Delhi District Court
Ranvir Singh vs Ms Lankmark Infracon Pvt Ltd on 23 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MR. SATYABRATA PANDA, DJ-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No.55515/16
Date of Institution: 02.12.2015
Date of Arguments: 14.11.2024
Date of Judgment: 23.12.2024
Ranvir Singh
S/o Sh. Narpat Singh,
R/o V.P.O Rajokari,
New Delhi-110038.
......Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director/authorised Signatory,
Regd. Office at Lower Ground Floor,
C-4/5, Safdarjung Development Area,
New Delhi-110060. ...Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking cancellation
of registered release deed dated 19.01.2007 and
consequential relief of permanent injunction.
PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is
summarised as follows:
2.1. The plaintiff is the owner of and in possession of
one-tenth share in the following lands situated in
the revenue estate of village Rajokari:
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 1 of 60
A) Khata No.365/349 (Total Land 27 Bigha 11
Biswa)
Khasra No. Area (In Bigha-Biswa)
712/1 2-8
713/1/2 2-3
723/1 2-8
724/1 2-8
739 4-16
748 4-16
767 3-16
768 4-16(Share of Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and
Khasra Nos. is 2 Bigha 15 Biswa and 2 Biswansi)B) Khata No.366/350 min. (Total Land 17 Bigha
10 Biswa)
Khasra No. Area (In Bigha-Biswa)
1095/8 0-18
1126 min. 0-6
1127 3-5
1130 min. 3-9
2084 4-16
2085 4-16(Share of Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and
Khasra Nos. is 1 Bigha and 15 Biswa)C) Khata No.367/350 min. (Total Land 4 Bigha
16 Biswa)
Khasra No. Area (In Bigha-Biswa)
1666 4-16CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 2 of 60
(Share of Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and
Khasra No. is 9 Biswa and 12 Biswansi)D) Khata No.569/544 (Total Land 5 Bigha 18
Biswa)
Khasra No. Area (In Bigha-Biswa)
1-2 712/2/2
713/2/2 2-8
723/2 2-8(Share of Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and
Khasra Nos is 11 Biswa and 16 Biswansi)2.2. Thus, the total share of the Plaintiff in the
aforesaid Khata and Khasra Nos. is 5 Bigha, 11
Biswa and 10 Biswansi. The aforesaid share of
land of the plaintiff, i.e. the holding of the
plaintiff, is in his cultivatory possession till date
and at no point of time he has parted with the
possession of the same.
2.3. The plaintiff received a notice for appearance
before the Tehsildar, Vasant Vihar on 02.08.2013.
When the plaintiff appeared before the Tehsildar,
he was apprised by the revenue officials of the
Tehsil office that the notice was pertaining to
mutation of the plaintiff’s share in the lands
situated in Khata Nos. 365/349 and 569/544
admeasuring 3 Bighas, 6 Biswa and 18 Biswansi
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). The
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 3 of 60
plaintiff was surprised to hear this. The revenue
officials further informed the plaintiff that the
mutation proceedings had been initiated by the
defendant on the basis of a release deed dated
19.01.2007. The plaintiff learnt that the defendant
was claiming to have purchased the plaintiff’s
share in the lands situated in Khata Nos. 365/349
and 569/544 admeasuring 3 bigha, 6 biswa and 18
biswansi, i.e. the suit property, vide release deed
dated 19.01.2007 purported to have been executed
by the plaintiff.
2.4. The plaintiff had never sold the suit property to
the defendant. The release deed dated 19.01.2007
was a fraud played upon the plaintiff by the
defendant and its associates. One Ishwar Singh
Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Raj Kumar, all residents of
Village Rajokari along with the authorised
representative/director of the defendant had
approached the plaintiff in the month of
December 2006 for collaboration in respect of the
entire land of the plaintiff, i.e. the holding of the
plaintiff, with the defendant company. They
represented that the defendant company would be
carving out farmhouses in the said lands and
assured that, initially, an advance amount of Rs.
1.5 Crores will be paid by the defendant to the
plaintiff and a collaboration agreement regarding
the same would be executed. The total
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 4 of 60
consideration for the agreement was agreed as Rs.
15 Crores and out of which the amount of Rs. 1.5
Crores was to be paid as an advance. They further
represented that the remaining amount of Rs. 13.5
crores would be paid within 6 months from the
date of execution of the agreement and if the
defendant failed to pay the balance amount, then
the agreement shall be deemed as cancelled and
treated as null and void and non-est in the eyes of
law. It was further agreed between the plaintiff
and defendant that in case of non-payment of the
balance consideration within the stipulated time
period, the advance amount of Rs. 1.5 crores shall
stand forfeited.
2.5. The defendant and its aforementioned associates
also represented that they would be obtaining
relevant permission/sanction from the appropriate
government authorities for developing farm
houses on the holding of the plaintiff and for the
same, they would require appropriate
authorisation from the plaintiff. The plaintiff
agreed for the same and under the garb of
execution of the aforesaid collaboration
agreement and relevant documents for appropriate
authorisation for seeking permission for
development of farm houses on the holding of the
plaintiff, the defendant and the said Ishwar Singh
Yadav, Rajesh Yadav and Raj Kumar obtained the
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 5 of 60
signatures of the plaintiff on the purported release
deed on the pretext of execution of the
collaboration agreement and other documents.
The signatures of the plaintiff had been obtained
by the defendant and its aforesaid associates on
the impugned release deed fraudulently by
concealing material facts from the plaintiff and
without his consent. At no point of time, the
plaintiff had agreed for execution of the impugned
release deed. The alleged release deed had been
executed without the consent and knowledge of
the plaintiff and a fraud had been perpetrated on
the plaintiff by the defendant in connivance with
its associates as well as the officials of the sub-
registrar’s authorities.
2.6. After execution of the purported release deed
which the plaintiff understood as a collaboration
agreement and relevant documents for obtaining
permission for development of farm houses, the
defendant and its aforesaid associates did not
comply with the agreement of collaboration and
their assurance and representations. The defendant
and its associates also did not obtain the relevant
permission from the concerned government
authorities for development of the farm houses on
the holding of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never
parted with the possession of the suit property and
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 6 of 60
the same is still in the cultivatory possession of
the plaintiff.
2.7. The defendant is in league with the said Ishwar
Singh Yadav, Rajesh Yadav and Raj Kumar. They
all have hatched a conspiracy to deprive the
plaintiff of the suit property. The plaintiff is an
illiterate person and not able to read, write and
understand English language. The plaintiff is a
non-matriculate. This fact was well within the
knowledge of the defendant and its associates and
the defendant has in collusion with its aforesaid
associates taken undue advantage of the illiteracy
of the plaintiff and have got fraudulently executed
the impugned release deed.
2.8. The defendant is illegally claiming the suit
property which is owned and possessed by the
plaintiff and the plaintiff is the lawful owner of
the same. If the defendant would have been bona
fide, then there was no occasion for the defendant
to claim mutation of the suit property after a gap
of six and a half years from the date of execution
of the impugned release deed. The defendant and
its associates had connived with each other as
well as the sub-registrar’s authorities and had got
fraudulently executed and registered the
impugned release deed dated 19.01.2007.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 7 of 60
2.9. After learning about the aforesaid illegal acts of
the defendant and its associates, the plaintiff
immediately filed his objection and claim dated
02.09.2013 before the Tehsildar, Vasant Vihar
requesting him to not transfer/mutate the suit
property in favour of the defendant and further
requested that the matter may be referred to the
concerned revenue assistant/SDM for necessary
adjudication as per law. Thereafter, the plaintiff
again filed a reminder dated 01.01.2014 to the
Tehsildar.
2.10. The suit property is situated within the revenue
estate of village Rajokari, New Delhi and is
situated near the prime location of National
Highway-8 and within close proximity of the
international airport at New Delhi. The suit
property is in the possession of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff is in exclusive possession of his share of
the holding as there was an oral family partition
between the family members and other
shareholders of the concerned Khata numbers.
2.11. When the director/authorised representative of the
defendant was confronted with the said illegal
acts, he threatened the plaintiff of dire
consequences and boasted that the defendant had
good links with the police and administrative
authorities and could manage everything. On
18.10.2015 and 01.11.2015, the defendant
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 8 of 60
threatened the plaintiff that the defendant would
create third party interest in the suit property and
threatened to dispossess the plaintiff.
