Sukant Vaid vs Smt. Nirmla Singh
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
% Reserved on: 1 September, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 5 November, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 5 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010303092026
+ RFA 662/2026 & CM APPL. 44187-44189/2026
SH. SUKANT VAID,
S/O Late Sh. Vasudev Vaid,
R/O 380, Part-II & Part-IV,
nd
2 Floor, Bagh Kare Khan,
Kishan Ganj,
Delhi-110007 .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Niraj Chaudhry and Ms. Nisha
Advs.
versus
SMT. NIRMALA SINGH,
W/o Sh. Akhilesh Kumar,
R/o H.No.380, Part-IV,
Bagh Kare Khan,
Kishan Ganj,
Delhi -110007 ....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by the
Defendant/Appellant, Sukant Vaid, against the Judgment and Decree dated
31.01.2026, whereby the learned District Judge decreed the Suit for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 1 of 16
Possession filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent, Smt. Nirmala Singh, and
directed the Defendant/Appellant to hand over vacant and physical
possession of the Second Floor of the Suit Property by removing the locks
from the staircase and one room situated on the Second Floor. The
Defendant was also restrained from creating third-party rights in the Second
Floor of the Suit Property.
2. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Smt. Nirmala Singh, had filed Civil Suit
No. 284/2021 seeking possession of property bearing No. 380, Part-IV,
Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit
Property”) , along with a decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the
Defendant/Appellant, Sukant Vaid, from creating third-party rights therein.
3. The facts as narrated in the Plaint are that the Suit Property was
originally owned by Smt. Motia Devi, who had executed a Will in favour of
her daughter-in-law, Smt. Kamlesh Vaid, who in turn, sold the Suit Property
to Smt. Chanchal Vaid vide Registered Sale Deed dated 27.12.1991.
4. It was further stated that Smt. Chanchal Vaid expired on 14.06.1999,
leaving behind her husband Sukhdev Vaid, one son Vipul Vaid, and two
daughters Bindu Bajaj and Vipra Kohli. Her three children executed a
Relinquishment Deed dated 25.10.2001 in favour of their father, Sukhdev
Vaid, who thereby became the absolute owner of the Suit Property and
thereafter sold the same to the Plaintiff/Respondent vide Registered Sale
Deed dated 15.02.2008.
5. It was further stated that, on 24.02.2008, Sukhdev Vaid telephonically
informed the Plaintiff that the Defendant, who was his nephew, had locked
the staircase leading to the Second Floor from inside and had also put his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 2 of 16
locks on a room situated on the Second Floor, after gaining access thereto
through the roof of the neighbouring property.
6. The Plaintiff stated that she made a PCR call, pursuant to which the
police officials from Police Station Sarai Rohilla took the Defendant, his
father and the Plaintiff to the Police Station, where their statements were
recorded. However, no action was taken. Thereafter, the Plaintiff submitted
a written complaint dated 09.03.2008, which was recorded vide DD No. 19,
in the same Police Station.
7. It was further stated that the Defendant and his father, Late Sh.
Vasudev Vaid, had instituted Civil Suit for Declaration and Injunction in the
year 2008, which was dismissed on account of technical defects.
8. Subsequently, Civil Suit No. 417/ 2009, renumbered as Civil Suit No.
616958/2016, was filed by the Defendant and his father against Sukhdev
Vaid, Vipul Vaid, and the Plaintiff, seeking a declaration that the Sale Deed
dated 15.02.2008 was null and void on the ground that Sukhdev Vaid had no
right, title, and interest in the Suit Property and, therefore, had no authority
to execute the same. They also claimed ownership in the suit property on the
ground that it was an ancestral property. This Suit was contested by the
Plaintiff, Sukhdev Vaid, and his son, Vipul Vaid, and was dismissed vide
Judgment dated 30.01.2020 by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi.
9. The Plaintiff asserted that, by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed dated
15.02.2008, she was the absolute owner of the Suit Property, and therefore
the Defendant had no right, title or interest therein. She further averred that
the Plaintiff had requested the Defendant on 25.02.2021 to hand over vacant
and physical possession of the Second Floor by removing his locks from the
staircase and the room situated thereon, but he refused to do so.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 3 of 16
10. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff instituted the present Suit seeking
recovery of possession of the Second Floor of the Suit Property and a
decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant from creating
third-party therein.
