Smt. Chanda Devi & Ors. vs Monika Singh

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟), has been filed on behalf of the Appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 13.10.2025 whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for Possession has been decreed and ₹3,00,000 towards unauthorised use and occupation charges has been awarded.

The Plaintiff/Respondent/Monika Singh, instituted Civil Suit bearing CS DJ No. 611/2017 seeking Recovery of Possession of Flat No. 56, RPS Flats, Bodella, Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”), along with Mesne Profits, under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The Plaintiff also sought a decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their family members, agents and representatives from parting with possession of or creating any third-party interest in the suit property.

The facts in brief, as stated in the Plaint, are that in terms of the Late Sh. Nand Lal was issued the original Allotment Letter by the DDA, in 1988. After Sh. Nand Lal’s demise, his son, Sh. Prem Nath Gill, became the owner of the suit property, from whom the Plaintiff, purchased it vide Sale Deed dated 28.04.2010.

The Plaintiff explained that her father, Capt. Pardeep Singhal, had taken possession of the suit property from Sh. Prem Nath Gill, sometime in April 2003, on the understanding that Sh. Prem Nath Gill would execute a Sale Deed in his favour after completing all documentation and formalities with his family members, including getting the property mutated in his sole name.

The Plaintiff further stated that, Late Sh. Jamna Prasad was working as a domestic help for her father, Capt. Pardeep Singhal (Retd.), and, on account of his employment, was permitted by her father to stay in the suit property as a gratuitous licensee, since Late Sh. Jamna Prasad frequently changed rented accommodation and had no fixed abode.

It is further explained that the title documents of the suit property, as provided by Sh. Prem Nath Gill, were always in the possession of the Plaintiff and her father. The utility bills, including the water and electricity bills, as well as the property tax, were always paid by the Plaintiff and/or her father. However, sometime in 2013–2014, considering the increased rates of water and electricity, the Plaintiff’s father asked Late Sh. Jamna Prasad to pay the utility charges himself, though he continued to pay the house tax bills.

Late Sh. Jamna Prasad died on 08.02.2017. A few days later, the Plaintiff, along with her father, asked the Defendant No. 1, Smt. Chanda Devi, Late Sh. Jamna Prasad’s wife; Defendant No. 2, Sh. Vicky Kumar Yadav, his son; Defendant No. 3, Smt. Pooja Arora, his daughter-in-law and Defendant No. 4, Ms. Karishma Yadav, his daughter to vacate the suit property. However, they refused to hand over vacant possession of the suit property and also threatened the Plaintiff and her family members, with dire consequences.

Upon the Defendant’s refusal, the Plaintiff filed the Suit for Recovery of Possession and Mesne Profits, as well as for Permanent Injunction.

The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, in their Joint Written Statement, took the preliminary objections that the Suit is reflective of vindictive attitude of the Plaintiff, who merely wants to create a pressure on the Defendants for refraining them from filing Civil and Criminal Complaints, against her and her family members. It was asserted that the suit was bad for want of title, interest and claim in the Plaintiff.

It was asserted that, during his lifetime, Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad had entered into an oral agreement with Capt. Pradeep Singhal for the purchase of the suit property, for a sale consideration of ₹4,00,000. Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad had been working as a supervisor for Capt. Pardeep Singhal and was looking after his entire premises. It was agreed that ₹1,750/- p.m. would be deducted from his salary each month, as easy monthly instalments towards the sale consideration, beginning in January, 2003. It is further claimed that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad took possession of the suit property on 03.01.2003 and received copies of the Allotment Letter and other property documents. According to the Defendants, Capt. Pradeep Singhal had assured Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad that the property would be transferred in his name through Sh. Nand Lal Gill, after the sale consideration had been paid.

The Defendants claimed that ₹3,15,000 had been deducted from Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad’s salary between January 2003 and February 2017, and only a balance of ₹85,000/- remained, which the answering Defendants were willing to pay to Capt. Pradeep Singhal.

The Defendants alleged that the original property documents had been with Capt. Pradeep Singhal, who had received them from Sh. Nand Lal Gill, and that the documents were later handed over to Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad. A few days before his death, Capt. Pradeep Singhal took the documents back on the pretext of having the property transferred in Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad’s name. They further alleged that Capt. Singhal had instead transferred the property in the Plaintiff’s name, while continuing to deduct ₹1,750 per month, from Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad’s salary.

