Dinesh Kumar vs Sunil Kumar And Ors

* IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHI ATNEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 29 May, 2026
st
Pronounced on: 31 August, 2026
# CNR No: DLHC010249452026

+ RFA 571/2026, CM APPL. 37648/2026, CM APPL.37649/2026,
CM APPL.37650/2026

DINESH KUMAR
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass
Son-in-law of Late Shri Ajit Singh
R/o H. No. 43, 1st Floor, New Gobind Pura,
Village KhurejiKhas, Delhi 110051.
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Mr. Siddharth and
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates.
versus
SUNIL KUMAR
S/o Sh. Puran Chand,
R/o 2nd Floor, H.No. 9/54,
Geeta Colony, Delhi
.....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed on
behalf of the Appellant/ Sh.Dinesh Kumar , against the Judgment dated
30.01.2026 , whereby the learned District Judge decreed the Suit of the
Respondents/Plaintiffs for Possession and Permanent Injunction and
RFA 571/2026 Page 1 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

dismissed the Counter-claim filed by the Appellant/Defendants seeking
Declaration and Cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010.
2. The facts in brief, are that Sh. Raman Singh, son of Sh. Ajit Singh
purchased the property bearing Flat No. H-43, First Floor, New Gobind
Pura, Village Khureji Khas, Delhi–110051 ( hereinafter referred to as the
"suit property" ), from its erstwhile owner Sh. Lavan Singh on 06.10.2005,
after which the property was sold by Sh. Raman Singh to the Plaintiff,
Sh.Sunil Kumar, by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010.
3. The plaintiff claimed that the symbolic possession had been
delivered to him since the Defendants was occupying the suit property as a
trespasser, in whose favour no documents of Sale, was ever executed by
Raman Kumar.
4. Sh. Raman Singh prior to execution of the Sale Deed, had filed a
Suit for Mandatory Injunction to seek possession from the Defendants, but
the Suit was subsequently withdrawn by him, after which he sold the
property to the Plaintiffs.
5. The Plaintiff stated that after the purchase of the property, they
served a Legal Notice dated 25.11.2010 upon the Defendant through
registered A.D. and UPCs seeking peaceful and vacate possession within 15
days of service of the Notice, failing which the Defendants shall be liable to
pay user and occupation damages/ mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-
per month , which was the prevailing market rate of the rent in respect of the
property in question.
RFA 571/2026 Page 2 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

6. The Defendant, in his false and frivolous Reply dated 10.12.2010 ,
made the assertions which were not tenable in law . Furthermore, hedenied
the liability to hand over the possession or to pay mesne profits.
7. In the last week of October, 2011 Plaintiff visited the suit property
for inspection and requested the Defendants to vacate the flat in terms of the
Notice served upon them. However, the Defendants did not allow the
Plaintiff for inspection and threatened that he would transfer, alienate or
create third-party interest in the Suit property.
8. The Plaintiff thus, filed the Suit for Possession of the suit property;
Recovery ofRs.1,00,000/- towards Damages for use and occupation/Mesne
Profits; pendent lite and future damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month and
Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendant from creating third party
rights in the suit property.
9. The Defendant No. 3, Late Ajit Singh ( father of Raman Singh ), in
his Written Statement-c um- Counter-Claim , stated that he was the retired
personnel from the Indian Army. He had purchased a property ad-measuring
106 sq. yards, out of Khasra No.312 situated at Village Maujpur, Ilaka
Shahdara, Delhi on which House bearing No. 12-A/18-A, Street No. 4,
Vijay Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi was constructed, in which he along with his
wife, daughter and son Raman Singh started living. After his retirement, he
started working in M/s Voltas Ltd , firstly as helper and thereafter as a
mechanic, where he worked for a considerable period .
10. Smt. Tej Kaur , wife of Late Ajit Singh, purchased a house bearing
No.126, opposite Balaji Temple, Old Anarkali, Delhi upon a plot of 50 sq.
yards.Sh. Raman Singh was married to Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and both of them
RFA 571/2026 Page 3 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

