Delhi District Court
Vishnu Kumar vs Laxmanyati on 8 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE - 04
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presiding Judge- Sandeep Kumar Sharma, DHJS.
Date of institution of suit : 22.07.2011
Date of decision : 08.07.2026
CS DJ No. 667/2016
CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011
In the matter of:-
Vishnu Kumar Gupta (now deceased)
Through his LRs
Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta
R/o 24-26-B, Hudson Line,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 110009
....... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Anuj Kumar Garg, Advocate
VERSUS
1. Lakshman Yati (now deceased)
Through its LRs
(A) Smt. Rajeshwari
W/o Sh. Laxman Yati
R/o Pracheen Shree Bhuteshwar,
Shiv Mandir, Kanti Nagar,
Delhi - 110051
(B) Ms. Saraswati @ Nidhi
D/o Lt. Sh. Laxman Yati
R/o Pracheen Shree Bhuteshwar,
Shiv Mandir, Kanti Nagar,
Delhi - 110051
2. Sh. Bharat Mishra
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 1 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:18:01 +0530
S/o Late Sh. Ram Balak Mishra,
R/o Pracheen Shree Bhuteshwar,
Shiv Mandir, Kanti Nagar,
Delhi - 110051
3. Ms. Vijay Laxmi
D/o Late Sh. Ram Balak Mishra,
R/o Pracheen Shree Bhuteshwar,
Shiv Mandir, Kanti Nagar,
Delhi - 110051
4. Swami Pratibha Nand
Chela/Shishya of deceased
R/o Pracheen Shree Bhuteshwar,
Shiv Mandir, Kanti Nagar,
Delhi - 110051
.......... Defendants
Through : Sh. Kailash Kumar, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1.This Court is rendering the present judgment to adjudicate the
suit filed by Sh. Vishnu Kumar Gupta, (hereinafter to be
referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) against Sh. Lakshmanyati
(hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘defendant no. 1’), Sh. Bharat
Mishra (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘defendant no. 2’) and
Ms. Vijay Laxmi (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘defendant
no. 3’ and all the defendants shall hereinafter collectively be
referred to as the ‘defendants’) for seeking the reliefs of
possession in respect of a portion measuring 50 square yards,
forming part of land admeasuring 19 Biswas (approximately
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 2 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:18:11 +0530
956 square yards) comprised in Khasra No. 676/442, situated at
Village Uldhanpur, Ilaqa Shahdara, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051
(hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘suit property’) and also for
the grant of mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation
of the suit property, along with a decree of permanent
injunction.
Facts pleaded in the plaint (In brief)
2.The case of the plaintiff is that he is the lawful owner of the
suit property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated
24.06.1953, executed in his favour by the erstwhile owners for
a valuable consideration of ₹.5,000/ and thereafter his name was
duly mutated and entered in the relevant revenue records,
thereby recognizing and reflecting his ownership rights in
respect of the suit property.
3.It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are
functioning as trustees, managers, and pujaris of Pracheen Shree
Bhuteshvar Shiv Mandir situated in Khasra Nos. 231/1 to 231/3,
Village Ghondli, which is stated to be adjoining to the suit
property. It has also been averred that the defendant no. 1, along
with his father, late Sh. Ram Balak Mishra, had previously
instituted a civil suit before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
claiming ownership rights over the suit property and seeking a
declaration to that effect against the plaintiff and one Sh. Vijay
Singh, though, the said suit ultimately dismissed in default vide
order dated 19.09.1990.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 3 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:18:17 +0530
4.The plaintiff has further averred that, subsequent to the
aforesaid proceedings, defendant no. 1 and his father
approached the SDM, Gandhi Nagar, on 08.04.2001, alleging
that a ‘Kabari’ had encroached upon a substantial portion of the
temple property and that some individuals were obstructing
them from erecting fencing around the open side of the temple
premises.
5.It is stated that, acting upon the said complaint, the SDM
passed an order dated 25.04.2001 pursuant to which defendant
no. 1 and his father erected fencing around the land which,
according to the plaintiff, forms part of the suit property. It is
the case of the plaintiff that he became aware of the aforesaid
order only on 15.09.2001.
6.Thereafter, he approached the concerned SDM seeking
appropriate relief against the said order. The plaintiff has
pleaded that, upon consideration of his application, the SDM
vide order dated 04.10.2001 recalled and set aside the earlier
order dated 25.04.2001 and further directed defendant no. 1 and
his father to remove the fencing erected around the suit property
within twenty-four hours from the issuance of the said order,
though the same never complied with.
7.The plaintiff has further alleged that, thereafter, defendant no.
1 and his father succeeded in getting their names entered in the
revenue records in respect of the suit property by representing
the same to be part and parcel of the temple property. The
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 4 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:18:23 +0530
plaintiff claims that he came to know of such entries on
29.10.2002 and, being aggrieved thereby, filed an application
before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, East District,
seeking correction of the revenue entries pertaining to
possession and other rights recorded in respect of the suit
property.
8.It is asserted by the plaintiff that the aforesaid application was
adjudicated on merits by the then Tehsildar, who, vide order
dated 12.06.2003, held that the suit property belonged to the
plaintiff and that defendant no. 1 and his father had no right,
title, or interest therein. The plaintiff further asserts that, by
virtue of the said order, the revenue entries standing in the
names of defendant no. 1 and his father in respect of the suit
property were directed to be deleted and the records were
accordingly corrected.
9.The plaintiff has also averred that defendant no. 1, claiming
himself to be the Trustee of Sarvbhaum Brahmrishi Yog
Shiksha Sewa Trust (Regd.), instituted a suit for perpetual
injunction on 22.10.2001 before the Court of the Ld. Senior
Civil Judge, Delhi, against the plaintiff, Sh. Vijay Singh, and
Sh. Jai Singh in which defendant no.1 allegedly claimed
ownership over the suit property and sought consequential relief
of injunction, but the said suit was dismissed in default vide
order dated 06.09.2005. However, the said proceedings were
subsequently restored vide order dated 08.01.2008.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 5 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:18:29 +0530
10.It has further been averred by the plaintiff that, upon visiting
the suit property on 14.08.2007, he found the defendants
engaged in the construction and raising of boundary walls over
portions of the suit property without any lawful authority. The
plaintiff alleges that when he objected to the said acts and
asserted his rights over the property, the defendants not only
refused to desist from their activities but also extended threats
and intimidation, warning him against taking any action in
respect of their alleged illegal encroachment and construction.
11.The plaintiff has further pleaded that he immediately
approached the local police authorities and lodged complaints
regarding the aforesaid acts of the defendants. However,
according to him, no effective action was taken by the police
and thus, he instituted criminal proceedings against the
defendants for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341,
452, 506 and 34 of the IPC and the said criminal case is pending
in the Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
12.The plaintiff has further averred that on 20.07.2008, the
defendants unlawfully and forcibly dispossessed him from a
portion measuring 50 square yards forming part of the suit
property and not only took possession but also installed idols of
deities upon the said portion of the land without the knowledge,
consent, or authorization of the plaintiff.
