Neeraj Kumar Jaggi vs Arun Kumar

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 24 February, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 16 March, 2026
+ RFA 173/2025 & CM APPL. 10681/2025

NEERAJ KUMAR JAGGI
S/o Late Sh. Nand Lal,
R/o H. No. WZ-H-45, First Floor,
Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar
.....Appellant
Through: Mr.Girish Kumar, Adv.
versus
ARUN KUMAR
S/o Late Nand Lal,
R/o H. No. K-36, Upper Ground Floor,
Gali No. 4, Bal Udyan Road, Uttam Nagar
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Rishabh Dua,
Mr. Harikesh Anirudhan and
Mr. Mayank Biyani, Advocates

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 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed against
the Order dated 08.01.2025 whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff for Possession
has been decreed by the Learned District Judge, under Order XII Rule 6
CPC.
RFA 173/2025 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

2. The Respondent/Plaintiff, Arun Kumar had filed a Civil Suit No. CS
DJ No. 517821/2016 for Possession, Mesne Profits and Permanent
Injunction in respect of the first floor of property bearing No. A-45, Mangal
Bazar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as Suit property ).
3. The case of the Plaintiff/Respondent was that he was the owner of
the entire builder property bearing No. H-45, Mangal Bazar Road, Uttam
Nagar, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005. He had spent more
than Rs.4,00,00/- on re-construction and renovation of the property, which
now consists of five shops and one residential unit on the ground floor,
which is in possession of the Defendant. He kept one shop for his own use,
in future. However, keeping in mind the old age of the father, he
accommodated his father and also his younger brother Neeraj
Jaggi/Appellant and his family.
4. In the year 2006, wife of the Plaintiff expired after long ailment and
treatment which mentally and emotionally shattered the Plaintiff and he got
busy in upbringing of his minor children.
5. In the meanwhile, the relationship between the Plaintiff and his
father became strained, and his father instituted a Civil Suit No. 344/2011 for
Declaration and Permanent Injunction against the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the
stress of the strained relationship with the father resulted in a major paralytic
attack, and the left side of his body was paralyzed, in September 2011,
making him disabled that he had difficulty in walking, writing, and doing his
daily chores. The situation worsened with time. His father died on
16.12.2011, which completely broke the Plaintiff emotionally and mentally,
who was already bed-ridden.
RFA 173/2025 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

6. After the demise of his father, the Defendant/Appellant along with
their elder sister Manju Khattar and her husband Sh. Satish Khattar, came to
the Plaintiff and took his signatures on certain blank papers, for some legal
requirements arising out of death of the father Nand Lal Jaggi. Because of
the trust, he signed some documents and blank stamp papers.
7. The Plaintiff further asserted that in July 2013, he was asked by the
Landlord to vacate the tenanted premises where he had been residing for the
last few months, at the rent of Rs.9,500/- per month. His son, Bhrat
approached the Appellant/Defendant to vacate the Suit premises. However,
the Appellant as well as the sister Manju and her husband, started claiming
themselves to be the owners of the residential unit , on the ground floor and
one shop. The request of the Plaintiff for peaceful vacant possession of the
property in question, did not get any result.
8. Thereafter, the Appellant and his sister Manju Khattar filed a Civil
Suit bearing CS No. 292/2013 for Mandatory Injunction and made a prayer
that Plaintiff be restrained from getting the property vacated, but the Suit
was dismissed vide Judgment dated 25.11.2014.
9. The Defendant/Appellant, Neeraj Kumar Jaggi was the real brother
who has continued to be in illegal possession of the residential complex, on
the first floor. All efforts of the Plaintiff to get the possession have proved
futile. Hence, the Respondent/Plaintiff Arun Kumar filed the Civil Suit for
Possession, Mesne Profits and Permanent Injunction in respect of the Suit
property ).
10. The Defendant/Appellant in his Written Statement took the
preliminary objection that the Suit did not disclose any cause of action and
is liable to be rejected. It was claimed that there was a family settlement
RFA 173/2025 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

dated 15.12.2011 between the parties, after the demise of their father. The
Plaintiff had to execute the necessary documents in respect of the property
in question in favour of the Defendant, but he has executed only one single
document in his favour, on account of paralytic attack, but is now making
excuse that he had signed blank signed papers.
11. On merits , it was claimed that Defendant is the lawful owner of the
Suit Property as the Plaintiff himself had executed necessary documents of
property in his favour.

