1

IN THE COURT OF MS SUJATA KOHLI, ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, CENTRAL DISTT. TIS HAZARI
COURTS,
DELHI
CS No. 171/14/04
Unique ID No. 02401C05098562009
Mrs. Phoola Wanti
W/o late Shri Khem Chand
R/o 3/48, Double Storey,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi-110014.

...........Plaintiff

vs
1.

Shri Narinder Singh Sahni

S/o late Shri Thakur Singh Sahni
R/o 3/42-44,
Double Storey, Jangpura Extension
New Delhi-110014.

2.

Shri Nand Lal Satija

S/o Shri Parmanand
Proprietor
M/s Krishna Embroidery
R/o 4/63, Double Storey,
Jangpura Extensiion,
New Delhi-110014.

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............2

3.

Shri Badru Khan

Proprietor
M/s Raj Tailor
R/o Block No. 28,
House No. 23, Trilok Puri,
Delhi-110091.

.............Defendants

SUIT FOR DECLARATIION, POSSESSION AND

PERMANENT INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF THE
PLAINTIFF.
Date of filing the suit
: 05-05-2004
Date of reserving the Judgment/Order : 14-07-2015
Date of passing the Judgment/Order
: 22-07-2015
JUDGME NT :
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration,
possession and permanent injunction for quarter no.
3/46 and 3/48 Ground floor, Double Storyed Jangpura
Extn. New Delhi- 110 014, alleging therein, that by
lease and convayence deed executed on 13-11-1969,
Govt. of India transferred double storeyed quarter no.
3/46 and 3/48 to one Sh. Amar Nath Sharma son of Sh.
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............3

Shiv Nath, duly registered with the sub-registrar Delhi.

Sh. Amar Nath Sharma was the original owner of
quarter no. 3/46 and 3/48, Ground Floor, Double
Storeyed Jangpura Extn. New Delhi 110 014.
2. The said Sh. Amar Nath Sharma, executed an
agreement to sell in favour of Sh. Khem Chand,
husband of the plaintiff, registered as document no.
2727 with the sub-registrar, Delhi on 2-8-1977. The
said Amar Nath Sharma also executed supporting
documents like General power of Attorney which is duly
registered on the same date. Thus Sh. Khem Chand
became the rightful owner of the aforesaid Quarter no.
3/48 ground floor, Double Storey, Jungpura Extn. New
Delhi.
3. It is further stated that the husband of the plaintiff Sh.
Khem Chand died on 20-10-1980 and after his death
the

plaintiff

became

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

the

owner

of

corner

p.t.o.............4

quarter/tenement no. 3/48, Ground Floor, Double

Storey, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-110014.
4. Plaintiff further stated that Sh. Thakur Singh Sahani i.e.,
father of Defendant no. 1 was the owner of quarter no.
3/42 and 3/44 ground floor, double story, Jungpura
Extension, New Delhi 110014. After his death his son
Sh. Narinder Singh Sahani defendant no. 1 became the
owner of the said two quarters.
5. Plaintiff has recently come to know that defendant no. 1
has illegally sold one of four latrine/bathroom to the
defendant no. 2 who has converted the same into shop
and is running M/s Krishna Embroidery in the said
latrine/bathroom which is a part of lavatory block which
was once common.

The plaintiff has also came to

know that the defendant no. 1 has also illegally given

another latrine/bathroom to the defendant no. 3 on rent
who is running tailoring shop therein.
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............5

6. It is also been elaborated that other original allottees of

quarter/tenament 3/42 to 3/48 ground floor, double
story, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi 110014 were issued
similar lease cum conveyance deed by the Govt. of
India.
7. As per arrangements, the plaintiff and defendant no. 1
are residing in double storey government built quarters
having 32 quarters on the ground floor and 32 quarters
on the first floor with common passage and stair case
as shown in the site plan. As per arrangement in the
scheme, initially there was common lavatory/bathroom
i.e., two laterines and two bathrooms which exists at
the corner of quarter/tenement i.e., quarter no. 3/48 of
the plaintiff and these were meant for use by four
quarter/tenement no. 3/48, 3/46, 3/44 and 3/42, The
common lavatory block is shown as red in the site plan
and the quarter /tenement of the plaintiff is shown in
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............6

yellow colour and of the defendant no. 1 is shown in

blue colour.

