Delhi District Court
Ram Kumar Yadav vs Ashit Rohilla Anr on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR MEENA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-10 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016
CNR No.DLWT01-000652-2013
Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav (Deceased)
Through L.R.
Sh. Amit Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav,
WZ-39A, Jwala Heri,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063
....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1) Sh. Ashit Rohilla,
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Rohilla,
R/o H.No. 55, Paschim Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063
2) Sh. Ram Kumar Rohilla,
S/o Late Sh. Bhagat Ram Rohilla,
(Prop. Kumar Dry Cleaners),
WZ-39A/2, Jwala Heri,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063
....Defendants
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF RS. 13,50,000 /- (RUPEES
THIRTEEN LACS FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY), DECLARATION,
FUTURE MESNE PROFITS AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTION WITH
INTEREST AND COSTS
Date of institution of case : 31.10.2013
Reserved for judgment : 10.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.02.2026
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 1 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signed
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.21
KUMAR MEENA
MEENA 15:40:31 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, the Court shall dispose off the present suit
bearing Civ DJ No. 609471/2016, which was filed by Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav
(hereinafter to be referred as ‘plaintiff’) against Sh. Ashit Rohilla and Sh.
Ram Kumar Rohilla (hereinafter to be referred as ‘defendants’) for recovery
of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lacs Fifty Thousand Only). It is pertinent
to mention here that after filing the plaint, the plaintiff expired and an
application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was filed on 09.01.2014 for
impleading only son of the deceased plaintiff Mr. Amit Yadav and the
application was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2014.
PLEADINGS OF PLAINTIFF
2. It was pleaded by plaintiff that plaintiff was the owner of the
property bearing no. WZ-39A, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063
(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the said property’). The said property has been
built up to three floors and entire third floor has been in possession and use of
the plaintiff who have been residing therein with his family. The plaintiff had
already executed a Will in favour of his only son namely Sh. Amit Yadav,
who looks after and manages affairs and deals with tenants of the said
property. It is pertinent to mention here that it was also contended that the
entire first and second floor consists of small shops and counters and has been
given on rent and are occupied by various tenants. It was also pleaded that on
ground floor, there are various shops and counters and the shop no. 2, which
is measuring 10′ X 33; was let out to defendant no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 350 per
month. It has also been pleaded that plaintiff was aged about 64 years and was
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 2 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signed
KUMAR MEENA
KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:40:37 +0530
suffering from cancer and accordingly, to fulfill his bonafide needs, filed an
eviction petition against defendant no. 2 in the Court of Ld. Additional Rent
Controller. It is further pleaded that defendant no. 2 took a stand in defence in
his leave to contest to affidavit/ application that area of shop no. 2 was 10′ X
23′ and not 10′ X 33′ and rent was Rs. 5,200/- per month and jurisdiction of
the Court was challenged. In the said leave to contest, defendant no. 2 also
took a stand that in the year 2005, the back portion of shop no. 2, measuring
10′ X 10′ (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit shop’) was purchased in the name of
his son Ashit Rohilla (hereinafter referred to as defendant no. 1). It is also
stated that defendant no. 2 made a statement on oath before the Court of Ld.
Additional Rent Controller that he was tenant of shop no. 2 measuring 10′ X
23′ and rate of rent was Rs. 5,200/- per month and accordingly, the suit/
eviction petition was withdrawn from the Ld. Additional Rent Controller to
initiate appropriate legal proceedings in the Court of competent jurisdiction. It
was further pleaded that the present suit has been filed for recovery of
possession of the suit shop. It was further pleaded that plaintiff has never sold
any portion of the said property and had not executed any document with
respect to sale of suit property. It was further pleaded that the defendant no. 2
in connivance with defendant no. 1, has acted in conspiracy and had
manipulated/ forged documents, accordingly, the present suit is filed for
possession of suit property and for recovery of damages and mesne profits.
