1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3333 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 726 of 2014]

Kedar Nath Kohli (Dead) by LRs. .. Appellants

Versus

Baldev Singh                 .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar. J.

Leave granted.

2. Application for permission to file additional documents and

the translated copies thereof is allowed in terms of this Court’s

order dated 6.10.2017.

3. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order

dated 7.2.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in R.S.A. No.

133  of  2012,  whereby  the  High  Court  while  dismissing  the

Regular Second Appeal, has confirmed the concurrent judgments

2

passed by  the  trial  Court  as  well  as  the  first  appellate  Court

dismissing the suit for possession.

4. The appellant’s father, namely, Mehar Chand Kohli was the

original plaintiff.  He filed a Civil Suit No. 354/03/75 against the

defendants claiming possession of Plot no. 27 bearing Municipal

No. 1443 situated in Wazir Nagar, Gali No. 7, Kotla Mubarakpur,

New Delhi on the ground that the father of the appellant was the

actual  owner of  the said property  and the defendants were in

illegal possession of the same.  The said Mehar Chand Kohli, i.e.

the original plaintiff,  died on 13.7.1980 and the appellant was

thus  substituted  as  plaintiff  in  place  of  his  father.   The  trial

Court dismissed the suit on 21.9.2016.  The judgment of the trial

Court is confirmed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil

Appeal No. 29 of 2011 dated 7.12.2011.  As mentioned supra, the

Regular Second Appeal No.  133 of  2012 filed by the appellant

questioning the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first

appellate Court also came to be dismissed by the High Court on

7.2.2013.

5. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

3

The appellant-plaintiff claims that he is the owner of Plot no. 27

(now bearing Municipal no. 1443 situated in Wazir Nagar, Gali

No.  7,  Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi)  along with the adjoining

land  totally  measuring  260  square  yards.  The

respondents-defendants illegally trespassed into the above land

and have raised construction without the consent and knowledge

of  the  appellant.    The  said  construction  is  unauthorised

inasmuch  as  the  same  is  raised  without  sanction  from  the

Municipal  Corporation of  Delhi  (for  short  ‘MCD’)  or  any  other

competent authority.   The respondents do not have any right to

be  in  possession of  the  said  piece  of  land and they  have  not

handed  over  the  possession  of  the  plot  in  question  to  the

appellant  despite  repeated  requests  and  demands  by  the

appellant.   The respondents have also obtained electricity and

water  connections  by  misrepresenting  the  MCD.   The

respondents  though  have  no  ownership  over  the  property  in

question, encroached upon the same.    

Per contra, it is the case of the respondent that the appellant

is not the owner of the suit property as the same was purchased

by the respondent from one Dharampal, s/o Haveli Ram as per

the sale deed dated 15.8.1966 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-.

4

Defendant nos. 1 and 2 (before the trial Court) are cousins.   The

respondent gave a portion of the plot in question to defendant no.

1 (since dead) and constructed structure on the plot in question

at  their  expenses.    Defendants  are  in  physical  possession of

property  constructed  on  part  of  plot  No.  1443.    The

appellant-plaintiff was estopped from filing suit as he had earlier

filed a suit for permanent injunction, which was dismissed.  In

sum and substance, the respondent-defendant took the plea that

he purchased the property from one Dharampal, s/o Haveli Ram

through a registered deed dated 15.8.1966 and, therefore, he is

entitled to remain in the possession of the property.

6. It  is  pertinent  to  mention  that  original  defendant  no.  1

before the trial Court is reported to have died and he has been

deleted from the array of  parties vide this Court’s order dated

28.9.2015  at  the  risk  of  the  appellant  and  now  the  only

respondent before  us is  the  original  defendant no.  2 –  Baldev

Singh (respondent herein).

7. Heard  learned  advocates  on  both  sides  and  perused  the

records.  Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, taking us

through the material on record in detail and contends that the

5

Courts below while concluding have concurrently erred in holding

that the appellant-plaintiff  is  not the owner of  the property in

question and that the defendants have purchased the property

from one Dharampal vide sale deed dated 15.8.1966.  

It is relevant to note that after a huge gap of about 28 years

from the  date  of  the  suit,  the  respondent  filed  an application

before the trial Court under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section

151  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  seeking  to  amend  the

pleadings.  Through this  application,  the  respondent  sought  to

change the number of the suit property from Municipal no. 1443

to 1443A and also the date of the sale deed from 15.8.1966 to

15.9.1966 to  establish  and  prove  his  ownership  over  the  suit

property.   The allegations were made by the appellant that the

respondent has forged the sale deed in his favour and that the

forged sale deed relied upon by the respondent cannot be made

the proof of ownership.  In that regard, the trial Court ordered for

an enquiry and has, however, concluded that the allegations so

made by the appellant regarding forgery of the documents are not

proved.   