The corner tenement was to share the

lavatory block alongwith three none corner allottees.

Similarly, the stair case, common court yard were also
common to all the allottees.
8. Due to passage of time and due to increase in the
number of family members of allottees/owners of the
quarters, the common lavatory block resulted in
extreme instantiation and great hardships and health
hazard to the residents of the quarters. The double
story corner quarter association took up the matter with
the Ministry of Rehabilitation, L&DO and the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, as a result of which, L&DO
passed resolutions from time to time whereby it was
decided to allot 17.5' x 10.75' sq. ft. area to three non
corner allottees out of common court yard on the back
side, for the specific purpose of constructing separate
bathroom, laterine and kitchen. It was also decided to
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............7

give existing common lavatory block to the corner

allottee. However, two years period was given to the
non-corner allottees for construction of separate
bathroom, laterine and kitchen and thereafter the noncorner allottees were to have no right whatsoever in the
existing lavatory portion, which was to exclusively vest
with the corner allottee i.e, plaintiff in this case.
9. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant no. 1 has already
constructed his separate laterine, bathroom and kitchen
as per scheme/resolution of L& DO; and L&DO is in the
process to execute supplementary lease deed with the
allottees in this regard.
10.Plaintiff alleged that corner allottee was given right to
demolish the lavatory block and to build separate unit
of kitchen, bathroom and laterine as per scheme. The
corner allotte was given right to demolish the lavatory
block and to build separate unit of kitchen, bathroom
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............8

and laterine as per scheme. Various letters, resolutions

including dated 18-11-1964, 27-5-1968, 20-11-1968,
22-4-70, 25-1-77, 11-11-83, 17-3-89, 30-11-1990 have
been passed in this regard.
11.It is further clarified that quarter no. 3/46 is owned by
the son of plaintiff and is a non corner quarter.
12.According to the plaintiff the plan as envisaged by the
said resolution of L&DO and MCD has been carried out
in fulll by non-corner allottees. L&DO vide several
letters have ordered to restore the possession of
original lavatory block to the corner allottee, but inspite
of construction of their separate unit of kitchen,
bathroom and laterine, defendant no. 1 does not desist
from using the common lavatory block. The plaintiff
has been requesting the defendant no. 1 not to use the
same but defendant no. 1 failed to comply with the
same.
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............9

13.Plaintiff has agreed that he had also been given right to

replace the existing lavatory block with new unit, but
defendant no. 1 is not allowing the plaintiff to execute
the same, even though the plaintiff has exclusive right
over the area.
14.Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant no. 1 has
illegally sold 1/4th portion of common lavatory block to
the defendant no. 2 who is running embriodery shop .
Similarly he has given another 1/4th portion of common
lavatory block to defendant no. 3 on rent and both
Defendant no. 2 & Defendant no. 3 are running their
respective shops. Defendant no. 1 has no right in the
said lavatory block either to sell or to let out to anyone.
Similarly, Defendant no. 2 & 3 also have no right to
occupy the said portion and to run their business
therefrom.

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............10

10

15.It is alleged that on 3-5-2004, the defendant no. 1

alongwith some anti-social elements came to the spot
to demolish the lavatory block portion. They told that
the non-corner allottees have decided to demolish and
extend the same in the front portion so that more space
and thereafter to sell the same as shops.

Plaintiff

approached local police and MCD but they failed to

take any action against defendant in the year 2004.
16.The main relief sought by the plaintiff are:(i)Decree of declaration to be passed qua the suit
property belonged her to be the owner thereof.
(ii)

Secondly direction to evict the 3 defendants from

half portion of common lavatory block adjoining quarter

no. 3/48, Double Story, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi.
(iii) For

permanent

injunction

to

restrain

the

defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............11

11

of the plaintiff and from demolishing, extending,

disposing or selling or alienating or hand over the
possession of the common lavatory block or porition
adjoining quarter no. 3/48, Double Story, Jangpura
Extn. New Delhi. As shown in the site plan and from
obstructing the plaintiff in replacing the said lavatory
block adjoining quarter no. 3/48, Double Storey,
Jangpura Extn. New Delhi.
17.Defendant no. 1 in his written submission has raised
objection firstly, that the suit is liable to dismissed, as it
is hopelessly time barred by limitation in as much as
the Limitation period for a suit for declaration or
injunction is 3 years and 12 years for a suit for
possession, if the plaintiff is the legal owner. Secondly,
defendant no. 1 also raised the objection that plaintiff is
not even the legal owner at all, and infact as per the
averments of the plaintiff itself, the Govt. has allotted
the property so Sh. Amar Nath Sharma and not to the
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............12

12

plaintiff or to her husband. Since going by the common

case of the plaintiff no sale deed was executed nor any
permission obtained from the Govt. by said Sh. Amar
Nath Sharma to transfer property to the plaintiff and at
any point of time.

It has been more than 18 years

back, but admittedly, till date, no sale deed has ever

been executed in favour of Sh. Khem Chand or
anybody else. As per plaintiff he has no title or
ownership, hence plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
suit.
18.Further objection has been raised i.e., suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary party as the government
agency L&DO has not been made party. Accordingly
the said issue should be dismissed.
19.Defendant no. 1 has further emphasised on the point
that husband of the plaintiff was not owner as per law,
and even if it is assumed that he was the owner, even
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............13

13

then the plaintiff alone can not be the sole owner and
can not claim the declaration of ownership in her favour
in the absence of other LRs on record of the case. As
such the suit is bad for non joinder of the other LRs of
Sh. Khem Chand.
20.Defendant no. 1 further objects that suit is devoid of
cause of action as in much as no specific dates, month
or year have been furnished by

the plaintiff .

Particularly alleged resolutions were passed during the

entire period between 1964 to 1990, as such
averments in the plaint are absolutely vague and
frivelous.
21.Defendant has also objected that suit has not been
properly valued for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction.

The suit is therefore under valued and

under stamped.

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............14

14

22.Plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs. 3,00,000/- for the
purpose of recovery of possession whereas the market
value of said portion is more than 10 lakhs and
therefore, suit should be rejected U/O 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.On the merit defendant no. 1 denied the ownership
right of Sh. Khem Chand and thus also of the plaintiff.
The defendant has even denied the averments
regarding the death of Khem Chand for want of
knowledge. He has completely denied the ownership
of quarter in question.
24.Defendant no. 1 has emphitically stated that portion
under occupation of Defendant no. 2 had been let out
to him by defendant no. 1 about 20 years ago and
wherein the defendant no. 2 running the business since
then.
25.It has also been denied that portion which has been let
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............15

15

out is a part of common lavatory block as is being

alleged by the plaintiff.
26.Similarly, it has also been denied that any portion was
illegally given to defendant no. 2 and Defendant no. 3.
Defendant no. 3 is also tenant for the last more than 15
years.
27.It has not been denied that plaintiff and defendant no. 1
are residing in the quarter at Ground Floor and First
Floor as alleged by the plaintiff. It has not been denied
that there was common passage and stair case.
28.Defendant no. 1 denied the allegations that no space
has been left for corner allottee on the lavatory block as
alleged by the plaintiff. It has been submitted that even
otherwise the plaintiff is not the allottee and Sh. Amar
Nath Sharma is the allottee who could claim any right.
The version of defendant no. 1 is that all the allottees or
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............16

16

occupiers including the plaintiff have made their

bathroom/toilet etc., on the space outside their quarter
and therefore they can not claim any special right
against other persons.
29.It is also not been denied that defendant no. 1 and
other occupants of the quarter have made their
lavatory/bathroom long ago i.e., 12 years back.
30.Defendant no. 1 denied that any such space was given
to the non-corner allottes in the lavatory block or, they
were given right to demolish, hence there is no ground
as claimed by plaintiff. Defendant further denied any
such claim passed by L&DO or MCD etc. Defendant
no. 1 has also denied having forfeited his rights over
the common lavatory with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
no right to, object to any construction or demolition as
alleged by defendant no. 1.