11. The Defendant, in his Written Statement , raised the preliminary
objections that the present Suit was an abuse of the process of the Court, as
material facts had been concealed or misrepresented and the Plaint contained
false and frivolous allegations. It was further contended that the Plaintiff had
no locus standi to institute the Suit and that the same was liable to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He also contended that the
Plaintiff had not paid the requisite court fees and that the Suit was barred
under Order II Rule 2 CPC, as the Plaintiff had claimed the same relief in
earlier proceedings.
12. On merits , it was admitted that the suit property had been purchased
by Smt. Motia Devi vide a Sale Deed and that she died on 18.08.1975,
leaving behind her four sons, namely, Arjundev Vaid, Baldev Vaid,
Vasudev Vaid and Sukhdev Vaid. He claimed that, upon her death, the four
sons became the joint owners of the Suit Property and that he, being the son
of Late Vasudev Vaid and grandson of Smt. Motia Devi, was also entitled to
a share in the suit property.
13. It was further claimed that the Ground Floor and First Floor were in
the possession of Sukhdev Vaid, whereas the Second Floor, along with the
staircase leading from the Ground Floor to the Second Floor, was in his
possession. He further asserted that the staircase pertained to Old Plot No.
163, while the Second Floor pertained to the Old Plot No. 164.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 4 of 16
14. It was stated that in January 2008, the Defendant came to know that
Sukhdev Vaid was attempting to sell the undivided joint property without
the consent of the Defendant and his father. Hence, a written Complaint
dated 16.01.2008 was made to the SHO, Police Station Sarai Rohilla;
however, no action was taken. Thereafter, he filed Civil Suit No. 63/2008
against Sukhdev Vaid seeking a decree of Permanent Injunction to restrain
him from creating third-party rights in the suit property, and notice in the
said Suit was served upon him on 25.01.2008.
15. The Defendant further alleged that, on 24.02.2008, Sukhdev Vaid, the
Plaintiff, and their family members, along with some unknown associates,
attempted to remove his household goods from the second floor. He claimed
that he called the PCR, following which the Police reached the spot and
stopped the removal of his belongings. It was further stated that the
statements of the Plaintiff and Sukhdev Vaid were recorded by the police,
from which he learnt of the alleged fraud in respect of the Suit Property. The
Defendant claimed that his family and Sukhdev Vaid were equal
shareholders in the Suit Property.
16. The Defendant denied that Smt. Motia Devi had executed any Will in
favour of Smt. Kamlesh Vaid and asserted that no such Will had ever been
executed. He alleged that Sh. Sukhdev Vaid and the Plaintiff had misled him
and his family members regarding the Will and the title to the Suit Property.
He also relied upon a statement allegedly made by Sh. Sukhdev Vaid in
earlier proceedings that he could not be compelled to produce the Will since
the Defendant had denied being in possession of it.
17. The Defendant disputed the statements attributed to the Plaintiff and
Sukhdev Vaid before the police on 24.02.2008, including the alleged
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 5 of 16
statement that the property had been sold to the Plaintiff and possession had
been handed over to her on 13.01.2008. He asserted that the Second Floor
continued to remain in his possession. He also relied upon the complaint
dated 09.03.2008 made by the Plaintiff's husband, Sh. Akhilesh Kumar,
contending that it disclosed an attempt by him and Sh. Sukhdev Vaid to
break open the locks by accessing the property through the roof of the
adjoining house.
18. The Defendant further contended that Sukhdev Vaid had transferred
only the Ground Floor and First Floor to the Plaintiff and that the Sale Deed
dated 15.02.2008 was forged and fabricated. He asserted that the Sale Deed
did not convey any right in respect of the Second Floor or the staircase and
reiterated that he continued to have an undivided share in the Suit Property.
19. The Plaintiff in the Replication , denied the averments made in the
Written Statement and reiterated the case set out in the Plaint.
20. The Issues were framed on 29.07.2022, which are as under:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession
as, prayed for? OPP
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
iii. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the
present form? OPD
iv. Relief.
21. In support of her case, the Plaintiff examined herself as PW-1.
Nirmala Singh, vide Affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, and reiterated the averments
contained in the Plaint. She proved the following documents:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 6 of 16
S. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Site Plan Ex.PW-1/1
2. Copy of Sale Deed Ex.PW-1/2
3. Copy of police complaint dated
09.03.2008
Ex.PW-1/3
4. Copy of Judgment and decree
dated 30.01.2020
Ex.PW-1/4
22. DW-1, Sukant Vaid , the Defendant, deposed on similar lines as his
averments made in the Written Statement. He proved the following
documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Sale Deed in favour of Late Motia Devi Mark A