2.12. On 02.08.2013, after receiving the notice from the
Tehsildar, Vasant Vihar, the plaintiff had learnt
about the mutation proceedings initiated on the
basis of impugned release deed dated 19.01.2007.
The plaintiff made enquiries from the sub-
registrar’s office and then came to know about the
impugned registered release deed. Thereafter, the
plaintiff also obtained relevant extracts of revenue
records of the suit property as well as remaining
holding from the concerned Halqa Patwari on
02.08.2013. The complete chain of fraud
perpetrated by the defendant came to the
knowledge of the plaintiff only on 02.09.2013
when his objection and claim in the mutation
proceedings were drafted by his counsel and same
was filed on 06.09.2013.
2.13. The impugned release deed is not a valid
document and is a false, sham, fabricated and
forged document and is also liable to be cancelled
under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms
Act. The impugned release deed was in violation
of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and
as such, not enforceable.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 9 of 60
3. On this basis, the plaintiff has prayed for the following
reliefs in the suit:
“a. Pass a decree of cancellation to the effect that the
impugned release deed purportedly got executed and
registered on 19.01.2007 bearing registration no.
421, in Additional Book No.I, volume no. 3393 on
pages 50 to 79 dated 19.01.2007, by plaintiff in
respect of the Suit property i.e. one tenth share of
plaintiff in khata No. 365/349 khasra nos. 712/1 (2-
8), 713/1/2 (2-3), 723/1 (2-8), 724/1 (2-8), 739 (4-
16), 748 (4-16), 767 (3-16), 768 (4-16) and Khata
no. 569/544, Khasra nos. 712/2/2 (1-2), 713/2/2 (2-
8), 723/2 (2-8) i.e. Total admeasuring 03 bigha 06
biswa and 18 biswani, in favour of defendant is null
and void, non-est having no effect in the eyes of law.
b. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby
restraining the defendant and its agents,
representatives, assignees, associates etc. from
creating any third party interest in the suit property
and further restrain them from creating any
hindrance in the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the plaintiff of the suit property, in any manner.
c. Pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the above noted case.”
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 10 of 60
WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. The defendant has filed written statement seeking
dismissal of the suit. The case of the defendant as pleaded
in the written statement is as follows:
4.1. The suit is barred by limitation, particularly under
Article 56 of Schedule-I of the Limitation Act
which provides for 3 years for filing of a suit to
declare the forgery of an instrument issued or
registered. The suit is filed after about 9 years of
the execution of the release deed dated 19.01.2007
which was registered and, hence, the suit is barred
by limitation. The plaintiff was aware of the
registration of the release deed dated 19.01.2007,
but the plaintiff claims to be unaware about the
contents of the release deed, but that cannot have
the effect of extension of limitation period as a
registered release deed is a public document and
is a notice to all under Explanation I to Section 3
of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, in the
present case, the plaintiff would be deemed to
have knowledge of the registered release deed
dated 19.01.2007 from the date of the registration
itself not only since the plaintiff knew as a fact
that the deed was registered on that date but also
for the reason of the plaintiff’s wilful abstention
from an enquiry and search which he ought to
have made, since the registered release deed was a
public document open to inspection by anyone
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 11 of 60
under the Registration Act. In the present case, the
limitation would start to run from the date of the
registration of the instrument itself.
4.2. The plaintiff could not file the suit based on the
claim of violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land
Reforms Act. It is only the authorities under the
Act which could take action, if required.
Moreover, the plea of violation of Section 33 of
the Delhi Land Reforms Act did not arise in the
present case since as on the date of execution of
the release deed dated 19.01.2007, the defendant
was holding 3/5th share in the land in question and
the plaintiff was holding 1/10th share. Therefore, a
release of a share by a co-bhumidhar in favour of
another co-bhumidhar did not have the effect of
granting any new tenure rights but was merely an
adjustment of the rights amongst the existing
bhumidhars.
4.3. The suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of
necessary parties as the suit is premised on a plea
of fraud and the plea of fraud cannot be imputed
to a juristic entity such as the defendant. The
persons who have allegedly committed fraud have
not been impleaded as parties to the suit.
4.4. The suit is without cause of action as the release
deed dated 19.01.2007 was duly registered and
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 12 of 60
execution thereof duly admitted by the plaintiff
before the sub-registrar.
4.5. The suit is barred by Section 185 of the Delhi
Land Reforms Act, 1954 as the plaintiff is
indirectly seeking declaration of his bhumidari
rights in the garb of declaration and injunction.
4.6. The plaintiff has not approached the court with
clean hands as he has based his claim on a false
assertion that he was unaware of the contents of
the release deed dated 19.01.2007, whereas he
was at all times aware about the nature, intention
and purpose of the said deed. The plaintiff could
have easily obtained certified copy of the release
deed if he did not have a copy.
4.7. The plaintiff was not the owner of the suit
property as he had transferred the suit property in
favour of the defendant by way of the registered
release deed dated 19.01.2007. The plaintiff was
not in actual physical possession of the land in
question as the possession thereof was delivered
to the defendant on 19.01.2007 itself. The plaintiff
was neither the bhumidhar nor cultivator in
possession of the suit property.
4.8. The release deed dated 19.01.2007 was wilfully
executed by the plaintiff after understanding the
contents, intent and purpose of the same. The
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 13 of 60
plaintiff had executed the said deed to transfer the
subject lands in favour of the defendant against
agreed consideration of Rs. 1.5 crores. It is denied
that the defendant or its agents/officials had
offered any collaboration with the plaintiff as
alleged. The plaintiff has claimed that the
defendant offered to pay sum of Rs. 15 Crores
which was a huge sum considering the fact that
lands were being sold and purchased in Rajokari
in the year 2007 at much lower prices. If there
was any fraud played as alleged, the alleged
fraudsters would have got the plaintiff to execute
sale deed for the entire land and not just portion of
the land.
4.9. Although the plaintiff admits that the deed is
executed and registered but his continued silence
for 8 years goes to show that he had no grievance
whatsoever against the defendant.
4.10. The defendant was not having any association
with the persons namely Sh. Ishwar Singh Yadav,
Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Sh. Rajkumar, and rather
the said persons were of the same village as that
of the plaintiff and rather it is assumed by the
defendant that the plaintiff and the said persons
may be in league with each other.
4.11. The plaintiff is an educated person who had read
the release deed dated 19.01.2007 before
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 14 of 60
appending his signatures thereto. The defendant
has no means of knowing the educational
qualification of the plaintiff. The defendant did
not take any undue advantage of the plaintiff. The
release deed was not got executed by fraud.
4.12. The revenue records do not have the effect of
creating or extinguishing the title of a party. The
defendant is the owner and shall be entitled to be
treated as owner/bhumidar even if the mutation
was not yet sanctioned in his favour.
4.13. The defendant was the owner of the suit land and
was entitled to apply for mutation even after a gap
of 6 and a half years as there was no bar in law
against such mutation.
4.14. The plaintiff has filed the suit to mala fide extract
more money out of the defendant.
4.15. The location of the suit land is such that it has no
access/rasta and was located near ravines.
4.16. It is denied that any threats were issued to the
plaintiff as alleged.
4.17. On this basis, the defendant has sought dismissal
of the suit.
ISSUES
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 15 of 60
5. Vide order dated 30.11.2019, the following issues were
framed in the suit:
(1) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of parties? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is barred by article 56 of
Schedule 1 of the limitation act? OPD
(3) Whether the release deed sought to be declared
as null and void is invalid under Section 33 of Delhi
Land Reforms Act and is not enforceable? OPP
(4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of as
prayed in Para (a) of the Prayer Clause? OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of
injunction as prayed in Para (b) of the prayer clause?
OPP
(f) Relief.
6. Both the parties have led their respective evidence, both
oral and documentary.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
7. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined himself as
PW-1 and has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.
PW1/A in which he has deposed along the lines of the
plaintiff. He was cross examined by the defendant. He has
relied on the following documents:
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 16 of 60
i) Notice issued by Tehsildar (Vasant Vihar) for
appearance on 02.08.2013 is Ex. PW-1/1.
ii) Certified copy of impugned release deed dated
19.01.2007 is Ex. PW-1/2.
iii) Copy of objections and claim dated 02.09.2013
filed by plaintiff before the Tehsildar (Vasant
Vihar) is Ex. PW-1/3.
iv) Copy of reminder dated 01.01.2014 to objections
and claim dated 02.09.2013 filed by plaintiff
before the Tehsildar (Vasant Vihar) is Ex.
