Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:3533

FAO 124/2023

Page 1 of 4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ FAO 124/2023, CM APPL. 25707/2023, CM APPL. 25708/2023, CM

APPL. 25709/2023

Date of Decision: 17.05.2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

KISHAN CHAND

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Alok Tripathi, Advocate.

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR...... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ashim Vachher, Standing

Counsel for DDA.

Mohd. Irsad, ASC, GNCTD with

Ms. Nasreen and Mr. K.R. Mishra,

Advocates for respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, has

assailed the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by Additional District Judge-

04, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS No. 246/2021 vide

which his application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC came to be

dismissed.

Digitally Signed

By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI

Signing Date:22.05.2023

14:31:33

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:3533

FAO 124/2023

Page 2 of 4

2. The appellant filed the underlying suit seeking reliefs of declaration,

possession and permanent injunction against respondent No.1. Alongwith

the suit, the appellant also filed an application seeking restraint on

respondent No.1 from creating any third-party interest as well as hand over

the possession of the property to the appellant till the disposal of the suit.

3. In the suit, the appellant claimed that the suit property was initially

allotted by DDA/respondent No.1 to one Sewa Ram vide allotment letter

No. F1(6)86/TP MIG dated 30.04.1986 who received the possession on

25.10.1986. Sewa Ram subsequently sold the suit property to one Istekhar

Ali on 10.05.1988 by executing a GPA. It was claimed that Istekhar Ali, in

turn, sold the suit property to the appellant on 20.06.1995 also on the basis

of a GPA. It was thus claimed that the appellant became the absolute

owner and in possession of the suit property however, since the property

was in uninhabitable condition, he started renovating the same in the year

2020. It was further claimed that the electricity connection as well as house

tax receipts are regularly paid by the appellant since the year 2020.

4. Mr. Alok Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the Trial Court without appreciating the aforesaid facts arbitrarily rejected

the captioned application.

5. Mr. Ashim Vachher, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the

other hand, has vehemently opposed the above submissions made on

behalf of the appellant. While referring to the written statement filed

before the Trial Court, a copy of which has been placed on the record,

learned counsel submitted that the suit property was never allotted to

anyone including any Sewa Ram. He further submitted that entire chain

of documents relied upon by the appellant is based on the initial allotment

letter allegedly issued to Sewa Ram. The said allotment letter is nothing

Digitally Signed

By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI

Signing Date:22.05.2023

14:31:33

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:3533

FAO 124/2023

Page 3 of 4

but a forged document as till date, the possession of the suit property is

with the DDA. It was further stated that the suit property has been

reclaimed from the appellant on 23.06.2021. Lastly, it was submitted that

granting the alternate relief would amount to grant of final relief prayed in

the suit at the interim stage.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

entire material placed on record.

7. The entire case of the appellant is based on the alleged allotment

letter dated 30.04.1986. DDA has categorically stated that the said

allotment letter is a forged document and the subsequent chain of

documents, relied upon by the appellant are nothing but GPAs. It has also

been categorically stated that at no point of time any allotment/conveyance

deed was executed in favour of