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............17

17

31.In the replication filed the plaintiff has denied the

version of the defendant no. 1 and re-iterated her own
as correct.
32.Defendant no. 2 in his written statement has also
stated that the suit is not maintainable, as the suit has
not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees
and jurisdiction and the market value at the time of
filing of suit for more than 10 lakhs. Similarly, regarding
claim of the plaintiff about her ownership, Plaintiff
according to them was never the owner and not in
possession of the said portion of the property in this
suit. Further plea of limitation has also been raised.
The WS of defendant no. 2 and even of Defendant no.
3 are more or less on the similar lines. They have also
taken the objection and almost adopted them as taken
by defendant no. 1. Replications were filed to the WS in
which plaintiff re-iterated her claim.

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............18

18

33.On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed

by the Predecessor vide proceeding dated 23-5-2005.
1. Whether the suit filed by the
plaintiff is barred by time? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD
3. Whether the suit has not been
properly valued for the purpose of court
fees and jurisdiction? OPD
4. Whether the suit for declaration
and possession is not maintainable or
claimed by defendants in their written
statement? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus
standi to file the present suit against
defendants? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a
decree for declaration as claimed in the
plaint? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a
decree for possession as claimed in the
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............19

19

plaint? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to a
decree for permanent injunction as
claimed in the plaint? OPP
9.

Relief.

34.In evidence, plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 on

her affidavit Ex. P1 and also she has relied upon the
documents referred as Ex. PW1/1 to 18 through her
affidavit. However documents exhibited as mark Ex.
PW1/19 to PW1/33 have been de-exhibited and these
are photo copies/secondary evidence.
Sh. Rajender Singh, employee of Land & Development
Office was examined as PW2 proved the lease deed
and conveyance deed alongwith site plan as Ex.
PW2/1 and PW2/2 , letter dated 30-11-1990 is Ex.
PW2/4, Letter dated 29-5-1986 is Ex. PW2/5, Letter
dated 31-1-1986 alongwith site plan are Ex. PW2/6 and

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............20

20

Ex. PW2/7, letter dated 20-12-1990 is Ex. PW2/8,

resolution dated 11-11-1983 is Ex. PW2/9.
Sh. Abhey Singh, Record Keeper, Secretary Office,
MCD, Town Hall, Delhi, was examined as PW3 and he
proved the resolution no. 312 dated 07-5-1970 is Ex.
PW3/1 and resolution no. 654 dated 27-4-1964 is Ex.
PW3/2.
Ms.

Neelam

department

Arora,

MCD,

Architect

Kashmere

from
Gate,

Architecture
Delhi,

was

examined as PW4 and she proved letter dated 30-121986 as Ex. PW4/1 and standing plan of C-type,
Double Storey Tenaments which is exhibited as Ex.
PW4/2.
35.Defendant's in turn examined DW1 on his affidavit as
Ex. DW1/A, DW2 Nand Lal Satija was examined and
has proved his affidavit dated 09-11-2008 consisting of
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............21

21

8 pages which is Ex. DW2/A. DW3 Badlu Khan also

examined and has proved his affidavit dated 19-102010 and the same is Ex. D3W1/1.
36.No oral arguments were addressed by either party
inspite of the fact that suit is already 11 years old.
Defendant had concluded his evidence way back on
31-5-2013 and matter had been listed for final
argument ever since 24-2-2013 but inspite of a period
of 2 years, numerous dates. No oral argument were
address on behalf of either party. Finally matter was
reserved for judgment extending liberty to file written
submission,

which

they

not.

My

issue

wise

observations are as under :

Issue No. 1 : Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is
barred by time? OPD
37.The onus to prove this objection lay upon the
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............22

22

defendants.

It has been mainly contended in the

written arguments on behalf of defendant no. 1 that suit

is hopelessly barred by time and suit property was
admittedly in possession and enjoyment of defendant
no. 1 for more than 25 years, who had admittedly let
out the portion to defendant no. 2 about 20 years ago
and other portion to defendant no. 3 more than 15
years ago .

