* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 27^th November, 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 21st January, 2026 + CS(OS) 626/2023 with I.A. 19811/2023, I.A. 20465/2025, I.A. 20695/2025 & I.A. 26438/2025 MANMOHAN KUMAR .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Arun Dhiman, Advocate.

versus NEELAM KHURANA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr. Pulkit, Advocates for D-3.

Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, Standing Counsel (DJB) with Ms. Anju Shree Nair, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 19811/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC) & I.A.

20465/2025 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC

1. By way of the present judgment, I shall dispose of I.A. 19811/2023 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) on behalf of the plaintiff and I.A. 20465/2025 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC on behalf of the defendant no.3.

2. The present suit has been filed inter alia seeking the following reliefs:

a. declaration that the sale deed dated 19^th September 1986 and other sale documents executed by the defendants no.1 to 4 are void, and b. permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants no.1 to 4 from acting upon the aforesaid sale deed and other documents.

CASE SETUP IN THE PLAINT

3. Brief facts stated in the plaint, which are relevant for deciding the present applications, are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff’s father, Late Shri Madan Gopal Madhok, was the registered owner of the property bearing no. J-6/50, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi admeasuring 160 square yards (hereinafter ‘suit property’) through sale deed dated 21^st August 1964.

3.2. The plaintiff is the only son of his parents and was staying at the suit property with his parents.

3.3. The plaintiff’s father died intestate on 14^th July 1981. Subsequently, in April 1983, one Mr. Chander Mohan Nayyar moved to the first floor of the suit property as a tenant.

3.4. In January 1986, the plaintiff and his wife were compelled to leave the suit property and move to a rented accommodation at F-62, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi as the aforesaid tenant caused differences between the plaintiff’s mother and his wife.

3.5. The plaintiff’s mother passed away in March 1987. Being the only legal heir of his deceased parents, the plaintiff got the possession of the suit property.

3.6. In November 1987, the aforesaid tenant, Mr. Chander Mohan Nayyar, also passed away.

3.7. The plaintiff thereafter locked the suit property as the same was in poor condition and the plaintiff was not in a financial condition to repair the same.

However, he used to visit the suit property at regular intervals.

3.8. In January 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff decided to sell the suit property due to financial crunch. However, he came to know about the sale deed dated 19^th September 1986 qua the suit property executed by the plaintiff’s mother, Late Smt. Radha Rani, in favour of Late Mr. Chander Mohan Nayyar (hereinafter ‘impugned sale deed’) when he filed an application for obtaining certified copy of the ownership documents of the suit property.

3.9. The suit property has been in possession of the plaintiff since his mother’s demise. In March 2021, when the plaintiff visited the suit property, he noticed an electricity meter outside the suit property which, as informed by the defendant no.8, was installed in the name of the defendant no.1.

3.10. The water connection at the suit property continues to be in the name of the plaintiff’s father.

3.11. The plaintiff, on 28^th July 2022, again visited the suit property and observed renovation work being carried out in the suit property by certain trespassers. Upon enquiry, the defendant no.2 informed the plaintiff that a third-party had sold a portion of the suit property to his wife, the defendant no.1.

3.12. The plaintiff registered a police complaint against the defendants no.1 and 2 on 30^th July 2022. Thereafter, there was no interference by the defendants no