given
before Trial Court.
1. Registered GPA dated 23.06.2013. Ex. PW1/1
2. Registered Will dated 23.06.2013. Ex. PW1/2
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 3 of 60
-- 3 of 60 --
3. Agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt and
possession letter.
Mark A (colly)
12. It is plaintiff's case that eventually some construction was carried
out on the property and two separate electricity connections with
one in the name of plaintiff and the other in the name of his
daughter/co-owner were taken.
13. Eventually, plaintiff and his family members left the property
inter alia in occupation of plaintiff's son namely Nazim. As per
plaintiff, defendant used to sell
biryani on a push cart just
opposite to the above property and he made a request to plaintiff's
son for accommodation. Plaintiff, on the request of defendant,
gave accommodation of one room, one kitchen, open verandah
and bathroom to the defendant and his family members [more
clearly shown in the red colour in the attached site plan
Ex.PW10/A) and hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'].
14. As per plaintiff, he retained possession of the remaining portion
i.e. a shop, one room and common passage.
15. Plaintiff claims that since then whenever plaintiff asked the
defendant to vacate, time was sought by defendant. As per plaint,
the last request was made on 18.03.2013 when defendant assured
to vacate by 30.03.2013. But, on that date, defendant refused to
vacate.
16. Plaintiff claims that defendant started setting up the following set
of documents described in table-II below to claim that purportedly
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 4 of 60
-- 4 of 60 --
plaintiff had agreed to sell the entire property to defendant. It is
his case that the said set of documents are forged and fabricated
and were never executed by the plaintiff.
Table-II
S.No. Nature of document. Remarks of this Court
1. Agreement for earnest money dated
04.04.2016 - stated to have been executed by
plaintiff in favour of defendant.
As per this document a sum of Rs. 6.25 lac
was paid in cash to plaintiff by defendant.
This document is drawn
on a 50/- stamp paper
bearing No. AA563162
and is stated to have
been issued by a stamp
vendor Madhu Sadana
against entry No. 6511
on 04.04.2006.
2. Shapat Patra/affidavit - stated to be executed
by plaintiff on 04.04.2006.
This document is drawn
on a Rs. 10/- stamp
paper bearing No.
52AA137778 and is
stated to have been
issued by a stamp
vendor Madhu Sadana
against entry No. 6512
on 04.04.2006.
3. Agreement to sell dated 18.11.2012 - stated
to have been executed by plaintiff in favour
of defendant. As per this document, a further
sum of Rs. 5 lac was paid to plaintiff by
defendant in furtherance of document
described at S.No. 1 above.
As per this document, the first agreement to
sell described at S.No. 1 above was novated
and the consideration amount was enhanced
from Rs. 11 lac to Rs. 15 lac.
This document was
eventually given exhibit
as Ex. DW3/1 (OSR).
This document is
available in original in
suit file No. 53/13 (new
No. 353/14 titled as
'Yamin vs. Hasam'. This
suit is a suit for specific
performance filed by
defendant against the
plaintiff seeking
specific performance of
the agreement dated
18.11.2012.)
4. Receipt - stated to have been executed by
plaintiff in favour of defendant.
Forming part of Ex.
DW3/1 (OSR).
This document is
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 5 of 60
-- 5 of 60 --
available in original in
suit file No. 53/13 (new
No. 353/14 titled as
'Yamin vs. Hasam'. This
suit is a suit for specific
performance filed by
defendant against the
plaintiff seeking
specific performance of
the agreement dated
18.11.2012.)
17. Plaintiff claims that on the basis of the above forged documents,
defendant filed a suit for specific performance bearing suit file
No. 53/13 (new No. 353/14 titled as 'Yamin vs. Hasam'). It is his
specific case that as per the FSL report eventually obtained, the
above set of documents were found to be forged.
18. Plaintiff claims that since the license of the defendant was duly
terminated, he should be asked to vacate the property by way of a
decree of mandatory injunction. Additionally, plaintiff demanded
mesne profits @ Rs. 1500/- per day; a decree of Rs. 45,000/- as
arrears of electricity charges; future electricity charges till
vacation of property; decree of permanent injunction restraining
defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit
property.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 6 of 60
-- 6 of 60 --
Defendant's case:
19. In sum and substance, defendant took the plea that (a) plaintiff
cannot claim ownership on the basis of GPA, agreement to sell etc
i.e. documents described in table-I above; (b) that the land where
the property in dispute is located belongs to government/DDA; (c)
that by virtue of documents described in table-II above, he has
paid consideration to plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 11,25,000/-.
20. The plea of payment of consideration in lieu of documents
described in table-II above is essentially contained in para 15 (a)
to (r) of the written statement of the defendant filed on 26.05.2016
under the heading ‘preliminary objections’. The same shall be
relevant for deciding the present appeal and is thus, quoted
verbatim.
15. That the defendant herein, for the purpose of his defense and
revealing of the real truth, produces the, "REAL FACTS OF
THE CASE" for the kind perusal of this hon'ble court, which
are as follows:-
a. That the defendant herein is a peace loving and law abiding
citizen of India and has been residing at the suit property in
question, along with his family, since April, 2006.
b. That in brief facts of the case are that in April 2006, the
plaintiff approached the defendant and claimed himself to
be exclusive owner of one partly built up property
measuring 100 Sq. yards, bearing no. E-156, out of Khasara
no. 337, situated at the area of Village Sadatpur, in the abadi
of Khajuri Khas Illaqua, Shahdara, Delhi known as Gali
main, 60 Foota Road, Shri Ram Colony, Rajiv Nagar,
Khajuri, Delhi and offered to sell the same to the defendant
for total sale consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rupees
Eleven Lacs Only).
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 7 of 60
-- 7 of 60 --
c. That at that time, the plaintiff also stated to the defendant
that he was in urgent need of money and he required Rs.
6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Only) or Rs. 6,25,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakh twenty five thousand Only) immediately
and he also expressed that he is ready to give sufficient time
for the balance sale consideration and he also offered that in
lieu of Rs. 6,25,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh twenty five
thousand Only), he was ready to immediately handover the
possession of the above property to the defendant, herein.
d. That the defendant accepted the offer of the plaintiff and
paid to him a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh
twenty five thousand Only) as earnest money on 04.04.2006
and he executed an agreement to sell of his above property
in favour of the defendant and also handed over peaceful
vacant possession of property to the defendant except one
shop and one room on the front side of the above property,
which he kept with him with the understanding that he will
also handover the remaining portion of the property i.e.
shop and room to the defendant, after vacating the same, as
soon as possible.
e. That on the same day i.e. 04.04.2006, at the asking of the
defendant, the plaintiff herein also handed over to the
defendant a copy of previous chain of ownership documents
of his property to the defendant. The defendant was
surprised to see that the plaintiff was not the sole and
exclusive owner of the suit property in question but in fact,
the daughter namely Ms. Hazara was the co-owner of the
same along with the plaintiff, herein.
f. That when the defendant asked the plaintiff to call his
daughter to sign the agreement then he pleaded that the
money in the property in question was invested by him and
his daughter will not have any objection for the sale of the
same by him, in favour of the defendant. He further assured
that at the time of execution of proper sale deed, he will also
call his daughter, for signing the sale documents in favour of
the defendant, herein.
g. That thereafter the defendant has been asking the plaintiff
herein time and again to receive his balance sale
consideration, also call his daughter and execute necessary
sale documents of the property in question in favour of the
defendant and also to hand over the possession of remaining
portion of the property in question to the defendant, but he
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 8 of 60
-- 8 of 60 --
postponed the same on one pretext or the other and in this
way he has been cheating the defendant since last about six
years.
h. That in the month of November, 2012 the plaintiff herein
again approached the defendant and offered that he
alongwith his daughter Ms. Hazara will execute the sale
documents in favour of the defendant in respect of the
property in question and he also made a commitment that he
will also handover peaceful vacant possession of the
remaining portion of the property in question to the
defendant. The plaintiff herein also pleaded that the rates of
properties in the area have increased and the defendant
should pay some more money than what has been agreed
between him and the defendant, in the year 2006.
i. That finding no alternative, the defendant agreed to enhance
the sale consideration of the property in question from Rs.
11 Lacs to Rs. 15 Lacs and it was again agreed between the
plaintiff herein and the defendant that the sum of Rs.
6,25,000/- already paid by the defendant shall be treated as
initial earnest money and the defendant shall further pay a
sum of Rs. 5 Lacs to the plaintiff, as further part payment of
the sale consideration.
j. That it was further agreed between the plaintiff and the
defendant that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.
3,75,000/- (Three Lacs and Seventy Five Thousands Only)
shall be paid by the defendant to plaintiff at the time of
execution of sale documents of the property in question by
the plaintiff herein and his daughter in favour of the
defendant and simultaneously the plaintiff herein will also
handover peaceful vacant possession of the remaining
portion of the property in question to the defendant on or
before 31.03.2013.
k. That as per terms and conditions again settled between the
plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff executed second
agreement to sell on 18.11.2012 in presence of witness
acknowledging the receipt of part payment of Rs. 5 Lacs
towards sale consideration, wherein the plaintiff agreed to
execute sale documents of the property in question in favour
of defendant on or before 31.03.2013.