left the house of Defendant No.3 in Vijay Mohalla, somewhere in the year
2002 and shifted to house of Krishna Nagar, Delhi where they started
living, leaving the parents in a lurch.
11. Certain disputes arose between Raman Singh and his neighbors in
the said locality, on account of which Raman Singh compelled his mother to
sell her house and he purchased another house No.244-A/2/D Shivpuri
Extension, Delhi-110051, from the sale proceeds of the earlier property
owned by the mother and shifted there along with his family, somewhere in
the year 2003.
12. The wife of Defendant No.3 expired on 22.01.2005 and the
Defendant No.3 was left alone in his Maujpur House. He was attending to
and looked after by his daughter i.e. Defendant No.2 Smt. Ruksi , at least
two to three days, in a week.
13. Raman Singh influenced and advised Defendant No.3 to sell his
house and to shift somewhere near his house in Shivpuri Extension, Delhi-
110051. Defendant No. 3 was thus, compelled to sell his house in Vijay
Mohalla, Maujpur to Mr. Anwar Chauhan, for a total consideration of
Rs.14,00,000/-. The purchaser paid Rs.8.5 lacs in three installments and
lastly paid Rs.5.5 lacs, all in cash, when the documents of transfer were
executed on 04.10.2005 in his favour and the possession was also handed
over to the buyer.
14. Raman Singh and his wife Kuldeep Kaur who were much active and
instrumental in the sale of his aforesaid property, they took the entire sale
consideration from Defendant No.3 from time to time, on the plea that he
RFA 571/2026 Page 4 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

was living alone and in the old age, it would not be safe for him to keep such
cash with him.
15. The Defendant No.3 trusted Raman Singh with the consideration
money on his assurance that he would purchase the suit property in the
name of Defendant No.3 and further promised to purchase a shop in the
name of the daughter, as the son-in-law did not have any place to do his
business.
16. Thereafter, Raman Singh informed Defendant No.3 that he has
purchased the suit property from Sh. Lavan Kumar out of the money given
to him by Defendant No.3, for approx. Rs.8lacs, though he had shown
having paid only Rs.4 lacs as sale consideration for the suit property, rest
being the underhand money given to the vendor.DefendantNo.3 thereafter,
shifted to the suit property on or about 07/08.10.2005 and since then he has
been residing in the suit property in his own right, as an owner.
17. Defendant No. 3 thereafter, repeatedly enquired from Raman Singh
about the documents relating to the purchase of the suit property. After a
few days, Raman Singh disclosed that he had purchased the suit property in
his own name. Defendant No. 3 alleged that though Raman Singh assured
Defendant No. 3 that he could continue to occupy the suit property as its
owner, but he defrauded and cheated his own father .
18. On or about 06.11.2005, Defendant No. 3 went to Punjab to meet
his relatives and upon returning to Delhi, confronted Raman Singh not only
regarding the suit property, but also about the shop in Gali No. 5, Rashid
Market, Delhi, which was allegedly to be purchased in the name of his
daughter from the remaining sale proceeds of the Maujpur property. Raman
RFA 571/2026 Page 5 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

Singh informed him that the said shop had also been purchased in his
own name, which, according to Defendant No. 3, came as a further shock
and amounted to a repetition of the alleged fraud.
19. The Defendant claimed that he requested Raman Singh to execute
the documents in his favour, but he refused. Instead of feeling apologetic
for his conduct, he intimidated and quarreled with Defendant No.3besides
threatening to implicate him, in false cases. For these reasons, he requested
his daughter and son-in-law to reside with him in his house, as a protective
measure. Accordingly, Defendant No.2 came to reside with Defendant
No.3 in the suit property sometime in the end of November, 2004 or
beginning of December, 2005.
20. It was claimed that in the last week of December 2005 , Raman
Singh, accompanied by his wife, attempted to forcibly dispossess the
Defendants from the suit property. The Defendants called the PCR and the
matter was taken to the Police Station, where Defendant No. 3 narrated the
incident, however, no FIR was registered against Raman Singh . Instead,
Raman Singh allegedly lodged a false complaint against the Defendants, to
implicate them falsely.
21. The Defendant No. 3 thus, claimed that he is the owner of the suit
property since the sale consideration for the purchase of the suit property,
came from the sale proceeds of the property owned by his wife.
22. The Defendant No.3 admitted that the Suit for Mandatory and
Permanent Injunction was filed against them, by Raman Singh. However,
it was asserted that when Raman Singh was reprimanded by the Court, he
withdrew the Suit and the same was dismissed.
RFA 571/2026 Page 6 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