8.     Both  the  parties  have  led  their  evidence,  both  oral  and

documentary.  The  crucial  document  is  the  sale  deed  dated

6

15.9.1966 (Ex.DW1/1) produced by the respondent to show his

ownership of the plot in question, i.e. plot no. 27 (Municipal No.

1443).    Since there was an allegation of forgery in respect of the

said document, the enquiry was conducted, as mentioned supra,

and the trial Court summoned the original records pertaining to

the  said  sale  deed.  The  Office  of  the  Sub-Registrar,  Asaf  Ali

Road, Delhi produced the original document, i.e. the sale deed

15.9.1966, maintained in the Sub-Registrar’s office in a sealed

cover.  The trial Court has marked the said document which was

produced in the sealed cover as Ex.C1.   It is needless to mention

that  Ex.C1  is  the  original  document  maintained  in  the

Sub-Registrar’s  office  to  verify  as  to  whether  the  sale  deed

Ex.DW1/1 produced by the defendants is forged one or not.

9.     Ex.DW1/1 dated 15.9.1966 relied upon by the defendants

to show their ownership is in Urdu.  English translation is also

produced before us.  The English translation of Ex.DW1/1 is not

disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.  Ex.DW1/1

relied upon by the respondent shows that Sardar Baldev Singh,

s/o Sardar Kartar Singh purchased one piece of land bearing no.

1443 measuring 230 square yards out of an area of 567 square

yards  from Dharampal,  s/o  Haveli  Ram.   This  sale  deed  also

7

reveals that the said Dharampal,  s/o Haveli  Ram had in turn

purchased the very property through a registered sale deed dated

5.12.1947 from Uday Chand, s/o Choudhury Wazir Singh.  This

sale deed, according to the appellant, is a forged one.   

10. The said document Ex.C1 is almost replication of Ex.DW1/1

in all particulars,  except on material particulars.  Ex.C1 clearly

reveals  that  Sardar  Balwant  Singh,  s/o  Sardar  Kartar  Singh

purchased one plot of land measuring 230 square yards out of

567  square  yards  from Dharampal,  s/o  Haveli  Ram.     It  is

curious to note that either Municipal no. 1443 or Municipal no.

1443A are not found in Ex.C1.  It is no doubt true that Ex.C1

also  relates  to  230  square  yards  out  of  567  square  yards,

purchased  through  a  sale  deed  dated  15.9.1966  from  one

Dharampal,  s/o Haveli  Ram.  The very document also reveals

that  Dharampal,  s/o  Haveli  Ram  had  in  turn  purchased  the

property from Uday Chand, s/o Choudhary Wazir Singh.    

11. The  appellant  has  also  relied  upon  the  document  Ex.C3

dated 5.12.1947 which is in Urdu language.   English translation

is also furnished and such translation is not disputed before us.

Through the said sale deed, Udai Chand, s/o Chaudhary Wazir

8

Singh sold the three plots of land, i.e. plot nos. 30, 31 and 34 in

favour of Lala Dharampal, S/o Rai Sahab Choban Ram.  The sale

deed Ex.C3 further discloses that the three plots,  namely plot

nos. 30, 31 and 34 which are adjoining each other and situated

at  Chameli  Wala,  known  as  Wazir  Singh  in  the  village

Mubarakpur  Kotla,  Delhi  are  carved  out  of  one  piece  of  land

measuring  567  square  yards  of  different  dimensions.    These

plots  were  sold  in  favour  of  Lala  Dharampal,  S/o  Rai  Sahab

Choban Ram for a valuable consideration through the said sale

deed  by  Shri  Udai  Chand.   The  boundaries  of  the  said  plots

individually on all the four sides are mentioned in detail.  They

clearly reveal that the three plots are abutting each other.    

12.   Plot  no.  30  is  measuring  60  ft.  X  30  ft.  (200  square

yards); Plot no. 31 is measuring 60 ft. X 30 ft. (200 square yards)

and  Plot  no.  34  is  measuring  58  ft.  x  26  ft.  (167.56  square

yards).  Thus,  it  is  amply  clear  that  all  the  said  three  sites

collectively  measure  about  567  square  yards.  Ex.C3  clearly

reveals that all  the three plots were carved out of  567 square

yards only.  Hence, Choudhary Udai Singh, who was the owner of

567 square yards had formed three sites, viz. Plot nos. 30, 31

and 34, out of  entire 567 square yards and sold all  the three

9

plots in favour of Lala Dharampal.  Not even an inch of property

was left after selling the three plots in total area of 567 square

yards after selling to Lala Dharampal.

