1. Suit for possession and declaration regarding ancestral property based on relinquishment deed. (Para 1 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 31814
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
Kela Devi – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Jain – Respondent
CS(OS) 74/2022 | I.As. 2168/2022 | I.As. 5129/2022 | I.As. 5130/2022 | I.As. 18161/2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Peeyoosh Kalra, Rohan J. Kapoor, Yashwant S. Baghel
For the Respondents: Rakesh Saini, Anil Sharma, Arpit Sharma, Shankar, Chetan Sharma, V. K. Garg, Kunal Bahri, K. S. Rekhi, Parv Garg, Pawas Kulshrestha, Nitin Jain
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Peeyoosh Kalra, Rohan J. Kapoor, Yashwant S. Baghel
For the Respondents: Rakesh Saini, Anil Sharma, Arpit Sharma, Shankar, Chetan Sharma, V. K. Garg, Kunal Bahri, K. S. Rekhi, Parv Garg, Pawas Kulshrestha, Nitin Jain
A plaint for recovery of immovable property must provide a description sufficient for identification under Order VII Rule 3 CPC. Failure to specify municipal numbers in urbanized areas or providing vague boundaries renders the cause of action illusory, justifying rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 3 and Order VII Rule 11(a) - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 21 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 379(1) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 227, 228, 229 and 236 - Recovery of possession - Requirement of sufficient description of immovable property - Failure to mention municipal numbers in urbanized area - Illusory cause of action. (Paras 19, 20, 50)
(B) Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mandates that where the subject-matter of a suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description sufficient to identify it. In urbanized areas where municipal numbers are assigned, failure to disclose such numbers or provide specific boundaries renders the property incapable of identification, suggesting a fictitious claim and an illusory cause of action. (Paras 19-23)
(C) Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 requires non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property to contain a description sufficient to identify the property. Documents lacking such material particulars and failing to comply with registration guidelines may be found to be fraudulent or fabricated. (Paras 27-29)
(D) Deliberately making false statements under oath and filing forged documents to mislead the court constitutes perjury, which strikes at the root of the judicial system and warrants the initiation of criminal proceedings. (Paras 58-61)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of a plot in a specific Khasra number, claiming ownership through a relinquishment deed. The defendants contended that they were not in possession of any land in that Khasra number but possessed a distinct property in another Khasra number, which had been sold to their predecessor decades ago. The plaintiff failed to provide the municipal number of the suit property or specific boundaries in the site plan, and the boundaries provided conflicted with the relinquishment deed. It was further revealed that the plaintiff's predecessor had already sold the land in the specified Khasra number to third parties.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the suit property was fictitious and did not physically exist at the alleged location. The plaintiff had deliberately omitted municipal numbers to create an illusory cause of action and attempt to stake a claim on the defendants' property. The relinquishment deed was found to be fabricated, and the plaintiff's claims regarding land measurements were false.
Issues: Whether the plaint complied with the mandatory requirement of providing a sufficient description of the immovable property under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the suit disclosed a valid cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: For a suit involving immovable property, the law requires a description sufficient for identification. The absence of municipal numbers in an urbanized area, combined with vague boundaries and inconsistencies in title documents, indicates a lack of a genuine cause of action. Where a claim is based on fictitious property and fabricated documents, the plaint is vexatious and liable for rejection.
Result: Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC and suit dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claimed ownership via relinquishment deed; defendants asserted property was distinct and already sold by plaintiff's predecessor. (Para 5 , 9 )
3. Plaintiff failed to identify property per Order VII Rule 3 CPC; property description was vague and contradictory, indicating non-existence. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 30 )
4. A plaint for immovable property must contain sufficient description to identify it; failure to do so renders the suit liable for rejection. (Para 20 , 50 )
5. Suit dismissed; plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for no cause of action; exemplary costs and perjury proceedings ordered. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 58 , 69 )
