Delhi District Court
Jatinder Pal Singh (Huf) vs Saroj Rani on 29 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS DJ No. 14223/2016
CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003
In the matter of:-
Jatender Pal Singh (HUF)
through its Karta, Jatinder Pal Singh,
S/o Late S. Arjan Singh,
R/o 27/56, 1st floor,
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 26.
.......... Plaintiff
VS
1. Smt. Saroj Rani
W/o Late Sh. Ram lubhaya,
R/o 1461, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, N. Delhi
Alsoat :
Bakhlure, Tehsil, Nawah Shehar
District Nawah Shehar, Punjab
2. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar,
Late Sh. Ram lubhaya,
R/o 1461, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, N. Delhi
3. Sh. Banwari Lal
S/o Sh. Sukhdev Lal Sharma,
R/o 953/2-A, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
4. Smt. Karam Devi
Wd./o Late Bhagat Ram
R/o 890, Main Bazar, Garh Shankar,
Distt. Hoshiarpur (Punjab)
5. Smt. Kiran Devi
W/o Sh. Kuldeep Kumar,
R/o 890, Main Bazar, Garh Shankar,
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 1 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 13:25:17
Date: 2025.04.05
+0530
Distt. Hoshiarpur (Punjab)
.......... Defendant
Date of institution of suit : 18.02.2003
Date of reserving for Judgment : 20.03.2025
Date of decision : 29.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The court is rendering this judgment in response to
the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants
for seeking the reliefs of cancellation of sale deed and
recovery of possession and damages.
Facts as pleaded in plaint (In Brief) :
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the karta of
Jatinder Pal Singh, Hindi Undivided Family (hereinafter to
be referred to as ‘HUF’). Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh became the
owner of the property bearing no. 1461, Wazir Nagar, Kotla
Mubarakpur, New Delhi, measuring 122.5 square yards
(hereinafter to be referred to as ‘suit property’) by way of a
registered sale deed dated 17.09.2001 executed by Sh.
Jaswant Singh S/o late Sh. S. Kishan Singh as a joint
attorney of defendant no. 4 and her daughter Smt. Kiran
Devi (defendant no. 5) vide registered Special Power of
Attorney (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘SPA’) dated
20.12.1995.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 2 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:25:25 +0530
3. It has further been averred by the plaintiff that the
suit property was originally owned by Lala Bhagat Ram
vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.02.1951. Sh. Lala
Bhagat Ram expired in the year 1981, leaving behind
defendants no. 4 and 5 as his legal heirs inheriting the suit
property in equal ratio. On 17.01.2003, the plaintiff came to
know from the house tax office that the suit property had
been mutated in the name of defendant no. 3, Sh. Banwari
Lal, on the basis of a sale deed dated 05.12.2002 executed
by defendant no. 2, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, and preceded by
another sale deed dated 17.09.2002 in favour of defendant
no. 2 by his mother (defendant no. 1) as an attorney of
defendant no. 4, vide registered dated 22.07.99 at Ludhiana.
4. The plaintiff has averred that after obtaining the
information of execution of the other sale deeds qua the suit
property he immediately visited the suit property and sought
the possession of the same, but the same was denied by the
person present there on the ground that the plaintiff has
nothing to do with the suit property as the property sold off
by way of sale deeds dated 17.09.2002 and 05.12.2002
respectively.
5. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent the certified copies of
the registered sale deeds dated 17.09.2002 and 05.12.2002
to the defendant no. 4 for verification, and she denied the
execution of the alleged GPA dated 22.07.1999 or even
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 3 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:25:34 +0530
having visited Ludhiana in the last five years. The plaintiff
has further averred that the GPA dated 22.07.1999 is a
forged document, as the address of both the executant and
the attorney are incomplete, and the defendant no. 4 has
wrongly been shown as the sole owner of the suit property,
whereas she was the owner only 50% as she sold the same
to the plaintiff in 1991, and the remaining 50% belonged to
Smt. Kiran Devi.
6. The plaintiff has stated that defendant no. 4 also
denied execution of ‘ikrarnama-sauda-bai’ and ‘Byan-
Halfya.’ and hence, it is clear that the defendants no. 1 to 3
hatched a conspiracy to illegally usurp the suit property. The
GPA dated 22.07.99 was fraudulently used by defendant no.
1 Smt. Saroj Rani for executing a Sale Deed in favour of her
son/defendant no. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/- in
respect of the suit property.
7. The plaintiff has further averred that fraud in the
execution of the sale deed dated 17.09.2002 is clear, as the
vendor’s photograph affixed on the said sale deed is of
defendant no. 1, whereas the name written below the
photograph is ‘Smt. Karam Devi,’ i.e., defendant no. 4, and
also mentioned that the said sale deed was presented before
the Sub-Registrar by defendant no. 4. On the basis of the
sale deed dated 17.09.2002, a subsequent sale deed dated
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 4 of 34
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:25:43 +0530
05.12.02 was executed in favour of defendant no. 3/Sh.
Banwari Lal.