PW-1/4.
v) Original notice dated 06.06.2015 issued by
SDM/REVENUE ASSISTANT (Vasant Vihar)
for appearance of deponent on 07.06.2015 is Ex.
PW-1/5.
vi) Certified copies of relevant extract of the
Khatonis of the suit property and entire holding
of plaintiff along with their true copies are Ex.
PW-1/6 (colly).
vii) Certified copies of relevant extract of the Khasra
Girdawaris of the suit property and entire
holding of plaintiff along with their true copies
are Ex. PW-1/7 (colly).
viii) Certified Copies of relevant extract of the Field
Book of suit property and entire holding of
plaintiff along with its true typed copy is Ex.
PW-1/8.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 17 of 60
ix) Certified copies of Aks Shazra of the suit
property and entire holding of the plaintiff is
Ex.PW-1/9.
8. The plaintiff has also examined as PW-2, an official from
the office of Sub-Registrar IX, Kapashera, New Delhi to
prove the registration of the impugned release deed Ex.
PW1/2.
9. The plaintiff also summoned PW-3, Sh. Ravindra Kumar,
Halqua Patwari to produce the original records of
Khatavni and Khasra Jirdawairis of the years 2005-06,
2006-07, 2007-08 and 2014-15, and original record of
Aksh Shazra. He produced the Ex. PW1/6 (colly), Ex.
PW1/7(colly) and Ex. PW1/9.
10. The plaintiff also summoned PW-4, an official from the
office of SDM to produce the record of the mutation
proceedings.
DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE
11. In support of its case, the defendant has examined as DW-1
Sh. Jitendra Kumar Jain who is the authorised
representative of the defendant. He has tendered his
affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW1/A and he has deposed
along the lines on the written statement. He was cross
examined by the plaintiff.
12. The defendant has also examined as DW-2 Sh. Rajkumar
who is the attesting witness to the release deed. He has
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 18 of 60
tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW2/A. He was
cross-examined by the plaintiff.
13. The learned counsels for both the parties have made their
respective submissions.
PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the
pleadings and evidence in support of the plaintiff, and has
made the following submissions:
14.1. The plaintiff has been able to prove his pleaded
case through the evidence led and would be entitled
to decree. The plaintiff was approached by the
defendant in the month of December 2006 in order
to collaborate with it to carve out farm houses on
the suit property of the plaintiff and the entire deal
was fixed for Rs. 15 Crore. The suit property which
belongs to the plaintiff and is still in his exclusive
possession is located on a very prime location near
NH-8 (Rajokari village) and in the close vicinity of
the Indira Gandhi International Airport, hence, this
motivated the defendant to hatch a conspiracy to
grab the said land parcel by any means. Therefore,
the defendant approached the plaintiff along with
three other persons namely Ishwar Singh Yadav,
Rajesh Yadav and Raj Kumar and explained their
idea of carving out farm houses on the said land
and requested the plaintiff to enter into aCS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 19 of 60
collaboration agreement with the defendant. The
plaintiff agreed to it when he was convinced that
everything will be done in a legal manner and only
after taking all the relevant sanctions and approvals
from the relevant authorities. The defendant further
convinced the plaintiff that they will reduce their
oral agreements/understanding in writing in form of
a registered collaboration agreement and for this an
advance sum of Rs. 1.5 Crore was paid to the
plaintiff and the full and final remaining amount of
Rs. 13.5 Crore was agreed to be paid within a time
frame of six months from the date of execution of
the collaboration agreement. The defendants being
well aware that the plaintiff cannot speak or
understand English, purposefully decided to draft
the agreement in English and the plaintiff signed
the impugned release deed misunderstanding it as a
collaboration agreement as well as other necessary
documents/authorization to seek approval and
sanction from the competent authorities for carving
out farm houses. After the execution of the said
agreement, the plaintiff patiently waited for the
work to begin. However, no such work ever started
at any point of time and the plaintiff also did not
receive any sort of information and remained
clueless regarding the same only until 02.08.2013
when he received the notice of mutation from the
office of the Tehsildar.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 20 of 60
14.2. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined four
witnesses including himself. The plaintiff examined
himself as PW1 and through his testimony it is
proved beyond an iota of doubt that the plaintiff
was the victim of the fraud played upon him by the
defendant. Through his evidence it can be
concluded that the alleged document signed by the
plaintiff was in fact signed by him believing it to be
collaboration agreement and other necessary
documents to obtain sanction and permissions from
the competent authorities for carving out farm
houses and not as a release deed. The plaintiff being
unable to read and understand English was made to
sign a document which was in English. He was not
even explained the contents of it by any of the
parties present at the time of signing the said
document. This fact was even verified by the DW-1
(authorised representative of the defendant
company) wherein he has agreed of not explaining
the contents of the said document to the plaintiff in
Hindi at the time of signing of the impugned
release deed. As soon as the plaintiff received the
notice of mutation from the tehsildar’s office on
02.08.2013, he swiftly acted and filed his
objections dated 02.09.2013 against the same in the
office of tehsildar without any delay on 06.09.2013
and again filed the reminder of his objections on
01.01.2014. He even produced all the relevant
revenue records pertaining to the said khata nos.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 21 of 60
and those records clearly show the plaintiff as the
exclusive owner and in possession of the land
comprising in said khata and Khasra nos. Had the
plaintiff plotted the entire situation against the
defendant, as alleged by the defendant, he would
have done it much earlier i.e. right after the
execution of the impugned release deed and would
not have waited for it for such a long period of
time. This goes on to show the honesty of the
plaintiff and his genuineness. On the contrary, the
defendant has clearly failed to explain the delay of
six and a half years in initiating the mutation
proceedings. This itself creates a doubt with respect
to the conduct and intention of the defendant. The
entire cross examination of the plaintiff majorly
revolved around proving two points by the
defendant i.e. firstly, the plaintiff knew and
understands English and, secondly, the plaintiff was
well aware about the execution of the said
impugned release deed. However, the defendant
miserably failed in proving both points. As far as
the fact of the plaintiff knowing English is
concerned, even the DW-1 has admitted the fact
that at the time of signing of the impugned release
deed he was unaware of the educational
background of the plaintiff and did not even know
whether the plaintiff could understand English or
not. With respect to the second point of the
plaintiff being aware of the execution and
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 22 of 60
registration of the said impugned release deed, it is
submitted that the plaintiff has denied signing the
impugned release deed document after becoming
well aware about the contents of such document.
14.3. The signatures on the document are not disputed
rather it is the nature, contents and character of the
document that is disputed. Signing of a document
by both the parties requires a prior meeting of mind
with respect to the contents and nature of the
document. Meeting of minds is a sine qua non. The
doctrine of non est factum means that a person who
is induced by the false statement of another, and
who has signed a written contract that is
fundamentally different in character from the one
which he envisaged then such a person is
competent to say that it is not his document. Even
otherwise the impugned release deed is liable to be
set aside on the ground that the mind of the signer
did not accompany the signatures. In the present
case, the plaintiff was deliberately misled and kept
in a delusion not merely with respect to the legal
effect of the instrument, but also as to the actual
contents, nature and character of the instrument
during the signing of the impugned release deed.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harmesh Kumar
& Ors. Vs Maya Bai AIR 2006 P&H 1. It is
submitted that a document executed by an element
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 23 of 60
of fraud, where the mind of the party to such
document does not accompany with its content, the
same is liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud.
Furthermore, the testimony of the plaintiff is not
impeached by the defendant from his cross
examination. Reliance is also placed upon the
following case-laws: Smt. Gangabai Vs. Smt.
Chhabubai AIR 1982 SC 20, Smt. Dularia Devi
Vs. Janardan Singh AIR 1990 SC 1173, Ishwar Das
Jain Vs. Sohan Lal (2000) 1 SCC 434, Ningawwa
v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar 1968 Law Suit
9 SC, and State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Harapriya
Bisooi AIR 2009 SC 2991. The said judgments
clearly enunciate that fraud vitiates everything. The
aforesaid judgments also held that oral evidence is
admissible against such registered document
fraudulently got executed and the bar under
Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act would not
apply in such situation. The said sections are not
attracted when the case of a party is that the
transaction recorded in the document was never
intended to be acted upon at all between the parties
and that the document is a sham. Such a question
arises when the party asserts that there was a
different transaction altogether and what is
recorded in the document was intended to be of no
consequence whatever. For that purpose oral
evidence is admissible to show that the document
executed was never intended to operate as an
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 24 of 60
agreement, but that some other document
altogether, not recorded in the document was
entered into between the parties. The case of the
plaintiff factually is identical and is squarely
covered by the ratio of law laid down in the
aforesaid judgments.