The limitation period for a suit for

declaration or injunction is 3 years, while the period for

suit for possession (if the plaintiff is the legal owner) is
12 years , whereas the present suit has been filed after
24 years as per the own averments in the plaint.
38.Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that she became
owner in 1980 i.e. after the death of her husband and
therefore on the face of the averments made in the
plaint, suit is clearly barred by limitation .
39.Further contended on behalf of the defendants that
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............23

23

plaintiff in para 25 relating to the cause of action has

not even mentioned any dates at all since when the
defendants alleged to have been occupying the portion
in dispute. Plaintiff has mentioned several letters and
resolutions right from 1964 till 1990 without specifying
any dates whatsoever.
40.On that the plaintiff in his written arguments has
contended that defendant no. 1 has only raised the
objection but not led any evidence. Further, that the
plaintiff came to know the illegal act of defendant no. 1
on 03-05-2004 and also the fact that defendant no. 1
had illegally let out the portion to defendant no. 2 and 3
in January, 2004.

The defendant no. 1 has not lead

any evidence that defendants no. 2 and 3 were given

possession several years back.

Plaintiff has also

referred to the reply of DW-2 on his cross-examination

on this point.

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............24

24

41.However, going through the contentions of both parties

on this point, I am in agreement with the defendants, in
as much as going through the contents of the plaint, it
is quite clear that defendant no. 1 had already taken
possession, allegedly illegal, as per the plaintiff, many
many years back. The relevant portion of the plaint
needs to be referred to at this stage.
42.No doubt that in para 5 the plaintiff has made it look as
if the plaintiff recently came to know that defendant
no. 1 had illegally sold one portion to defendant no. 2
and let out the other portion in dispute to defendant no.
3 for running tailoring shop.
43.Firstly, it is not believable at all that the occupants of
the quarters who are living there since 1969 onwards
and in case of the plaintiff, even after the death of her
husband on 20-10-1980 she would not be knowing as
to what has been going on in the property in dispute. It
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............25

25

is not possible that an occupant whose husband is

alleged to be the rightful owner, his widow who claims
to have succeeded to him in interest, that she would
not be aware about the exact date when defendant no.
1 sold or otherwise let out the property in dispute to
other persons and the said persons started running
tailoring shop. It should be noted that any one can
make out, if a tailoring shop is being run, in a place
where there was a bathroom earlier. The change would
not go no unnoticed. This is the reason that plaintiff has
not been able to state any specific date , month or even
the year, when the defendant no. 1 is alleged to have
passed on the possession of the disputed portion to
defendants no. 2 and 3 and instead she has used an
evasive term through out like the word recently. It is
clear that plaintiff was throughout aware but slept over
for all these years with her silence/ acquaintance.
44.Plaintiff even admitted that she had taken possession
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............26

26

of the property way back in the year 1971 and that she
had been residing there. How it is possible that plaintiff
had claimed in the plaint that she came to know only
recently that suit property had been sold out to
defendant no. 2 and 3 respectively only recently.
45.During her cross-examination , the plaintiff by her
admission,

that defendant no. 2 and 3 are in

possession of suit property for the last 'about 6-7

years'.

If she herself has admitted then to be in

possession for 'last 6-7 years', her use of the word

recently would be rendered a false statement in the
year 2004 when the suit was filed. Infact, she has even
admitted that it was agreed that possession of the suit
property had been given to defendant no. 2 not by
defendant no. 1 but by the father of defendant no. 1.
This would further imply that the period would revert
back to even more long ago than '6-7 years'.

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............27

27

46.Though the defendants did not lead any specific

evidence on this point, the onus had already shifted
upon the plaintiff in view of her own self contradictory
replies, given in the cross-examination regarding the
possession of defendants no. 2 and 3. Her further
vague statement, about her knowledge being 'recent'
as used in the plaint is to be discarded. Further, she
has even admitted that the portion in question was lying
vacant in the year 1980 and that she was not in
possession of the said portion.

If she admits then

plaintiff would naturally know, as to who was in

possession right since 1980.
47.PW-1 has further even admitted that she used to get
her own 'Fall of sari' and 'picko' work is done from the
premises in question and saree fall and Piko works
done from defendant no. 2.