8. On the basis of the entire above-stated premise, the
plaintiff has averred that the GPA dated 22.0799, the sale
deed dated 17.09.2002, and the subsequent alleged sale deed
dated 05.12.02 and the further subsequent sale deed(s) are
null and void ab initio. Therefore, the present suit has been
filed for declaring the GPA dated 22.07.99 along with the
ikrarnama-sauda bai, the sale deed dated 17.09.02, and the
subsequent sale deed dated 05.12.02 as null and void and
₹.6000/- per month as damages for unauthorized use and
occupation of the suit property by defendants no. 1 to 3
from 17.01.03 till the handing over of the actual physical
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Facts pleaded in Written Statement of Defendants No. 1 and 2 (In
Brief):
9. The defendants no. 1 and 2 in their joint written
statement refuted all the allegations of the plaintiff as made
in the plaint and sought the relief of Section 53 A of the
Transfer of Property Act because Smt. Karam Devi agreed
to sell the property through an agreement dated 10.07.99
and executed an affidavit to this effect apart from a power
of attorney. The possession of defendant no. 1 was
confirmed by Smt. Karam Devi in part performance of the
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 5 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 13:25:56
Date: 2025.04.05
+0530
agreement, though she was already in possession also. The
defendants no. 1 and 2 have challenged the existence of any
HUF or karts of such name and denied the ownership of the
plaintiff qua the suit property.
10. It has further been contended by the defendants that
the attorney in favour of Sh. Jawant Singh is false,
frivolous, and manipulated, as no documents were ever
executed by the defendants no. 4 and 5 in the years 1991
and 1995. Defendants questioned the authenticity of these
documents because the plaintiff has not filed a receipt for
payment of the sale consideration of the sale deed.
11. The defendants have admitted that Lala Bhagat
Ram was the owner of the property and his wife Smt.
Karam Devi had transferred the property in favour of
defendant no. 1 by executing the relevant papers and a
power of attorney on10.07.1999 and 14.07.1999.
12. It has further been contended by the defendants that
only thereafter, defendant no. 1 sold the property to
defendant no. 2 and who transferred the property to
defendant no. 3. Defendant no. 1 is the niece of Smt. Karam
Devi and she or the tenants were in possession of the
property much before the year May, 1979 and after
purchasing the suit property, defendant no. 1 continued to
be in possession in part performance of the agreement as
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 6 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.05
13:26:04 +0530
owner. Hence, it is prayed that the present suit be dismissed
alongwith the costs.
Facts pleaded in Written Statement of defendant no. 3 (In Brief)
13. The defendant no. 3 in his written statement also
refuted all the claims of the plaintiff and asserted that Sh.
Jaswant Singh was never appointed as attorney by
KaramDevi. The defendants no. 1 and 2 represented to
defendant no. 3 as they are in possession of the suit property
for the last 30 years and the same was given to defendant
no. 1 by Smt. Karam Devi in the year 1987, though the
agreement to sell and power of attorney etc were executed
in favour of defendant no. 1 in the year 1999. Defendant no.
1 claimed in possession of the suit property for last more
than 30 years and as owner as adverse and hostile to entire
world including Smt.Karam Devi since 1987. Hence, it is
prayed that the present suit be dismissed alongwith the
costs.
Facts pleaded in the Written Statement of Defendant No. 4 and 5
(In Brief)
14. The defendants no. 4 and 5 in their joint written
statement supported the case of the plaintiff and contended
that defendants no. 4 had not executed any document,
including ‘Ikrarnama-Suda-Bai,’ ‘Bayan-Halfiya,’ and
‘Mukhtiar-nama-aam’ (GPA), at Ludhiana or at any other
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 7 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:26:12 +0530
place in favour of defendant no. 1 Smt. Saroj Rani. It has
further been denied that defendant no. 4/Smt. Kiran Devi
never visited or resided at Ludhiana or never appeared
before any notary public or any executive magistrate of any
sub-registrar with regard to the abovementioned documents.
15. It has further been averred in the written statement
that the defendant no. 4 has filed a civil suit for declaration
and cancellation of Mukhtiar-nama-aam (GPA) dated
22.07.99. It has also been admitted by the answering
defendants that Sh. Jaswant Singh was constituted as joint
attorney of defendants no. 4 and 5 vide SPA dated
20.12.1995. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property
from defendants no. 4 and 5 vide registered sale deed dated
17.09.01. Defendant no. 4 contended that she had never
executed any GPA in favour of defendant no. 1/Smt. Saroj
Rani at Ludhiana and the same is forged and fabricated. It
has also been stated that the defendant no. 4 also lodged
police complaint against defendants no. 1 to 3. Hence, it is
prayed that the defendants no. 4 and 5 have no objection, if
the decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff.
Facts pleaded in replication (In brief)
16. In replication, plaintiff has denied the averments as
mentioned in the written statement and reiterated the facts
of the plaint.
Issues JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 8 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 13:27:16
Date: 2025.04.05
+0530
17. On the completion of pleadings of parties, the Ld.
Predecessor of this Court framed the following issues on
21.09.2005, and an additional issue was also framed on
22.02.2008.
