[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Santpal Singh vs Rajiv Guglani Ors on 25 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR No. DLNT-030000722009
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016
Date of Institution : 11.06.2009
Date of reservation of judgment : 24.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 25.04.2025
Sh. Sant Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Giri Lal @ Girwar Lal
R/o Village Tatiri Aggarwal Mandi,
District Bagpat
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased)
(a) Smt. Usha Guglani (deceased)
W/o Sh. R. N. Guglani
(b) Smt. Usha Guglani
W/o Sh. Rajiv Guglani
2. Smt. Indu Guglani / Indu Pahuja
(only surviving LR of defendant no.3)
R/o 2460, Hudson Lines,
GTB Nagar, (Mukherjee Nagar Phase-IV),
Delhi - 110009
3. Sh. R.N. Guglani ( Deceased )
R/o 2460, Hudson Lines,
GTB Nagar, (Mukherjee Nagar Phase-IV),
Delhi - 110009
... Defendants
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 16:31:06 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 1 Of 29
Suit For Declaration Of Sale Deed As Null And Void And For
Permanent & Mandatory Injunction
JUDGMENT
1. The present case revolves around a contentious dispute
concerning a property situated at WZ-1646, Gali Tara Chand/Gher,
Nangal Raya, New Delhi. The plaintiff alleged fraudulent
execution of a Sale Deed dated 28th October 1998 by defendant
no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 on the basis of one GPA
stated to be executed by father of plaintiff in favour of defendant
no.3. The plaintiff also asserts his ownership rights over the
property.
Interestingly, the defendant no.2 & 3 were formerly counsel
of the plaintiff’s late father in multiple cases and even in a case of
recovery of possession against tenants with respect to the property
involved in the present case. The plaintiff challenges the legitimacy
of the said Sale Deed, claiming it to be executed without any
authorization, leading to a series of legal proceedings that form the
crux of the current litigation.
It also require a note that summons issued to defendant no.1
on the very first date were received with report that he had already
expired and unfortunately, his Lr namely Usha Guglani also
expired during the pendency of the suit and proceedings against
defendant number 1 was abated on 31.08.2017.
Further, defendant no.3, also unfortunately expired after his
evidence was concluded and proceedings, on behalf of defendants,
were continued by defendant no.2 alone.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.25
16:31:12 +0530CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 2 Of 29
Plaintiff’s Version
2. The succinct narrative of facts, as articulated in the plaint, is
detailed hereunder:
(a) The subject property, a parcel of ancestral land measuring
approximately 775 square yards and designated as WZ-1646
(formerly WZ-233), situated at Gali Tara Chand/Gher, Nangal
Raya, New Delhi, within Khasra No. 632/462/176, was owned by
the plaintiff’s late father, Sh. Giri Lal @ Girwar Singh. The
property, henceforth referred to as “the property in question,” is
delineated in the site plan accompanying the plaint.
(b) During his lifetime, the late Sh. Giri Lal @ Girwar Singh
leased a portion of 160 square yards of the property to one Sh.
Kasturi Lal at a nominal monthly rent of ₹36/-, payable in advance
by the 7th day of each month. Initially purposed for housing
livestock, the plot later functioned as a storage area for goods
suited to open storage, being enclosed by walls and fitted with a tin
shed for the safekeeping of electrical items.
(c) Defendant No. 2 is the daughter, and Defendant No. 1 the
son, of Defendant No. 3, all of whom are legal practitioners,
primarily operating at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Defendant Nos. 2
and 3 had been engaged as legal counsel for the late Sh. Giri Lal @
Girwar Singh in various matters, including recovery suits against
tenants. It is alleged that the said defendants prepared or facilitated
the preparation of legal documents, including plaints and
vakalatnamas, securing the signatures of the plaintiff’s father on
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25
16:31:18 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 3 Of 29
these and other blank sheets under the assurance that such
documents would be used solely for litigation purposes.
(d) On 26th May 2003, Defendant No. 3, acting as counsel for
the plaintiff, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on behalf of Defendant
Nos. 1 and 2, seeking their impleadment as necessary parties. The
application asserted their ownership of the disputed property
through a purported Sale Deed dated 28th October 1998. This
assertion came as a shock to the plaintiff’s father, who denied
having sold the property or executed any Power of Attorney in
favor of Defendant No. 3. Subsequently, he retained new counsel
and vehemently opposed the said application.