2. Death Certificate Mark B
3. Written complaint dated 16.01.2008
addressed to S.H.O. P.S. Sarai Rohilla, Delhi
Mark C
4. Order dated 19.02.2008 in a Civil Suit No.
63/08
Mark D
5. DD Entry Mark E
6. Complaint dated 09.03.2008 filed by the
husband of plaintiff
Mark F
(Colly)
7. Complaint dated 24.02.2008 to PCR Mark G
(colly)
8. Order dated 30.11.2011 Mark H
9. Sale Deed dated 15.02.2008 Ex.PW-1/2
10. Statements of Mohan, Laxmi and Sanjay Mark I (colly)
11. Plaint filed in Civil Suit No. 417/2009 Mark J
12. Judgment dated 30.01.2020 in earlier suit Ex.PW-1/4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 7 of 16
13. Sale Deed in relation to Old Plot No. 163 and
Second Floor of the suit property to Old Plot
No.164
Ex.DW-1/1
and Ex.DW-
1/2
23. DW-2, Sh. Pankaj Vashisth , Ahlmad in the Court of the learned
ADJ, produced the record of Civil Suit No. 616958/2016, titled “ Vasudev
Vaid and Others v. Sukhdev Vaid and Others” and identified the order sheet
dated 30.11.2011 in Civil Suit No. 81/2011 (Mark H), DD Entry dated
24.02.2008 (Mark G), and the Written Statement filed by the Plaintiff in
Civil Suit No. 417/2009 as Ex.DW-1/2.
24. DW-3, Sh. Amit Kumar Sahrawat , Judicial Assistant, Record Room
(Sessions), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, produced the record relating to
Criminal Revision No. 40/2015 and deposed that the same had been weeded
out. He proved the report dated 29.08.2025 as Ex.DW-3/1 (Colly).
25. DW-4, Sh. Sandeep Kumar , Assistant Ahlmad in the Court of the
learned District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, produced the record of Civil Suit
No. 616958/2016 and the documents forming part thereof, including the
Plaint, Written Statement and evidence of the parties, which were exhibited
as Ex.DW-4/1 (Colly) to Ex . DW-4/5.
26. The learned District Judge, on consideration of the evidence led by
the parties, particularly the admissions made by the Defendant in his cross-
examination, held that the Plaintiff's case regarding the chain of title from
Smt. Motia Devi to Smt. Kamlesh Vaid, thereafter to Smt. Chanchal Vaid,
and subsequently to Sh. Sukhdev Vaid through the Relinquishment Deed
dated 25.10.2001, stood established.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 8 of 16
27. It was further held that Sh. Sukhdev Vaid had transferred the Suit
Property to the Plaintiff, Smt. Nirmala Singh, vide Registered Sale Deed
dated 15.02.2008.
28. The learned District Judge accordingly held that the Plaintiff was
the registered owner of the Suit Property and was entitled to a decree of
possession. Consequently, the Suit for Possession and Permanent
Injunction was decreed vide Judgment dated 31.01.2026.
29. Aggrieved, the Defendant/Appellant has filed the present First
Regular Appeal under Section 96 CPC.
30. The grounds of challenge are that the learned Trial Court failed to
consider the written submissions and judgments relied upon by the
Appellant and passed the impugned Judgment without properly appreciating
the material facts and evidence on record. It is contended that the Plaintiff
failed to discharge the initial burden of proving her title to the Suit Property
and that the onus, therefore, never shifted to the Defendant. Further, the
impugned Judgment was passed in a hasty and biased manner, without a fair
exercise of judicial discretion.
31. The Appellant further challenges the chain of title relied upon by the
Plaintiff on the ground that Smt. Motia Devi had never executed any Will in
favour of Smt. Kamlesh Vaid and that the alleged Will was neither produced
nor proved. It is contended that Sukhdev Vaid had no authority to execute
the Sale Deed dated 15.02.2008 in respect of the alleged undivided property
without the consent of the other shareholders. The Appellant also relies upon
the Plaintiff's cross-examination dated 24.07.2018 in the earlier proceedings,
contending that she admitted that the Sale Deed in her favour was based on
forged and fabricated documents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 9 of 16
32. The Appellant further relies upon the police complaint dated
09.03.2008 made by the Plaintiff's husband, Sh. Akhilesh Kumar,
contending that it records an attempt by him and Sh. Sukhdev Vaid to break
open the locks of the Suit Property by accessing it through the roof of the
adjoining house.