1. Whether the suit is bad for the lack of
locus standi of the plaintiff? OPD 1,2 & 3
2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of
the parties? OPD
3. Whether the suit is for lack of cause of
action? OPD
4. Whether the suit has not been properly
valued for the purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction? OPD3
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration claimed for? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
cancellation of the documents?OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
possession of the property in dispute?OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
damages if so at what rate? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
injunction ask prayed for? OPP
10. Whether the possession of
defendants no. 1 and 2 of the suit property
became possession in part performance of
agreement dated 10.07.99 executed by Smt.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 9 of 34
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:27:33 +0530
Karmi Devi and thereby barring the suit U/s
53 A of the Transfer of Property Act? OPD 1
& 2 (framed vide order dated 22.02.2008)
11. Relief.
Plaintiff’s Evidence
18. To lead plaintiff’s evidence, plaintiff examined
himself appeared in the witness box. He tendered his
affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW1/A in which he has
reiterated the averments made in the plaint and has relied
upon and exhibited the following documents:
S. No. Exhibit/Mark Description of document
Certified copy of the sale deed dated
1. Ex. PW1/1
17.09.01
2. Ex. PW1/2 Site plan
Copy of affidavit dated 03.02.2003 by
3. Ex. PW1/3
the defendant no. 4
the public notice dated 25.01.2003
4. Ex. PW1/4 published by the plaintiff in “Dainik
Sandhya Times”
Agreement to sell, GPA, SPA, Will etc.
5. Ex. P1 to P5 executed in 1995 by defendants no. 4
and 5 in favour of the plaintiff.
19. Thereafter, the plaintiff has examined Sh. Krishan
Kumar, LDC from the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Janak
Puri, New Delhi, as PW2 to prove the SPA dated
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 10 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.05
13:27:59 +0530
20.12.1995 executed by Smt. Kiran Devi and Smt. Karam
Devi in favour of Sardar Jaswant Singh. Also, Constable
Saboo, PS KotralMubarakpur, New Delhi was examined as
PW3, who relied upon the document Ex. PW3/A i.e. record
of FIR No 119/04, registered at PS Kotla Mubarakpur on
10.03.2001 and Copy of index of case diaries containing
details of charge sheet and result of the case as Ex.
PW-3/B.
20. To prove its case plaintiff further examined Sh.
Radhey Shyam Sharma, UDC, Record Keeper from the
office of Sub-Registrar-V, Mehrauli, New Delhi was
examined as PW-4, for proving the document already Ex.
PW-1/1 i.e. sale deed dated 17.09.2001. The plaintiff,
further examined Sh. Chhattar Pal Singh, Kanoongo, record
Room, record keeper, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi as
PW5, who exhibited the copy of the intkal record bearing
No. 2482 as Ex. PW5/A.
21. The plaintiff further closed the PE on 27.10.2010
though, in compliance of the order dated 20.11.2010, PW1
was cross examined and thereafter matter was listed for DE
on 14.12.2010.
Defendant’s Evidence:
22. The defendant no. 1 Smt. Saroj Rani examined
herself as DW1 and DW1 tendered her evidence affidavit as
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 11 of 34
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:28:15 +0530
Ex. DW1/1, wherein to prove her case she relied upon the
documents as follows:
S. No. Exhibit/Mark Description of document
Copy of agreement to sell dated
14.07.99 executed by Smt. Karami Devi
1. Ex. DW1/A
in favour of defendant no. 1/Smt. Saroj
Rani at Ludhiana.
Power of attorney dated 22.7.99
2. Ex. DW1/B executed in favour of defendant no. 1
by Smt. Karmi Devi.
Copy of affidavit dated 22.7.99
3. Ex. DW1/C executed by Smt. Karmi Devi in favour
of defendant no. 1
4. Mark X Cancellation Report filed by the police
23. Thereafter Sh. Ashok Kumar was examined as DW2
who relied upon the document already exhibited as Ex.
DW1/A. Sh. Gulshan Rai, property dealer was examined as
DW3. Thereafter, Sh. Prem Kumar, son of defendant no. 3
was also examined as DW3, who relied upon the special
power of attorney dated 13.12.2016.Sh. Girjesh Singh,
SI(Retd.) was examined as DW4. The copy of affidavit of
Sh. Dalip Singh Bhatia as well as its translation is Marked
as Mark D-4/A.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 12 of 34
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.05
SHARMA 13:28:40 +0530
24. Further, to prove their case, defendants examined
Sh. Amit Rai, JJA, Court of Ld. MM-03, Saket South, Delhi
as DW5. The copy of report U/s 173 of Cr.P.C. already
marked as Mark X as Ex. DW5/1. The copy of affidavit of
Sh. Ram Swaroop and Sh. Dalip Singh Bhatia is Ex. DW5/2
and Ex. DW5/2 (OSR) and Ex. DW5/4.Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
Record Clerk, Office of Sub-Registrar East. Ludhiana was
examined as DW6. DW6 stated that the summoned i.e. GPA
dated 22.07.1999 executed by Karam Devi was not brought
as the same was destroyed due to rain water. Copy of the
report dated 21.12.2017 was Ex. DW6/2. The copy of the
index registerw.e.f. 01.04.1999 to 07.01.2000 mentioning
the GPA at BahiNo. 1701, page no. 95, the copy of the said
page Ex. DW6/3.