1. That the defendant was ready with the balance sale
consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/- and have been repeatedly
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 9 of 60
-- 9 of 60 --
requesting the plaintiff time and again to receive his balance
sale consideration and execute necessary sale documents of
the property in question and also hand over vacant peaceful
possession of remaining portion of the property in question
to the defendant but again it seems that the plaintiff has
become dishonest and he does not want to perform his part
of contract. The defendant has also come to know from
reliance sources that the plaintiff has been keeping his
daughter Ms. Hazara in dark. In this way, the plaintiff herein
has played a fraud upon the defendant and taken away his
hard earned money from him.
m. That in these circumstances, the defendant through his
counsel sent a legal notice dated 30.03.2013 to the plaintiff
which has duly served upon him but he has failed to comply
with the terms of agreement between the parties.
n. That on the same day i.e. 30.03.2013 in the evening the
plaintiff herein alongwith some unknown gunda type of
persons came and forcibly entered into the house of the
defendant and gave beatings to the defendant and his family
members and also tried to forcibly dispossess the defendant
from the property in question. The son of the defendant Sh.
Imran made a call to the PCR and the PCR came at the spot
and took away the plaintiff and his accomplishes to the
police station. The defendant also went to the police station
but the local police refused to lodge the complaint of the
defendant and it seems that the local police is playing in the
hands of the plaintiff herein.
o. That the defendant also sent a written complaint to the
commissioner of police, but the defendant is getting
continuous threats of life from the plaintiff and his
accomplishes. In these circumstances, the defendant has
filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff and his
associates, pending adjudication in the court of Sh. Sharad
Gupta, ACMM, KKDC, Delhi.
p. That the defendant is still ready and willing to perform his
part of contract and it is the plaintiff who has been avoiding
the same. The plaintiff and his daughter are liable to execute
the registered sale deed of the suit property in favour of the
defendant but they have apparently turned dishonest and
have refused to abide by the terms of agreement to sell and
complete their part of the contract. Hence, the defendant has
to file the suit for specific performance.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 10 of 60
-- 10 of 60 --
q. That Ms. Hazara is the co-owner of the suit property. She is
the daughter of the plaintiff and has all the consent and
knowledge of the activities of him, which were transacted
with the defendant, since inception. Both of these persons
are in collusion to defeat the interest, claim and whatsoever
rights of the defendant, in the suit property.
r. That now in recent investigations qua real status of the suit
property it has revealed to the defendant that the plaintiff is
not the owner of the suit property and they have
fraudulently has prepared the false document land and of the
governmental misappropriated the money of the defendant.
Further, the plaintiff in conspiracy with his daughter and
other associates in order to trap the defendant and his family
into false and frivolous criminal cases to pressurize them to
vacate the suit property illegally has prepared forged
documents. For which, the defendant is taking legal
recourse and action & has filed the police compliant to the
respective police authorities in the regard.
(emphasis supplied)
21. Thus, a bare perusal of the above written statement shows that as
per defendant’s own case, he purportedly entered into an
agreement to sell dated 04.04.2006 with plaintiff and purportedly
paid a sum of Rs. 6.25 lac to him. The sale price at that time is
stated to have been fixed at Rs. 11 lac. At that time, agreement to
sell dated 04.04.2006 described at S.No. 1 of table-II above was
purportedly executed by plaintiff.
22. Eventually, the sale consideration was enhanced to Rs. 15 lac and
plaintiff executed another agreement on 18.11.2012 in favour of
defendant (i.e. the document described at S.No. 3 of table-II
above). At that time, a receipt of like date is also stated to have
been executed by plaintiff whereunder a further amount of Rs. 5
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 11 of 60
-- 11 of 60 --
lac is stated to have been paid to plaintiff. This receipt is
described at S.No. 4 of table-II above.
23. It is pertinent to note that defendant does not dispute the fact that
he filed a suit for specific performance against plaintiff bearing
CS No. 53/13 (eventually, renumbered as 353/14) on the basis of
documents described in table-II above. In this regard reference
can be had to para 8 of the written statement of the defendant
under the heading ‘reply on merits’ wherein defendant
categorically refers to the documents described in table-II above
and claims that defendant herein has filed a genuine and proper
suit before the Court of ADJ. Defendant, as per the said para also
filed a copy of the plaint of the said suit with his written
statement.
24. I shall come to the above facts in a little while. But, at this stage,
suffice is to say that defendant resisted the suit of the plaintiff
inter alia on the ground that he had agreed to purchase the entire
property (including the suit property) from the plaintiff initially
on 04.04.2006; and eventually, on 18.11.2012.
25. It is pertinent to note that as per para 15 of the written statement
of the defendant, defendant was put in possession of the entire
property except one shop and one room on the front side.
26. This description of property corresponds with the site plan Ex.
PW10/A relied upon by the plaintiff wherein the red portion
shown in the site plan is the portion which defendant claims to
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 12 of 60
-- 12 of 60 --
have been put in possession of on 04.04.2006. The remaining area
(which is not marked in red colour) are essentially one shop, one
room and a common passage. This means that the area claimed by
the plaintiff as suit property corresponds with the area claimed to
have been given possession of by defendant by virtue of
agreement dated 04.04.2006.
A brief of the proceedings before the Trial Court:
27. Before proceeding further, I may note that initially issues in the
matter were framed on 18.12.2014. Thereafter, plaintiff moved an
application for amendment whereby plaintiff wanted to amend his
relief of possession to that of mandatory injunction. This
amendment was allowed vide order dated 29.04.2016.
28. Thereafter, the relief of mandatory injunction was granted to the
plaintiff by the Ld. Trial Court U/O XII Rule 6 CPC vide order
dated 01.03.2017. While the said order was taken in first appeal
(bearing RCA No. 46/17) by the defendant, the Ld. Trial Court
proceeded with the matter and the issues were re-framed vide
order dated 17.03.2017. It appears that the fact that issues in the
matter had already been framed vide order dated 18.12.2014, was
overlooked by the Ld. Trial Court and all the issues were
re-framed again on 17.03.2017 (except the issue of mandatory
injunction).
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 13 of 60
-- 13 of 60 --
29. In RCA No. 46/17, defendant succeeded and the part decree of
mandatory injunction was set aside vide judgment dated
28.07.2017.
30. This led to framing of two additional issues on 28.10.2017.
31. The issues framed in the matter read as under:-
Issues framed on 18.12.2014:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
a decree of possession as prayed? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages
as prayed? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
a decree of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of arrears
of rent as prayed? OPP.
(v) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to
be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
(vi) Whether the plaintiff has valued the suit properly
for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
(vii) Relief, if any.
Issues framed on 17.03.2017:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/mesne
profit @ Rs. 1500/- per day from the date of filing of
the suit till the handing over of vacant physical
possession of suit property to the plaintiff? OPP.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 14 of 60
-- 14 of 60 --
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears
of electricity charges Rs. 45,000/- and future electricity
charges in the handing over of possession of the suit
property till the handing over of vacant physical
possession of suit property to the plaintiff? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a
relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP.
(iv) Relief?
Additional issues f ramed on 28.10.2017:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory
injunction to handover the peaceful and vacant
possession of the suit property? OPP.
(ii) Whether the defendant is entitled for protection u/s
53A of Transfer of Property Act? OPD.
(iii) Relief?
32. In effect, issues in the main suit were framed on three dates i.e
18.12.2014, 17.03.2017 and 28.10.2017. Some of the issues
framed on 18.12.2014 and 17.03.2017 are overlapping. The Ld.
Trial Court while dismissing the suit had decided all the above
issues against the plaintiff (except the issue of valuation i.e. issue
No. (vi) framed on 18.12.2014 which was decided against the
defendant; and issue No. (ii) framed on 28.10.2017 which was
never decided).
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 15 of 60
-- 15 of 60 --
Evidence led before the Trial Court:
33. Plaintiff produced the following witnesses:-
S.No. Witness details Nature of testimony Remarks
1. PW-1/Chandan Lal Summoned witness called
from the office of Sub-
Registrar to prove GPA and
Will dated 24.06.2003 Ex.
PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2
executed by Shahid Ahmad in
favoEvidence ledur of
plaintiff and Smt. Hajra
(daughter of plaintiff).
This witness was
summoned by the
plaintiff to prove the
registration of GPA and
Will in his favour
executed by the previous
owner Shahid Ahmad
from whom plaintiff
claims to have purchased
the property in question.
2. PW-2/Subhash Chand Summoned witness called
from BSES Delhi to prove bill
summary etc. in favour of
plaintiff and his daughter
Ex.PW2/1 and Ex. PW2/2
with respect to two electricity
connections taken by plaintiff
and his daughter at the
property in question.
3. PW-3/Rajeev Ranjan Summoned witness who was
posted as Sr. Asstt., Treasury
Office, Office of Divisional
Commissioner, Tis Hazari,
Delhi
This witness proved on record
copy of letter dated
25.05.2013 as per which
stamp paper No. AA563162 of
denomination Rs. 50/- was
issued to stamp vendor Madhu
Sadana on 22.03.2012 and
stamp paper No. 52AA137778
of denomination Rs. 10/- was
issued to stamp vendor Madhu
Sadana on 12.09.2012.
The relevant stock registers of
the above stamp papers were
also proved on record by the
It is pertinent to note that
as per the case of the
defendant, plaintiff had
purportedly executed an
agreement to sell dated
04.04.2006 and an
affidavit also dated
04.04.2006 in favour of
defendant. The said two
documents were
prepared on stamp
papers bearing No.
AA563162 of
denomination Rs.50/-
and stamp paper bearing
No. 52AA137778 of
denomination Rs. 10/-.
As per the evidence of
this witness, the said
stamp papers were
issued from the treasury
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 16 of 60
-- 16 of 60 --
said witness as Ex. PW3/2
(OSR) (2 pages) and Ex.
PW3/3 (OSR) (2 pages).
only in 2012 and
therefore, the question of
they having been made
available to defendant in
2006 does not arise.