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS
3. The defendants contested the suit and filed their common written
statement, thereby refuting all the allegations and it was categorically
contended/pleaded that present suit has been filed without any basis just to
harass and to take the settled legal possession from the defendants. It was also
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 3 of 22
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
MEENA
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:40:52 +0530
pleaded that suit per se is not maintainable as valuation has been shown
without any basis. It is also contended that the plaintiff had filed an eviction
petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and therein
he concealed the fact that monthly rent of tenanted shop was Rs. 5200/- per
month and area of shop was 10′ X 23′. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff also
concealed the fact that in the January 2005, defendant no. 2 had purchased the
suit shop, which has entry from the back rear side of the corridor and shop is
in possession of Ashit Rohilla i.e. defendant no.1, who is carrying on his
business in the name of M/s Kumar Enterprises. It is also pleaded that after
withdrawing of said eviction petition on 31.07.2013, the plaintiff filed present
suit for possession of suit shop and other suit for possession of tenanted
premises / shop measuring 10′ X 23′. It is also pleaded that plaintiff died on
12.12.2013 and after completion of necessary procedure for bringing LRs of
deceased plaintiff, amended memo of parties filed. It is also pleaded that
notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 has never been
served upon defendants. It is finally pleaded that the suit is without any basis
and be dismissed.
REPLICATION
4. LR of plaintiff has filed the replication to written statement wherein
he refuted the claim/pleadings of defendants and reaffirmed his pleadings as
stated in the plaint.
ISSUES
5. After the completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on
04.04.2019:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession against the
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 4 of 22
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.02.21
MEENA 15:40:57 +0530
defendants in respect of the suit property measuring 10′ X 10′ on the
ground floor of House No. WZ-39A, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages/mesne profits
in the sum of Rs. 12,60,000/- against the defendants for the unauthorized
user of the said property? OPP
(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages in the sum of
Rs. 80,000/- against the defendants? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profits @ Rs. 35,000/-
per month w.e.f. 01.10.2013, against the defendants? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the above amount and if
yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(vi) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court
fees? OPD
(vii) Whether defendant No. 1 is the owner of the suit shop having
purchased the same and if so, its effect? OPD-1
(viii) Relief.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
6. In support of his case, LR of the plaintiff has examined himself as
PW-1 and through his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/A, he
relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) Copy of death certificate Ex.PW1/1.
(ii) Site plan Ex.PW1/2.
(iii)Copy of Will dated 25.05.2012 Ex.PW1/3 (OSR)
(iv) Copy of eviction petition Ex.PW1/4
(v) Copy of affidavit filed by defendant no. 2 Ex.PW1/5.
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 5 of 22
Digitally signed by
VINOD VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.02.21
MEENA 15:41:05 +0530
(vi) Copy of reply of affidavit Ex.PW1/6.
(vii) Copy of police complaint Ex.PW1/6A.
(viii) Two postal receipts Ex.PW1/7 (colly) and acknowledgement Ex.PW1/8.
(ix) Certified copy of Court order dated 31.07.2013 Ex.PW1/9.
(x) Certified copy of decree sheet Ex.PW1/10.
(xi) Copy of notice Ex.PW1/11, its postal receipt Ex.PW1/12 and AD Card
Ex.PW1/13.
PW-1 was cross examined.
Plaintiff also examined Sh. Sachin Yadav as PW-2 and he
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW2/A.
PW-2 was cross examined.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
7. In support of their case, defendants have examined defendant no.1
as DW-1 and through his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.DW1/A,
he relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) Ex.DW1/1 (OSR): Photocopy of Aadhar Card;
(ii) Ex.DW1/2: Copy of the police report dated: 28.03.2013.
(iii) Ex.DW1/3: Five photographs of the suit property. (mentioned as
Ex.DW1/7 in the affidavit of witness)
(iv) Mark A: Photocopy of complaint dated: 28.03.2013 made by Sh. Ram
Kumar Rohilla to SHO.
(v) Mark B: Photocopy of police report vide DD no. 29 A dated: 29.07.2005
PS: Paschim Vihar.
(vi) Mark C: Photocopy of the fire rescue report job dated: 12.08.2005.
(vii) Mark D: Photocopy of the statement Ms. Sheetal Prakash Goel.