Arguments by the Ld. Counsel for the parties
25. This Court has heard the arguments of the Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff at length. However, despite the
service of court notice none of the defendant or anyone on
his behalf appeared before the court for addressing the final
arguments. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued in sync
with the contents of the pleadings and submitted that the
plaintiff has proved the execution of the documents which
was executed in favour of the plaintiff and since the
defendants have failed to rebut the same therefore, the
plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 13 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 13:28:49
Date: 2025.04.05
+0530
Analysis and Conclusion:
Issue no. 1
1. Whether the suit is bad for the lack
of locus standi of the plaintiff? OPD 1,2
&3
26. Onus to prove issue no.1 was on the defendants no.
1 to 3. However, no evidence has been led by the
defendants no. 1 to 3 to prove the same. In the present case
two set of documents have been brought on record by the
plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3 (conjointly) respectively,
whereby, both the parties are claiming themselves to be
registered owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has filed the
present suit on the basis of the Ex PW1/1 to Ex PW1/4 and
Ex P1 to Ex P5.
27. Therefore, when both the parties are staking their
claim on the land and that too on the basis of registered
papers, therefore it would be wrong to say that plaintiff has
no right to file a case in the court to get a declaration that
the registered papers of the opposite sides are wrong and
not genuine. Therefore, it is well within the right of the
plaintiff to file a suit for seeking the relief of declaration
against the set of registered documents of the defendants.
Defendants have failed to adduce evidence on the aspect
that how the plaintiffs doesn’t have any locus standi to file
the present suit. With these observations the issue no.1 is
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 14 of 34
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.05
SHARMA 13:29:11 +0530
decided in the favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants no. 1 to 3.
Issue no. 2
2. Whether the suit is bad for
misjoinder of the parties? OPD
28. The onus to prove this issue was upon the
defendants. However, defendants have failed to adduce
evidence that how the suit of the plaintiff is bad for
misjoinder of parties. It also remains unexplained that what
are the other persons whose presence is required for the
effective adjudication of the present suit. The plaintiff has
made parties to all the person from whom he had purchased
the property i.e. defendant no.4, 5 and all the persons who
are claiming right over the suit property through a separate
registered set of documents. Therefore, in the absence of
any cogent evidence from the defendants as to who all are
the other persons whose presence is must for the effective
adjudication, the issue is also goes in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants.
Issue no. 3
3. Whether the suit is for lack of cause
of action? OPD
29. The onus to prove this issue was upon the
defendants, as the objection regarding lack of cause of
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 15 of 34
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.05
SHARMA 13:29:23 +0530
action was raised by them in the written statement, though
nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same.
The expression ’cause of action’ has been time and again
interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well
as Hon’ble High Courts. It may be defined as a necessary
condition for maintenance of the suit including not only
infraction of the right but the infraction coupled with the
right itself. Every fact which is necessary to be proved
comprises cause of action. As held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in ‘Rajasthan High Court Advocates
Association vs Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 294′ that it has
to be left to be determined in each individual case as to
where the cause of action arises.
30. It is to be noted that the cause of action does not
comprise of evidence necessary to prove the facts but every
fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to
obtain a decree. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in ‘ABC Laminart Pvt Ltd Vs. AP Agencies Salem (1989) 2
SCC 163′, the cause of action has no relation whatever to
the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does
it depend on the character of relief sought by the plaintiff.
Therefore, the existence of cause of action in the present
suit has to be decided on the basis of the facts averred in the
plaint and the burden was upon the defendant to show that
no cause of action is disclosed in view of the facts averred
by the plaintiff in her plaint.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 16 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:29:51 +0530
31. It is clear from the bare reading of Section 101 of
the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Section 104 of BSA, 2023)
that the burden of proving the existence of a fact lies on the
party that wishes the court to believe in the existence of
such a fact. In the present case, the fact that the plaintiff
does not have any cause of action was pleaded by the
defendant, and therefore, the burden of proving the same
was upon the defendant.Nevertheless, the defendants have
not shown any independent evidence to demonstrate the
absence of a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff.
32. In the present suit, the plaintiff has based its relief of
declaration/cancellation on the averments that defendants
No. 1 to 3 are claiming to have a separate set of registered
documents qua the suit property; then the cause of action
arises in the favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit to
seek the relief of declaration of the GPA dated 22.07.1999
and subsequent sale deeds. Therefore, the plea of the
defendant regarding the lack of cause of action doesn’t hold
any merit and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, this issue
also goes in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 4
4. Whether the suit has not been
properly valued for the purposes of
court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 17 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:30:04 +0530
33. The onus to prove this issue was upon the
defendants. However, except bald averments defendants
have failed to bring anything on record to counter the
valuation as made by the plaintiff in para 22 of the plaint.
