# Sonu Sirohi v. Pushpendra Singh Sirohi & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1200
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-04
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 317 of 2019
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sonu-sirohi-v-pushpendra-singh-sirohi-anr-54121
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 2 ILRA 1200
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

First Appeal No. 317 of 2019
Alongwith
First Appeal No. 320 of 2019

Sonu Sirohi ...Appellant
Versus
Pushpendra Singh Sirohi & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether a suit for mandatory injunction seeking eviction of a defendant, alleged to be in
unauthorized occupation after revocation of licence, is maintainable in law or is barred u/s 41(h) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 on the ground that an equally efficacious remedy of possession was available.

Headnotes
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 41(h) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - ss.38, 52 - Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - ss. 2(s), 12, 17, 19 - Mandatory Injunction - Mesne
Profits - Determination - Illegal Possession - Eviction - Tripartite Agreement - Maintainability of
Suit - Shared Household - Licence - Revocation - Title and ownership - Burden of proof - Transfer
deed - Validity - The dispute arises out of two connected suits concerning a residential flat,
wherein the husband (plaintiff of Suit No.1) asserted exclusive ownership on the basis of a
tripartite agreement and registered lease deed executed in his favour, and alleged that his wife
(defendant) was permitted to occupy or manage the property merely as a licensee, whose
licence was subsequently revoked, rendering her possession unauthorized - Consequently, he
instituted a suit for mandatory injunction seeking eviction and mesne profits, and during the
pendency of disputes, he transferred the flat to a third party purchaser (plaintiff of Suit No.1),
whereas the wife instituted a separate suit claiming co-ownership on the basis of alleged
contribution from her stridhan, challenging the validity of transfer deed and seeking protection
from eviction - Both suits were consolidated and decided together by the trial court, which
decreed the suit for eviction and damages in favour of the purchaser and dismissed the wife's
suit, leading to the instant appeals.

Held: On consideration of the facts and circumstances, and the arguments advanced, the Court find that the
amount fixed by the Trial Court is reasonable at Rs. 60,000/- per month, especially considering that this was
the rental income generated from the disputed flat when it was occupied by tenant Rohit Sharma (rent
agreement dated 24.6.2008) - The appellant has been enjoying the property since a long time and there is
every likelihood that the rental value of the flat in dispute would have substantially increased over the years,
while she remained in possession - Be that as it may, Rs. 60,000/- per month is a fair measure of
compensation for the loss suffered by the rightful owner (plaintiff no. 2) during the period of unlawful
occupation by the appellant - From the discussion and perusal of oral and documentary evidence it is
established that the Trial Court rightly decreed the Original Suit No. 1199 of 2009 and rightly dismissed the
Original Suit No. 1187 of 2011 - Thus, both the First Appeals dismissed. [Paras 34, 35, 37 ] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
2 All. Sonu Sirohi Vs. Pushpendra Singh Sirohi & Anr.
1201
Hashmat Husain & others v. Inayat Ullah & others, AIR 1958 Alld. 706; Bharat Heavy Electrical Rajapur
Haridwar v. Sanju Paliwal, 2013 (2) Uttrakhand 1137; Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh, AIR 1985 SC 857;
Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma & another, (2022) 8 SCC 333; Nedunuri Kameswaramma v.
Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884; Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Runadhir Chandra Dutta, (1988) 1 SCC
383; Nirmala Devi v. Gurgaon Schedule Caste and Vimukta Agriculture Thrift and Credit Society Limited and
Others (2021) 8 SCC 785 - referred to

List of Acts
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005

List of Keywords
First appeal; Mandatory injunction; Permanent injunction; Mesne profits/damages for use and occupation;
Illegal possession; Licensor-licensee relationship; Revocation of licence; Trespasser; Ownership and title;
Exclusive ownership; Stridhan; Absence of evidence; Registered lease deed; Tripartite agreement; Transfer
memorandum; Transfer-cum-sale deed; Validity/legality of transfer deed; Consolidated suits - No objection
certificate (NOC); Indemnity bond; Bona fide purchaser; Rights of residence; Domestic violence; Oral and
documentary evidence; Maintainability of suit; s. 41(h) of Specific Relief Act; Appeal dismissed

