RFA 101/2026 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 06

th

April, 2026

Pronounced on: 3

rd

June, 2026

+ RFA 101/2026, CM APPL. 6161/2026

BIJENDER SINGH

S/o Sh. Chander Bhan

R/o First Floor, E-87,

Dharampal Colony,

Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar,

New Delhi-110076.

....Appellant

Through: Mr. Vikas Jain & Mr. Gargi

Vashishta, Advocates.

Versus

CHANDER BHAN

S/o Late Chhuttan Ram

R/o E-87, Dharampal Colony,

Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar,

New Delhi-110076.

.....Respondent

Through: Respondent in person.

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 on behalf

of the Appellant/Plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.2025

whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for Mandatory Injunction for

RFA 101/2026 Page 2 of 16

directing the Appellant/Defendant and his family to remove their belongings

from the Suit property and for Permanent Injunction for restraining the

Defendant/Appellant from creating any third party right in the Suit property,

has been decreed by the learned District Judge.

2. The Plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit No. CS DJ 807/2019 for

Mandatory and Permanent Injunction for removing the Defendant from

the Suit property and for Permanent Injunction from creating third party

rights in the Suit property.

3. The facts in brief, are that the Plaintiff had acquired property bearing

No. E-87, Dharampal Colony, Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as suit property), on the basis of GPA/Agreement to

Sell and Affidavit dated 12.04.1994 from the erstwhile owner, Dharam Vir

Singh. He is in possession since the said date i.e. 12.04.1994 and exercising

exclusive rights of ownership in the Suit property.

4. The Plaintiff demolished and reconstructed the property, in the year

2004. The Defendant Bijender Singh, being the son of the Plaintiff, was

allowed to reside in the front portion of the First Floor of the Suit premises,

purely on the permissive basis. The area in occupation of the Defendant

admeasured 75 sq. yards. The relations between the Plaintiff and Defendant

over a period of time, became strained due to acts and omission of the

Defendant.

5. It was claimed that the Defendant made the life of the Plaintiff living

hell with constant harassment, embarrassment and agony to the Plaintiff and

his family members. He, therefore did not wish to keep the Defendant in the

Suit premises and requested him in August, 2019 to vacate the property, but

RFA 101/2026 Page 3 of 16

the Defendant failed to remove himself and refused to abide by the request

of the Plaintiff; rather he threatened to part with the possession of the Suit

property to create a third party rights in the Suit property.

6. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant who is continuing in the Suit

premises, is liable to pay profit/damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month, which is

the prevailing market rate of rent of the Suit premises.

7. He thus, filed a Suit seeking Mandatory Injunction for directing the

Defendant to vacate the premises and Permanent Injunction for restraining

him from creating third party rights. The Plaintiff also sought pendent lite

and future decree @ Rs.10,000/- per month, towards unauthorized

occupation of the Defendant in the Suit premises.

8. The Defendant/Appellant in his Written Statement took the

preliminary objection that the Suit property had fallen to the share of the

Defendant, by way of Oral Family Settlement. Not only this, he had

invested his whole life savings in construction of the entire property bearing

No. E-87, Dharmpal Colony, New Delhi. The Plaintiff now with a dishonest

intention, intends to usurp the property.

9. It is claimed that the Plaintiff is guilty of fraud and misfeasance and

has concealed true facts from the Court. The simplicitor Suit for Injunction

is not maintainable, without the consequential relief. In fact, by way of

Mandatory Injunction, the Plaintiff is seeking the relief of possession of the

Suit property in which the Defendant is in exclusive occupation, since 2004.

The Suit is barred by limitation. The Plaintiff has no right, title, interest in

the Suit property and has no locus standi to file the Suit.

10. On merits, it is asserted that the Agreement to Sell does not confer

RFA 101/2026 Page 4 of 16

any right, title, interest in the Suit property and thus, the claim of the

Plaintiff of having proprietary rights in the Suit property, is fallacious.

Consequently, his claim for possession, is grossly mis-conceived. It is

claimed that the Defendant out of his own funds had raised the construction

of the property in question and is in possession of the First Floor of the

property in question. It is further contended that it is the Plaintiff who had

been residing with the Defendant, in the Suit property.

