Delhi High Court
Sh Rajesh Sharma vs The Sub Registrar V A Hauz Khas & Ors on 26 August, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
CS(OS) 420/2021
SH. RAJESH SHARMA
S/O LATE SH.MADAN MOHAN SHARMA
R/O 10/25, WARD NO. I, NEAR YOGMAYA MANDIR,
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI -110030 ....PLAINTIFF
(Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
THE SUB-REGISTRAR - V A (HAUZ KHAS)
TEHSIL BUILDING, MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI -110030 .... DEFENDANT NO. 1
THE SUB-REGISTRAR- IV
SEELAMPUR,
DELHI -110032 .... DEFENDANT NO. 2
THE SUB-REGISTRAR- VI
THROUGH DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
5, SHAM NATH MARG,
DELHI -110054 .... DEFENDANT NO. 3
THE SDM (MEHRAULI)
TEHSIL BUILDING, MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI -110030 .... DEFENDANT NO. 4
SH. ASHOK KUMAR VATS
S/O LATE SH.HARI NARAIN VATS
R/O 10/6, YOGMAYA MANDIR COMPLEX
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 1 KUMAR KAURAV
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI-11 0030 ..... DEFENDANT NO. 5
SH. MUKESH KUMAR VATS
S/O LATE SH.HARI NARAIN VATS
R/O 10/8, YOGMAYA MANDIR COMPLEX
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI-11 0030 ...... DEFENDANT NO. 6
SH. DEEPAK VATS
S/ O LATE SH. HARI N ARAIN VATS
R/O 10/5, YOGMAYA MANDIR COMPLEX
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI-11 0030 .... DEFENDANT NO. 7
SH. PAWAN KUMAR
S/O SH.RAMESH KUMAR
R/O F-146, PREM NAGAR, VILLAGE KIRARI,
NANGLOI, DELHI -110041 .... DEFENDANT NO. 8
SH. DINESH KUMAR
S/O SH.ANGREJ SINGH
R/O VPO DARIYA PUR KALAN
DELHI -110039 .... DEFENDANT NO. 9
SH.RAM NIWAS
S/O SH.ANGREJ SINGH
R/O VPO DARIYA PUR KALAN
DELHI -110039 .... DEFENDANT NO. 10
SH. RAGHU RAI
S/O SH. NAND LAL
R/O3-B, GREEN VIEW APARTMENT
JAIN MANDIR, DADAVADI ROAD
MEHRAULI,
NEW DELHI -110030 .... DEFENDANT NO. 11
SMT. GURMEET SINGH RAI
WI O SH.RAGHU RAI
R/O 3-B, GREEN VIEW APARTMENT
JAIN MANDIR, DADAVADI ROAD
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 2 KUMAR KAURAV
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI -110030 .... DEFENDANT NO. 12
MS.AVANI RAI
D/ O SH.RAGHU RAI
R/O 3-B, GREEN VIEW APARTMENT
JAIN MANDIR, DADAVADI ROAD
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI -110030 .......DEFENDANT NO. 13
MS.PURVI SANGHA RAI
D/O SH.RAGHU RAI
R/O 3-B, GREEN VIEW APARTMENT
JAIN MANDIR, DADAVADI ROAD
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI -110030 .......DEFENDANT NO. 14
SH.RAJNEESH SEHGAL
S/O SH.JAIDEV RAJ
R/O A-22, INDER PURI
NEW DELHI-110012 ....DEFENDANT NO. 15
(Through: Mr. Raghav Anand and Mr. Shubham Kathuria, Advs for D-11
to 14
Mr. Aly Mirza, Adv. for D-7.
Mr. R. K. Jain and Mr. Anurodh Kumar, Advs. for D-9& D10.
Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Adv. for D-5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Reserved on: 12.08.2025
Pronounced on: 26.08.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
I.A. 18907/2022 (filed on behalf of defendant Nos.11 to 14 under Order
VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC)
1. The present application is filed by defendants no. 11 to 14, under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 3 KUMAR KAURAV
referred to as CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds,
being, non-disclosure of cause of action, non-payment of sufficient court
fees, and the suit being barred by limitation.
Factual Matrix
2. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff, claiming to be a
co-sharer in the property bearing Khasra No.1789(old), 1460(new) situated
at Revenue Estate of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Haus Khas, New Delhi-
110030, for declaration that a series of documents alleged to have been
illegally executed in respect of the suit property by some of the defendants
herein, are null and void. The plaintiff has also sought consequential reliefs
of mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.