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. - 317 of 2019

Connected with First Appeal No. - 320 of 2019

From the Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh
Nagar in Original Suit Nos. 1199 of 2009 and 1187 of 2011

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Kartikeya Saran, Rahul Sahai

Advs. for the Respondent:
Anand Kumar Tripathi, Archit Mehrotra, Atul Kumar Tiwari, Mrityunjay Pandey, Nipun Singh, Prashant Mishra,
Rakesh Kumar Mathur, Sanjay Pandey, Siddharth Nandan

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 passed
by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar in Original Suit Nos. 1199 of 2009 and
1187 of 2011, as such, both the appeals are being decided by the present common judgment.

2. The facts giving-rise to the present dispute are that an Original Suit No. 1199 of 2009 was
instituted by Pushpendra Singh Sirohi and Smt. Poonam Agarwal against Smt. Sonu Sirohi for
mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to vacate the flat and restore the possession to the
plaintiff. A further prayer was made for mesne-profit @ Rs.80,000/- per month from the date of
Institution of the suit till actual physical possession is delivered to the plaintiff. For the sake of
brevity, the present suit is being referred hereinafter as Suit No. 1 and plaintiff of aforesaid suit are
being referred hereinafter as plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 of Suit No. 1. The defendant, namely, Smt. Sonu
Sirohi is being referred hereinafter as defendant of Suit No.1.
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The facts as stated in the plaint are that the defendant of suit no. 1 was married with plaintiff
no.1 of suit no. 1. A tripartite agreement dated 15.6.2006 between NOIDA, M/s A.T.S.
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and plaintiff no.1 of suit no. 1 was executed and thus the plaintiff no. 1 of
suit no. 1 became owner of Flat No. 1201, Ground Floor, ATS Green Village, Noida, District
Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred as "flat in dispute").

4. It is further alleged that the defendant of suit no.1 being married wife of plaintiff no. 1 of
suit no.1, was authorized to realize the rent of disputed flat. In due course of time, the relation
between the plaintiff No.1of suit no. 1 and defendant of suit no. 1 became strained and various
litigations, including proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
were initiated by the defendant of suit no.1.

5. It is further alleged that a license to realize the rent of disputed flat was given to the
defendant of suit no. 1, which was revoked on 17.11.2009. Thus, after revocation of License, the
plaintiff No.1 of suit No. 1 is entitled for possession of flat in dispute and the possession of
defendant of suit No.1 over disputed flat is illegal. Accordingly, the relief of mandatory injunction
and mesne-profit have been prayed for by instituting Suit No. 1199 of 2009.

6. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1 decided to sell the
disputed flat to the plaintiff no. 2 of suit no. 1 and therefore on 8.2.2011, M/s ATS Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd issued no objection certificate for transfer of flat in dispute in favour of the petitioner no. 2
of suit no. 1. On 17.2.2011, the plaintiff no. 1 filed transfer application with NOIDA and on
24.3.2011, on execution of indemnity bond by plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no. 2 in favour of
NOIDA, permission for the transfer was granted and accordingly, the transfer memorandum and
transfer-cum-sale deed was executed between plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 of suit no.1 for sale
consideration of Rs. 95 lacs.

7. The defendant of suit no. 1, namely, Smt. Sonu Sirohi instituted Original Suit No. 1187 of
2011 (Smt. Sonu Sirohi Vs. Smt. Poonam Agarwal, Pushpendra Singh Sirohi, ATS Infrastructures
and Noida Authority. The suit is being referred as suit no. 2. In the aforesaid suit, a relief of
permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff Smt. Sonu Sirohi, from
the flat in dispute was prayed for. By way of amendment, a decree for declaring the transfer deed
dated 25.3.2011, executed in favour of the plaintiff no.2 of suit no.1 as void, with a further prayer
of declaration against no objection certificate granted by Noida Development Authority and ATS
Infrastructure was prayed for. In short, the claim set-up by Smt. Sonu Sirohi in suit no. 2 was that
she has also invested stridhan in purchase of the flat in dispute and proceedings under Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as other proceedings are pending before various
Courts and in view of the aforesaid, she is entitled to reside in the flat in dispute.