(e) On 11th March 2005, Defendant No. 3 submitted an
application under Section 151 CPC for the inclusion of the alleged
Sale Deed. A copy of this Sale Deed was provided to the plaintiff’s
father only on 11th April 2005. Upon scrutiny, the court dismissed
the application, condemning the conduct of Defendant No. 3 as
professional misconduct, characterized by the fabrication and
fraudulent execution of the Sale Deed, purportedly in collusion
with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The court observed that Defendant
No. 3 had misrepresented himself as the General Power of Attorney
holder for the plaintiff’s late father.
(f) The plaintiff’s father passed away on 14th October 2005.
Due to procedural delays, the legal heirs were unable to initiate
NITISH Digitally signed by
NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:31:23 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 4 Of 29
proceedings under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC within the stipulated
timeframe, resulting in the abatement of the suit filed by the
plaintiff’s father. However, during his lifetime, the late Sh. Giri Lal
@ Girwar Singh had partitioned his properties, assigning the
disputed property to the plaintiff as part of his share, and had
executed a Sale Deed dated 10th May 2002 in favor of M/s.
Sukhjeet Exports, a firm solely owned by the plaintiff.
(g) The plaintiff asserts that his father never executed the Sale
Deed dated 28th October 1998 in favor of the defendants, nor did
he receive any consideration for the same. Furthermore, no General
Power of Attorney was ever issued by him in favor of Defendant
No. 3.
(h) On 7th June 2009, the plaintiff was informed by a relative
residing in Nangal Raya that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were
attempting to dispose of the suit property to prospective buyers
inspecting the site.
(i) The cause of action arose initially on 26th May 2003, when
Defendant No. 3 filed the application under Order 22 Rule 10 read
with Section 151 CPC, and subsequently on various occasions,
including when the application was opposed by the plaintiff’s father
and dismissed by the court, and later, upon his demise on 14th
October 2005. The cause of action was further reinforced on 7th
June 2009, when the plaintiff was made aware of the defendants’
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:31:28 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 5 Of 29
attempts to alienate the disputed property. The cause of action is
deemed continuous and subsisting.
(j) The territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is
established as the property is situated within its bounds, and the
plaintiff and defendants reside and conduct their activities within
its jurisdiction.
(k) The suit has been valued appropriately for the purposes of
court fees and jurisdiction, with the requisite fees duly affixed.
3. Through the present suit, the plaintiff seeks the following
reliefs:
(a) A decree for the cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 28th
October 1998, registered as Document No. 177 in Book No. 1,
Volume No. 4, Pages 73 to 78, at the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Najafgarh, South-West Delhi. The Sale Deed pertains to 130 square
yards of property No. WZ-1646 and is alleged to have been
fraudulently executed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
(b) A decree for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining
the defendants from interfering with, alienating, or creating third-
party interests in respect of property No. WZ-1646.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25
16:31:33 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 6 Of 29
(c) A declaratory decree invalidating the Sale Deed dated 28th
October 1998 and declaring it, along with any related documents,
as forged, fabricated, null, void, and devoid of any legal sanctity.
(d) Any other relief deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble
Court in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
Defendants’ Version
4. It is essential to note that Defendant No. 1 had passed away
prior to the institution of the suit. Furthermore, the legal
representatives of Defendant No. 1 were also reported to have
expired. Consequently, due to the non-impleadment of the
successors-in-interest of the legal representatives of Defendant No.
1, the proceedings concerning Defendant No. 1 stand abated.
5. Litigation, by its inherent nature, presents divergent
perspectives. To elucidate her stance, Defendant No. 2 submitted a
written statement, wherein she contends as follows:
(a) The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and,
therefore, not maintainable. This is further substantiated by the
plaintiff’s admission through the filing of an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(b) The plaintiff has sought condonation of a delay of 14 months
in filing the suit; however, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25
16:31:39 +0530CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 7 Of 29
applicable only to appeals or applications, and not to suits. Section
3 of the Limitation Act explicitly precludes the filing of suits
beyond the prescribed limitation period. As a result, the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is deemed untenable, and the
suit itself is liable to be dismissed with special costs under Section
35 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(c) The plaintiff has neither properly valued the suit nor paid the
requisite court fees. Notwithstanding the execution of the Sale
Deed, which stipulates a consideration of ₹1,00,000/-, the suit for
possession necessitates valuation based on the market value of the
property, which exceeds ₹20,00,000/-. This deficiency in court fees
renders the suit liable for dismissal with costs.