Cumulatively, plaintiff has valued the suit ₹.3,81,860 for
which the total court fee of ₹. 6,102/- was paid. The
plaintiff has valued the suit property ₹.3,75,000/-. Though,
defendants have not adduced any cogent evidence to prove
the issue, but since it is a legal issue therefore, this court has
the discretion to examine the issue by its own.
34. The plaintiff is the non-executant of the documents
therefore, relief of declaration has to be sought against the
documents as relied upon by the defendants, Therefore,
relief of cancellation doesn’t survive and only the relief of
declaration may be sought by the plaintiff. It is well-
established law that if there is no consequential relief is
sought by the plaintiff than the fixed court fee is to be paid
but, if the plaintiff is seeking the consequential relief of
possession alongwith declaration than the court fee has to be
paid as per the value of the property.
35. At this juncture it is relevant to mention the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as ‘Suhrid
Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 2807′ the
relevant para – 7 & 8 of the judgment is reproduced here as
under,
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 18 of 34
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.05
SHARMA 13:30:15 +0530
“7. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled,
he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non–
executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a
declaration that the deed is invalid, or nonest, or illegal or
that it is not binding on him. The difference between a
prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed
of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the
following illustration relating to `A’ and `B’ two brothers.
`A’ executes a sale deed in favour of `C’. Subsequently `A’
wants to avoid the sale. `A’ has to sue for cancellation of
the deed. On the other hand, if `B’, who is not the
executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a
declaration that the deed executed by `A’ is invalid/void
and nonest/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence
both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared
as nonbinding. But the form is different and court fee is
also different. If `A’, the executant of the deed, seeks
cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad valorem court
fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B’, who
is a nonexecutant, is in possession and sues for a
declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind
him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of
Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the
Act.But if `B’, a non executant, is not in possession, and he
seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid,
but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to
pay an advalorem court fee as provided under Section
7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits
for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the
court fee shall be computed according to the amount at
which the relief sought is valued in the plaint.
8.The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for
declaratory decree with consequential relief is with
reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less
than the value of the property calculated in the manner
provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
36. In the present case the plaintiff has sought the relief
of the declaration for the documents of which he was the
non-executant alongwith the consequential relief of
possession, therefore, keeping in the mandate of judgment
referred to above the Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act,
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 19 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.05
13:30:28 +0530
it is safe to hold that the plaintiff is liable to pay the ad-
valorem court fee instead of fixed court fees of ₹.200/-. The
plaintiff has sought the declaration against the documents
for which the ad-valorem court fee need to be paid, namely,
GPA dated 22.07.1999, Sale Deeds dated 17.09.2002 and
05.12.2002 respectively for which fixed court fee was paid
by the plaintiff, though the ad-valorem court fees ought to
be paid. Therefore, the issue is decided in favour of the
defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue No.5,6,7, 9 and 10
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
declaration claimed for? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the cancellation of the documents? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
possession of the property in dispute?
OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
injunction ask prayed for? OPP
10. Whether the possession of
defendants no. 1 and 2 of the suit
property became possession in part
performance of agreement dated
10.07.99 executed by Smt. Karmi Devi
and thereby barring the suit U/s 53 A of
the Transfer of Property Act? OPD 1 &
2 (framed vide order dated 22.02.2008)
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 20 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 13:31:07
Date: 2025.04.05
+0530
37. The onus of proving these present issues is upon the
plaintiff. This court is of the considered opinion that all
these issues are interconnected and may be disposed of by
the common findings. The plaintiff has claimed that since
the suit property had already been sold to the plaintiff by the
defendants no. 4 and 5, therefore, defendants no. 1 to 3
cannot claim any right over the suit property, and on this
premise, the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration and
injunction against the defendants no. 1 to 3. To prove these
issues, PW1 stepped into the witness box and deposed in
sync with the contents of the pleadings.
38. During the cross-examination of the PW1, Ld.
Counsel for the defendants could not extract any fact that
may prove fatal for the claim of the plaintiff. In fact, no
question was asked regarding the competency of the
defendants No. 4 and 5 to execute the GPA, Agreement to
Sell, etc. (Ex P1 to Ex P5), and Sale Deed (Ex PW1/1) in
favour of the plaintiff. PW1 stood firm in his cross-
examination, and all the suggestions of the defendants were
duly denied. Further, the defendant merely gave a
suggestion regarding the non-existence of the HUF, and the
same was denied by the PW1. It has further been replied to
by the PW1 that the HUF has a bank account in the
Overseas Bank with the name of HUF. Moreover,
defendants could not bring on record to rebut the testimony
of the PW1.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 21 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 13:31:20
Date: 2025.04.05
+0530
39. It has also been replied by the PW1 that prior to the
purchase of the suit property he did not examine the MCD
records, as to whose name the suit property stood mutated.
Non-examination of the MCD records by the plaintiff
doesn’t affect the merits of the case of the plaintiff as it is
settled law that mutation entries doesn’t confers any title in
the suit property as it is only relevant for the tax purposes.
At this juncture, to substantiate the same it is relevant to
mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled
as ‘P. Kishore Kumar vs Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 INSC 1009
(para-12, 13 and 14)’ which is reproduced as under,
12. This Court in Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur and
Ors.2 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.
