[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Malaya Kumar Chand vs Prem Kumar Verma & Anr on 20 December, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 17.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on:20.12.2025
+ FAO 329/2024, CM APPL. 60007/2024 CM APPL. 60008/2024 CM
APPL. 60047/2024
MALAYA KUMAR CHAND .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Malaya K. Chand (Appellant in
person).
versus
PREM KUMAR VERMA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 104 read with Order
XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC), has
been filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 827/2023 on the file of the
learned District Judge-07, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2024, by which the trial court
dismissed his application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 of the CPC.
2. In this appeal, the parties herein, unless otherwise
specified, shall be referred to as described in the original suit.
3. The averments made in the plaint are thus: The plaintiff is
the owner of the entire freehold lower ground floor admeasuring
200 square yards of property bearing no. 11/8, West, Patel Nagar,
New Delhi (the suit property), having purchased the same from
one Veena Chugh vide two registered sale deed dated 28.01.2021.
It is averred that Veena Chugh had acquired the property vide two
registered sale deeds dated 22.11.2000 from the erstwhile owners,
Abha Bhatia and Asha Bhatia, through their attorney Amit Babbar,
and thus had clear and marketable title, which was validly
conveyed to the plaintiff vide the sale deed dated 28.01.2021.
3.1. According to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1/respondent
no.1 herein was never the owner of any portion of the suit property
and was merely permitted to occupy a small portion admeasuring
about 100 square feet as a licensee or caretaker during the period
when Veena Chugh was the owner. During the execution of the
sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff, he was assured that defendant
no. 1 would vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the
property shortly. However, on completion of the execution of the
sale deeds, defendant no. 1 refused to vacate the property and
instead started asserting his ownership rights. It was further alleged
that defendant no. 1 is relying upon a sale deed dated 07.12.1998,
which is forged and fabricated and was fraudulently introduced
into the record of defendant no. 2, the Sub-Registrar-II, Basai
Darapur, New Delhi-110027. Various discrepancies in the said
document relating to signatures, seals, attestation and
endorsements are highlighted to contend that the sale deed is non
est in the eyes of law. On the basis of the said allegations, the
plaintiff claimed to have initiated criminal proceedings and also
instituted the present suit seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the
sale deed dated 07.12.1998 is null and void, recovery of possession
of the suit property, mandatory directions to defendant no.2 and
damages/mesne profits.
3.2. Defendant no. 1 entered appearance and filed written
statement, contending that he is the absolute owner of the suit
property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 07.12.1998 and
that he has been in open, continuous and settled possession thereof
for more than two decades. Defendant no. 1 has been running a
commercial establishment in the suit property and has been a
regular tax payer and has been paying other bills and municipal
dues in his own name, which demonstrates his long standing
possession of the suit property. Defendant no. 1 also contended
that the plaintiff has been residing in the same building much prior
to the year 2021 and was fully aware about defendant no. 1's
possession and ownership claim by relying on the Writ Petition
filed by the plaintiff in the year 2017 [W.P.(C) 10757/2017], titled
as M.K. Chand & Ors. Vs. North Delhi Municipal
Corporation, wherein the photographs of the subject property
were placed on record by the plaintiff himself.
3.3. Defendant no. 2, the Sub Registrar, took a limited stand
in his written statement that the documents in question were
registered in accordance with law and that the registering authority
does not adjudicate upon the title or the genuineness of documents
beyond statutory requirements.
4. Pendente lite, the plaintiff filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 CPC, seeking to restrain defendant no.
1 from creating any third-party interest in the suit property and the
said application was premised on the apprehension that defendant
no. 1 was attempting to alienate the suit property on the basis of
the registered dale deed dated 07.12.1998.
5. The trial court, upon considering the materials placed on
record, vide the impugned order, dismissed the application with an
observation that defendant no.1 was in long-standing possession of
the suit property and that grant of injunction would amount to
granting final relief without trial. It was accordingly held that the
plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of
convenience or irreparable injury.
6. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff
that the trial court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff is the lawful
owner of the suit property, having acquired title through a clear
and unbroken chain of registered sale deeds executed in the year
2000 and 2021. It was further submitted that the said suit property
is residential in nature, allotted and sanctioned for residential use
alone, and the suit property constitutes a portion of such residential
lower ground floor. Defendant no. 1 has never resided in the suit
property and was merely permitted to occupy a small portion as a
licensee, which stood terminated and hence, the trial court erred in
treating the possession claimed by defendant no. 1 as settled
possession, goes the argument.
7.1. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that the trial court erred in according undue weight to the
sale deed dated 07.12.1998, relied upon by defendant no. 1, despite
the plaintiff having specifically pleaded and placed materials to
show that the said document is forged and fabricated and that its
execution and validity are yet to be proved. It was submitted that
mere registration of the document could not have been treated as
conclusive at the interlocutory stage, particularly in the face of
pointed discrepancies.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for defendant no. 1
would contend that the suit property is not an undivided or
homogeneous lower ground floor, but consists of distinct and
separately assessed portions, of which 13.75 sq. metres constitutes
a shop owned and occupied by defendant no.1, while the
remaining portion admeasuring about 149 sq. metres stood in the
name of Veena Chugh by placing reliance on Municipal
Assessment and House Tax records dated 25.10.2018, which
specifically demarcate the area in the occupation of defendant no.1
and record his name separately from that of Veena Chugh, thereby
evidencing long-standing, recognised possession and independent
existence of defendant no.1's shop much prior to the plaintiff's
purchase in 2021.