8. Since the subject matter of both the suits was the same property, as such, both the suits were
consolidated and decided by a common judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018.

9. The trial Court had framed issues separately in both the suits. In suit no. 1, the first issue
was whether the plaintiffs of suit no. 1 are owners of flat in dispute. The first issue in Suit no. 2 was
whether the plaintiff of suit no. 2 (defendant of suit no. 1 Smt. Sonu Sirohi) is owner of flat in
2 All. Sonu Sirohi Vs. Pushpendra Singh Sirohi & Anr.
1203
dispute. Issue nos. 2, 7, 10 & 11 of suit no. 2 also related to ownership of flat in dispute as well as
the legality of transfer deed dated 25.3.2011.

10. The issue no. 1 of both the suits had been decided by the learned trial Court, holding that
the owner of flat in dispute was plaintiff No.2 of suit no. 1 and subsequently transfer deed dated
25.3.2011 executed by plaintiff of suit no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff no. 2 is lawful transfer deed
and accordingly, plaintiff no. 2 of suit no. 1 namely Smt. Poonam Agarwal is the lawful owner of
flat in dispute. It has been further decided by the trial Court that the possession of defendant of suit
no. 1 w.e.f. May 2011 is illegal.

11. The trial Court has further decided the issue holding that the plaintiff no. 2 of suit no. 1 is
entitled for damages/mesne-profit for use and occupation @ Rs. 60,000/- per month from May
2011 till the time actual physical possession is delivered to plaintiff no. 2 of suit no. 1. Thus, suit
no.1 has been decreed and suit no. 2 has been dismissed.

12. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present two First Appeals
have been filed, mainly on following grounds:

(A) That the impugned judgment suffers from manifest errors apparent on the face of

(B) That the suit of Plaintiff No. 2 was liable to be dismissed, which was otherwise
wrongly decreed by the trial court;

(C) That the disputed flat was purchased out of joint funds (Stridhan) contributed by both
the Appellant and Plaintiff No. 1, and therefore Plaintiff No. 1 alone could not have alienated it;

(D) That the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2011 is patently null and void, and no right flows to
the alleged vendee;

(E) That the Appellant, residing permanently in the disputed flat with her children, who
also have a claim therein, could not have been directed to vacate;

(F) That the Appellant has substantive rights under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005;

(G) That Plaintiff No. 1 colluded with the builder and NOIDA to circumvent the rights of
the Appellant under the said Act;

(H) That the Transfer Deed issued by NOIDA contained a precondition binding the
parties to pending suits, which was mischievously ignored;

(I) That the trial court wrongly held that the lease deed was executed exclusively in
favour of Plaintiff No. 1 alone;
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(J) That the trial court erroneously held that the Appellant failed to produce documentary
evidence of financial contribution;

(K) That case laws cited by the Appellant were misconstrued;

(L) That the imposition of damages at Rs. 60,000 p.m. is unjust, given the Appellant's
meagre maintenance of Rs. 75,000/-;

(M) That allowing the impugned judgment would occasion failure of justice and cause
irreparable loss.

13. On the basis of the grounds mentioned above and the argument raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant, following points/issues for determination have been framed.

(A) Suit No. 1 for mandatory injunction is barred under section 41(h) of Specific Relief
Act, 1963, which provides that an injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief can
be obtained by any other usual mode of proceedings except in case of breach of trust.

(B) The findings that the plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1 was absolute owner of flat in dispute
are perverse and contrary to evidence on record.

(C) The transfer deed dated 25.3.2011 is illegal.

(D) Award of damage @ Rs. 60,000/- per month is contrary to evidence on record.

Point No. 1-Preliminary Objection

14. The appellant has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of Suit No. 1,
contending that the suit for mandatory injunction is barred under section 41(h) of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, which provides that an injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious
relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of
trust.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff of suit no.1 in plaint has
indicated that the defendant is trespasser over flat in dispute, thus, the suit for mandatory injunction
is not maintainable and the plaintiff should have filed suit for possession. The learned counsel for
the appellant has also relied upon a case of Hashmat Husain & others Vs. Inayat Ullah & others,
AIR 1958 Alld. 706 and also a case of Bharat Heavy Electrical Rajapur Haridwar Vs. Sanju
Paliwal, 2013 (2) Uttrakhand 1137.

16. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff of suit no.1 stated that it was
specifically argued before the trial Court that the defendant was residing in flat in a capacity of
licensee and this fact was admitted by her. This admission on her part clearly established the
relationship of licensor and licensee, as provided under Indian Easement Act, 1882. The license
was terminated by plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1 by giving notice dated 17.11.2009 to remove his
2 All. Sonu Sirohi Vs. Pushpendra Singh Sirohi & Anr.
1205
possession from the house within 15 days. He has relied upon AIR 1985 SC 857 Sant Lal Jain Vs.
Avtar Singh. The Court has observed:

"In a suit, where a mandatory injunction for possession is sought by a licensor from a
licensee who has terminated the license, the suit is not barred merely because it takes the form of a
suit for mandatory injunction. The object of the suit is possession, and the relief sought is
possession which the plaintiff may be found to be entitled."

In case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta Vs. Pratap Narain Verma & another, (2022) 8 SCC
333, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the position that when a licensor-licensee
relationship exists and the licensor can seek mandatory injunction for possession without being
barred under section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act.

17. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of evidence recorded findings that the plaintiff no. 1
of suit no. 1 has permitted appellant to collect rent as an agent and to enter and exit the premises for
limited purpose only. The trial Court has further recorded findings that the permission for
revocation was granted on 17.11.2009 and thus she has no legal right to continue occupying the
disputed flat in question.

18. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as referred above, the suit for
mandatory injunction was maintainable.

Point No. 2-Onwership and title of plaintiff no.1 of suit no. 1

19. The learned trial Court has recorded finding that the plaintiff of suit no. 1 is owner of flat
in dispute, in view of the registered lease deed dated 16.6.2006 executed exclusively in favour of
plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1. The trial Court has recorded finding that the plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1
has taken loan from HSBC Bank and NOC was issued by the bank and this fact was admitted by
the defendant of suit no. 2, namely, ATS Infrastructure Ltd. and Noida Development Authority.

20. The appellant, (defendant of suit no. 1) has filed her affidavit in evidence, stating therein
that she has contributed obtaining lease/ownership of flat in dispute by selling her stridhan and thus
she is co-owner of flat and accordingly, the transfer deed executed by plaintiff no.1 of suit no. 1 is
without authority.

21. Though an affidavit was filed by defendant of suit no. 1, being plaintiff of suit no. 2, but
she never appeared for examination, despite repeated opportunities provided to her to appear for
cross-examination. In absence of cross-examination, the affidavit in evidence filed by the appellant
has rightly not been relied upon by the trial Court and the contention of the appellant that she has
contributed funds in purchase/lease of flat in dispute has rightly been disbelieved. No documentary
evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the defendant of suit no.1 to establish that she has
contributed in obtaining the transfer deed dated 16.6.2006 of flat in dispute.

22. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no separate issue was
framed by the trial Court, as such, appellant could not lead evidence to the fact that joint funds
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were invested in purchase/lease of flat in dispute and thus, the invested appellant was prejudice of
proper opportunity to lead evidence on the said issue.

23. From perusal of record and the oral evidence adduced by the parties, it is established that
the defendant of suit No.1 has not let any documentary or oral evidence to establish that she has
contributed in purchase of flat in dispute. The only evidence adduced by her, during trial is an
affidavit of evidence but as she had not turned up despite various opportunities provided by the
Court for cross-examination, as such, the affidavit filed by her, cannot be accepted in absence of
cross-examination. On the other hand, the plaintiff of suit n?. 1 has adduced ample evidence i.e.
statement of loan taken by plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1 from HSBC Bank and subsequent NOC
issued by the bank. Thus, it is established that it is the plaintiff no. 1 who made investment in
purchase of flat. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to Indicate any document to
suggest that any amount was invested by her in purchase of flat in question.

24. The learned trial Court has framed issues with regard to ownership of flat in dispute and it
was open to appellant to establish that the ownership of plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1 was not
exclusive, but was joint ownership, but no evidence was led to establish joint ownership. Thus,
argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that her right was prejudiced to lead
evidence in absence of proper issue, is wholly misconceived and not tenable in law, especially
when the parties have full knowledge about the case and have not pleaded but have led evidence
with respect to their ownership.

