# Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & Anr v. Indra Mohan Sachdev

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1210
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-24
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 702 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagar-nigam-ghaziabad-anr-v-indra-mohan-sachdev-54147
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,958 of 40,366. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39958 for what follows._

1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

36. The Apex Court in case of Nirmala Devi Vs. Gurgaon Schedule Caste and Vimukta
Agriculture Thrift and Credit Society Limited and Others (2021) 8 SCC 785 has held that the
findings of facts recorded by the trial Court particularly relating to ownership and possession of
immovable property should not be disturbed in appeal unless there is compelling reason to do so. In
the present appeal, no compelling reason has been brought on record. The learned counsel for the
appellant has to demonstrate that any finding recorded by the trial Court, especially with regard to
ownership and award of damages is perverse and contrary to evidence on record.

37. Thus both the First Appeals are hereby dismissed and the judgment and decree dated
11.12.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar in Original Suit No.
1199 of 2009 and Original Suit No. 1187 of 2011 are affirmed.

38. Registry is directed to return the original records of the aforesaid appeals to the Court
below within a week.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1210
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 702 of 2025

Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Indra Mohan Sachdev ...Respondent

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction directing mutation of
the plaintiff's name in municipal records on the basis of an earlier ex parte decree;
(ii) Whether the earlier decree dated 31.05.2022 passed in O.S. No.1126 of 2019 was a nullity having been
passed against a dead person;
(iii) Whether payment of house tax or entries in municipal records confer title;
(iv) Whether the impugned judgment and decree suffered from perversity warranting interference in the
appeal.

Headnotes
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Decree - Passed against dead person - Effect:
Held: Where the earlier suit was filed and decreed against a person who had died prior to institution of the
suit, such decree is a nullity and does not confer any right, title or interest, and its invalidity can be set up
whenever it is sought to be enforced. [Para 38]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Ex-parte decree - Reliance - Validity:

Held: Where the trial court decreed the suit solely relying upon an earlier ex-parte decree which itself was a
nullity, the impugned decree based thereon was legally unsustainable. [Paras 34, 43]
2 All. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs. Indra Mohan Sachdev
1211
Evidence - Documentary evidence - Death certificate - Admissibility:

Held: Where copy of death certificate was part of judicial record and supported by earlier proceedings in
which substitution had taken place, rejection of such document merely on the ground of being a photocopy
was unjustified. [Para 36]

Property Law - Title - Proof - Mutation and tax entries:

Held: Mere payment of house tax or entry in municipal records does not confer ownership, and title must be
established independently in accordance with law. [Para 41]

Property Law - Adverse possession - Tenant - Claim:

Held: A person who entered into possession as a tenant cannot claim ownership by adverse possession
against the landlord, as such possession is permissive and the tenant is bound to restore possession to the
owner. [Para 42]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Mandatory injunction - Mutation - Entitlement:

Held: Where the plaintiff failed to establish title and the property records did not disclose ownership of the
alleged predecessor, no direction could be issued to municipal authorities to mutate the plaintiff's name. [Para
39]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Findings of trial court - Perversity:

Held: Where the trial court ignored material evidence, relied upon a void decree and granted relief contrary
to settled legal principles, the findings were perverse and unsustainable. [Paras 36, 43]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Appeal - Interference:

Held: Where the impugned judgment and decree were based on a nullity and suffered from perversity, the
appellate court was justified in setting aside the decree and dismissing the suit. [Paras 45-46]

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2360 -
relied on; Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 567 - relied on; Brij
Narayan Shukla (Deceased) through LRs v. Sudesh Kumar, (2024) 2 SCC 590 - referred to;
Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. Faraulla Khan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC
3633 - referred to; P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, (2024) 13 SCC 553 - referred to; State
of Punjab v. Bhagwantpal Singh, (2024) 15 SCC 139 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

List of Keywords
Nullity of decree; Dead person; Ex-parte decree; Mutation; House tax; Adverse possession; Tenant; Mandatory
injunction; Perversity.