(d) No cause of action has arisen for filing the present suit in
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The suit is time-
barred and lacks merit on substantive grounds. Hence, it has been
instituted without justifiable cause and warrants dismissal with
costs.
(e) The plaintiff lacks the locus standi to initiate the present suit,
having failed to disclose pertinent facts regarding other legal heirs
of the disputed property. The omission of necessary parties further
undermines the maintainability of the suit, which is liable to be
dismissed.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.25
16:31:44 +0530CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 8 Of 29
(f) The suit has not been filed by all legal heirs of the deceased,
who had two sons and six daughters. As such, the non-
impleadment of these individuals contravenes procedural
requirements, rendering the suit unsustainable.
6. Defendant No. 3 also submitted a written statement,
presenting his defense as follows:
(a) The plaintiff lacks any legitimate cause of action to institute
the suit, which is further vitiated being time-barred.
(b) The plaintiff has approached the court with unclean hands,
concealing material facts concerning his father’s litigation history,
which comprises 34 cases.
(c) The basis on which the plaintiff has challenged the Sale
Deed executed by the prior owner during his father’s lifetime, as
well as the fraudulent execution of a subsequent Sale Deed, is
unclear and necessitates reconciliation.
(d) The Sale Deed, as executed by father of plaintiff in his
favour, is alleged to be forged and fabricated. Furthermore, it fails
to demarcate any specific land. Consequently, the Sale Deed
appears to lack authenticity, undermining the plaintiff’s locus standi
to pinpoint the land purportedly covered by the deed and thereby
file the present suit.
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:31:50 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 9 Of 29
(e) The suit is fundamentally flawed due to the non-joinder and
misjoinder of necessary parties. Specifically, Sh. L.R. Tiwari, who
is a tenant and an essential party, has not been impleaded,
rendering the suit liable for dismissal.
7. No replication was filed by the plaintiff in response to the
written statement of Defendant No. 2 and 3.
Issues
8 Vide Order dated 15.12.2015 following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
cancellation as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
declaration, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not valued properly for the
purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
Plaintiff’s Evidence
9. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and
provided his testimony through a duly sworn affidavit marked as
Exhibit PW-1/A. The plaintiff relied on the following documents to
establish his case: NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:31:55 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 10 Of 29
Exhibit No./Mark Description
Exhibit PW-1/1 Site Plan of the property.
Certified copy of the plaint in the suit titled
Exhibit PW-1/2
Girilal Vs. Kasturi Lal.
Certified copy of the court order dated
Exhibit PW-1/3
11.04.2005.
Certified copy of the court order dated
Exhibit PW-1/4
18.05.2006.
Exhibit PW-1/5
Copy of the sale deed dated 10.05.2002.
(OSR)
Mark A Copy of the sale deed dated 28.10.1988.
PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by the learned
counsel for the defendant. Following this, the plaintiff’s evidence
(PE) was formally closed, and the matter was scheduled for the
defendants’ evidence (DE).
Defendant’s Evidence
10. Defendant No. 3 appeared as DW-1 and submitted his
testimony through a duly sworn affidavit marked as Exhibit
D3W-1/A. To support his defense, DW-1 relied on the following
documents:
Exhibit
Description
No./Mark
Ex D3W-1/1 Certified copy of the order of the Hon’ble High
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signedKUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) SHARMAPage No. 11 Of 29
16:32:02 +0530
Exhibit
Description
No./Mark
Court in Suit No. 1598/1993.
Certified copy of the order of the Court of Rent
Ex D3W-1/2
Controller in Case No. E-341/89.
Certified copy of the order of the Court of the
Ex D3W-1/3
Learned Senior Civil Judge in Suit No. 451/1983.
Certified copy of the order of the Court of the
Ex D3W-1/4 Learned Civil Judge, Sh. Rakesh Pandit, in Suit
No. 607/1997.
