Chanda Devi & Ors. vs Monika Singh
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 09 September, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 06 November, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 06 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010281772026
+ RFA 606/2026, CM APPL. 41312/2026, CM APPL. 41314/2026,
CM APPL. 41315/2026
1. SMT. CHANDA DEVI
W/o Sh. Jamuna Prasad Yadav
R/oE-56, R.P.S. Flats, E Block, Vikaspuri,
West Delhi, Delhi-110018.
2. SHRI VICKY KUMAR YADAV
S/o Sh. Jamuna Prasad Yadav
R/o E-56, RPS Janta Flats, E-Block,
Vikas Puri, West Delhi, Delhi-110018.
3. SMT. POOJA ARORA
W/o Sh. Vicky Kumar Yadav
R/o House No.E-56, RPS Janta Flats,
Vikas Puri, West Delhi, Delhi-110018.
4. KARISHMA YADAV
D/o Sh. Jamuna Prasad Yadav
R/o E-56, R.P.S. Flats, E Block,
Vikas Puri, West Delhi, Delhi-110018.
....Appellants
Through: Ms. Ashu Ralhan Advocate, Ms.
Dolly Advocate and Mr. Nikhil
Advocate for Appellant Nos. 1 and 2
present in person.
versus
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 1 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
MONIKA SINGH
W/o Sh. Neeraj Kumar
R/o House No.34, Charak Sadan,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Nishant Datta, Advocate & Mr.
Pradeep Bhardwaj Advocate for
Respondent alongwith Respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) , has been filed on
behalf of the Appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 13.10.2025
whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for Possession has been
decreed and ₹3,00,000 towards unauthorised use and occupation charges has
been awarded.
2. The Plaintiff/Respondent/Monika Singh , instituted Civil Suit
bearing CS DJ No. 611/2017 seeking Recovery of Possession of Flat No.
56, RPS Flats, Bodella, Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to
as the “suit property”), along with Mesne Profits, under Order XX Rule 12
CPC. The Plaintiff also sought a decree of Permanent Injunction
restraining the Defendants, their family members, agents and representatives
from parting with possession of or creating any third-party interest in the
suit property.
3. The facts in brief , as stated in the Plaint, are that in terms of the Late
Sh. Nand Lal was issued the original Allotment Letter by the DDA, in
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 2 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
1988 . After Sh. Nand Lal’s demise, his son, Sh. Prem Nath Gill , became
the owner of the suit property, from whom the Plaintiff, purchased it vide
Sale Deed dated 28.04.2010 .
4. The Plaintiff explained that her father, Capt. Pardeep Singhal , had
taken possession of the suit property from Sh. Prem Nath Gill, sometime in
April 2003 , on the understanding that Sh. Prem Nath Gill would execute a
Sale Deed in his favour after completing all documentation and formalities
with his family members, including getting the property mutated in his sole
name.
5. The Plaintiff further stated that, Late Sh. Jamna Prasad was working
as a domestic help for her father, Capt. Pardeep Singhal (Retd.), and, on
account of his employment, was permitted by her father to stay in the suit
property as a gratuitous licensee , since Late Sh. Jamna Prasad frequently
changed rented accommodation and had no fixed abode.
6. It is further explained that the title documents of the suit property , as
provided by Sh. Prem Nath Gill, were always in the possession of the
Plaintiff and her father. The utility bills, including the water and electricity
bills, as well as the property tax, were always paid by the Plaintiff and/or her
father. However, sometime in 2013–2014, considering the increased rates of
water and electricity, the Plaintiff’s father asked Late Sh. Jamna Prasad to
pay the utility charges himself, though he continued to pay the house tax
bills.
7. Late Sh. Jamna Prasad died on 08.02.2017. A few days later, the
Plaintiff, along with her father, asked the Defendant No. 1, Smt. Chanda
Devi , Late Sh. Jamna Prasad’s wife; Defendant No. 2, Sh. Vicky Kumar
Yadav , his son; Defendant No. 3, Smt. Pooja Arora , his daughter-in-law
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 3 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
and Defendant No. 4, Ms. Karishma Yadav, his daughter to vacate the
suit property. However, they refused to hand over vacant possession of the
suit property and also threatened the Plaintiff and her family members, with
dire consequences.
8. Upon the Defendant’s refusal, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for Recovery
of Possession and Mesne Profits, as well as for Permanent Injunction .
9. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 , in their Joint Written Statement, took
the preliminary objections that the Suit is reflective of vindictive attitude of
the Plaintiff, who merely wants to create a pressure on the Defendants for
refraining them from filing Civil and Criminal Complaints, against her and
her family members. It was asserted that the suit was bad for want of title,
interest and claim in the Plaintiff.
10. It was asserted that, during his lifetime, Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad had
entered into an oral agreement with Capt. Pradeep Singhal for the
purchase of the suit property, for a sale consideration of ₹4,00,000 . Late
Sh. Jamuna Prasad had been working as a supervisor for Capt. Pardeep
Singhal and was looking after his entire premises. It was agreed that
₹1,750/- p.m. would be deducted from his salary each month, as easy
monthly instalments towards the sale consideration, beginning in January,
2003 . It is further claimed that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad took possession of
the suit property on 03.01.2003 and received copies of the Allotment Letter
and other property documents. According to the Defendants, Capt. Pradeep
Singhal had assured Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad that the property would be
transferred in his name through Sh. Nand Lal Gill, after the sale
consideration had been paid.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 4 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
11. The Defendants claimed that ₹3,15,000 had been deducted from Late
Sh. Jamuna Prasad’s salary between January 2003 and February 2017 ,
and only a balance of ₹85,000/- remained, which the answering Defendants
were willing to pay to Capt. Pradeep Singhal.
12. The Defendants alleged that the original property documents had been
with Capt. Pradeep Singhal, who had received them from Sh. Nand Lal Gill,
and that the documents were later handed over to Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad. A
few days before his death, Capt. Pradeep Singhal took the documents back
on the pretext of having the property transferred in Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad’s
name. They further alleged that Capt. Singhal had instead transferred the
property in the Plaintiff’s name, while continuing to deduct ₹1,750 per
month, from Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad’s salary.
13. The Defendants alleged that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad had died in
suspicious circumstances, on 08.02.2017 and accused the Plaintiff, her
husband, Sh. Neeraj Kumar, and Capt. Pradeep Singhal of causing his death
by administering a poisonous substance in the house of the Plaintiff, at 32-C,
Vikaspuri, New Delhi. They stated that Complaints dated 21.02.2017 and
10.06.2017 had been made at Police Station Vikaspuri, but no action was
taken.
14. The Defendants further claimed that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had been
residing in the suit property since January, 2003 and that Late Sh. Jamuna
Prasad had constructed the second floor of the suit property , and the
Plaintiff had never resided in the suit property. The Defendants described
the Bills in the Plaintiff’s name, as false and fabricated and stated that she
had lived at Kothi No. 34, Charak Sadan Society, Vikas Puri, and later at
House No. 32-C, Block DG-1, Vikas Puri.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 5 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
15. The Defendants thus, claimed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the
recovery and submitted that the Suit be dismissed.
16. The Plaintiff in their Replication, reiterated the averments made in
the Plaint and denied the allegations made in the Written Statement.
17. The Issues on the pleadings, were framed on 05.07.2018 , which are
as under:-
(i) Whether the defendants have any right, title or interest
to reside in the suit property? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?
OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession
of the property from the defendants? OPP
(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne
profits from defendants, if so at what rate and for what
term? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent
injunction prayed for? OPP
(vi) Relief.
18. The Plaintiff, Ms. Monika Singh , appeared as PW-1 . She tendered
her affidavit in evidence, Ex. PW-1/A , and relied upon the following
documents:
SL. No. PARTICULARS OF
DOCUMENTS
EXHIBITS/MARK
1. Plaint Ex.PW-1/1
2. Copy of registered agreement to sell
dt.28.04.2010
Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR)
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 6 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
3. Copy of envelope containing Unique
Property Identification Card of the
suit property
Ex.PW-1/3 (OSR)
4. Copy of registered conveyance deed
dated 23.06.2011
Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR)
5. Copies of electricity bills from 2003
to 2013 paid by the father of the
plaintiff
Ex.PW-1/5 (OSR)
6. Copy of property tax bills from 2003
to 2017 paid by the father of the
plaintiff
Ex.PW-1/6 (OSR)
7. Copies of water bills from 2003 to
2013 paid by the father of the plaintiff
Ex.PW-1/7 (OSR)
19. PW-2, Capt. Pradeep Singhal and PW-3, Mr. Neeraj Kumar ,
husband of the plaintiff, tendered their evidence by way of Affidavit and
corroborated the testimony of the Plaintiff.