12. It is denied that he was in illegal possession of the first floor of the
Suit Property. It is asserted that according to the Plaintiff, his signatures on
the blank papers were obtained after the demise of the father on 16.12.2011,
but the Suit has been filed only in the year 2016. There is no explanation
why the Plaintiff remained silent for 05 years, if he was claiming that his
signatures on the documents, were obtained fraudulently. The Defendant
thus denied the assertions made in the Plaint and claimed that the Suit was
liable to be rejected.
13. The Plaintiff in the Replication , reiterated his assertions as made in
the Plaint.
14. Thereafter, the Defendant/Appellant failed to appear and was
proceeded ex parte vide Order dated 10.10.2019.
15. The Plaintiff in support of his case, adduced the documents and
proved the documents.
16. Thereafter, an Application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was filed on
behalf of the Defendant, which was allowed vide Order dated 04.09.2024.
17. Thereafter, the learned District Judge heard the arguments on
decreeing the Suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
RFA 173/2025 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

18. In the impugned Order dated 08.01.2025, learned District Judge
observed that the Plaintiff/Respondent admittedly had a registered Sale Deed
in his favour. The two documents, namely, Rajinama dated 21.04.2005 and
the Declaration dated 26.04.2005 , did not create any ownership right in
favour of the Defendant and these documents even if taken to be true, do not
create any ownership right in the Defendant. Therefore, the Suit for
possession was decreed vide the impugned Judgment dated 08.01.2025
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC .

19. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant filed the present
Appeal. The grounds of challenge are that on 26.03.2011, Sh. Nand Lal
Jaggi, father of the Appellant has filed a Civil Suit No. 344/2011 for
Declaration and Permanent Injunction against the Respondent and his friend
R.K. Chopra, in respect of property in question, by claiming that the
Respondent in collusion and connivance with R.K. Chopra, had forged the
property documents, but the Suit was eventually withdrawn on 17.01.2012,
pursuant to a settlement between the parties.
20. On 15.12.2011, the Respondent executed a family settlement in
favour of the Appellant and his two sisters, Manju Khattar and Anita
Malhotra. He executed a GPA and Will dated 06.02.2012 in favour of the
Appellant in respect of the properties in question.
21. However, he thereafter, filed the Suit for possession on the basis of
registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005, having purchased the property from
R.K. Chopra. The impugned Order is bad in law and contrary to the
provisions of law. It has been filed merely to extract money or usurp the
property in question.
RFA 173/2025 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

22. It has never been admitted by the Appellant that the Respondent was
the owner of the property. In fact, the family Settlement dated 15.12.2011
between the Appellant and two sisters, has not been considered. The
Appellant has been in possession of the Suit Property for more than 17 years
and the Suit is barred by limitation . The requisite Court Fee as per the
market rent, has also not been paid by the Respondent.
23. Reliance is placed on Himani Alloys Ltd. vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011)
15 SCC 273 , and Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. vs. Diljit Singh
(2019) 20 SCC 425 wherein it is held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is meant
for speedy disposal of the Suit only where there is a clear, unambiguous,
unequivocal and unconditional admission, or else the Court must not
exercise its discretion of giving the Judgment on the basis of admissions.
24. Reliance is also placed on Rajesh Kumar Mitra vs. Karnani
Properties Limited , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2607 Civil Appeal Nos. 3593-
3594/2024 dated 20.09.2024, wherein the Apex Court has reiterated that
judgment on admission cannot be given on the basis of ambiguous and
conditional admissions, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
25. The defence taken by the Appellant/Defendant involves mixed
questions of fact and law and cannot be termed as admission. T herefore, a
prayer is made that the Judgment dated 08.01.2025 under Order XII Rule 6
CPC, be set aside.
Submissions heard and record perused.
26. The Plaintiff/Respondent is undeniably the owner of the property by
virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005, having purchased it from
Sh. R.K. Chopra, for a sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/-. The Sale Deed
also indicates the manner in which the payment had been made through 03
RFA 173/2025 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

cheques. This Sale Deed is not challenged and unequivocally proves that the
Plaintiff/Respondent was the owner of the said property.
27. The Defendant vaguely claimed in his Written Statement that there
were various documents, to show that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the
property. However, there is no detail of any document mentioned in the
Written Statement.
28. However, the record shows that the Defendant had placed reliance
on one document titled as Rajinama dated 21.04.2005 wherein it was
recorded that “ there was a glass shop in between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant and that the same would be vacated by the Plaintiff , whatever
time it takes. As soon as the shop is vacated, will get the papers of the house
and shop registered in my name within fifteen to twenty days. Will get water,
electricity connection and also construct stairs. Rest of the part of the house,
I and my children will have no concerns. Will get the inner wall constructed.
Both the walls of the shop will remain common.”
29. The second document relied upon by the Defendant was a
Declaration dated 26.04.2005 , which read as under:-