14.4. PW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar proved the registration of the
impugned release deed.
14.5. PW-3 Sh. Ravinder Kumar was the Halqa Patwari
from the Office of the concerned Tehsildar and was
called upon to prove the ownership and possession
of the suit property by the plaintiff. From the
relevant Revenue records placed on record and
confirmed by the PW-3, it clearly stands proved
that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property
and it is still in the exclusive possession of the
plaintiff and the plaintiff is cultivating the same
even till date. At any given point of time, the
plaintiff has not parted away with possession of the
suit property. Nothing substantial could be derived
from the cross-examination of the said witness. It is
submitted that no evidence has been raised by the
defendant to disprove the public records of the
Khasra Girdawari as well Khatauni, i.e. Exhb.
PW-1/6(Colly) (15 pages), which are presumed to
be true unless proved contrary. The said Khasra
Girdawaris and Khatauni are admittedly the Annual
Registers maintained by the revenue department.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 25 of 60
The said records are pertaining to the period even
after the execution of the impugned Release Deed.
14.6. PW-4 Sh. Anuj Rathi was called upon to prove the
initiation of the mutation proceedings before the
Tehsildar which were further transferred to the
Court of the SDM/Revenue Assistant and the
outcome of the said mutation proceedings. From
the testimony of the said PW-4 it clearly stands
proved that the plaintiff, as soon as he learnt about
the initiation of the said mutation proceedings by
the defendant, aptly filed his objections before the
Tehsildar and thereafter diligently kept pursuing the
same and even filed a reminder to the said
objections. The said proceedings were sine-die
adjourned by the concerned SDM/Revenue
Assistant, in view of the present suit.
14.7. The defendant initially filed its list of witnesses
stating to examine four witnesses but, subsequently,
the defendant dropped two crucial witnesses,
namely Sh. Ashok Kumar (the authorised
representative of the defendant) and Sh. Rajesh
Yadav (witness to the release deed) for the reasons
best known to itself. An adverse inference would be
drawn against the defendant for not examining
these witnesses.
14.8. In order to prove its case, the defendant examined
two witnesses namely Sh. Jitendra Kumar Jain
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 26 of 60
DW-1 and Sh. Raj Kumar DW-2. With respect to
DW-1, it is submitted that DW-1, as is evident from
his evidence led by way of an affidavit, is merely a
puppet witness having no clue of whatsoever nature
regarding the present case and the impugned release
deed which is challenged in the present case. DW-1
has clearly stated in his evidence that after the
execution of the impugned release deed, the
defendant was put in possession of the suit land.
But he was unable to tell about the location of the
suit land. He does not even know if the suit land
was measured or not. He does not even know if
both Khata Nos. 569/544 and 365/349 were
adjoining each other or not. DW-1 has no idea
about the dimensions of the suit property from all
sides. He further states that he is not even aware if
the defendant company is cultivator of the suit
property or not. He further admits that he is not
aware about the structures, tube-wells and crops of
the suit property. He is also not aware about the
mode of irrigation in the suit land. He does not
even know the details of contractors who allegedly
cultivated the suit land on behalf of the defendant,
so, how could the defendant claim that it is in
possession of the suit property. He does not even
know the adjoining Khasra Nos. of the suit land. He
does not even know about the remaining land of the
plaintiff which he owned. Hence, it is categorically
proved that defendant Company never entered into
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 27 of 60
the possession of the suit property. On the contrary,
the plaintiff is still in possession of the suit land and
is cultivating the same. Even PW-4 (Halqa Patwari)
has verified the fact that the plaintiff is still
possessing and cultivating the said suit property
and is Bhumidar of the suit property.
14.9. Further, it is submitted that the court cannot fully
rely on the testimony of DW-1 without any
corroborating evidence. His credibility remains
clouded and therefore his version cannot be relied
upon. Furthermore, the DW-1 has admitted in his
cross-examination that he does not play any active
role in the day-to-day functions of the company. He
further states that he is not aware of the contents of
the written statement filed by the defendant. This
again proves that he is merely a puppet witness.
DW-1 has never met the plaintiff prior to the
signing of the impugned release deed, was not a
part of the negotiations that took place between the
plaintiff and the defendant company, he does not
even know the name or identity of the person who
took part in the negotiations on behalf of the
defendant and never met the plaintiff at any point of
time before or after the execution the said release
deed. What more could be said to prove the fact
that the said DW-1 is nothing more than a puppet
witness who has no credibility. He further admits
that he was not aware that whether the plaintiff can
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 28 of 60
read and understand English or not. He also admits
of not explaining the contents of the said document
to the plaintiff in Hindi. DW-1 was also given
suggestion to the effect that he has given evasive
answers to specific questions in order to conceal
true facts. Since the DW-1 has admitted of knowing
the fact that the suit property has not been
partitioned between the plaintiff and other co-
sharers, hence the question of handing over the
possession of the land i.e. the undivided share to
the defendant does not arise at all.
14.10. As far as the testimony of DW-2 i.e. Sh. Raj Kumar
is concerned, he was a witness to the impugned
release deed. DW-2 has himself admitted that he is
an alien to English language but still he became a
witness to a document which was in English. The
DW-2 has categorically admitted that he was not
aware about the contents of the said document
before he signed it and nobody explained to him the
contents of the same in Hindi before and even after
signing it. He has admitted that he along with
Ishwar Singh Yadav finalized the deal between the
plaintiff and the defendant but he cannot tell the
name of the person who represented the defendant
company in the entire negotiations. Even the
defendant, during the entire course of proceedings
has nowhere mentioned as to who on behalf of the
defendant company negotiated and finalized the
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 29 of 60
deal. Neither such person was called up as a
witness on behalf of the defendant. DW-2 claims to
have played an active role in the entire negotiations
but it is surprising to learn that he has never visited
the suit property at any point of time. He even
admits of not knowing the fact whether the
defendant company is cultivating the said land or
not. He also admitted that he is not aware about the
contents of the impugned Release Deed Ex. PW-1/2
and neither the same were translated to him before
he signed the same. Therefore, the attesting
witness, who is claiming to have played active role
in finalizing the deal, to the impugned release deed
also did not know about its execution, then how can
the plaintiff know about the same. Thus, it is
proved that the impugned release deed is a sham,
bogus and fabricated document. It is submitted that
DW-2 has admitted that Plaintiff was not carrying
any documents (except Voter I Card and Aadhar
Card) with him when he visited the office of
Pramod Kumar on the date of execution of the
impugned release deed. He deposes that the
impugned release deed was drafted in the office of
one Pramod Kumar. Interestingly, the impugned
release deed is a 30-32 pages document which is
typed and contains all the details of the suit land
with their khata/Khasra Nos. with respective areas,
and various others covenants, therefore all these
facts cannot be incorporated without there being
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 30 of 60
any document available for the same. This proves
that the impugned release deed was not prepared on
19.01.2007 and the same was already prepared and
fraudulently got signed by the defendant in
connivance with Ishwar Singh Yadav and his
associates. The suggestion to this effect was also
given to the DW-2. DW-2 further goes on to say
that Ishwar Singh Yadav was the one who was in
touch with the defendant during the entire
negotiations. This goes on to show that Ishwar
Singh Yadav could have been a deciding witness of
the present case but his name was not added in the
list of defence witnesses for the reasons best known
to the defendant. Furthermore, DW-2 has admitted
that the family members of the plaintiff
(Chacha/tau) are the co-sharers in the subject
property along with the plaintiff and therefore the
question of handing over of the possession of the
un-partitioned property does not arise at all.
14.11. DW-2 has further admitted that the total land area
owned by the plaintiff is less than 7.5 acres and
therefore the said transfer/selling of the land by
way of the impugned release deed is null and void
as it is in clear violation of the statutory provision
of Section 33 of the DLR Act, 1954 which clearly
says that a Bhumidar having less than 8 standard
acres of land has to dispose/sell/transfer of his
entire holdings in case he wants to sell the same.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 31 of 60
Admittedly, the plaintiff was having area less than 8
standard acres in the revenue estate of Village
Rajokari i.e. 5 Bigha 11 Biswa and 10 Biswansi.