(viii) Mark E: Photocopy of the statement Sh. Naveen Supta.
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 6 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signed
KUMAR MEENA
KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:41:11 +0530
DW-1 was cross-examined.
Defendants also examined Sh. Sheetal Prakash Goel as DW-2 and
Sh. Shiv Kumar Rohilla as DW-3. DW-2 and DW-3 were cross-examined.
8. No evidence was adduced by plaintiff in rebuttal of evidence of
defendant.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties at
length.
• Final arguments of plaintiff: It was argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff
that the deceased plaintiff was the owner of the the said property and
same was built up/constructed upto three floors and the entire third
floor has been in possession and use of the plaintiff and his family
members. It was also submitted that the plaintiff expired after filing the
suit and vide order dated 28.11.2014, the only son/LR namely Sh. Amit
Yadav was impleaded as LR of deceased plaintiff. It was further
submitted that the entire first and second floor consists of various small
shops and counters and same had been given on rent and are occupied
by various tenants and the ground floor also consists many shops and
counters and the shop no. 2, which was measuring 10′ X 33′ was let out
by deceased plaintiff to the defendant no. 2, around 28 years back @
Rs. 350 per month. It was also argued that to fulfill his bonafide needs,
the deceased plaintiff filed an eviction petition against defendant no. 2
in the Court of Ld. Additional Rent Controller as rate of rent was
Rs.1700/- per month. It was further submitted that defendant no. 2 took
a stand in his leave to contest to the effect that area of shop no. 2 was
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 7 of 22
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
MEENA
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:41:18 +0530
10′ X 23′ and not 10′ X 33′ and rate of rent was Rs. 5,200/- per month
and jurisdiction of the Court was challenged and it was also
contended/pleaded in the said leave to contest that in the year 2005, the
suit shop had been purchased by defendant no.2 in the name of his son
Ashit Rohilla/defendant no. 1 and accordingly, the suit/ eviction
petition was withdrawn from the court of Ld. Additional Rent
Controller to initiate appropriate legal proceedings in the Court of
competent jurisdiction and the present suit was filed for recovery of
possession of the suit shop. It was further submitted that deceased
plaintiff had never sold the suit property/any portion of the said
property and had not executed any document and same is substantiated
by the fact that except bald averments by defendants there is absolutely
nothing on record to substantiate the same. It was further submitted that
defendants in connivance with each other are illegally occupying the
suit shop and same may be ordered to be dispossessed. It was finally
submitted that suit be decreed in favour of LR of plaintiff and the
possession of suit shop be handed over to LR of plaintiff and the illegal
occupation/unauthorized user charges/mesne profits be decreed in
favour of LR of plaintiff.
• Final arguments of defendants: It was argued by Ld. Counsel for
defendants that suit has been filed without any basis and just to harass
and to take the possession of suit shop from the defendants. It was also
argued that the shop no.2 was measuring 10′ X 23′, same was taken on
rent @ Rs.5200/- per month by defendant no. 2 from deceased plaintiff
and the back portion of the shop no.2/suit shop was purchased by
defendant no.2 from the deceased plaintiff in the name of defendantCiv DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 8 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signedKUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.02.21
MEENA 15:41:24 +0530
no.1 for a sum of Rs.6,45,000/- way back in the year 2005. It was
further submitted that due to fire in the suit shop the title documents got
burnt and the deceased plaintiff had taken benefit of same. It was
further submitted that the identity of suit shop is also not clear as there
is no clear site plan. It is finally submitted that the suit is not
maintainable and same be dismissed.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
10. After hearing final arguments on behalf of both the parties and after
going through the pleadings as well as evidence and all the annexed &
exhibited documents and record, issue wise finding given as under:
11. Before proceeding further on discussion of issues in sequence, Issue
no.7, is being decided first.
Findings on Issue no.7:
12. As far as issue no. 7 i.e. Whether defendant No. 1 is the owner of the
suit shop having purchased the same and if so, its effect? OPD-1, is concerned
it was incumbent upon defendants specially defendant no. 1 that defendant no.
