Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 3 CS SCJ 133/25
SMT. SANTOSH Vs. SH. KRISHAN KUMAR
28.03.2026
Present: Sh Kamal Kishor, ld counsel for the plaintiff,
through VC.
Sh Manish Srivastav, ld counsel for the
defendants.
1. At the outset, it is recorded that although an
appeal was preferred against the order passed on the
plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
CPC, no stay has been granted on the proceedings before
this Court. The present matter is, therefore, being
considered on its own merits.
2. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the
plaintiff does not wish to file any further documents in the
present case and that the matter may be proceeded with
accordingly.
3. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit
seeking a decree of injunction against the defendants for
removal of alleged encroachment in the suit property,
namely a plot measuring 6 ft. x 2 ft. forming part of Khasra
No. 666/1, extended Lal Dora Abadi, Village Alipur, Delhi,
and for restraining the defendants from interfering with her
peaceful possession thereof. In the plaint, the suit property
has been described as a vacant plot, which description is
corroborated by the nature of relief claimed.
4. Vide order dated 22.03.2025, this Court had
observed that the plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit
-- 1 of 2 --
property on the strength of documents executed in her
favour by one Ms. Seema Gupta. However, no document
evidencing title in favour of Ms. Seema Gupta was filed on
record. On request, time was granted to the plaintiff to place
on record the complete chain of documents.
5. Today, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has
submitted that the said documents are not available.
6. It is significant to mention that it is a settled
proposition of law that possession of a vacant plot of land
ordinarily follows ownership and a suit for injunction
simpliciter cannot be maintained where the plaintiff fails to
establish lawful possession or title. Reliance placed on
Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594.
The documents filed with the plaint, being only GPA,
Agreement to Sell, etc., do not confer ownership or title in
law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in
Suraj Lamps &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012)
7. In view of the above and on the basis of record,
the plaintiff cannot be held to be in possession of the suit
property and thus, it has to be held that plaint discloses no
cause of action.
8. Accordingly, the plaint is rejected under Order
VII Rule 11(a) CPC.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room after due
compliance.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North, Rohini Courts,Delhi/28.03.2026
-- 2 of 2 --