Delhi District Court
Har Govind Bajaj vs Rekha on 8 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIV KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE
(WEST)-02, DELHI.
Civ DJ No. 610490/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-001413-2014
DLWT010014132014
Shri Har Gobind Bajaj (Deceased)
through LRs
A. Shri Mahender Bajaj S/o late Shri Har Gobind Bajaj
R/o H. No. R-901, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27
B. Shri Anil Kumar Bajaj ( Pre-deceased son)
through L.Rs
(i) Ms Indu D/o late Shri Anil Bajaj
W/o Shri Amit Grover
R/o R-900, Ground floor,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27
(ii) Ms Puja Bajaj D/o late Shri Anil Bajaj
(iii) Ms Mansi D/o late Shri Anil Bajaj
Both R/o R-900, First floor,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27
C. Smt. Renu D/o late Shri Har Gobind Bajaj
W/o Trilochan Singh
R/o House No. 38, Jain Nagar,
Dheeraj Vihar, Karala, Delhi
Presently at: R-900, G. F.
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27
...........Plaintiffs
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 1/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
Versus
Smt. Rekha
W/o late Shri Anil Bajaj
R/o R-900, 1st floor, Raghubir Nagar,
New Delhi-110027
...Defendant
SUIT FOR MANDATORY, PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND RECOVERY OF USE AND OCCUPATION CHARGES
Date of institution of the case : 18.10.2014
Date on which reserved for judgment : 14.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 08.08.2025
Counter-claim No. 610471/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-001934-2015
DLWT010019342015
Smt. Rekha
W/o late Shri Anil Bajaj
R/o R-900, 1st floor, Raghubir Nagar,
New Delhi-110027
.....Counter claimant
Shri Har Gobind Bajaj (Deceased)
through LRs
A. Shri Mahender Bajaj S/o late Shri Har Gobind Bajaj
R/o H. No. R-901, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27
B. Shri Anil Kumar Bajaj ( Pre-deceased son)
through L.Rs
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 2/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
(i) Ms Indu D/o late Shri Anil Bajaj
W/o Shri Amit Grover
R/o R-900, Ground floor,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27
(ii) Ms Puja Bajaj D/o late Shri Anil Bajaj
(iii) Ms Mansi D/o late Shri Anil Bajaj
Both R/o R-900, First floor,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27
C. Smt. Renu D/o late Shri Har Gobind Bajaj
W/o Trilochan Singh
R/o House No. 38, Jain Nagar,
Dheeraj Vihar, Karala, Delhi
Presently at: R-900, G. F.
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-27
........ Non-counter claimants.
COUNTER CLAIM SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF
RENT AND PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of institution of the counter claim : 15.01.2015
Date on which reserved for judgment : 14.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 08.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this common judgment, I shall dispose off two
cases namely (1) suit bearing Civ DJ No. 610490/2016, titled Har
Govind Bajaj through L.Rs Vs Smt. Rekha (2) Counter claim
bearing Civil DJ No. CS 610471/16 ( new number), titled Smt.
Rekha Bajaj Vs Sh. Har Govind Bajaj through L.Rs.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 3/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
2. Vide order dated 30.05.2017, passed in both cases,
common issues have been framed in both cases and both cases
have been directed to be tried together.
3. As the both cases have been consolidated for the purpose
of trial, the evidence has been led by both parties, only in civil suit
bearing No. 610490/2016 and the said evidence shall also be read
as evidence in the connected counter-claim.
PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES IN SUIT BEARING NO.
CIV DJ NO. 610490/16.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER THEIR PLAINT
4. It is pertinent to mention that the suit was filed by Sh. Har
Govind Bajaj ( now deceased) but during trial of present suit, Sh.
Har Govind Bajaj was expired. His legal heirs were impleaded as
legal representative of deceased plaintiff vide order dated
07.12.2015. Sh. Har Govind Bajaj will be referred as erstwhile
plaintiff herein.
5. It is averred in the plaint that Shri Prem Kumar Bajaj S/o
late Shri Ghan Shyam Dass Bajaj ( elder brother of the erstwhile
plaintiff), R/o H44A, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, had been
allotted a plot bearing no. R-900, measuring about 25 sq. yds.
situated at Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi by the DDA, in the year
1975. It is further averred that the plaintiff was allotted adjacent
plot no. R-901, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. Thus, Shri Prem
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 4/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
Kumar Bajaj and plaintiff were the owners of their above said
plots .
6. It is further averred in the plaint that the erstwhile plaintiff
and his elder brother, Shri Prem Kumar Bajaj were residing jointly
at Chanakayapuri, New Delhi in the year 1975. It is further
averred that Shri Prem Kumar Bajaj was having alternative
residential accommodation for his residence at Kalkaji, New Delhi
while the erstwhile plaintiff was residing with him in the same
accommodation at Chanakayapuri, New Delhi. It is further
averred that Sh. Prem Kumar Bajaj being the elder brother of the
erstwhile plaintiff, having great love and affection for erstwhile
plaintiff and his family, decided to support him. Therefore, Shri
Prem Kumar Bajaj decided to give, devise and bequeath his plot
bearing No. R-900, Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi to the erstwhile
plaintiff by delivering and handing over the actual physical
possession of the plot to the erstwhile plaintiff in the year 1975
itself.
7. It is further averred in the plaint that in order to avoid any
future objection or claim from any quarter, Shri Prem Kumar Bajaj
had executed a Will, General Power of Attorney and a Special
Power of Attorney in the year 2002, in favour of the erstwhile
plaintiff, declaring him to be sole, exclusive and absolute owner in
possession of the plot No. R-900, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi. It
is further averred that the plaintiff has become the sole and
exclusive owner in possession of the plots bearing No. R-900 and
R-901, Raghubvir Nagar, New Delhi. It is further averred that the
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 5/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
erstwhile plaintiff has raised constructions over the said plots to
make it completely habitable, according to requirement of his
family consisting of ground floor and first floor and had been
living there for the last many years.
8. It is further averred in the plaint that the son of erstwhile
plaintiff namely Sh. Anil Kumar Bajaj ( since deceased) got
married to defendant Smt. Rekha in the year 1987 and thereafter
Sh. Anil Kumar Bajaj was permitted to live on the first floor of the
plot no. R-900, Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred
as ‘suit property’) being licensee of the plaintiff. It is further
averred that defendant is a quarrelsome lady and has always
caused mental tension, humiliation and harassment to her husband
and her in laws, i.e. erstwhile plaintiff and his wife. It is further
averred that the defendant has even ignored and neglected her one
daughter who has been in the custody and care of the plaintiff and
his wife since childhood. It is further averred that the plaintiff and
his wife has nurtured and brought her up. It is further averred that
due to abovesaid attitude of the defendant, the son of the plaintiff
remained mentally disturbed and sick and unfortunately he expired
on 27.09.2008, leaving behind his wife i.e. defendant and her three
daughters. After the death of her husband, the defendant has been
occupying/residing on the first floor of the property alongwith her
two daughters with the permission of the plaintiff as licensee.