1 is the owner of suit shop having purchased the same. To this it is submitted
by Ld. Counsel for defendants that the suit shop measuring 10′ X 10′ sq. feet
was purchased by defendant no. 2 in the name of defendant no. 1 in the year
2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 6,45,000/- and since then the suit
shop has been in the possession of defendant no. 1, who is carrying out his
business in the name of M/s Kumar Enterprises. It is also submitted that
plaintiff, Late Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav has exhibited all documents i.e. GPA,
agreement to sell, receipt, will, letter of possession in favour of defendant no.
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 9 of 22
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
Date:
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:41:30 +0530
1, which was duly witnessed by Sh. Sheetal Prakash Goel, Sh. Naveen Gupta
and Sh. Shiv Kumar Rohilla. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for
defendants that these entire documents were destroyed in fire on 28.07.2005.
It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendants that defendants had duly
substantiated this contention through DW1, DW2 and DW3.
Per contra, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the
defendant no. 1 is the illegal occupant/ trespasser in the suit shop measuring
10′ X 10′ sq. feet, which is back portion of shop no. 2. It is also submitted
that the deceased plaintiff Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav was the owner of the entire
said property and on ground floor one shop i.e. shop no. 2 was let out to
defendant no. 2, who is father of defendant no. 1, around 28 years back and
plaintiff filed a suit for eviction before the Ld. Rent Controller to seek the
possession of shop no. 2 measuring 10′ X 33′ as rate of rent was Rs. 1,700/-
per month. It is further submitted that the plaintiff came up with a plea in his
statement of defence that shop no. 2 has been divided into two parts i.e. front
portion measuring 10′ X 23′ sq. feet which was taken on rent by defendant
no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 5,200/- per month and the back portion of shop no. 2
measuring 10′ X 10′ was purchased by defendant no. 2 in the year 2005 in the
name of defendant no. 1. Keeping in mind the submissions and admissions,
the eviction petition was withdrawn and the deceased plaintiff filed two
separate suits, one for recovery of possession of front portion of shop no.2
measuring 10′ X 23′ which has already been decreed and possession has been
received through execution.
The second suit is the present suit, which has been filed against
defendants, as defendant no. 2 stated that suit shop was purchased by him in
the year 2005 in the name of defendant no. 1. It is further submitted that the
deceased plaintiff Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, had never sold any property nor heCiv DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 10 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signedKUMAR MEENA
KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:41:35 +0530
received any consideration amount nor he executed any document nor
possession was ever handed over to defendant no. 1 with respect to suit shop.
It is finally submitted that defendant no. 1 is nothing but a trespasser, who has
taken baseless, frivolous pleas just to harass the LR of plaintiff.
After hearing the submissions of both the parties and after going
through the pleadings, deposition and annexed documents, it is observed that
it is the contention of defendants that defendant no.2 purchased the suit shop
from the plaintiff Late Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav for a total sale consideration of
Rs.6,45,000/- in the year 2005 and all documents were executed by the
deceased plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1.
Now to decide this issue, three aspects have to be clarified.
Firstly, whether payment of Rs.6,45,000/-, as alleged, have been made by
defendants to the deceased plaintiff towards sale consideration.
Secondly, whether the alleged documents were ever executed and there
value/effect and
Thirdly, whether defendant no.1 can be declared to be the owner of the suit
shop.
As far as the first aspect, with respect to the payment of
Rs.6,45,000/-, is concerned, it was incumbent upon defendants that they had
made the payment of Rs.6,45,000/-. To substantiate the same, defendants
produced three witnesses i.e. defendant as DW-1 and two witnesses namely
Sh. Sheetal Prakash Goel as DW-2 and Sh. Shiv Kumar Rohilla as DW-3.
Defendant no.1 has appeared as DW-1. It was specifically asked from DW-1
as to who purchased the suit shop. To this, DW-1 categorically stated that he
had purchased the suit shop. The relevant para is quoted here as under:
“…The property in question was purchased by me and not by my father…”
The above quoted deposition of defendant no.1/DW-1, is in
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 11 of 22
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.02.21
MEENA 15:41:49 +0530
contradiction to the pleadings, as pleaded in Para 10 of the evidence by way
of affidavit, wherein it was stated/deposed that defendant no.2 had purchased
the suit shop from plaintiff.