In Nedunuri Kameswaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884, it has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the parties are ad idem on the fact involved in the
suit and have pleaded about the same as well as led evidence with respect to the same, it is not
necessary for the trial Court to have framed separate issues, as the Court has effectively disposed
off the point in its judgment.

In Bhairab Chandra Nandan Vs. Runadhir Chandra Dutta, (1988) 1 SCC 383, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where evidence has been led by parties with respect to certain
facts, despite the absence of a formally framed issue, the findings returned by the trial Court on
such facts are not rendered nugatory.

25. The trial Court has further recorded findings:

"उपरोक्त द दवध व्य वस्थाओं के आलोक में उभयपक्षों के दअभवचनों में यह स् पश् ट र्रप से स् वी कृि िथ्य है द क द ववाद िि फ्
लै ट अग्र णी वाि के वािी सं0-1 पुश्पेदन्िसह द सरोही को आवंद टि हु आ था, न द क आवंटन प्र द िवाद िनी के साथ संयुक्त र्र पसे हु आ था।
अग्र णी वाि की पत्रा वली पर उपलब्ध प्र पत्र सं0-80ग 1 व 81ग1 केअवलोकन से भी यह दिषि होिा है द क द ववाद िि फ् लै ट के सम् बन् ध
में पंजीकृिलीज डीड वािी सं0-1 पुश्पेन्ि द सह द सरोही के पक्ष में द नश् पा द िि की गयी थी।इसके दअदिरक्त पत्रा वली पर उपलब्ध प्र पत्र 79ग1
के अवलोकन से यह दिशिहोिा है द क पुष्पेन्ि द सरोही द्व ा रा एच.एस.बी.सी. से ऋण द लया गया था द जसकेसम् ब नध में नोड्यू ज प्र माण पत्र
प्रस् िु ि द कया गया है। प्र द िवािी सं0-2 के पक्ष मेंमूल आवंटन के िथ्य को पष्चा िविीर् वाि के प्र द िवािी सं0-3 -ए०टी०एस०FAPL
No. 317 of 20198इन्फाट्रेक् ट र द ल० व प्र द िवािी सं0-4 नोएडा द वकास प्र ा द धकरण द्व ा रा अपने दप्रिवािं पत्र में स् वी कार
द कया गया है। इस प्र कार स् पश् ट िः वािी सं०-1 द ववाद िि फ़्लै ट का मूल आवंटी व स् वा मी बिौर पट्टा धारी था। यह भी स् वी कृि िथ्य है
2 All. Sonu Sirohi Vs. Pushpendra Singh Sirohi & Anr.
1207
द कदअग्र णी वाि की वाद िनी सं0-2 श्र ी मिी पूनम अग्र वाल द्व ा रा द ववाद िि फ् लै ट कोदजरये पंजीकृि बैनामा वािी सं0-1 से पष्चा
िविीर् वाि के प्र द िवािी सं०-३ए०टी०एस० इन्फाट्रेक् च र द ल० से एन०ओ०सी० द िनांक-08-02-2011 को एवं दप्रिवािी सं0-4. नोएडा
द वकास प्र ा द धकरण से टी०एम० द िनांक-25-03-2011को प्र ाप् ि कर वािी सं0-1 से क्र य द कया गया है। प्र द िवािी सं०-3 द्व
