Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 36 CS SCJ 119/25
SHANTI DEVI Vs. ISHWAR DAS
08.06.2026
Present: Plaintiff (Through VC)
Shri R.P Prajapati, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Shri Abhishek Singh, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
no.2.
None for defendant no. 1.
Matter is listed for orders on application u/o 39 rule
1 and 2 CPC.
Vide separate order, the application u/o 39 rule 1 and
2 stands dismissed.
Put up for arguments on maintainability of present
suit on 17.09.2026.
(SAKSHI JAISWAL)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/08.06.2026
-- 1 of 5 --
-1-
36 CS SCJ 119/25
SHANTI DEVI Vs. ISHWAR DAS
08.06.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff
wherein the plaintiff has prayed for interim relief thereby
directing to defendant to maintain status quo in respect of suit
property and from restraining the defendants from entering in the
suit property of the plaintiff.
2. The facts necessary for the determination of the present
application are that the husband of the plaintiff was the owner of
property measuring in 4848 sq. yds out of Khasra no. 56/18
situated in village prahaldpur, Bangar, New Delhi. It is further
stated that the said property was purchased by the husband of the
plaintiff from the recorded owner (Banwari Lal) in the Khasra
Girdawari maintained in the concerned Tehsil. The suit property
i.e. plot measuring 315 sq yds form a part of aforesaid land
owned by the husband of the plaintiff. It is further stated that on
12/08/2010 the husband of the plaintiff met with an accident and
died and he had left an WILL dated 19/11/2009 in her favour
bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties to her. As
such the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit property. After
the death of husband, the plaintiff started looking after her
family. The defendants and other persons have been keeping
envoy to see the plaintiff's ownership in respect of huge lands
which she inherited from her husband. The suit property is a plot
lying vacant surrounded by the boundary of height 2ft. and in the
-- 2 of 5 --
-2-
possession of the plaintiff. It is further stated that on 15/04/2023
the defendants came to the plot/suit property of the plaintiff and
started telling that they have planned to grab the plot on the basis
of forged papers. The plaintiff reported the matter to the SHO.
P.S.- Sahabad Dairy vide DD No. 148A, dt. 15/04/2023. The
defendants could not take the possession of the suit property and
plaintiff also fixed a display board at her plot clearly indicating
that the property in question belongs to her. It is further stated
that in the month of September 2023 the defendants had come
with JCB at the suit property to take forcible possession of the
suit property. The plaintiff called the police who seized the JCB
and took the defendants with them. It is further stated that due to
non-action of the police on the complaints of the widow, she filed
the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against
the state, Police and defendants. The Hon'ble High Court duly
considered the grievances and direction was given to the state
and police to take action as per law. Further the plaintiff was
given liberty to approach civil court with appropriate remedy in
case of any attempt is made by the defendants to encroach the
property of the plaintiff. After filing of writ petition, the
defendants did nothing for 4 months. It is further stated that on
15/12/2024, the plaintiff's daughter had come from Hissar who
had to appear in a civil matter at Rohini Court. On the very same
day the defendant no.1 saw the plaintiff with her daughter and
threatened them that he is having the forged papers of the suit
property and will take the possession of same in the absence of
plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff has a very strong
prima facie case in her favour and if the relief claimed in the
-- 3 of 5 --
-3-
application is not passed in favour of the plaintiff she will suffer
irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants.
3. Submissions heard. Record perused.
It is settled law that while granting an interlocutory
injunction, the Court has to consider whether the plaintiff has a
prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience is in favour
of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff would suffer an
irreparable injury, if the prayer for interlocutory injunction is
disallowed.
4. In the present case, in order to show a prima facie case in
her favour, the plaintiff must first show that she is in possession
of the suit property. It is settled position of law that in case of
vacant land possession follows title. This means that in case of
vacant land which has no physical occupation, the rightful owner
is legally presumed to be in possession. Reliance in this regard is
based upon on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its landmark
judgment “Anathula Sudhakar Vs P. Buchi Reddy (dead) By
Lrs & Ors AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033” .
5. In the present case, no document has been placed on record
by the plaintiff which shows ownership of her husband in the suit
property. As per section 54 Transfer of Property Act, 1882, title
in immovable property can only be transferred by way of
executing a Sale deed. No such document is on record which
shows that the husband of plaintiff had purchased, the land
comprising of suit property from his erstwhile owner. The Will
dated 19.11.2009 executed by husband of plaintiff in favour of
-- 4 of 5 --
-4-
plaintiff does not help the case of the plaintiff as it is not a proof
of ownership of husband in the suit property nor a person can
transfer a better title in the property then he himself possesses.
6 Thus, there is no document on record to show title of the
plaintiff in the suit property and thus, it cannot be said that prima
facie, plaintiff is in possession of suit property.
7. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed
above,this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to
establish a prima facie case in her favour. Since the plaintiff has
failed to establish prima facie case,there is no requirement to
consider the balance of convenience or irreparable injury. Hence,
the application of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2
CPC stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
Interim orders, if any stand vacated.
In view of aforesaid discussion, that the be put for
arguments on maintainability of present suit.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
(SAKSHI JAISWAL)
CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI/DELHI/08.06.2026
-- 5 of 5 --