Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3355
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 25th April, 2025 Date of decision: 04th July, 2025 + CS(OS) 82/2025 & I.A. 3481/2025 AMIT JAIN & ORS. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Kunal Tandon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Ms. Natasha and Mr. Pawan Kant Singh, Advocates versus ANILA JAIN & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. O. P. Aggarwal, Advocate for D-
1 to D-3 %
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Ownership of immovable property cannot be established through unregistered documents; a suit for declaration must include a claim for specific performance to be valid.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Plaintiffs seeking declaration of ownership and injunction regarding a property based on a photocopy of unregistered documents - Court finds no cause of action as the documents do not confer ownership - Court holds that a suit for declaration cannot be maintained without seeking specific performance for title transfer properties. (Paras 12, 19, 22)
(B) The court applies principles of law asserting that no ownership rights can be established through unregistered documents, reaffirming that a registered sale deed is mandatory for confirmation of title - Relying on established legal precedents, including those from the Supreme Court, the court regards self-serving assertions of ownership as legally insufficient. (Paras 11.1, 11.3, 12.0)
(C) The plaint was found to include contradictions and abandonments of previous agreements and was ultimately rejected for failing to disclose an actionable claim under the law. (Paras 10, 22)
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL)
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking the following reliefs: (i) declaration of joint title/ownership for the Plot No. 56, Block No. Y, Okhla Industrial Area, admeasuring 907.5 Sq. Yards, Delhi –110020 (‘suit property’) in their favour and against the Defendants; (ii) permanent injunction against the Defendants from asserting any rights in the suit property, from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs and from illegally dispossessing the Plaintiffs.
2. The Plaintiffs and Defendants are family members being descendants of common ancestor i.e., Late Sh. Mandir Das Jain, who had five (5) sons and four (4) daughters. Late Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain was the husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain was the husband of Plaintiff No.2 and father of Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5. Late Sh. Ajay Jain was father of Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.4., he was married to Late Smt. Promila Jain.
3. Before the filing of the present suit Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain passed away on 15.05.2021, Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain passed away on 01.10.1987, Sh. Ajay Jain passed away on 15.11.2020 and Smt. Promila Jain passed away on 23.03.2010.
4. This Court considered it fit to examine the plaint on the basis of a demurer and assess the respective contentions of the parties, particularly since it was prima facie apparent to this Court that there was no cause of action on the basis of which the suit was filed and infact the same is barred by law. Post the detailed assessment of the case at hand given below, this Court indeed concluded that there was no cause of action in favour of the Plaintiffs and the plaint is barred by law. Therefore, the present plaint ought to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). Admittedly no application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed by the Defendants, but this Court is empowered to resort to Order VII Rule 11 CPC on its own accord and dismiss the plaint if it fails to disclose any cause of action or if the same is barred. (Re: Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028.]
Pleadings in the plaint
5. As per the averments in the plaint, the suit property was allotted to Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain in the year 1974 by Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) and the possession of the suit property was handed over to Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain on 15.10.1974, with a No-Objection Certificate from DDA. It is stated that a perpetual lease deed dated 21.02.1979 qua the suit property was executed in favour of Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain by the President of India.
5.1. Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain is stated to have taken loan for construction of the suit property from Vaish Cooperative Bank.
5.2. It is stated that through an oral arrangement it was decided between Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain, Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain and Sh. Ajay Jain, that investments qua construction of the suit property would be done by Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain and Sh. Ajay Jain. It is stated that the loan availed by Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain for construction of the suit property from Vaish Cooperative Bank was repaid by Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain and Sh. Ajay Jain by 1984, as per the said oral arrangement.
5.3. Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain sold the suit property to Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain and Sh. Ajay Jain vide unregistered Agreement to Sell (‘ATS/1982 ATS’), Affidavit, Special Power of Attorney (‘SPA’), Will, all dated 27.07.1982 and vide a registered Receipt dated 27.07.1982 (‘Customary Documents/Customary Sale Documents’), for a total sale consideration of Rs. 42,000/-, [Para 15 of the Plaint.]. Later in the plaint it is stated that Sh. Jinender Kumar Jain had actually agreed for sale of the suit property in favour of Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain and Sh. Ajay Jain for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-, which was to be paid in four (4) installments and the amount of Rs. 42,000/- paid at the time of execution of customar
