SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
KUSUM – Appellant
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR MUNNA – Respondent
FAO-2/2025



##PAGE1##

$~27

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 19.12.2025

+ FAO 2/2025 and CM APPL. 303/2025

KUSUM .....Appellant

Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra and Ms. Nidhi

Garg, Advocates.

versus

ASHOK KUMAR MUNNA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Kshitij Mathur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) has been filed by the plaintiff in

DJ 12/2021 on the file of the Court of Additional District Judge-01

(West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi aggrieved by the order dated

04.03.2024, by which three applications filed by the respondent/

defendant, one for review of the order dated 05.04.2022 by which

the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 was allowed; two

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:KOMAL FAO 2/2025 Page 1

DHAWAN

Signing Date:22.12.2025

14:33:16

##PAGE2##

for modifying the order 05.04.2022 and an application under

section 151 CPC was allowed.

2. In this appeal, unless otherwise specified, the parties will

be referred to as described in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for declaration,

possession and injunction alleging thus:- The defendant is the

maternal uncle of the plaintiff. The suit property bearing no. F-28,

Karam Pura, Delhi measuring 22 Sq. yards was purchased by the

plaintiff’s mother, namely, Kanta Devi from Luddar, s/o Prabhu

Dayal, R/o - F-28, Karam Pura, New Delhi through General Power

of Attorney dated 12.06.1985. The mother of the plaintiff died on

09.05.2011 leaving behind her husband Om Prakash and her

daughter, the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff’s father passed away on

02.12.2016 leaving behind the plaintiff as the sole legal heir of

Kanta Devi. Thus, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit

property.

3.1. The plaintiff’s mother sometime in the year 2010, let out

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:KOMAL FAO 2/2025 Page 2

DHAWAN

Signing Date:22.12.2025

14:33:16

##PAGE3##

one room and a kitchen on the first floor of the aforesaid property

to one tenant for a monthly rent of ₹ 3,000/-. The rent was being

collected by the plaintiff’s mother till her death in April, 2011.

After the demise of the plaintiff’s mother, the rent from May, 2011

was being collected by the defendant claiming to be the owner of

the first floor of the building bearing no. F-28, Karampura, Delhi.

3.2 There are several criminal cases pending against the

defendant in the various courts situated at Delhi. The defendant, a

man of ill-repute is in the habit of illegally grabbing the property

of poor people with the assistance of the local police officials. The

plaintiff had lodged several complaints against the defendant. The

defendant keeps threatening the tenant of the plaintiff residing in

the second floor of the suit property, namely, F-28, Karampura,

Delhi claiming to be the owner of the suit property.

3.3 The cause of action is alleged to have arisen in the year

2011 when it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the

defendant was illegally receiving rent from the tenants of the

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:KOMAL FAO 2/2025 Page 3

DHAWAN

Signing Date:22.12.2025

14:33:16

##PAGE4##

plaintiff. The cause of action is also stated to have arisen on

13.12.2020, when the plaintiff lodged a police complaint against

the defendant as he was threatening to evict the tenants of the

plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

4. The respondent/defendant entered appearance and filed

written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. It was

contended that the defendant has been in possession of the

property for more than 12 years and hence, the suit was barred by

limitation. The defendant is the absolute owner of the property and

hence, it was contended that the plaintiff, who is relying on false

and fabricated documents is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

5. The trial court after hearing both sides as per order dated

04.03.2024 allowed the application by which the defendant and his

agents were restrained from creating any third party interest in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top