9. It is further averred in the plaint that soon after the death
of Sh. Anil Kumar Bajaj, the defendant started harassing and
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 6/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
humiliating the erstwhile plaintiff and his wife, in the society and
neighbourhood. It is further averred that defendant has even links
with anti social elements of the society, who are visiting the
premises of the plaintiff at odd hours, in the late night and creating
nuisance at the residence of the plaintiff and even irritating the
neighbours also. It is further averred that erstwhile plaintiff and
his wife tried to make understand the defendant about their status
in the society and requested not to keep relationship with anti-
social elements but yield no result. The complaints of the
neighbours of the plaintiff against the defendant have made the
defendant infuriated and she has became more abusive, insulting,
aggressive and more quarrelsome.
10. It is further averred in the plaint that taking advantage of
the prolonged illness of the erstwhile plaintiff, defendant cleverly
got signed certain blank papers from the erstwhile plaintiff, on the
pretext of filing the same for completing formalities with the local
authorities, in respect of death of her husband. Later on erstwhile
plaintiff came to know that the defendant has misused the said
papers by manipulating, fabricating and preparing General Power
of Attorney allegedly executed on 8 th December, 2011 alongwith
other documents namely Agreement to Sell, Possession letter,
affidavit and receipt etc. It is further averred that smelling
wrongful act of the defendant, the erstwhile plaintiff made a
complaint against the defendant to the local police in the month of
May, 2014, in respect of the abovesaid forgery committed by the
defendant, in manipulating, preparing, fabricating and forging the
alleged documents but the police has not taken any action against
the defendant till date.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 7/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
11. It is further averred in the plaint that thereafter erstwhile
plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 22.05.2014 to the defendant,
thereby terminating/revoking the license of the defendant to live
on the first floor of the property no. R-900, Raghuvir Nagar, New
Delhi with immediate effect and requested the defendant to vacate
and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
premises within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice. Plaintiff
had further informed to the defendant that the alleged documents
allegedly executed on 8th August, 2011, stands revoked and
cancelled with immediate effect.
12. It is further averred in the plaint that defendant has sent a
reply dated 26.05.2014, of the legal notice dated 22.05.2014,
raising various false and frivolous pleas and has failed to comply
with the requisitions of the legal notice dated 22.05.20214 and has
failed to vacate and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession
of the demised premises to the plaintiff till date.
13. It is prayed by the plaintiff that a decree of mandatory
injunction against the defendant may be passed thereby directing
defendant to remove her belonging and articles from the portion in
her occupation on the first floor of the property No. R-900,
Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi, as shown in the site plan attached
with the plaint and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of
the same to plaintiff. Plaintiff further prayed for decree of
Permanent injunction against the defendant, thereby restraining
the defendant, her representatives, agents, assignee and associates
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 8/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
from entering into the property of the plaintiff bearing No. R-900,
Ground floor, as well as on the first floor, Raghuvir Nagar, New
Delhi and a decree for Rs. 15,000/- towards use and occupation
charges for the period from July 2014 to September, 2014 @ Rs.
5,000/- per month alongwith cost of the suit may be passed against
the defendant.
CASE OF DEFENDANT AS PER HER WRITTEN
STATEMENT.
14. It is contended by the defendant that the present suit is
liable to be rejected as it is based on false and fabricated facts and
has been filed only to harass the defendant. It is further contended
by the defendant that there is no cause of action, ever accrued in
favour of the plaintiff and as such the suit is liable to be rejected
under order 7 rule 11 CPC. It is further contended that the suit has
not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction and no proper court fee has been paid by the plaintiff.
It is further averred that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit against defendant as the defendant has purchased the
suit property from the erstwhile plaintiff for consideration amount
of Rs. 8,80,000/- on 08.11.2012, through agreement to sell and
General power of attorney. It is further contended that the
erstwhile plaintiff had also executed a registered Will of even date,
hence the erstwhile plaintiff is now playing fraud upon the court.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 9/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
15. It is further contended by the defendant that the part of the
suit property belongs to defendant and plaintiff is in unauthorized
possession of the suit property. It is further averred that the
plaintiff has intentionally concealed the said facts from the court
under the ill motives and in furtherance to preliminary planned
conspiracy with common goal to usurp the hard earned money and
property of the defendant. It is further averred that the claim of the
plaintiff is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and is
time barred. It is further contended that the plaintiff has concealed
and suppressed the material facts and guilty of Supressio Veri and
Suggestion.
16. On merit, most of the contents of the plaint are denied by
the defendant. It is further contended by the defendant that
husband of the defendant invested huge amount in the construction
of the suit property, time to time as and when needed. It is further
contended that since 1987, the defendant is in continuous
possession of the suit property alongwith the plaintiff till date,
despite the fact that defendant has purchased the suit property from
the plaintiff in the year 2011. It is further contended that the
defendant allowed the plaintiff to stay with her due to the old age
of the plaintiff. It is further denied that defendant has been living
in the suit property, on permission bases. It is further denied that
defendant had forged the title documents to take any undue gain.
Defendant has contended that she is the owner of the suit property.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 10/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
17. Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of the
defendant and has denied all the objections taken by the defendant
in her written statement and reiterated the averments made in the
plaint.
PLEADINGS OF CASE OF COUNTER CLAIM BEARING
NO. CIVIL DJ NO. CS610471/16.
CASE OF COUNTER CLAIMANT AS PER HER COUNTER
CLAIMANT
18. It is averred in the counter claim that the contents of
written statement filed on behalf of the counter-claimant, in the
above mentioned civil suit be treated as part and parcel of her
counter claim. It is further averred that the counter-claimant is the
daughter-in-law of the non-counter claimant and widow of non-
counter claimant’s son late Sh. Anil Kumar Bajaj. It is further
averred that the property bearing No. R-900, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi-110027 ( hereinafter called the ‘suit property’) was allotted
to Sh. Prem Kumar Bajaj, who sold suit property to the non-
counter claimant, in the year 2002 vide different set of documents
including Will, GPA & SPA.
19. It is further averred in the counter-claim that non-counter-
claimant being victim of the atrocities of his wife and his other son
turned to the counter claimant for his survival, food and shelter in
the year 2010-2011. It is further averred that counter-claimant
despite being the victim of the atrocities and cruelties of the non-
counter claimant, his wife and his other son, still supported the
non-counter claimant.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 11/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
20. It is further averred that the non-counter-claimant after
some time, out of his free will and without any force and coercion,
sold the suit property to the counter claimant against a mutually
agreed sum of Rs. 8,80,000/- in the year 2011 and executed all the
documents dated 8.12.2011 regarding the sale of suit property in
favour of counter-claimant after receiving full sale consideration
in cash from the counter-claimant on different occasions.
21. It is further averred that the counter-claimant and non-
counter claimant had a mutual understanding that the non-counter
claimant can stay at the suit property, on permission basis, and it
was further agreed that the non-counter claimant can collect the
rent from the tenants at the suit property, on behalf of counter-
claimant. It is further averred that the non-counter claimant in
furtherance of his malafide intentions to usurp the suit property of
counter-claimant had filed a false and frivolous civil suit i.e. CS
( 491/2014) on false and frivolous grounds.
22. It is further averred that the counter-claimant had come to
know about the ill intention of the non-counter claimant, when she
was served with the summons for settlement of issues under order
5 rule 1 and 5 of CPC issued by court in CS No. 491/2014. It is
further averred that when the counter-claimant asked the non-
counter claimant to withdraw the above said suit, the non-counter
claimant categorically denied the request of the counter claimant
and tried to encroach the first floor of the suit property by fixing
iron grills in the open varanda of the first floor which is in
exclusive possession of the counter claimant. In this regard the
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 12/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
counter claimant approached the local police on 06.01.2015 and
filed complaint against the non-counter claimant.
CASE OF NON-COUNTER CLAIMANTS AS PER THEIR
WRITTEN STATEMENT
23. The erstwhile non-counter claimant has filed written
statement of the counter claim and has taken the preliminary
objections that the counter-claim of the counter claimant is totally
false, frivolous, manipulated and fabricated hence, liable to be
dismissed.
24. It is further contended that the counter-claim of the counter
claimant is liable to be dismissed in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of “Suraj Lamp Vs State of
Haryana” wherein it is held that transfer of property through
proper sale deed is to be considered for completing the transaction
of sale. Any other mode of transfer of property is defective and is
not considered as sale. Therefore, the counter claim of the counter
claimant is liable to be dismissed in view of the above said
judgment.
25. It is further contended that the counter claim is not
properly valued and no court fees on the relief claimed is paid by
the counter claimant hence the counter-claim is liable to be
rejected/dismissed with cost. It is further contended that counter-
claim is a counter blast to the suit filed by the non-counter claimant
against the counter claimant or that there is no cause of action in
favour of the counter-claimant to file the same.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 13/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
26. On merit all the contents of the counter-claim has been
denied as wrong. It is submitted that counter-claimant has been
permitted to reside on the first floor of the suit property after her
marriage with the son of the non counter claimant since 1987 as a
licensee of the non-counter claimant and she has even continued to
live and occupy the same after the death of her husband. It is
further averred that the counter-claimant is guilty of neglecting her
husband and daughter and has failed to perform her matrimonial
obligation and duty towards her children.
COMMON ISSUES IN BOTH CASES
27. On 30.05.2017, after considering the pleadings of the
parties, following common issues have been framed, in the main
civil suit as well as in counter claim cases.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree
of mandatory injunction against the defendant
thereby directing defendant to remove her
belonging and articles from the portion in her
occupation on the first floor of the property No.
R-900, Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
Permanent injunction against the defendant, her
representatives, agents, assignee and associates
restraining them entering the property of the
plaintiff bearing No. R-900, ground floor, as well
as on the first floor, Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi?
OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages
of Rs. 15,000/- towards use and occupation
charges for the period July 2014 to September,
2014 @ Rs. 5,000/- per month alongwith cost of
the suit.? OPP
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 14/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
4. Whether there is no cause of action in
favour of plaintiff to file the present suit and suit
is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC?
OPD
5. Whether the suit has not been properly
valued for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi
to file the present suit against the answering
defendant? OPD
7. Whether plaintiffs are in unauthorized
possession of the suit property? OPD
8. Whether plaintiffs concealed and
suppressed the material facts and guilty of
Supressio Veri and Suggestio false? OPD
9. Whether defendant is entitled for decree of
possession of suit property i.e. H. No. R-900,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi-110027 as per her counter
claim? OPD
10. Whether defendant is entitled for a decree
of permanent injunction in her favour and against
the plaintiff not to create any third party interest
in the suit property i.e. no. R-900, Ragbubir
Nagar, Delhi as per her counter claim? OPD
11. Whether the defendant is entitled for a
decree of recovery against the plaintiff directing
the plaintiff to pay the rent and arrears of rent
collected by him from the tenants from the suit
property i.e. H. No. R-900, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi-110027 as per her counter claim? OPD
12. Whether the defendant is entitled for
damages and mesne profits for unauthorised use
and occupation of the suit premises @ 500/- per
day from plaintiff from 27.11.2014 till the actual
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 15/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
vacant physical possession of the suit property as
per her counter claim? OPD
13. Whether the counter claim of the
defendant is not maintainable? OPP
14. Relief
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFFS/NON-COUNTER CLAIMANT
28. The plaintiffs in order to prove his case examined four
witnesses.
29. Smt. Promila ( now deceased) wife of erstwhile plaintiff
appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and she tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and she reiterated the
averments mentioned in the plaint and relying upon the following
documents:
i) Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR): Copy of receipt no. 214045 dated
26.05.1977 issued by DDA to Shri Prem Kumar.
ii) Ex. PW-1/2: (OSR): Copy of GPA dated 24.04.2002
executed by Shri Prem Kumar in favour of her deceased
husband.
iii) Mark A : Copy of receipt no. 321851 dated 16.01.2003 for
Rs.2,725/- in respect of property no. R-900, Raghubir
Nagar, New Delhi
iv) Mark B : Copy of police complaint dated 24.05.2014 by
deceased plaintiff.
v) Ex. PW-1/5 : Postal receipt bearing no. 246520317 IN
dated 24.05.2014.
vi) Ex. PW-1/6 : Delivery report dated 06.06.2014.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 16/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
vii) Ex. PW-1/7 : Legal notice dated 22.05.2014.
viii) Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly) : The postal and courier receipts both
dated 22.05.2014
ix) Ex. PW-1/9 : Reply to notice dated 26.05.2014 sent on
behalf of defendant
x) Ex. PW-1/10 : Police complaint dated 08.08.2014 filed by
her with DCP, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
xi) Ex. PW-1/11: Site plan.
30. In the cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that the
construction of the suit plot and adjacent plot bearing No.R-900
and R-901 situated in Raghubir Nagar, were carried out in 1976.