13. This was further affirmed in Balwant
Singh & Ors vs.Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs
and Ors.3 wherein this Court held that mere
mutation of records would not divest the
owners of a land of their right, title and
interest in the land.
14. In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors.4, this Court after considering
a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle
of law as follows:
“6. ***mutation entry does not confer
any right, title or interest in favour of
the person and the mutation entry in
the revenue record is only for the
fiscal purpose.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
40. Further, it is not in dispute that the property belongs
to the late Lala Bhagat Ram, and it is the case of the
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 22 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP KUMAR
by SANDEEP
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:31:59 +0530
plaintiff that after his demise in 1981, the property vested in
the defendant no. 4 and 5 in equal share, being the wife and
daughter, respectively, of the late Lala Bhagat Ram. It is a
specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 4 and 5
sold the property by virtue of Ex P1 to Ex P5 and
subsequently through a sale deed Ex PW1/1. To prove these
documents, the plaintiff examined PW2, and he proved that
SPA dated 20.12.1995, Ex P4, was executed in favour of
Sardar Jaswant Singh, which was duly registered vide
registration number 28707, in additional book No. 4,
volume No. 3614 on page 4, in the office of Sub-Registrar
II, Janak Puri.
41. Further, PW3 proved the registration of FIR
119/04, PS Kotla Mubarakpur, dated 10.03.2004, by the
defendant no. 4 against the defendant no. 1 to 3. PW4 was
the crucial witness, as he has proved the sale deed Ex
PW1/1 as the same is registered vide registration number
7882, in additional book No. 1, volume No. 2521 on pages
62 to 69 dated 17.09.2001.
42. As discussed earlier, the plaintiff’s specific claim is
that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated 20.12.1995
(Ex.P4) was executed by defendants no. 4 and 5 (who were
the joint owners of the suit property) in favour of Sardar
Jaswant Singh and In furtherance of the authority granted
under the said SPA, Sardar Jaswant Singh executed a sale
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 23 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 13:32:08
Date: 2025.04.05
+0530
deed (Ex. PW1/1) in favour of the plaintiff, thereby
transferring ownership rights over the suit property, and as
a result of this chain of transactions, the title and ownership
of the suit property became vested exclusively in the
plaintiff. As the plaintiff has proved the due registration of
the said documents, i.e., (SPA) dated 20.12.1995 (Ex. P4)
& sale deed (Ex. PW1/1), the due executions of the same
stand proved by operation of law in terms of the mandate of
section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 67 BSA,
2023).
43. Since the plaintiff has duly proved the due execution
documents on which he has relied upon, and as such, in the
opinion of the court, he has successfully established the
vesting of the title of the suit property in himself through
the duly proved (SPA) dated 20.12.1995 (Ex. P4) and the
sale deed dated 17.09.2001 (Ex. PW1/1) executed by the
defendant no. 4 & 5 in favour of the plaintiff through their
SPA, Sardar Jaswant Singh.
44. To counter the case of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1
has taken refuge under the doctrine of part performance.
As per the case set up by the defendant no. 1, the defendant
no. 4 had executed the agreement to sell dated 14.07.1999
(Ex. DW1/A) in favour of the defendant no. 1 at Ludhiana
qua the suit property, and pursuant thereto, the defendant
no. 4 had also handed over the possession of the suit
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 24 of 34
Digitally signed
by SANDEEP
SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.05
13:32:18 +0530
property to the defendant no. 1. Before appreciating and
evaluating the case of the Defendant No. 1 in light of the
evidence adduced during the trial, this court would like to
bring forth another important aspect that has a direct
bearing on the case of the Defendant No. 1.
45. As observed earlier in the discussion, late Lala
Bhagat Ram was the undisputed owner of the suit property.
However, the plaintiff has claimed that subsequent to the
death of Sh. Lala Bhagat Ram, the suit property was jointly
inherited by the defendant no. 4 & 5 (wife and daughter,
respectively, of late Lala Bhagat Ram) in equal shares,
being the class-1 legal heirs of late Lala Bhagat Ram. On
the other hand, the defendant no. 1 has claimed that late
Lala Bhagat Ram didn’t have any children and was
survived by defendant no. 4 only; as such, after the death of
late Lala Bhagat Ram, defendant no. 4 became the absolute
owner of the suit property, being the only legal heir of the
deceased.
46. At this stage, it is observed though the defendant no.
1 has claimed that the defendant no. 4 to be the sole and
absolute owner of the suit property having inherited the
same after the demise of Late Lala Bhagat Ram, but in her
cross-examination conducted on 03.07.2013, she has
voluntarily stated that the defendant no. 5 (Kiran ) was the
adoptive daughter of Late Lala Bhagat Ram and Smt.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 25 of 34
Digitally signed
by SANDEEP
SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.05
13:32:35 +0530
Karmi Devi. It is settled law that the adoptive child enjoys
the same rights as that of a biological child in respect of the
properties of their adoptive parents.