20. PW-4, Ms. Jyoti Bajaj , Area Inspector, MCD Property Tax, Ashok
Nagar, New Delhi-110018, produced the digital record of property tax
receipts for Flat No. 56, RPS Society, First and Second Floors, Budhela,
Vikas Puri. The Receipts covered 2010–2011 and 2012–2013 to 2022–2023
and were exhibited collectively as Ex. PW-4/1 . She deposed that, as per the
MCD record, the property tax had been paid by the Plaintiff, Ms. Monika
Singh.
21. PW-5, Mr. Krishan , Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar-II,
Basaidarapur, was unavailable to produce the relevant record and was
dropped from the list of witnesses.
22. PW-6, Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh , an official from BSES Rajdhani
Power Limited, produced documents relating to disconnection of the
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 7 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
electricity meter, along with documents submitted by the Plaintiff,. exhibited
collectively as Ex. PW-6/A (colly.), comprising eight pages.
23. PW-7, Mr. Sandeep , Senior Assistant, Sub Registrar II, Basaidara
Pur, New Delhi, produced the original record of registered Sale Agreement
dated 28.04.2010, as Ex.PW-7/A.
24. PW-8, Mr. Virender Kumar Yadav , JSA, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New
Delhi-110023, produced the following documents, which are as under:-
Sl. No. Particulars of Documents Exhibits/Mark
1. Electronic copy of demand letter dated
19.07.1988
Ex. PW-8/1
2. Electronic copy of NOC dt. 07.11.1988 and
possession
Ex.PW-8/2
3. Electronic copy of agreement to sell dt.
26.04.2010 in favour of plaintiff Monika Singh
Ex.PW-8/3
4. Electronic coy of conveyance deed dt.
23.06.2011
Ex.PW-8/4
5. Affidavit u/S 63 (4) (C) of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2003 qua the documents exhibited
as Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW-8/4.
Ex.PW-8/A
25. PW-9, Mr. Sanjay Pandey , Zonal Revenue Officer, Delhi Jal Board,
West-3, Paschim Vihar produced the digital record relating to the Water
Connection for Flat No. 56, RPS, Budhela, Vikas Puri, which was exhibited
as Ex. PW-9/1 . The Certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023, is Ex. PW-9/A . He deposed that, according to the digital
record, the Water Bills from 27.04.2012 up to date, were in the Plaintiff’s
name.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 8 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
26. The Defendant No. 1, Ms. Chanda Devi , had filed an affidavit by
way of evidence, but did not appear to tender it. No evidence was led by the
Defendants despite opportunities, and their defence evidence was
closed.
27. The learned District Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, relied
upon the registered Agreement to Sell dated 28.04.2010 and the
Conveyance Deed dated 23.06.2011, along with the other evidence on
record, and held the Plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property. The
Appellants’ defence that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad had acquired ownership
under an oral Agreement with Capt. Pardeep Singhal, was held to be legally
untenable, as the alleged oral agreement could not transfer title in the suit
property.
28. The learned District Judge also found that the alleged salary
deductions and payment of sale consideration, had not been proved. The
Plaintiff was accordingly, granted a Decree of Possession and
Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from parting with
possession of, or creating third-party interest in, the suit property.
29. On the claim for mesne profits , the learned District Judge observed
that the Plaintiff had not proved the loss or damages suffered or that the
Defendants had earned profits from their occupation of the suit property. It
was also noted that the Plaintiff had purchased the property with knowledge
that the Defendants were in possession. However, a lump sum of ₹3,00,000
towards unauthorised use and occupation charges, were awarded to the
Plaintiff and further directed the Defendants to pay ₹12,000 per month
after the expiry of three months, if they failed to vacate within that
period, until delivery of possession.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 9 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
30. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.2025, the
Appellants have filed the present RFA. 606/2026.
31. The grounds of challenge are that the impugned Judgment is bad,
both in law and on facts. It is contended that the Defendants had contested
the suit by filing a Written Statement and had participated in the
proceedings, including by cross-examination of the Plaintiff and most of her
witnesses. Defendant No. 1 had filed an affidavit by way of evidence on
08.08.2018, which, according to the Appellants, demonstrated their intention
to lead evidence, in support of their defence. They submitted that they were
not avoiding the proceedings, but were deprived of an opportunity to
complete their defence evidence, when they were proceeded ex parte on
17.04.2025.
32. The Appellants further contended that, having participated in the
proceedings until the stage of defence evidence, they should have been
granted a further effective opportunity, including by issuance of a Court
Notice. They denied having abandoned the proceedings and submitted that
their failure to lead evidence, was neither deliberate nor intentional. They
attributed their non-appearance to the illness and subsequent death of their
counsel, Sh. Jati Ram, on 05.09.2024, and claimed that they learnt of the ex
parte proceedings, only upon receiving Notice in the Execution proceedings.
33. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff was required to succeed on the
strength of her own case and not on the weakness of the defence. According
to the Appellants, the absence of defence evidence did not relieve the
Plaintiff of the burden of proving her right to the suit property, her
entitlement to recover possession and her claim for consequential reliefs.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 10 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
34. Furthermore, their Written Statement had raised bona fide disputes
concerning the Plaintiff’s entitlement to possession and the nature of the
relationship between the parties, which required adjudication after both sides
had led evidence.
35. The Appellants accordingly, sought setting aside of the impugned
Judgment and Decree.
36. Learned counsel for the Respondent, has contended that there was
no Agreement to Sell the suit property, to the Appellants. In fact, they were
unauthorised occupants, being the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jamna Prasad, who
was an employee of the father of the Plaintiff and had merely been permitted
to stay in the suit premises. They are the unauthorised occupants and the
decree of possession has been rightly passed against them.
37. The Respondent also filed Written Submissions , reiterating these
contentions.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
38. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Ms. Monika Singh, instituted the Suit for
recovery of possession of the suit property. It is not in dispute that Late Sh.
Nand Lal was the original allottee of the suit property, vide DDA demand
letter is dated 19.07.1988 and NOC-cum-possession document dated
07.11.1988, a fact acknowledged by the Defendants in their Written
Statement.
39. Upon Late Sh. Nand Lal’s demise, his son, Sh. Prem Nath Gill, and
daughter, Smt. Neelam, succeeded to his rights in the property; and that Smt.
Neelam executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 25.07.2005 in favour of
Sh. Prem Nath Gill; and that the property was thereafter, mutated in his
name vide Letter dated 23.04.2007.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 11 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
40. The Plaintiff’s case was that her father, Capt. Pradeep Kumar Singhal,
obtained possession of the suit property from Sh. Prem Nath Gill sometime
in April 2003, on the understanding that the title documents would later be
executed in Capt. Singhal’s favour, after completion of the family
formalities and mutation of the property in his sole name
41. Eventually, Ms. Monika entered into the registered Agreement to Sell
dated 28.04.2010, Ex.PW-1/2, with Mr. Prem Nath Gill. Furthermore, a
Conveyance deed dated 23.06.2011, Ex. PW-8/4, in favour of the Plaintiff,
was also executed.
42. The Plaintiff also examined PW-4, Ms. Jyoti Bajaj , produced the
MCD’s digital property-tax record, Ex. PW-4/1, and deposed that, according
to the record, the property tax had been paid by the Plaintiff. PW-9, Mr.
Sanjay Pandey , produced the digital record relating to the water connection
in the suit property, Ex. PW-9/1, together with the Certificate under Section
63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Ex. PW-9/A. He deposed
that the Water Bills from 27.04.2012 up to the date of his testimony, were
in the Plaintiff’s name. These official records read together with the title
documents, corroborates the Plaintiff’s ownership to the suit property and
reinforce her entitlement to recover its possession.
43. The Plaintiff, PW-1, explained in her testimony, that Late Sh. Jamuna
Prasad Yadav, who worked as a domestic helper for Capt. Singhal, was
permitted to reside in the suit property around June, 2003 as a gratuitous
licensee, since he had no fixed abode to reside in. Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad
died in 2017. The Plaintiff asserted that the Appellants, being his wife, son,
daughter-in-law and daughter, had no right to continue in possession and
were liable to hand over the property to her.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 12 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
44. The Appellants sought to justify their possession by asserting that Late
Sh. Jamuna Prasad Yadav, who worked for Capt. Singhal, had entered into
an oral agreement with him in 2003 to purchase the suit property, for
₹4,00,000. According to the Appellants, it was agreed that ₹1,750 per month
would be deducted from Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad’s salary, towards the sale
consideration and that the Sale documents would be executed in his favour,
after the entire consideration had been paid. Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad died in
2017.
45. First and foremost , as has been rightly observed by the learned
District Judge in the impugned Judgment, there is not an iota of evidence led
by the Appellants, to prove any cogent oral or documentary evidence that
there ever existed any such understanding between Capt. Pradeep Singhal
and Late Mr. Jamna Prasad in regard to sale of the suit property, to him .
Even otherwise, it has been rightly held in the judgement that a mere alleged
Oral Agreement, is incapable under law, to create any proprietary right in
the suit property.
