Delhi Court dismisses property suit after 65 years

New Delhi [India], February 4 : Delhi's Tis Hazari court has disposed of a 65 years property suit (case) filed in 1959 against the coloniser and builder of Mansarover Garden.
The plaintiff had claimed that his 12 bigha land, without any right, title or interest, was included in lay out plan submitted to the DDA for sanction of Mansarovar Garden Colony under the Town planning scheme.
This property suit was contested by three generations of the parties. Plaintiff Mohan Lal (since deceased) had claimed that he was in possession of the suit property and defendant coloniser made a road over this land. He prayed the court to pass a direction to stop him.
On the other hand, it was claimed by the defendant coloniser that the suit property was part of large piece of land was in their possession.
Civil Judge Kapil Gupta decided the suit by dismissing it after noting that the plaintiff was not in the possession of the suit property.
The court said that in view of the evidence adduced, documents put forth and arguments advanced by the parties and further in view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the case and accordingly, the present case is hereby dismissed.
"In the present case, plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the suit property as on date and has only sought the relief of injunction and has not sought the relief of possession," court said in the judgement dated February 3, 2025.
The court held, "In view of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Others, the case is not maintainable in its present form as relief of possession has not been sought in the present suit and thus, the relief of injection along with consequential reliefs cannot be granted."
The court noted that the suit was filed on May 23, 1959 seeking decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. During course of the proceedings, original parties had expired and they are now represented by their legal representatives.
It was the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner and in possession of the land measuring around 12 Bigha situated in the area of village Basai-Darapur, Delhi.
It was submitted that defendants are engaged in business of sale of urban plots of land and are holding out themselves as proprietor of colony namely Mansarovar Garden situated at Najafagarh Road, Delhi.
It was stated that about two years prior to institution of the present suit, defendants had submitted a layout plan to the Delhi Development Authority for sanction of the Mansarovar Garden Colony under the Town Planning Scheme and they have included the suit property belonging to the plaintiff without the consent of the plaintiff in such plan and defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property.
It was contended that in the layout plan, defendants have shown the suit property being divided in two plots and roads saleable to the public to deprive the plaintiff of his right in the suit property. It was stated that when the plaintiff came to know about the same, he protested to the defendants, however, defendants did not comply with his request and thereafter, plaintiff approached DDA and requested to reject the layout plan submitted by the defendants or to exclude land of the plaintiff while sanctioning the Mansarovar Garden Colony.
It was also submitted that DDA had excluded five pockets of land in question from the layout plan and the land in question falls within the pocket which is excluded by the DDA.
It was also stated that about a week prior to the institution of the suit, defendants forcibly and against the will and consent of the plaintiff and without having any right or authority started laying down road in the suit property thereby interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and have been holding out that they will construct and carry out other development activities in the suit property and compel the plaintiff to sell the same to the defendants at a price which they will command or quit the suit property and defendants also threatened that they will raise permanent structure if plaintiff does not submit to their wishes.
It was prayed that defendants be restrained from holding out that the suit property is a part of their scheme of Mansarovar Garden and is saleable to the public.
Counsel for the plaintiff had argued that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendants are trying to grab the portion of the plaintiff and have illegally done construction in the suit property.
It was argued by Advocate Amit Kumar on behalf of defendants that defendants had rightfully made construction in the suit property. It was further argued that the suit is not maintainable in its present form as plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the suit property.
It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. A Common Written Statement was filed on behalf of the defendants. It was admitted that plaintiff is the owner, however it was submitted that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property since 20.07.1957 when under an agreement entered into between plaintiff and Jaswant Rai Gauri, possession of the suit property along with other land measuring 60 bigha 1 biswa was given by the plaintiff to Jaswant Rai Gauri.
It was also submitted that the defendants are successors in interest of Jaswant Rai Gauri and are in possession of the entire area measuring 72 bigha 17 biswa of plaintiff's land since 15.04.1959 as per agreement entered into between Jaswant Rai Gauri and Mahan Singh (Now deceased), being partner of Bharat Builders and Colonizers, New Delhi.
It was stated that possession of the land including the suit property was earlier with Jaswant Rai Gauri, who on 15.04.1959 gave it to the defendants and the possession of the defendants is permissive and not forceful or illegal.
It was contended that defendants did not interfere with possession of the plaintiff as plaintiff was not in possession and defendants had right to construct road and sewage and carry out other development work in the entire land.
On the other hand, in his cross-examination, plaintiff had stated that he had not made any deal of his 72 bigha land with Hind Planning Construction and Jaswant Rai. He stated that he had not lodged any report in police in respect of making possession of the defendant, however, he had made the same in this case. He further stated that defendant has no possession upon 60 bigha land.