Case Arising From
Judgment and decree dated 13.05.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad in O.S. No. 960 of
2024 (Indra Mohan Sachdev vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and another).
1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Smt. Shreya Gupta
For the Respondents: Sri Shivam Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

(1) The instant appeal has been filed by the defendants under section 96 CPC against the
impugned judgment and decree dated 13.5.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge(Senior
Division), Ghaziabad in O.S. No. 960 of 2024 Indra Mohan Sachdev vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad
and another whereby, the plaintiff 's suit for mandatory injunction has been decreed.

Plaint case

(2) The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 960 of 2024 against the defendants with the averments that he
is the owner in possession of plot no. 9, Anand Industrial Estate, GT Road, Ghaziabad, on the basis
of judgment and decree dated 31.5.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Court No. 4, Ghaziabad in O.S.no.1126 of 2019 Indra Mohan Sachdev vs.Smt. Sushila Mehra. The
plaintiff further averred that the above O.S. no.1126 of 2019 was decreed ex-parte and he was
declared the owner of the above plot on the basis of adverse possession and it was further decreed
by the court that the plaintiff was not to be evicted, except by adopting due procedure of law.

(3) The plaintiff further averred that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.no.1126 of 2019
has attained finality since it has not been challenged by anyone in a court of law, as such it is
binding and effective.

(4) It was further averred by the plaintiff that he has deposited tax of the above property
amounting to ₹ 28,690/- on 15.6.2022 with the defendant Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, which was
accepted by it without any objection, and thereafter, the plaintiff was regularly making payment of
tax.

(5) It was further averred by the plaintiff that since he is the owner in possession of the
disputed plot, he was entitled to get his name entered as a owner regarding the disputed plot in the
records of Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and for doing so, he moved an application dated 13.6.2022 for
entering his name in the property register of the Nagar Nigam ,Ghaziabad, which was supported by
his affidavit and the certified copy of the judgment dated 31.5.2022 passed by the court in the
above mentioned case, and he also personally met the Tax Supdt. and requested him to enter his
name in the records of Nagar Nigam ,Ghaziabad but no action was taken by him. It was further
averred that he gave a legal notice through his Advocate Parvinder Kumar on 17.9.2022 under
section 571 of the Nagar Nigam Act to the defendants, which was also received by them, but even
then, his name has not been entered in the property register of the defendant Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad.

(6) It was further averred by the plaintiff that currently, the above plot is registered as property
no. 12/9 poultry house, having PIN no. 31329 and the mobile number 9350237758 of his security
guard Hemant is registered on this property, in the records of the Nigam Ghaziabad. In this
2 All. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs. Indra Mohan Sachdev
1213
backdrop, when the plaintiffs name was not registered as owner in the records of the defendants,
the plaintiff was compelled to file the instant suit, for the following relief:-

''By decree of mandatory injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the
defendants, the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad be directed to enter the name of plaintiff as owner of
property no. 9, new no. 12/9 Anand Industrial Estate, GT Road, Ghaziabad within a time fixed by
the Court.''

Case of the defendants

(7) The defendants filed the written statement before the trial court in which they denied the
plaint averments. It was averred that in O.S. no. 1126 of 2019, Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad was not
impleaded as a party to the suit, hence the defendants are not aware of the correct facts of that case.
It was further averred that in Miscellaneous Case No. 29 of 2022 Indra Mohan Sachdev vs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad, which was pending before Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.
4 Ghaziabad, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad was impleaded as a party, in which it came to know that
Smt. Sushila Mehra has died on 02.04.1996 in Heritage Medical Centre,Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh, whose death certificate was provided to it by the owner of Muraga Khana, which was
issued by Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. It was further averred that mutation in the records of
the Nagar Nigam is made according to the legal provisions. It was averred that the plaintiff has
concealed the facts of Miscellaneous Case no. 29 of 2022. It was further averred that the plaintiff
has filed the suit on wrong facts by concealing the true facts. It was further averred that the plaintiff
had obtained the decree in O.S. no.1126 of 2019 by concealing true facts.