Original General Power of Attorney executed by
Ex D3W-1/5 Sh. Giri Lal in favor of Sh. R.N. Guglani, dated
23.12.1997.
DW-1/Defendant no.3 was cross-examined by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff in the presence of the Local Commissioner.
11. After examination of witnesses, DE was closed on
07.04.2021 and the matter was listed for final arguments.
Arguments :
12. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the Sale Deed dated
28th October 1998 is fraudulent and the same was executed
without his father’s authorization or consideration, and hence null
and void. It is argued that the defendants abused their professional
relationship as legal counsel for his late father, violating trust and
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:32:09 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 12 Of 29
fabricating legal documents. It is further argued that the plaintiff
claims rightful ownership of the property being one of the legal
heir of his father and emphasizes the ongoing cause of action due
to attempts by defendants to alienate the property in 2009. It is
argued that the suit has proper valuation.
13. Per Contra, it is argued that the suit is barred by limitation,
as suits filed beyond the prescribed period are legally untenable. It
is further argued that there is improper valuation and payment of
court fees, and the plaintiff failed to account for the market value
of the property. It is further argued that the plaintiff has no locus
standi and there is deliberate concealment of facts regarding other
legal heirs. The counsel for the defendant denied allegations of
forgery and professional misconduct and highlighted procedural
flaws regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, asserting that the
suit is unsustainable.
14. I have heard the final arguments advanced and have perused
the record.
Findings
15. Issue wise findings of the court are as under :-
Issue no. 5
Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. It is
pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the case, an
Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:32:15 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 13 Of 29
application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant
seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred
by time. The said application was rejected while holding that prima
facie suit appeared to be within the period of limitation and further
that the issue of limitation is mixed question of fact and law and
thus, can be decided only after trial.
Now, it is imperative to note that no question, regarding the
suit being beyond limitation, was put to the witness/PW-1 in the
cross-examination. Further, the only witness examined on behalf of
defendants i.e. DW1/defendant had also not stated anything in his
affidavit of evidence regarding the limitation.
17. Thus, it is apparent that no evidence was led by the
defendant to establish that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation. It is argued that the plaintiff has challenged the sale
deed executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 and 2
and the said sale deed was executed in the year 1998. It is argued
that in the previous suit, the application of defendant no.1 and 2
under Order 22 rule 10 CPC was dismissed on 18.05.2006 and the
present suit was filed on 09.06.2009 and as such the same is
beyond limitation.
18. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that a relief of
declaration has a period of limitation of 3 years from the date of
cause of action, as per Article 58 of Schedule-I the Limitation Act,
1963. As regards the cause of action for the plaintiff, the same
would arise when the rights qua the property were asserted by the
defendants against the plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that the
father of the plaintiff expired in the year 2004 and the defendants
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25
16:32:22 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 14 Of 29
on 07.06.2009, attempted to sell out the property. The suit came to
be filed on 11.06.2009.
19. Thus, it is evident that the cause of action in favour of the
plaintiff had arisen on 11.06.2009 and it can not be stated to have
arisen anytime prior thereto. The dismissal of application of
defendant no.2 u/o 22 rule 10 CPC on 18.05.2006 would not imply
that the defendants had asserted their rights in the property as
against the plaintiff herein in the year 2006. Though it is alleged
that the copy of sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 came
into possession of father of plaintiff on 11.04.2005 when he was
contesting the previous suit filed by him, the defendant could not
show that as to when the plaintiff himself also got the copy of
alleged sale deed. Even otherwise, as discussed above, the cause of
action against the plaintiff would arise only when the defendants
asserted their right on the property against the plaintiff and as per
plaint, the said date is stated to be 07.06.2009. The defendants
could not elicit anything contradictory to the same in cross-
examination of plaintiff.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the view
that the defendants could not discharge their onus qua this issue.
The issue no. 5 is, accordingly, decided against the defendants and
in favour of the plaintiff.
21. Issue no.6
Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purpose of
court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25
16:32:27 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 15 Of 29
22. Again, the onus to prove this issue was on the defendants.
The defendants had put no question, regarding the valuation of the
suit to the witness/PW-1 in the cross-examination. Further, the only
witness examined on behalf of defendants i.e. DW1/defendant no.3
had also not stated anything in his affidavit of evidence regarding
the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee and
jurisdiction.
23. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants that
plaintiff has not given any valuation to the suit in para 20 of his
plaint and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The said
argument does not appeal much to the reason as a complete perusal
of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs
1,00,460/ and had also paid the court fees on the said value.
24. It is next argued that the market value of the property at the
time of filing of suit was more than Rs 20,00,000/ and as such the
suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction.
Now, it is noteworthy that apart from this assertion regarding the
price of the property to be more than Rs 20,00,000/ at the time of
filing of suit, the defendants did not bring any document or
evidence to substantiate the same.
25. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff in
the present case has claimed the relief of declaration to the effect
that Sale Deed dated 28th October 1998, registered as Document
No. 177 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 4, Pages 73 to 78, at the office
of the Sub-Registrar, Najafgarh, South-West Delhi be declared as
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 16:32:32 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 16 Of 29
null and void. A similar relief in the form of cancellation has also
been sought.
Now, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
passed in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v Randhir Singh & Ors
(2010) 12 SCC 112, if a person is not a party to the document i.e.
document is not admitted to be signed by him then in such a case,
there is no need of seeking relief of cancellation of the document
and it is enough if declaration is sought for. Further, in a suit for
declaration that sale deed is void, court fee has to be paid only at
the amount at which relief sought is valued in the plaint.
26. As no evidence was led by the defendants to show as to how
the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee was
improper, the issue has to be decided against the defendants.
27. Issue No. 1 & 2
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of `
cancellation as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
declaration, as prayed for? OPP
28. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. As
discussed above, in light of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh (supra)
, the plaintiff was not required to seek cancellation and it is enough,
if declaration alone was sought. Accordingly, no findings are
required to be given on issue no.1.
29. As regards issue no.2, the plaintiff has sought declaration to
the effect that the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 and 2,
Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:32:38 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 17 Of 29
dated 28th October 1998, registered as Document No. 177 in Book
No. 1, Volume No. 4, Pages 73 to 78, at the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Najafgarh, South-West Delhi be declared as null and
void. It is asserted by the plaintiff that the said sale deed was
executed on the basis of a GPA allegedly executed by the father of
the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.3.
The plaintiff has further asserted that the father of plaintiff
had previously filed a suit for eviction against one Kasturi Lal with
respect to the property in question and in the said proceedings,
defendant no.2 and 3 were the counsel for the father of the plaintiff.
It is asserted that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the
defendant no.3 fraudulently got the GPA prepared in his name
regarding the suit property and executed sale deed in favour of his
children i.e. defendant no.1 and 2.
30. To substantiate the aforesaid claim, the plaintiff in his
examination relied on
Certified copy of the plaint in the suit titled
Exhibit PW-1/2
Girilal Vs. Kasturi Lal.
Certified copy of the court order dated
Exhibit PW-1/3
11.04.2005.
Certified copy of the court order dated
Exhibit PW-1/4
18.05.2006.
A bare perusal of these documents show that Ex PW1/2 i.e.
eviction petition on behalf of the plaintiff’s father was indeed filed
by defendant no.2 and 3 as his counsels. Exhibit PW 1/4 is the
order of the court of Ld. Civil Judge on the application of
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:32:43 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 18 Of 29
defendant no.2 and 3 under order 22 rule 10 CPC which was filed
by them for being impleaded as plaintiff. The said application was
dismissed while holding that the defendant no.2 and 3 had
committed professional misconduct by entering into sale
transaction with the father of the plaintiff and that it was against the
rules of Advocate Act.
31. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the Bar Council of
India Rules (Part VI, Chapter II, Section II- Standards of
Professional Conduct and Etiquette)
22. An advocate shall not, directly or indirectly,
bid for or purchase, either in his own name or in
any other name, for his own benefit or for the
benefit of any other person, any property sold in
the execution of a decree or order in any suit,
appeal or other proceeding in which he was in any
way professionally engaged. This prohibition,
however, does not prevent an advocate from
bidding for or purchasing for his client any
property which his client may himself legally bid
for or purchase, provided the Advocate is
expressly authorised in writing in this behalf.