When the stamp paper
themselves were not
issued by treasury, how
could defendant procure
them in 2006 for
preparation of agreement
to sell/affidavit? Thus,
this witness was called
to prove the forgery
committed by defendant.
4. PW-4/Veer Singh Summoned witness called
from the office of SDM
Kotwali, Delhi.
This witness was summoned by
plaintiff to prove letter dated
08.10.2013 Ex.PW4/1 (7
pages).
This witness also produced the
original stamp vending
register of Madhu Sadana
having license No. 329. The
copy of the same with entries
for the period 03.04.2006 to
05.04.2006 were taken on
record as Ex. PW4/2 (8 pages)
(OSR).
It is pertinent to note that
as per the case of the
defendant, plaintiff had
purportedly executed an
agreement to sell dated
04.04.2006 and an
affidavit also dated
04.04.2006 in favour of
defendant. The said two
documents were
prepared on stamp
papers bearing No.
AA563162 of
denomination Rs.50/-
and stamp paper bearing
No. 52AA137778 of
denomination Rs. 10/-.
The said two stamp
papers, as per the
endorsement on their
back side are stated to
have been issued by
stamp vendor Madhu
Sadana against entry No.
6511 dated 04.04.2006
and 6512 dated
04.04.2006.
As per the evidence of
this witness Ex.PW4/1,
the said stamp papers
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 17 of 60
-- 17 of 60 --
were never issued by
stamp vendor Madhu
Sadana on 04.04.2006 as
no such record exists in
the corresponding
register of the stamp
vendor Ex. PW4/2 for
the dated 04.04.2006. In
fact, a bare perusal of the
said document Ex.
PW4/2 would show that
the serial number for the
date 04.04.2006 does not
go beyond entry ‘99’.
Thus, there is no
question of any entry
having serial No. 6511
or 6512.
When the stamp paper
themselves were not
issued by the stamp
vendor, how could
defendant procure them
for preparation of
agreement to
sell/affidavit? Thus, this
witness was called to
prove the forgery
committed by defendant.
5. PW-5/Mohd. Shahid
Ahmad
He was the person from whom
plaintiff claimed to have
purchased the property in
question. He supported the
case of the plaintiff.
6. PW-6/Dilbar Singh
Rawat
This witness was summoned
to prove the judicial record of
suit No. 53/13 bearing
goswara No. 62/August/15
Mauza diwani.
This is the record of the
suit of specific
performance filed by
defendant against
plaintiff on the basis of
documents described in
table-II above.
7. PW-7/Ravinder Singh
Yadav
Summoned witness from FSL
Crime Branch.
This witness was summoned
to prove the copy of his report
As per this report,
defendant herein is one
of the executants of the
documents described in
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 18 of 60
-- 18 of 60 --
Ex.PW7/1 dated 20.11.2013
alongwith letter Ex.PW7/2.
table-II above.
This witness was called
to prove that defendant
himself prepared the
documents described in
table-II.
8. PW-8/Dr. Virender
Singh
This witness was summoned
from FSL to prove his report
dated 14.03.2014 whereby he
had examined the admitted
specimen signatures of
plaintiff with the disputed
signatures on documents
described in table-II. But, his
chief was never completed.
9. PW-9/SI Geeta from
Crim Branch.
This witness was summoned
to prove copy of an NCR
report Ex.PW-9 (colly).
Plaintiff had reported
loss of some documents
and the factum of
reporting the said loss
was sought to be proved
by this witness.
10. PW-10/Plaintiff
Mohd. Hasam
He reiterated his case in his
evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW10/1 and placed
reliance on the documents
described above.
11. PW-11/Hajra Firdaus She is the daughter of the
plaintiff and a co-owner of the
property in question. She
supported the plaintiff and
relied upon her affidavit in
evidence Ex.PW11/A
alongwith all the documents
which the plaintiff had relied
in his evidence.
34. Defendant produced the following witnesses:
S.No. Witness details Nature of testimony Remarks
1. DW-1/Defendant
Mohd. Yamin
Defendant reiterated his
defence noted above in his
It may be noted that
even though defendant
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 19 of 60
-- 19 of 60 --
affidavit in evidence
EX.DW1/A.
refers and relies on three
documents Ex. DW1/1
to Ex. DW1/3 in his
affidavit in evidence, the
said documents were not
actually exhibited at the
time of tendering of
evidence. The said
documents, as described
in the affidavit in
evidence of defendant
are
(a) Ex. DW1/1 – copy of
identity proof of
defendant.
(b) Ex. DW1/2 (colly) –
copy of agreement
to sell with receipt
dated 18.11.2012.
(c) Ex. DW1/3 – copy of
electricity
connection having
CA No. 350636779
with energisation
dated 20.11.2025.
The above fact has
been noted only to put
the record straight.
2. DW-2/Hemraj Summoned witness from
Record Room (North-East).
This witness was called to
prove an order-sheet dated
15.12.2015 passed in suit No.
1053410/15 filed by defendant
against plaintiff for installation
of an electricity connection at
the suit property.
3. DW-3/Rishabh Gotra Summoned witness from
Record Room (North-East).
This witness was called to
prove the original of the
agreement to sell and receipt
dated 18.11.2012 stated to be
executed by plaintiff in favour
of defendant available in CS
This witness was
summoned by defendant
to prove the originals of
the agreement to sell and
receipt filed by
defendant in the suit for
specific performance.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 20 of 60
-- 20 of 60 --
No. 53/13 (new CS No.
353/14 titled as ‘Mohd. Yamin
Vs. Mohd. Hasam’.
4. DW-4/Insp.
Shailender Kumar
Singh
He was the Investigating
Officer of FIR No. 322/13
dated 25.06.2013 PS Khajuri
Khas registered U/S
420/468/471/120B/34 IPC.
This witness had collected the
documents described at table-
II in original and had sent the
same for FSL examination.
It is pertinent to note that
at the instance of
plaintiff, the said FIR
was registered
inter alia
against the defendant for
forgery of documents
described in table-II.
This witness had
collected the originals of
the said documents and
had sent the same for
FSL examination.
5. DW-5/Anwar This witness was called to
prove the transaction set up by
the defendant with plaintiff in
terms of documents described
in table-II above. He claimed
that the said documents
executed on 18.11.2012 i.e.
the agreement to sell and
receipt described at S.No. 3
and 4 of table-II above bears
his signatures.
It is pertinent to note that
even though this witness
sought to exhibit the
documents i.e.
agreement to sell and
receipt as Ex. DW2/2
and Ex. DW2/3, at the
time of tendering of
evidence, the said
documents were found
to have been already
exhibited as Ex.DW3/1
(OSR) (colly) and would
thus be referred by the
said name in the body of
this judgment.
Findings by the Ld. Trial Court:
35. The Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff
inter alia
by holding (a) that a serious doubt regarding the ownership of
land in the name of erstwhile owner/Shahid Ahmad has been
raised and this doubt has not been cleared by plaintiff; (b) that
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 21 of 60
-- 21 of 60 --
despite the plea of defendant that the property belongs to DDA,
DDA has not been impleaded as a party to the suit; (c) plaintiff
has failed to clarify his own title over the suit property; (d)
plaintiff has failed to establish the relationship of licensor-licensee
between plaintiff and defendant; (e) plaintiff has failed to prove
that defendant was in unauthorised and illegal possession of suit
property and thus, he cannot claim damages/mesne profits.
36. The Ld. Trial Court, on the analysis of evidence have returned the
above findings against the plaintiff and has dismissed the suit.
37. Being aggrieved, plaintiff is in first appeal.
Plaintiff’s argument:
38. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Ld. Trial Court grossly
erred in appreciating the evidence on record. He argued that from
the bare perusal of the written statement and the evidence of
defendant, it is evident that defendant had admitted the ownership
of the plaintiff and his daughter Hajra Firdaus/PW-11 and
therefore, the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that there was any
cloud on the title of the plaintiff; or plaintiff failed to clarify his
title; or plaintiff failed to establish licensee-licensor relationship
with defendant is completely
de hors the record.
39. Counsel argued that in fact, from the evidence of PW-10/plaintiff
read with PW-3 and PW-4, plaintiff has been able to establish
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 22 of 60
-- 22 of 60 --
that the chain of documents described in table-II above are
patently forged and fabricated documents. It was argued that the
Ld. Trial Court did not even consider the testimony of PW-3 and
PW-4 which clearly establishes the forgery committed by
defendant. It was argued that if the said testimony is read, it
would show that the basic agreement and affidavit dated
04.04.2006 are forged and fabricated documents and once, they
fall, the subsequent agreement of 18.11.2012 alongwith receipt
shall also fall. Despite the above, the Ld. Trial Court wrongly
relied upon the testimony of DW-4/Insp. Shailender Kumar Singh
(the initial IO in FIR No. 322/13 PS Khajuri Khas where
defendant is an accused and facing trial for forgery of documents
described in table-II) to conclude that plaintiff has not clarified
his title. It was argued that testimony of DW-4, by no stretch of
imagination be the basis of returning a finding that there is a
cloud on the title of the plaintiff.
40. Counsel further submitted that admittedly, defendant had filed a
suit of specific performance bearing CS No. 53/13 (new No.
353/14) having goswara No. 62/August/15 Mauza Diwani titled
as ‘Mohd. Yamin Vs. Hasam’. It was argued that defendant
himself is claiming specific performance of an agreement Ex.