8.1. It was further urged by the learned counsel that the
plaintiff was fully aware of defendant no.1's possession and claim
over the shop admeasuring 13.75 sq. metres even prior to the
purchase of the property in 2021. The plaintiff admittedly residing
on the second floor of the same building had filed W.P.(C) No.
10757/2017 before this Court alleging misuse of the lower ground
floor, pursuant to which municipal action including
sealing/attachment was taken in respect of the portion recorded in
the name of Veena Chugh and was subsequently de-sealed.
Despite such knowledge, the plaintiff proceeded to execute sale
deeds in 2021 purporting to purchase the entire lower ground floor,
even though municipal records reflected Veena Chugh's
ownership only to the extent of 149 sq. metres, with the remaining
13.75 sq. metres being in the possession of defendant no.1. It was
urged that the plaintiff consciously undertook this transaction with
open eyes and cannot now seek interim injunction to disturb
defendant no.1's settled possession or to escape the consequences
of his own conduct.
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. On perusal of the pleadings and the records placed, it
emerges that the suit property forms part of the lower ground floor
of the property bearing no. 11/8, West, Patel Nagar, New Delhi,
which is a multi-storeyed building. The plaintiff has purchased a
substantial portion of the lower ground floor in the year 2021 from
one Veena Chug vide two registered sale deeds dated 28.01.2021.
It appears from the materials on record that defendant no. 1 has
been in possession of a defined portion of the property for a
considerable period of time and that such possession predates the
plaintiff's purchase. The dispute therefore arises with respect to the
nature, extent and legal character of defendant no.1's possession
and the competing claims of the title set up by the parties.
11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the limited issue
that arises for determination by this court in the present appeal is
whether the trial court erred in refusing the grant of interim
injunction to the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2
CPC.
12. In the case on hand, the plaintiff's claim for interim
injunction rests substantially on two pillars. First, the assertion of a
superior chain of title flowing from the sale deeds of the year 2000
and 2021 and second, the allegation that the sale deed dated
07.12.1998 relied upon by defendant no. 1 is forged and fabricated.
Both these aspects raise serious questions of fact and law,
including the examination of documents, comparison of signatures,
evaluation of statutory presumption attached to registered
instruments and appreciation of evidence, which cannot be
conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage.
13. It is apposite to note that the materials placed on record,
including the Municipal Assessment and House Tax Records dated
25.10.2018, prima facie, indicate that the lower ground floor was
assessed as consisting of two distinct and separately recorded
portions, with defendant no. 1 shown to be in occupation of a
portion admeasuring 13.75 square meters, separately form the
portion recorded in the name of Veena Chugh, who is shown to be
in occupation of a separate portion admeasuring 149 square
meters. The same assessment records also reflect the plaintiff as
the owner/occupant of the second floor of the very same property.
These records lend a prima facie support to the stand of defendant
no.1 that his possession was not recent, rather he was in
possession of the property, much prior to the plaintiff's purchase in
2021. These records also lend weight to the contention advanced
by defendant no. 1 that the plaintiff was well aware of the existing
occupation and demarcation within the property prior to the
execution of the sale deeds in his favour in the year 2021.
14. Interestingly, it also emerges from the records that the
plaintiff himself had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.
(C) No. 10757/2017, complaining of alleged misuse of the lower
ground floor of the very same property. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 01.02.2019 by relegating the petitioner to the
Special Task Force constituted pursuant to directions of the Apex
Court, without any adjudication on title or possession. While the
said writ petition does not decide civil rights inter se the parties, it
does assume relevance for the limited purpose of examining the
plaintiff's knowledge and awareness of the existing user and
occupation of the lower ground floor prior to the execution of the
sale deeds in his favour in 2021.
15. The aforesaid aspect, read with the Municipal Assessment
and Tax Records placed on records, clearly indicate that the lower
ground floor has two distinct portions; defendant no.1 is shown to
be the occupant of a defined area in the lower ground floor, which
is separate from the portion recorded in the name of Veena Chugh;
and that the plaintiff is also an occupant of the second floor of the
same building. In this backdrop, the plaintiff's plea that he was
entirely unaware of the occupation of defendant no. 1 is difficult to
accept, particularly when the records suggest that he himself was
residing in the same building and had previously invoked writ
jurisdiction of this Court with respect to the misuse of the suit
property. Whether such knowledge would ultimately defeat the
plaintiff's claim or have a bearing on the validity of the sale deeds
is a matter to be examined at trial; however, for the purposes of
interim relief, it does dilute the urgency and equity of the
plaintiff's prayer.
16. The trial court has rightly taken note of the fact that
defendant no. 1 is in possession of the suit property and a grant of
injunction would, in effect, result in disturbing a possession that
has existed for several years, on the basis of disputed title and
allegations of forgery which are yet to be established. As regards
the apprehension of creation of third-party rights, it is pertinent to
note that such apprehension, though relevant, must be balanced
against the competing equities. The plaintiff's interest can be
adequately safeguarded by the eventual outcome of the suit,
including recovery of possession and mesne profits, should he
succeed. On the other hand, restraining defendant no.1 at this
stage, in the teeth of long-standing possession and disputed title
would cause disproportionate prejudice.
17. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned
order suffers from no perversity or infirmity, calling for an
interference by this court.
18. In the view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
impugned order of the trial court is affirmed. It is clarified that
nothing contained in this order shall affect the merits of the case.
19. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
20. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 20, 2025/RN