22A. An advocate shall not directly or indirectly
bid in court auction or acquire by way of sale, gift,
exchange or any other mode of transfer either in
his own name or in any other name for his own
benefit or for the benefit of any other person any
property which is subject matter of any suit appeal
or other proceedings in which he is in any way
professionally engaged.
32. It is no gain say that such restrictions are put and
consequently, professional conduct as per rules is expected from
the counsels for the very reason that they happen to be in a
Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:32:48 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 19 Of 29
fiduciary relationship with their clients and owe a greater duty
towards them.
Undue Influence
33. It is further relevant herein to refer to section 16 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 which reads as under:
16. Undue influence defined.–
(1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations
subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position
to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair
advantage over the other.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of
another–
(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he
stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or
(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is
temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or
bodily distress.
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters
into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the
evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such
contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a
position to dominate the will of the other.
34. Thus, as per section 16(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
it was upon the defendants to prove that the GPA allegedly
executed by the father of the plaintiff was not a result of undue
influence. The defendant no. 3 has not denied in his cross-
examination that he was the counsel for the plaintiff’s father in
NITISH Digitally
by NITISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:32:54 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 20 Of 29
case bearing no. CS SCJ 607/97. The said case, undisputedly,
pertained to the suit property in the present case. Thus, in view of
the rules of Bar Council Of India and Section 16 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, the contract/alleged GPA was not valid. The
defendants led no evidence to prove that there was no undue
influence exercised on the father of the plaintiff.
It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants that the
father of the plaintiff never challenged the said GPA or sale deed
during his life time and the plaintiff never took care of his father.
The said arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants made the
court to again consider the document Ex PW1/4 i.e. Certified copy
of the court order dated 18.05.2006. A bare perusal of the said
order shows that the defendant no. 2 and 3 continued to appear as
counsel for the plaintiff’s father till the application u/o 22 rule 10
CPC was made. Despite the fact that sale deed was executed in the
year 1998, the application was made on 26.05.2003 when the father
of the plaintiff was too feeble and about 99 years of age. This
showed sheer misconduct on part of defendant no. 2 and 3 as
counsels for the father of plaintiff. The defendant no.3 in his cross-
examination had stated that his daughter i.e. defendant no.2 was
not a practising advocate which was again an incorrect fact.
35. It can thus be safely concluded that the alleged GPA Ex
D3W1/5 was obtained by undue influence from the father of the
plaintiff and the same was in violation of the rules of Bar Council
of India. Accordingly, it has to be held that it was not a validly
concluded GPA and thus would not confer any authority on
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25
16:33:00 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 21 Of 29
defendant no.3 to execute any sale deed in favour of defendant no.
1 and 2.
Further, defendant number 3 in his cross-examination has
admitted that no consideration amount was paid to the father of
plaintiff after execution of Sale deed in favour of defendant number
1 and 2. This conduct of defendant no.3 also indicates the extent to
which undue influence was exercised by defendant no.3.
Other flaws in the GPA Ex D3W1/5 (allegedly executed by father
of plaintiff in favour of defendant no.3)
36. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, there are other flaws in the
GPA Ex D3W1/5 as well which made the said document void and
of no value. A bare perusal of the said document shows that there
are alterations in the description of property number. In his cross-
examination defendant no.3 has stated that he had not written the
same. However, it was not clarified as to by whom the said
alterations were done.
Now, it is to be seen that the said document is alleged by the
defendants to be a registered document. As per section 33(4) of the
Registration Act, 1908, any power-of-attorney mentioned in this
section may be proved by the production of it without further proof
when it purports on the face of it to have been executed before and
authenticated by the person or Court hereinbefore mentioned in
that behalf.
37. The document Ex D3W1/5, though bears some stamp of
SRO (Sub-Registrar Office) but the signatures and name of the
Digitally signed by
NITISH NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.25
SHARMA 16:33:05 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 22 Of 29
authority thereon are not visible. Thus, the said document does not
appear on the face of it to have been executed before and
authenticated by the sub-registrar. In such eventuality, the
defendants could have examined any witness from the SRO but
they did not opt for the same. Thus, the assertion that the GPA was
validly executed and registered can not be accepted.