6. What is the requirement under Order VII Rule 3 CPC for a plaint involving immovable property?
The plaint must contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, including boundaries or numbers from settlement or survey records. (Para 19 , 20 )
7. Can a suit for possession be maintained if the subject property cannot be identified from the plaint?
No. If the property description is too vague or contradictory to identify the property, the plaint is liable to be rejected for lack of cause of action. (Para 20 , 21 , 30 , 50 )
8. What is the relevant unit of measurement for 'Bigha' in Delhi for agricultural land?
In Delhi and Punjab, a Bigha equals 1008 square yards, as judicially noticed by the Supreme Court. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
9. When can a court initiate perjury proceedings against a litigant?
When a party makes deliberate false statements or files false evidence to mislead the court, it amounts to perjury and obstructs justice. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 68 )
J U D G M E N T
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
CS(OS) 74/2022 & I.As. 2168/2022, 5129/2022, 5130/2022, 18161/2023
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, thereby seeking a decree of possession in her favour and for directing defendant nos. 1 to 8 to hand over Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 74/2022 Page 1 of 32 the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property i.e., Plot measuring 1250 sq. yards situated in Khasra no. 233, Village Seelampur, Delhi (‘the subject property’) as shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint.
2. The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that the sale deed dated
14.09.2021 executed by defendant nos. 1 to 4 in favour of defendant nos. 7 and
8 are not binding on the plaintiff and the same do not affect the rights of the plaintiff in the subject property.
3. The plaintiff has also sought a money decree in her favour directing the defendants to jointly and severally pay mesne profits at Rs. 2.4 lakhs per month with interest w.e.f. 01.12.2021 till the actual and physical possession of the suit property is handed over.
4. It is stated in the plaint that the subject property is an ancestral property and was earlier owned by Sh. Bharta and after his death, the ownership rights of late Sh. Bharta qua the subject property devolved upon his son, late Sh. Mahipal Singh, the husband of the plaintiff. It is stated that after the demise of Sh. Mahipal Singh on 14.11.2002, all his remaining legal heirs executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 18.04.2019 in favour of the plaintiff herein. Accordingly, the plaintiff became the sole and absolute owner of the subject property w.e.f. 18.04.2019.
4.1. It is stated that Sh. Bharta being the owner of other properties in Khasra nos. 233 and 248, Village Seelampur, Delhi had sold certain part of lands in Khasra Nos. 233 and 248 to Sh. Vikram Sain Jain, father of defendant nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that defendant nos. 1 and 2, who were under the possession of their property situated in Khasra no. 248, kept certain goods in the halls constructed on the subject property. It is averred that defendant nos. 1 and 2 have (wrongfully) managed to get an electricity connection installed in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 74/2022 Page 2 of 32 subject property and have encroached upon the subject property.
4.2. It is stated that the defendants are claiming their ownership on the subject property on the basis of title documents which pertain to a different land/property [which was sold by her father-in-law, late Sh. Bharta]. It is stated that the said title documents do not pertain to the subject property.
4.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant nos. 1 to 4 have sold their 55% share in the property situated in Khasra no. 248, Seelampur, Delhi to defendant nos. 7 and 8 by virtue of two (2) sale deeds dated 14.09.2021 and based on the said sale deeds, the defendants are asserting their ownership rights in the subject property.
4.4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the subject property; however, the defendants are in illegal and unlawful possession of the subject property. Aggrieved by these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
4.5. In the plaint, the plaintiff has relied upon a relinquishment deed dated 18.04.2019 executed by the legal heirs of late Sh. Mahipal Singh in her favour to assert that she is the sole owner of the subject property located in Khasra no. 233, Seelampur, Delhi (‘Khasra no. 233’). The plaintiff derives her title from late Sh. Bharta, whose name is recorded in the revenue entries for Khasra no.
233.
4.6. During the proceedings, this Court passed as ex-parte interim order dated 08.02.2022, whereby the parties to the suit were restrained from creating any third-party rights in the subject property.
4.7. Subsequently, defendant nos. 7 and 8 filed I.A. No. 5129/2022 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), thereby seeking vacatio