11. The Defendant has further asserted that he has been in possession of

the Suit property since 1996-97, without any interference from any quarter.

It is the first time that the Plaintiff has sought to disturb the possession of the

Defendant, by way of the present Suit.

12. It is further asserted that the Plaintiff had in fact, purchased the Suit

property from the funds received from sale of ancestral property in

Tugalkabad Extn. and that he and the Plaintiff, had been residing jointly

since 1995. In view of the Family Settlement between the parties arrived in

the year 2004, the First Floor came to his share and he is in possession of the

property in his own right. The Defendant raised the construction and has,

since then been in occupation of the First Floor.

13. The Defendant thus, submitted that there was no merit in the Suit of

the Plaintiff, which is liable to be dismissed.

14. The Issues on the pleadings were framed on 23.03.2021 as under:

(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction

as prayed for? OPP

(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed for? OPP

RFA 101/2026 Page 5 of 16

(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages/means

profit as prayed for? OPP

(iv) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of

property and necessary parties? OPP

(v) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any

cause of action? OPD

(vi) Relief.

15. The Plaintiff Chander Bhan examined himself as PW1 and

tendered his Affidavit of Evidence Ex.PW1/A. The Agreement to Sell/

GPA/Affidavit and Receipt etc. dated 12.04.1994 are Ex.PW1/1.

16. The Defendant Bijender Singh examined himself as DW1 and

tendered his Affidavit of Evidence Ex.DW1/A.

17. DW2 Harish Chander tendered his Affidavit of Evidence as

Ex.DW2/A.

18. DW3 Kailash Rani, tendered her Affidavit of Evidence as

Ex.DW3/A.

19. The learned District Judge considered the evidence of the parties

and observed that the Plaintiff had a proprietary right in the Suit property on

the basis of Agreement to Sell, etc. dated 12.04.1994 Ex.PW1/1. Moreover,

his testimony had been corroborated, by DW2 and DW3 as well.

20. The Defendant took a plea of the Suit property having been purchased

after selling the ancestral property belonging to the grandfather. However, it

was held that firstly, there was no evidence to prove that there was any

property existing in the name of grandfather. Moreover, even if it is

RFA 101/2026 Page 6 of 16

accepted that the proceeds of purchase of the Suit property came from the

sale of the ancestral property, then too, in terms of Section 8 Hindu

Succession Act, the property devolved upon the Plaintiff by way of

succession, under Section 8 Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the claim of

the Defendant that he had an interest in the Suit property, was held to be not

tenable.

21. It was further observed that since the Defendant was in permissive

occupation of the Suit property, the Suit for Mandatory Injunction was

maintainable against him, for being directed to vacate the property.

Furthermore, it was held that the Plaintiff is entitled to Mesne Profits @

Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the Suit i.e. 18.09.2019 till

the date of realization. The Suit was accordingly decreed.

22. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Regular First Appeal has been

preferred under Section 96 CPC against the Judgment dated 25.10.2025.

23. The grounds of challenge are that the Plaintiff does not have any

valid title over the Suit property. It is not disputed that un-registered

Agreement to Sell, GPA, etc. dated 12.04.1994 never materialised into Sale

Deed and Conveyance Deed and the Plaintiff could not be held as an owner,

on the basis of these inchoate documents. Reliance is placed on Suraj

Lamps vs. State of Haryana, Ghanshyam vs. Yogendra Rathi (Appeal Nos.

7527-7528 of 2012).

24. The Appellant has further contended that the Suit for Mandatory

Injunction simplicitor, was not maintainable without seeking Declaration of

ownership.

25. The Appellant is the son of the Respondent, who has been residing in

RFA 101/2026 Page 7 of 16

the Suit property since 2004 in his own right, pursuant to oral Family

Settlement of 2004, in which the First Floor came to his share. He is not a

licensee or in permissive user, as has been claimed by the Plaintiff. Reliance

is placed on Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594.

26. The mutual Family Settlement and the long residence of the Appellant

in the Suit property and that he himself had constructed his portion by

spending his hard earned which has not been disputed by the Respondent,

have not been considered in the right perspective.