Admittedly, the plaintiff is also recorded Bhumidar
of his share of land in Khata Nos. 366/359 min. and
367/350 min. which is the land left with the
plaintiff in both said Khatas after the execution of
the impugned release deed for land measuring 3
Bigha 6 Biswa 18 Biswansi. Such a bhumidar who
is already having less than 8 standard acre
area/holding is not allowed to possess remaining
part of land after selling of some part of his
holdings. The intent of the legislature behind the
said section of the DLR Act is to avoid
uneconomical holding of agricultural land and
hence the said impugned release deed is a clear
violation of the said statutory provision and is
therefore liable to be set aside. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the matter of Sh. Ram Niwas
Dagar V/S Sh. Krishan Kumar & Anr. 2013 SCC
Online Del 5148 and decision dated 22.02.2000 in
M.S. Yadav vs. Jagmal RFA (OS) No. 49/1999 has
upheld the above-stated statutory provision of the
DLR Act and held that the alleged transaction is
unenforceable and void by virtue of Section 33 of
the said Act.
14.12. The defence raised by the defendant that the suit
was barred by limitation was without merit. In the
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 32 of 60
present case, the limitation starts to run from the
time when the Plaintiff became aware of the fraud
committed upon him. The plaintiff became aware of
the fraud only on 02.09.2013 when the complete
chain of fraud was revealed to him and he filed
objections on 06.09.2013 before the concerned
Tehsildar and contested the mutation proceedings
before the SDM/revenue Assistant, and thereafter
he filed the present suit on 01.12.2015 i.e. within 3
years from the date of knowledge of the impugned
release deed and hence the question of the suit
becoming barred by limitation does not arises at all.
The cause of action to sue accrued to a person only
when fraud comes to his knowledge and as per
Article 59 of the limitation act, the period of
limitation starts when the facts entitling the plaintiff
to have the instrument cancelled first become
known to him. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on
the decision dated 11.09.2015 of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Sri Bhagwan Vs M/s.
VBM Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, RFA (OS) 62/2015.
DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant
has referred to the pleadings and evidence in support of the
defendant, and has made the following submissions:
15.1. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of
proving the release deed as a forged or fabricatedCS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 33 of 60
document. Apart from himself, the plaintiff did not
produce any witness to buttress his own self-
serving statement. On the other hand, the defendant
proved the due execution of the release deed Ex.
PW-1/2 by the plaintiff by examining the DW-1
who was the authorised representative of the
defendant company as well as DW-2 Raj Kumar
who was the attesting witness to the release deed.
The plaintiff cross-examined the defendant’s
witnesses at length but their testimony remained
unshaken. Further, the evidence of PW-1 was full
of inconsistencies as he could not explain as to
why he appended his signatures on the release deed
in English language although he claimed himself to
be an illiterate person who was unable to read,
write and understand English. The plaintiff further
admitted that he was not illiterate but was educated
upto 8th standard. The plaintiff admitted that he
had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar after
execution of the deed and appeared before the Sub-
Registrar. The plaintiff admitted that he had
applied for issuance of a certified copy of the said
document from office of Sub-Registrar but he did
not remember the date on which he obtained
certified copy. The plaintiff also admitted that
within 3 years of registration of the release deed
Ex. PW-1/2 he had not initiated any legal
proceedings. The plaintiff also admitted that he did
not send any notice or letter to defendant from
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 34 of 60
2007 to 2015. The plaintiff had claimed that the
value of his approx. 3 Bighas land was Rs. 15
Crore but upon being questioned about the value of
the land in cross-examination, he stated that he had
not seen or heard of any transaction of land in his
village where land may have been sold at the rate
of Rs. 20 Crores per acre. The plaintiff admitted
that the land was a joint holding which had not
been partitioned. He also admitted that he had not
lodged any police complaint in regard to the
transaction against Ishwar Singh Yadav and Raj
Kumar. All this clearly shows that the plaintiff was
unable to prove that the release deed Ex. PW1/2
was executed by perpetrating any kind of fraud
upon him. Therefore, the Issues No. 4 and 5 were
not proved by the plaintiff.
15.2. It is settled law that when in respect of a transaction,
a written document is executed, any kind of oral
evidence, contrary to the documents, is not
admissible. The allegations of fraud if made by a
party, must be specific giving role of each person
and all those involved in the fraud must be made a
party. Bare allegations of fraud or claiming that the
plaintiff signed the documents without reading the
contents thereof is not a ground for cancellation of
the document. A person who is entering into a
transaction of his land for Crores of rupees and is
receiving money, cannot be called a poor or illiterate
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 35 of 60
villager. Nowadays, in Delhi, villagers are not
simpletons or fools enough to not take help of
educated persons in understanding the documents
being executed by them. The version of the plaintiff
was a cock and bull story and has been invented to
file the suit. Reliance is placed on the decision dated
05.05.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Jai Bhagwan V. Rajesh LQ/DelHC/2008/1209; 2008
Indlaw Del 419.
15.3. Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act creating a
bar to the sale of land in parts did not arise in the
facts of the present case as there was no sale of land
to a new person and it did not result in creation of a
new tenure by the execution of the release deed Ex.
PW-1/2. The release deed only had the effect of
enhancement of the share of defendant and
effacement of share of plaintiff. The release deed did
not result in alienation of property but only
amounted to adjustment of shares of co-owners. In
this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Shailesh Harilal
v. District Collector of Stamps 2005 (2) Mh.L.J.
738. The plea of violation of Section 33 of the DLR
Act did not arise in the facts and circumstances of
the present case because as on the date of execution
of the Release deed dated 19.1.2007, the defendant
was holding 3/5th share in the land in question and
plaintiff was holding 1/10th share. Therefore, a
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 36 of 60
release of share by a co-bhumidhar in favour of
another co-bhumidhar did not have the effect of
creation of new tenure rights or bhumidhars, but was
merely an adjustment of the rights amongst the
existing bhumidhars. In any case, the plaintiff could
not raise a grievance about violation of Section 33 of
DLR Act and only the authorities under the Act
could take action, if required. In this regard, reliance
is placed on Vidya Dhari Khanna v. Sandeep
Khanna 46 (1992) DLT 682.
15.4. The suit was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of
necessary parties as the same was premised on the
plea of fraud and the plea of fraud could not be
imputed to a juristic person like the defendant
company. Moreover, the persons who had allegedly
committed the fraud were not impleaded as parties
to the suit. The present suit was based on the plea of
alleged fraud having been perpetuated by Sh. Ishwar
Singh Radav and Sh. Raj Kumar in connivance with
the authorised representative of the defendant,
however, the said persons were not impleaded as
defendants in the suit, therefore, the plea of fraud
could not be adjudicated in the absence of the
necessary parties.
15.5. The suit was barred by limitation. It is admitted by
the plaintiff that the suit is filed after about 9 years
of the execution and registration of the release deed
dated 19.1.2007. The relevant article of Schedule-I
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 37 of 60
of the Limitation Act would be Article 56 providing
for limitation period of 3 years in respect of suit for
declaration in respect of forgery of an instrument
issued or registered from the date when the issue or
registration becomes known to the plaintiff. Under
Article 56, the limitation period in respect of a
registered document starts running from the date of
registration of the document. From a meaningful
reading of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff
was aware about the registration of the release deed
on 19.1.2007 itself. Though the plaintiff claims to be
unaware about the contents of the registered deed,
but that cannot have the effect of extension of
limitation period as a registered deed is a public
document and is a notice to all under Explanation-I
to Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore,
in the present case, the plaintiff would be deemed to
have knowledge of the registered release deed dated
19.1.2007 from the date of registration itself as
admittedly not only he knew it as a fact that the deed
was registered on that day but also for the reason
that, but for his wilful abstention from an enquiry
and search which he ought to have made, he would
have learnt about the contents of the said registered
release deed dated 19.1.2007 as it was a public
document open to inspection by anyone being a
document registered in Book I under the
Registration Act.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 38 of 60
15.6. Moreover, the Article 56 of Schedule I of Limitation
Act deals with two situations, i.e. firstly where a
forged instrument is issued in which the limitation
would start to run from the date when the issue of
the forged instrument becomes known to the
plaintiff. The second situation dealt with by the
Article 56 pertains to the forged instrument which is
registered. In the situation as exists in the present
suit as set up by the plaintiff, the limitation would
start to run from the date of registration of the
instrument itself as it was not the intention of the
legislature to enable a litigant who remains wilfully
ignorant or deliberately abstains from making
appropriate enquiry to stretch the limitation period to
eternity by claiming that he never knew about the
contents of the registered deed.