DW3/1 dated 18.11.2012 qua the property in question. Counsel
submitted that once defendant himself files a suit of specific
performance, he essentially admits the ownership of plaintiff and
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 23 of 60
-- 23 of 60 --
therefore, there is no question of any issue of any disputed title
inter se plaintiff and defendant.
41. Counsel submitted that in any case, the case set up by the plaintiff
was of licensee-licensor relationship and the Ld. Trial Court went
on a different tangent by holding that there was any dispute qua
the title of the plaintiff. It was argued that even if it is taken that
the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were in the nature of
GPA etc. (described in table-I above) and they do not make the
plaintiff a sole owner in the property, still, since defendant
admitted that he entered possession through plaintiff, plaintiff can
still maintain the suit against defendant and only the original
owner could have defeated the suit of plaintiff.
42. Thus, it is prayed that impugned judgment and decree be set aside
and each and every relief sought in the plaint be granted to the
plaintiff.
Defendant’s argument:
43. On the other hand, Counsel for defendant argued that defendant
entered the property by paying money to the plaintiff and since
the title documents relied upon by the plaintiff are in the nature of
GPA, agreement to sell etc. plaintiff cannot claim ownership of
the property and thus, no decree of mandatory injunction etc. can
be passed against the defendant.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 24 of 60
-- 24 of 60 --
44. Counsel for defendant relied upon the judgment of ‘Shakeel
Ahmad Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain 2023 SCC Online SC 1526’
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and of
‘Neelam Bhatia Vs. Ritu Bhatia’ dated 29.01.2026 passed in
CS(OS) 141/2022 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for the
above contention.
45. It was also argued that even a suit on the basis of licensee-licensor
relationship was liable to fail if plaintiff did not have any title to
the suit property. Counsel further claimed that each of the findings
returned by the Ld. Trial Court are as per law and they do not call
for any interference by this Court.
Analysis and finding:
46. From the above arguments, the following points fall for
consideration in the present appeal:-
a. Whether defendant admitted the title of the plaintiff qua the
suit property?
b. Whether agreement to sell dated 04.04.2006 read with
agreement to sell dated 18.11.2012 are forged documents? If
yes, its effect.
c. If the answer of the above two points is in favour of plaintiff,
can defendant still dispute the title of the plaintiff on the
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 25 of 60
-- 25 of 60 --
basis of agreement to sell dated 04.04.2006, agreement to
sell dated 11.12.2006 or any other ground?
d. What is the relationship between plaintiff and defendant qua
the suit property?
e. Relief, if any.
47. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments of the
parties and have gone through the entire record and the evidence
before me.
48. I proceed to decide each of the above points of consideration
hereinafter:-
Point a, b, c and d:
a. Whether defendant admitted the title of the plaintiff qua the
suit property?
b. Whether agreement to sell dated 04.04.2006 read with
agreement to sell dated 18.11.2012 are forged documents?
If yes, its effect.
c. If the answer of the above two points is in favour of
plaintiff, can defendant still dispute the title of the plaintiff
on the basis of agreement to sell dated 04.04.2006,
agreement to sell dated 11.12.2006 or any other ground?
d. What is the relationship between plaintiff and defendant
qua the suit property?
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 26 of 60
-- 26 of 60 --
49. A bare perusal of the pleadings of the parties would show that
plaintiff claimed that sometime in 2006, defendant approached
plaintiff’s son for accommodation and eventually, defendant
permitted plaintiff to occupy the suit property. This fact is
reiterated by the plaintiff in his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW10/1.
His daughter PW-11/Firdos Hajra is a co-owner in the property
and she stepped in the witness box to support plaintiff’s case.
50. Nothing has come out in the cross-examination of PW-10 and
PW-11 to raise any doubt on their claim that defendant was
allowed to occupy the suit property as a gratuitous licensee.
51. Nothing has come out from the cross-examination of the said two
witnesses to show that any of them have stated false facts or their
testimony is not trustworthy. Even the Trial Court did not return
any finding claiming that the testimony of the said two witnesses
is not trustworthy. A perusal of the cross-examination of both the
witnesses would show that they consistently claimed that
PW-5/Shahid Ahmad had sold the property in question to both the
said individuals and eventually sometime in 2006, at the request
of defendant, defendant was allowed an accommodation in the
suit property.
52. It has to be recalled that plaintiff has sued the defendant on the
basis of licensee-licensor relationship and this is not an
inter se
title dispute between the parties. This fact is abundantly clear
from the bare perusal of the pleadings of the defendant.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 27 of 60
-- 27 of 60 --
53. Defendant, in his own written statement claims that he was
purportedly approached by plaintiff claiming that plaintiff is
exclusive owner of one partly built up property measuring 100 sq
yards…. and offered to sell the same to the defendant for total
consideration of Rs. 11 lac. This was on 04.04.2006.
54. As per defendant’s own case, he purportedly accepted the offer of
the plaintiff and paid Rs. 6.25 lac on 04.04.2006 and he executed
an agreement to sell of the above property and was handed over
peaceful vacant possession of the property, except one shop and
one room on the front side of the above property.
55. Defendant also claims that on 04.04.2006 itself, copy of previous
title chain was purportedly handed over by plaintiff when he
learnt that plaintiff’s daughter namely Ms. Hazara was the
co-owner of the said property.
56. Defendant claims that despite questioning the plaintiff on this,
plaintiff purportedly represented to defendant that Ms. Hazara
shall have no objection to the sale arrangement. He claims that in
month of November 2012, plaintiff again approached the
defendant and offered that he and his daughter Ms. Hazara will
execute the sale documents in favour of the defendant. An
enhancement of sale price to Rs. 15 lac was purportedly made and
eventually, a second sale agreement on 18.11.2012 alongwith a
receipt of part payment of Rs. 5 lac was executed.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 28 of 60
-- 28 of 60 --
57. In this regard, reference can be had to para 15 (b), (c), (d), (e), (h),
(i) and (k) of the written statement of the defendant under the
heading ‘preliminary objections’. The said paragraphs have been
quoted in extenso above and are not repeated herein for the sake
of brevity.
58. This means that on 04.04.2006 itself, defendant learnt that
plaintiff and his daughter Hajra Firdos are the co-owners of the
property and on the same day, he entered into an agreement to
sell. Eventually a second agreement is stated to have been entered
on 18.11.2012. Defendant himself admits execution of documents
mentioned in table-II above and consistently relies upon them in
his written statement. Thus, defendant is claiming that he came in
possession of the suit property through plaintiff only.
59. The above facts have been reiterated by the defendant in his own
affidavit in evidence Ex. DW1/A. In this regard, reference can be
had to para 8 to para 17 of the said affidavit which essentially
reiterates the above facts. The said paragraphs read as under:-
“8. That the deponent states that in April 2006 the plaintiff
approached the deponent and claim himself to be exclusive
owner of one partly built-up property measuring 100 sq.
Yards bearing no. E-156, out of Khasara no. 337, situated at
the area of village sadatpur Delhi known as Gali main 60
Foota road Sri Ram colony, Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri Delhi and
offered to sell the same the deponent for total sale
consideration of Rs, 11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lakhs Only).
9. That the deponent states that at that time the plaintiff also
stated to the deponent that he was in urgent need of money
and the plaintiff required Rs,6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Only) or
Rs,6,25,000/-(Rupees Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) and
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 29 of 60
-- 29 of 60 --
he also express that he is ready to give sufficient time for the
balance sale consideration and he also offered that lieu of
Rs.6,25,000/- /-(Rupees Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only)
he was ready immediately handover the possession of the
above property to the deponent herein.
10. That the deponent accepted the offer of the plaintiff and paid
to him a sum of Rs.6,25,000/-/-(Rupees Lakhs Twenty Five
Thousand Only) as earnest money on 04.04.2006 and he
executed an agreement to sell of the above property in
favour of the deponent and also hand it over peaceful vacant
possession of property to the deponent except one Shop and
one Room on the front side of the above property, which he
kept with him with the understanding that he will also
handover the remaining possession of the property i.e. shop
and room to the deponent after vacating the same as soon as
possible.
11. That the deponent states that on same day i.e. 04.04.2006, at
the asking of the deponent, the plaintiff herein also handed
over to the deponent a copy of previous chain of ownership
documents of his property to the deponent. The deponent was
surprised to see that the plaintiff was not the sole and
exclusive owner of the suit property in question but in fact,
the daughter namely Ms. Hazara was the co-owner of the
same along with the plaintiff, herein.
12. That the deponent states that when the deponent asked the
plaintiff to call his daughter to sign the agreement then he
pleaded that the money in the property in question was
invested by him and his daughter will not have any objection
for the sale of the same by him, in favour of the deponent. He
further assured that at the time of execution of proper sale
deed, he will also call his daughter, for signing the sale
documents in favour of the deponent, herein.
13. That thereafter the deponent has been asking the plaintiff
herein time and again to receive his balance sale
consideration, also call his daughter and execute necessary
sale documents of the property in question in favour of the
deponent and also to hand over the possession of remaining
portion of the property in question to the deponent, but he
postponed the same on one pretext or the other and in this
way, he has been cheating the deponent since last about six
years.
14. That in the month of November, 2012, the plaintiff herein
again approached the deponent and offered that he along
with his daughter Ms. Hazara will execute the sale
documents in favour of the deponent in respect of the
property in question and he also made a commitment that he
will also handover peaceful vacant possession of the
remaining portion of the property in question to the
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 30 of 60
-- 30 of 60 --
deponent. The plaintiff herein also pleaded that the rates of
properties in the area have increased and the deponent
should pay some more money than what has been agreed
between him and the deponent, in the year 2006.
