The Allahabad High Court has set aside a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, which had directed Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad to record a plaintiff’s name as the owner of a property based on an earlier ex-parte decree. The High Court found that the foundational decree was a nullity as it was passed against a deceased person. Furthermore, the Court has directed the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for administrative action against the Trial Judge, characterizing the lower court’s order as a case of “deliberate judicial misconduct” and “daylight judicial murder.”
Background of the Case
The respondent (plaintiff), Indra Mohan Sachdev, filed Original Suit (O.S.) No. 960 of 2024 seeking a mandatory injunction against Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad. He claimed ownership of Plot No. 9, Anand Industrial Estate, Ghaziabad, based on a previous judgment and decree dated May 31, 2022, in O.S. No. 1126 of 2019 (Indra Mohan Sachdev vs. Smt. Sushila Mehra). In that earlier suit, Sachdev had been declared the owner on the basis of adverse possession.
Sachdev argued that since the 2022 decree had attained finality, Nagar Nigam was bound to enter his name in the property register. He also relied on the fact that he had been paying house tax to the Nagar Nigam since 2022. The Trial Court, presided over by Shri Jasveer Singh Yadav, decreed the suit in favor of Sachdev on May 13, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad): Counsel for the Appellants, Ms. Shreya Gupta, contended that the 2022 decree was a nullity because the defendant in that suit, Smt. Sushila Mehra, had died on April 2, 1996—decades before the suit was even filed in 2019. It was argued that the plaintiff had suppressed this material fact. Furthermore, the property was recorded as “Muraga Khana” in municipal records, and Sushila Mehra was never the registered owner. The appellant also argued that a tenant could not claim ownership through adverse possession against a landlord.
Respondent (Indra Mohan Sachdev): Counsel for the Respondent, Shri Shivam Yadav, “very fairly admitted” during the hearing that Sushila Mehra had indeed died on April 2, 1996, and consequently, the decree passed against her in 2019 was a nullity. However, he maintained that the plaintiff was unaware of her death at the time.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Sandeep Jain noted that the previous decree (O.S. No. 1126 of 2019) was fundamental to the plaintiff’s claim. Referring to the Supreme Court rulings in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar (1998), the Court observed:
“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… 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.”
The Court rejected the Trial Court’s reasoning that the death certificate was inadmissible because it was a photocopy. Justice Jain remarked:
“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.”
Regarding the claim of adverse possession by a tenant, the Court held that once a person enters a property as a tenant, they are bound to hand over vacant possession to the landlord and cannot deny the landlord’s title. The Court further clarified that mutation entries in revenue or municipal records do not confer title, citing P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K. Patkar (2024).
The Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated May 13, 2025, dismissing the original suit with costs.
In a scathing indictment of the Trial Judge’s conduct, the Court stated:
“The conduct of the trial Judge is not above board… 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… It is a case of daylight judicial murder.”
The Court directed the office to place the file before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for “appropriate action on the administrative side” against Shri Jasveer Singh Yadav, the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad.
- Case Title: Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and Another vs. Indra Mohan Sachdev
- Case No.: FIRST APPEAL No. 702 of 2025
