[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Kanishka Sabharwal vs Shri Suresh Kumar (Since Deceased) ... on 24 March, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 07th January, 2026
Pronounced on: 24th March, 2026
+ RFA 977/2025 & CM APPL. 66417/2025
KANISHKA SABHARWAL
S/o Shri Daulat Ram,
R/o Village Dungdhar Pori
Garhwal, Uttarakhand
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pushpendu Shukla, Advocate
Versus
1. SHRI SURESH KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRS& ORS.
i. Sh. Shashank@ Shan Bharti - (son)
ii. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bharti - (son)
iii. Smt. Nirmala Bharti - (wife)
2. Shri Ram Shankar
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh
3. Shri R.A. Siddiqui
S/o Sh. M.A. Siddiqui
4. Shri Bajrang Garg
S/o Sh. Panna Lal Garg
5. Shri Raghunandan @ Lucky
S/o Sh. Jagat Ram
RFA 977/2025 Page 1 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.03.2026
17:04:00
6. Shri Manoj Kumar
S/o late Sh. Tara Chand
7. Shr. M.K. Singh
S/o Sh. Bitto Singh
8. Shri Bijender Dabas
S/o Sh. N.S. Dabas
.....Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The Regular First Appeal is filed by the Appellant herein under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
'CPC'), 1908, against the Order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Ld. District
Judge-06, Delhi thereby allowing Application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC r/w Section 151 CPC of Respondent No. 1 (through LRs and
Respondents No. 6 to 8) and rejecting the Suit of the Appellant/Plaintiff
for Declaration, Recovery of Possession, Mesne Profits and Permanent
Injunction.
2. The Plaintiff/Appellant filed a CS No. 533/19, titled Kanishka
Sabharwal vs. Shri Suresh Kumar and Ors. for Declaration, Recovery of
Possession, Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction.
3. The brief facts are that the Plaintiff claimed ownership of property
plot no. 47(old), new no. 140, measuring 79 sq yds, forming part of Khasra
No. 77/7, situated in the abadi known as Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi-
110041 (hereinafter referred to as "the Suit property"), having purchased
it from Defendant No.1, Shri Suresh Kumar (since deceased) through
namely registered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Will and
Possession Letter, all dated 15.05.2001.
4. Thereafter, Plaintiff claimed that he raised the boundary wall and
installed a gate, at his own expense and kept the property locked under his
own lock and keys, with the intention of constructing his residence thereon,
while he was residing as a tenant at H.No.604, 6th Floor, Rohini Heights,
Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi-110089.
5. Defendant No.1 allegedly remained in contact with the Plaintiff and
his family members. In the year 2006, Defendant No.1 approached the
Plaintiff‟s mother on the pretext of arranging sale of the property and
obtained from her the original previous title documents dated 23.12.1999
executed by Smt. Harpreet Kaur w/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, in his favour.
6. According to the Plaintiff, despite repeated demands, Defendant No.1
neither returned the documents nor produced any purchaser till the year
2008. In October 2008, one Sh. Nagender Chaudhary, a property dealer of
M/s T.S. Properties, at RZG-33, Main road, 50 ft wide road, Nihal Vihar,
Delhi had telephonically informed the Plaintiff‟s father that he had
purchased the Suit property from Defendant No.1.
7. The Plaintiff and his father showed him the copies of the title
documents dated 15.05.2001 in their favour and asserted that Defendant
No.1 had no right to sell the property after that date, whereupon Nagender
Chaudhary refused to produce his documents and threatened them with
murder and dire consequences, if they visited the plot again.
8. The Plaintiff lodged a Complaint at P.S. Prashant Vihar, and the
investigation was conducted by ASI Randhir Singh of P.S. Paschim Vihar.
On 08.11.2008, upon coming to know that construction was being raised at
the property, he objected and made another Complaint dated 09.11.2008 at
PP Nihal Vihar, whereafter construction was stopped with police
intervention.
