2025 INSC 1059 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6377 OF 2012
RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SURESH CHAND AND ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 9 th April, 2012,
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi whereby the Regular First
Appeal No. 358/2000 filed by them against the judgment and decree dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.09.01
15:29:52 IST
11th May, 2000 came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed
Reason:
in Suit No. 613/1997 by the Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the
1
suit for possession, mesne profits, declaration, mandatory injunction filed
by the Respondent No. 1, who was the plaintiff, came to be confirmed, by
dismissing the counterclaim for declaration filed by the Appellant has been
affirmed. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank before
the Trial Court.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. Facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy on hand are as
follows:
4. The suit property bearing No. 563, at Ambedkar Basti near Balmiki
Gate, Delhi - 110053 was originally owned by Shri. Kundan Lal, father of
the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff. The
plaintiff claims that he had acquired title to the suit property from his
father, Shri. Kundan Lal by virtue of a General Power of Attorney,
Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, and a Receipt. He also claimed that his father
had executed a registered Will dated 16.05.1996 bequeathing the suit
schedule property in his favour. He further claims that defendant No. 1 has
been living in the suit property as a licensee and after purchase of the suit
property by the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 was residing in the suit
property as a mere trespasser. He further claims that in order to gain
2
wrongfully, the defendant No. 1 sold half the portion of the suit property to
the defendant No. 2, who is the Respondent No. 2 before us. Hence, the
plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant No.1 and defendant No. 2 for the
recovery of possession, mesne profits, declaration of title and mandatory
injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to handover the original
documents to him. In response to the said claim of the plaintiff, the
defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and also raised a counter claim,
contending that the suit property was orally transferred to him by the father
in July 1973. He further contended that the plaintiff had earlier filed OS
No. 294/1996 wherein he admitted that the father, Shri Kundan Lal was the
owner of the property. However, he withdrew the said suit on 06.06.1997.
In the counter claim, defendant sought for declaration that the alleged
documents i.e. Will, Agreement to Sell, GPA etc. in respect of the suit
property by Lt. Sh. Kundan Lal, who expired on 10 th April, 1997 was null
and void and not binding on him.
5. The Ld. Addl. District Judge decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 on the
ground that the property had been transferred by the Sh. Kundan Lal in
favour of the plaintiff by upholding the validity of the documents. The
defendant No.1 assailed the same by filing Regular First Appeal No. 358 /