This would then imply

clearly a kind of acquiescence on part of the plaintiff to

the continued possession of the defendant no. 2.
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............28

28

48.Taking into totality the averments made in the plaint,

the admission of plaintiff in her own cross-examination
and using the test of preponderance of probability, it is
very clear that the plaintiff slept over a alleged right and
filed a suit seeking relief of declaration much beyond
three years prescribed by law , much beyond 12 years
prescribed for the relief of possession.
As such, Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
defendants and against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 2 :

Whether the suit is bad for non

joinder of necessary parties? OPD

49.On this aspect, it has been mainly contended on behalf
of defendants, that according to documents filed by
plaintiff herself, the allotee from the government was
Shri Amarnath Sharma and not the plaintiff
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

nor her

p.t.o.............29

29

husband Shri Khemchand. According to own case of

the plaintiff, Shri Amarnath Sharma had executed an
agreement to sell with the plaintiff's husband and sale
deed was not executed even after getting permission
from the government.

The sale permission had

admittedly been granted on or before 28-02-1986 i.e.

18 years ago to Shri Amarnath Sharma, but admittedly
no sale deed was ever executed in favour of the plaintiff
or in favour of her deceased husband. The agreement
to sell cannot confer

ownership and as such the

plaintiff has no title or ownership documents in her

favour. The said Shri Amarnath Sharma who was the
lawful allottee from the government continued to be the
lawful owner and only he was entitled to claim any right
over the property.
50.Defendants have made reference to the relevant
portion of the testimony of PW-2, from the office of
L&DO, wherein he has admitted it is correct that lease /
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............30

30

conveyance deed which is Ex. PW-1/2 was executed in

favour of Shri Amarnath Sharma. He even admitted it
is correct, that today also the property continued to
stand in the name of Shri Amarnath Sharma and that
the said property was leasehold and not mutated in the
name of Shri Khemchand at any point of time. The said
witness even replied that no supplementary deed had
been executed in favour of Shri Amarnath Sharma or in
favour of Shri Khemchand or even in favour of plaintiff
for that matter at any point of time.

According to

defendants, it is thus evident that the real owner

continued to be Shri Amarnath Sharma only, but he was
not even made a party to the suit and as such suit is
bad for non-joinder of necessary parties .

Further

more, even the L& DO was not made a party.

51.On the same aspect, there has also been another
defence through the written arguments to the effect
that, even assuming the version of the plaintiff for a
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............31

31

moment i.e. Shri Khemchand had become the owner,

and after death of her husband, she had succeeded , in
that situation also since the plaintiff had children as
well, they also were LRs in the first category, and
plaintiff alone could not claim ownership as sole owner.
Therefore non joinder of other children i.e. four sons
and two daughters also made the suit bad for nonjoiner of necessary parties.
52.The plaintiff during her cross-examination admitted it
is correct, that no sale deed had been executed by Shri
Amar Nath in her husbands name. She even admitted
that she had four sons and two daughter and that her
children had not executed any relinquishment deed in
her favour with respect to the suit property. Therefore,
going by their aspects also, the suit would be bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties.
53.Plaintiff has failed to address any arguments on this
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............32

32

point.
54.I am in agreement with the contentions raised on
behalf of the defendants and find that the suit is indeed
bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, mainly, on
the ground that the fate of this suit would certainly
affect the original owner Shri Amar Nath Sharma, and
also L& DO to whom the property originally belongs
and also the children of deceased Shri Khem Chand
i.e. LR of the first category whose share they may be
deprived off by the plaintiff, without impleading them,
and without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
Issue no. 2 is also accordingly decided in favour of
the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3 :

Whether the suit has not been

properly valued for the purposes of court fees and

jurisdiction?