The Defendants alleged that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad had died in suspicious circumstances, on 08.02.2017 and accused the Plaintiff, her husband, Sh. Neeraj Kumar, and Capt. Pradeep Singhal of causing his death by administering a poisonous substance in the house of the Plaintiff, at 32-C, Vikaspuri, New Delhi. They stated that Complaints dated 21.02.2017 and 10.06.2017 had been made at Police Station Vikaspuri, but no action was taken.

The Defendants further claimed that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had been residing in the suit property since January, 2003 and that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad had constructed the second floor of the suit property, and the Plaintiff had never resided in the suit property. The Defendants described the Bills in the Plaintiff’s name, as false and fabricated and stated that she had lived at Kothi No. 34, Charak Sadan Society, Vikas Puri, and later at House No. 32-C, Block DG-1, Vikas Puri.

The Defendants thus, claimed that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the recovery and submitted that the Suit be dismissed.

The Plaintiff in their Replication, reiterated the averments made in the Plaint and denied the allegations made in the Written Statement.

The Issues on the pleadings, were framed on 05.07.2018, which are as under:-

The Plaintiff, Ms. Monika Singh, appeared as PW-1. She tendered her affidavit in evidence, Ex. PW-1/A, and relied upon the following documents:

PW-2, Capt. Pradeep Singhal and PW-3, Mr. Neeraj Kumar, husband of the plaintiff, tendered their evidence by way of Affidavit and corroborated the testimony of the Plaintiff.

PW-4, Ms. Jyoti Bajaj, Area Inspector, MCD Property Tax, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018, produced the digital record of property tax receipts for Flat No. 56, RPS Society, First and Second Floors, Budhela, Vikas Puri. The Receipts covered 2010–2011 and 2012–2013 to 2022–2023 and were exhibited collectively as Ex. PW-4/1. She deposed that, as per the MCD record, the property tax had been paid by the Plaintiff, Ms. Monika Singh.

PW-5, Mr. Krishan, Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar-II, Basaidarapur, was unavailable to produce the relevant record and was dropped from the list of witnesses.

PW-6, Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, an official from BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, produced documents relating to disconnection of the electricity meter, along with documents submitted by the Plaintiff,. exhibited collectively as Ex. PW-6/A (colly.), comprising eight pages.

PW-7, Mr. Sandeep, Senior Assistant, Sub Registrar II, Basaidara Pur, New Delhi, produced the original record of registered Sale Agreement dated 28.04.2010, as Ex.PW-7/A.

PW-8, Mr. Virender Kumar Yadav, JSA, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023, produced the following documents, which are as under:-

PW-9, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Zonal Revenue Officer, Delhi Jal Board, West-3, Paschim Vihar produced the digital record relating to the Water Connection for Flat No. 56, RPS, Budhela, Vikas Puri, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-9/1. The Certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is Ex. PW-9/A. He deposed that, according to the digital record, the Water Bills from 27.04.2012 up to date, were in the Plaintiff’s name.

The Defendant No. 1, Ms. Chanda Devi, had filed an affidavit by way of evidence, but did not appear to tender it. No evidence was led by the Defendants despite opportunities, and their defence evidence was closed.

The learned District Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, relied upon the registered Agreement to Sell dated 28.04.2010 and the Conveyance Deed dated 23.06.2011, along with the other evidence on record, and held the Plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property. The Appellants’ defence that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad had acquired ownership under an oral Agreement with Capt. Pardeep Singhal, was held to be legally untenable, as the alleged oral agreement could not transfer title in the suit property.

The learned District Judge also found that the alleged salary deductions and payment of sale consideration, had not been proved. The Plaintiff was accordingly, granted a Decree of Possession and Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from parting with possession of, or creating third-party interest in, the suit property.

On the claim for mesne profits, the learned District Judge observed that the Plaintiff had not proved the loss or damages suffered or that the Defendants had earned profits from their occupation of the suit property. It was also noted that the Plaintiff had purchased the property with knowledge that the Defendants were in possession. However, a lump sum of ₹3,00,000 towards unauthorised use and occupation charges, were awarded to the Plaintiff and further directed the Defendants to pay ₹12,000 per month after the expiry of three months, if they failed to vacate within that period, until delivery of possession.

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.2025, the Appellants have filed the present RFA. 606/2026.