27. It is further contended that the Plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence

in regard to his source of the money, for purchase of the Suit property. The

corroborative testimony of the Appellant’s brother and sister i.e. DW2 and

DW3 who have supported the Appellant’s long continuous and settled

possession in the property as well as the family settlement, has been brushed

aside without any reasons, rendering the findings perverse. Reliance is

placed on Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 and

Madhukar vs. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756.

28. . Moreover, permissive possession or license cannot be presumed but

has to be proved by cogent evidence along with the proof of revocation of

the license prior to institution of Suit for which reliance is placed on

Associated Hotels of India Ltd. vs. R.N. Kapoor AIR 1959 SC 1262 and

Ram Sarup Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College (1987) 2 SCC 555.

29. Furthermore, a Family Settlement does not require registration, if it is

oral and has already been acted upon, as has been held in the case of Kale &

Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119 and S.

Shanmugam Pillai vs. K. Shanmugam Pillai (1973) 2 SCC 312.

RFA 101/2026 Page 8 of 16

30. It has also not been considered that the Suit property was purchased

from the sale proceeds of the ancestral property and the Plaintiff cannot be

its exclusive owner.

31. The finding that the Defendant is a licensee is perverse, arbitrary and

unsustainable in law. There is not even an iota of evidence to show

revocation or termination of the alleged License, prior to the institution of

the Suit. The long settled possession cannot be treated as permissive or

reduced to a mere licensee, by bald assertions, in the absence of cogent

proof. Reliance is placed on Rame Gowda vs. M. Varadapa Naidu (2004) 1

SCC 769 and Munshi Ram vs. Delhi Administration (1968) 2 SCR 455.

32. It is further claimed that the Mesne Profits have been awarded at an

arbitrary rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, without any documentary evidence of

prevailing market rent, without placing on record any document, like

comparable Lease Deeds or rental instances and without conducting the

mandatory enquiry under Order 22 Rule 12 CPC.

33. Reliance is placed on Fateh Chand vs. Balkishan Dass AIR 1963 SC

1405, R.S. Maddanappa vs. Chandramma AIR 1965 SCC 1812 and Smt. M.

Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya vs. Metadin Agarwal (2006) 7 SCC 470 which state

the absence of any inquiry or evidentiary basis, makes the award of mesne

profits as illegal, perverse and are liable to be set aside.

34. The impugned Judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

Submissions heard and record perused.

35. It is an unfortunate case filed by the father against his son, for

recovery of the possession of the Suit property, where he had permitted his

son to reside since the year 1995-96. Unfortunate is the circumstances

RFA 101/2026 Page 9 of 16

where according to the Plaintiff because of the unruly behaviour and

conduct of his son i.e. the Defendant, he has been compelled to file the Suit

for recovery of Possession by way of Mandatory Injunction.

36. The Plaintiff had acquired ownership in the property in question by

virtue of Agreement to Sell, GPA, Receipt etc. dated 12.04.1994 Ex.PW1/1;

a fact which has neither been denied by the Defendant/appellant or by DW2

and DW3, siblings of the Defendant.

37. There is also no denial that Defendant was living with his father in the

property in question, since 1995-96. It is nowhere his claim that he is the

exclusive owner of the property in question. However, he has tried to

defend his Possession by claiming that the purchase document i.e. GPA,

Agreement to Sell, etc do not create any absolute ownership in the Suit

property for which reliance is placed on Suraj Lamps (supra).

38. Though, it is correct that these documents are not the conventional

document of sale, but here is a case where the Defendant is deriving his

Possession and rights in the Suit property, from the Plaintiff himself.

Therefore, there is no basis for him to question the title of the Plaintiff. It is

a specious argument raised by the Defendant, as a desperate attempt to

somehow create a right in his favour, which is outrightly liable to be

rejected.

39. The Defendant in his endeavour to create a right to the property, has

asserted that the Suit property was purchased by the father by sale of

ancestral property bearing No. C-II/85, Madangir, New Delhi. This has

been explained by DW2 Shri Harish Chander, brother of the Plaintiff, who

had explained that late Chuttan Ram, his father and of the Plaintiff had three

RFA 101/2026 Page 10 of 16

children namely Chander Bhan (Plaintiff), Harish Chander (DW2) and

Kailash Rani (DW3). Shri Chuttan Ram owned two properties i.e. one in

Kalkaji and other in Madangir. The Kalkaji property was given by Shri

Chuttan Ram to DW2 Harish Chander, while the Madangir property was

given to the Chander Bhan, the Plaintiff.