33. He further contended that in Complaint Case No. 14.1/2014,
titled “ Smt. Nirmala Singh v. Sukhdev Vaid” , which was dismissed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 18.09.2014, and the subsequent
Criminal Revision No. 40/2015, in which, according to him, the learned
Sessions Court directed registration of an FIR. He further refers to W.P.
(Crl.) No. 2331/2015 filed by Sh. Sukhdev Vaid and others, which was
dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.07.2017 following the death of Sh.
Sukhdev Vaid during its pendency. Based on these proceedings, the
Appellant contends that the Plaintiff's title was defective and that Sh.
Sukhdev Vaid had no authority to execute the Sale Deed.
34. The Appellant further contends that the learned Trial Court erred in
directing him to hand over possession of the Second Floor, including the
staircase leading thereto. According to him, the staircase pertains to Old Plot
No. 163, whereas the Second Floor pertains to Old Plot No. 164. He asserts
that although the Registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2008 describes the
property as Municipal No. 18/380 (Old Plot Nos. 163 and 164), built on
freehold land measuring approximately 60 sq. yds., it does not specifically
mention the Second Floor or the staircase. On this basis, he contends that the
Sale Deed does not convey any right in respect of the portion for which
possession has been decreed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 10 of 16
35. It is also contended that the Site Plan filed with the Plaint does not
specify the measurements of the area and does not correspond with the area
described in the Sale Deed dated 15.02.2008.
36. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment be set
aside .
Submissions heard and record perused.
37. The Plaintiff had sought vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
property by asserting that she was its registered owner, having purchased the
same vide registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2008. Her case was that the suit
property originally belonged to Smt. Motia Devi, who had executed a Will
in favour of her daughter-in-law, Smt. Kamlesh Vaid. She, in turn, executed
a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.12.1991 in favour of Smt. Chanchal Vaid.
38. Upon the death of Smt. Chanchal Vaid on 14.06.1999, her husband,
Sh. Sukhdev Vaid, and three children, namely, Sh. Vipul Vaid, Ms. Bindu
Bajaj and Ms. Vipra Kohli, were her legal heirs. The three children executed
a Relinquishment Deed dated 25.10.2001 in favour of their father, Sh.
Sukhdev Vaid, who thereby, became the absolute owner of the suit property,
who thereafter, sold the same to the Plaintiff, vide Registered Sale Deed
dated 15.02.2008.
39. The Defendant/Appellant, on the other hand, disputed the Plaintiff’s
claim of ownership and denied that Smt. Motia Devi had ever executed any
Will, in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Vaid.
40. In this regard, the Defendant and his father, late Sh. Vasudev Vaid,
had instituted Suit No. 417/2009, (subsequently numbered as CS No.
616958/2016), seeking a Declaration that the Registered Sale Deed dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 11 of 16
15.02.2008 executed in favour of the Plaintiff was null and void, along with
the consequential relief of Permanent Injunction.
41. The said Suit was dismissed vid e Judgment dated 30.01.2020 by
holding that the Will of Smt. Moita Devi as well as the subsequent
registered Sale Deed dated 27.12.1991 executed by Smt. Kamlesh in favour
of Smt. Chanchal, had never been challenged.
42. During his cross-examination in the present proceedings, DW-1,
Sukant Vaid, admitted that he had not challenged any Will, as according to
him, no Will of Smt. Motia Devi existed. He further admitted that Smt.
Kamlesh Vaid was the daughter-in-law of Smt. Motia Devi and that Smt.
Chanchal Vaid was the sister-in-law of Smt. Kamlesh Vaid.
43. He also admitted that the legal heirs of Smt. Chanchal Vaid, had
executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of her husband, Sukhdev Vaid;
though he volunteered that the said Relinquishment Deed was forged and
fabricated.
44. The aforesaid admissions lend support to the Plaintiff's case regarding
the relationship between the parties and the execution of the Relinquishment
Deed in favour of Sukhdev Vaid . The Defendant also admitted that he had
not challenged the said Relinquishment Deed. These admissions, read with
the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff, support the chain of transactions
through which Sukhdev Vaid claimed ownership of the suit property and
thereafter, transferred the same to the Plaintiff.
45. The Defendant had also claimed that, being a legal heir of Smt. Motia
Devi, he was a co-sharer in the suit property, which was allegedly ancestral
and had never been partitioned. The learned Trial Court noted that the
Defendant neither examined any sibling or legal heir of late Smt. Motia Devi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 12 of 16
nor produced any document to establish that the property continued to
remain undivided after the subsequent transactions. It was also noted that the
Defendant had neither pleaded nor led evidence, to establish that any other
legal heir of Smt. Motia Devi was in actual or constructive possession of the
property.