Be that as it may and without going further into the alleged
contradiction, let us proceed further as to whether the payment had been made
by defendant no.1, as deposed above or by defendant no.2, as a case may be.
It was stated by defendant no.1, in his cross-examination as DW-1 that he was
not doing business since 2005 and he was not even aware about the minimum
amount which was available in his bank account at that time. The relevant
para is quoted here as under:
“…I have only one saving accounts in Bank of Baroda and one current
accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank and Allahabad Bank. I have been doing
business since 2005. I have not brought any document regarding my above
said business of luggage and bags. I have not brought the any document
regarding my bank account and bank statement. I have no idea as to how
much the maximum amount I had in my bank account at any time. I used to
do business in cash from inception…”
It was also specifically stated by the defendant no.1 that he used to
purchase goods worth Rs. 20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and used to earn 20% per
month. The relevant para is quoted here as under:
“…In 2005 my age was around 18 years. I have no record of my business in
the year 2005. I used to purchase goods from wholesalers to the tune of
Rs.20-30,000/- and sell the same in retail in 2005. About 20% is earned on the
sale purchase…”
From the above-mentioned, it is clear that defendant no.1 was not
doing any work at that time i.e. in the year 2005 and he had not filed any
document, bank statement or any receipt to substantiate that any amount had
ever been paid by defendants to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the capacity to pay
the said sum has not been substantiated.
It is further observed that DW-2 only stated that payment was
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 12 of 22VINOD Digitally signed
by VINOD
KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.02.21
MEENA 15:41:55 +0530
made by defendant no. 2 to plaintiff in cash. The relevant para is quoted here
as under:
“…The payment was made by Sh. Ram Kumar Rohilla in cash to Sh. Ram
Kumar Yadav. I do not know what was the value of notes for amount…”
From the above-mentioned averment of DW-2 also nothing proved
with respect to said transaction.
DW-3 stated that he is not sure as to who made the payment. The
relevant para is quoted here as under:
“…I say that it might be the Defendant no.1 or the Defendant no.2 who paid
the amount to the Plaintiff as I am not sure about the same…”
From the above-mentioned, it is clear that there is absolutely
nothing on record to substantiate the fact that payment was made by either of
defendants. There is neither any receipt nor any undertaking nor any bank
statement to substantiate the same. So it can be easily deduced that there is
absolutely nothing on record except the bald averment.
Now coming to the second aspect, as to whether any document
have been executed by the deceased plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1. It
was stated by defendant no.1 as DW-1 that the documents are not available
with him, as same have been destroyed in fire. The relevant para is quoted
here as under:
“…I do not have any documents to show that I purchased the shop in question.
(Vol. The documents were destroyed in fire.)…”
The copy of fire rescue report job has been marked as Mark-C and
from the report, it is clear that there is no mention of any property document
of suit shop. So, absolutely there is nothing on record that any document has
been executed by the deceased plaintiff with respect to suit shop in favour of
defendant no.1. The court found it very strange that not even photocopy ofCiv DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 13 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signedKUMAR MEENA
KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:42:00 +0530
these so called relevant documents are available with defendant no.1.
Moreover, court found it really strange that defendant no.1 kept these so
called valuable documents in the suit shop only and had not mentioned the
same to the department of fire also.
DW-2, who is so called witness to the document submitted that
these documents were not drafted in his presence and had not even read these
documents and just signed those documents. The relevant para is quoted here
as under:
“…I do not know the name of the person, who executed the alleged documents
of transfer. It is correct that the alleged documents were not drafting in my
presence. I do not know the number of alleged documents. I do not know the
amount of stamp on which the alleged documents were typed. I have not read
the aforesaid document of transfer. The said document were signed in the
presence of Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav (Plaintiff), Sh. Ram Kumar Rohilla & Sh.