“1. That my father is rightful owner of Built-up Property
bearing No.WZ-H-45, Near Arya Samaj Mandar, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi-59.
2. That my father prepare to give equal share from his
above said property to me and my elder brother Shri Arun
Kumar.
3. That I am ready to take the cost of my share of the said
property in cash from my elder brother Shri Arun Kumar
amounting Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only)
within three months from the date of this declaration and
RFA 173/2025 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

vacate the premises of my share on receipt of full payment
of my share as
mutually agreed.
4. That I have received Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
thousand only) from my eider brother, out of
Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen only) and the balance
payment of Rs.15,80,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs & eighty
thousand only) will be made by my elder brother by 30-07-
2005.
5. That I will vacate the above property of my share only
on receipt of balance payment of Rs.15,80,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lacs & Eighty thousand only) from my brother
Shri Arun Kumar.
6. That on receipt of full & final payment of the above said
property of my share I will vacate the same by 30-07-2005
and I and any member of my family member ceased all
right, claim & title of my share on the said property.”

30. These two documents are prior to the execution of the Sale Deed
dated 30.09.2005, in favour of the Plaintiff. The Rajinama dated 21.04.2005
and the Declaration dated 26.04.2005, merely reflected an adjustment
between the parties, in whatever capacity. When the Plaintiff or the
Defendant were not the owners of the property, it is difficult to comprehend
how in a Declaration dated, dated 26.04.2005, the Defendant/Appellant,
Neeraj Jaggi could assert that the father was the rightful owner of the
property in question or that the father had agreed to give equal share in the
property to him and to the Plaintiff.
31. It was further stated therein that the Appellant/Defendant was
willing to take Rs.16,00,00/- towards his share and after the receipt of the
RFA 173/2025 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

entire amount, he would vacate the property and would cease to have all
rights, claim, title of share in the property.
32. In fact, these two documents while claiming that Nand Lal Jaggi
father of the parties, was the owner, but there is no document whatsoever to
show that the father ever had ownership rights in the property; rather the
Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005, clearly shows that it was the Plaintiff who was
the registered owner of the property.
33. The document, i.e., the Rajinama dated 21.04.2005 or the
Declaration dated 26.04.2005, do not create any kind of right in the
Appellant. Even if the terms of the Declaration dated 26.04.2005 was
admitted, the Appellant could have sought its specific performance within
03 years, i.e., up to April 2008, but he has never ever taken any such step.
34. Furthermore, it is admitted by him that his father, Nand Lal had
filed a Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction vide Civil Suit No.
344/2011, but the same was withdrawn. Now, the filing of the Civil Suit
shows that there were claims being made by the Appellant and his father,
which were never proved.
35. Interestingly, the Defendant has placed on record one Family
Settlement dated 15.12.2011 which allegedly was entered into between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant/Appellant. Interestingly, this document is only
signed by the Respondent/Plaintiff. It declares that he has given his one
downstairs shop and backside with shop, to his sisters, Manju Khattar and
Anita Malhotra, as a gift. Moreover, the upper floor and the down backside
gali having a separate entry is given to Neeraj Jaggi, and Manju Khattar and
Anita Malhotra would give Rs. 4,00,000/- to Neeraj Jaggi. It also refers that
Neeraj Jaggi/Appellant’s share comprised of a two room set on the first floor
RFA 173/2025 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

and roof and a separate entry. The said property will be given in the name of
Manju Khattar and Anita Malhotra and it will be their own concern as to
how they divide it between themselves, and Arun Kumar and Neeraj Jaggi
shall have no concern or claim with respect to the same.
36. First and foremost, this family Settlement, even if accepted on its
face value, whether it is considered as a Gift Deed or in Declaration to
transfers the property in the name of the Appellant, was creating rights in the
favour of parties, which can be effected only by virtue of a registered Sale
Deed/Gift Deed, as provided under Section 54 Transfer of Property Act.
37. This self-serving Family Settlement dated 15.12.2011 on which the
Appellant has placed reliance, requires compulsory registration under
Section 17 Registration Act, to be effective in creating rights in immovable
property in a person who otherwise has no right. Without any registration,
this document, is of no value and cannot be read in evidence.
38. It may be emphasized that though in the Written Statement there
was a vague reference to some documents on which the reliance was placed
by the Appellant, there was no specific mention of any of these documents.
They were only filed along with the Written Statement in the Suit.
39. The aforesaid discussion shows that these documents, even if
admitted on face value, do not create any right, title and interest in favour of
the Appellant, in the Suit Property.
40. It has been rightly observed by the Learned District Judge that these
documents do not set up any defence and even if proved during the trial,
would not improve the case of the Defendant/Appellant from that of a
permissive user in the suit property. The Suit of the Plaintiff has been rightly
decreed, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
RFA 173/2025 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05

41. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed
along with any pending Application(s), if any.
42. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.


(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2026
N

RFA 173/2025 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:16.03.2026
17:13:05