13.The plaintiff has further contended that the defendants
possess no lawful right, title, or interest in the suit property and
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 6 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 17:18:36
Date: 2026.07.08
+0530
that their continuous interference has obstructed his peaceful
use, enjoyment, and possession thereof. It is his specific case
that the defendants have been indulging in a series of
unauthorized and illegal acts with the object of usurping the suit
property and defeating his proprietary rights therein. Thus, the
plaintiff has instituted the present suit for recovery of
possession, mesne profits/damages for unauthorized use and
occupation of the said portion of the suit property and also for
injunction.
Facts pleaded in the written statement of the defendant no.1 (In
brief)
14.The defendant no.1, in his written statement, has
categorically denied each and every material averment made by
the plaintiff and contended that the suit property forms part of
the land associated with the ancient temple and, although the
surrounding land may have been subjected to acquisition
proceedings but the suit property itself remained excluded
therefrom.
15.It has further asserted that the deities installed at the temple
have been worshipped continuously for more than four
centuries and that, by virtue of the hereditary Mahantship
attached to the temple, he has succeeded to the management,
control, and possession of the temple property and thus, the
defendant no.1 claims entitlement to the suit property and
disputes the ownership asserted by the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 7 of 51
Digitally signed
by SANDEEP
SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.07.08
17:18:51 +0530
16.The defendant no. 1 has further contended that the alleged
purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff is not bonafide and
does not confer any valid title upon him as he and his
predecessors have been in possession of and exercising rights
over the suit property and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim
any superior right therein.
17.It has also been contended that the present suit is barred by
the principles of res judicata inasmuch as the dispute relating to
the suit property has been the subject matter of earlier litigations
between the parties. The defendant no. 1 has also challenged the
validity and evidentiary value of the orders relied upon by the
plaintiff were procured on the basis of wrong facts and even the
order dated 04.10.2001 passed by the SDM did not direct
defendant no. 1 to vacate possession of the suit property to the
plaintiff.
18.It is further contended that the order dated 12.06.2003 passed
by the Tehsildar was wrong as the revenue authorities cannot
decide title and therefore, not binding upon a Civil Court
adjudicating questions of title. The defendant no. 1 has also
contended that the plaintiff, by adopting improper means,
succeeded in securing the deletion of his name from the revenue
records, and has consequently disputed the correctness of the
revenue entries relied upon by the plaintiff.
19.Moreover, it has also been asserted that the earlier suit
instituted by him and his father against the plaintiff and Sh.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 8 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:18:56 +0530
Vijay Singh came to be dismissed in default owing to
circumstances beyond their control, including his serious illness
and the alleged improvement in the conduct of the plaintiff at
the relevant time. It has been contended that, during the
pendency of the said proceedings, the plaintiff had ample
opportunity to raise all claims available to him by way of a
counter-claim or otherwise. Having failed to do so, the plaintiff
is now precluded from agitating the same issues in the present
proceedings.
20.Thus, the defendant no. 1 has invoked the principle of res
judicata and has contended that the present suit is liable to be
dismissed as being barred in law. Apart from the aforesaid
objections, defendant no. 1 has generally denied all factual and
legal assertions made by the plaintiff and has prayed for
dismissal of the suit with costs.
Facts pleaded in the joint written statement of the defendants
no.2 & 3 (In brief)
21.The defendants no. 2 and 3, who are stated to be serving as
pujaris of the temple in question, filed a joint written statement
substantially adopting and supporting the stand taken by
defendant no.1 in his written statement. They denied and
disputed all the material averments, allegations, and claims
advanced by the plaintiff in the plaint and contested the
plaintiff’s alleged right, title, and entitlement to the reliefs
sought in the present suit.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 9 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:19:02 +0530
22.The defendants nos. 2 and 3 further raised various
preliminary objections, inter alia, contending that the suit is
barred by limitation, hit by the principles of res judicata, and
suffers from improper valuation for the purposes of court fees
and jurisdiction. On the basis of the aforesaid pleas, the
defendants no. 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Facts pleaded in replication to the written statement of defendants
23.The plaintiff has filed the replication to the written
statements of the defendants, in which all the claims of the
defendants have been refuted and plaintiff has reiterated the
facts already averred in the plaint.
Issues
24.The Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated
18.08.2012, framed the following issues in the present suit for
adjudication,
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree
of possession of 50 sq. yards out of 19 Biswas
measuring 956 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No.
676/442 of the suit property situated at village
Uldhanpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Kanti Nagar, Delhi?
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery
of mesne-profits and damages as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of
Permanent Injunction regarding the suit property as
prayed for? OPP
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 10 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:19:08 +0530
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff not properly
valued? OPD
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation and res-judicata? OPD
6. Whether the suit is barred under Indian
Registration Act, Temple and Endowment Act.?
OPD
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
8. Relief”
Plaintiff’s Evidence
25.The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he relied upon
following documents:-
S. No Exhibits Description of Documents
1. Ex. PW1/1. Certified copy of the sale deed dated
24.06.1953.
2. Ex.PW1/2 Site plan of the suit property.
3. Ex.PW1/3 Certified copy of the order dated
19.09.1990, of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi by which the suit of
the defendant no.1 and his father was
dismissed in default.
4. Ex. PW1/4 Certified copy of the order dated
25.04.2001 passed by the SDM.
5. Ex. PW1/5 Certified copy of the order dated
04.10.2001 passed by the SDM.
6. Ex. PW1/6 Certified copy of the order dated
12.06.2003 passed by the Tahsildar.
7. Ex. PW1/7 Certified copy of the plaint filed by
the defendant no.1 in the suit dated
12.10.2001.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 11 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:19:14 +0530
8. Ex. PW1/8 Certified copy of the written
statement filed by the plaintiff in that
suit, dated 12.10.2001.
9. Ex. PW1/9 Certified copy of the order dated
06.09.2005 by which the said suit got
dismissed in default.
10. Ex. PW1/10 Certified copy of the order dated
08.01.2008 by which the said suit got
restored in its original number.
26.Further, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Sevajit, Record
Attendant from the department of Delhi Archives, who brought
the record of the sale deed dated 24.06.1953, for the purpose of
proving the existence and authenticity of the archival record
relating to the aforesaid document. Further, the plaintiff filed
the affidavit of evidence of Sh. Jai Singh, but he never appeared
before the court for his oral examination and therefore, the Ld.
Counsel dropped him from the list of witnesses and closed the
PE on behalf of the plaintiff vide statement dated 19.12.2017.
Defendant’s Evidence
27.The defendant no.1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
on 14.05.2019, though he was not cross-examined as the
defendant no.1 died on 07.12.2022 and therefore, his LRs were
brought on record. Though defendant no.2 examined himself as
DW2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A
and his examination was concluded on 10.07.2024 and on
14.08.2024 the matter was fixed for final arguments by the Ld.
Predecessor of this Court.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 12 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:19:24 +0530
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties
28.This Court has carefully perused the entire judicial record,
and heard the detailed final arguments advanced by the Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff, who addressed the Court at length and
reiterated the factual and legal pleas set forth in the plaint and
the evidence led in support thereof.