Shiv Kumar. Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav is disclosed the nature of the document. I
am not seen the said document after my signature…”
DW-3 also stated on the same lines. The relevant para is quoted
here as under:
“…I only signed the documents at the request of Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav but I
do not know what was the contents of the documents. The said documents
were not drafted or executed in my presence but it was only signed by me as a
witness…”
From the above-mentioned, it is clear that there is nothing to
substantiate that any document has ever been executed by plaintiff in favour
of defendant no.1. There is absolutely nothing on record, except the bald
averment in this context.
From the above-mentioned discussion, on the above-mentioned two
aspects, it is clear that there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate
that either of defendants have ever made a payment of Rs. 6,45,000/- to the
deceased plaintiff towards sale consideration, with respect to suit shop. As
such there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate that any payment
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 14 of 22VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signedKUMAR Date: 2026.02.21
KUMAR MEENAMEENA 15:42:06 +0530
has been made by defendants to the deceased plaintiff and from the
averments/ deposition of DW1, it is clear that he had no capacity to make the
payment on such huge amount in 2005 as alleged. It is also clear that there is
no trace of any documents which allegedly had been executed by plaintiff in
favour of defendant no. 1 with respect to suit shop. There is absolutely
nothing on record except the bald averments.
Now the question arises as to whether the defendant no. 1 can be
said to be owner of the suit shop on the basis of bald averments, the answer is
a clear No.
Be that as it may and even if it is presumed that the alleged
document, as mentioned in para (I) of preliminary objections in the written
statement viz. GPA, agreement to sell, receipt, Will, letter of possession, are
treated to be existed, then too, it would be of no avail to the defendant no. 1,
as it is trite now that no title/ownership with respect to immovable property
can be said to be transferred on the basis of unregistered GPA, agreement to
sell etc.
To elucidate the above-mentioned aspect, the court deem it fit to
mention here the relevant observations as made by Hon’ble Apex Court in
Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526, wherein,
it was observed that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable
properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of
an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The relevant observations are
quoted here as under:-
“10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized
that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and
Industries (supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with
respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to
Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The
Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requiresCiv DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 15 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signedKUMAR Date: 2026.02.21
KUMAR MEENAMEENA 15:42:11 +0530
compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less
a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if
these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were
registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired
title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered
agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in
appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections
17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property
can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this
Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same
proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this
Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj v. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar (2018) 7 SCC 639 (ii).
Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022
(iii). Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v Amit Chand Mitra, SLP(C) No.
15774 of 2022.
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the
statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents
with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the
respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne
profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the
property in question whether as an owner or a licensee”
It is also observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shakeel Ahmed
(Supra) that the ratio as propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp &
Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana will be applicable in all cases and
arguments to the effect that it would have prospective application would be
misplaced. The relevant para is quoted here as under:-
“13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that the judgment in
Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also misplaced.
The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-registration
emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and the Transfer
of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves
the provisions in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have
taken the same view.”
Similar was reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chand Vs.
Suresh Chand And Anr., Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012 decided on
01.09.2025. The relevant para is quoted here as under:-
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 16 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signedKUMAR Date: 2026.02.21
KUMAR MEENAMEENA 15:42:17 +0530
“In sale for an immovable property the value of which exceeds Rs. 100/-, the
three requirements of law are that the transfer of property of sale must take
place through a validly executed sale deed, i.e., it must be in writing, properly
attested and registered. Unless the sale deed is in writing, propertly attested
and registered. Unless the sale deed is in writing, attested and registered, the
transaction cannot be construed as sale, or in other words, the property will
not be transferred.
There is a difference between a sale deed and an agreement for sale, or a
contract for sale. A contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that
a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
While a sale is a transfer of ownership; a contract for sale is merely a
document creating a right to obtain another document, namely a registered
sale deed to complete the transaction of sale of an immovable property.
Section 54 in its definition of sale does not include an agreement of sale and
neither confers an proprietary rights in favour of the transferee nor by itself
create any interest or charge in the property. If after entering into a contract
for sale of property, the seller without any reasonable excuse avoids executing
a sale deed, the buyer can proceed to file a suit for specific performance of
the contract.”
