The Allahabad High Court quashed a Ghaziabad civil court decree directing Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad to mutate property, holding it void as passed against a deceased person, and sought action for “deliberate judicial misconduct.”
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has set aside a judgment and decree issued by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad, which had instructed Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad to record the plaintiff’s name as the owner of a property based on a prior ex-parte decree. The High Court determined that the foundational decree was invalid as it had been issued against a deceased individual.
The Court has also directed that the case be referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for administrative action against the Trial Judge, citing the lower court’s order as a case of “deliberate judicial misconduct” and “daylight judicial murder.”
Case Background
The respondent, Indra Mohan Sachdev, initiated Original Suit (O.S.) No. 960 of 2024, seeking a mandatory injunction against Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad. He asserted ownership of Plot No. 9, Anand Industrial Estate, Ghaziabad, based on a previous judgment and decree from May 31, 2022, in O.S. No. 1126 of 2019 (Indra Mohan Sachdev vs. Smt. Sushila Mehra).
ALSO READ: Kozhikode Judicial Officer Apologizes for Misconduct Amid Employee Outcry
In that earlier case, Sachdev had been declared the owner based on adverse possession. He contended that since the 2022 decree was final, Nagar Nigam was obliged to update the property register to reflect his name. Sachdev also cited paying house tax to the Nagar Nigam since 2022. The Trial Court, led by Shri Jasveer Singh Yadav, ruled in favor of Sachdev on May 13, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad): Counsel for the Appellants, Ms. Shreya Gupta, argued that the 2022 decree was void because the defendant, Smt. Sushila Mehra, had passed away on April 2, 1996—years before the suit was filed in 2019. She maintained that the plaintiff had concealed this crucial detail.
Additionally, Gupta noted that the property was recorded as “Muraga Khana” in municipal records, asserting that Sushila Mehra was never the registered owner. The appellant further 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 indeed passed away on April 2, 1996, affirming that the decree issued against her in 2019 was invalid. However, he claimed that the plaintiff was unaware of her death at that time.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Sandeep Jain highlighted that the prior decree (O.S. No. 1126 of 2019) was central to the plaintiff’s claim. Citing Supreme Court rulings in Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar (1998), the Court stated,
“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 for disregarding the death certificate, labeling it as shocking and perverse.
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.”
Also Read: “A Judge Is a Judge”: Delhi High Court Slams Lawyer for Shouting at Trial Court Judge
Regarding the adverse possession claim by a tenant, the Court held that once a person enters property as a tenant, they must return the property to the landlord and cannot contest the landlord’s title. Additionally, the Court clarified that entries in municipal records do not confer ownership, referencing P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K. Patkar (2024).
The Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, nullifying the impugned judgment and decree dated May 13, 2025, and dismissed the original suit with costs.
In a strong rebuke of the Trial Judge’s actions, the Court remarked,
“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 instructed the administration to present the file to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for “appropriate action on the administrative side” against Shri Jasveer Singh Yadav, the former Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad.
Case Title: Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and Another vs. Indra Mohan Sachdev
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES