Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Daljeet Singh, S/o. Late Sh. Raghubir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Jai Kishan, S/o Late Sh. Daya Nand - Respondent
RSA 202 of 2024, CM APPL. 70406-70407 of 2024 & 70409 of 2024
Decided On : 01-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sahil Rao.
For the Respondent: Mr. Naveen Kumar Yadav.

In disputes concerning vacant agricultural land, possession is deemed to follow ownership as recorded in revenue documents. Where the recorded owner demonstrates title and consistent revenue records, they are entitled to seek permanent injunctive relief against encroachers to protect peaceful possession.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLII and Section 100 - Agricultural land - Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction - Appellant contended the suit was barred by jurisdictional provisions of revenue authorities and argued that the plaintiffs were out of possession - When property is vacant, possession typically follows title - Revenue records of ownership and cultivation constitute primary evidence - Appellate findings of fact regarding possession are not subject to review in a second appeal absent a finding of perversity. (Paras 1, 37, 44-46)

(B) Injunction - Suit for injunction to protect possession - Recorded owner is entitled to protect current peaceful possession through injunctive relief - The absence of a delineated access path does not negate the possessory rights of the registered landholder. (Paras 41-43)

Facts of the case:
The owners of an agricultural plot initiated a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against adjoining landowners, alleging illegal encroachment and the destruction of boundary markers. The trial court decreed the suit for permanent injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were the recorded owners and in peaceful possession, while dismissing the claim for mandatory injunction. The appellate court affirmed these findings. The defendants appealed, asserting that the plaintiffs failed to prove current physical possession and that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities.

Findings of Court:
Revenue records and impartial documentation confirmed the plaintiffs as the recorded owners and cultivators of the land. The court established that for vacant parcels of land, possession follows title. Evidence provided by the defendants regarding their own possession was deemed inconsistent and unreliable. The court determined that the absence of a designated access passage did not preclude the owners from exercising possession over the property.

Issues: Whether the civil suit was barred by the specific jurisdictional legislation governing land disputes and whether the evidence sufficiently established the plaintiffs' physical possession for the purposes of obtaining permanent injunctive relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Possession of vacant agricultural land is legally associated with the recorded title in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Findings of fact by subordinate courts regarding possession, when supported by credible revenue and documentary evidence, are sufficient to grant injunctive relief and preclude unauthorized interference by title-less claimants.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview and procedural history of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 36)
2. arguments concerning land title, possessory status, and jurisdictional bars. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
3. evidence of recorded ownership and implied possessory rights in land. (Para 15 , 16 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
4. failure to prove existence of demolished structures precludes mandatory injunction. (Para 17)
5. final confirmation of factual findings and dismissal of meritless appeal. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Order XLII read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been filed against the judgment dated 10.07.2024 whereby the learned District Judge has upheld the judgment dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby the Suit of the Plaintiffs/Respondents seeking to restrain the Defendants/Appellants from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the Suit Property was allowed, while the relief of Mandatory Injunction seeking directions for raising the boundary wall alongside the suit land of the Plaintiffs, was dismissed.

2. The Plaintiffs/Respondents had filed a Civil Suit bearing CS No. 53489/16 (Old No. 360/12) for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction.

3. The facts in brief, are that the Plaintiffs are the owners, actual cultivators and in physical possession of agricultural ancestral land bearing Khasra No. 15/22/1 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Shahabad, Daulatpur, Delhi, admeasuring 1 Bigha 2 Biswas (hereinafter referred to as the „Suit Property‟). The Defendants are the owners of land adjoining the Suit Property on both sides, bearing Khasra Nos. 15/21/2 (1-9) and 15/22/2 (3-14), admeasuring 3 Bighas 5 Biswas, situated in Village Shahabad, Daulatpur, Delhi.

4. On 20.05.2012, Plaintiff No. 1, Jai Kishan, visited the Suit Property and was shocked to find that the boundary pillars on all sides of the Suit Property had been demolished and that the Suit Property of the Plaintiffs had been merged with the adjoining land of the Defendants. It was claimed that the Defendants attempted to encroach upon and grab the Suit Property of the Plaintiffs by raising a boundary wall on one side thereof; however, the said attempt was thwarted due to the intervention of the local villagers and the protest lodged by the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the construction of the boundary wall was stopped.

5. The Plaintiffs made written complaints dated 26.05.2012, 29.05.2012 and 29.07.2012 to the local Police, but no action was taken thereon. It was further averred that the concerned SDM had, vide Order dated 03.05.1999, directed demarcation of the Suit Property. The Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that they had a reasonable apprehension that the Defendants would dispossess them from the Suit Property by illegally taking possession thereof and merging it with their own land.

6. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs sought a decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from illegally interfering with or taking possession of the Suit Property, and a decree of Mandatory Injunction for directing the Defendants to restore the demolished boundary pillars to their original position.

7. The Defendants, in their Written Statement, asserted that the adjoining lands on either side of the Suit Property, bearing Khasra Nos. 15/21/2 (1-9) and 15/22/2 (3-14), belong to them and their brother, Surjeet Singh, and that they are the recorded Bhumidars, in possession thereof. It was further stated that the Suit Property of the Plaintiff, is situated between the aforesaid two Khasra numbers of the Defendants and that, ever since the consolidation proceedings conducted in the year 1975-76, the land has remained in their possession.

8. It was claimed that, under the garb of the present Suit, the Plaintiffs intend to take possession of the Suit Property. How

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.Daljeet Singh, S/o. Late Sh. Raghubir Singh - AppellantVersusJai Kishan, S/o Late Sh. Daya Nand - RespondentRSA 202 of 2024, CM APPL. 70406-70407 of 2024 & 70409 of 2024Decided On : 01-06-2026

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Daljeet Singh, S/o. Late Sh. Raghubir Singh - Appellant
Versus
Jai Kishan, S/o Late Sh. Daya Nand - Respondent
RSA 202 of 2024, CM APPL. 70406-70407 of 2024 & 70409 of 2024
Decided On : 01-06-2026