13. One  more  sale  deed (marked  as  Ex.DW4/1)  on record  is

dated 9.12.1947.  Through the said sale deed, Udai Chand, s/o

Chaudhary Wazir Singh sold plot no. 28 measuring 200 square

yards in favour of Pandit Ved Prakash Shukla, s/o Pandit Nand

Lal Shukla for a valuable consideration.  The boundaries of the

said plot no. 28 are also mentioned in the said sale deed, which

clarify that plot no. 28 is adjoining plot no. 27.   

14. The maps showing the plots are also on record.  A perusal of

the maps Ex.PW2/4 and Ex.DW1/3 reveal that plot nos. 30 and

31 are adjoining each other  and they form one block.    East,

South and North of these plots are roads.  Another map relating

to plot no. 28, which was stated to be annexed with the sale deed

dated 9.12.1947, reveals that plot no. 28 sold by Uday Chand,

s/o Wazir  Singh in favour of  Ved Prakash Shukla,  s/o Pandit

Nand Lal Shukla is adjoining plot no. 27.  To the East of plot no.

28, it is a 16 feet road and to the East of that 16 feet road is plot

no. 30.  To the West of plot no. 28 lies plot no. 27.  Thus, plot

10

nos. 27 and 28 are also surrounded on three directions by the

roads.  The two maps clearly reveal that they match each other

and plot nos. 30, 31 and 34 are adjoining each other.   They also

reveal that to the West of plot No. 30 is a 16 feet road.  The West

of that 16 feet road is plot no. 28 measuring 200 square yards;

and West of plot no. 28 is plot no. 27.   

15. According to the respondent’s case, as mentioned supra, the

land  in  question  was  purchased  by  him vide  sale  deed  dated

15.8.1966  (which  date  is  later  amended  after  22  years  as

15.9.1966) from one Dharampal, s/o Haveli Ram.  In turn, Mr.

Dharampal,  s/o Haveli  Ram had purchased the  property  from

Udai Chand, s/o Choudhary Wazir Singh vide sale deed no. 3292

dated 5.12.1947.    

16. As aforementioned, Ex.DW1/1 discloses that Sardar Baldev

Singh purchased plot no. 1443 measuring 230 square yards from

Dharampal,  s/o  Haveli  Ram,  whereas  the  original  deed which

was summoned to the Court by the trial Court, which is marked

as Ex.CRW2/P1 (Ex.C1) clearly reveals that it was not the Baldev

Singh who has purchased the suit property, but it was Sardar

Balwant  Singh,  s/o  Sardar  Kartar  Singh.   So  also,  the  plot

11

number of the Municipal plot no. 1443 is also not mentioned in

the  original  deed.    There  is  nothing  on  record  to  show that

Sardar Balwant Singh is the same as Sardar Baldev Singh.  So

also, there is nothing on record to show as to why and when the

number of the plot, i.e. plot no. 1443, was inserted in the sale

deed which is produced in support of the case of the respondent

as  Ex.DW1/1.    Thus,  fabrication  of  the  said  deed  dated

15.9.1966  (i.e.  Ex.DW1/1)  is  evident  from  comparison  of  the

same with the original sale deed received by the trial Court in the

sealed cover from Sub-Registrar’s office.   It  is relevant to note

that Balwant Singh has nothing to do with the present case.

17. The sale deed Ex.DW1/1 dated 15.9.1966 is in respect of

the land measuring 230 square yards out of 567 square yards,

obviously  had  to  be  carved  out  of  plot  nos.  30,  31  and  34

belonging to Shri Dharampal.  The same is clear from the sale

deed 5.12.1947, under which the original owner Udai Chand had

sold the three plots in favour of Lala Dharampal, who in turn

sold the same in favour of Baldev Singh.  Thus, the sale deed

Ex.DW1/1 cannot be in respect of the appellant’s plot no. 27.

12

18. The site plan of the locality of Kotla Mubarakpur, which was

marked as Ex.PW2/4 clearly shows that the location of property

bearing plot nos. 21, 22, 27, 28, 30 and 31 which are adjacent to

each other and in a straight row, of course, a small road of 16

feet exists in between plot nos. 28 and 30.