40. DW-2 further deposed that Madangir property was sold in the year

1991 by the Plaintiff and from the sale proceeds, he purchased the property

in question. He further explained that their parents had two shops at Garhi

and from the income of these shops, the construction was raised in the Suit

property. Thus, the Suit property was purchased from the sale of the

parent’s property and construction was also raised from the income from the

business of the family. He further deposed that the Defendant/Appellant had

developed the Suit property out of his own funds. Later, after the marriage

of his brother, the two mutually decided to separate; and in a Family

Settlement, Ground Floor of the property went to the brother of the

Defendant, while the Defendant got the First Floor of the Suit property in

which he is in exclusive possession.

41. DW-2 in his cross-examination, has explained that the property in

Madangir given to the Plaintiff by the father, was sold by him in the year

1991. It was denied by him that the Madangir property had not been given

to the Plaintiff and he was given the Kalkaji property by the parents. He

admitted that he had not given the details of the shops at Garhi. He also

admitted that he had not stated the nature of business carried out from the

two shops. He was also unable to give the quantum of income generated

from the said shops. He admitted that he had also not given the names of the

RFA 101/2026 Page 11 of 16

proprietor of the business being carried out from the shops. He was not

aware of the income raised from the sale of parent’s property and income

from the business of the family, which was expended for purchase of Suit

property.

42. Another important aspect was the Family Settlement which allegedly

took place between the Defendant and his brother in the year 2004.

However, the DW2 in his cross-examination was unable to give the day,

date, time of the Family Settlement and was unable to state who all were

present at the time of Family Settlement, though he volunteered that he, his

mother, bhabhi and sister were present.

43. The DW3 Kailash Rani, sister of the Plaintiff also deposed on similar

lines and asserted that the Suit property was purchased from ancestral funds

and that the Defendant was in possession of the property since 1996-97. She

in her cross-examination, denied that the Suit property had been purchased

from the sale proceeds of alleged ancestral property located in Madangir.

44. The DW1 Defendant/Appellant in his cross-examination also

admitted that he had not given the details/ description and Municipal

Number of the ancestral property, which he stated in his cross-examination

as C-II/85, Madangir, New Delhi, which he claimed to have been allotted to

the grandfather prior to his birth. He further deposed that he was studying in

class First or Second in the school, since when they started residing in the

property. He further admitted that he did not give the details of when the

alleged ancestral property was sold and what was the consideration received.

He volunteered that it was sold somewhere in 1992-93. The grandfather had

expired between 1988-1990. He further admitted that till the time

RFA 101/2026 Page 12 of 16

grandfather was alive, the property stood in his name and he was the sole

owner of the property. He denied that this property, was not ancestral

property. The Defendant denied that the property had been purchased by the

Plaintiff from his own funds and it was self acquired property.

45. From the evidence as led by the parties, it is established that the Suit

property was purchased by the Plaintiff from his own funds. Though it was

asserted that the funds had been raised from the sale of the ancestral

property in Madangir, but it has emerged that this Madangir property was

exclusively owned by the grandfather who in a family Settlement had given

this property to the Plaintiff ,while the other property in Kalkaji owned by

the parents was given to DW2 Harish Chander.

46. From the evidence it emerges that the Chuttan Ram, the grandfather

was the exclusive owner of the Madangir property which he, in his life time,

had given away to the Plaintiff. By no interpretation of law can the property

at Madangir, be termed as ancestral property.

47. Furthermore, even if it is accepted that the property in Madangir was

ancestral property, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to show what were the

sale proceeds from the sale of Madangir property or that the funds so

realized by the Plaintiff, had been utilized for purchase of the Suit property

in the year 1994. Admittedly, the property stands exclusively in the name of

the Plaintiff.

48. The Defendant admitted that the Suit property was demolished and

reconstructed in 2004 and thereafter, he has been in occupation of the First

Floor of the Suit property. The Defendant admitted that the Suit property

was purchased in the name of the Plaintiff in 1994 and till date, stands in his

RFA 101/2026 Page 13 of 16

name.