PW-1 further deposed that in the year 1976 the construction of
ground floor was competed and one room at the first floor was
constructed and thereafter in the year 1980, one room on the first
floor adjacent to the existing room and latrin were constructed and
ground room was converted into a big one room from the existing
two room. The above said construction was carried out in property
bearing no. R-900.
31. In response to a specific question, PW-1 deposed that there
are three rooms on the first floor, out of which two are in the
possession of the defendant and one is her possession. Thereafter
PW-1 was confronted with the site plan Ex. PW-1/11 and she
admitted that in the site plan Ex. PW-1/11, third room is not shown
at the first floor. PW-1 further deposed that it is the mistake of the
draftsman who prepared the site plan. In further cross-
examination, PW-1 deposed that she does not know when the
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 17/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Possession Slip
and Will dated 8th of December, 2011 were executed.
32. Shri Anoop Singh, ASI, Complaint Branch, DCP office,
appeared as PW-2 and deposed that he has brought the order dated
26.02.2018, issued by the Additional DCP, West, whereby the
record pertaining to complaint cases upto 31.12.2014 has been
destroyed as per provisions contained in PPR-11.31 and exhibited
the letter as Ex. PW-2/1 (OSR). PW-2 has not been cross-
examined on behalf of defendant.
33. Sh. Ved Prakash, official from the office of DUSIB
appeared as PW-3 and he has brought the summoned record in
respect of the property bearing no. CPR-900, Block R, Raghubir
Nagar, Delhi and exhibited the same as Ex. PW-3/1 ( Colly)
( running into six pages). PW-3 has not been cross-examined on
behalf of defendant.
34. Ms Indu, daughter of defendant appeared as PW-4 and
tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-4/A
35. In her affidavit in evidence, PW-4 deposed that she has
been brought up by her grandparents since her childhood as her
mother, Smt. Rekha has neglected her. PW-4 further deposed that
since the day she has gained consciousness, she has been looked
after and nourished by her old age grandparents. She further
deposed that her mother is a quarrelsome lady and has not been
keeping good and cordial atmosphere at home, though she has
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 18/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
been allowed to reside with her other sisters on the first floor of the
property which is owned by his grandfather.
36. PW-4 further deposed that her father expired due to ill
treatment during his lifetime by her mother, Smt. Rekha. She
further deposed that her father could not bear the daily torture, in
the hands of her mother as her father was physically handicapped
and was dependent upon his grandparents and her mother.
37. PW-4 further further deposed that her grandfather expired
only due to mental pressure and torture, in the hands of her mother.
She further deposed that her mother had been pressurizing her
grandfather for transferring his property in her name to which her
grandfather was not agreed and her mother has adopted all tactics
to get the property transferred in her name from her grandfather.
38. PW-4 further deposed that her grandparents have made
several complaints against her mother for having relationship with
bad characters who used to visit their premises late in the night or
in the odd hours and disturbed the whole family. She further
deposed that her other sisters have also fallen in the same business
as her mother doing. Even one of her younger sisters was missing
for a long time and her grandparents have told her mother many
times to lodge a missing complaint of her sister but her mother did
not allow them to do so. Later on they came to know that she was
eloped and got married to someone and her whereabouts are not
known to them. PW-4 further deposed that due to all these
circumstances, her grandfather was compelled to file a suit against
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 19/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
her mother to vacate and handover the possession of the entire first
floor of the property of her grandfather.
39. In the cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that she did not
like her mother Rekha Bajaj and she don’t have any cordial
relations with her mother since there was no such relationship
between them. She further deposed that she cannot tell the exact
number of complaints filed by their neighbours against her mother
but there were several complaints. PW-4 further deposed that she
has not read the complaints, but she has heard from her grand
parents about the complaints filed by the neighbours. PW-4
denied the suggestion that her grandparents used to discuss with
her about their differences or quarrels between her father and her
mother. PW-4 further deposed that she got married in the year
2009. She further deposed that there was some matrimonial issues
between her and her husband for which a trial was also going on in
the court, however, the same has been compromised now and she
is living in her matrimonial home only at Bhivani. PW-4 further
deposed that she lived with her grandparents from 2016 to 2022
due to on going quarrels with her husband, however, she joined her
matrimonial home in the year 2022. PW-4 denied the suggestion
that she is deposing falsely at the instance of her grandparents
since she does not like her mother. PW-4 admitted the suggestion
that her two sisters have been brought up by her mother.
40. Vide separate statement of ld. Counsel for the plaintiff,
evidence on behalf of plaintiffs stands closed on 26th May, 2023.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 20/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT/COUNTER
CLAIMANT
41. Smt. Rekha Bajaj has appeared in the witness box as
DW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/1
and she reiterated the contents of her written statement. DW-1
relied upon the following documents:
i). Ex.DW1/2(OSR): Copy of GPA dated 08.12.2011.
ii). Ex.DW1/3 (OSR) : Copy of agreement to sell dated
08.12.2011.
iii). Ex.DW1/4(OSR): Copy of affidavit dated 08.12.2011.
iv). Ex.DW1/5 (OSR): Copy of possession slip dated
08.12.2011.
v). Ex.DW1/6 (OSR): Copy of receipt dated 08.12.2011.
vi). Ex.DW1/7 (OSR): Copy of registered Will dated
07.12.2011.
vii). Ex.DW1/8: Police complaint dated 06.01.2015.
(Original police complaint is attached in the connected
counter claim).
viii). Mark A (colly) (running into two pages): Copy of RTI
application and reply dated 08.12.2011 (Ex DW-1/9 is
de-exhibited being photocopy now Mark A).
ix). Ex.PW1/10: Site plan. (Original site plan is attached in
the connected counter claim).
x). Ex.PW1/11 (OSR): Copy of receipt no. 321851 dated
16.01.2023.
xi). Mark B: Copy of electricity Bill dated 06.08.2014 .
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 21/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
42. In the cross-examination, DW-1 deposed that she is 11th
standard pass and for the last 3-4 years, she has not been working
and prior to that she had worked upto October, 2020 in a Private
company at Rani Bagh. DW-1 further deposed that her last drawn
salary was Rs. 20,000/- per month approximately. She has three
daughters and all are married and well settled in her married life.
DW-1 further deposed that her husband has expired on
27.09.2008. DW-1 has admitted that plaintiff had allowed her and
her husband to reside on the first floor of the suit property
immediately after her marriage in the year 1987. DW-1 further
deposed that on the ground floor of the suit property plaintiff and
his wife used to reside. DW-1 admitted that she is in possession of
the entire first floor of the suit property and plaintiff alongwith his
wife were in possession of the entire ground floor of the suit
property. She further deposed that the entire second floor was in
possession of different tenants. Plaintiff used to collect rent from
the tenants of the second floor till the date of execution of sale
deed in her favour in respect of suit property.