9. A further written Complaint dated 15.11.2008 was also sent to the
Incharge, Police Post Nihal Vihar, P.S. Paschim Vihar, DCP, West Dist.,
ACP West Distt, Delhi and to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., against Nagendra
Chaudhry, requesting that no electricity connection be granted, in respect of
the suit property.
10. The Plaintiff claimed that he never resold the Suit property to
Defendant No.1 and that the documents dated 15.05.2001, were never
cancelled. It is further pleaded that during the course of the police
investigation, his father allegedly suffered business losses of ₹25 to 30 lakhs
and also suffered heart attack on 17.06.2009, requiring hospitalization at
Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini. In the year 2014, his father suffered
C.R.B.O. eye disease.
11. The Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant No.1 fraudulently
changed the property number to RZH-141A, instead of original plot
No.47(old)/140(new) forming part of Khasra No.77/7, and deliberately
altered the area description (80-90 sq. yds.) in order to facilitate criminal
offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/120-B/34 IPC. According to
the Plaintiff, documents dated 06.12.2006 executed by Defendant No.1 in
favour of Sh. Ram Shanker, relate to the same property as the boundaries
and location is identical to those in the documents dated 15.05.2001. It is
further alleged that Defendant No.1 altered his signatures in the latter
documents, signing earlier in English initials and later in Hindi as „Suresh
Bharti‟, though the thumb impressions allegedly remained the same.
12. It is further pleaded that Defendant No.1, having already sold the
property to the Plaintiff, had no right to execute the documents dated
06.12.2006. The Plaintiff further asserted that he found Defendant No.8 in
possession of the property on 15.07.2018, who claimed to have purchased it
from Defendant No.7 and threatened the Plaintiff along with other
Defendants.
13. Complaints dated 03.08.2019 and 04.08.2019 were made to various
authorities, including the Prime Minister and police officials. A Complaint
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was also filed, resulting in registration of FIR
No.336/19 dated 16.05.2019 at P.S. Nihal Vihar, under Sections
420/467/468/471/34 IPC.
14. During investigation, the police recovered a chain of documents
reflecting transfers dated 06.12.2006 from Defendant No. 1 to Defendant
No. 2 and thereafter, subsequent transfers to the other Defendants.
15. The Plaintiff alleged that these documents are forged and void, as
Defendant No.1 had no title after 15.05.2001. It is also alleged that an
electricity connection bearing CA No.102787489 w.e.f. 11.11.2008, was
obtained fraudulently in the property.
16. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant No.8 is an unauthorized
occupant and liable to vacate and pay mesne profits at the rate of ₹10,000
per month as rent, and damages for three years preceding to the filing of the
Suit.
17. A Legal Notice dated 03.06.2019 was served upon Defendant No.8 to
hand over possession by 30.06.2019 and to pay damages, but to no avail;
instead Defendant threatened to create third-party interest in the suit
property.
18. The Plaintiff thus, instituted the present Suit for possession and mesne
profits.
19. Separate Written Submissions were filed on behalf of Defendant
No. 1 to 3, and 6 to 8, wherein they have prayed for the dismissal of Suit.
Defendant No. 1 to 3 took a preliminary objection that the present Suit is
frivolous, vexatious, and barred by limitation, having been filed after an
inordinate delay of more than ten years, from the alleged cause of action. It
was contended that the Suit disclosed no cause of action against the
answering Defendants and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11
CPC. The Defendants further objected that the Suit suffers from non-joinder
and misjoinder of necessary parties, as all legal heirs of the deceased
Defendant No. 1 had not been impleaded, and that the Plaintiff has
suppressed material facts and approached the Court with unclean hands. It
was also averred that the Suit had not been properly valued and the requisite
court fees have not been paid. Accordingly, the Defendants prayed that the
plaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold with exemplary costs.