15.7. The limitation to challenge a registered deed starts
from the date of registration. Reliance, in this regard,
is placed on Smt. Dilboo v. Smt. Dhanraji (2000) 7
SCC 702.
15.8. On this basis, it is submitted that the suit be
dismissed.
16. Both parties have also filed their respective written
submissions.
ISSUE-WISE DISCUSSION & FINDINGS
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 39 of 60
17. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels
for the parties and I have perused the record including the
pleadings, evidence (both oral and documentary) and the
written submissions.
18. My issue-wise findings are as follows.
Issue No.4- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief as
prayed in Para(a) of the Prayer Clause? OPP
Issue No.5- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of
injunction as prayed in Para(b) of the prayer clause? OPP
19. The aforesaid issues are taken up together for discussion
first.
20. The plaintiff has sought cancellation of the release deed
dated 19.01.2007 which is a registered document. The
plaintiff does not dispute his signatures on the release deed
or that he had signed the document. It is also undisputed
that the release deed was a registered document which was
got registered at the office of the concerned registrar.
However, it is the case of the plaintiff that the said
document was got signed from the plaintiff through fraud
by fraudulently misrepresenting to the plaintiff that the
document was a collaboration agreement.
21. As per the contents of the registered release deed
Ex.PW-1/2, the plaintiff had released his 1/10th undivided
share in the concerned lands which comprised the suit
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 40 of 60
property for total consideration of Rs. 1.5 Crores in favour
of the defendant who was already co-owner of 3/5th share.
22. I have carefully considered the pleadings and the evidence,
and there are grave doubts as to the version of the plaintiff,
and, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has been
unable to prove his case that the release deed was got
signed from him by fraud.
23. First and foremost, the pleadings of the plaintiff in the
plaint in respect of the alleged collaboration agreement are
rather vague. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the
defendant had represented to him that a collaboration
agreement would be executed between the parties for
development of farm houses on the holdings of the
plaintiff for which a total consideration of Rs. 15 Crores
would be paid to the plaintiff out of which Rs. 1.5 Crores
would be the advance. However, apart from the aforesaid
conditions, the plaintiff is completely silent on the details
of the alleged collaboration agreement. The plaintiff has
failed to mention as to what were the particulars of the
collaboration agreement. Generally, in the case of a
collaboration agreement, there is collaboration between a
builder and the owner of the property, and the builder
constructs the property and also gets a share in the
property which is constructed. The plaintiff is completely
silent as to what was the share which would have gone to
the defendant in the collaboration agreement or as to what
was the consideration or benefit which the defendant was
to receive under the collaboration agreement. In case the
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 41 of 60
parties had agreed to execute a collaboration agreement,
even the defendant would have received a certain share in
the constructed farm houses or some other form of benefit
of some nature. However, the plaintiff is silent as to what
was the consideration or benefit which the defendant was
to receive under the alleged collaboration agreement. The
plaint is silent as to what was the arrangement between the
parties in respect of the collaboration agreement and as to
how the defendant was to generate revenue or benefit from
the collaboration agreement. The plaintiff is also
completely silent in the plaint as to how many farm houses
were to be constructed under the collaboration agreement.
The plaint is also silent as to what was the time period
agreed between the parties for construction of the farm
houses. These are certain basic terms of any collaboration
agreement and the plaintiff has failed to mention any of
the basic terms of the alleged collaboration agreement
between the parties except for only stating that he was to
receive sum of Rs. 15 Crores under the collaboration
agreement out of which Rs. 1.5 Crores was to be paid as
advance. Thus, the allegation that there was a
collaboration agreement is completely vague, without any
mention of the exact nature of the alleged transaction
between the parties. Just as the plaint is completely vague
as to the nature of the alleged collaboration agreement,
similarly, even the affidavit filed by the plaintiff by way of
his examination in chief is only a reiteration of what has
been stated in the plaint and, as such, the deposition of the
plaintiff is also completely vague as to the nature of the
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 42 of 60
alleged collaboration agreement. The adverse inference
which is drawn from the failure of the plaintiff to give any
details and particulars of the terms of the collaboration
agreement is that most likely there was no such agreement
or understanding between the parties for execution of any
collaboration agreement for building farm houses as
alleged by the plaintiff.
24. There is another aspect of the matter which makes it highly
unlikely that there could have been a collaboration
agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for
construction of farm houses as alleged by the plaintiff. It is
the case of the plaintiff in paragraph 1 of the plaint that out
of the total lands as mentioned in the said paragraph, he
had one-tenth share which amounted to 5 Bigha 11 Biswa
and 10 Biswansi. Although the plaintiff has pleaded in the
plaint that there had been an oral family partition between
the family members and that the plaintiff was in exclusive
possession of his share in view of the oral family partition,
however, the plaintiff has not given any details of the
alleged oral family partition. The plaintiff has also not
mentioned as to what particular portion of the land came to
his share under the alleged oral family partition. The
plaintiff has not given any measurements of the specific
portion of the land which came to his share by way of the
alleged oral family partition. The plaintiff has not even
filed any site plan showing that any particular portion of
the land had come to his share by way of the alleged oral
family partition. Furthermore, in the evidence, it seems
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 43 of 60
that the plaintiff has abandoned his stand that there was
any alleged partition. The plaintiff has deposed during his
cross examination that the land in question was a joint
holding which was not partitioned. During the cross
examination of DW-1, the plaintiff had also given the
suggestion to the said witness that the land had not been
partitioned, which was agreed to by the witness. Similarly,
during the cross examination of DW-2, the plaintiff had
given the suggestion to the said witness that the
Chacha/Tau of the plaintiff were co-sharers along with the
plaintiff in the subject property, which was agreed to by
the witness. Thus, in the evidence, the stand of the plaintiff
is very clear that the lands had not been partitioned. When
the position is that the lands were not partitioned and the
plaintiff had undivided share in the lands, then, it is highly
unlikely that there could have been negotiations for a
collaboration agreement for developing farm houses only
between the plaintiff and the defendant without involving
the other co-sharers in the lands.
25. Since the lands were co-owned by various persons
including the plaintiff, in case the defendant really wanted
to develop farm houses on the lands and wished to
collaborate with the owners of the lands for this purpose,
in such case, the defendant would have negotiated with all
the co-sharers of the lands and not specifically only with
the plaintiff. However, as per the case of the plaintiff, the
alleged collaboration agreement for developing farm
houses was only between the plaintiff and the defendant.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 44 of 60
The plaintiff does not mention that any other co-sharers
were involved in the alleged collaboration agreement for
developing farm houses. Ordinarily, if a property is co-
owned by various persons, the developer would negotiate
with all the co-owners and any collaboration agreement for
the development of the property would be with all the co-
owners. It is highly unlikely that when a co-owner has
only an undivided share with no specific physically
demarcated share, then the developer would enter into a
collaboration agreement only with such co-owner and
would not deal with the other co-owners. Thus, the version
of the plaintiff of there being a collaboration agreement
between the plaintiff and the defendant under which the
defendant was to make payment of Rs. 15 Crores and out
of which, an amount of Rs. 1.5 Crores was already paid
appears to be improbable.
26. Further, the version of the plaintiff that he was made to
sign the release deed fraudulently as he could not
understand English language does not also inspire
confidence. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is an
illiterate person and is not able to read, write or understand
English language and that he was a non-matriculate, and
that the defendant and its associates took undue advantage
of the illiteracy of the plaintiff and got fraudulently
executed their impugned release date. It is pertinent that
the plaintiff has not disputed his signatures on the release
date. A perusal of the impugned release deed Ex.PW-1/2
shows that the plaintiff has signed as “Ranbir” using the
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 45 of 60
Roman alphabets used in the English language. During the
cross examination of DW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar, a suggestion
was made to the witness by the plaintiff that the plaintiff
had studied only up to 8th standard. The suggestion was
however, denied by the witness DW-2 and the witness
answered that the plaintiff had studied up to the tenth
standard but that he did not know whether the plaintiff had
passed the 10 standard or not. Be that as it may, this much
is clear that as per the own case of the plaintiff he had
studied at least up to the eighth standard. The witness
DW-2 has deposed that the plaintiff used to study in the
same school as the witness. He has further deposed that he
had seen the plaintiff reading English during school days.