From the above-mentioned exposition of law, it is clear that a
transfer of immovable property by way of sale, can only be by a deed of
conveyance (sale deed) and in the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly
stamped and registered as per law) no right, title or interest in an immovable
property can be transferred.
Having gone through the above-mentioned settled legal principle
and juxtaposing the same to the factual matrix of the present case, it can be
easily deduced that even on the basis of the alleged unregistered GPA,
agreement to sell, receipt, Will, letter of possession, no right, title or interest
can be said to have been transferred in favour of defendant no.1. Needless to
say there is no trace of even such documents in favour of defendant no. 1, as
alleged. From the above-mentioned, it can be deduced that defendant no. 1 is
not the owner of suit shop. Accordingly, issue no. 7 is decided against defendant
no.1.
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 17 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signedKUMAR MEENA
KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:42:23 +0530
Findings on issue no. 1:
13. As far as issue no. 1 i.e. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree
of possession against the defendants in respect of the suit property measuring
10′ X 10′ on the ground floor of House No. WZ-39A, Jwala Heri, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan? OPP, is concerned,
it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to substantiate that he is entitled for decree
of possession. It is a matter of record that ownership of plaintiff has never
been challenged rather it has been the contention of defendants, specially
defendant no.1, that the suit shop had been purchased by defendant no.1 from
plaintiff way back in the year 2005.
The court deem it fit to mention here that, as discussed above under
the heading of issue no. 7, the plaintiff had never sold the suit shop to
defendant no. 1 as alleged and the defendant no. 1 is not the owner of suit
shop. It is pertinent to mention here that the ownership of plaintiff has never
been challenged either in the present suit or in the earlier eviction petition,
which was filed by the plaintiff before the Ld. Rent Controller.
In view of the above-mentioned, it is clear that plaintiff/LR of
plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of suit shop.
In view of the above-mentioned issue no. 1 is decided in favour of
plaintiff.
Findings on issue no. 2, 3, 4 & 5:
14. As far as issue no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 i.e. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
recovery of damages/mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 12,60,000/- against the
defendants for the unauthorized user of the said property? OPP, Whether the
plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- against
the defendants? OPP, Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future mesne profitsCiv DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 18 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signedKUMAR Date: 2026.02.21
KUMAR MEENAMEENA 15:42:28 +0530
@ Rs. 35,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.10.2013, against the defendants? OPP and
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the above amount and if yes, at
what rate and for what period? OPP, are concerned, same are being taken
together for discussion and adjudication, as these issues are inter connected
and may conveniently and logically be decided with common findings.
15. As far as issue no. 1 is concerned, the plaintiff has sought recovery
of a sum of Rs.12,60,000/- from defendants. This amount of Rs.12,60,000/-
has been sought to be recovered as damages for illegal and unauthorized user
of the suit shop for 36 months prior to filing of this suit @ Rs. 35,000/- per
month.
To substantiate this issue, the plaintiff produced PW-2, however no
proof has been filed to substantiate that the area of shop of PW-2 was same as
of plaintiff and it was situated in the same location/proximity of the suit shop.
It is pertinent to mention here that PW-2 categorically stated that the suit shop
is situated near park and his shop/ house was situated at main road. The
relevant para is quoted here as under:
“…It is correct that property bearing no. WZ-19, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063 is situated near park and WZ-39, Jwala Heri, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi-110063 is situated at main road…”
Except PW-2, there was nothing to substantiate on the above-
mentioned aspect. Plaintiff asked PW-3 about the rate of rent of his shop and
DW-3 stated that the rent of such shop is about Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- in
front side. The relevant para is quoted here as under:
“…My shop is in main market and same is 7.5″x 13.5″. The rent of such shop
is about Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- in front side…”
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 19 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signed
KUMAR MEENA
KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2026.02.21
15:42:36 +0530
The above quoted averments is also of no value/use to the plaintiff,
as the suit shop is situated at the back portion.
So, from the above-mentioned, it is clear that there is absolutely
nothing on record to substantiate that rate of rent is or was Rs. 35,000/- per
month, as alleged by plaintiff.
At this stage, the Court deem it fit to mention here that defendant no.