15. That the deponent states that finding no alternative, the
deponent agreed to enhance the sale consideration of the
property in question from Rs. 11 Lacs to Rs. 15 Lacs and it
was again agreed between the plaintiff herein and the
deponent that the sum of Rs.6,25,000/- already paid by the
deponent shall be treated as initial earnest money and the
deponent shall further pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs to the
plaintiff, as further part payment of the sale consideration.
16. That the deponent states that it was further agreed between the
plaintiff and the deponent that the remaining sale
consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- (Three Lacs and Seventy Five
Thousands Only) shall be paid by the deponent to plaintiff at
the time of execution of sale documents of the property in
question by the plaintiff herein and his daughter in favour of
the deponent and simultaneously the plaintiff herein will also
handover peaceful vacant possession of the remaining portion
of the property in question to the deponent on or before
31.03.2013.
17. That the deponent states that as per terms and conditions
again settled between the plaintiff and the deponent, the
plaintiff executed second agreement to sell on 18.11.2012 in
presence of competent witness acknowledging the receipt of
part payment of Rs.5 Lacs towards sale consideration,
wherein the plaintiff agreed to execute sale documents of the
property in question in favour of deponent on or before
31.03.2013. The copy of the agreement to sell with receipt
dated 18.11.2012 duly signed and executed by the plaintiff in
favour of deponent are EX-DW1/2(Colly.).”
(emphasis supplied)
60. Yet again, even in the cross-examination of the defendant as
DW-1 on 04.09.2025 and 16.09.2025, defendant admits the fact
that plaintiff and his daughter Hajra are the owners of the suit
property and it was with plaintiff’s permission that he started
living in the suit property.
61. The relevant portion of the said cross-examination read as under:-
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 31 of 60
-- 31 of 60 --
Cross-examination of DW1/Yamin dated 04.09.2025:-
“ I started residing in the suit property in the month of April
2006. Hasam permitted me to live in the suit property (I gave
money to Hasam and he offered me residence.”
(emphasis supplied)
Cross-examination of DW1/Yamin dated 16.09.2025:-
“I cannot say if Hasam and Hazra are the owners of the suit
property, it is Hasam who is the owner of the suit property.
After many days, I got to know that Hajra is also owner with
Hasam of the suit property…………….I never met Hazra (Vol
I purchased the suit property from Hasam).”
62. A bare perusal of the above would show that defendant had
consistently claimed in his written statement filed on 26.05.2016,
affidavit in evidence Ex.DW1/A and cross-examination (quoted
above) that plaintiff and his daughter Hajra Firdos/PW-11 is the
owner of the property in question (which includes the suit
property).
63. In fact, he claims that he entered into documents described in
table-II and it was the plaintiff who signed the said documents as
owner of the property.
64. Against such categorical and clear admissions, the Ld. Trial Court
went on a different tangent by holding that there was a cloud on
the plaintiff’s title and the same was not cleared by the plaintiff.
Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the said finding was
returned primarily on the ground that PW-5/Shahid Ahmad (from
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 32 of 60
-- 32 of 60 --
whom plaintiff claimed that he purchased the property in
question) could not recall the name of the previous owner. The
answer to the said question was not given by the witness and this
led the Ld. Trial Court to hold that plaintiff’s title was under
cloud.
65. In my humble opinion, once the defendant had himself admitted
the ownership of plaintiff throughout the entire record including
his cross-examination, the question of any cloud being raised on
the title of plaintiff does not arise. As already noted, this is not a
title dispute
inter se the parties and is a dispute based on licensee-
licensor relationship. Defendant himself is claiming title through
plaintiff. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court had no occasion to hold that
the title of the plaintiff was not clear or was under cloud.
66. An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely
upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless
successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous (see Ramji Dayawala
& Sons (P) Ltd vs Invest Import AIR 1981 SC 2085; and Narayan
Bhagwantrao Gosavibalajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi And
Others AIR 1960 SC 100).
67. In the present case, the fact that plaintiff was admitted to be the
owner of the suit property was unambiguously and categorically
admitted by the defendant all throughout his case including during
his cross-examination. He never withdrew the said admission or
claimed that it was erroneous.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 33 of 60
-- 33 of 60 --
68. Thus, there was no occasion for the Ld. Trial Court to negate and
overlook such compelling evidence and selectively rely upon the
part testimony of PW-5/Shahid Ahmad @ Saeed Ahmad only to
the extent that since he could not recall the name of the previous
owner, therefore, plaintiff’s title came under cloud. It is pertinent
to note that a perusal of the entire testimony of PW-5/Shahid
Ahmad @ Saeed Ahmad would show that he supported the case
of the plaintiff by claiming that he actually sold the property in
question to plaintiff and his daughter by virtue of documents
described in table-I above [Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2 and MarkA]. He
consistently stuck to the same stand during his cross-examination.
The Ld. Trial Court did not even consider the said aspect of the
matter and chose to pick up one line from the entire testimony of
PW-5.
69. It is settled law that the testimony of a given witness has to be
read as a whole and the effect thereof has to be cumulatively seen.
If I consider the testimony of PW-5 as a whole, it in fact supports
the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff was given possession of the
entire property by PW-5 against consideration. It also supports the
case of the plaintiff that PW-5 actually executed the documents
described in table-I above in favour of plaintiff.
70. It is a different thing to say that the documents described in table-
I are not in the nature of conveyance deeds as they are GPA,
agreement to sell etc. But, it is different thing to say that since
PW-5 did not recall the name of the previous owner from whom
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 34 of 60
-- 34 of 60 --
PW-5 purchased the property in question therefore, the title of
plaintiff is under cloud.
71. As already noted, the suit was premised on licensee-licensor
relationship
inter se the parties. Plaintiff, in his wisdom, produced
PW-5 only to substantiate the manner in which he came in
possession of the property. The Ld. Trial Court instead of
appreciating whether there was evidence to establish licensee-
licensor relationship, went on to question the title of the plaintiff.
This was when defendant himself was admitting the title of
plaintiff in his pleadings, evidence and cross-examination.
72. It is pertinent to note that the issues in the suit were struck on
three different dates and no issue questioning the title of plaintiff
was ever struck. If, in the opinion of Ld. Trial Court there was any
issue to be decided qua the title of the plaintiff, such an issue
should have been pressed for by the defendant so that plaintiff
would have had notice of the said issue. Without any such issue
being struck, in my humble opinion, the Ld. Trial Court grossly
erred in law by non-suiting the plaintiff on an incorrect
appreciation of evidence.
73. I may note that on one hand defendant admitted the ownership of
plaintiff and sought to perfect his title by relying on agreements to
sell dated 04.04.2006 read with 18.11.2012, on the other hand, he
took a contradictory plea that the land where the suit property is
located belongs to government/DDA. The Ld. Trial Court had
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 35 of 60
-- 35 of 60 --
even returned a finding on this plea that despite a specific
objection of defendant that the suit land belongs to DDA, said
DDA was never impleaded as a party.
74. I may note that save and except the oral plea of defendant on this
point, there is no documentary or cogent oral evidence to support
the said assertion. It is a bit surprising that the Ld. Trial Court
chose to believe the oral claim of defendant on this aspect. If the
property actually belongs to DDA or any other government
agency, there must be some documentary evidence on this point.
Defendant, despite more than sufficient opportunities, never led
any cogent evidence to prove this. He never caused summoning of
any witness from DDA or any government agency in this regard.
He never placed on record a single piece of document which
forms the basis of his said assertion.
75. Defendant, as shall be seen during the course of this judgment, is
a deceitful and manipulative person who has forged the
documents described in table-II above. The bald and oral claim of
such a devious person should not have formed the basis of
returning a finding that plaintiff should have impleaded DDA/any
government agency as a party to the suit. The oral claim of
defendant does not carry any weight or evidentiary value on this
aspect and thus there was no question of plaintiff being non-suited
for non-impleadment of DDA/any government agency. Thus, the
finding of the Ld. Trial Court that government/DDA should have
been made a party to this suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 36 of 60
-- 36 of 60 --
of party, is a wrong finding of fact, which is not borne out from
the record.
76. Apart from the admission of the defendant qua the ownership of
plaintiff, it is pertinent to note that admittedly, defendant himself
had filed a Civil suit for specific performance bearing CS No.
53/14 (new No. 353/14) titled as ‘Yamin Vs. Hasam’. The filing
of this suit was on the basis of the two agreements described in
table-II above. The record of this suit is admittedly lying
consigned at goswara No. 62/August/2015 at mauza Diwani of
Record Room North-East and was summoned by both the parties
during trial.
77. Defendant did not pursue the said suit to its logical end and have
got it
sine die. This fact was admitted by the parties during the
course of hearing. The plaint as well as written statement of the
said suit is available on Trial Court record. A perusal of the same
shows that defendant himself wanted the plaintiff to perform the
two agreements described at S.No. 1 and 3 of table-II above
(which forms part of Ex.PW4/1 and Ex. DW3/1). The originals of
the same are available on the case record of suit bearing CS No.
53/14 (new No. 353/14) titled as ‘Yamin Vs. Hasam’.
78. Defendant does not dispute the fact that he had filed the said suit
on the basis of agreement noted in table-II. This fact is even borne
out from his own affidavit in evidence Ex. DW1/A at para 6
wherein he claims that the above suit is lying
subjudice sine die
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 37 of 60
-- 37 of 60 --
in the concerned Court. This means that defendant himself wants
his title to be perfected with he demanding the plaintiff, in the
capacity of owner of the property in question to perform
agreement dated 04.04.2006 read with agreement dated
18.11.2012. When defendant himself wants that his title should be
perfected and wants the plaintiff to pass the title to him, it
essentially amounts to a categorical, unambiguous and clear
admission on the part of defendant qua the ownership of plaintiff.