27. As already mentioned, the plaintiff does not dispute his
signatures on the release deed. The signatures of the
plaintiff on the release deed are in the Roman alphabets
used in English language and the signature is as “Ranbir”.
This fact itself goes to show that the plaintiff was not
altogether unfamiliar with the English language. A person
who is able to sign using the Roman alphabets used in
English language would ordinarily be able to at least read
and understand some basic and simple English words even
if such person may not be able to understand or speak
complex words and sentences in English. In the present
case, since the plaintiff is signing using Roman alphabets
of the English language, in all probability the plaintiff
would also be able to read and understand at least some
basic and simple English words. The plaintiff has himself
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 46 of 60
stated in the plaint that the defendant had represented to
him for execution of a “collaboration agreement” for
developing “farm houses”. This means that the plaintiff
very well understands the meaning of the words
“collaboration”, “collaboration agreement” and “farm
houses” in English language. Generally, a collaboration
agreement is titled as a “Collaboration Agreement” or
“Collaboration Deed” or “Agreement of Collaboration” or
“Deed of Collaboration”, and not as a “Release Deed”.
Further, a collaboration agreement for developing farm
houses would certainly mention the words “collaboration”
and “farm houses”. However, a perusal of the release deed
Ex.PW-1/2 shows that the words “collaboration” and
“farm houses” are nowhere occurring in the document.
Furthermore, the release deed Ex.PW-1/2 does not even
mention anywhere the figure of Rs. 15,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Crores), either in numeric or alphabetic
form.
28. In case if the parties had actually agreed to execute only a
collaboration agreement as alleged by the plaintiff, then
the plaintiff would have at least made out from the
document that the document was not titled as a
“collaboration agreement” and that there were also no
words “collaboration” or “farm houses” which were
occurring in the entire document, crucially, that the
document also nowhere mentioned the total consideration
of Rs. 15 Crores, either in numbers or in alphabets, and in
such case, the plaintiff would then have certainly raised
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 47 of 60
some doubt or suspicion with respect to the document. It is
highly unlikely that in case there was actually a
collaboration agreement to be executed, then the document
of the release deed would not have aroused the suspicion
of the plaintiff. This also makes it most likely that there
was never any collaboration agreement between the parties
as alleged by the plaintiff.
29. Another factor which very strongly goes against the
plaintiff’s version is that the release deed Ex.PW-1/2 is a
registered document. Although, the registration of a
document by itself would not be a proof of the valid
execution of the document, however, it is definitely a
factor which is to be taken into consideration in
ascertaining whether the document was validly executed.
The plaintiff has not disputed that the document was
registered at the office of the concerned sub-registrar.
Although the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that a fraud
had been perpetrated on the plaintiff by the defendant in
connivance with its associates as well as officials of the
sub-registrar authorities, there are no details given as to
how the registration of the document was got done through
fraud or as to what fraud was perpetrated by the officials
of the sub- registrar’s office. The plaintiff has not stated in
the plaint that he did not visit the office of the sub-
registrar. Thus, it is the own admitted position of the
plaintiff that he had visited the office of the sub-registrar
for the purposes of registration. The photograph of the
plaintiff which was taken at the sub-registrar’s office has
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 48 of 60
also been printed on a back side page of the release deed.
Thus, the plaintiff very much went to the sub-registrar’s
office for the purposes of registration of the document.
30. As already mentioned, the plaintiff has studied at least up
to the eighth standard and is not a thorough illiterate as has
been sought to be claimed by him. The plaintiff is also
signing using the Roman alphabets used in the English
language, and as such would at least have some familiarity
with the English language. The plaintiff has also not
disputed having received sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores from the
defendant. This sum is not a small sum and is quite
substantial. It is also clear that the plaintiff had been
negotiating with the defendant in respect of his
land/property. All this only goes to show that the plaintiff
is a man of understanding of the world and he would be
aware of the seriousness of going to the registrar’s office
for the registration of a document in relation to his lands. It
is not believable that the plaintiff would have gone to the
registrar’s office and would have carried on with the
process of registration of the release deed without having
an understanding as to what was the document that he was
signing and getting registered.
31. Also, since the release deed is a registered document, it
would be presumed that the registration was conducted by
the authorities as per the due process. The onus to show
that the registration was fraudulent was heavily on the
plaintiff, and the plaintiff has been unable to prove any
fraud in the registration of the document.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 49 of 60
32. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that in the month of
December 2006 he was approached by Sh. Ishwar Singh,
Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Sh. Raj Kumar, all residents of his
village, along with the authorised representative/director of
the defendant company for collaboration in respect of the
holdings of the plaintiff with the defendant company. It is
not the case of the plaintiff that the aforesaid persons had
any special or close relationship with the plaintiff so that
he would have blindly gone by whatever they had stated
and would have blindly signed on any documents in
relation to his lands and would have also got the same
registered blindly. Even in case the parties had agreed for
execution of a collaboration agreement as alleged by the
plaintiff, even then, there is no reason why the plaintiff
would blindly sign the document merely at the asking of
the other side. Even if such a person is unable to read or
understand English language, such a person would at least
get the document read by some person whom he trusts so
that he is sure as to what he was signing. The version of
the plaintiff in the present case that he simply signed the
document thinking that it was a collaboration agreement
without even understanding as to what was written in the
document is not believable and appears to be nothing but a
cock and bull story.
33. There is another aspect which also makes the plaintiff’s
version to be improbable. Even if the plaintiff had signed
the document without understanding and did not even
understand the document at the time of registration, there
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 50 of 60
is absolutely no explanation as to why the plaintiff would
not retain a copy of the document with himself. After all,
as per the plaintiff’s version, he had signed the document
on the belief that it was a collaboration agreement for total
consideration of Rs. 15 Crores. This was a huge amount
and, ordinarily, no person would execute a document in
relation to his immovable property for such a large
consideration and still not keep a copy of the document
with himself. Even assuming that the plaintiff did not
understand the document when it was executed and
registered, there is no reason why the plaintiff would not
retain a copy of the document, especially when it is
admitted by the plaintiff that he had received sum of Rs.
1.5 Crores and it is also the case of the plaintiff that he was
forfeiting the sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores. This amount of Rs.
1.5 Crores is a substantial amount and in case the plaintiff
was going to forfeit such a huge amount, the plaintiff
would have kept a copy with himself which he would have
got read and translated by somebody and in such case he
would have found immediately that the document was not
a collaboration agreement but a release deed. Furthermore,
even if the plaintiff did not keep a copy for himself, there
is no explanation as to why the plaintiff did not
immediately apply for a certified copy from the registrar’s
office, especially when the plaintiff was going to forfeit a
huge sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores under the document. It is
unbelievable that the plaintiff would be forfeiting a huge
amount of Rs. 1.5 Crore under a document being a
collaboration agreement and still the plaintiff would not
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 51 of 60
have a copy of the document with himself. Hence, the
plaintiff’s version is inconsistent with the ordinary human
behaviour and conduct and appears to be nothing but a
fabricated story.
34. The plaintiff has put forward a story that he is an illiterate
farmer and villager who had been defrauded by having
been made to sign a document without being explained as
to the contents of the document. The plaintiff’s case is
devoid of any material particulars of the alleged fraud and
the circumstances of the case are such which do not
support the plaintiff’s version. Merely by claiming to be an
illiterate farmer and villager, a party cannot seek
cancellation of a registered document of transfer of
immovable property, otherwise there would be no end to
false litigation. Merely because a person is a villager or
has not completed matriculation in education does not ipso
facto mean that he would not understand the working of
the world and monetary transactions relating to immovable
property. It is the plaintiff’s own case that he was
negotiating with the defendant for the transaction in
relation to his immovable property for valuable
consideration. It is implausible that such a person as the
plaintiff dealing with his immovable property for valuable
consideration would blindly sign on documents in relation
to his immovable property and even get the same
registered also without understanding the contents thereof.
In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to the
decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Jai
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 52 of 60
Bhagwan V. Rajesh LQ/DelHC/2008/1209; 2008 Indlaw
Del 419, which was a suit for cancellation of registered
sale deeds. In the said case also, the plaintiff had claimed
that he was an illiterate villager and had signed the sale
deeds without the contents of the same being explained to
him. In these facts, the Hon’ble High Court held as under:
“8) It is settled law that when in respect of a
transaction, written document is executed, any kind
of oral evidence, contrary to the documents, is not
admissible. The allegations of fraud if made by a
party, must specify giving role of each person and
all those involved in the fraud must be made a party.