(8) It was further averred that when an objection was filed by Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad in
Miscellaneous Case no. 29 of 2022 then, the plaintiff absented himself and in his absence, the case
was dismissed on 21.2.2023. The plaintiff 's suit was barred by res- judicata and also under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC. It was further averred that previously litigation took place in Delhi High Court
between Nandkishore Mehra and Sushila Mehra which was O.S. no. 339 of 1992, in which
Nandkishore Mehra was declared as the owner of the disputed property. It was further averred that
currently the disputed plot is registered as Muraga Khana, in its property records. Sushila Mehra
was not recorded as a owner of the above property. With these submissions, it was prayed that the
suit be dismissed with special costs under Section 35-A CPC.

Issues framed and evidence on record

(9) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial
court:-

(i)Whether on the basis of plaint averments, the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of
mandatory injunction, for getting his name registered as owner of the disputed property no. 9, new
no.12/9 Anand Industrial Estate, GT Road, Ghaziabad in the property register of the defendant ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff ' s suit is under valued ?
1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii)Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient ?

(iv)Whether the suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ?

(v)Whether defendants are entitled to special costs of ₹50,000/- under Section 35-A CPC
from the plaintiff ?

(vi) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?

(10) In documentary evidence the plaintiff has filed the certified copy of the decree dated
31.5.2022 , copy of the notice dated 13.6.2022 given to Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad,copy of legal
notice, receipt of house tax deposited with the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad ,etc. The defendants have
filed the copy of the death certificate of Sushila Mehra, plaint of suit no.339 of 1992 Nandkishore
Mehra vs. Sushila Mehra, written statement of Sushila Mehra filed in suit no. 339 of 1992,
substitution application moved by Nandkishore Mehra in suit No. 339 of 1992, ex-parte judgment
of the High Court of Delhi in suit no. 339 of 1992 dated 7.5.1999.

(11) Before the trial court, the plaintiff Indra Mohan Sachdev examined himself as PW-1 and
his son Tarun Sachdev as PW-2. On behalf of defendants, Kailash Chand was examined as DW-1.

(12) The plaintiff Inder Mohan Sachdev PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that his father
obtained the disputed plot on a rental of Rs.450/- per month, and after the death of his father, he
continued to deposit the rent. He paid the rent till the year 1996 to Sushila Mehra , and thereafter,
he stopped making payment because his possession became adverse, on the disputed property. He
admitted that after the year 1996 he did not meet Sushila Mehra . He feigned ignorance that Sushila
Mehra died in the year 1996. He also feigned ignorance that the legal heir of Sushila Mehra has
filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which was pending for disposal.

(13) The plaintiffs son Tarun Sachdev PW-2 in his cross examination deposed that he deposits
the house tax of the disputed property with Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. He admitted that currently,
the house tax is deposited in favour of Muraga Khana, since he is its owner.

(14) Kailash Chand DW-1 deposed in examination-in-chief that the disputed property is
recorded as Muraga Khana in the property records of the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, whereas, in
O.S.no.1126 of 2019, no such order was passed by the court to record the name of plaintiff as
owner of Muraga Khana, as such, the plaintiff must prove on what basis he is claiming ownership
of Muraga Khana.