79. Thus, in sum and substance, defendant admitted to the title of the
plaintiff qua the suit property and thus, the answer to point (a) is
in favour of the plaintiff.
80. This brings me to the second point i.e. point (b).
81. Not only was there an admission of ownership of title of plaintiff
in this case, plaintiff even established on record that the two
agreements dated 04.04.2006 and dated 18.11.2012 are forged
documents. The Ld. Trial Court committed a grave error in not
appreciating the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-7. A
cumulative reading of the above evidence would show that the
documents described at S.No. 1 and 2 are forged documents. The
said two documents are the substratum on which the entire
building of defendant's defence rests. The other two documents
i.e. the documents at S.No. 3 and 4 i.e agreement dated
18.11.2012 and the receipt of like date (which forms part of
Ex.DW4/1 and has also been relied upon by defendant as
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 38 of 60
-- 38 of 60 --
Ex.DW1/2 (colly); the originals of which are available on the suit
having CS No. 53/13 titled as 'Yamin Vs. Hasam' and summoned
by plaintiff through PW-6) are essentially documents which refer
and rely upon documents at S.No. 1 and 2. As per the documents
dated 18.11.2012, plaintiff initially executed the agreement dated
04.04.2006 and the same was novated vide the second agreement
dated 18.11.2012. Once it is found that the original documents i.e.
the ones dated 04.04.2006 are forged, the foundational documents
of the defendants fall. With them the other subsequent documents
shall also go as they would be tainted with the same colour as the
documents before them.
82. For easy reference, table-II is reiterated hereinafter.
Table-II
S.No. Nature of document. Remarks of this Court
1. Agreement for earnest money dated
04.04.2016 - stated to have been executed
by plaintiff in favour of defendant.
As per this document a sum of Rs. 6.25 lac
was paid in cash to plaintiff by defendant.
This document is drawn
on a 50/- stamp paper
bearing No. AA563162
and is stated to have
been issued by a stamp
vendor Madhu Sadana
against entry No. 6511
on 04.04.2006.
2.	Shapat Patra/affidavit - stated to be executed by
plaintiff on 04.04.2006.
This document is drawn
on a Rs. 10/- stamp
paper bearing No.
52AA137778 and is
stated to have been
issued by a stamp
vendor Madhu Sadana
against entry No. 6512
on 04.04.2006.
3. Agreement to sell dated 18.11.2012 - stated This document was
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 39 of 60
-- 39 of 60 --
to have been executed by plaintiff in favour
of defendant. As per this document, a
further sum of Rs. 5 lac was paid to plaintiff
by defendant in furtherance of document
described at S.No. 1 above.
As per this document, the first agreement to
sell described at S.No. 1 above was novated
and the consideration amount was enhanced
from Rs. 11 lac to Rs. 15 lac.
eventually given exhibit
as Ex. DW3/1 (OSR).
This document is
available in original in
suit file No. 53/13 (new
No. 353/14 titled as
'Yamin vs. Hasam'. This
suit is a suit for specific
performance filed by
defendant against the
plaintiff seeking
specific performance of
the agreement dated
18.11.2012.)
4. Receipt - stated to have been executed by
plaintiff in favour of defendant.
Forming part of Ex.
DW3/1 (OSR).
This document is
available in original in
suit file No. 53/13 (new
No. 353/14 titled as
'Yamin vs. Hasam'. This
suit is a suit for specific
performance filed by
defendant against the
plaintiff seeking
specific performance of
the agreement dated
18.11.2012.)
83. A bare perusal of the above table would show that as per
defendant’s case, on 04.04.2006, documents mentioned at S.No. 1
and 2 were purportedly executed by plaintiff in his favour. But, if
one analyses the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4 reproduced
hereinafter, it would show that the stamp papers on which the said
documents were purportedly drawn on 04.04.2006 were neither
issued by the concerned government authorities to the relevant
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 40 of 60
-- 40 of 60 --
stamp vendor Madhu Sadana nor did she issue them to any
person. Thus, there was clear and categorical evidence on record
brought by the plaintiff establishing like noon day that document
mentioned at S.No. 1 and 2 are forged and fabricated documents.
They formed the entire substratum of the defendant’s case.
Defendant claimed that it was by virtue of the said documents that
he initially entered possession of the suit property.
84. Admittedly, defendant was given possession by plaintiff. With the
said documents proved to be forged, it was proved that defendant
is lying about any agreement or affidavit having been executed by
plaintiff in favour of defendant on 04.04.2006.
85. The relevant portion of the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 has been
analysed in column three of the table below and it reads as under:-
S.No. Witness details Nature of testimony Remarks
3. PW-3/Rajeev Ranjan Summoned witness who was
posted as Sr. Asstt., Treasury
Office, Office of Divisional
Commissioner, Tis Hazari,
Delhi
This witness proved on record
copy of letter dated
25.05.2013 as per which
stamp paper No. AA563162 of
denomination Rs. 50/- was
issued to stamp vendor Madhu
Sadana on 22.03.2012 and
stamp paper No. 52AA137778
of denomination Rs. 10/- was
issued to stamp vendor Madhu
Sadana on 12.09.2012.
The relevant stock registers of
the above stamp papers were
also proved on record by the
It is pertinent to note that
as per the case of the
defendant, plaintiff had
purportedly executed an
agreement to sell dated
04.04.2006 and an
affidavit also dated
04.04.2006 in favour of
defendant. The said two
documents were
prepared on stamp
papers bearing No.
AA563162 of
denomination Rs.50/-
and stamp paper bearing
No. 52AA137778 of
denomination Rs. 10/-.
As per the evidence of
this witness, the said
stamp papers were
issued from the treasury
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 41 of 60
-- 41 of 60 --
said witness as Ex. PW3/2
(OSR) (2 pages) and Ex.
PW3/3 (OSR) (2 pages).
only in 2012 and
therefore, the question of
they having been made
available to defendant in
2006 does not arise.
When the stamp paper
themselves were not
issued by treasury, how
could defendant procure
them in 2006 for
preparation of agreement
to sell/affidavit? Thus,
this witness was called
to prove the forgery
committed by defendant.
4. PW-4/Veer Singh Summoned witness called
from the office of SDM
Kotwali, Delhi.
This witness was summoned by
plaintiff to prove letter dated
08.10.2013 Ex.PW4/1 (7
pages).
This witness also produced the
original stamp vending
register of Madhu Sadana
having license No. 329. The
copy of the same with entries
for the period 03.04.2006 to
05.04.2006 were taken on
record as Ex. PW4/2 (8 pages)
(OSR).
It is pertinent to note that
as per the case of the
defendant, plaintiff had
purportedly executed an
agreement to sell dated
04.04.2006 and an
affidavit also dated
04.04.2006 in favour of
defendant. The said two
documents were
prepared on stamp
papers bearing No.
AA563162 of
denomination Rs.50/-
and stamp paper bearing
No. 52AA137778 of
denomination Rs. 10/-.
The said two stamp
papers, as per the
endorsement on their
back side are stated to
have been issued by
stamp vendor Madhu
Sadana against entry No.
6511 dated 04.04.2006
and 6512 dated
04.04.2006.
As per the evidence of
this witness Ex.PW4/1,
the said stamp papers
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 42 of 60
-- 42 of 60 --
were never issued by
stamp vendor Madhu
Sadana on 04.04.2006 as
no such record exists in
the corresponding
register of the stamp
vendor Ex. PW4/2 for
the dated 04.04.2006. In
fact, a bare perusal of the
said document Ex.
PW4/2 would show that
the serial number for the
date 04.04.2006 does not
go beyond entry ‘99’.
Thus, there is no
question of any entry
having serial No. 6511
or 6512.
When the stamp paper
themselves were not
issued by the stamp
vendor, how could
defendant procure them
for preparation of
agreement to
sell/affidavit? Thus, this
witness was called to
prove the forgery
committed by defendant.
86. As per the testimony of PW-7, each of the documents described in
table-II above bore the thumb impressions of defendant. This
means that the forgery of document mentioned at S.No. 1 and 2
was done by defendant only.
87. As noted above, documents mentioned at S.No. 1 and 2 of table-II
are agreement to sell and an affidavit which are again relied upon
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 43 of 60
-- 43 of 60 --
in the subsequent agreement dated 18.11.2012 read with the
receipt dated 18.11.2012 (i.e. documents mentioned at S.No. 3
and 4 of table-II) and eventually led in evidence by defendant
himself as Ex.DW1/2 (colly) [which were eventually summoned
in original lying in the record of CS No. 53/13 titled as 'Yamin
Vs. Hasam' which is the suit for specific performance filed by
defendant and the copies of the said originals were exhibited as
Ex. DW3/1 (OSR)].
88. I may note that even though in para 17 of the affidavit in evidence
of defendant Ex. DW1/A, defendant relies upon the said
documents and names them as Ex. DW1/2 (colly), it transpires
that he actually did not tender the said documents during
tendering of his affidavit in evidence on 04.09.2025. Whether it
was an oversight or a deliberate attempt is not clear. But, the fact
of the matter remains that he specifically refers to the said
documents in his affidavit in evidence and eventually caused their
summoning in original from the record of his own suit. The
copies of the said originals were given Ex. DW3/1 (OSR).Thus,
defendant in his own evidence, is relying upon the agreement
dated 18.11.2012 and the relevant portion of the same reads as
under:-
* WHEREAS the first party along with his daughter
Ms. Hazara is exclusive owner of one property No. E-156, Gali
Main, 60 Foota Road, Sri Ram Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri,
Delhi.