29.It is pertinent to mention that despite having been afforded
adequate opportunities, the Ld. Counsel for the defendants did
not advance oral arguments on behalf of the defendants. On
06.05.2026, the Ld. Associate Counsel appearing for the
defendants submitted that the suit may be adjudicated on the
basis available judicial record.
30.In order to ensure that no prejudice was caused to the
defendants and to afford them a full and fair opportunity of
hearing, this Court granted a further opportunity to file written
arguments. However, notwithstanding the indulgence shown by
the Court, no written submissions were filed on behalf of the
defendants within the stipulated period or thereafter.
31.In these circumstances, there remains no impediment to the
final adjudication of the dispute. Since the defendants have
chosen not to avail the opportunities granted to address final
arguments or to place their written submissions on record, this
Court proceeds to determine the controversy on the basis of the
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 13 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:19:32 +0530
pleadings, evidence, documents available on the judicial file, in
accordance with law.
Issue-wise findings
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff not properly
valued? OPD
32.The onus to prove the present issue squarely rests upon the
defendants, as it is they who have raised the objection that the
suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee
and pecuniary jurisdiction. It is a settled principle of law that a
party asserting a particular fact bears the burden of proving the
same by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
33.A perusal of the plaint reveals that in paragraph 23 thereof,
the plaintiff specifically valued the suit for the purposes of court
fee and jurisdiction at ₹.16,10,000/- in respect of the relief of
possession, ₹.18,000/- towards mesne profits claimed for the
period from 20.07.2008 to 20.07.2011, and ₹.130/- in respect of
the relief of permanent injunction. Corresponding court fees
amounting to ₹.18,550/- on the relief of possession, ₹.1,747/-
on the claim for mesne profits, and ₹.13/- on the relief of
injunction were duly affixed. Thus, the plaint itself discloses the
basis upon which the valuation was undertaken and
demonstrates compliance with the procedural requirements
relating to court fees and jurisdiction.
34.Significantly, the defendants have failed to adduce any
evidence whatsoever to substantiate their objection regarding
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 14 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:19:40 +0530
valuation by way of filing a report of an approved or authorised
valuer nor any circle rates, governmental notifications or any
other documentary evidence indicating the alleged correct value
of the suit property by which the market valuse of the suit
property may be inferred or determined.
35.Equally noteworthy is the fact that during the cross-
examination of PW-1, not even a single suggestion was put to
challenge the valuation disclosed in the plaint. The defendants
neither questioned the basis of valuation nor attempted to elicit
any material showing that the market value of the property was
higher than the value disclosed by the plaintiff.
36.Such omission assumes significance because cross-
examination is the primary method by which a party may test
the veracity and correctness of the evidence led by the opposite
side. The complete absence of any challenge in this regard lends
further credence to the valuation adopted by the plaintiff.
37.Further, a careful examination of paragraph 5 of the joint
written statement filed by defendants no. 2 and 3 reveals that
the objection regarding valuation is wholly vague, bald, and
bereft of particulars. The defendants merely asserted that the
suit was ‘low valued’ and not maintainable, without specifying
the alleged correct valuation of the suit property, the basis upon
which such valuation ought to have been made, or the manner
in which the valuation adopted by the plaintiff was purportedly
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 15 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:19:46 +0530
defective. The said para is reproduced here in under, in
verbatim,
38.”5. That the contention of para 23 are also low valued
and is not maintainable at all.”
39.In the same manner the defendant no.1 in para 23 of his
written statement merely mentioned that the suit is low valued
without giving any counter valuation or explain reasons as to
how the value done by the plaintiff is not proper. The said para
is reproduced here in under, in verbatim
“23. That the suit is low valued against self earlier accessed
valuation more of jurisdiction of Civil Court/ADJ rather
Hon’ble High Court for which the plaintiff had stated to
invoke.”
40.The aforesaid pleadings does not satisfy even the minimum
requirements of a specific objection. An objection relating to
valuation cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a general
and unsubstantiated assertion. A party challenging the valuation
of a suit is expected to disclose the factual foundation of such
challenge and thereafter substantiate the same through reliable
evidence. In the absence of such particulars, the plea remains a
mere allegation without any evidentiary value.
41.It is a well-established principle that the plaintiff is dominus
litis and, subject to the limitations imposed by law, is entitled to
determine the nature of the relief sought and the valuation
thereof. While such valuation is undoubtedly open to judicial
scrutiny where it appears arbitrary, malafide, or contrary to
statutory provisions, the Court cannot discard the valuation
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 16 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:19:51 +0530
furnished by the plaintiff merely on the basis of conjectures or
unsupported objections raised by the opposite party.
42.Thus, the defendants have failed to discharge the burden cast
upon them and have not produced any evidence capable of
dislodging the correctness of the valuation disclosed in the
plaint. Consequently, this Court finds no reason to doubt the
valuation done by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the present issue is
decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 5
“5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation and res-judicata? OPD”
The suit is not barred by law of Limitation
43.The burden of proving the present issue rests upon the
defendants as the said objection was raised by the defendants. It
is a settled proposition of law that a vague or omnibus plea that
a suit is barred by limitation, without disclosing the material
facts giving rise to such bar, is insufficient in law. Thus, it is
required to place before the Court the factual and legal basis on
which the suit was allegedly beyond the prescribed period of
limitation.
44.Upon examination of the pleadings, it is evident that the
defendants have failed to discharge the aforesaid burden. The
defendant no.1, in paragraph 24 of his written statement, merely
asserted that the suit is barred by limitation. No particulars
whatsoever were furnished regarding the date from whichCS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 17 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signedKUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:19:57 +0530
limitation allegedly commenced, the provision of law
applicable to the facts of the case, or the manner in which the
suit had become time-barred. The said para is reproduced here
in under, in verbatim
“24. That the suit is barred by limitation.”
45.The aforesaid averment is nothing more than a bald assertion
devoid of any factual foundation. It is settled law that the
pleadings are required to contain material facts and not mere
conclusions of law.
46.Furthermore, an identical deficiency is apparent in the joint
written statement filed by defendants no.2 and 3. In paragraph
4 thereof, it has been vaguely alleged that the suit is barred by
limitation and is hit by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.
However, no facts have been pleaded to explain how any of
these principles are attracted to the present case. The said para
is reproduced here in under, in verbatim
“4. That contents of para 11 to 13 all are also distorted and
at present invoking the instant suit is completely barred by
limitation and waived under estoppel waivers acquiescence
act.”
47.The aforesaid pleading is not only vague but also lacks the
necessary particulars required to sustain such objections. It
neither specifies the period of limitation allegedly applicable
nor identifies the event from which such period commenced.
Equally, no factual basis has been laid to attract the doctrines of
estoppel, waiver or acquiescence, thus the same cannot be given
any credence.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 18 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
SANDEEP
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:20:04 +0530
48.Although the burden of proving the issue rested upon the
defendants and no evidence has been adduced by them in
support of their plea, the matter cannot rest there. As the Section
3(1) of the Limitation Act, casts a statutory duty upon every
Court to independently examine whether a suit has been
instituted within the prescribed period of limitation. The
obligation imposed by the statute is mandatory in nature and
operates irrespective of whether the defence of limitation has
been specifically pleaded or proved by the defendants. The
provision reads as follows:
“3. Bar of limitation.–(1) Subject to the provisions
contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit
instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the
prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation
has not been set up as a defence.
xxxxxx”
49.This provision obligates the Court to examine the question
of limitation suo motu and to dismiss any proceeding instituted
beyond the prescribed period, even in the absence of an
objection by the opposite party. The rationale underlying the
provision is that limitation does not merely confer a defence
upon a litigant but embodies a legislative policy intended to
ensure certainty, finality and repose in legal affairs.