46. Secondly , the falsity of the claim of the Appellants, is also evident
from the fact that, according to them, while taking possession in the year
2003, the sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid in monthly
instalments of Rs.1,750/-, to be deducted from the salary of Mr. Jamna
Prasad. No prudent person, who intends to sell their property, would agree
to accept the sale consideration by way of monthly instalment of Rs.1,750/.
Even if it is accepted that there was any such arrangement between Mr.
Jaman Prasad and Capt. Pradeep Singhal, then too, admittedly, no sale
document ever got executed in favour of the Late Jamna Prasad, by virtue of
which, he would ever claim ownership.
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 13 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
47. Thirdly , the Appellants had asserted that ₹3,15,000 had been paid
towards the sale consideration. However, there is no document or any other
evidence, which had been filed by the Defendants along with the Written
Statement, or subsequently proved to establish such monthly deduction from
the salary of Mr. Jaman Prasad.
48. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the assertions of the
Appellants, was that Mr. Jamna Prasad, is in permissive user and occupation
of the suit property and that mere permissive occupation ever matured into
ownership in favour of Late Sh. Jamna Prasad.
49. Therefore, it was rightly held that Mr. Jamna Prasad was in
permissive user and after his demise, the Appellants, who are the legal
heirs of Mr. Jamna Prasad, do not have any right title to continue in the
suit premises.
50. The next contention advanced on behalf of the Appellants is that the
Plaintiff did not specify the date on which Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad was
permitted to occupy the suit property or the date on which that permission
was terminated. However, the Plaint states that he was permitted to reside
there sometime around June 2003 and that, after his demise, the Plaintiff and
her father asked the Defendants to vacate the property. The relevant extract
i.e. Paragraph 6 from the Plaint, is produced as under:
“That after coming into possession of the suit property, the Plaintiff‟s
father, sometime around June 2003, permitted Late Jamuna Prasad to
reside therein. This permission was given by the Plaintiff‟s father to
Late Jamuna Prasad as a gesture of kindness, considering that Late
Jamuna Prasad used to change his rented accommodation every year
and had no fixed abode.”
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 14 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
51. The Plaint thus, discloses both the approximate time when the
permissive occupation began and when the Plaintiff required the Defendants
to leave. Moreover, in the Written Statement, it was admitted that late Jamna
Prasad was the Supervisor with the father of the Plaintiff and came into the
occupation of the suit property, on 03.01.2003.
52. In any event, the filing of the Suit made clear to the Defendants that
the Plaintiff no longer permitted them to remain in the property and required
them to hand over possession.
53. Reference may be made to M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v.
Santokh Singh (HUF) , (2008) 2 SCC 728, wherein the Supreme Court held
that, where a landlord seeks eviction under the general law, institution of
the eviction suit itself conveys the landlord’s intention to terminate the
tenancy and seek possession. A separate notice to quit under Section 106
of the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary for that purpose.
54. Accordingly, even assuming that no separate Notice terminating the
occupation of the Appellants, was served before institution of the Suit, the
filing of the Suit for possession, followed by service of its summons,
sufficiently conveyed the Respondent’s intention to terminate the tenancy
and seek possession.
55. The final grievance of the Appellants, is that they had been contesting
the Suit for nearly eight years and had been unable to appear since 2024, on
account of the demise of their counsel and remained unaware of the
subsequent proceedings. They claim that they learnt of the ex parte Decree
only upon receiving Notice in the Execution proceedings. It is asserted that
considering that the Appellants had been contesting the Suit till the stage of
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 15 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34
Defendants’ evidence, the Court should have issued a Court Notice to the
Defendants, before proceeding ex-parte against them, on 17.04.2025.
56. The Defendants all throughout had been appearing and they chose to
stop appearing from 2024. However, if the Appellants had any grievance of
not being able to appear and the Judgment being delivered ex-parte , the
more appropriate remedy would have been to seek the setting-aside of the
ex-parte Judgment under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, but that cannot be a
ground to challenge the Judgment.
57. The Impugned Judgement is based on cogent evidence led by the
Plaintiff and the admissions of the Appellants. The sole defence of the
Appellants is the Oral Sale of the suit property, which even if accepted, does
not confer any ownership on the Appellants. Likewise, mere long
possession, does not create any right in the Appellants, to seek protection of
their possession. Their defence, has been duly considered by the Appellate
Court.
Conclusion:
58. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no merit in
the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed .
59. The pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 06, 2026/RS
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
RFA 606/2026 Page 16 of 16
Signing Date:06.11.2026
16:36:34