 ा रा अपने दप्रिवाि पत्र में यह स् पष्ट कथन द कया गया है द क द ववाद िि फ् लै ट की स् वा द मनीदअग्र णी वाि की वािी सं0-2 श्र ी मिी
पूनम अग्र वाल िजर् कागजाि हैं। इस सम् बन् धमें दअग्र णी वाि की प्र द िवाद िनी व पश्वा िविीर् वाि की वाद िनी का क्रमषः अपने दप्रिवाि पत्र व
वाि पत्र में मुख्य र्र प से यह कथन है द क चूंद क द ववाद िि फ् लै ट कोअग्र णी वाि के वािी सं0-1 पुश्पेन्ि द सह द सरोही के साथ क्र य करने
में उसके द्व ा राअपनी व्य द क्त गि सम् प द त्त (स्त्री धन, स् व णर् आभूश्णों की द वक्री दआि) के द वक्र य से प्राप् ि सम् प द त्त से भी भुगिान
में सहयोग प्र िान द कया गया है, एवं नोएडा द वकास प्रा द धकरण की पोद लसी के अनुसार नोएडा प्र ा द धकरण के क्षेत्र में -द कसी आवंटीके
दपि/पत्नी व अव्यस् क बच्चों के नाम एक से दअधक 31 सम् प द त्त नहीं होसकिी, इस कारण द ववाद िि फ् लै ट की वह िथा उसके बच्चे संहस्
वा मी वांिीं सं0-1 पुश्पेन्ि द सह द सरोही के साथ हैं िथा उसकी अनुदमि के द बना वािी सं०-1पुश्पेन् ि द सह द सरोही को अग्र णी वाि की
वाद िनी सं0-2 श्र ी मिी पूनम अग्र वाल कोद ववाद िि पलैट का द वक्र य नहीं द कया जा सकिा था। यह िथ्य की अग्र णी वाि की
दप्रिवाद िनी द्व ा रा द ववाद िि पलैट के क्र य करने में वािी सं0-1 को अपनी द नजीसम् प द त्त (स्त्र ी धन, स् व णर् आभूश्णों की द बक्र
 ी दआि) के द्व ा रा भुगिान में अंशिान /सहयोग द कया गया था, साद बि करने का भार अग्र णी वाि की प्र द िवाद िनी वपष्चा िविीर् वाि
की वाद िनी पर है। परन् िुं इस सम् बन् ध में उसके द्व ा रा बिौरमौद खक साक्षी मुख्य परीक्षा शपथ पत्र प्र पत्र प्रस् िु ि द कया गया, परन् िु स् व यं
को न्या यालय द्व ा रा पयार्प्व अवसर प्र िान द कये के जाने के पश्चा ि भी परीद क्ष ि नहींकराया गया, न ही कोई िस्िा वेजी साक्ष्य अपनी व्य द क्त
गि सम् प द त्त के सम् बन् ध में प्रस्िु ि द कया गया है। जब द क इसके द वपरीि यह स् वी कृि िथ्य है द क द ववाद ििपलैट का आवंटन वािी
सं०-1 पुष्पेन्ि द सह द सरोही के नाम हु आ था िथा इससम् बन् ध में लीज डीड भी उसी के नाम से द नष् पा द िि हु ई थी। इस प्र कार पत्रा वलीपर
उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर स् पष्ट है द क द ववाद िि पलैट को क्र य करने केसम् बन् ध में भुगिान अग्र णी वाि के -वािी सं0-1 पुश्पेन्ि द सह
द सरोही द्व ा रा स् व यंअकेले द कया गया था एवं वह अकेले उक्त द ववाद िि पलैट का स् वा मी था िथाउसको पलैट द वक्र य करने का पूणर्
दअधकार एक मात्र स् वा मी होने के कारणFAPL No. 317 of 2019
9द दवधनुसार प्र ाप् ि था।"