23. The Defendant No.3 filed a private Complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 420/406/506/34 IPC read with Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. which is pending in the Court of learned M.M, Delhi.
24. The Defendant No.3 further contended that on receiving the
summons of the Suit, he came to know that Raman Singh had illegally sold
the property to Plaintiff vide Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010, even though the
suit property was owned by him.
25. He challenged the Sale Deed by claiming that it was illegal, invalid,
collusive and had no force of law. It was asserted that the said Sale Deed be
cancelled as Raman Singh was not the actual owner of the suit property and
had no right to sell it. It was also claimed that the possibility of the Sale
Deed being without consideration and collusive with the Plaintiffs, cannot
be ruled out .
26. The possession of the suit property has always continued to be with
the Defendants, more particularly with Defendant No.3 in the capacity of an
owner and the Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010 is illegal.
27. The Defendant No.3 Ajeet Singh thus, sought a Declaration and
Cancellation of Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010 in respect of the suit property
and claimed that it may be declared as illegal, invalid and non est in the
eyes of law.
28. The Defendant No.1, 2 and 4 in their separate Written Statement
took the same defense as was stated by Defendant No.3, in their Counter-
Claim/Written Statement.
29. It was further asserted that the Suit was barred under Section 5 & 6
Transfer of Property Act, Order XXIII CPC and by Limitation . The suit
RFA 571/2026 Page 7 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

was valued incorrectly for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction. It was
claimed that there was no privity of Contract between the Plaintiffs and
Defendant No.3, who was never inducted by the Plaintiff.
30. It was further contended that the Suit was bad for non-joinder of
Raman Singh and his wife. The Suit was also not maintainable in view of the
earlier Suit for Mandatory Injunction filed and subsequently withdrawn by
Raman Singh.
31. The Issues on the pleadings and the Counter-Claim, were framed
on 19.09.2012 as under:
i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff filed for recovery of possession
and recovery of Rs.1 Lacs from defendant No.3 not
maintainable? OPD
ii. Whether the Sale Deed dated 2.11.2010 filed by plaintiff is not
a genuine document? OPD
iii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by section 5 and 6 of the
T.P.Act? OPD.
iv. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by Order 23 CPC?OPD.
v. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD.
vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession in
respect of Flat No. H.43, First Floor, New Gobind Pura,
Village Khureji Khas, Delhi? OPP.

vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards damages for use and occupation / mesne profits? OPP.
viii. Whether the plaintiff in entitled to decree of permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
RFA 571/2026 Page 8 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

ix. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of Flat
No. H. 43, First Floor, New Gobind Pura, Village
KhurejiKhas, Delhi?OPP
x. Whether the entitled to the interest as prayed for?OPP
xi. Whether the defendant is entitled to the declaration as prayed
and cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 2.11.2010 in respect of
the suit property? OPD.
xii. Relief

32. On 20.09.2017 , an additional issue regarding limitation was
framed, which is as follows:

“Whether counter claim of deceased defendant Ajit Singh is barred
by limitation? OP”

33. During the pendency of the proceedings , Defendant No.3, Late S.
Ajeet Singh, expired and his Legal Representatives were brought on
record.
34. The Appellants thereafter, sought amendment of the Counter-Claim
and framing of additional issues . The Ld. Trial Court declined the
amendment sought, including the alternative plea of adverse possession,
vide Order dated 23.01.2025 ,but an additional issue was framed, thus:

“Whether the counterclaim has not been valued properly for the
purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD

RFA 571/2026 Page 9 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

35. A further Application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC seeking
framing of an issue concerning the validity and cancellation of the earlier
Sale Deed dated 06.10.2005 , was dismissed vide Order dated 07.05.2025 ,
principally for want of a specific relief and cause of action in respect
thereof, and on account of delay.
36. The Plaintiffs examined PW-1, Sh. Jarnail Kothia, Plaintiff No.3,
who tendered his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He relied upon
the registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010 Ex.PW-1/1, Site Plan Ex.PW-1/2,
Legal Notice dated 25.11.2010 Ex.PW-1/3, AD Cards Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly.)
and Reply dated 10.12.2010 Ex.PW-1/5.
37. DW-1 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Defendant No.1, tendered his evidence
vide Affidavit of evidence Ex.DW-1/A. He relied upon the Sale Deed dated
04.02.1969 as Mark-A; Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit and Will dated
04.10.2005 as Mark-B (Colly.); Reply to the Legal Notice as Ex.DW-1/3;
Complaint dated 18.12.2005 as Mark-C; and the certified copy of the paper-
book, Written Statement and Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed
in the earlier proceedings initiated by S. Raman Singh as Ex.DW-1/5.
38. DW-2 Smt. Ruksi, Defendant No.2, in her Affidavit of
evidenceEx.DW-2/A, corroborated the defense taken by Defendant No.3 in
his Written Statement and Counter-Claim.
39. The learned District Judge, on appreciation of the pleadings and
evidence , observed that the entire defense and Counter-Claim rested on the
assertion that the suit property had been purchased by S. Raman Singh from
the funds of his father, Late S. Ajeet Singh, who had thereby, claimed
himself to be its true owner. It was held that even if the consideration for
RFA 571/2026 Page 10 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

purchase of the suit property had emanated from Late S. Ajeet Singh, the
same would not confer ownership upon him, when the property stood
purchased and registered in the name of S. Raman Singh.
40. It was further observed the Sale Deed under which S. Raman Singh
derived title, had never been sought to be declared null and void, as the
Counter-Claim was c onfined only to Declaration and Cancellation of the
subsequent Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010,Ex.PW-1/1 executed by S. Raman
Singh in favour of the Plaintiffs and was, therefore, held to be unsustainable
without a challenge to the title of S. Raman Singh himself .
41. The learned District Judge further held that the allegations of fraud
and collusion in execution of the Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010, Ex.PW-1/1,
were vague and bereft of material particulars. Merely by claiming that a
consideration lower than the alleged prevailing market value was taken, was
held insufficient to establish fraud .
42. It was thus, concluded that the Defendants had failed to establish
any right, title or interest in the suit property and, at best, their possession
was that of licensees. The registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010, Ex.PW-
1/1 in favour of the Plaintiffs was held to be genuine. The objections
regarding Limitation, Sections 5 and 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
and Order XXIII CPC, were rejected.
43. The additional issues relating to limitation and valuation of the
Counter-Claim were, however, decided in favour of the Defendants, it being
held that the Counter-Claim filed in 2012, was within limitation and had
been properly valued with requisite Court Fees.
RFA 571/2026 Page 11 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

44. The learned District Judge accordingly, dismissed the Counter-
Claim and decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiffs, vide judgement
dated 30.01.2026, for Possession and Permanent Injunction ,restraining the
Defendants from alienating, transferring or creating any third-party interest
therein. However, the claim of the Plaintiffs for damages/mesne profits was
declined, for want of independent evidence to establish its quantum.
45. Aggrieved, the defendants/Appellants have preferred the present
Regular First Appeal, to challenge the Judgement dated 30.01.2026.
46. The principal ground of challenge is that the learned District Judge
decreed the Suit without adjudicating the antecedent title of S. Raman
Singh, from whom the Plaintiffs had derived their claim. It is contended that
once the validity of the Sale Deed dated 06.10.2005 and the title of S.
Raman Singh were specifically disputed, an appropriate issue ought to have
been framed and the Suit for possession could not have been decreed,
merely on the basis of the registered document. Reliance is placed upon
AnathulaSudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs . to contend that where
the Plaintiff’s title is under a cloud, and a Suit for possession simplicitor, is
not maintainable.
47. The Appellants further challenged the dismissal of the Counter-
Claim on the ground that the Sale Deed dated 06.10.2005, had not been
specifically assailed. According to them, the alleged fraud in the acquisition
of the suit property and was also the subject matter of the earlier Police
Complaint and litigation between Late S. Ajeet Singh and S. Raman Singh,
had been specifically pleaded.
RFA 571/2026 Page 12 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

48. It is therefore, contended that the learned District Judge ought to
have exercised the power under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, to frame an
additional issue concerning the said transaction.
49. It is also contended that although the Counter-Claim had been filed
with the Written Statement in 2012, it was separately registered only on
07.08.2024 as CS No.448/2024 . The Appellants assert that the subsequent
rejection of their Applications for amendment and framing of additional
issues on the ground of delay, despite such delay being attributable to the
Court process, deprived them of an effective adjudication of the
controversies raised in the Counter-Claim.
50. The Appellants also assailed the rejection of their Application under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to introduce an alternative plea of adverse
possession, contending that their continuous possession since 2005,
warranted consideration of such plea.
51. They further contend that their possession was founded upon the
ownership claimed by Late S. Ajeet Singh. The documentary evidence,
including Mark-A, Mark-B, the police complaints and the record of the
earlier litigation, had not been properly appreciated, while examining the
plea of fraud and the circumstances surrounding acquisition of the suit
property.
52. Lastly, the Appellants challenged the finding that the allegations of
fraud and collusion were vague and that the registered Sale Deed dated
02.11.2010, Ex.PW-1/1 , carried a presumption of validity. It is asserted that
the pleadings sufficiently disclosed the manner in which S. Raman Singh
allegedly acquired the suit property from the funds of Late S. Ajeet Singh
RFA 571/2026 Page 13 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

and thereafter, transferred it to the Plaintiffs, and that the presumption
attaching to a registered document, was rebuttable.
53. The Appellants thus, sought the setting aside of the impugned
Judgment and Decree or, alternatively, to remand the Suit for adjudication,
after framing the requisite issues.
Submission heard and record perused.
54. The Plaintiffs had filed a Suit for Possession on the basis of having
acquired ownership in respect of the suit property, by virtue of Sale Deed
dated 02.11.2010 Ex.PW1/1 . It was explained that the suit property was
earlier owned by Sh. Lavan Kumar, from whom Sh. Raman Singh had
purchased the suit property, by virtue of Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010,
Ex.PW1/1.
55. The Defendants challenged the Plaintiffs’ title under the Sale Deed
dated 02.11.2010, Ex. PW1/1 , contending that Raman Singh had purchased
the suit property in 2005 from the sale proceeds of the Vijay Mohalla,
Maujpur property, which belonged to his mother and had been sold for
Rs.14 lakhs.
56. It was asserted that the money had been taken by Raman Singh from
Defendant No.3, on the pretext of safekeeping and an assurance that he
would utilize the sale consideration for purchase of a property in the name
of the father, Ajeet Singh. He had also assured to buy a shop in the name
of the daughter, who had been taking care of the father and whose husband
had no place to run his business. However, the suit property as well as the
shop, were purchased by Raman Singh, in his name.
RFA 571/2026 Page 14 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

57. The first ground of challenge by the defendants is that these false
assurances tantamount to fraud, vitiating the Sale deed of 2005, in the name
of Raman Singh.
58. The averment that Raman Singh despite assurances, purchased
the property in his name, cannot also not be termed as a fraud. These
assertions, without anything more, do not make the Sale transaction in
favour of Raman Singh, as fraudulent .
59. The second ground for vitiating the Sale Deed of December, 2005
in favour of Raman Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff, was that
the money realized from the sale of the property owned by his mother, had
been utilized to purchase the suit property by Raman Singh in his name,
despite the assurances to the contrary.
60. However, aside from the assertion in this regard, no cogent evidence
has been led to prove that the money for the purchase of suit property came
from the sale proceeds of the property of mother. Furthermore, even if for
the sake of arguments, it is accepted that Sh. Raman Singh has taken the
money, but admittedly, the Sale Deed dated 06.10.2005 ,is in his name and
had never been challenged by the defendants. No challenge was ever made
to the Sale Deed of 2005, till the filing of the suit. Significantly, as per
Defendant No.3 himself, he was informed by Raman Singh in December,
2005 itself about the purchase of property in his name, but no action was
taken. Rather, he shifted to the suit property, where he has been residing
since then. His conduct of acceptance, also does not reflect any defrauding.
The background may have been given to challenge the sale Deed in favour
of the plaintiff, but no relief was sought in this regard.
RFA 571/2026 Page 15 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