Reasoning of the trial court

(15) The trial court on the basis of decree dated 31.5.2022 passed in O.S. no.1126 of 2019
concluded that plaintiff was the owner in possession of the disputed property, which has not been
set-aside by any competent court, which was not challenged by the defendants before the appellate
court, as such, the defendants were bound to obey the decree passed in that suit. It was further
concluded that the alleged death certificate of Sushila Mehra was not proved in accordance with
2 All. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs. Indra Mohan Sachdev
1215
law, as such, it was inadmissible. It was further concluded that the defendants should have verified
the death of Sushila Mehra, but they have not done so. It was further concluded that since the
defendants were realising the tax of the disputed property, as such, they cannot refute the
ownership of plaintiff in the disputed property. It was further concluded that the plaintiff was
regularly paying the tax of the disputed property, being its owner. The trial court rejected all the
documentary evidence of the defendants on the ground that it was photo copy, and in the absence
of corroborative evidence, it was inadmissible in evidence.

(16) The trial court blindly relying on the decree dated 31.5.2022 has rejected all the
objections of the defendants, and has accordingly, decreed the suit by impugned judgment dated
13.5.2025, which has been challenged by the defendants by filing the instant appeal under section
96 CPC.

Submissions of the learned counsel of the parties

(17) Ms.Shreya Gupta learned counsel for the defendant-appellants submitted that the ex-
parte decree dated 31.5.2022 was obtained by the plaintiff in O.S. no. 1126 of 2019 by suppressing
true and material facts from the court , which was obtained against dead defendant Sushila Mehra,
as such, the decree was a nullity, which was not binding on any person, leave alone defendants, but
still, the trial court has overlooked this fact deliberately and has passed the impugned decree, which
is unsustainable, illegal and on the basis of which no right, title and interest in the disputed property
has accrued in favour of the plaintiff.

(18) Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court was not right in rejecting the
documentary evidence of the defendants, which was part of the judicial record of the High Court of
Delhi, which could have been verified and which also included the copy of the death certificate of
Sushila Mehra, which was admissible in evidence, but even that document was ignored by the trial
court, which is the height of perversity.

(19) She further submitted that on the basis of payment of house tax, a person cannot be
presumed to be the owner of the disputed property, as such, merely on this ground that the house
tax payment made earlier by the plaintiff was accepted by the defendants, is not a ground to grant
any relief to the plaintiff.

(20) It was further submitted that plaintiff averred in O.S.no. 1126 of 2019 that previously
Sushila Mehra was the owner of the disputed property but from the documentary evidence
submitted by the defendants, it was proved that she was not the registered owner in the property
record of the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, and this property was registered as Muraga Khana.

(21) She further submitted that as per the oral evidence of plaintiff, he was a tenant of the
disputed property, who acquired ownership of it on the basis of adverse possession, which was
legally impermissible. She submitted that the plaintiff could never have acquired ownership of the
disputed property, on the basis of adverse possession, but this fact was overlooked by the trial
court, which insisted for compliance of the decree, which was a nullity.
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(22) She further submitted that under no circumstances the suit could have been decreed in
favour of the plaintiff and the trial court has certainly, for extraneous considerations, decreed the
suit illegally against all legal provisions. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be
allowed and the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and further disciplinary proceedings be
also initiated against the trial judge for passing such perverse order.

(23) In support of her submission, learned counsel has relied upon the case law of the Apex
Court titled Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. The State of Maharashtra and others 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2360.

(24) Shri Shivam Yadav learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent very fairly admitted that
Sushila Mehra has died on on 2.4.1996, as such, the decree passed against her in O.S. no.1126 of
2019 was a nullity, on the basis of which, the plaintiff has not acquired any right title and interest in
the disputed property. It was further submitted that the plaintiff was not aware of the death of
Sushila Mehra, as such, no fraud was committed by him on the court.

(25) I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides and perused the record of the trial court.

Precedents applicable

(26) The Apex Court in the case of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade (supra),while considering the
situation where the defendant appellants died during the pendency of appeal, whose legal heirs
were not substituted on record, concluded that since the appeal decided after the death of appellants
was a nullity, as such, the decree of the trial court in favour of plaintiff was executable. The
relevant paras of the judgment are as under:-

"10. Having heard the appellant-in-person as well as the learned counsel for the
respondents, we are of the view that the executing Court erred in dismissing the execution petition
as not maintainable. The decree passed by the first appellate Court having been passed in an
appeal, where both the appellants had expired prior to the appeal being heard, its decree in favour
of dead persons was a nullity. The decree passed by the trial Court, therefore, is liable to be
executed.

11. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the predecessors of the appellant was decreed
on 14.08.2006. The trial Court declared the original plaintiffs as owners of the suit land that had
been allotted to Mr. Arjun Thakre. The plaintiffs were held entitled to receive possession of the said
lands. The subsequent allotment of the same land in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 5 was held to be
illegal. The defendant No. 3 did not choose to challenge this decree. It is only the defendant Nos. 4
and 5, who preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code. During pendency of that appeal, the
defendant No. 4 expired on 27.10.2006, while the defendant No. 5 expired on 20.09.2010. The
record indicates that the appeal was heard on 28.09.2010. As per the provisions of Order XXII
Rule 6 of the Code, if a party expires between the conclusion of hearing and pronouncement of the
judgment, the same does not result in abatement of such proceedings and the judgment on being
pronounced, would have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death of
such party took place. In view of the fact that the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 had died prior to the
2 All. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs. Indra Mohan Sachdev
1217
appeal being heard on 28.09.2010, it is evident that the proceedings in the said appeal are not
saved by the provisions of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code. In effect, the appeal was decided
notwithstanding the death of both the appellants, who had preferred the appeal.

12. According to the executing Court, since the appeal was decided on 20.10.2010, which
was prior to expiry of a period of ninety days from the death of defendant No. 5 on 20.09.2010, the
appeal could not have been disposed of as abated. It is correct that the abatement of a proceeding
cannot take place prior to expiry of the prescribed period of limitation of ninety days under Article
120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for bringing on record the legal heirs. Notwithstanding this
position, the fact remains that prior to the appeal being heard and thereafter decided, both the
appellants who had filed the said appeal were no more. The judgment pronounced in the first
appeal on 20.10.2010 was, thus, in favour of the parties who were no more alive. The said
adjudication, therefore, amounted to a nullity and the same did not have the force of law. This
position is not in doubt and we may only refer to the decisions in Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar
Mahto 1994 Supp(3) SCC 314 and Amba Bai v. Gopal 2001 INSC 263 in this regard. The
appellant, therefore, is justified in contending that the decree passed by the first appellate Court
was a nullity as it was passed in favour of the appealing parties, who had expired prior to the
appeal being heard and decided. As a result, the only decree that could be enforced was the one
passed by the trial Court on 14.08.2006.

13. In our view, therefore, the appellant is justified in seeking execution of the decree
passed by the trial Court on the premise that the decree passed by the first appellate Court was a
nullity having been passed in favour of dead persons. We are fortified in this view by the decision
in Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope (1981) 3 SCC 173, wherein it was held as under:

"If a party to a proceeding either in the trial Court of any appeal or revision dies and the
right to sue survives or a claim has to be answered, the heirs and legal representatives of the
deceased party would have to be substituted and failure to do so would result in abatement of
proceedings. Now, if the party to a suit dies and the abatement takes place, the suit would abate. If
a party to an appeal or revision dies and either the appeal or revision abates, it will have no
impact on the judgment, decree or order against which the appeal or revision is preferred. In fact,
such judgment, decree or order under appeal or revision would become final."

These observations though made in the context of abatement of proceedings, the same position
would arise when the appellant/s expires prior to hearing of the appeal, which is subsequently
allowed without the legal heirs being brought on record. In the case in hand, the judgment in
favour of the deceased appellants would be a nullity in the absence of the legal heirs being brought
on record and the judgment of the trial Court would be the one that would govern the rights of the
parties. Hence, the decree passed by the trial Court would revive for being executed.