43. In further cross-examination, DW-1 deposed that the sale
consideration of Rs. 8,80,000/- for the suit property was paid by
her in cash in different installments. DW-1 further admitted that
she has not mentioned the above said fact of payment of sale
consideration in different installment in her affidavit in evidence
Ex. DW-1/A as well as in her counter-claim. DW-1 further
deposed that she had paid the entire sale consideration in four
installments. She further deposed that she has not taken any receipt
of the amount paid in installments by her to the plaintiff. DW-1
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 22/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
denied the suggestion that she has not paid any sale consideration
amount as stated above to the plaintiff and that is why no receipt
was obtained or executed.
44. During cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that she
alongwith her husband were permitted to reside on the first floor at
the suit property as licensee of the plaintiff till the time plaintiff
started receiving the installment of sale consideration. DW-1
further admitted that she has not mentioned the name of any
relatives, in whose presence, mutual understanding between her
and plaintiff took place regarding sale of suit property as well as
permission given by her to the plaintiff to reside on the ground
floor of the suit property.
45. DW-1 further admitted that her mother-in-law had
transferred her property bearing no. 901, Raghubir Nagar, New
Delhi, in the name of her son Sh. Mahinder Bajaj in the year 2008,
however, she is not sure about the exact year since it was
transferred without her information. DW-1 further deposed that
she came to know about the transfer of the adjacent property by her
mother in law after 3-4 years and even his father in law i.e.
plaintiff was not aware about the said transfer of property in favour
of his son. DW-1 denied the suggestion that ever since she was
insisting the plaintiff to transfer the suit property in her name.
46. DW-1 further admitted in her cross-examination that
plaintiff was not keeping well during the period 2010-2011 and he
was residing with her at that time. However, she voluntarily
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 23/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
deposed that due to transfer of property by her mother in law in
favour of her other son, there was a dispute between plaintiff and
his wife, because of which plaintiff stopped residing with his wife
and started living with her and she was taking care of him. DW-1
denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has not started residing
with her due to above said dispute and he was residing with his
wife on the ground floor of the suit property or that plaintiff never
resided with her on the first floor of the suit property. DW-1
voluntarily deposed that plaintiff used to reside on the ground
floor but all the foods, medicines etc were provided by her to him.
DW-1 admitted that the treatment of the plaintiff was continued at
AIIMS. DW-1 further admitted that she used to do formalities of
hospital on behalf of the plaintiff and sometimes her daughter
named Pooja used to do such formalities at her instance. DW-1
denied the suggestion that she used to take signatures of plaintiff
on blank papers for completing formalities of the hospital.
47. DW-1 denied the suggestion that she used to administer
the medicines to the plaintiff. DW-1, she voluntarily deposed that
she was working at that time and plaintiff was himself taking all
his medicines as prescribed by the doctor. DW-1 denied the
suggestion that plaintiff had filed a police complaint against her
for taking his signatures on blank papers under medication in May,
2014.
48. DW-1 admitted that plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated
22.5.2014 to her, terminating the license of the suit property and
handing over the vacant possession to the plaintiff.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 24/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
49. DW-1 admitted that she has not filed any Probate Petition
in respect of the earlier Will dated 8.12.2011 executed by her
father in law in her favour till date. DW-1 further admitted that Sh.
Prem Kumar Bajaj, elder brother of the plaintiff, had executed
certain documents of transfer in favour of plaintiff in the year
2002. She further admitted that in her counter-claim she has not
mentioned the amount of each installment paid by her to plaintiff
nor any receipt or document of payment of installment has been
placed by her on the judicial record.
50. Smt. Veena Rani, sister of the defendant appeared in the
witness box as DW-2 and tendered her evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. DW-2/A. DW-2 deposed that defendant is the owner
and in possession of property bearing no. R-900, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi-110027, which defendant had purchased from her father in
law for a sum of Rs. 8,80,000/-. DW-2 further deposed that in the
month of November, 2011, at the instance of her sister, she
brought Rs. 3,00,000/- with her as her sister had requested
financial help to purchase the house from her late father-in-law.
DW-2 further deposed that on that day, she paid the cash of Rs. 3
lac as a loan to her sister and in her presence, the same was paid to
late Shri Har Govind Bajaj, as part of the sale consideration. She
further deposed that she was told at that time that now only Rs.
1,80,000/- was left to be paid towards the purchase of the suit
property by her sister.
51. In the cross-examination, DW-2 deposed that defendant is
her elder sister. She had given Rs. 3 lakh to the defendant from
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 25/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
her own funds/savings alongwith from her husband’s income, who
is a government servant. DW-2 deposed that she has not filed any
document of giving the above said amount to defendant since it
was given to her sister, there is no document in this regard was
prepared.
52. DW-2 further deposed that she often visit Delhi as and
when it is required. However she visited to Delhi in the month of
November and December, 2011. In November, 2011, she visited
Delhi for making payment to defendant (sister) as demanded by
her. DW-2 further deposed that she is not aware if her husband had
filed his income tax return for the year 2011, 2012 & 2013. She is
not filing her income tax.
53. DW-2 further deposed that Plaintiff ( Har Govind Bajaj)
was hale and hearty when she visited to him in the year 2011. She
had given Rs. 3 lakh to her sister for purchasing the property from
her father in law since she was short of money.
54. Sh. Amandeep Singh appeared as DW-3 and tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-3/A. In his examination in
chief the DW-3 deposed that defendant is the owner and in
possession of the property bearing no. 900, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi-110027. DW-3 further averred in his affidavit that the said
property was purchased by the defendant from her father-in-law
plaintiff, late Har Govind Bajaj for a sum of Rs. 8,80,000/- in the
month of December 2011. DW-3 further deposed that the
aforesaid sale consideration was paid in installments by the
defendant.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 26/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
55. DW-3 further deposed in his examination in chief that
defendant had taken financial help from her relatives and family
friends including his father late Sh. Kundan Singh. DW-3 further
deposed that he alongwith his father late Sh. Kundan Singh visited
the house of the defendant in 2011. DW-3 further deposed that he
and his father had brought Rs. 3 lakh with them as defendant had
requested for the financial help to purchase the house i.e. the suit
property from her late father-in-law. DW-3 further deposed that
on that day, his father in front of him handed over the cash of Rs. 3
lakh to the defendant and in his and his father’s presence, on the
same day, in his presence was paid to late Har Govind Bajaj by the
defendant as part of the sale consideration.
56. DW-3 further deposed that in December, 2011, plaintiff
out of his free will and coercion executed a GPA, Agreement to
Sale, Possession Slip and Will in favour of defendant with respect
to the suit property as his father, late Sh. Kundan Singh was
witness no. 1 in all the above-mentioned documents and he was
present with his father when his father signed the documents as a
witness.