19. The site  map of  plot  no.  28 dated 9.12.1947, which is  a

certified copy obtained from the Sub-Registrar office, if compared

with  the  site  map of  plots  bearing  nos.  30,  31  and 34  dated

5.12.1947,  which  is  also  a  certified  copy  obtained  from  the

Sub-Registrar office, match with each other.  These maps were

stated to have been produced along with the sale deeds in respect

of those plots at the time of their registration.   The location of

plots as shown in the maps is exactly the same, as mentioned in

the sale deed pertaining to those plots.   Those sale deeds were

executed at an undisputed point of time.   These site maps help

in unmasking the fraud committed.

20. We have already discussed in detail about the location of

each of the plots, including plot no. 27, which is adjacent to plot

no. 28 owned by one Ved Prakash Shukla.  As mentioned earlier,

plot no. 27 lies to the west of plot no. 28.  Even, according to the

13

respondent, his plot is adjacent to plot no. 28 of Ved Prakash

Shukla and he relies upon Ex.DW1/1 to support his contention.

Thus,  the  respondent’s  claim to  have  allegedly  purchased  the

property from one Dharampal, who owned plot nos. 30, 31 and

34 which lie on the east of plot no. 28 and 16 feet road.  Under

no circumstance, plot no. 27 can ever be carved out from plot

nos. 30, 31 and 34, as sought to be shown by the respondent,

inasmuch as such claim leaves the existence of plot no. 28 totally

inexplicable as per the claims and the site map submitted by the

respondent.    

21. In so far as the plaintiff’s/appellant’s case is concerned, we

do not find any reason to suspect the sale deed pertaining to plot

no.  27  purchased  by  the  appellant’s  father,  namely,  Mehar

Chand, s/o Maghar Mal.  The appellant-plaintiff relies upon the

sale  deed  dated  30.5.1952.   The  copy  of  the  said  sale  deed

produced before the court was in Urdu language, the translation

of  which  in  English  language  is  also  produced  for  the

convenience  of  the  court.   It  is  relevant  to  note  that  the

respondent’s  counsel  has  not  objected  to  such  English

translation  of  the  said  sale  deed  in  favour  of  the  appellant’s

father produced before the Court. The said sale deed reveals that

14

Smt.  Kesara  Devi,  d/o  Lala  Chint  Ram,  w/o  Lala  Sham Lala

purchased the residential land measuring 200 square yards (60

ft.  x  30  ft.)  bearing  no.  27  situated  at  Wazir  Nagar,  village

Mubarak Kotla, Delhi from Smt. Kailashwati on 23.1.1948, which

was confirmed/registered on 10.3.1948 before the Sub-Registrar,

Delhi.  The said Kesara Devi, d/o Lala Chint Ram in turn sold the

said property in favour of Shri Mehar Chand, s/o Lala Maghar

Mal, who is none other than the father of the appellant-plaintiff

for  a  valuable  consideration.   In  the  very  sale  deed,  the

boundaries are mentioned.  It is specified in the said sale deed

that plot no. 28 abuts plot no. 27 in the East (i.e. plot no. 27 is to

the west of  plot  no. 28).    So also,  all  other sides of  the said

property are surrounded by road.  The boundaries mentioned in

the said sale deed executed by Smt. Kesara Devi in favour of the

appellant’s father fully concur with the boundaries of plot no. 28,

as is clear from the sale deed pertaining to the said plot no. 28 as

well as from the maps.  After the demise of appellant’s father, the

appellant has inherited the said plot and thus has become the

owner of the said plot no. 27.  It is not the case of the respondent

that he had purchased plot no. 27 from Smt. Kesara Devi who is

the real owner of the property.  

15

22. It  is  the  specific  case  of  the  respondent  that  he  had

purchased plot no. 27 carved out of  567 square yards of land

belonging to one Dharampal.  Since such Dharampal was never

the owner of plot no. 27, there was no occasion of transferring

the  title  relating  to  plot  no.  27  in  favour  of  the  respondent.

Hence, it is amply proved by the appellant that he is the owner of

plot no. 27 and that he is entitled to get back the possession of

the  same  from  the  respondent,  who  is  in  unauthorised

possession.

23. Having regard to the aforementioned discussion, we are of

the clear view that the appellant has proved his case and the suit

is to be decreed.  The trial Court and the first appellate Court

unfortunately  have  erred  to  take  into  consideration  the

aforementioned factual aspects while coming to the conclusion.

The High Court  has  also,  without  assigning  any valid  reason,

confirmed the judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate

Court, which led to injustice.

24. Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed.   The  impugned

judgments of the High Court, first appellate Court and the trial

Court are set aside and the civil suit no. 354/03/75 filed by the

16

original plaintiff Late Mehar Chand Kohli before the trial Court is

decreed.

…….……………………………..J. (R.K. Agrawal)

……………………………………J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

New Delhi, March 27, 2018