49. The Appellant has claimed that he had raised the construction from

his own funds, but has not been able to adduce an iota of evidence in support

thereof. His only claim that he was working in DTC since 2002 and was

giving his entire earnings to his father. Admittedly, he has not been able to

specify the amount spent on construction or the amount contributed by him

in raising the construction. He was even unable to quantify the amount he

had given to his father. He also admitted not furnishing any details of the

amounts given by him, to the father.

50. Thus, while the defendant claimed that he had contributed in the

construction of suit property, he has miserably failed to support his

assertion, by any cogent evidence. From the admissions of the Defendant in

the cross-examination, the best case which gets established in favour of the

Appellant is that being a family member, he had been giving his salary to the

father, but that in itself is not sufficient to establish that the construction was

raised by him or that he occupied the property in the capacity of an owner.

51. The learned District Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the

property in question is the exclusive property of the Plaintiff.

52. The Defendant had further asserted that there was a Family Settlement

in the year 2004, whereby he was permitted to occupy the First Floor. The

Defendant in his cross-examination, was however, unable to state the details

of the participants, in the said oral Family Settlement.

53. There may have been a Family Arrangement where the Defendant

may have been permitted to occupy the front portion of the First Floor, but

that in itself does not in any manner, create any ownership rights in his

RFA 101/2026 Page 14 of 16

favour. From the evidence of the Defendant himself, it emerges that his

occupation was permissive, as he had been allowed to stay there by the

Plaintiff, his father.

54. The Appellant has contended that he has been residing in the Suit

property since 1994-95 which is quite understandable. He was a student of

Class First or Second in the school and being a son of the Plaintiff he would

naturally be living in the Suit property. It is not as if he had been occupying

the Suit property since 1994-95 in his own independent individual right but

he was barely a child who lived in the property along with the Plaintiff, is

father.

55. The learned District Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the

Possession of the Defendant/Appellant was permissive and he had no

ownership rights to the exclusion of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the

Mandatory Injunction has been rightly decreed in favour of the

Plaintiff/Respondent with directions to the Appellant to remove himself

from the Suit property.

56. The learned District Judge has also granted Mesne

Profits/Occupation Charges @ Rs.5,000/- per month. The first contention

of the Appellant is that there was no termination of the license or the

permissive user and therefore, the Defendant is not liable to pay any

User/Occupation Charges. However, the Plaintiff has deposed that he had

asked the Defendant to vacate the Suit property in August, 2019 which

clearly indicates that the Plaintiff had withdrawn his permission for the

Defendant to continue to reside in the Suit property. Furthermore, filing of

the Suit on 18.09.2019 itself is a Notice to the Defendant to vacate the

RFA 101/2026 Page 15 of 16

premises, as has been held in the case of M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd.

vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) AIR 2008 SC 673.

57. It is well settled that when a person is permitted to reside in the

property of another, out of love and affection without payment or any

consideration and without any agreement creating a tenancy, such a person

is a licensee/permissive user, whose right to continue in the property can be

revoked at any time and upon such revocation, his right to continue in the

occupation of the property comes to an end.

58. Therefore, the Plaintiff was well within his right to claim the User and

Occupation Charges since August, 2019.

59. The next contention raised by the Plaintiff is that there was no enquiry

held under Order XX Rule 12 CPC or any evidence adduced, to ascertain the

User and Occupation Charges. However, the Defendant in his own

testimony, had deposed that the Suit property located on the First Floor can

fetch about Rs.5000 to Rs.6000/- per month and denied the suggestion that it

can get Rs.10,000/- per month as rent at the time of filing of the Suit in the

year 2019.

60. The learned District Judge has rightly taken cognizance of the

admissions of the Defendant himself, to grant the Occupation Charges @

Rs.5,000/- per month.

Conclusion:

61. The Suit of the Plaintiff for Mandatory Injunction to take the

Possession from the Defendant and for User/Occupation Charges @

Rs.5,000/- per month, has been rightly decreed.

RFA 101/2026 Page 16 of 16

62. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

JUNE 3, 2026/N