61. Further, despite beingtold by Sh. Sh. Raman Singh about the
purchase of the property in December, 2005 itself, he never ever did he
challenge the Sale Deed, till the filing of the Suit on 09.11.2011. The
conduct of the defendant also does not corroborate his claim of any fraud.
62. It has been asserted on behalf of defendants that since the grounds
of challenge had been stated in the Written Statement, an issue in this regard
should have been framed. However, from the averments made in the Written
Statement, it is evident that the challenge to Sale Deed dated 06.10.2005,
could have been made within three years of knowledge, but no challenge
was made till the filing of the Suit on09.11.2011, and is patently barred by
limitation.
63. The defendants had challenged the subsequent Sale Deed executed
by Raman Singh in favour of the Plaintiff, in 2010, on the ground that it may
have been executed for a less sale consideration, which cannot be a ground
to vitiate a sale document.
64. The defendants have not been able to establish any valid challenge
whatsoever, to the purchase of the property in 2005 by Raman Singh in his
name, nor is there any illegality attached to the subsequent sale of suit
property by him to Plaintiffs, in the year 2010.
65. It has been contended on behalf of the Appellants that there was a
cloud on the title of the Plaintiff and simplicitor suit for possession, without
declaration of title was not maintainable, in the light of the judgment in
AnathulaSudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs . This contention is
also not tenable for the simple reason that Sh. Raman Kumar and
thereafter, his successor in interest the Plaintiff had the registered Sale
RFA 571/2026 Page 16 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

Deed in their favour. There was no cloud on their title and therefore, there
was no requirement of seeking a declaration of ownership and the facts of
Anathula Sudhakar are distinct and not attracted in the present case.
66. Another contention has been raised by the Defendants that they are
in occupation of the suit premises since December 2005 after the property
was purchased by Sh. Raman Kumar and have acquired ownership by way
of adverse possession.
67. The very concept underlying adverse possession is that the person in
possession must claim to be so of right as against the true owner. It must be
nec vi, nec clam, ne cprecario. It must be adequate in continuity and
publicity to the extent of showing that it is adverse to the competitor. It must
be hostile and under a claim or colour of title. It must be actual, open,
uninterrupted, notorious, exclusive and continuous , and it must run over
the entire statutory period of 12 years. Any person who bases his claim to
title by adverse possession should be hostile to the real owner , with the
attributes of notoriety, exclusivity and continuity over the statutory period .
68. In S. M. Itarim vs. Mst. Bibi Skina , AIR 1964 SC 1254, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court declared that adverse possession must be adequate in
continuity, in publicity and extent and that a plea is required to at least
show as to when possession became adverse so that the starting point of
limitation against the party affected by the same can be determined.
69. In the present case, the Defendants have never asserted their
occupation as that of an owner. They never claimed themselves to be the
owner nor was there any claim of hostile, open and adverse interest to that
of the Plaintiff or to Sh. Raman Kumar. The plea of adverse possession also
RFA 571/2026 Page 17 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

does not go to the benefit of the Appellants and their claim of having
become owner by adverse possession, is also not tenable.
70. The learned District Judge has rightly observed that mere
allegations of fraud, without proving the same, would not ipso facto render
the Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010 Ex. PW1/1 void and rightly held that the
Sale Deed dated 02.11.2010, Ex. PW1/1 in favour of the Plaintiffs, as valid
and the Counter-Claim for Declaration and Cancellation of this Sale Deed
had been rightly rejected.
71. It was also noted by the learned District Judge that the allegations
under Order XV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC ; Application under
Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Order VII Rule 8
CPC have all been decided by speaking Orders assigning the reasons. None
of these Orders have been shown to be suffering from any material
irregularity and thus, the challenge to these Applications has also been
rightly rejected.
72. The learned District Judge had considered fairly that since no
evidence had been led by the Plaintiffs to establish the quantum of Mesne
Profits/ Damages, the same had been declined to the Plaintiffs.
73. In the light of the title of the Plaintiffs by virtue of Sale Deed dated
02.11.2010Ex. PW1/1 , with no valid challenge to it and the Defendants
being shown to be the only permissive occupants who became unauthorized
occupants after the termination of the permissive user, the Suit for
Possession has been rightly decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs . Likewise,
Permanent Injunction for restraining the Defendants/ Appellants from
creating third party rights in the suit property, has been rightly granted.
RFA 571/2026 Page 18 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24

74. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby
dismissed. The pending Applications, if any, are disposed of, accordingly.


(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2026
va
RFA 571/2026 Page 19 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.08.2026
18:11:24