20. The Defendants No. 6 to 8, in their Written Submission, took the
preliminary objection that the present Suit is not maintainable and is barred
by limitation, rendering it liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
as the Plaintiff has approached the Court after an unexplained delay of
nearly two decades despite not being in possession, since at least 2008. It is
contended that the Plaintiff has no valid title or possession, having failed to
produce any chain of title documents, and has instead suppressed material
facts and concocted a false case. The answering Defendants have set out a
complete chain of transactions from 1999 to 2012, tracing title from
Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 8, to assert lawful ownership and
possession. It is further alleged that the documents relied upon by the
Plaintiff are forged and fabricated, incapable of conferring any right,
particularly in the absence of possession. The Defendants also contended
that the Plaintiff has not come with clean hands, has failed to take timely
legal action, and has deliberately concealed crucial facts; therefore, the suit,
being based on false and frivolous averments, is liable to be dismissed with
costs and initiation of appropriate action for perjury.
21. In the Replication, the Plaintiff has denied all the contentions made
in the Written Statements of Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8.
22. The Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were filed by the
LRs of Defendant No.1 and Defendants No.6 to 8, seeking rejection of the
plaint on the ground of limitation.
23. The Ld. Trial Court noted that as per the Plaintiff‟s own case, he had
knowledge in October, 2008 that a third party was asserting ownership and
raising construction over the suit property and had also lodged police
Complaints. The Court held that this amounted to a cloud over the Plaintiff‟s
title and the right to sue first accrued in 2008. The Suit for Declaration ought
to have been filed within three years, in terms of Article 58 of the Limitation
Act. The Plaintiff could not create a fresh cause of action from the alleged
discovery of Defendant No.8‟s possession in 2018 or from the Legal Notice
dated 03.06.2019. The Ld. Trial Court held that the Suit instituted in 2019,
was barred by limitation and rejected the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11
CPC.
24. Aggrieved by the rejection of the Suit, Appellant/Plaintiff has filed
the present Appeal. The Grounds of Appeal are that the Ld. Trial Court has
failed to appreciate the pleadings in their entirety and wrongly confined the
matter, only to limitation period.
25. While deciding an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the
Trial Court ought also to have considered the Written Statements of the
Defendants. None of the Respondents disputed his ownership based on the
sale/transfer/title documents dated 15.05.2001, and there is neither allegation
nor evidence, that the Appellant ever sold the property to Defendant No.1.
The Trial Court erred in holding that the cause of action arose in 2008. The
Appellant had immediately lodged police Complaints in November, 2008
upon learning of the alleged sale.
26. He asserts that the Respondents intentionally withheld the documents,
despite repeated requests. He did not know the particulars of the subsequent
sale transactions executed successively from Defendant No.1 to Defendant
No.8 and got the knowledge of the documents only in May, 2019, when
copies were supplied by the Investigating Officer. Without details of those
documents, he could not have sought their cancellation. The Suit was filed
promptly after the investigation disclosed the alleged forged documents
Therefore, the cause of action accrued only in May 2019, not in 2008.
27. The Appellant further submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider
the registration of FIR No.336/2019 and the criminal proceedings, initiated
pursuant to orders of the Magistrate.
28. It is also contended that any delay in filing the Suit was neither
intentional nor willful, but because of the serious illness and heart ailment of
the Appellant‟s father from 2009, until his death. The Trial Court erred in
not condoning the delay and in drawing an adverse inference.
29. On merits, the Appellant stated that Defendant No.1 had no right,
title or interest in the suit property after 15.05.2001 and therefore, all
subsequent transfers in favour of Defendants No.2 to 8, are void ab initio. It
was alleged that Defendant No.1 fraudulently altered signatures and
property particulars in subsequent documents and misused the original title
documents which had been taken from the Appellant‟s mother, on the
pretext of facilitating the sale. The Appellant claimed that the Respondents
collectively cheated and defrauded him, through successive illegal transfers.
30. The Appellant also submits that the Trial Court erred in observing that
he had not sought proper Declaratory relief. However, his ownership was
undisputed and therefore, declaration of his own title, was unnecessary. It is
contended that he cannot be deprived of immovable property, merely on the
ground of delay.
