Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 739
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anish Dayal, J
SANRAJ FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SHRI RAM KISHAN & ANR. – Respondent
CS(OS)-366/2022
A registered sale deed, once executed and possession delivered, cannot be contradicted by oral evidence, and mutation does not confer title.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 91 and 92 - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Sections 33, 42, 67, and 72 - Permanent injunction sought to restrain defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession of land - Sale deed executed in 2006, with full consideration paid and possession delivered - Defendants' objections to mutation pending - Court found plaintiff in settled possession and upheld the validity of the sale deed, rejecting defendants' claims of void transfer under DLRA - Court emphasized that mutation does not confer title - Counterclaim by defendants barred by limitation. (Paras 1-42)
(B) Injunction - Nature of relief - A suit for injunction simpliciter focuses on possession rather than title, and the court will not investigate title unless necessary pleadings and issues are present. (Paras 37-38)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit filed for injunction (Para 1) |
| 2. sale deed and possession (Para 2) |
| 3. defendants' illegal entry (Para 3) |
| 4. plaintiff's counsel submissions (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. defendants' claims of void transfer (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court's reasoning on sale deed (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. decree of permanent injunction (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This suit was filed seeking decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants for restraint on the defendants, and all those acting for and on their behalf, from interfering in the peaceful and settled possession of plaintiff over the suit land measuring 03 bighas and 18 biswas comprised in Khasra No.959/2 situated at Village Rajokari, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (‘suit property’). Summons were issued on 03rd June 2022.
2. In the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the Court noted that the said suit property had been purchased by sale deed dated 27th October 2006 from defendant No.1, the entire sale consideration amount had been received by defendant No.1 and the physical, vacant possession of the suit property was delivered to plaintiff. Plaintiff was in continued settled possession of the suit land since the date of sale. It was further noted, that Tehsildar, Vasant Vihar by order dated 10th June 2014 had passed an order for mutation in favour of plaintiff. Defendants filed an objection to the mutation before Deputy Commissioner (Revenue). The adjudication of the objections was still pending.
3. Plaintiff alleged that defendants attempted to illegally enter the suit property and ploughed the same with a tractor on the night of 11th August 2021 and subsequently thereafter, for more than eight months. A complaint was lodged by plaintiff on 30th May 2022. In these circumstances, the Court passed interim orders on 3rd June 2022, restraining defendants and all those acting for and on their behalf from interfering in any manner in the peaceful and settled possession of plaintiff over the suit land. The matter was thereafter, fixed for final disposal by order dated 24th September 2024, in view of the unequivocal admission of the sale deed dated 27th October 2006, by defendant No.1. Written submissions were filed and arguments were heard.
Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff
4. Counsel for plaintiff drew attention to the registered sale deed dated 27th October 2006, duly executed by defendant No.1, and witnessed by defendant No.2 (the son of defendant No.1). The sale deed recorded that the full consideration of Rs.14,75,000/- was paid by plaintiff by way of cheque to defendant No.1 and the physical, vacant possession of the suit property had been transferred. Plaintiff, therefore, remained in continuous possession and the sale deed was never challenged by defendant No.1, till the counter claim was filed in the suit on 08th February 2024.
5. Counsel for plaintiff asserted that mutation application was filed, notice was issued by the Tehsildar and an endorsement was made by defendant No.1 on the said notice, stating that he had sold the suit property and that the money of the sale of land had been received. The mutation order was passed by the Tehsildar on 10th June 2014 stating that no objection had come on record, therefore, the mutation was accepted.
6. The objections filed by defendant No.1 on 12th June 2014 recorded the admission of defendant No.1, that he had agreed and sold the suit property. The said objections are as under:
7. Plaintiff's counsel submits that firstly, in para 6 of the written statement, there is an admission by defendants that the sale deed was executed, even though defendants state, that the expenses of transfer of the remaining land in favour of Smt. Bela Devi (wife of defendant No.1) towards stamp duty and registration would be borne by plaintif