AND WHEREAS first party entered into an agreement
dated 4.4.2006 with the second party to sell the same to the
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 44 of 60
-- 44 of 60 --
second party for a total sale consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/-
(Rupees Eleven Lacs only).
AND WHEREAS in pursuance of agreement dated
4.4.2008, the second party paid a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- to the
first party and the first party executed an agreement dated
4.4.2006 and also handed over possession of back portion of
the property No. E-156, Gali Main, 60 Foota Road, Sri Ram
Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri, Delhi except one shop and room
on the front side and also handed over photocopy of chain of
previous sale documents to the second party.
AND now both the parties have entered into this
agreement on following terms and conditions:
1. That the sale price of the property shall be Rs.
15,00,000/- instead of Rs.11,00,000/-.
2. That the earnest money of Rs. 6,25,000/- already
paid by the second party to the first party shall be adjusted in
the total sale consideration.
3. That the second party has also paid a sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- in cash to the first party today and a sum of Rs.
3,75,000/- remains balance to be paid.
4. That the final date of execution of sale documents
shall be 31.3.2013 and the first party undertakes to execute the
sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.
3,75,000/- on or before 31.3.2013 in favour of second party.
5. That in case the first party fails to execute sale deed
on or before 31.3.2013 then the second party shall be at liberty
to get the same executed through court of law.
IN WITNESSES whereof the parties have put their signatures
on this on 18.11.2012 out of their own free will in presence of
the witnesses.
89. A bare perusal of the above agreement forming part of Ex. DW3/1
would show that defendant extensively relies upon the agreement
dated 04.04.2006 [forming part of Ex. PW4/1; which is also
available in original in the record of the suit of specific
performance filed by defendant, lying consigned to Record Room
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 45 of 60
-- 45 of 60 --
(North-East) at goswara No. 62/August/2015 mauza Diwani,
which was summoned through PW-6]. It means that as per
defendant, the foundational document for agreement dated
18.11.2012 Ex. DW3/1 is the first agreement dated 04.04.2006.
90. Once it is found that the documents dated 04.04.2006 were never
executed by plaintiff and they are forged, it shall hit the root of
the other set of documents dated 18.11.2012 also. This shall mean
that they are also tainted by the same colour and when the
foundational documents are found to be forged, the other
consequential documents shall also become doubtful.
91. At this stage, I may note that defendant is admittedly facing a
criminal trial in FIR No. 322/13 PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi wherein
he and his witness Anwar/DW-2 are accused for forging the
documents relied upon by the defendant described in table-II
above. All the said documents were sent to FSL and were found to
be forged by the FSL expert. The copy of the said report was
sought to be proved through PW-8/Dr. Virender Singh, Asstt.
Director, Documents, FSL Rohini. It appears that because of
passage of time, his testimony could never be completed and
despite their being direct evidence about forgery of each and
every document relied upon by the defendant, it could not be
proved on record. Obviously, the said report cannot be read in
evidence.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 46 of 60
-- 46 of 60 --
92. But, even if the said report is not read as it is not proved on
record, the fact of the matter remains that the testimony of PW-3,
PW-4 read with testimony of PW-7 squarely proves the forgery of
the agreement to sell and affidavit dated 04.04.2006. This was
committed by defendant. They being the foundational documents
which eventually formed the basis of subsequent agreement and
receipt both dated 18.11.2012 and therefore, they are also tainted
documents.
93. In this backdrop of the matter, the Ld. Trial Court should have
evaluated the evidence of the parties. As noted above, the Ld.
Trial Court neither appreciated nor considered the above
evidence. The factum of forgery specifically pleaded in the plaint
was never considered by the Ld. Trial Court and solely on the
basis of wrong reading of testimony of PW-5, the Ld. Trial Court
reached a wrong conclusion that there is a cloud on the title of
the plaintiff.
94. On the contrary, there was a clear admission of plaintiff’s title by
defendant. The documents relied upon by the defendant were
shown to be forged. Defendant admittedly came in possession of
the property through plaintiff only.
95. In this backdrop of the matter, it did not lie in the mouth of the
defendant to claim that there was any title dispute
inter se
between him and the plaintiff. Defendant's testimony is neither
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 47 of 60
-- 47 of 60 --
worthy of credit nor could it be relied upon to hold that there is
any dispute qua the plaintiff's title.
96. Defendant is a crafty and devious individual who has dragged the
litigation for over a decade on the basis of forged documents. It
has taken over a decade for the plaintiff to prove the said forgery.
To add insult to injury, the Ld. Trial Court omitted to even take
note of the painstaking exercise carried out by the plaintiff to
prove the said forgery. The suit has been thrown out on a non-
existent ground.
97. I may note that counsel for defendant, after the arguments in the
matter were heard had filed two judgments to argue that the suit
of the plaintiff was liable to fail.
98. He relied upon the judgment of ‘Shakeel Ahmad Vs. Syed Akhlaq
Hussain 2023 SCC Online SC 1526’ passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and of ‘Neelam Bhatia Vs. Ritu
Bhatia’ dated 29.01.2026 passed in CS(OS) 141/2022 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The premise of the said two
judgments, as per defendant is that a suit for possession on the
basis of unregistered GPA, agreement to sell etc is not
maintainable.
99. In my humble opinion, each of the said judgments are
distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to this case. In
neither of the said two judgments, the party thereto had
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 48 of 60
-- 48 of 60 --
categorically admitted the title of the other side or had sought to
perfect his title by suing the other for specific performance.
100. In Shakeel Ahmad (supra), a suit for possession was instituted on
the basis of GPA, agreement to sell etc. The suit was resisted by
the defendant/appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India on the ground that the said defendant had received
the property by way of oral gift/Hiba from a different
individual namely Laiq Ahmad. It appears that the said
Laiq Ahmad was the executant of the documents relied
upon by the respondent/plaintiff. In the above backdrop,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that since the
documents relied upon by the plaintiff/respondent were
unregistered, the same cannot confer any title on the said
plaintiff. A perusal of the said judgment shows that both
the parties to the suit had set up their independent titles
over the property with plaintiff/respondent relying upon
unregistered GPA, agreement to sell etc and
defendant/appellant relying upon oral gift. It was in that
backdrop of the matter that the above finding was
returned.
101. The facts in the said case are thus clearly distinguishable from the
case in hand.
102. Counsel for defendant has also relied upon a judgment dated
29.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS)
No. 141/22 titled as 'Neelam Bhatia & Ors. Vs. Ritu Bhatia &
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 49 of 60
-- 49 of 60 --
Ors' wherein the plaint of the plaintiff was rejected U/O VII Rule
11 (a) CPC.
103. In the said suit
inter alia partition was sought on the basis of GPA,
agreement to sell etc. and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
held that since the said documents do not confer any right, title or
interest in an immovable property, therefore, the Court held that
there was non-disclosure of cause of action in favour of plaintiff
of the said case.
104. In my humble opinion, the facts of the said case are clearly
distinguishable from the one in hand. As already noted, plaintiff
had sued the defendant on the basis of licensee-licensor
relationship. He specifically pleaded and proved on record that he
had given possession of the suit property to defendant and his
family members at the request of defendant. It was admittedly a
constructed property. Defendant also admits that he came in
possession of the property from plaintiff only.
105. Thus, in this case, prior possession of the plaintiff is an admitted
fact. As already noted, defendant attempted to seek title to the
property through plaintiff only. Now, even if it is taken that the
documents in question described in table-I above would not make
the plaintiff the complete owner of the property, fact of the matter
remains that plaintiff had prior possession of the entire property
and he only gave possession to the defendant. Even in cases
where none of the parties have clear title to the property, prior
possession is the method which is the guiding light for deciding
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 50 of 60
-- 50 of 60 --
as to who is entitled to hold possession
inter se the parties. This
means that if out of two parties before the Court, one is able to
establish prior possession, such party would be preferred over the
other party till the other party can show a better title than the first.
It is settled law that possession is always considered nine points
in law and is given due recognition by law .
106. It is well settled that possessory title is good against everybody
except the true owner and in the case of a wrongful ouster, a
plaintiff is entitled to succeed upon the strength of previous
possession, if the defendant fails to prove a better title. Against a
mere trespasser prior possession is itself a title inasmuch as
possession raises a presumption of title. Possession in law is a
subsisting right which the law protects and which can be enforced
against any person who does not prove a better title.
107. In the oft- quoted case of Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. K.C.
Alexander and Ors. (1968) 3 SCR 163, the three Judge Bench of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that a person in
possession of land in assumed character of owner and exercising
peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good
title against all the world but the rightful owner. When the facts
disclose no title in either party, possession alone decides. The
court quoted Loft's maxim 'Possessio contra omnes valet praeter
eur cui ius sit possessionis (He that hath possession hath right
against all but him that hath the very right)' and said, "A
defendant in such a case must show in himself or his predecessor
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 51 of 60
-- 51 of 60 --
a valid legal title, or probably a possession prior to the plaintiff's
and thus be able to raise a presumption prior in time".
108. Thus, even if it is taken that the documents relied upon by
plaintiff does not make him the owner, his testimony as PW-10,
testimony of his daughter/PW-11 read with testimony of Shahid
Ahmad/PW-5 alongwith the own admissions of defendant
categorically shows that plaintiff was in prior possession and
therefore, he can still maintain his suit to evict the defendant.
109. In contrast, in the judgment relied upon by the defendants i.e.
Neelam Bhatia (supra) the property involved was a vacant piece
of land stated to have been in joint and constructive possession of
the parties to the said litigation.