57. In the cross-examination, DW-3 deposed that he has
come to depose in the court on the asking of Smt. Rekha as well as
her counsel. He deposed that he know the facts of the case. DW-3
further deposed that the defendant had purchased the property
from her father in law in the year 2011. He further deposed that he
alongwith his father was present when the property in question
was purchased by Ms Rekha from late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 27/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
DW-3 further deposed that he does not remember the exact date
but it was in November or December, 2011. He did not sign on
any document but his father late Sardar Kundan Singh signed as a
witness. DW-3 further deposed that he does not know what types
of documents were prepared and signed by his father. At the time
of execution of the documents, he, his father, Ms Rekha, her sister
( Veena) and one-two other persons whom he does not know, were
present. He further deposed that he can identify the signatures of
his father, if shown to him. However, he has not brought any
documents to show the signatures of his father. No document was
executed in respect of Rs. 3 lacs given by his father to Ms Rekha as
it was a family matter.
58. DW-3 further deposed that the amount of Rs. 3 lacs was
given to Ms Rekha at her residence and in their presence, Ms
Rekha given that Rs. 3 lacs to late Sh. Har Govind. DW-3 further
deposed that his father was a car mechanic and he does not
remember whether his father had filed any Income Tax return for
the year 2010 to 2012. DW-3 further deposed that he does not
have any document to show that his father had given Rs. 3 lacs in
cash to Ms Rekha.
59. Sh. Chaman Lal, Record Keeper from the office of Sub-
Registrar, Basai Darapur, appeared in the witness box as DW-4.
DW-4 brought the summoned record of registration of Will dated
7.12.2011 registered on 8.12.2011 vide registration no. 5997, in
book no. 3, Vol. No. 7978, on pages 148 to 149. DW-4 further
deposed that this Will has been executed by Sh. Har Govind Bajaj
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 28/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
and placed on record the certified copy of the above said Will on
record as Ex. PW-4/A (OSR).
60. Vide separate statement of defendant, the evidence on
behalf of defendant stands closed on 17.12.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS IN CIVIL SUIT AS WELL AS IN
COUNTER CLAIM
61. I have heard final arguments in civil suit as well as in
counter claim from both sides & perused both the case files
including pleadings and testimonies of the witnesses examined in
the court.
FINDINGS ON COMMON ISSUES IN BOTH CASES
62. MY ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 4
4. Whether there is no cause of action in
favour of plaintiff to file the present suit and suit
is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC?
OPD
63. Onus to prove issue no. 4 is upon the defendant. No
arguments has been addressed on this issue on behalf of the
defendant. As per case of the plaintiff, the erstwhile plaintiff has
allowed the defendant and her husband to reside in the suit
property as a licensee. In para no. 9 of plaint, the plaintiff has
alleged that he sent a legal notice dated 22.05.2014 to the
defendant thereby terminating/revoking the license of the
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 29/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
defendant with immediate effect and has requested the defendant
to vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
property by removing her article within 15 days of the receipt of
legal notice. The defendant is alleging that in the year 2011, the
suit property was sold to her by the erstwhile plaintiff by executing
GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Possession letter etc. The
erstwhile plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the defendant had
got his signatures on certain blank papers on the pretext of filing
the same for completing the formalities with the local authorities
in respect of death of her husband. From the above said facts, it is
established that the erstwhile plaintiff had cause of action to file
the present suit against the defendant, accordingly, issue no. 4 is
decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
64. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 5
5. Whether the suit has not been properly
valued for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction? OPD
65. Onus to prove issue no. 5 is upon the defendant. No
arguments has been addressed on this issue by ld. counsel for the
defendant. In para no. 13 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that
the value of the suit property is Rs. 10 lakh. As per, defendant, she
has purchased the suit property for Rs. 8,80,000/-. The suit
property falls within the jurisdiction of this court, so it is held that
the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and
jurisdiction. Accordingly, issue no. 5 is decided against the
defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 30/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
66. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 6
6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file
the present suit against the answering defendant?
OPD
67. Onus to prove issue no. 6 is upon the defendant. No
arguments has been addressed on this issue by ld. counsel for the
defendant. It is admitted fact of the parties that the suit property
was initially allotted to Sh. Prem Kumar Bajaj by DDA in the year
1975. As per plaintiff, Sh. Prem Kumar Bajaj gave the possession
of the suit property to erstwhile plaintiff in the year 1975 and
thereafter in the year 2002, Sh. Prem Kumar Bajaj executed GPA
of the suit property in favour of the erstwhile plaintiff. As per
defendant, Sh. Prem Kumar Bajaj had sold the suit property to
erstwhile plaintiff in the year 2002. It is also admitted case of the
parties that defendant and her husband were allowed to reside in
the suit property as licensee by the erstwhile plaintiff/late Sh. Har
Govind Bajaj. In view of the above said facts, it is held that
plaintiff has the right and locus standi to file the present suit
against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit
property as well as for other reliefs. Accordingly, issue no. 6 is
decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
68. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 8
8. Whether plaintiffs concealed and
suppressed the material facts and guilty of
Supressio Veri and Suggestio false? OPD
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 31/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
69. Onus to prove issue no. 8 is upon the defendant. No
arguments has been addressed on this issue by ld. counsel for the
defendant. The defendant has failed to prove that plaintiff has
concealed and suppressed any material facts from the court or that
plaintiff is guilty of Supressio Veri and Suggestio false.
Accordingly, issue no. 8 is decided against the defendant and in
favour of the plaintiff.
70. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 13.
3. Whether the counter-claim of the defendant is not
maintainable? OPP
71. The onus to prove issue no. 13 is upon the plaintiffs. The
counter-claimant has alleged in her counter-claim that in the year
2011, late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj had sold the suit property to her by
executing GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Possession letter and
registered Will. The case of the non-counter claimants is that the
counter claimant had obtained signatures of late Sh. Har Govind
Bajaj on blank papers and thereafter prepared the above said
documents on the blank papers. Counter claimant has deposed that
she had allowed Sh. Har Govind Bajaj to reside on the suit
property on license basis after purchasing the suit property in the
year 2011. No argument has been made by ld. counsel for non
counter-claimants regarding non-maintainability of present
counter-claim. In view of the above said facts, it is held that
counter claim of the defendant is maintainable. Accordingly issue
no. 13 is decided against the non-counter claimants and in favour
of the counter-claimant.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 32/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
72. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 7, 9, 10 & 12
7. Whether plaintiffs are in unauthorized
possession of the suit property? OPD
9. Whether defendant is entitled for decree of
possession of suit property i.e. H. No. R-900,
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi-110027 as per her counter
claim? OPD
10. Whether defendant is entitled for a decree
of permanent injunction in her favour and against
the plaintiff not to create any third party interest
in the suit property i.e. no. R-900, Ragbubir
Nagar, Delhi as per her counter claim? OPD
12. Whether the defendant is entitled for
damages and mesne profits for unauthorised use
and occupation of the suit premises @ 500/- per
day from plaintiff from 27.11.2014 till the actual
vacant physical possession of the suit property as
per her counter claim? OPD
73. The above said issues are taken together being inter
connected and have mutual bearings. Onus to prove above said
issues is upon the defendant.