26. Thus, the findings recorded by the trial Court on the issue are perfect and the said finding
is not perverse and is based on cogent evidence.

Point No. 3-Transfer deed is illegal

27. The Appellant contends that the transfer of the disputed flat was made to Plaintiff No. 2
during pendency of suit proceedings, wherein the rights of the Appellant had to be determined and
hence the said transfer could not have been executed without taking permission of the concerned
Court, thereby violating Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. The counsel further submitted that
the Sale Deed is null and void because the disputed flat was purchased from joint funds, the
NOIDA Transfer Memorandum contained a precondition that parties must comply with pending
matrimonial proceedings and that the said transfer mischievously took place without the
Appellant's knowledge or consent. The Counsel vehemently argued that the transfer deed executed
between the Plaintiff of suit no.1 has a false declaration recorded by Plaintiff No.1 that the property
sought to be transferred is free from all disputes and litigations pending in any court of law and the
said recital has not been objected to by the vendee Plaintiff No.2, which establishes that both the
Plaintiffs are complicit and are deliberately hand in glove to defraud the Appellant.

28. Objecting to Appellant's submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for Plaintiff No.2
submitted that the disputed premises was rightfully and lawfully transferred only after issuance of
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the developer M/s. ATS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. For transfer of
the flat in question on 08.02.2011, Indemnity Bond was executed by Plaintiff No.2 in favour of
Noida showing her willingness to purchase the flat in question on 24.03.2011. Transfer
Memorandum was issued by Noida permitting the transfer of the flat in question in favour of
Plaintiff No.2 on 25.03.2011, before finally a Transfer Deed-cum-Sale Deed was executed by the
Plaintiff No.1 in favour of Plaintiff No.2 of the flat in question for a total consideration of Rs. 95.00
Lacs.

29. The Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that aforesaid facts establish that all
requirements of transfer between the parties were complete and the Transferor recorded with Noida
his Sub-lease transferring his rights absolutely in favour of the Plaintiff No.2. Admittedly, in the
deed that was executed in the year 2006, the name of the Appellant was not recorded with Noida.
The said deed is dated 15.06.2006 and is a Tripartite Agreement between the Noida, ATS
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and the Plaintiff No.1.

30. It is submitted by Sri Goyal, learned Senior Counsel, that Objection is to the effect that a
letter was issued by Noida to the Plaintiff No.2 where-after the Plaintiff No. 2 executed the
Indemnity Bond as well as an affidavit mentioning the pendency of the proceedings between the
Plaintiff No.1 and the defendant of suit no. 1 before the Court of ACMM, Patilala House, New
Delhi. This objection on the face of it is untenable as mere pendency of the said case had no
bearing on the execution of the Transfer Deed in favour of Plaintiff no.2. The pendency of the
proceedings does not indicate that the Plaintiff No.2 is not bonafide purchaser. Rather it indicates
that the Plaintiff No.2 has carried out due diligence before purchasing the lease hold rights and the
super structure and has shown her bonafides by putting it on record by understanding the
consequences of such case.

31. Moreover, it is evident from the pleading of the Defendant that she claimed her own right
of residence in the house that was occupied only with effect from 11.07.2009 at a point of time
when her license was terminated by the Plaintiff No.1. It is further argued that in terms of the
provisions contained in Section 38 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Plaintiff No.2
conducted due diligence, used reasonable care to existence of ascertain the circumstances and has
acted in good faith before purchasing the property in question. By no stretch of imagination can it
be stated that the property in question stood affected by operation of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 inasmuch as Section 2(s) read with Section 12, 17 and 19 uses the
word "shared household" and does not apply to more than one household. Evidence has already
been led and it has come on record that there was more than one household between Plaintiff no.1
and the Defendant, namely another flat in the same group housing, being Flat No. 1083 ATS Green
Village Section 934, Noida. Once the intention of the legislature is to restrict the provision to a
single household and not extent it beyond one household, the flat in question could not be included
in the proceedings that were pending on the date when the Transfer-Cum-Sale Deed came to be
executed.

32. In my view, the Indemnity Bond executed by Plaintiff No. 2 on 24.03.2011 was a separate
arrangement between Plaintiff No. 2 and NOIDA and not a condition affecting the validity of the
Sale Deed. Plaintiff No. 2 undertook to thereby indemnify NOIDA against any adverse outcome of
2 All. Sonu Sirohi Vs. Pushpendra Singh Sirohi & Anr.
1209
the domestic violence proceedings, assuming the risk. This does not invalidate the sale deed.
Moreover, since the plaintiff no. 1 is the sole owner of the disputed flat, having purchased it with
his own funds and without any contribution from the appellant, he had full authority to execute a
valid sale deed in favour of the plaintiff no. 2. The sale deed dated 25.3.2011 is therefore valid and
effective, and all rights pertaining to the disputed flat have rightly vested in plaintiff no. 2.