3. The plaintiff claims that he is a co-owner of the suit property, by
virtue of two relinquishment deeds executed in his favour; one dated
22.09.2008, executed by Shri Yogesh Sharma, Smt. Ritu Gaur (alias Nitu
Sharma), and Ms. Neha Sharma; and the other dated 24.09.2008, executed
by one Smt. Shanti Devi (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the
relinquishment deeds). By virtue of the relinquishment deeds, the plaintiff
claims ownership of 5/27th of the suit property.
4. The plaintiff further claims that defendants no. 5 to 7 are co-owners of
the suit property, having a collective share of 3/27th of the suit property.
However, he claims that defendants no. 5 and 7, executed General Power of
Attorney dated 20.09.2013in favour of defendant no. 15in respect, not only
of their share in the suit property, but also the share of the plaintiff.
Subsequent to the same, a series of documents came to be executed by some
of the defendants arrayed in the present suit in respect of the said land.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 4 KUMAR KAURAV
5. The plaintiff claims that he became aware of the documents impugned
herein, only upon examining the records in a partition suit in respect of the
suit property, bearing no. CS (OS) 3080/ 2020, and that immediately
thereafter, he has instituted the present suit challenging the same.
Submissions
6. Learned counsel for the applicant-defendants made the following
broad submissions:
6.1. That the relinquishment deeds on which the plaintiff rests his claim of
being a co-owner of the suit property, do not confer any such title on
him. Under the relinquishment deeds, the alleged shares of the
releasers in Khasra No. 1475 (new) and 1789 (old) are relinquished in
favour of the plaintiff, whereas, the suit property bears Khasra No.
1460 (new) and 1789 (old).
6.2. That a report of the SDM, Mehrauli (hereinafter referred to as
Document No. 7) contradicts the plaintiff's claim of having a right
over the suit property. In the said report, the suit land is said to be
owned by one Shri Suran Narayan, and defendants no. 5 and 7 are
said to be in possession of the same, none of whom have released any
right over the same to the plaintiff.
6.3. That the plaint does not contain any averment describing how the suit
property devolved on the persons who relinquished their alleged
shares in the suit property to the plaintiff. Such bald pleadings are
contrary to the mandate under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC, wherein,
the plaintiff is mandated to disclose all the material facts, in the plaint.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 5 KUMAR KAURAV
6.4. That the suit is barred by limitation, as the limitation period for
challenging the documents which are sought to be declared as null
and void, had expired prior to the filing of the suit.
6.5. That since all the impugned documents are registered, the plaintiff is
deemed to have constructive notice of the same from their date of
registration, and hence, any declaration in respect of such documents
had to be sought within three years from the date of their registration,
under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963
(hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act).
6.6. That the plaintiff, by seeking a declaration that he is entitled to
possession of the property, is in fact, indirectly seeking possession of
the property. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad-valorem court
fees on the value of the suit. However, the plaintiff has paid only a
fixed Court fee, and is liable to pay the deficient amount.
7. Learned counsel for defendant no. 7, who supports the applicant-
defendants in the instant application, submitted that a standalone relief of
declaration of entitlement to possession is barred under Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the SRA). Under the
said provision, the Court may grant such a relief, only if accompanied by
prayers for such further consequential reliefs as the plaintiff is able to seek
in law. Therefore, he submits that the plaintiff should have paid ad-valorem
court fees for the relief of possession and included a prayer for recovery of
possession, for the suit to be maintainable.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the submissions of the
applicant-defendants and broadly contended as follows:
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 6 KUMAR KAURAV
8.1 That a perusal of the plaint and the accompanying documents discloses a
clear cause of action for the institution of the present suit. The plaint and
the accompanying documents contain averments to establish his title
over the suit property. Although, no mention of the new Khasra No. 1460
is made in the relinquishment deeds, the old Khasra No. 1789, which
corresponds to the old Khasra number of the suit property, is clearly
mentioned therein. Therefore, the plaintiff has acquired title over the
shares of the releasers in the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiff is
entitled to seek the reliefs sought in the present suit.
8.2 That the suit is not barred by limitation as the plaint clearly discloses that
the plaintiff became aware of the impugned documents only in 2020,
once he examined the records in CS (OS) 3080/2020. He had not been
arrayed as a party to the said suit at its inception, and that a subsequent
impleadment application filed by the plaintiff herein, is still pending
adjudication in the said suit. Thus, the limitation period commenced only
in 2020, and the present suit, having been instituted in 2021, cannot be
deemed to be barred under the Limitation Act.
