A simpliciter suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff is out of possession and the title to the property is in dispute; in such cases, the plaintiff must seek a declaration of title and recovery of possession.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.08.2025 of learned JSDCC/ASCJ/Guardian Judge-01, Delhi in RCA SCJ No.340/2016, whereby the Judgment of Dismissal of Suit for Permanent Injunction dated 01.10.2012 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi, has been set aside and the Suit has been decreed.

2. The brief facts are that a Suit for Permanent Injunction was filed by Balbir Singh, Respondent in the year 1999 wherein he alleged that he had purchased the Plot of land No.22 ad-measuring 261 sq. yds forming part of Khasra No.98/1/1, Swaran Park Extn., village Mundka, from Shri Shyam Lal on 21.12.1988 for a valuable consideration of Rs.30,000/-, on execution of Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Receipt, etc. who was the owner and in possession of the Suit property. Shri Shyam Lal in turn, had purchased the Plot from Ram Kishan on 26.05.1998 who in turn had purchased it from Satish Kumar and Krishan Kumar on 18.12.1986. Each of the vendors had executed the conventional documents i.e., Agreement to Sell, GPA, etc. in favor of the subsequent purchaser. Satish Kumar and Krishan Kumar were the actual owners/Bhumidars of the said Khasras. They had sold the other portions of the Khasra to other persons.

3. Shri Shyam Lal had handed over the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the Plot in the year 1999 and since then the Plaintiff has been in physical possession of the property. He asserted that at the time of purchase, there was a boundary wall on two sides of the adjoining plot owners and on the other two sides, the Plaintiff had raised the boundary wall.

4. Balbir Singh, the plaintiff therefore, asserted that having purchased the property from Shri Shyam Lal on execution of valid documents of Title, he acquired the ownership and Defendants had no right, title, or interest in the Suit property. However, Defendant No.1, who is a muscle man and Property Dealer by profession and a land grabber who is in the habit of taking forcible possession of plots and land of others, had made an endeavor to forcibly take the possession of the Suit plot.

5. The Plaintiff, Balbir Singh went to the Suit Plot on 27.07.1999 and was shocked to see that Defendant No.1 had removed the kachha boundary wall of the Plot and was attempting to occupy the Plot. The Plaintiff protested and did not let him do so. He approached the Local Police PS Nangloi, but the Police failed to take any action. He then gave a Complaint in writing on 02.09.1999 to SHO and another Complaint to the DCP on 13.09.1999, though to no avail. The Plaintiff claimed that the Local Police, in league with the high-ups in the Police, did not take any action on his Complaints.

6. On 16.09.1999 while the Plaintiff was present on his Plot in the evening, Defendant No.1 Shri Ramesh Parkash/Appellant accompanied by Defendant No.2 Shri Satbir Singh again came to the Plot and claimed to be the owner of the same, having purchased the same from Defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 threatened to take forcible possession of the Suit property. The Plaintiff, thus, filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendant from taking forcible possession of the Suit prope