Point No. 4- Award of damages

33. The appellant's main argument on the the imposition of aforesaid issue is that imposition
of damages at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per month is harsh and unjust, particularly when she receives
only Rs. 75,000/- as monthly maintenance from her estranged husband. The relevant findings given
by the Trial Court read as follows:-

"अग्र णी मूलवाि में वाि द वन्िु सं०-1, 5 व पष्चा िविीर् मूलवाि क' बाि द वन्िु सं0-1, 2, 7, 10, व 11 के द नस् िा रण से
यह स् पष्ट है द क अग्र णी वाि की प्र द िवाद िनी31 श्र ी मिी सोनू द सरोही का द ववाद िि पलैट पर अन्ि रण द वलेख द िनांक-2503-2011 को द नष् पा द िि होने के पश्चा ि् िथा माह मई 2011 में पलैट खाली करने हेिुवाद िनी सं०-2 श्र ी मिी पूनम अग्र वाल द्व ा रा
कहे जाने के पश्चा ि् से कब्जा अवैध हैिथा श्र ी मिी पूनम अग्र वाल द ववाद िि पलैट के सम् बन् ध मे प्र द िवाद िनी सोनू द सरोहीसे हजार्
इस्िे माली प्र ाप् ि करने की दअधकाद रणी है। हजेर् के सम् बन् ध में वाि पत्र मेंयह दअभकथन द कया गया है द क वाि संद स्थ ि करने की
द दिथ से वाद िनी80,000/- र्र पये प्र द िमाह हजार् प्र ाप् ि करने की दअधकारी हैं। इस सम् बन् ध मेंपत्रा वली पर दजरय सूची पत्र 75ग1 प्र
पत्र 82ग छायाप्र द ि लीज डीड द िनांक-22-05-2014 बावि् पलैट सं0-1001 ए०टी०एस० ग्र ी न द वलेज, सैक् ट र 93ए,नोएडा प्रस् िु
ि की गयी है। द जसमें द कराया 80,000/- र्र पये प्र द िमाह दिशि है।परन् िु उक्त िस्िा वेज छायाप्र द ि हैं जो साक्ष्य में ग्र ा हय नहीं है। इस
िथ्य काउल्ले ख मुख्य परीक्षा शपथ पत्र में द कया गया है। परन् िु बिौर पी०डब्लू ०-1 साक्षीFAPL No. 317 of 201912श्री मिी पूनम अग्र
वाल ने अपनी द जरह में पृष्ठ 6 पर यह दअभकथन द कया है द क "इस पलैट में वषर् 2009 से द करायेिार रोद हि शमार् रहा करिा था ये 60
हजार र्रपया प्र द िमाह का द कराया िेिा था।" इस प्र कार उसके द्व ा रा स् वी कार द कया गयाहै द क द ववाद िि पलैट पहले 60,000/- र्र
पये प्र द िमाह द कराये पर द िया गया था।इस िथ्य के द वपरीि प्र द िवाद िनी श्र ी मिी सोनू द सरोही की ओर से कोई द वपरीिसाक्ष्य प्रस्
िु ि नहीं द कया गया है। ऐसी िशा में वाद िनी श्र ी मिी पूनम अग्र वाल दप्रिवािनी सोनू द सरोही से मई 2011 से कब्जा द िये जाने की द दिथ
िक प्र द िमाह60,000/- र्र पये प्र द िमाह की िर से हजार् इस्िे माली प्र ाप् ि करने की दअधकाद रणीहैं। वाद िनी सं0-2 श्र ी मिी पूनम
अग्र वाल का वाि सव्य य ििनुसार आज्ञप् ि द कयेजाने योग् य है।

34. On consideration of the facts and circumstances, and the arguments advanced, I find that
the amount fixed by the trial Court is reasonable at Rs. 60,000/- per month, especially considering
that this was the rental income generated from the disputed flat when it was occupied by tenant
Rohit Sharma (rent agreement dated 24.6.2008). The appellant has been enjoying the property since
a long time and there is every likelihood that the rental value of the flat in dispute would have
substantially increased over the years, while she remained in possession. Be that as it may, Rs.
60,000/- per month is a fair measure of compensation for the loss suffered by the rightful owner
(plaintiff no. 2) during the period of unlawful occupation by the appellant.

35. From the discussion made above and also from perusal of oral and documentary evidence
it is established that the trial Court has rightly decreed the Original Suit No. 1199 of 2009 and has
rightly dismissed the Original Suit No. 1187 of 2011.
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]