Consequently, before granting any relief, the Court must satisfy
itself that the action has been instituted within the period
prescribed by law.
50.Keeping the aforesaid legal position in view, this Court has
independently examined the averments contained in the plaint
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 19 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:20:12 +0530
and the material available on record. A perusal of paragraph 21
of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded
that the cause of action initially arose on 25.05.2001 when
defendant no.1 and his father allegedly obtained an order
relating to fencing from the SDM, Gandhi Nagar.
51.The plaintiff has further pleaded that a fresh and substantive
cause of action arose on 20.07.2008 when the defendants
allegedly encroached upon a portion of the suit property and
interfered with the plaintiff’s rights therein. The present suit
came to be instituted on 22.07.2011.
52.The nature of limitation applicable to a suit is determined not
by isolated averments but by the true substance of the relief
claimed. In the present case, the principal and substantive relief
sought by the plaintiff is recovery of possession of immovable
property.
53.Consequently, the suit is governed by Article 65 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of
twelve years for a suit for possession based on title, the
limitation commencing when the defendant’s possession
becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
54.Even if the date most favourable to the defendants, namely
25.05.2001, is assumed to be the starting point of limitation, the
period of twelve years would expire only on 25.05.2013. The
present suit having been instituted on 22.07.2011 was,
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 20 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:20:21 +0530
therefore, filed well within the prescribed period. Furthermore,
the plaint itself discloses a subsequent cause of action arising on
20.07.2008 on account of the alleged encroachment by the
defendants, which independently demonstrates the subsistence
of the plaintiff’s grievance within the statutory period.
55.In these circumstances, the plea of limitation raised by the
defendants is wholly untenable, unsupported by pleadings or
evidence, and contrary to the record itself. Accordingly, the
objection regarding limitation is rejected at its very threshold.
Suit is barred by the doctrine of Res-Judicata
56.The doctrine of res-judicata is codified under Section 11 of
the CPC which is having the effect of non-suiting a litigant
without an adjudication on the merits of his claim in the
subsequent proceedings, the party seeking to invoke the bar
must establish, by clear pleadings and cogent evidence, the
existence of all the statutory ingredients necessary for its
application.
57.It is a settled proposition of law that for determining whether
a previous decision operates as res judicata, the Court must
undertake a careful examination of the nature of the earlier
proceedings, the identity of the parties, the issues that arose for
determination therein, and the findings that were actually and
finally rendered by the competent court.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 21 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:20:27 +0530
58. The mere existence of an earlier suit between the parties
does not automatically attract the bar of res judicata. What is
material is whether the matter directly and substantially in issue
in the subsequent proceedings had already been adjudicated
upon and finally decided in the former proceedings.
59. The expression ‘res judicata’ literally means ‘a matter
adjudged’ or ‘a matter already decided’ and then no court shall
try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and
substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue
in a former suit between the same parties, or parties claiming
under them, litigating under the same title, and has been heard
and finally decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
60. The doctrine is founded upon two well-recognized
principles of public policy: firstly, that no person should be
vexed twice for the same cause (nemo debet bis vexari pro una
et eadem causa); and secondly, that there must be finality to
judicial decisions (interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium). The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs.
Hemant Vithal Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99,’ reiterated that the
following essential conditions must co-exist before the doctrine
can be invoked ‘
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the
subsequent suit must be the same matter, which was
directly and substantially in issue, either actually or
constructively in the former suit.
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same
parties or between the parties under whom they claim.
3. In the former suit, the parties must have litigated under
the same title.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 22 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:20:33 +0530
4. The Court, which decided the former suit, must have
been a Court, which is competent to try this subsequent suit.
5. The matter, which is directly and substantially in issue in
the subsequent suit, must have been heard and finally
decided by the Court in the former suit.
61.Since the doctrine operates as a complete bar to the
maintainability of a subsequent proceeding, its application must
be founded upon strict satisfaction of all statutory requirements.
Thus, unless every essential ingredient contemplated under
Section 11 CPC is established, the plea of res judicata cannot be
sustained merely on the basis of assumptions, inferences, or the
existence of previous litigation between the parties. Examining
the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles,
it emerges from the pleadings and evidence that defendant no.1
had earlier instituted two separate proceedings concerning the
suit property.
62.The first suit was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi seeking declaration of ownership rights in respect of the
suit property and consequential reliefs. However, the said suit
came to be dismissed in default vide order dated 19.09.1990.
63.Thereafter, defendant no.1 instituted another suit before the
Court of the Ld. Senior Civil Judge against the present plaintiff,
Sh. Vijay Singh, and Sh. Jai Singh, again asserting ownership
rights over the suit property and seeking consequential
injunctive reliefs. It is admitted that the said suit was initially
dismissed in default on 06.09.2005 and was subsequently
restored vide order dated 08.01.2008.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 23 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:20:39 +0530
64.At this stage, it becomes necessary to examine whether the
aforesaid proceedings satisfy the essential requirement of a
matter having been ‘heard and finally decided’ within the
meaning of Section 11 CPC. A dismissal in default is
fundamentally different from a dismissal on merits. Where a
suit is dismissed for non-prosecution or default of appearance,
the Court does not adjudicate upon the rival rights and
contentions of the parties.
65.Such an order merely terminates the proceedings
procedurally and does not amount to a judicial determination of
the controversy involved. Consequently, the suit earlier
instituted before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, having
admittedly been dismissed in default, cannot constitute a former
adjudication capable of attracting the doctrine of res judicata.
66.Equally, the second suit instituted before the Court of the Ld.
Senior Civil Judge does not advance the defendants case,
although the said suit was restored after its dismissal in default,
no evidence has been brought on record to establish that the suit
was thereafter adjudicated upon on merits and culminated in a
final judgment determining the rights of the parties.
67.The defendants have failed to place on record any certified
copy of a final adjudication showing that the issues involved in
the present suit were conclusively decided by a competent court.
In the absence of such material, this Court is unable to ascertain
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 24 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:20:45 +0530
whether any final determination, as contemplated under Section
11 CPC, ever came into existence.
68.Apart from the absence of a final adjudication, the record
further reveals that the identity of parties in the earlier
proceedings and the present suit is not identical. The earlier suits
admittedly involved Sh. Vijay Singh as a party, whereas he is
not a party to the present proceedings. On the contrary,
defendants no.2 and 3, who are parties to the present suit, have
not been shown to be parties to the earlier proceedings. No
evidence has been led to establish that all the parties in the
present suit are claiming under the same title as the parties in
the previous litigation.