74. Defendant/DW-1 has deposed that the plaintiff, out of his
free will and without any force and coercion, sold the suit property
to her for a sum of Rs. 8,80,000/- in the year 2011. DW-1 further
deposed that the erstwhile plaintiff has executed documents
regarding the sale of above said property in favour of the defendant
on 08.12.2011 after receiving the full consideration amount in
cash, on different occasions. DW-1 further deposed that she had
arranged the sale consideration amount from her savings and also
took financial help from her friends and relatives including her
sister.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 33/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
75. DW-1 further deposed that the erstwhile plaintiff had also
executed a registered Will in her favour. DW-1 further deposed
that she and erstwhile plaintiff had mutual understanding that the
erstwhile plaintiff will stay on the suit property on the permission
basis as it was agreed that the erstwhile plaintiff will collect the rent
from the tenants of the suit property on behalf of the defendant.
DW-1 further deposed that all the negotiations qua the suit property
were done in the presence of her sister.
76. DW-1 further deposed that her suspicion was confirmed
when erstwhile plaintiff tried to encroached the first floor of the
suit property by fixing the iron grills in the open Varanda of the
first floor which is in exclusive possession of the defendant.
77. DW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that she has not
mentioned the fact of paying sale consideration amount of
Rs.8,80,000/- by way of different installments in her affidavit in
evidence as well as in her counter claim.
78. DW-1 has denied the suggestion that she has got the
signatures of erstwhile plaintiff on blank papers and later on, the
same were converted into sale documents and registered later on by
her. DW-1 further denied the suggestion that she has not paid
amount of Rs. 8,80,000/- to the plaintiff.
79. In a judgment titled Shakeel Ahmad Vs Sayed Akhlaq
Hussain Civil Appeal No 1898 of 2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as follows.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 34/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
“10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it
is to be emphasized that of irrespective of what was
decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra)
the fact remains that no title could be transferred with
respect to immovable properties on the basis of an
unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an
unregistered General Power of Attorney. The
Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document
which requires compulsory registration under the Act,
would not confer any right, much less a legally
enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis.
Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and
the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be
said that the respondent would have acquired title over the
property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered
agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific
performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard,
reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882.)
“14.In case the respondent wanted to evict the appellant
treating him to be a licensee, he could have maintained a
suit on behalf of the true owner or the landlord under
specific instructions of Power of Attorney as landlord
claiming to have been receiving rent from the appellant or
as Attorney of the true owner to institute the suit on his
behalf for eviction and possession. That being not the
contents of the plaint, we are unable to agree with the
reasoning given by the High Court in the impugned
order.”
80. In a judgment titled Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd Vs
State of Haryana & Anr Special Leave Petition (CE) no. 13917 of
2009, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“Scope of an Agreement of sale”
“11.Section 54 of TP Act makes it clear that a contract of
sale, that is, agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any
interest in or charge on such property. This Court in
Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam and Anr (1977) 3 SCC
247, observed:
A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or
charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in
Section 54 of Transfer of property Act. See Rambaran
Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [1967]1 SCR 293 The fiduciaryCiv Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 35/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
character of the personal obligation created by a contract for
sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal
obligation created by a contract of sale is described in
Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation
arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of
property, but not amounting to an interest or easement
therein.”
“In India, the word ‘transfer’ is defined with reference to the
word ‘convey’. The word ‘conveys’ in section 5 of Transfer
of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying
ownership… …that only on execution of conveyance
ownership passes from one party to another….”
11. Section 54 of TP Act makes it clear that a contract
of sale, that is, agreement of sale does not, of itself, create
any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in
Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam and Anr (1977) 3 SCC
247, observed:
A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest
in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in
Section 54 of Transfer of property Act. See Rambaran
Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [1967]1 SCR 293 The fiduciary
character of the personal obligation created by a contract for
sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal
obligation created by a contract of sale is described in
Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation
arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of
property, but not amounting to an interest or easement
therein.”
In India, the word ‘transfer’ is defined with reference to the
word ‘convey’. The word ‘conveys’ in section 5 of Transfer of
Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying
ownership… …that only on execution of conveyance
ownership passes from one party to another….”
In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (2004
(8) SCC 614 )this Court held:
“Protection provided under Section 53A of the Act to the
proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It
disentitles the transferor from disturbing the possession of the
proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such
an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the
proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it
is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed in favour
of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against the
proposed vendor cannot be pressed in service against a third
party.”
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 36/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way
of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the
absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as
required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable
property can be transferred.
12. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a
registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of
the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not
confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property
(except to the limited right granted under Section 53A of TP Act).
According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with
possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54
of TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made
only be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of
sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter.”
81. In a judgment titled as Smriti Debbarma (dead) through
Legal representative Vs Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Ors. Civil
Appeal no. 878 of 2009 decided on 04.01.2023 Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has held as follows:
“30 In the above factual background, for the plaintiff to
succeed, she has to establish that she has a legal title to
the Schedule ‘A’ property, and consequently, is entitled
to a decree of possession. The defendants cannot be
dispossessed unless the plaintiff has established a better
title and rights over the Schedule ‘A’ property. A person
in possession of land in the assumed character as the
owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of
ownership, has a legal right against the entire world
except the rightful owner. A decree of possession
cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground
that defendant nos. 1 to 12 have not been able to fully
establish their right, title and interest in the Schedule ‘A’
property. The defendants, being in possession, would be
entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the
person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal
right in the form of ownership or entitlement to
possession.”