OPD

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............33

33

55.The plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs. 3 lacs for
purpose of recovery of possession, but defendants
contend that the market value of the disputed portion at
the time of filing of the suit was more than Rs. 10 lacs.
However, the defendants have failed to lead any
evidence on this aspect and as onus to prove their
objection was upon the defendants, issue no. 3 is
decided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiff.
Issue No. 4 : Whether the suit for declaration and
possession is not maintainable as claimed by
defendants in their written statements? OPD
Issue No. 5 : Whether the plaintiff has no locus
standi to file the present suit against defendants?
OPD
56.Issue No. 4 and 5 are interdependent upon each other
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............34

34

and it is appropriate to decide both these issues

together.
57.Defendants have raised the objection that suit is not
maintainable and also that plaintiff has no locus standi
to file the present suit. The main arguments advanced
on behalf of the defendants under these issues is that
since the original owner Shri Amar Nath Sharma has
not been made a party to the suit , no sale deed was
admittedly executed in favour of the plaintiff even after
18 years of grant of permission to the said Shri Amar
Nath Sharma to sell the property, the plaintiff cannot
have any locus standi to claim the decree of declaration
and possession as well as injunction. Infact , the suit
as filed by the plaintiff would not be maintainable for
want of locus standi.
58.The plaintiff's claim that her husband was the owner
and after the death of her husband in 1980, she
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............35

35

became the sole owner , stands proved false in the

face of her own documentary as well as oral evidence.
59.No doubt, the plaintiff has summoned the record from
L& DO to prove the conveyance deed in favour of Shri
Amar Nath Sharma, no doubt she also examined the
witness alongwith the record of the resolutions laying
down the scheme in question, but the main hurdle in
the way of the plaintiff to get relief is that she has not
been able to prove her own ownership rights at all and
in other words her locus standi to file the suit and to
claim the

relief of declaration, possession and

injunction.
60.The main relevant portion of her testimony in this
regard are necessary to be referred to herein.
Plaintiff /PW-1 admitted that no sale deed was
executed by Shri Amar Nath Sharma in the name of her
husband. She has admitted that she has four sons and
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............36

36

two daughters. She admits that her children did not

execute any relinquishment deed in favour of the
plaintiff. Above all, apart from the documents brought
on record, no other documents have been executed by
the government at all in favour of the plaintiff or in
favour of her husband in respect of the suit property.
These admissions are more than sufficient to show that
plaintiff could not establish her right
property as being claimed by her.

to title or suit
The documents

come up on record are only in favour of Shri Amar Nath

Sharma and not in favour of Shri Khem Chand, the
deceased husband of plaintiff or in her own favour.
Infact, the plaintiff has admitted during further crossexamination that she did not even know as to whether
the said Shri Amar Nath Sharma was dead or alive.
61.Though, plaintiff in her written arguments has claimed
that she has proved that she is the owner of the
property in dispute and referring to the documents Ex.
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............37

37

PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3; as rightly contended on behalf

of the defendants, as per the settled legal position
documents like agreement to sell and GPA cannot
confer any title upon the holder thereof. There is no
good explanation forthcoming from the plaintiff, even
inspite of being cross-examined on the point, that Shri
Amar Nath Sharma never executed any sale deed in
favour of Shri Khemchand, even though permission
had already been granted 18 years ago.
62.Proving

the

conveyance

deed

and

other

title

documents in favour of Shri Amarnath Sharma and

proving the resolution and scheme issued by L & DO
and MCD etc. would not be of help to the plaintiff, in so
far as the issue of the ownership rights and locus standi
of plaintiff herself are concerned.

The plaintiff has

miserably failed to establish the ownership right of her

deceased husband Shri Khem Chand and therefore
question does not arise for the plaintiff to claim
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............38

38

ownership in the suit property.

Issue no. 4 and 5 are accordingly decided against
the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

Issue No. 6 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a

decree for declaration as claimed in the plaint ?
OPP
Issue No. 7 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a
decree for possession as claimed in the plaint ?
OPP
Issue No. 8 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a
decree for permanent injunction as claimed in the
plaint ? OPP
63.These three issues relate to the entitlement of the
plaintiff

declaration,

possession

and

permanent

injunction. In view of the findings on issue no. 4 and 5

above, the plaintiff is obviously not entitled to any of the
CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............39

39

three reliefs as claimed.

Accordingly, issue no. 6, 7 and 8 are also decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief :
In view of the findings on above issues, the suit is
dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Decree Sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
on the day of 27th July, 2015
SUJATA KOHLI
Additional District Judge,
Central District.

CS No. 171/14/04
Phoolwati vs narinder Ssingh Sahni

p.t.o.............