69.Thus, the requirement regarding identity of parties and title
is also not established, therefore, since the defendants have
failed to prove that the earlier proceedings culminated in a final
adjudication on merits and have further failed to establish the
complete identity of parties and issues as required under Section
11 CPC, the essential ingredients of the doctrine of res judicata
remain unfulfilled. Accordingly, the pleas of limitation and res
judicata are rejected and the issue is, therefore, decided in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 6 and 7
“6. Whether the suit is barred under Indian
Registration Act, Temple and Endowment Act.?
OPD
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 25 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:20:50 +0530
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD”
70.The burden of proving the present issues rests entirely upon
defendant no.1, as it is he who has specifically raised the
objections that the suit is barred under the provisions of the
Indian Registration Act, the Temples and Endowments Act, and
other provisions of law. Since the objections pertain to the
maintainability of the suit and arise from a common factual and
legal foundation, both the issues are being considered and
decided together.
71.A perusal of paragraph 28 of the written statement filed by
defendant no.1 reveals that the plea has been raised in a wholly
general and omnibus manner without disclosing any material
particulars or legal basis. The same is reproduced here as under,
in verbatim,
“28. That the suit is barred under Indian Reg. Act, Temples
and Endowment Act and other various mandates and
provisions of law whatsoever.”
72.The aforesaid pleading is conspicuously deficient in material
particulars. The defendant no.1 has neither identified the
specific provision of the Indian Registration Act or the Temples
and Endowments Act that is allegedly attracted to the facts of
the present case nor explained the manner in which the
plaintiff’s claim is rendered non-maintainable thereunder.
73.It is a settled principle that mere invocation of legal
provisions enactments without disclosing their applicability to
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 26 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:21:01 +0530
the facts in issue does not create a legal impediment to the
maintainability of a suit. Thus, only bald and vague objections
unsupported by particulars are incapable of discharging the
burden cast upon the party raising them.
74.Significantly, apart from the aforesaid vague pleading, no
evidence whatsoever has been led by the defendant no.1 to
establish the alleged statutory bar of the Indian Registration Act
or the Temples and Endowments Act are attracted in the present
matter.
75.Equally, during the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s
witnesses, no question was put and no suggestion was advanced
which could indicate that the suit property was required to be
governed by any provision of the Temples and Endowments Act
or that the plaintiff’s title documents suffered from any defect
under the Registration Act. The complete absence of any
challenge in this regard further weakens the defence sought to
be raised.
76.Even otherwise, the evidence led by the plaintiff
affirmatively release compliance with the requirements of the
law relating to transfer of immovable property. The plaintiff has
relied upon a registered sale deed dated 24.06.1953, exhibited
as Ex. PW1/1. The execution and existence of the said
document have been duly proved through PW-2, who produced
the official record from the concerned archival office. The
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 27 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:21:34 +0530
documentary evidence thus establishes that the plaintiff traces
his title to a duly registered instrument of conveyance.
77.The Section 17 of the Registration Act mandates that
instruments purporting to create, declare, assign, limit or
extinguish rights in immovable property of a value exceeding
one hundred rupees must be compulsorily registered.
78.Registration of such instruments furnishes legal sanctity to
the transaction and renders the document admissible as
evidence of title. In the present case, far from violating the
mandate of the Registration Act, the plaintiff has founded his
claim upon a registered sale deed, which satisfies the statutory
requirements governing transfer of immovable property.
79.In the absence of any evidence suggesting that the sale deed
relied upon by the plaintiff is invalid, unregistered, void, or
otherwise legally unenforceable, this Court finds no basis to
conclude that the suit is barred under the provisions of the
Registration Act.
80.Likewise, the objection raised by defendant no.1 regarding
the alleged bar of the present suit under the provisions of the
Temples and Endowments Act is wholly untenable and devoid
of merit. In the present case, neither the pleadings disclose the
nature of the temple or religious institution allegedly governed
by the said enactment, nor has it been pleaded as to which
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 28 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:21:42 +0530
specific provision of the Act creates a bar against the institution
or continuation of the present proceedings.
81.There is no averment that the subject matter of the suit
pertains to any property vested in or administered under the
control of the authorities constituted under the said Act, nor has
it been pleaded that the dispute falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any statutory authority or tribunal contemplated
thereunder. In the absence of such foundational pleadings, the
objection remains a mere legal conclusion unsupported by
material facts.
82.Furthermore, the defendants have failed to lead any cogent
evidence which may prove the applicability of the said
enactment to the present suit. The defendant no.1 has failed to
place on record any notification, registration certificate,
statutory order, revenue record, administrative proceeding, or
any other documentary material demonstrating that the property
or institution involved in the present dispute is governed by the
provisions of the Temples and Endowments Act.
83.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that
defendant no.1 has utterly failed to discharge the burden cast
upon him to establish the applicability of the Temples and
Endowments Act or to establish that the present suit is barred
by any law. Thus, the present issues are decided against the
defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 29 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:21:50 +0530
Issues no. 1, 2 and 3
“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of
possession of 50 sq. yards out of 19 Biswas
measuring 956 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No.
676/442 of the suit property situated at village
Uldhanpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Kanti Nagar, Delhi?
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery
of mesne-profits and damages as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of
Permanent Injunction regarding the suit property
as prayed for? OPP”
84.The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. This
Court is taking all these issues together for adjudication as all
the issues may be decided by the common findings and analysis.
The principal questions which arise for determination are- (i)
whether the plaintiff has established a lawful and subsisting title
over the suit property, (ii) whether the identity of the suit
property has been proved with reasonable certainty, (iii)
whether the defendants have established any independent or
superior right, title or interest in the disputed property and (iv)
whether the plaintiff has consequently become entitled to a
decree for possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction.
85.It is no longer res integra that the plaintiff cannot obtain a
decree merely by exposing infirmities in the defendants case,
rather, he must affirmatively establish the existence of a lawful
title entitling him to recover possession. At the same time, the
law does not cast upon the plaintiff the onerous burden ofCS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 30 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:21:57 +0530
proving an absolute or indefeasible title against the whole
world.
86. But it is sufficient if the plaintiff demonstrates a title
superior to that asserted by the defendants. Once such better title
is established through cogent evidence, then the onus shifts to
the defendants to disclose and prove the juridical source of their
own possession or any competing right recognised by law.
Failure to discharge that burden by the defendants ordinarily
entitles the plaintiff to recover possession.
87.Since civil proceedings are decided on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities, the court is required to evaluate
the entire evidence holistically rather than in isolated fragments.
Accordingly, each issue shall be examined by appreciating the
cumulative effect of the evidence led by both sides in the light
of the settled principles governing civil adjudication.
Identity of the Suit Property
88. Before examining the rival claims of ownership, it is
necessary to determine whether the identity of the suit property
stands established. A decree for possession can be granted only
when the property sought to be recovered is capable of definite
identification so that its execution does not give rise to
uncertainty or further litigation. The plaintiff has consistently
described the suit property as land measuring 19 Biswas (956
square yards) comprised in Khasra No. 676/442, Village
Uldhanpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, out of which the defendantsCS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 31 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 17:22:04
Date: 2026.07.08
+0530
are alleged to have unauthorisedly occupied 50 square yards.