8.3 That he has explicitly pleaded that he is in constructive possession of the
suit property, being a co-owner. Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable to
pay ad-valorem court fees for the relief of declaration that he is entitled
to joint-possession of the suit property.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Analysis
10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,
the Court is of the opinion that the fate of the present application, and
consequently of the present suit, is contingent upon the adjudication of the
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 7 KUMAR KAURAV
ground of non-disclosure of cause of action. Hence, the same is addressed at
the outset.
11. The phrase 'cause of action', has been defined in P. Ramanatha
Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, Volume 1, as follows:
"„Cause of action‟ has been defined as meaning simply a factual
situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the
Court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from
earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to
entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would
have a right to traverse. "Cause of action" has also been taken to mean
that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff
his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of the grievance founding
the action, not merely the technical cause of action."
12. The Supreme Court, in its judgment in Oil and Natural Gas
Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors.,1defined the said phrase as,
the facts which the petitioner is bound to prove, in order to entitle him to get
the relief sought by him. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
extracted below, for reference:
"6. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action" means that
bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle
him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab
Singh [ILR (1889) 16 Cal 98, 102 : 15 IA 156] Lord Watson said:
"... the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which
may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character
of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground
set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the
media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion
in his favour."........"
13. A perusal of the aforenoted authorities indicates that the plaintiff's
purported right over the suit property, which he is required to prove in order
to succeed in the instant suit, forms an integral part of the cause of action for
the suit. Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to establish, on the basis of the
(1994) 4 SCC 711
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 8 KUMAR KAURAV
averments made in the plaint, that he has any right over the suit property, the
instant application is liable to succeed, as no cause of action could be
deemed to exist in the absence of such right.
14. In the instant case, the basis of the plaintiff's claim is the purported
right over the suit property vested in him vide the relinquishment deeds.
However, a thorough examination of the said relinquishment deeds indicates
that they do not relate to the suit property. The suit property, as per the
plaint, bears Khasra No. 1460 (new) and 1789 (old), whereas, the
relinquishment deeds are in respect of property bearing Khasra No. 1475
(new) and 1789 (old). Such apparent mismatch in the property numbers in
the said documents must necessarily operate against the plaintiff,
considering that the plaint does not contain any pleading to justify the same.
Document No. 7 also contradicts the plaintiff's claim, as it records that the
suit property is owned by a person other than the plaintiff or the releasers.
Therefore, no right, interest, or title of the plaintiff over the suit property
could be ascertained from the plaint and the documents forming part of the
plaint. In fact, the document does not suggest any right of the releasers as
well, over the subject property, owing to the discrepancy in the property
numbers, which would effectively mean that they had no right to relinquish
what did not belong to them in the first place.
15. The Supreme Court, in its judgment in T. Aravindam v. T.V Satyapal
and Another,2 unequivocally held that plaints which do not disclose any
cause of action to sue, or which, through clever drafting, contain an illusory
cause of action, are to be rejected at the threshold. The relevant extract from
the said judgment is reproduced below, for reference.
1977 4 SCC 467
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 9 KUMAR KAURAV
"We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for
the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and
unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the
judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now,
pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant
misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned
Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of
the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or.
VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to
irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on
examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be
shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code (Ch. XI) is also
resourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against
them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George
Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi "It is
dangerous to be too good."
Emphasis supplied
16. In the present case, even if the contents of the plaint are taken to be
truthful, the right of the plaintiff over the suit property is not even prima
facie made out. Consequently, no right to seek any relief with respect to the
suit property would sustain. In order to sustain a cause of action, the proof of
foundational facts is essential as the edifice of evidence stands on such
foundational facts when they are tested during trial. Therefore, the Court is
of the opinion that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the
institution of the present suit.
17. As far as the question of sufficiency of the court fees paid by the
plaintiff is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that the same need not be
gone into, in light of the finding that the plaint does not demonstrate any
right of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendants' primary
contention on this aspect is qua the relief prayed by the plaintiff for
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 10 KUMAR KAURAV
declaration that he is entitled to joint-possession of the suit property. It is not
hard to see through the prayer, which seems to have been cleverly drafted to
seek possession of the suit property without having to pay the requisite ad-
valorem Court fees. Although, the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the
suit property constructively through the other co-owners, however, his claim
of constructive possession collapses in view of the finding that the plaintiff
has failed to establish that he is a co-sharer in the suit property. Since the
plaint does not disclose any other mode through which the plaintiff claims
right of joint-possession of the suit property, the Court is of the opinion that
the plaintiff, by seeking such a declaration, is seeking declaration of a non-
existent right.
