RSA 118/2022

Page 1 of 17

$~65(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RSA

118/2022

&

CM

APPL.42446/2022,

CM

APPL.42447/2022

SALEEM & ORS.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr.Rakesh Kumar Dudeja and

Mr.Madan Lal Kalkal, Advs.

versus

WAHID MALIK

..... Respondent

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT(O R A L)

%

26.09.2022

1.

Suit 488/2017 was instituted by the respondent Wahid Malik

against the appellants Saleem and others. The respondent, as plaintiff,

claimed to have purchased a property admeasuring 90 sq. yds. located

in Khasra No. 67-68, Gali No. 27, Jafrabad, Delhi-110053 (“the suit

property”) for a consideration of ₹ 6 lakhs from its previous owner,

under a general power of attorney (GPA), agreement to sell, receipt,

Will and affidavit duly notarized by the notary public in the presence

of witnesses. The plaint asserted that the respondent was in peaceful

possession of the suit property and was using the suit property as a

godown.

2.

The plaint alleged that, on 28^th April 2017, the petitioners-

defendants broke the locks on the suit property and effected forcible

ingress. This misfeasance, it was alleged, was repeated by the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004035

RSA 118/2022

Page 2 of 17

petitioners on 1^st May 2017. The plaint also alleged that the

petitioners had extended verbal threats to the respondent, resulting in

the respondent having to lodge a written complaint at PS Jafrabad on

4^th May 2017. As no action was taken by the police authorities, the

respondent claimed to have been constrained to approach the learned

Trial Court. The respondent prayed for a decree of permanent

injunction in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners,

restraining the petitioners from trespassing on the suit property or

breaking the locks thereon and from dispossessing the respondent

from the suit property without following due process of law.

3.

The petitioners filed a written statement, by way of response to

the aforesaid suit of the respondent. The written statement alleged that

the respondent was neither the owner, nor in possession, of the suit

property. The assertion of the respondent, that he had purchased the

suit property from the previous owner under GPA, agreement to sell,

Will and receipt dated 14^th August 2003 was also denied in para 2 of

the written statement, which reads thus:

“2.

That the contents of para 2 of the plaint are wrong and

hence denied. It is wrong and denied that on 14.08.2003 the

plaintiff has purchased the suit property admeasuring 90

sq.yds. vide Khasra no. 67-68,bearing no.709, Gali no. 27,

Jafrabad, Delhi-53 fora consideration amount of Rs.

6,00,000/-

from

its

previous

owner

namely

Sh.

Mohammeddeen son of Sh. Bundu by virtue of GPA,

Agreement to sell, Receipt, Will and Affidavit which is duly

notarized by notary public in the presence of witnesses. It is

submitted here that the photocopy of the title documents

attached with the plaint are forged and fabricated documents

by the plaintiff and because of the same reason the said

documents have no authenticity in the eye of law. It is also

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004035

RSA 118/2022

Page 3 of 17

submitted here that on the basis of the said documents the

plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. Even

the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and thus,

the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground

alone. The site plan filed by the plaintiff is also not correct.

The plaintiff should be put to the strict proof of the allegations

made in the para under reply.”

4.

The petitioners further claimed that the suit property was their

ancestral property and consequently, claimed titular rights in respect

thereof, in para 6 to 8 of the written statement. Needless to say, all

al