Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 27 CS 4/25
SHAHNAWAJ Vs. MOHD. ILIYAS
09.10.2025
AT 12:32 PM
Present: Sh. M.A. Khan and Sh. Rohit Yadav, Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff along with plaintiff in person
Sh. G.S. Joshi, Ld. counsel for all defendants along
with D-1 in person
Arguments heard on the maintainability.
Put up for orders at 04:00 PM.
(Deepanker Mohan)
District Judge-04
Shahdara District/KKD Courts/Delhi
09.10.2025
09.10.2025
AT 04:32 PM
ORDER
1. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the present suit is
maintainable on the basis of documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to
Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter, Registered Will and Affidavit all
dated 12.01.2021. It is further argued that plaintiff is the owner of
the suit property by virtue of aforesaid documents. It is further
argued that defendants are the licencees/permissible user of
plaintiff in the suit property and their status of
licencees/permissible users has been terminated vide legal notice
dated 21.09.2021. It is further argued that defendants have no
-- 1 of 4 --
- : 2 : -
right to occupy the suit property without the consent of plaintiff
and they are liable to vacate the suit property and hand over
physical and vacant possession of the same to plaintiff. It is
further argued that plaintiff can maintain the present suit against
defendant on the basis of aforesaid documents because
defendants are his licencees in the suit property.
2. Ld. Counsel for defendants submits that the present suit is
not maintainable because the documents relied by plaintiff i.e.
GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter, Registered
Will and Affidavit all dated 12.01.2021 do not confer any right,
title or interest in favour of plaintiff in respect to suit property. It
is further argued that suit property was allotted to the father of
defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 is in possession of the same
since his birth. It is further argued that defendant No.1 has
already filed a suit for partition against the other LRs of Mohd.
Ishaq and other persons in respect to suit property which is
pending before this Court for adjudication (CS No.431/2021). It
is further argued that the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. Heard. File perused.
4. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of
mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and damages against
defendants. As per plaint, plaintiff has become the owner of the
suit property on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt,
Possession Letter, Registered Will and Affidavit all dated
-- 2 of 4 --
- : 3 : -
12.01.2021. It is pleaded that the suit property is ad-measuring 36
sq. yards which is part of property bearing No.G-4/52, Sunder
Nagri, Delhi-110093. The plaint does not disclose as to when and
on which date plaintiff has allowed defendants to occupy the suit
property being its licencees/permissible users. The defendant
No.1 is the son of Mohd. Ishaq, the original allottee of the suit
property. As per defendant No.1, he is in possession of the suit
property since his birth being the co-owner. It is not the case of
plaintiff that when he has purchased the suit property from Smt.
Farida, defendant No.1 and other defendants were not in
possession of the suit property and after its purchase, plaintiff
allowed defendants to occupy the suit property.
5. The documents relied by plaintiff are hit by the judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “
Suraj Lamp &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Haryana & Anr.” [SLP (C)
No.13917 of 2009], AIR 2012 SC 206; in “
Shakeel Ahmed
versus Syed Akhlaq Hussain”, Civil Appeal No.1598 of 2023; in
“
M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. versus J. Manjula Etc.”, Civil
Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.
13618-13619 of 2020; and “
Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs
versus Suresh Chand and another” Civil Appeal No.6377 of 2012
decided on 01.09.2025 and the said documents do not confer any
right, title or interest in favour of plaintiff in respect to suit
property, therefore, in view of this Court, the present suit is not
maintainable under the law.
-- 3 of 4 --
- : 4 : -
6. Plaintiff by way of mandatory injunction is claiming
possession of the suit property from defendants. The suit of the
plaintiff is also hit by Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act.
7. The plaintiff has not valued the present suit properly i.e. as
per the market rate of the suit property. This Court has already
recorded the said proposition in the order dated 06.05.2025 but
even thereafter, plaintiff has not corrected the valuation of the
present suit.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India and above observations, the plaint is rejected under
Order VII Rule 11(b) and (d) of CPC.
9. The present suit is accordingly disposed of.
10. File be consigned to the Record Room, after due
compliance.
(Deepanker Mohan)
District Judge-04
Shahdara District/KKD Courts/Delhi
09.10.2025
-- 4 of 4 --