The description contained in the plaint is consistent with the
registered Sale Deed dated 24.06.1953 (Ex. PW1/1) and the site
plan Ex. PW1/2, which identifies the encroached portion with
sufficient certainty.
89.Equally significant is the nature of the defence. The
defendants have not pleaded that the suit property is incapable
of identification or that the plaintiff has described a wrong
parcel of land. Their consistent case is that the disputed portion
forms part of the adjoining temple property. Such a defence
necessarily proceeds on the premise that the property in dispute
is identifiable and known to both sides. The controversy,
therefore, is not one of identity but of the legal character and
ownership of the identified land.
90.The defendants have neither produced any alternative site
plan, revenue map, demarcation report or any other evidence
contradicting the plaintiff’s description of the suit property, nor
did they ever seek appointment of a Local Commissioner for
demarcation despite ample opportunity during the trial. Though
suggestions disputing identification were put to PW-1 during
cross-examination, were denied by PW1 and thus, they
remained mere suggestions unsupported by affirmative
evidence.
91.It is well settled that suggestions put in cross-examination do
not constitute evidence unless substantiated by independentCS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 32 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:22:12 +0530
evidence. The absence of any contrary documentary evidence,
when such evidence was reasonably expected, reinforces the
plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the
identity of the suit property stands established with reasonable
certainty, and the real controversy is confined to the competing
claims of title over the identified property.
Plaintiff’s title over the suit property
92.The plaintiff traces his title to a registered Sale Deed dated
24.06.1953 (Ex. PW-1/1), whereby land measuring 19 Biswas
(956 square yards) comprised in Khasra No. 676/442, Village
Uldhanpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, was conveyed in favour of
his predecessor-in-interest. The said document has been duly
proved through PW-2, the Record Attendant from the Delhi
Archives, who produced the original record preserved in official
custody. Consequently, the execution, registration and
authenticity of the instrument stand established in accordance
with law through primary evidence emanating from proper
public custody.
93.A registered sale deed, validly executed and duly proved,
constitutes evidence of transfer of ownership recognised by law
in respect of immovable property. Such an instrument carries
with it a presumption of genuineness attaching to registered
documents until the contrary is established in proceedings
before the competent court.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 33 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 17:22:19
Date: 2026.07.08
+0530
94.Unless its execution is successfully impeached or the
document is declared void, voidable, forged, sham or otherwise
rendered inoperative by a competent court, the legal
consequences flowing therefrom continue to subsist. The
efficacy of a registered conveyance cannot be displaced by a
mere denial of title or by an unsubstantiated rival claim.
95.In the present case, the defendants have neither challenged
the execution or genuineness of Ex. PW-1/1 nor adduced any
evidence suggesting that the executant lacked competence to
convey the property or that the transaction suffered from any
legal infirmity. There is no material on record to show that the
said Sale Deed has ever been cancelled, avoided or declared
invalid in any judicial proceeding. Consequently, the document
continues to operate according to its tenor and remains the
primary source of the plaintiff’s title.
96.The evidentiary significance of Ex. PW-1/1 is further
strengthened by the fact that as the document was executed
decades before the present dispute arose which has been
produced from official custody, and bears the character of a
contemporaneous public record rather than a document brought
into existence to support a pending controversy.
97.The plaintiff has thus succeeded in establishing the existence
of a lawful documentary title over the suit property and has
further proved the identity of the property to which such title
relates. The initial burden cast upon him by law therefore standsCS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 34 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2026.07.08
17:22:25 +0530
discharged and the onus consequently shifted upon the
defendants to establish a superior or competing legal right
capable of defeating the plaintiff’s title.
98.The principal defence raised by the defendants is that the
disputed 50 square yards forms part of an ancient temple and
that defendant no. 1 succeeded to the office of Mahant through
hereditary succession. This plea necessarily requires a
distinction to be maintained between the management of a
religious institution and ownership of its immovable properties.
99.Under Hindu law, the office of a Mahant or Shebait
ordinarily carries with it the right and obligation to manage the
affairs and properties of the religious institution, however, the
office does not, by itself, constitute a source of proprietary title
over every parcel of land alleged to be associated with the
institution as the same must indepently be established, in
accordance with law.
100.It is no doubt true that a Hindu deity is recognised in law as
a juristic person capable of holding property but where a party
asserts that a particular immovable property belongs to a temple
or religious institution, the burden squarely rests upon such
party to establish, through legally admissible evidence, that the
disputed property itself formed the subject matter of the
dedication or otherwise vested in the institution by a legally
recognised mode of acquisition. The mere antiquity of a temple,
the performance of religious worship, or the alleged existenceCS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 35 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:22:31 +0530
of idols upon adjoining land cannot, give rise to a presumption
that every neighbouring parcel forms part of the religious
endowment.
101.In the present case, apart from the bare assertion that the
disputed land forms part of the temple, no documentary material
has been produced to disclose the juridical source of the alleged
temple ownership. The defendants neither filed any deed of
dedication, trust deed, sanad, grant, settlement record, historical
revenue record, governmental notification nor brought on
record any contemporaneous public document identifying the
suit property as temple property. Thus, the plea of temple
ownership thus presently rests upon assertion alone.
102.Upon the material presently available, this Court is satisfied
that the plaintiff has established a prima facie and subsisting
title founded upon a duly proved registered conveyance,
whereas the defendants have, at this stage, failed to disclose any
legally recognised source capable of displacing that title.
Whether the evidence subsequently adduced on behalf of the
defendants is sufficient to rebut the plaintiff’s case or establish
an independent right shall now be examined while appreciating
the defence evidence.
Appreciation of the defendants evidence and findings on
competing title
103.Having held that the plaintiff has established a prima facie
subsisting title through the duly proved registered Sale Deed
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 36 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.08
SHARMA 17:22:38 +0530
Ex.PW-1/1, the evidentiary burden shifted upon the defendants
to establish a legally sustainable right capable of defeating the
plaintiff’s claim. The defence is founded principally upon the
plea that the disputed 50 square yards forms an integral part of
an ancient temple and that the defendant no.1, having succeeded
to the office of Mahant by hereditary succession, is entitled to
continue in possession thereof. The question, therefore, is
whether the evidence adduced by the defendants discloses any
legally recognised source of title in favour of the alleged
religious institution or its manager.
104.It is a settled principle that a plea of ownership cannot rest
upon assertion alone. Where ownership is asserted on the basis
of a religious endowment, the burden lies upon the party setting
up such plea to prove that the property in dispute was validly
dedicated to the deity or otherwise vested in the religious
institution through a mode recognised by law. The existence of
a temple, however ancient, or the performance of religious
ceremonies therein cannot, by themselves, constitute proof that
adjoining land belongs to the temple and it cannot be presumed
in the absence of the cogent evidence.
105.In the present case, the defendants have failed to produce
any documentary evidence establishing that the disputed
property ever vested in the alleged temple. Further, no
document has been brought on record indicating the extent or
boundaries of the alleged temple estate. The complete absence
of documentary evidence assumes considerable significance
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 37 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:22:43 +0530
because the defendants themselves assert that the temple has
existed for several centuries.