18. Since the relief being considered herein does not find any basis in the
pleadings in the plaint, the question of sufficiency of court fees need not be
gone into. However, it is apposite to note that attempts of litigants to bypass
the payment of ad-valorem court fees, by clever drafting of the plaint, ought
to be discouraged and looked down upon. The clean-hands doctrine which
requires parties to come to Court with clean hands for equitable reliefs, must
be extended even to cases such as the present one when a party seeks to
create a camouflage in order to achieve a certain end. The Court is duty-
bound to nip frivolous litigation in the bud as judicial time is, after all,
public's time.
19. The third ground on which the plaint is sought to be rejected is that
the suit is barred by limitation. In the plaint, the plaintiff avers that he
became aware of the impugned documents only in 2020, when he inspected
the records in another suit relating to the suit property. Since, at this stage,
only the averments in the plaint are to be considered, there is no reason for
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 11 KUMAR KAURAV
this Court to disbelieve the aforesaid averment. Therefore, for the purpose of
the present application, the limitation period for seeking declaration in
respect of the impugned documents, could be said to have commenced only
in 2020 in terms of Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. There
appears to be no patent bar of limitation in the present case which could be
held against the plaintiff in a summary manner in exercise of the power
under Order VII Rule 11. The contention with respect to limitation is, at
best, triable in nature.
20. To buttress the contention of limitation, it is averred on behalf of the
applicant-defendants that, since the impugned documents are registered, the
plaintiff was deemed to have constructive notice of the same as on the date
of their registration. This Court is of the view that the said contention does
not hold merit in the factual matrix of the case. Under Explanation I of
Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, such a presumption of
constructive notice of any compulsorily registrable document, operates only
against persons acquiring any interest in the said property. In the present
case, however, since the plaintiff has not established the existence of any
interest in the suit property, he cannot be deemed to have constructive notice
of the impugned documents. Therefore, in the factual backdrop of this case,
the question of limitation would have required evidence to be led during the
course of trial. However, in light of the finding of the Court that the plaint
does not disclose any cause of action for the institution of the present suit,
this ground of challenge is rendered infructuous.
21. As far as the objection under Section 34 of the SRA, in respect of the
prayer for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 12 KUMAR KAURAV
suit property, is concerned, it is suffice to note that the same cannot be a
ground for rejection of the plaint.
22. Intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and uncertainty of
rights, Section 34 of the SRA enjoins the plaintiff to pray for such other
consequential reliefs, apart from mere declaration of title, as he is entitled to
seek. The aforesaid provision is reproduced below, for reference:
"34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.--Any
person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any
property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested
to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its
discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the
plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the
plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of
title, omits to do so.
Explanation.--A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a
title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and for
whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
23. Pertinently, objections under the proviso to Section 34 of the SRA are
to be decided at the time of final adjudication of the suit. Reference can be
made to the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Frost International
Limited v. M/s Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited &Anr.3 The
relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:
"The proviso to Section 34 states that no court can make any
declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than
mere declaration of title, omits to do so. The said question will have to
be considered at the time of final adjudication of the suit as the
question of granting further relief or consequential relief would arise
only if the court grants a declaration. If the plaintiff is unsuccessful in
seeking the main relief of declaration, then, the question of granting
any further relief would not arise at all. Therefore, omission on the part
of the plaintiff in praying for further consequential relief, would
become relevant only at the time of final adjudication of the suit.
Hence, in view of the above, the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage
2022 INSC 380
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 13 KUMAR KAURAV
by holding that the plaintiff has only sought declaratory reliefs and no
further consequential reliefs."
24. Such objections are better suited for adjudication at the time of final
disposal of the suit, since defects under Section 34 of the SRA can be cured
by way of amendment of the plaint to include the necessary consequential
reliefs, as long as the amendment is made within the limitation period for
seeking such further relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Venkataraja v. Doureradjaperumal (D)
Thr. LRs.4
Conclusion
25. In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court is of the opinion that
the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC,
since it fails to disclose any cause of action for the institution of the present
suit. Accordingly, the plaint stands rejected.
CS(OS) 420/2021 &I.A. 11357/2021
26. In view of the order passed in I.A. 18907/2022, the main suit and the
pending application do not survive. Accordingly, the suit, along with the
pending application, stands dismissed.
27. No order as to costs.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
AUGUST 26, 2025/aks
2014 (14) SCC 502
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:28.08.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
18:19:47 14 KUMAR KAURAV