Bare allegation that plaintiff had not received the
full consideration or that the plaintiff signed the
documents without rending the contents thereof is,
not a ground for cancellation of the sale deed. If the
plaintiff choses not to read the documents, he does
so at its own peril. To say that the plaintiff is a poor
villager is also absolutely wrong. A person who is
selling his land for lacs of rupees and is receiving
lacs of rupees in cash, cannot be a poor villager.
Nowadays, in Delhi, villagers are not simpletons or
fools enough to not take help of educated persons in
understanding the documents being executed by
them. In this case, the plaintiff had given his driving
licence number to the Sub registrar at the time of
registration of the sale deed and put his thump
impression and signatures on the documents in
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 53 of 60
presence of the Sub Registrar and got himself
photographed on computer maintained at the Sub
Registrar’s office for each sale deed. It cannot be
believed that plaintiff would have executed two sale
deeds Instead of one ignorantly or without receiving
full consideration, only on an oral assurance that he
would receive major part of consideration later on.
All this is a cock and bull story and seems to have
been invented to file the suit.”
(Emphasis supplied by me)
35. The aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble High Court in
Jai Bhagwan (supra) would squarely apply in the facts of
the present case also.
36. Furthermore, it is the case of the plaintiff that the total
consideration which the plaintiff was to receive under the
alleged collaboration agreement was Rs. 15 Crores. This
amount is not a small amount and is rather substantial. It is
again not believable that the plaintiff would have gone
ahead to sign such a collaboration agreement for a
consideration of Rs. 15 Crores without even understanding
the document that he was signing. This was a matter of
some seriousness and it is unlikely that if it were actually
the case that a collaboration agreement was agreed to be
executed, then the plaintiff would have blindly signed the
document without understanding the contents thereof. It is
also pertinent that the document which was signed by the
plaintiff i.e. the release date Ex.PW-1/2 does not mention
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 54 of 60
anywhere the value of Rs. 15 Crores, either in numbers or
in alphabets. If the parties were actually getting into a deal
of the collaboration agreement for total consideration of
Rs. 15 Crores, the plaintiff would have at least questioned
as to why this value of Rs. 15 Crores was not mentioned
on the document.
37. Furthermore, apart from his own testimony, the plaintiff
has not examined any other witness to corroborate the
allegation of negotiation for a collaboration agreement to
develop farm houses. As already mentioned, it is the own
case of the plaintiff that the lands were not partitioned and
that his relatives/uncles were co-owners. In case there had
actually been any negotiations about a collaboration
agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the
plaintiff would have at least shared the nature of the
negotiations with his other relatives who were the co-
sharers. However, the plaintiff has not given the evidence
of any other witness who could corroborate the plaintiff’s
allegation of there being negotiations for a collaboration
agreement. This also makes it highly unlikely that there
was any negotiation for any alleged collaboration
agreement.
38. Further, plaintiff has also been unable to show that the
consideration of Rs. 1.5 Crores in respect of the suit
property total admeasuring 3 Bighas, 6 Biswa and 18
Biswansi in 2007 was so unconscionable that such a
transaction could not have happened. Although the
plaintiff has deposed during his cross-examination that the
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 55 of 60
value of the suit property admeasuring approx. 3 Bighas 6
Biswa was Rs. 15 Crores approx. in 2007, however, there
is no corroborating evidence in this regard which has been
led by the plaintiff.
39. Both the defendant’s witnesses have denied the suggestion
that there was any transaction of any collaboration
agreement for total sale consideration of Rs. 15 Crores as
alleged by the plaintiff. Both witnesses have deposed that
the transaction was only for transfer of the suit property
for consideration of Rs. 1.5 Crores. Both defendant’s
witnesses have also deposed that the plaintiff had
voluntarily executed the release deed Ex.PW-1/2 for
consideration of Rs. 1.5 Crores and that the plaintiff was
aware as to the nature of the document that he was
executing. On a conspectus of the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the
testimony of the defendant’s witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 is
more believable than the testimony of the defendant. In all
likelihood, the plaintiff was well aware of the nature of the
document that he had signed, executed and got registered.
40. In the face of the aforesaid circumstances which make the
plaintiff’s version to be highly improbable, the mere fact
that the plaintiff did not apply for mutation immediately
after execution and registration of the release date but did
so only after delay or the fact that the records of the Halqa
Patwari show that the plaintiff was in cultivation would
not tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff, and, on a
balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has been unable to
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 56 of 60
show that the registered lease deed was got signed and
executed from him by way of fraud is alleged.
41. The case-laws relied upon by the plaintiff with respect to
cancellation and/or declaration of a document as null and
void on account of fraud are clearly distinguishable and
not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the
present case the plaintiff has been unable to show that the
release deed was got executed by fraud or that the plaintiff
did not understand the nature of the document that he was
signing and executing.
42. In the result, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief
of cancellation of the of the registered release deed dated
19.01.2007 as prayed in prayer clause (a) of the plaint. The
Issue No.4 is answered accordingly against the plaintiff
and in favour of the defendant.
43. As a corollary, the plaintiff would also not be entitled to
any relief of permanent injunction as prayed in prayer
clause (b) of the plaint. The Issue No.5 is answered
accordingly against the plaintiff and in favour of the
defendant.
Issue No.2- Whether the suit is barred by Article 56 of
schedule 1 of the Limitation Act? OPD
44. The argument of the plaintiff that the suit was within
limitation is premised on the plaintiff’s claim that he was
unaware as to the nature of the document that he was
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 57 of 60
signing and that the release deed was got signed from him
through fraud which he only subsequently discovered only
after receiving the notice of mutation from the Tehsildar’s
office on 02.08.2013. However, in view of my finding that
the plaintiff was always aware of the nature of the
document which he was signing and executing, the period
of limitation would run from the date of execution of the
document itself, and, as such, the suit would clearly be
barred by limitation.
45. The Issue No.2 on limitation is hence answered against the
plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.1- Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and
non-joinder of parties? OPD
46. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for cancellation of
the release deed which was executed between the plaintiff
and the defendant only. Hence, it was only the defendant
which was a necessary party to the suit. The suit cannot be
said to be bad for non-joinder of a necessary party.
47. The Issue No.2 is hence answered in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant.
Issue No.3- Whether the release deed sought to be declared
as null and void is invalid under Section 33 of Delhi Land
Reforms Act and is not enforceable? OPP
48. In so far as the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Ram Niwas v. Krishan Kumar (supra) and M.S.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 58 of 60
Yadav v. Jagmal (supra) which have been cited by the ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff are concerned, both these
decisions were in respect of suits for specific performance
of agreements to sell which were filed by the purchasers
against the sellers. In these facts, the Hon’ble High Court
dismissed the suits of the purchasers on the preliminary
issue that the specific performance of the agreements
could not be directed since the agreements were
unenforceable and void being in violation of Section 33 of
the Delhi Land Reforms Act. In the present case, it is the
seller who has filed the suit for cancellation of the
registered release deed and the suit has been found to be
barred by limitation and as such liable to be dismissed.
Hence, the decisions in Ram Niwas v. Krishan Kumar
(supra) and M.S. Yadav v. Jagmal (supra) are
distinguishable and would not assist the case of the
plaintiff in the present suit for cancellation of the
registered release deed which is barred by limitation.
49. Since the present suit is barred by limitation, the plaintiff
would not be entitled to the relief of cancellation of the
registered release deed dated 19.01.2007 on any grounds
including on the ground of violation of Section 33 of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act.
50. The Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
51. It is clarified that the question as to whether the plaintiff
herein could, in an action brought by the defendant herein,
take the objection or defence of the registered release deed
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 59 of 60
dated 19.01.2007 being a nullity and non-est due to alleged
violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,
1954 does not really arise in the present suit, and the same
is left open.
DECISION
52. In the result, the suit is dismissed.
53. Costs are awarded to the defendant against the plaintiff.
Pleader’s fee is computed as Rs. 45,000/-.
54. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
55. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Satyabrata
Satyabrata Panda
Panda Date:
2024.12.23
17:58:00
+0530
(SATYABRATA PANDA)
District Judge-04
Judge Code- DL01057
PHC/New Delhi/23.12.2024
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 60 of 60