46. Though the Defendant/Appellant claimed to have one-fourth
undivided share in the Suit Property based on the inheritance from Smt.
Motia Devi, he has failed to produce any evidence to establish this claim.
Apart from denying the existence of the Will, he produced no material to
substantiate his contention that Smt. Motia Devi had died intestate or that
the Suit Property had devolved upon him as a co-sharer.
47. The learned Trial Court rightly noted that the earlier Suit challenging
the registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2008, had been dismissed vide
Judgment dated 30.01.2020, which had attained finality. The Defendant
admitted in his cross-examination that he had not challenged the said
Judgment. In these circumstances, having already challenged the Sale Deed
in the earlier proceedings and has failed to assail the dismissal thereof; the
Defendant cannot seek to raise the same challenge again in the present
proceedings.
48. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to refer to Section 27 of the Limitation Act,
1963. It reads as under:
" 27. Extinguishment of right to property.-- At the
determination of the period hereby limited to any person for
instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to
such property shall be extinguished."
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 13 of 16
49. The various Sections of Limitation Act provide that after the expiry of
the stipulated period, the party loses her right to agitate its claim as being
barred by time. It is only the right to seek legal remedy, which gets
extinguished, but not the substantive rights that the parties may otherwise
have in the subject matter of the Suit. Section 27, however, is an exception,
as it provides for extinguishment of the right in property upon expiry of the
period prescribed for instituting a Suit for Possession. Upon expiry of the
limitation period, the right of the true owner to recover possession stands
extinguished, and the corresponding title may accrue to the person who has
perfected his title by adverse possession.
50. In Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors v. Manjit Kaur & Ors , 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 975, the Supreme Court held that Section 27 of the Limitation
Act is an exception to the general rule that limitation only bars the remedy;
where a person who could challenge a transfer or assert a competing title
does not sue within the prescribed period, his right to the property itself
stands extinguished and a corresponding substantive right crystallizes in the
person in whose favour limitation has run.
51. Likewise, in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India in
Civil Appeal No. 16899 of 1996 explains that, once limitation has expired,
the earlier owner's title is lost and the new right becomes secure, Section
27 of the Limitation Act thus destroying the old right while perfecting the
new one.
52. In the present case, neither the Defendant nor his father, late Sh.
Vasudev Vaid, has ever challenged the Relinquishment Deed dated
25.10.2001, executed by the legal heirs of Smt. Chanchal Vaid in favour of
Sh. Sukhdev Vaid. Any right they may have had to assert a contrary title to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 14 of 16
the Suit Property now stands extinguished under Section 27 of the
Limitation Act, and the derivative title in favour of Sh. Sukhdev Vaid, and
thereafter the Plaintiff, by virtue of the Relinquishment Deed and the
subsequent Registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2008, stands crystallised and
is beyond collateral attack in these proceedings. The Plaintiff thus stands
established as the owner of the Suit Property.
53. Another objection taken by the Defendant/Appellant is that the
registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.2008 does not specifically mention the
Second Floor or the staircase and, therefore, does not convey any right in
respect of the suit property to the plaintiff.
54. According to the Defendant/Appellant, the Ground Floor and First
Floor are situated on Old Plot No. 163, whereas the staircase and the Second
Floor pertain to Old Plot No. 164, which, according to him, are not covered
by the Sale Deed. On this basis, the Appellant contends that the Plaintiff
cannot claim any right to the room situated on the Second Floor or the
staircase leading thereto.
55. The Sale Deed describes the property as Municipal No. 18/380 (Old
Plot Nos. 163 and 164), built on freehold land measuring approximately 60
sq. yds. (50.18 sq. mtrs.), together with the built-up structure thereon and
roof rights up to the sky. The description thus, includes both Old Plot Nos.
163 and 164. Therefore, Appellant’s contention that Old Plot No. 164 is
wholly excluded from the Sale Deed, is not supported by the description of
the property contained therein.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Plaintiff has established her
56.
claim to the suit property on the basis of the registered Sale Deed dated
15.02.2008 and the chain of title relied upon by her . On the other hand, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 15 of 16
Defendant has failed to establish his claim of an undivided share in the suit
property or any independent right to retain possession of the Second Floor.
57. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly decreed the Suit for
Possession and Permanent Injunction.
58. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby,
dismissed. The pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/RS/dss/R
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:05.11.2026
17:46:56
RFA 662/2026 Page 16 of 16