14. The execution proceedings herein could not have been dismissed on the ground that
the decree passed by the trial Court was superseded by the decree passed by the first appellate
Court and was modified. Since the decree of the first appellate Court was a nullity, the plaintiffs
were entitled to execute the decree passed by the trial Court. It is well settled that if a decree is a
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nullity, its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced, even at the
stage of execution as held in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan 1954 INSC 45."

(27) The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar and
another (1998) 5 SCC 567, while considering a case, where suit was instituted against a dead
person and the decree was also passed against a dead person held that, the decree was nullity which
could not be executed.

(28) The Apex Court in the case of Brij Narayan Shukla (Deceased) through LR's vs.
Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (Deceased) through LR's and others (2024) 2 SCC 590,
while considering a case where tenant was inducted into the tenancy prior to the year 1944, who
was claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession but the disputed sale deed was executed
in his favour only in the year 1966, in such circumstances, it was held that since the possession of
the tenant was permissive against the landlords, no question arises of them claiming any adverse
possession.

(29) The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
and Another vs Faraulla Khan and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3633 (By 3 Judges), held as
under:-

"2. ....It is well settled that mutation entries do not by themselves confer title which has to
be established independently in a declaratory suit."

(30) The Apex Court in the case of P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K.Patkar (2024) 13 SCC 553
has held that revenue records are not documents of title, mere mutation of revenue records would
not divest the real title owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. It was further
held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any
presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay
the land revenue in question and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal
purpose.

(31) The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs Bhagwantpal Singh
alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) through LR"s (2024) 15 SCC 139, held as under:-

"27. ...In the present case, merely because the name of the plaintiff continued in the
revenue records (jamabandis), it would not confer any title upon him. Revenue records
(jamabandis) are only entries for the purpose of realising tax by the Municipal Corporations or
land revenue by Gram Sabhas. The plaintiff having failed to claim relief of declaration, the suit
itself would not be maintainable....."

Conclusion by this Court

Analysis of decree passed in O.S.no.1126 of 2019
2 All. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs. Indra Mohan Sachdev
1219

(32) From the perusal of the earlier judgment of the trial Court dated 31.5.2022 passed in O.S.
no.1126 of 2019 Indra Mohan Sachdev vs.Smt. Sushila Mehra it appears that it was filed by the
plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction with the averments that his father
Parmanand was a licensee in the disputed property from 07.07.1969 for monthly rent of ₹ 450/-,
which was refused by the defendant in the year 1990, and since then the plaintiff proclaimed
himself to be the owner in possession of the disputed property. He claimed that the defendant since
the year 1969 never gave him any legal notice to vacate the disputed premises, since then, his
possession was open,hostile and continuous and as such, he has acquired ownership of the disputed
property by adverse possession. The plaintiff further claimed that since the year 1991 he is
regularly depositing house tax and water tax with Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad. The plaintiff admitted
that previously the defendant had filed P.A.Case No. 64 of 1984 Sushila Mehra vs.Indra Mohan
under Section 21 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972, which was dismissed on 7.1.1989, an appeal no. 42 of
1989 was preferred by Sushila Mehra against him, which was also dismissed. Plaintiff claimed that
some anti social elements came to his disputed property on 25.9.2019 and threatened him to
forcibly evict, as such, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he be declared the owner in
possession of the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession and further, by decree of
permanent injunction granted in his favour, against the defendant, the defendant be restrained from
interfering in this peaceful possession.

(33) Service on the defendant Sushila Mehra was deemed sufficient on 16.12.2021 and when she
failed to appear and submit her written statement before the trial court, then by order dated
28.3.2022, suit was proceeded ex-parte against her and finally decreed ex-parte on 31.5.2022. The
trial court concluded that since plaintiff was in continuous possession of the disputed property since
1990, he was entitled to be declared owner in possession of the disputed property by adverse
possession.

Proceedings of this suit

(34) It is very much apparent that the trial court has relied on the earlier ex-parte decree passed
in O.S. no.1126 of 2019, for decreeing the plaintiff 's instant suit.

