Final Order 20

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS/371/2023
DLNE010038202023
HAJI YASEEN KHAN
Vs.
ASLAM AND ORS.
29.09.2026
Present: Ld. counsel for plaintiff through VC.
Ld. counsel for D-1 through VC.
Plaint already rejected qua D-2 to D-7.
D-8 and D-9 are ex-parte.
Despite repeated opportunities, plaintiff has not come forward
to address arguments on the maintainability of the present suit in terms of
order dated 19.08.2026. Even today, adjournment is sought. I am not
inclined to adjourn the matter any further.
Submissions on behalf of D-1 heard.
Plaintiff is at liberty to make submissions by 2:00 PM today.
List for orders during course of the day.
AASHISH GUPTA
DJ-01/NE/KKD/DELHI
29.09.2026
At 3:00 PM
Present: None.
ORDER
1. On 19.08.2026, a question on the maintainability of the present suit
was raised by the court and plaintiff was asked to address arguments
on the same. Despite opportunity, plaintiff has not addressed
-- 1 of 3 --
arguments on the said issue. The relevant portion of order dated
19.08.2026 reads as under:
Para 3, 4 and 16 of order dated 19.08.2026
“3. Perusal of file shows that plaintiff is claiming that he purchased
two shops in a property from D-1 through unregistered GPA, agreement
to sell dated 10.03.2022 against a consideration of Rs. 32 lac.
4. Plaintiff claims that despite the said payment, plaintiff has not
been given possession of the said two shops and thus, he is before this
Court seeking possession alongwith consequential injunction on the
basis of unregistered GPA, agreement to sell dated 10.03.2022.
16. With respect to D-1, D-8 and D-9, the claim of the plaintiff is
that D-1 purportedly sold the suit property to plaintiff on the basis of
unregistered GPA, agreement to sell etc and now, the said property is
stated to be held by D-8/D-9. Presuming that any such document was
executed by D-1 in favour of plaintiff, the said documents being
unregistered GPA etc, a question arises that whether plaintiff can
maintain his suit in the present form. This is light of ratio of ‘Suraj
Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2012 Supreme
Court 206’.”
2. It is pertinent to note that plaintiff has sued for possession and
consequential injunction qua two shops bearing no. 8 and 9 situated
at first floor of property no. B-493, Khasra no. 331/1, Gali No. 6, B-
Block, Nehru Vihar, Mustafabad, Delhi-110094 (‘suit property’) on
the strength of unregistered GPA, agreement to sell, payment receipt,
possession letter, Will and affidavit, all dated 10.03.2022 (hereinafter
called the ‘title documents’).
3. It is plaintiff’s case that he was sold the suit property through title
documents by D-1 and now D-8 and D-9 have possession of the suit
property.
4. Even if the entire case of the plaintiff is taken on its face value, the
title documents relied upon by the plaintiff are documents which
cannot convey any right, title or interest in the suit property to the
plaintiff. They cannot be treated to be conveyance deed. Admittedly,
-- 2 of 3 --
each one of them is unregistered and in light of ratio of Suraj Lamp
& Industries (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana & Anr. AIR 2012 Supreme
Court 206, they cannot confer any right, title or interest to the
plaintiff. Thus, in my humble opinion, plaintiff cannot recover
possession of the suit property or maintain his claim for
consequential injunction.
5. Considering the same, the suit is dismissed as not maintainable.
6. Let a decree sheet be prepared.
7. File be consigned to record room.
AASHISH GUPTA
DJ-01/NE/KKD/DELHI
29.09.2026
-- 3 of 3 --