47. Therefore, it stands admitted on behalf of the
defendant no. 1, that Smt. Kiran was also the child of the
late Lala Bhagat Ram and Smt. Karmi Devi and as such the
natural corollary would be that after the death of Late Lala
Bhagat Ram, who undisputedly was the absolute owner of
the suit property and also died intestate, the suit property
being its absolute property devolved upon the defendant no
4 & 5, being the class-1 legal heirs in equal shares.
48. In the present case, the late Lala Bhagat Ram had
expired in the year 1981, and the Ex. DW1/A, the purported
agreement to sell in favour of the defendant no. 1, is
claimed to have been executed on 10.07.1999 by the
defendant no. 4. However, as discussed above, on the
relevant date, i.e., 10.07.1999, the suit property stood
vested jointly in favour of the defendant no. 4 & 5,
inasmuch as the same stood inherited by them jointly in the
year 1981 itself, i.e., at the time of the death of Lala Bhagat
Ram, and consequently, the defendant no. 4 & 5 being the
joint owners of the suit property, any purported disposition
by the defendant no. 4 alone qua the entire suit property
cannot be validly made, and any such disposition would ex-
facie be void for want of competency.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 26 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.05
13:32:56 +0530
49. In light of the foregoing discussion, this court is of
the considered view that since the entire case of the
defendant no. 1 is predicated on the said purported
agreement to sell (Ex. DW1/A), once the said Ex. DW1/A
goes, the entire defense of the defendant no. 1 by invoking
the doctrine of part performance relying upon the said Ex.
DW1/A would also crumble, and the same could not be set
up by the defendant in his defense.
50. The other plank of the defense of the defendant no.
1 to 3 as per the pleadings (reading conjointly) has been
that the suit property stood legally transferred to defendant
no. 2 vide sale deed executed by the defendant no. 1 in
favour of defendant no. 2, and subsequently the suit
property further stood transferred in favour of the defendant
no. 3 vide another sale deed executed by the defendant no.
2 in favour of defendant no. 3. Pertinently and rather
curiously, defendants have not detailed the said sale deeds
in their respective pleadings and just have a mention of
them without even elaborating upon the respective dates of
execution or registration details of the same.
51. Another strange aspect of this matter has been that
though the sale deeds are the only legally recognized mode
to completely transfer the title of the property and are being
relied upon by the defendants, they did not see the light of
day and were never brought before the court. It is only with
the help of the pleadings of the plaintiff who has in fact
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 27 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:33:04 +0530
sought a declaration of the said sale deeds that it has come
to the fore that the purported sale deeds executed by
defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 and then
subsequently by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no.
3 are dated 17.09.02 and 05.12.02, respectively, and going
forward in the discussion, the same shall be referred to
accordingly.
52. It is the specific case of the defendants that
ultimately the suit property stood vested in defendant no. 3
vide sale deed dated 05.12.02 which in turn preceded by the
execution of sale deed dated 17.09.02 in favour of the
defendant no. 2 by the defendant no. 1 on the strength of
purported Power of attorney (GPA) dated 22.07.99 (Ex.
DW1/B) coupled with the affidavit dated 22.07.99 (Ex.
DW1/C) both executed by Smt. Karmi Devi (defendant no.
4) in favour of defendant no. 1 qua the suit property and as
such the genesis of the entire chain of transactions which
has been relied upon by the defendants could be traced back
to Power of attorney (GPA) dated 22.07.99 (Ex. DW1/B)
coupled with the affidavit dated 22.07.99 (Ex. DW1/C)
both are being claimed to have been executed by the
defendant no. 4 in favour of the defendant no. 1.
53. However, as already observed earlier, it is the
admitted facts on record that the defendants no. 4 & 5 were
the joint owners of the suit property, having inherited the
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 28 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:33:14 +0530
same on the demise of Lala Bhagat Ram in the year 1981,
and as such, the Power of attorney (GPA) dated 22.07.99
(Ex. DW1/B) coupled with the affidavit dated 22.07.99
(Ex.DW1/C) in favour of any person by the defendant no. 4
alone, qua the entire suit property, could not be taken as
valid attornment or disposition.
54. Therefore, the purported Power of Attorney (GPA)
dated 22.07.99 (Ex. DW1/B) coupled with the affidavit
dated 22.07.99 (Ex. DW1/C) executed by Smt. Karmi Devi
(defendant no. 4) in favour of defendant no. 1, qua the
entire suit property, is liable to be eschewed from
consideration for want of competency, and consequently,
any other document that derives its foundation from the
said documents also loses its legal validity.
55. Moreover, in the joint written statement filed on
behalf of defendant no.4 and 5 it is admitted by them that
defendant no.4 never executed any such GPA dated
22.07.99 (Ex. DW1/B) coupled with the affidavit dated
22.07.99 (Ex.DW1/C) in favour of defendant no.1, then it
was incumbent upon the defendant no.1 to prove the
execution of the same by leading cogent evidences, though
defendant no.1 has miserably failed to do so.