38. Now, though GPA Ex D3W1/5 is asserted to be a registered
document (but has not been proved to be so registered), but the
defendants failed to aver and prove that any such alteration was
recorded by Sub-registrar at the time of registration of the
document. It is beneficial herein to refer to section 20 of the
Registration Act, 1908 which reads as under:
20. Documents containing interlineations, blanks,
erasures or alterations.–(1) The registering officer
may in his discretion refuse to accept for
registration any document in which any
interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration appears,
unless the persons executing the document attest
with their signatures or initials such interlineation,
blank, erasure or alteration.
(2) If the registering officer registers any such
document, he shall, at the time of registering the
same, make a note in the register of such
interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration.
39. Thus, in order to give credence to the said GPA, the
defendant could have examined a witness on behalf of Sub-
Registrar to show if any such note was made in the register by the
sub-registrar. However, as no such witness was examined by
defendant, the document i.e. GPA and its validity (owing to
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25
16:33:11 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 23 Of 29
alteration) becomes doubtful and the same further leads to the
inference that alterations were made later in time.
40. Another vital aspect in the present case pertains to section 32
and 33 of the Registration Act,1908. It is thus relevant to re-
produce the said provisions for understanding.
32. Persons to present documents for
registration.–Except in the cases mentioned
in 5 [sections 31, 88 and 89], every document
to be registered under this Act, whether such
registration be compulsory or optional, shall
be presented at the proper registration-office,
—
(a) by some person executing or claiming
under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a
decree or order, claiming under the decree or
order, or
(b) by the representive or assign of such a
person, or
(c) by the agent of such a person,
representative or assign, duly authorised by
power-of attorney executed and authenticated
in manner hereinafter mentioned
33.Power-of-attorney recognisable for
purposes of section 32.–(1) For the purposes
of section 32, the following powers-of-
attorney shall alone be recognized, namely:–
(a) if the principal at the time of executing the
power-of-attorney resides in any part of 1
[India] in which this Act is for the time being
in force, a power-of-attorney executed before
and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-
Registrar within whose district or sub-district
the principal resides;
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.25
16:33:16 +0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 24 Of 29
(b) if the principal at the time aforesaid 2
[resides in any part of India in which this Act
is not in force], a power-of-attorney executed
before and authenticated by any Magistrate;
(c) if the principal at the time aforesaid does
not reside in 1 [India], a power-of-attorney
executed before and authenticated by a Notary
Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, 3
[Indian] Consul or Vice-Consul, or
representative 4 *** of the Central
Government:
41. A bare perusal of the said provisions indicate that a sale deed
cannot be registered on the basis of an unregistered power of
attorney. Now, it has been claimed by the defendants that the said
power of attorney was registered. As per section 33(4) of the
Registration Act, 1908, any power-of-attorney mentioned in this
section may be proved by the production of it without further proof
when it purports on the face of it to have been executed before and
authenticated by the person or Court hereinbefore mentioned in
that behalf.
42. As discussed above, the document Ex D3W1/5, though bears
some stamp of SRO (Sub-Registrar Office) but the signatures and
name of the authority thereon are not visible. Thus, the said
document does not appear on the face of it to have been executed
before and authenticated by the sub-registrar and thus, mere
production of the said document would not amount to its proof. No
witness on behalf of SRO was examined by the defendants and
thus, the factum of registration of the said GPA remained unproved.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.25
16:33:22 +0530CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 25 Of 29
43. Even further, as per Section 33 (1)(a) of the Registration Act,
for the purposes of Section 32, only that power of attorney is
recognized which is registered by Sub-Registrar Office in whose
jurisdiction the executant resided.
A bare perusal of the GPA Ex D3W1/5 shows that the same
bears the date of execution as 22.12.1997. The executant i.e. father
of plaintiff was resident of WZ-636, Nangal Rai, Delhi-110046
which fell in the jurisdiction of West District in the year 1997.
However, the seal on the document (though without any signature
or initials or name of the officer) pertains to Office of the Sub-
registrar-I, Distt North, Delhi. Thus, even if the said GPA is
accepted to be validly registered, the same is not a recognized one
for the purpose of Section 32 i.e. for the purpose of the registration
of sale deed.