106.If such an endowment in fact existed, some documentary or
public record tracing its origin or recognising its existence could
reasonably be expected. The unexplained failure to produce
such evidence substantially weakens the defence.
107.The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants is
equally insufficient to bridge this evidentiary deficiency. The
defendant no.1 filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief,
however, before his cross-examination could be completed, he
expired. Consequently, the material assertions contained in his
affidavit regarding the history of the temple, the alleged
dedication of the property and the hereditary succession of
Mahants remained untested by cross-examination and therefore,
the same cannot safely be relied upon for determining
contentious questions relating to title over immovable property.
108.The remaining oral evidence consists of the testimony of
DW-2, however, his testimony materially undermines the
defence rather than supporting it. DW-2 admitted that he was
unaware of the khasra number of the disputed property, could
not correctly identify its boundaries or exact location, had no
personal knowledge of any title document relating to the land
and had assumed the office of Mahant only recently. He further
admitted that whatever knowledge he possessed regarding the
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 38 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.07.08
17:22:49 +0530
history of the property had been gathered from local residents
and was not based upon his own personal knowledge.
109.These admissions are of considerable evidentiary
significance. A witness examined to establish ownership of
immovable property would ordinarily be expected to possess
personal knowledge regarding the identity of the property, the
source of ownership, the existence of title documents or the
historical circumstances under which the property vested in the
institution concerned.
110.The DW-2 admittedly possessed no such knowledge,
therefore, his testimony establishes neither the source of the
temple’s title nor the legal basis of the defendants possession.
To the extent his evidence is founded upon information received
from third parties, it is hearsay and carries probative value for
adjudicating disputed questions of title.
111.Equally significant is the failure of the defendants to
produce the best evidence available to them. The law does not
require proof of impossible facts; nevertheless, where a party
asserts the existence of an ancient religious endowment and
claims ownership on that basis, it is incumbent upon such party
to place before the court the best available evidence in support
of that plea.
112.If documentary records have been lost or are unavailable
owing to antiquity, the party is expected at least to establish
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 39 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:22:55 +0530
such fact and to produce other reliable evidence capable of
proving the endowment. Though, neither any such explanation
has been offered in the present case, nor have the defendants
examined any independent witness possessing direct knowledge
of the alleged dedication or the historical ownership of the
disputed land.
113.The cumulative effect of the defendant’s evidence leaves
the plea of temple ownership resting entirely upon assertion and
belief rather than proof. Courts adjudicating disputes relating to
immovable property cannot found declarations of ownership
upon bare averments or factual presumptions or religious belief
as the proprietary rights are legal rights and must be established
by legally admissible evidence.
114.Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court
finds that the defendants have failed to rebut the plaintiff’s
documentary title or establish any independent, competing or
superior right over the suit property. Consequently, the plea that
the disputed land forms part of the alleged temple property or
defendants are the owner of the suit property is hereby rejected.
Appreciation of evidence and finding on encroachment
115.Once the plaintiff’s title stands established and the
defendants fail to substantiate their claim of ownership, the
remaining question concerns the legal character of the
defendants possession. The defendants do not dispute that they
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 40 of 51
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:23:01 +0530
are presently occupying the disputed 50 square yards as their
defence is not one of absence of possession but of lawful
entitlement. The issue, therefore, is whether such possession is
supported by any legally enforceable right.
116.The plaintiff has relied upon a consistent chain of
documentary evidence comprising the registered Sale Deed
dated 24.06.1953 Ex. PW-1/1, the order dated 04.10.2001
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ex. PW-1/5, the order
dated 12.06.2003 passed by the Tehsildar Ex. PW-1/6, and the
site plan identifying the encroached portion. These documents,
when read conjointly, present a continuous narrative
demonstrating the plaintiff’s assertion of proprietary rights long
before the institution of the present suit.
117.It is true that neither the Sub-Divisional Magistrate nor the
Tehsildar possessed jurisdiction to finally adjudicate disputed
questions of civil title. Consequently, the orders passed by those
authorities cannot be treated as documents conferring
ownership upon the plaintiff but the same may be treated as an
additional link in the chain of evidence adduced by the plaintiff.
The same reflects the existence of disputes concerning the suit
property, the conduct of the parties and the continuity of the
plaintiff’s assertion of rights.
118.Significantly, the defendants have failed to show that either
of the aforesaid orders was set aside or declared illegal by any
competent authority. While this circumstance does not elevate
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 41 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:23:06 +0530
those orders into documents of title, it reinforces their
evidentiary value as contemporaneous official records
remaining uncontroverted throughout.
119.The defendants have also failed to establish any legally
recognised source authorising their occupation of the disputed
land as no grant, lease, licence, dedication, adverse possession
or any other juridical basis has been proved. Their sole defence
that the land forms part of the temple has already been rejected
for want of evidence. Once that defence fails, nothing survives
on record to explain the legal basis of their continued
possession.
120.It is well established that possession, by itself, does not
mature into an indefeasible right. The law protects settled
possession against forcible dispossession except in accordance
with law, however, where the true owner approaches a
competent civil court and establishes a better title, the occupant
must justify his continued possession by reference to some
legally recognised right. In the absence of such right, possession
ceases to enjoy legal protection against the rightful owner.
121.The chronology emerging from the evidence further
strengthens this conclusion. Official proceedings relating to the
disputed land commenced much prior to the institution of the
present suit. The plaintiff consistently asserted his ownership
before the competent authorities, whereas the defendants
persisted in occupying the disputed portion despite failing to
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 42 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:23:12 +0530
establish any legal entitlement thereto. Their continued
occupation, therefore, cannot be characterised as lawful
possession but constitutes an encroachment upon property
belonging to another.
122.On the scale of the preponderance of probabilities, this
Court finds that the plaintiff’s version is supported by a duly
proved registered conveyance, contemporaneous official
records and a consistent chain of circumstances, whereas the
defence rests substantially upon unsubstantiated assertions
unsupported by documentary evidence or reliable oral
testimony. The balance of probabilities, therefore, clearly tilts
in favour of the plaintiff.
123.This Court accordingly holds that the defendants are in
unauthorised occupation of the disputed portion measuring 50
square yards forming part of Khasra No.676/442, Village
Uldhanpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Kanti Nagar, Delhi. Their
possession is unsupported by any legally recognised right, title
or interest and consequently amounts to unlawful encroachment
upon the plaintiff’s property.
124.The plaintiff having established a better and subsisting title,
and the defendants having failed to justify their possession by
reference to any lawful authority, the plaintiff becomes entitled
to recover vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed
property in accordance with law. The issue of consequential
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 43 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:23:19 +0530
relief in the form of mesne profits and permanent injunction
now falls for consideration.
Mesne Profits
125.Having held that the defendants are in unauthorised
occupation of the suit property and that the plaintiff is entitled
to recover possession thereof, the question of mesne profits
necessarily arises. The Section 2(12) of CPC, defines mesne
profits as those profits which the person in wrongful possession
of property actually received or might with ordinary diligence
have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits,
but excluding profits attributable to improvements made by the
person in wrongful possession.