110. Again, it appears that apart from the agreement to sell, there was a
registered sale deed in favour of predecessor in interest of the
defendants namely Amrish Kumar Bhatia which was subsequent
in point of time than the agreement to sell, GPA etc being relied
upon by the plaintiffs in the said suit.
111. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi duly noted the said registered
title document/sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest
of the defendants in the said suit in para 18 of the said judgment
and also took note of the fact that plaintiffs successor in interest
never challenged the said document during his lifetime. The
document pertained to the year 1982 and the same was never
challenged till 2022 i.e. when the said suit was filed.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 52 of 60
-- 52 of 60 --
112. It was in the backdrop of the above peculiar facts of the said case
that the plaint in Neelam Bhatia (supra) came to be rejected.
113. In my humble opinion, the facts of the said case are distinct and
separate from the facts herein. The said case did not involve any
admission of proved forgery by defendant and was essentially a
title dispute. That is the not the case herein and therefore, the ratio
of Neelam Bhatia (supra), in my humble opinion, is not applicable
to the facts of this case.
114. As a consequence, there was no cloud over the title of the
plaintiff. In fact, once it was found that defendant has forged the
agreements set up by him in his defence (with document
mentioned at S.No. 1 and 2 of table-II being categorically proved
to be forged; and document mentioned at S.No. 3 and 4 of table-II
being tainted and highly suspicious), the defendant was reduced
to a mere licensee in the property. This is because, once the entire
substratum of the defence that defendant entered the property as a
purchaser was found to be false, there was only one conclusion
which could be reached from the record. It was that plaintiff
inducted the defendant as a gratuitous licensee in the property.
The testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses PW-5 and PW-11 also
point in the same direction. Plaintiff can maintain his suit on the
basis of prior possession and he gave possession of the suit
property to the defendant as a mere licensee.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 53 of 60
-- 53 of 60 --
115. In fact, once it is found that defendant was a mere licensee in the
property U/S 116 of Indian Evidence Act, defendant is estopped
from denying the title of plaintiff when such license was given to
him.
116. The Ld. Trial Court grossly erred by not noting the above
provision of law and wrongly held that plaintiff failed to establish
the said relationship. It also grossly erred to hold that the
occupation of the property by defendant was not unauthorised or
illegal.
117. Once, it is found that defendant entered the property on the
strength of a license, his license came to an end when plaintiff
asked him to vacate. At least from the date of service of summons
of this suit, the license of the defendant came to an end. Any
occupation of property thereafter was illegal and unauthorised.
118. Thus, in light of the above, point No. (b) to (d) are decided in
favour of the plaintiff.
119. As a consequence, plaintiff shall be entitled to various reliefs
prayed in the suit.
120. Firstly, plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as
he is successful in proving licensee-licensor relationship with
defendant. The same has already been terminated and thus, in law,
a direction can be given to defendant to handover the peaceful and
vacant possession of suit property bearing No. E-156, (New
Honda Service Center), out of Khasra no. 337, Near Nav Prakash
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 54 of 60
-- 54 of 60 --
Public School, Main 60 Foota Road, Shaitan Chowk, Sri Ram
Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri, Delhi-110094 (shown more
specifically in red in site plan Ex. PW10/A) to plaintiff.
121. Secondly, plaintiff has sought future damages/mesne profits for
illegal occupation of premises @ Rs. 1500/- per day. After the
license of defendant came to an end, occupation of defendant in
the suit property became illegal. Thus, defendant is liable to pay
mesne profits to the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff is made at
Rs. 1500/- per day. The same appears to be on a higher side.
122. But, as per the site plan Ex.PW10/A save and except one small
room and a shop located in the property in question, it has been
shown from the record that the entire property measuring about
100 sq yards was in the possession of defendant. Considering the
area in occupation of the defendant, the location of the suit
property and the fact that rent in a given area are always on an
upswing for immovable properties, interest of justice shall be
served in case defendant is asked to pay mesne profits @
Rs.12,000/- per month w.e.f. 15.05.2014 (date of service of
summons in the suit in question on defendant) till handing over of
possession to plaintiff.
123. Thirdly, plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of permanent
injunction thereby restraining the defendant or the person
claiming under him from creating any third party interest in the
suit property described above. This is because defendant does not
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 55 of 60
-- 55 of 60 --
have any right, title or interest in the suit property and thus, he
cannot create any adverse interest in the property to the prejudice
of plaintiff.
124. Fourthly, plaintiff is also entitled to costs throughout. Apart from
the said costs, this case also highlights the tricks used by litigants
to deny the rightful claims of the other party based on deceit and
forgery. In this case, defendant, very easily forged documents to
set up false plea against the plaintiff and made the plaintiff contest
this suit and other litigations across different Courts for over 12
years. But, for the false claim of the defendant, plaintiff in his old
age would not have been forced to loiter in the corridors of the
Court for his due.
125. This court is anguished and appalled by the insidious and cavalier
approach of defendant herein. There cannot be any second
thought about the right of a citizen to seek judicial redressal of his
grievances by instituting a suit or defending a claim but at the
same time the right to litigate cannot be reduced into an exercise
in wager or an activity of amusement. The menace of frivolous
and luxurious litigation is damaging public cause on twin counts.
On the one hand, a casual litigant, by raising false and hollow
defences, holds the entire judicial machinery to ransom and it
tantamounts to a direct onslaught upon the fundamental rights of
the litigants (including the aggrieved party and other litigants who
are asked to wait in line) to seek speedy and effective justice.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 56 of 60
-- 56 of 60 --
Such false and bogus pleas unnecessarily over burden the dockets
and directly impinges upon the sacrosanct judicial time.
126. False and hollow defences are taken by unscrupulous litigants
knowing fully well that in the end, they have nothing to loose in
the gamble, as at stake, at best, is a nominal court fees/costs or
something which in law they were bound to give to the other side.
Litigations are not rolls of dice and court rooms are not gambling
dens. Judges of this country owes a duty to the citizens to purge
their court rooms of this chicanery.
127. Furthermore, a deviation from the conventional approach of
simple dismissal and decreeing of the suit is required on one more
count. Delay in civil litigation is pandemic in nature. The phrase
that the civil litigation moves at a snail pace jeers at the entire
machinery involved in the administration of justice. No amount of
hard work in expeditious disposal of the cases shall bring down
the number of mounting arrears unless a strict vigil is kept at the
entry gates itself so that the frivolous or specious pleas do not
enter the main stream and unnecessarily impedes the unsullied
flow of justice. The menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation is
choking the entire system and effective steps needs to be taken to
cure the malady.
128. The Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of Ram Rameshwari Devi
and others Vs. Nirmala Devi and others (2011) 8 SCC 249 has
reminded the trial courts of its duties to check the evil of
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 57 of 60
-- 57 of 60 --
luxurious and frivolous litigation and impose realistic
cost. Hon'ble Apex Court has once again expressed its concern
about the menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation and has
reiterated that the trial courts needs to impose appropriate and
realistic cost in the matter of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes
and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs.,
(2012) 5 SCC 370.
129. Thus, guided by the mandate of Hon'ble Apex court in the matter
of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes (supra) and Ram
Rameshwari Devi (supra) I am of the opinion that the present
appeal should succeed with a further cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be
paid by defendant to plaintiff. The instant litigation has
consumed over 12 long years of precious judicial time with
litigation reaching upto the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and has
seen two rounds of back and forth between Courts. It has led a
man aged about 75 years to wait in the corridors of the Court
hoping that justice shall be served to him during his lifetime.
130. Keeping in mind the above, the above cost is clearly made out in
the facts of this case which the defendant should pay to the
plaintiff.
131. I may note that plaintiff had also sought a money decree of Rs.
45,000/- as arrears of electricity charges from the defendant. The
same is not backed by any documentary evidence and thus, this
amount cannot be awarded to the plaintiff. A legal notice charge
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 58 of 60
-- 58 of 60 --
of Rs. 11,000/- was also prayed by plaintiff. Considering the cost
already awarded, this relief is also not awarded to plaintiff.
132. Accordingly, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned
judgment and decree dated 08.01.2026 is set aside.
Plaintiff/appellant is held entitled to following reliefs:-
(i) Defendant is mandatorily injuncted to handover the
peaceful and vacant possession of suit property to plaintiff
i.e. property bearing No. E-156, (New Honda Service
Center), out of Khasra no. 337, Near Nav Prakash Public
School, Main 60 Foota Road, Shaitan Chowk, Sri Ram
Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Khajuri, Delhi-110094 (shown more
specifically in red in site plan Ex. PW10/A). Ex.PW10/A
shall form part of decree.
(ii) Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits to be paid by defendant
@ Rs.12,000/- per month w.e.f. 15.05.2014 (date of service
of summons in the suit in question on defendant) till
handing over of possession to plaintiff.
(iii) Plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of permanent injunction
thereby restraining the defendant or the person claiming
under him from creating any third party interest in the suit
property described above.
(iv) Plaintiff is also entitled to costs throughout. Apart from the
said cost, plaintiff is also entitled to a further cost of Rs.
1,00,000/- to be paid by defendant.
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 59 of 60
-- 59 of 60 --
133. Let a decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
134. Let copy of the judgment passed in appeal along with decree-
sheet be sent to Ld. Trial Court.
Announced in the Aashish Gupta
open Court on 16.05.2026 District Judge-01, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
RCA DJ 14/26 Mohd. Hasam Vs. Mohd. Yamin (Biryani Wala) Page 60 of 60
-- 60 of 60 --