The grounds of challenge are that the impugned Judgment is bad, both in law and on facts. It is contended that the Defendants had contested the suit by filing a Written Statement and had participated in the proceedings, including by cross-examination of the Plaintiff and most of her witnesses. Defendant No. 1 had filed an affidavit by way of evidence on 08.08.2018, which, according to the Appellants, demonstrated their intention to lead evidence, in support of their defence. They submitted that they were not avoiding the proceedings, but were deprived of an opportunity to complete their defence evidence, when they were proceeded ex parte on 17.04.2025.

The Appellants further contended that, having participated in the proceedings until the stage of defence evidence, they should have been granted a further effective opportunity, including by issuance of a Court Notice. They denied having abandoned the proceedings and submitted that their failure to lead evidence, was neither deliberate nor intentional. They attributed their non-appearance to the illness and subsequent death of their counsel, Sh. Jati Ram, on 05.09.2024, and claimed that they learnt of the ex parte proceedings, only upon receiving Notice in the Execution proceedings.

It is further submitted that the Plaintiff was required to succeed on the strength of her own case and not on the weakness of the defence. According to the Appellants, the absence of defence evidence did not relieve the Plaintiff of the burden of proving her right to the suit property, her entitlement to recover possession and her claim for consequential reliefs.

Furthermore, their Written Statement had raised bona fide disputes concerning the Plaintiff’s entitlement to possession and the nature of the relationship between the parties, which required adjudication after both sides had led evidence.

The Appellants accordingly, sought setting aside of the impugned Judgment and Decree.

Learned counsel for the Respondent, has contended that there was no Agreement to Sell the suit property, to the Appellants. In fact, they were unauthorised occupants, being the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jamna Prasad, who was an employee of the father of the Plaintiff and had merely been permitted to stay in the suit premises. They are the unauthorised occupants and the decree of possession has been rightly passed against them.

The Respondent also filed Written Submissions, reiterating these contentions.

The Plaintiff/Respondent, Ms. Monika Singh, instituted the Suit for recovery of possession of the suit property. It is not in dispute that Late Sh. Nand Lal was the original allottee of the suit property, vide DDA demand letter is dated 19.07.1988 and NOC-cum-possession document dated 07.11.1988, a fact acknowledged by the Defendants in their Written Statement.

Upon Late Sh. Nand Lal’s demise, his son, Sh. Prem Nath Gill, and daughter, Smt. Neelam, succeeded to his rights in the property; and that Smt. Neelam executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 25.07.2005 in favour of Sh. Prem Nath Gill; and that the property was thereafter, mutated in his name vide Letter dated 23.04.2007.

The Plaintiff’s case was that her father, Capt. Pradeep Kumar Singhal, obtained possession of the suit property from Sh. Prem Nath Gill sometime in April 2003, on the understanding that the title documents would later be executed in Capt. Singhal’s favour, after completion of the family formalities and mutation of the property in his sole name

Eventually, Ms. Monika entered into the registered Agreement to Sell dated 28.04.2010, Ex.PW-1/2, with Mr. Prem Nath Gill. Furthermore, a Conveyance deed dated 23.06.2011, Ex. PW-8/4, in favour of the Plaintiff, was also executed.

The Plaintiff also examined PW-4, Ms. Jyoti Bajaj, produced the MCD’s digital property-tax record, Ex. PW-4/1, and deposed that, according to the record, the property tax had been paid by the Plaintiff. PW-9, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, produced the digital record relating to the water connection in the suit property, Ex. PW-9/1, together with the Certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Ex. PW-9/A. He deposed that the Water Bills from 27.04.2012 up to the date of his testimony, were in the Plaintiff’s name. These official records read together with the title documents, corroborates the Plaintiff’s ownership to the suit property and reinforce her entitlement to recover its possession.

The Plaintiff, PW-1, explained in her testimony, that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad Yadav, who worked as a domestic helper for Capt. Singhal, was permitted to reside in the suit property around June, 2003 as a gratuitous licensee, since he had no fixed abode to reside in. Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad died in 2017. The Plaintiff asserted that the Appellants, being his wife, son, daughter-in-law and daughter, had no right to continue in possession and were liable to hand over the property to her.