(35) The defendants/appellants filed the copy of death certificate of Sushila Mehra and the
photo copy of documents related to suit no. 339 of 1992 Nand Kishore Mehra vs. Sushila Mehra,
which disclosed during the pendency of the above suit, she died on 02.4.1996, and for bringing her
legal heir on record substitution application was filed by her husband Nand Kishore Mehra in the
above suit which was allowed, and ultimately the suit was also decreed ex-parte by the High Court
of Delhi on 7.5.1999.

(36) The trial court has rejected the photo copy of the death certificate of Sushila Mehra on the
ground that it was inadmissible in evidence, forgetting that on the basis of that certificate,
substitution has already been effected in the suit No. 339 of 1992 and the suit has also been
decided. It is pertinent to mention here that death and birth certificates are never filed in the
original because they always remain with the person concerned or his/her legal heirs, and in a
judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, only a true copy of them is filed. It is further pertinent to
mention here that the defendants being the 3rd parties, could never have benefitted from filing the
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
false death certificate of Sushila Mehra. In view of this, there was no justifiable reason for the trial
court to ignore the copy of the death certificate of Sushila Mehra.

(37) It is further apparent that after the passing of the above ex-parte decree dated 31.5.2022 in
O.S.no. 1126 of 2019, Miscellaneous Case No. 13 of 2023 has already been filed by Amod Mehra ,
being the legal heir of deceased Sushila Mehra under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the
above ex-parte decree, on the ground that Sushila Mehra died on 2.4.1996, before the filing of the
suit, which was proved from the death certificate issued on 4.4.1996 by Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad, a copy of which was filed by the defendants in the instant suit before the trial court,
which was ignored on the ground of being photo copy, being inadmissible in evidence. The
question is whether the defendants are claiming ownership of the disputed property, which is
certainly not, then what would the defendants gain by claiming that Sushila Mehra has died on
02.04.1996 ? Sushila Mehra being dead or alive, the defendants are not going to acquire / inherit
the ownership of the disputed property, as such, there was no justifiable reason to doubt the copy of
the death certificate of Sushila Mehra submitted by the defendants.

(38) It is apparent that O.S. no.1126 of 2019 was filed in the year 2019, which was decided on
31.5.2022, but much prior to the filing and decision of the suit, Sushila Mehra had previously died
on 2.4.1996, as such, applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases Vikram
Bhalchandra Ghongade (supra) and Ashok Transport Agency (supra), the decree passed in
O.S.no.1126 of 2019 was a nullity, which did not confer any right title or interest in the disputed
property in the plaintiff and as such, wherever and whenever the decree was sought to be enforced
by the plaintiff, it could have been resisted by the defendants on the ground of being a nullity,
which does not act as res-judicata, in any manner whatsoever.

(39) The plaintiff has himself averred and proved that the disputed property is recorded as
Muraga Khana in the property records of Nagar Nigam,Ghaziabad, whereas it should be in the
name of Sushila Mehra . The plaintiff 's name can only be entered in the property register if the
previous owner was Sushila Mehra , which was not proved from the documentary evidence
submitted by the plaintiff before the trial court. The extract of the property ledger as well as, the
house tax/water tax/Sewer tax bill only disclose that the disputed property is Muraga Khana. Who
is the owner of Muraga Khana is not mentioned in the above documents, as such, even on the basis
of the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.no. 1126 of 2019, plaintiffs name could not have been entered
as the owner in possession of the above property, but the trial court has deliberately overlooked this
fact.

(40) It is further apparent that the plaintiff has filed house tax receipts of the disputed property
in order to prove that he is regularly paying the house tax and other taxes of the disputed property
to the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad being the owner, and on the basis of these receipts, he has tried to
prove his ownership of the disputed property.