56. It is further pertinent to mention that when the
primary document upon which subsequent documents are
based is rendered invalid, any dependent or derivative
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 29 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:33:27 +0530
documents automatically lose their legal standing. It is a
settled law that a void or legally defective document cannot
confer legitimacy to another document that is primarily and
substantially based upon it. Admittedly, in the present case,
the sale deed dated 17.09.02 executed by the defendant no.
1 in favour of defendant no. 2 and the sale deed 05.12.02
executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no.
3 are drawing their strength from the purported Power of
Attorney (GPA) dated 22.7.99 (Ex. DW1/B) coupled with
the affidavit dated 22.7.99 (Ex. DW1/C) only, and since
these documents, i.e., (Ex. DW1/B) & (Ex. DW1/C), have
already been held as invalid.
57. The entire edifice of the defendant’s case also goes
down, and the sale deed dated 17.09.02 executed by the
defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 and the sale
deed 05.12.02 executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of
defendant no. 3 could not be taken to confer any right in
favour of the parties claiming under them. Since the initial
documents, i.e., (Ex. DW1/B) & (Ex. DW1/C), forming the
basis of the defendants’ claim have been rendered
ineffective, any further rights purportedly acquired by
subsequent purchasers are equally unsustainable in law.
58. Accordingly, no legal title or interest can be said to
have passed under these sale deeds for the same being void
ab initio. Seeing from another angle, since in the present
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 30 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.05
13:33:39 +0530
case the plaintiff has already duly proved the sale deed
17.09.2001 in his favour qua the suit property, any
subsequent conveyance qua the suit property that has been
the subject matter of the sale deed 17.09.2001, by any
person other than the plaintiff or without his due
authorization is invalid and void in the eyes of the law,
being beyond the competence of the person executing the
same.
59. Thus, the said sale deeds, i.e., the sale deed dated
17.09.02 executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of
defendant no. 2 and the sale deed 05.12.02 executed by the
defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 3, being in
respect of the suit property and admittedly being
subsequent to 17.09.2001 and further having been executed
by persons other than the plaintiff, could not have conferred
a valid title in favour of the persons claiming under him. As
such, these two sale deeds dated 17.09.02 and 05.12.02 are
void for this reason also.
60. Having held that the sale deeds dated 05.12.02 &
17.09.02 are non-est and have no value in the eyes of the
law, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is
entitled to the relief sought against the defendants qua the
sale deeds dated 05.12.02 & 17.09.02, and accordingly the
said sale deeds dated 05.12.02 & 17.09.02 are declared null
and void.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 31 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:33:49 +0530
61. Moreover, since the plaintiff has established his title
to the suit property, he is entitled to possession from the
defendants, who have failed to substantiate their interest
and ownership claims regarding the property, as their
assertions based on the sale deeds dated 05.12.02 and
17.09.02 have already been rejected.
62. Plaintiff has also sought the relief of the cancellation
with respect to sale deeds dated 05.12.02 & 17.09.02,
However, since the plaintiff has not been the party or
executant to the said deeds, his appropriate remedy lies in
seeking a declaration, and since the said relief has already
been granted to the plaintiff, further relief of cancellation
qua the said sale deeds is hereby rejected as being
infructuous.
63. As the plaintiff has proved his proprietary rights in
the suit property, he is further held entitled to relief of a
permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for.
Furthermore, on the basis of the above discussion, the plea
of part performance in favour of defendant no. 1 is not
maintainable and is hence hereby rejected.
64. Keeping in view the extensive discussion as above,
issue no. 5,7,9 and 10 are decided in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants no. 1 to 3. Issue no. 6 is rejected
being infructuous.
JUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 32 of 34
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:33:59 +0530
Issue no. 8
“8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
damages if so at what rate? OPP”
65. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff.
Plaintiff has claimed to have ₹.6,000/- per month from the
defendants as damages. The plaintiff was required to present
compelling proof to establish the amount of damages
claimed, or to provide any other substantial evidence to
support their claim for damages/mesne profits of ₹.6,000
each month. As already mentioned earlier, barring simple
statements in pleadings or in evidence, none of the PWs
brought any other substantial evidence to prove the
prevailing market rent of which the suit property was
capable of being let out at the relevant time or plaintiff
could have earned from the property if the possession over
the property would have been with the plaintiff. Therefore,
any claim made by the plaintiff without evidence may not
be sustained in the court of law, and therefore the claim of
₹.6000/- as damages per month is hereby rejected.
Relief
66. In view of the lengthy discussion, the present suit is
decided as decreed in the favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants. All the issues other than issues no. 6 and 8
have been decided in the favour of the plaintiff and againstJUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 33 of 34Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:34:17 +0530
the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief of possession and declaration against the defendants
no. 1 to 3 as prayed for.
67. No order as to costs.
68. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, after filing of
deficit court fee, if required.
69. File be consigned to record room after due
compliances.
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.05
13:34:28 +0530Announced in the open court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
on March 29th , 2025 District Judge-02/Central/THCJUDGMENT dated 29.03.2025
CS DJ No. 14223/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-000153-2003 Jatender Pal Singh (HUF) VS Smt. Saroj Rani & Ors. Page No. 34 of 34