The Appellants sought to justify their possession by asserting that Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad Yadav, who worked for Capt. Singhal, had entered into an oral agreement with him in 2003 to purchase the suit property, for ₹4,00,000. According to the Appellants, it was agreed that ₹1,750 per month would be deducted from Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad’s salary, towards the sale consideration and that the Sale documents would be executed in his favour, after the entire consideration had been paid. Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad died in 2017.

First and foremost, as has been rightly observed by the learned District Judge in the impugned Judgment, there is not an iota of evidence led by the Appellants, to prove any cogent oral or documentary evidence that there ever existed any such understanding between Capt. Pradeep Singhal and Late Mr. Jamna Prasad in regard to sale of the suit property, to him. Even otherwise, it has been rightly held in the judgement that a mere alleged Oral Agreement, is incapable under law, to create any proprietary right in the suit property.

Secondly, the falsity of the claim of the Appellants, is also evident from the fact that, according to them, while taking possession in the year 2003, the sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs.1,750/-, to be deducted from the salary of Mr. Jamna Prasad. No prudent person, who intends to sell their property, would agree to accept the sale consideration by way of monthly instalment of Rs.1,750/. Even if it is accepted that there was any such arrangement between Mr. Jaman Prasad and Capt. Pradeep Singhal, then too, admittedly, no sale document ever got executed in favour of the Late Jamna Prasad, by virtue of which, he would ever claim ownership.

Thirdly, the Appellants had asserted that ₹3,15,000 had been paid towards the sale consideration. However, there is no document or any other evidence, which had been filed by the Defendants along with the Written Statement, or subsequently proved to establish such monthly deduction from the salary of Mr. Jaman Prasad.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the assertions of the Appellants, was that Mr. Jamna Prasad, is in permissive user and occupation of the suit property and that mere permissive occupation ever matured into ownership in favour of Late Sh. Jamna Prasad.

Therefore, it was rightly held that Mr. Jamna Prasad was in permissive user and after his demise, the Appellants, who are the legal heirs of Mr. Jamna Prasad, do not have any right title to continue in the suit premises.

The next contention advanced on behalf of the Appellants is that the Plaintiff did not specify the date on which Late Sh. Jamuna Prasad was permitted to occupy the suit property or the date on which that permission was terminated. However, the Plaint states that he was permitted to reside there sometime around June 2003 and that, after his demise, the Plaintiff and her father asked the Defendants to vacate the property. The relevant extract i.e. Paragraph 6 from the Plaint, is produced as under:

The Plaint thus, discloses both the approximate time when the permissive occupation began and when the Plaintiff required the Defendants to leave. Moreover, in the Written Statement, it was admitted that late Jamna Prasad was the Supervisor with the father of the Plaintiff and came into the occupation of the suit property, on 03.01.2003.

In any event, the filing of the Suit made clear to the Defendants that the Plaintiff no longer permitted them to remain in the property and required them to hand over possession.

Reference may be made to M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728, wherein the Supreme Court held that, where a landlord seeks eviction under the general law, institution of the eviction suit itself conveys the landlord’s intention to terminate the tenancy and seek possession. A separate notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary for that purpose.

Accordingly, even assuming that no separate Notice terminating the occupation of the Appellants, was served before institution of the Suit, the filing of the Suit for possession, followed by service of its summons, sufficiently conveyed the Respondent’s intention to terminate the tenancy and seek possession.

The final grievance of the Appellants, is that they had been contesting the Suit for nearly eight years and had been unable to appear since 2024, on account of the demise of their counsel and remained unaware of the subsequent proceedings. They claim that they learnt of the ex parte Decree only upon receiving Notice in the Execution proceedings. It is asserted that considering that the Appellants had been contesting the Suit till the stage of Defendants’ evidence, the Court should have issued a Court Notice to the Defendants, before proceeding ex-parte against them, on 17.04.2025.

The Defendants all throughout had been appearing and they chose to stop appearing from 2024. However, if the Appellants had any grievance of not being able to appear and the Judgment being delivered ex-parte, the more appropriate remedy would have been to seek the setting-aside of the ex-parte Judgment under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, but that cannot be a ground to challenge the Judgment.

The Impugned Judgement is based on cogent evidence led by the Plaintiff and the admissions of the Appellants. The sole defence of the Appellants is the Oral Sale of the suit property, which even if accepted, does not confer any ownership on the Appellants. Likewise, mere long possession, does not create any right in the Appellants, to seek protection of their possession. Their defence, has been duly considered by the Appellate Court.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed.

The pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of.