Disposed

Mr. Braham Singh v. Satinder Khatana & Ors.

Delhi HC16 May 2025CS(OS)/405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit for permanent injunction over a village plot. A Local Commissioner found the plaintiff, not the impleadment applicants, in possession. The impleadment and allied applications were dismissed for unclean hands; the suit was disposed of restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession.

What did the court decide?

Decree restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's possession except by due process of law; impleadment and other applications dismissed.

Mr. Braham Singh Vs Satinder Khatana & Ors. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 405/2022 & CRL.M.A. 16493/2022, I.As. 10849/2022, 12845/2022, 12847/2022, 13315/2022, 19836-19837/2023, 4980/2025

¶4

MR. BRAHAM SINGH

¶5

.....Plaintiff

¶6

Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Aditya Kumar Yadav, Mr. Rishabh Tanwar, Mr. Gaurav Chaudhry, Mr. Rishabh Malhotra, Mr. Rishabh, Mr. Alok Yadav and Ms. Arunima Singh, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

SATINDER KHATANA & ORS. .....Defendants Through: None for the Defendants None for the Applicants Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Sanjeev Anand Ms. Smita Maan, Adv. for intervenor in IA No.4980/2025

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R

¶11

% 16.05.2025 I.A. 12847/2022( on behalf of applicants under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 seeking impleadment )

¶12

This is an application filed under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Sanjeev Anand seeking impleadment in these proceedings as Defendant nos. 4 and 5.

¶13

The application was heard by this Court on 01.10.2024.

¶14

In light of the assertions made by the applicants, Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Sanjeev Anand, as regards the status their actual physical possession of the plot bearing Khasra No.849, of land measuring 2 bigha 19

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/05/2025 at 12:25:10

¶17

CS(OS) 405/2022

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

biswa, situated in Lal Dora Abadi, Village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Haus Khas (Mehrauli) New Delhi - 110074 (‘suit property’), a Local Commissioner (LC) was appointed vide order dated 01.10.2024.

¶20

The plaintiff, was asserting contrary to the stand of the applicants and have asserted that the Plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the property.

¶21

The LC's report dated 14.10.2024 is available on record. The report shows that the factual position asserted by Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Sanjeev Anand before this Court on 01.10.2024 was incorrect. The LC has reported that it was the Plaintiff, who was found to be in possession of the suit property.

¶22

None appears on behalf of applicants today.

¶23

In view of the LC’s report dated 14.10.2024 and the findings, it is apparent that the applicants have approached this Court with unclean hands and made misleading submissions on 01.10.2024. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶24

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

¶25

I.A. 12845/2022(o/b of applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC)

¶26

This is an application filed by Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Sanjeev Anand under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶27

None appears on behalf of the applicants.

¶28

In view of the fact that the said applicants are not the parties to the present suit and in view of the dismissal of I.A. 12847/2022, the captioned application as well stands dismissed.

¶29

I.A 13315/2022(under Order 39 Rule 4)

¶30

This is an application filed by Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Sanjeev

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/05/2025 at 12:25:10

¶33

CS(OS) 405/2022

¶34

Page 2 of 4

¶35

Anand under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of ex-parte ad-interim order dated 18.07.2022.

¶36

None appears on behalf of the applicants.

¶37

In view of the fact that Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Sanjeev Anand are not parties to the present suit and in view of the dismissal of I.A. 12847/2022, the captioned application as well stands dismissed.

¶38

CRL.M.A. 16493/2022

¶39

This is an application filed by the applicants Mr. Rajeev Anand and Mr. Sanjeev Anand under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(B) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶40

None appears on behalf of the applicants.

¶41

This application as well is dismissed in view of the dismissal order passed in I.A. 12847/2022.

¶42

CSOS) 405/2022

¶43

This suit has been filed for permanent injunction.

¶44

In this suit there are four defendants who have been arrayed as parties. It is a matter of record that none of these defendants have entered appearance.

¶45

The report of the Local Commissioner dated 14.10.2024 also bears out that none of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are in possession of the suit property. The report further records that the plaintiff herein is in possession of the suit property. The report records and reports the existing status of the physical possession of the suit property and does not express any opinion on the title of the Plaintiff to the suit property.

¶46

In view of the Local Commissioner’s report dated 14.10.2024, the present suit is hereby disposed of in favour of the plaintiff and against the

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/05/2025 at 12:25:10

¶49

CS(OS) 405/2022

¶50

Page 3 of 4

¶51

Defendants holding that since the Plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the suit property, the defendants are restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff except with due process of law.

¶52

It is however, clarified that this Court has neither adjudicated upon nor deliberated on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff in the suit property.

¶53

Interim orders shall stand merged in the final order of disposal of this suit.

¶54

I.A. No. 4980/2025

¶55

This application has been filed by one Mr. Braham Singh Tanwar claiming title rights in the suit property. The said applicant has already filed an independent suit being CS(OS) 25/2025 against the plaintiff herein. Since the rights of the applicant viz-a-viz the plaintiff herein are the subject matter of the said suit bearing CS(OS) 25/2025, the application is disposed of reserving the rights of the applicant and plaintiff to be adjudicated in the aforementioned suit. The plaintiff and the applicant will be at liberty to agitate there inter-se rights in CS(OS) 25/2025.

¶56

The application stands disposed of.

¶57

All other pending application stand disposed of.

¶58

The Registry is directed to draw up a decree in terms thereof.

¶59

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶60

MAY 16, 2025/HP/ SV/AM

¶61

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶62

This is a digitally signed order.

¶63

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/05/2025 at 12:25:10

¶64

CS(OS) 405/2022

¶65

Page 4 of 4

Mr. Braham Singh v. Satinder Khatana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Braham Singh v. Satinder Khatana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Prem Arora Vs Smt. Sonia Kanwar & Ors.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mr Scitaram Aithappa Shetty & Ors.

Mr Shitiz Garg Vs Sanjeev Kumar Garg & Ors.

Jagdish Rai Vs Kanta Kumari

Divyanshu Nandwani Vs Kamal Kishore Nandwani & Ors.

Dr Ajit Annasaheb Shinde Vs Indian Orthopaedic Association & Ors.

Suraj Parkash Vats Vs Prem Prakash Vats & Ors.

Shri Samay Garg Vs Shri Ram Kumar Garg & Ors.

Mr Prem Arora Vs Smt. Sonia Kanwar & Ors.

Cultfit Health Care Pvt.Ltf Vs Sardar India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Global Broadcasting Solutions Opc Private Ltd. Vs M/S Offbeat Media and Communications Pvt. Ltd.

Gupta Builders Vs Union of India

Naim Akhtar Vs Razia Bee & Ors.

M/S R K Goel Abhey Kumar Jain Vs University of Delhi