126.The liability to pay mesne profits is founded upon the
equitable principle that no person should be permitted to derive
economic benefit from the unlawful occupation of another’s
property. The object of such compensation is not punitive but
restitutive, namely, to place the true owner, as nearly as money
can, in the position in which he would have been had he not
been wrongfully deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his
property.
127.The plaintiff has claimed mesne profits of ₹.18,000/- at the
rate of ₹.1,000/- per month for the period 20.07.2008 to.
20.07.2011 alongwith further mesne profits. It is true that no
independent valuation report, expert assessment or comparable
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 44 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:23:25 +0530
lease deeds have been produced to establish the prevailing rental
value of similarly situated properties. However, absence of such
evidence is not invariably fatal where the record otherwise
furnishes a reasonable basis for assessment.
128.During his cross-examination, DW-2 candidly admitted
that the suit property is capable of fetching a monthly rent of
approximately ₹.20,000/-. This admission, emanating from the
defendants own witness, assumes considerable evidentiary
significance. In comparison thereto, the plaintiff’s claim of
₹.1,000/- per month is manifestly modest, conservative and well
within the bounds of reasonableness.
129.Having regard to the nature and location of the property, its
potential utility, the admission made by DW-2 regarding its
rental potential and the entirety of the evidence on record, this
Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has established his
entitlement to mesne profits at the claimed rate of ₹.1,000/- per
month. The amount claimed cannot be said to be excessive or
speculative; rather, it represents a fair and reasonable measure
of compensation for the wrongful deprivation of possession.
130.Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover past
mesne profits of ₹.18,000/- as claimed in the plaint. The
plaintiff shall further be entitled to future mesne profits at the
rate of ₹.1,000/- per month with effect from August, 2011 until
vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is delivered
to the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 45 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:23:31 +0530
131.Judicial notice may legitimately be taken of the progressive
increase in rental values of urban immovable properties owing
to inflation, urbanisation and the ordinary course of economic
development. In order to ensure that the compensation awarded
remains realistic and does not become illusory by reason of
prolonged litigation or continued unauthorised occupation, the
future mesne profits shall stand enhanced by 10% after the
expiry of every year, commencing from the date they first
become payable, until actual delivery of possession.
132.Since the Court has directed a periodical enhancement in
future mesne profits so as to adequately reflect the increasing
rental potential of the property over time, the ends of justice
would be sufficiently served without awarding a separate
component of interest on future mesne profits.
Permanent Injunction
133.The plaintiff has also sought a decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his
proprietary rights in the suit property. The grant of such relief is
governed by well-settled equitable principles and is intended to
prevent the invasion or threatened invasion of an established
legal right.
134.The evidence on record demonstrates that the defendants
have consistently disputed the plaintiff’s title, asserted an
independent claim of ownership and continued in occupation of
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 46 of 51
Digitally signed
by SANDEEP
SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.07.08
17:23:36 +0530
the disputed property notwithstanding the plaintiff’s repeated
assertion of his rights. Their conduct clearly indicates the
existence of a real and substantial likelihood of future
interference with the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment of the
property even after possession is restored. In such
circumstances, a decree for possession alone would not afford
complete or effective relief and may give rise to further
avoidable litigation.
135.The reliefs of possession and permanent injunction are
complementary in nature as while the former restores
possession to the lawful owner, the latter protects such
possession from future unlawful interference and thereby
secures quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the property. Thus,
grant of both reliefs, in the facts of the present case is necessary
to render complete adjudication of dispute between the parties
and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
136.Consequently, the defendants, their agents, servants,
representatives, successors, assigns and all persons claiming
through or under them are hereby permanently restrained from
interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property after delivery of possession, from
re-entering or attempting to re-enter the suit property without
due process of law, from raising any construction thereon,
altering its nature or character, creating any third-party interest,
parting with possession or otherwise dealing with the suit
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 47 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:23:42 +0530
property in any manner inconsistent with the plaintiff’s lawful
rights.
Conclusion
137.On an overall appreciation of the pleadings, oral evidence
and documentary record, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff
has proved, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities,
that,
(i) the plaintiff derives lawful title to the suit
property through the duly proved registered Sale
Deed dated 24.06.1953, Ex. PW-1/1,
(ii) the identity of the suit property stands duly
established with reasonable certainty,
(iii) the defendants have failed to prove that the
disputed portion forms part of any temple
endowment or that they possess any independent or
superior right, title or interest therein,
(iv) no legally recognised source of title, including
dedication, grant or adverse possession, has been
established by the defendants,
(v) thus, the defendants are in unauthorized
occupation of the disputed portion measuring 50
square yards forming part of Khasra No. 676/442,
Village Uldhanpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Kanti Nagar,
Delhi; and
(vi) accordingly, the defendants are in unauthorised
occupation of the disputed 50 square yards forming
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 48 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:23:48 +0530
part of Khasra No. 676/442, Village Uldhanpur,
Illaqa Shahdara, Kanti Nagar, Delhi;
(vii) the plaintiff has consequently become
entitled to recovery of possession together with
the consequential reliefs of mesne profits and
permanent injunction,
138.It is noteworthy to mention that the relief granted herein is
founded not upon the weakness of the defendant but upon the
plaintiff having affirmatively discharged the burden cast upon
him under the law by leading cogent evidence establishing a
better and subsisting title to the suit property.
139.Once that burden stood discharged, the evidentiary burden
shifted to the defendants to justify their possession by
establishing a competing legal right, which they have failed to
do. When the true owner establishes a superior title while the
person in occupation fails to show any lawful authority to retain
possession, then the right to recover possession is an inseparable
incident of lawful ownership, to hold otherwise would amount
to providing judicial protection to unauthorised occupation.
Accordingly, all the issues under consideration are decided in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
140.In view of the foregoing findings, the suit succeeds and is
decreed in the following terms:
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 49 of 51
Digitally signed
by SANDEEP
SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.07.08
17:23:54 +0530
(a) A decree for possession is passed in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants directing
them to hand over vacant, peaceful and physical
possession of the portion measuring 50 square
yards, forming part of Khasra No. 676/442, Village
Uldhanpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Kanti Nagar, Delhi, as
shown in the site plan Ex. PW-1/2.
(b) A decree of permanent injunction is passed
restraining the defendants, their legal heirs,
representatives, agents or any person claiming
through or under them from interfering with the
plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit property or from creating any third-party
interest therein.
(c) The plaintiff shall recover ₹.18,000/- towards
mesne profits for the period claimed in the plaint
and shall further be entitled to future mesne profits
at the rate of ₹.1,000/- per month from August
2011 until delivery of vacant and peaceful
possession, with an annual enhancement of 10%
after completion of each successive year of
unauthorized occupation.
141.No order as to costs.
142.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, after the payment of
deficient court fees, if any.
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 50 of 51
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.07.08
17:24:00 +0530
143.File be consigned to the record room after due compliances.
Announced in the open court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
on July 8th, 2026 District Judge-04/East District
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
CS DJ No. 667/2016 CNR No. DLET01-000445-2011 Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs Lakshmanyati Page No. 51 of 51
Digitally signed
by SANDEEP
SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.07.08
17:24:06 +0530