(41) It is well settled that merely on the basis of payment of house tax of the disputed
property, neither any one acquire its ownership nor can proclaim to be its owner, and merely on the
basis that the person is recorded as owner in the property register of Municipal Corporation, does
2 All. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad & Anr. Vs. Indra Mohan Sachdev
1221
not become the owner of the disputed property. Such person has to prove his/her ownership in
accordance with law.

(42) It is apparent that the plaintiff's father Parmanand took the disputed property on rental
from Sushila Mehra in the year 1969, and according to the plaintiff till the year 1996 he paid rent to
Sushila Mehra,but thereafter, since he became owner due to adverse possession, he did not pay any
rent to Sushila Mehra . It is pertinent to note that it was Sushila Mehra who gave possession of the
disputed property to the plaintiff's father, which was never handed back to Sushila Mehra or her
legal heirs, as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim ownership of disputed property on the
basis of adverse possession, but still, original suit no.1126 of 2019 was filed and decreed on this
ground by the trial court on 31.5.2022. It is well settled that once having entered the disputed
property as a tenant, the tenant is not entitled to claim its ownership on the basis of adverse
possession, because the tenant is bound to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property
to the landlord/owner and he cannot deny the title of his landlord in the disputed property.

(43) It is apparent that the trial court has in total disregard of the legal provisions and evidence on
record, has decreed the plaintiff 's suit by impugned judgment , merely on the basis of earlier
decree dated 31.5.2022 passed in O.S. no.1126 of 2019, which was a nullity, which conferred no
right title or interest in the plaintiff regarding the disputed property, but still the trial court has
relied on this void decree, to grant relief to the plaintiff, which is inexplicable and legally
unsustainable.

Conduct of the trial Judge

(44) The reason assigned by the trial court for ignoring the death certificate of Sushila Mehra
is shocking, perverse and tainted with extraneous considerations. The trial court purposely in order
to cause illegal gain to the plaintiff has ignored it, which needs to be deprecated. The conduct of the
trial Judge is not above board, who has either due to extraneous reasons or due to lack of
competence, has passed the impugned decree, which cannot be legally justified in any manner
whatsoever. It is a case of deliberate judicial misconduct, which renders the integrity of the Judge
doubtful.This is a case which shocks the conscience of this Court that how could a Judge act in this
manner, in order to cause wrongful gain to the plaintiff. The facts of the case speak for themselves,
the blatant manner in which law has been flouted and justice has been denied. It is a case of
daylight judicial murder.

(45) Accordingly, the appeal has got merit and is liable to be allowed.

(46) The appeal is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree dated
13.5.2025 is set aside. Plaintiffs original suit no. 960 of 2024 stands dismissed with costs
throughout.

(47) Office is directed to place this file before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking
appropriate action on the administrative side against Trial Judge Shri Jasveer Singh Yadav, the then
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad for passing such blatant, dishonest and illegal order.
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1222
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Second Appeal No. 777 of 1981

Shri Devi Dayal ...Appellant
Versus
Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur ...Respondent

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether the findings of the courts below that the plaintiff was a licencee and thereafter a trespasser, and
not a tenant or asami, suffered from any illegality warranting interference in second appeal under Section 100
CPC;
(ii) Whether the questions framed by the appellant constituted "substantial questions of law" within the
meaning of Section 100 CPC.

Headnotes
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Substantial question of law -
Scope:

Held: A second appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. A question of law must be
debatable, not settled- must have material bearing on the rights of the parties. Questions not arising from
pleadings or based on findings of fact-cannot be treated as substantial questions of law. [Paras 16, 25, 28]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Interference:

Held: The High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below unless
such findings are perverse, based on no evidence- suffer from misapplication of law. Where findings are based
on appreciation of evidence, no interference is warranted. [Paras 29]

Property/Tenancy Law - Licencee vis-à-vis tenant - Proof of tenancy:

Held: Mere payment of lagan and production of receipts without any document of lease or tenancy does not
establish tenancy rights. Where possession was initially permissive for a limited period. Such possession is that
of a licencee.