31. Finally, it is submitted that the Judgments relied upon by the Ld. Trial
Court were inapplicable; the authorities cited by the Appellant were not
properly considered, rendering the impugned Order perverse and prejudicial
to his rights and effectively rewarding the Respondents for their alleged
wrongdoing.
32. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned Order be set aside and the
Suit be remanded for trial on merits.
Submissions heard and record perused.
33. The Suit of the Plaintiff for Declaration of Sale Deed and for
possession in favour of the Defendants titled as Kanishka Sabharwal vs. Shri
Suresh Kumar and Ors., has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
34. According to the Plaintiff/Appellant, he had purchased the Suit
Property by virtue of GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc., dated 15.05.2001. He
claimed that he took over the possession and raised a boundary wall and put
the lock on her door. However, it is his own case that in the year 2006, the
Defendant No. 1 approached the mother of the Plaintiff and took back the
original sale documents dated 23.12.1999 executed by Smt. Harpreet Kaur
in favour of the Defendant No. 1, that is the original previous chain of
documents.
35. It is further the claim of the Plaintiff/Appellant that in October, 2008,
he was shocked and surprised to know that one Nagender Chaudhary had
purchased the Suit Property from Defendant No. 1. He had confronted him
to show the alleged documents in his favour, but he was threatened by
Nagender Chaudhary.
36. From the submissions of the Plaintiff itself, it is evident that he
became aware of the sale of the property in favour of Nagender Chaudhary
way back in 2008, despite which he took no steps to challenge the
documents of title executed in favour of Nagender Chaudhary.
37. Thereafter, there has been a sale through GPA, etc., made by
Nagender Chaudhary to Defendant No. 3 and thereafter, subsequent
transfers to the other Defendants till Defendant No. 8, who is in possession
and claims title on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, etc. dated
15.05.2001. It is the claim of the Plaintiff/Appellant that thereafter, his
father suffered huge losses in business and suffered heart attack and he was
busy in taking care of his father and was unable to take any action. On
15.07.2018, he went to the Suit Property and found Defendant No. 8 in the
possession of the property.
38. It is evident that the Plaintiff/Appellant first came to know about the
property having been sold by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2, way back
in 2008. The cause of action to file a Suit to challenge the documents in
favour of the Defendant No. 2 arose in 2008, while the Suit has been filed
only in 2018. The Suit for getting the Documents declared as null and void,
could have been filed within 03 years of the cause of action, but has been
filed much beyond 03 years and is patently barred by limitation.
39. The Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy
(dead) 2008 (5) SRJ 147 held that when a cloud is raised on the Plaintiff‟s
title who is not in possession, a Suit for Declaration and for Possession
with or without consequential injunction, is the remedy.
40. Likewise, the Apex Court in the case of Mallavva vs.
Kalsammanavara Kalamma in SLP (CIVIL) No. 29135/2019, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3846 decided on 20.12.2024 has observed that if a composite
Suit is filed for cancellation of Sale Deed as well as recovery of possession,
the limitation period should be considered in respect of the substantive relief
of cancellation of deed, which would be 03 years from the date of
knowledge of the Sale Deed, which is sought to be cancelled.
41. It has been rightly noted by learned District Judge that cause of action
is sought to be created by claiming that the Legal Notice was sent on
03.06.2019, but mere serving of Legal Notice, cannot revive a cause of
action which has lived it life by 2011.
42. It has been rightly noted by the Learned District Judge that when a
cloud was raised on the title of the Plaintiff way back in 2008, when
Nagender Chaudhary was found in possession of the property, the filing of
the present Suit in 2019 was patently barred by limitation. It is also
rightly observed that the Plaintiff has merely sought Declaration of the
documents in favour of the Defendants, to be null and void, but had not
sought a corresponding Declaration of him being the rightful owner of the
Suit Property, despite a cloud being cast on his title.
43. The learned District Judge, therefore, has rightly dismissed the Suit of
the Plaintiff by observing that it is patently barred by limitation.
44. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby,
dismissed. The pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2026
N