1 as DW-1 admitted that rate of rent of any shop with same size at Jwalaheri
market back side can be Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The relevant para is
quoted here as under:
“…The rate of rent of shops measuring about 10×10 feet at Jawalaheri market
back side can be around Rs. 5-10,000/- per month depending upon the
location and situation…”
Even if it is taken as average the admitted rate of rent would be
around Rs. 7,500/- per month. In view of the above-mentioned, it is clear that
plaintiff is not entitled for the illegal and unauthorized user charges @ Rs.
35,000/- per month for 36 months prior to filing the present suit but he can
surely be entitled to get the same @ Rs. 7,500/- per month. So, as far as issue
no. 2 is concerned, the plaintiff could be said to be entitled for the illegal and
unauthorized user of the suit shop for the period of 3 years/ 36 months @
Rs.7,500/- per month, prior to filing the present suit and same would come as
Rs. 2,70,000/-.
So, the issue no. 2 is partly decided in favour of plaintiff. It is
clarified that plaintiff is not entitled for a sum of Rs. 12,60,000/- but is
entitled for recovery of Rs. 2,70,000/- as illegal and unauthorized user of the
suit shop till filing the suit.
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 20 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signed
KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.02.21
MEENA 15:42:41 +0530
16. As far as issue no. 3 is concerned same has neither been pressed
for nor any evidence has been adduced nor any argument has been advanced,
accordingly, same is decided against plaintiff.
17. As far as issue no. 4 is concerned, it can be easily deduced that as
discussed above under the finding on issue no.2, the plaintiff can be said to be
entitled for pendente-lite and future mesne profits @ Rs.7,500/- per month
from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of the possession of the suit
shop. Accordingly, issue no. 4 is partly decided in favour of plaintiff.
18. As far as issue no. 5 is concerned, the interest on adjudicated
amount has been claimed but no specific rate of interest has been provided.
Accordingly, in the present case, taking a judicial notice of the interest
granted by the nationalized banks in case of the money lend or advanced in
relation to commercial transactions, I consider it appropriate, to grant to the
plaintiff the pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum on the
adjudicated fixed amount i.e. on the sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. Accordingly, issue
no. 5 is also partly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Findings on issue no.6:
19. As far as issue no. 6 i.e. Whether the suit has not been properly
valued for the purposes of court fees? OPD, is concerned, it is observed that
this issue has neither been pressed for nor any evidence has been adduced.
Moreover, no suggestion has been put by defendants in the cross-examination
also. There are no material or argument to substantiate this issue.
Accordingly, issue no. 6 is decided against defendants.
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 21 of 22
VINOD Digitally
by VINOD
signed
KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.02.21
MEENA 15:42:49 +0530
RELIEF
20. On the basis of the finding of above-mentioned issues, this Court is
adjudicating the suit with the findings that the suit of the plaintiff/LR of
plaintiff is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendants with the
findings that plaintiff/LR of plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of
suit shop i.e. the back portion of shop no. 2, measuring 10′ X 10′, WZ-39A,
Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063, plaintiff/LR of plaintiff is also
entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- as illegal and unauthorized user of
the suit shop till filing the suit, plaintiff/LR of plaintiff is also entitled for
pendente-lite and future mesne profits @ Rs.7,500/- per month from the date
of filing of the suit till the recovery of the possession of the suit shop and
plaintiff/LR of plaintiff is also entitled for pendente-lite and future interest @
6% per annum on the adjudicated fixed amount (Rs.2,70,000/-) from
defendants.
21. No order as to costs as the parties shall bear their own respective
costs of the suit. Applications, if any, which are pending in the present
judicial file and have not been pressed for by the parties are also disposed of
as dismissed as not pressed.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, after the payment of deficient
court fees (if any). File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.02.21
Announced in the open Court MEENA 15:42:55 +0530
today on 21st February, 2026 (Vinod Kumar Meena)
District Judge-10
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
21.02.2026
Civ DJ No. 609471/2016 Ram Kumar Yadav Vs. Ashit Rohilla & Anr. Page 22 of 22