44. Concomitant of the entire discussion is that GPA alleged to
be executed by father of plaintiff in favour of defendant no.3 was
not validly executed being obtained by undue influence and even
otherwise, on the basis of the said GPA, the defendant no.3 could
not have executed any sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 and 2.
Accordingly, it has to be held that the plaintiff has discharged the
onus on the scale of preponderance of probabilities and has
successfully established that sale deed in favour of defendant no.1
and 2 is invalid.
The issue no.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.
Digitally
signed by
NITISH
NITISH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.25
16:33:28
+0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 26 Of 29
45. Issue No. 3 & 4
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
46. The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has sought relief of permanent and mandatory injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with, alienating, or
creating third-party interests in respect of property No. WZ-1646 in
Khasra No. 632/462/176 in Gali Tarachand, Nangal Raya, New
Delhi measuring 130 sq yards as shown in the site plan in red
colour.
47. The plaintiff was required to show his right in the suit
property in order to obtain the reliefs as prayed. It is not disputed
by the defendants that father of the plaintiff was owner of the suit
property initially. It was the case of the defendants that father of
plaintiff had executed a GPA in favour of defendant no.3 with
respect to the suit property and on the basis of the same, sale deed
was executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 and 2.
48. As per findings on issue no.2, the court has concluded that
GPA i.e. Ex D3W1/5 was obtained by undue influence and further
that the sale deed i.e. Mark A was invalid. Thus, the defendants had
no right or interest in the suit property. The plaintiff has contended
that his father had executed a sale deed Ex PW1/5 (OSR) with
respect to the suit property in favour of his proprietorship firm
namely Sukhjeet Exports. As regards this sale deed, the defendants
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 16:33:33
Date: 2025.04.25
+0530
CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 27 Of 29
claimed that no such sale deed could have been executed in favour
of the plaintiff as a sale deed was already executed by defendant
no.3 as GPA of father of plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2
in the year 1998.
Again, as already discussed while deciding issue no.2, the
GPA in favour of defendant no.3 was improper and sale deed in
favour of defendant no. 1 and 2 could not have been registered on
the basis of said GPA as per Section 32 of the Registration Act, and
thus, in effect the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 is
null and void. Consequently, there was no bar in the plaintiff’s
father to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect
to the suit property. The plaintiff, however, has not examined any
witness to the said sale deed in his evidence to prove the said
document/sale deed but apart from the aforesaid objection, there is
no other
49. Even otherwise, plaintiff being a legal heir of his father
(whose ownership was not disputed), had acquired interest in the
suit property after death of Sh. Giri Lal. It is argued on behalf of
defendants that plaintiff without other legal heirs of Giri Lal could
not maintain the present suit. The said argument is devoid of merits
as it is settled that a co-owner can seek relief of injunction as
against the third party to protect the property.
50. In view of the above, it can be safely stated that the
defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit property and the
plaintiff has shown better right in the property than the defendants.
Accordingly, the issue no. 3 and 4 are decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.25
16:33:38 +0530CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 28 Of 29
Conclusion
51. As a concomitant of the entire discussion as above and in
view of the findings on issue no. 2,3 and 4, the suit of the plaintiff
is hereby decreed in the following terms:
(a) The sale deed dated 28th October 1998, registered as
Document No. 177 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 4, Pages 73 to 78,
at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Najafgarh, South-West Delhi,
executed by Sh. R.N. Guglani in favour of Ms. Indu Guglani and
Sh. Rajeev Guglani is hereby declared as null and void.
(b). Defendants are hereby restrained from interfering with,
alienating, or creating third-party interests in respect of property
No. WZ-1646 in Khasra No. 632/462/176 in Gali Tarachand,
Nangal Raya, New Delhi measuring 130 sq yards as shown in the
site plan in red colour.
52. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
53. Let copy of decree sheet be also sent to the office of Sub-
Registrar, Najafgarh, South-West Delhi with directions to make
note on the copy of instrument contained in his books regarding the
sale deed being declared as null and void.
54. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Digitally signed
NITISH by NITISH
KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.25
16:33:46 +0530on 25.04.2025. (Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/25.04.2025CS SCJ No. 537484/2016 Sh. Sant Pal Singh Vs Sh. Rajiv Guglani ( Deceased) Page No. 29 Of 29
[ad_2]
Source link