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 37/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
82. In a judgment titled as “Ghanshyam Vs Yoginder Rathi,
2023 livelaw (SC) 479, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held
as follows:
“14. In connection with the general power of attorney and the
Will so executed, the practice, if any, prevalent in any state or the
High Court recognizing these documents to be documents of title
or documents conferring right in any immovable property is in
violation of the statutory law. Any such practice or tradition
prevalent would not override the specific provisions of law which
require execution of a document of title or transfer and its
registration so as to confer right and title in an immovable
property at over Rs. 100/- in value. The decisions of the Delhi
High court in the case of Veer Bala Gulati Vs Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and Anr following the earlier decision of the
Delhi High Court itslef in the case of Asha M. Jain Vs. Canara
Bank and Ors holding that the agreement to sell with payment of
full consideration and possession along with irrevocable power of
attorney and other ancillary documents is a transaction to sell
even though there may not be a sale deed, are of no help to the
plaintiff-respondent inasmuch as the view taken by the Delhi
High Court is not in consonance with the legal position which
emanates from the plain reading of Section 54 of the Transfer of
property Act, 1882. In this regard, reference may be had to two
other decisions of the Delhi High Court in Imtiaz Ali Vs Nasim
Ahmed and G. Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority which
inter-alia that an agreement to sell or the power of attorney are not
documents of transfer and as such the right title and interest of an
immovable property do not stand transferred by mere execution
of the same unless and document as contemplated under Section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is executed and is got
registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries
Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.” also deprecates the transfer
of immovable property through sale agreement, general power of
attoreny and will instead of registered conveyance deed.”
“15. Legally an agreement to sell may not be regarded as a
transaction of sale or a document transferring the proprietary
rights in an immovable property but the prospective purchaser
having performed his part of the contract and lawfully in
possession acquires possessory title which is liable to be
protected in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. The said possessory rights of the prospective purchaser
cannot be invaded by the transferer or any person claiming under
him.”
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 38/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
83. In in view of abovesaid judgments, it is settled position
that GPA, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, possession letter and
Receipt do not confer any right, title or interest to plaintiff, in the
suit property. At the best, on the basis of agreement to sell, the
counter-claimant could have file the suit for specific performance.
The agreement to sell is of dated 8.12.2011 and we are in year,
2025, but till date counter-claimant has not filed any suit for
specific performance. No sale deed/conveyance deed of the suit
property has been executed in favour of the counter-claimant. The
agreement to sell is not a conveyance deed. It does not transfer
ownership right and or any other right in the suit property to the
plaintiff.
84. The counter-claimant has no title & ownership over the
suit property on the basis of G.P.A, agreement to sell, possession
letter and receipt. The counter-claimant has not deposed in the
court that she has seen the above said documents and she identified
her signature, signatures of erstwhile plaintiff and of the witnesses
on the above said documents. The counter-claimant has not
identified her signatures, signatures of erstwhile plaintiff and of
the witnesses on copy of GPA, Copy of Agreement to sell, Copy of
possession slip, copy of receipt and copy of registered Will, all
dated 08.12.2011 except Will which of 07.12.2011.
85. DW-2 Smt. Veena Rani has deposed in her affidavit in
affidavit that in November 2011, she traveled to Delhi from Punjab
via train. She further deposed that she paid cash of Rs. 3 lakh as a
loan to her sister and in her presence, the said amount was paid to
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 39/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj, by her sister as part of sale
consideration. She further deposed that late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj,
at that time, told her that out of Rs. 8,80,000/-, only amount of Rs.
1,80,000/- had been left to be paid by defendant for the purchase of
suit property. DW-2 further deposed that in December, her sister
told her that she had paid the balance sale consideration amount
and now the sale documents has been executed by late Sh. Har
Govind Bajaj in her favour.
86. DW-3/Sh. Amandeep Singh has deposed that he alongwith
his father late Sh. Kundan Singh visited the house of defendant in
2011. He further deposed that they had carried amount of Rs. 3
lakh as defendant requested for the financial help to purchase the
suit property from her father in law and the said amount was
handed over by his father to the defendant. He further deposed that
defendant paid the said amount on the same day in their presence
to late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj.
87. DW-3 further deposed that in December, 2011, the
plaintiff out of his free will, executed GPA, Agreement to sell,
possession slip and Will of the suit property in favour of defendant
and his father became witness in the said documents.
88. The above said documents have not been shown to DW-3
during his examination in court by ld. counsel for
defendant/counter claimant. DW-3 has not identified the
signatures of defendant/counter claimant and his father on the said
documents.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 40/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
89. DW-3 further deposed that he does not remember the
exact date but it was in November or December 2011. DW-3
further deposed that he did not sign on any document but his father
late Sardar Kundan Singh signed as a witness. He further deposed
that he does not know what type of documents were prepared and
signed by his father. DW-3 further deposed that at the time of
execution of documents, he, his father, defendant, her sister
(Veena) & one-two other persons were present.
90. The above said testimony of DW-3 shows that he does not
know about the documents signed by his father. He even does not
remember the month, when the documents were signed. DW-3
has not identified the signatures of his father on the documents.
DW-3 has deposed that the documents were signed in the presence
of sister of defendant namely Smt. Veena whereas Smt.
Veen/DW-2, has deposed that defendant, later on told her about
execution of sale documents by late Sh. Her Govind Bajaj. The
above said facts alongwith material contradictions in the statement
of DW-3 regarding presence of Smt. Veena at the time of
execution of above said alleged sale documents, makes her
testimony suspicious. DW-3 has failed to prove the execution of
sale documents by late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj in favour of
defendant/counter-claimant.
91. No witness of the documents Ex. DW-1/2, Ex. DW-1/3,
Ex. DW-1/4, Ex. DW-1/5, Ex. DW-1/6 and Ex. DW-1/7 has been
examined by the counter-claimant.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 41/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
92. In view of the above said facts and discussion, it is held
that the counter-claimant has failed to prove the documents Ex.
DW-1/2, Ex. DW-1/3, Ex. DW-1/4, Ex. DW-1/5, Ex. DW-1/6 and
Ex. DW-1/7
93. The counter claimant has alleged the execution of Will
dated 7.12.2011 by late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj in her favour. The
counter-claimant has not examined any attesting witness of the
Will in the court. As per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, it is
mandatory for counter-claimant to examine at least one of the
attesting witness of the Will, if he is alive. The counter-claimant
has not disclosed about second attesting witness of the Will in
question, namely Sh. Prashant Kumar, as to whether he is alive or
dead. Moreover, if none of the witness is alive or available for
examination, then the counter-claimant is required to prove the
Will as per Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act. The counter-
claimant has failed to prove the due execution of Will dated
07.12.2011, executed by late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj.
94. The counter-claimant and non-counter claimant are class-I,
Legal heirs of late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj as per Section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act.
95. Vide judgment dated 08.08.2025, announced today in
Probate case titled Promila Vs State, bearing P.C. NO. 23/17, it is
held that the plaintiffs/non-counter claimants have failed to prove
Will dated 02.04.2014, executed by late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj. So,
after the death of late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj, his estate will devolve
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 42/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
upon his legal heirs as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, plaintiffs and counter-claimant are Class-I legal heirs of late
Sh. Har Govind Bajaj.
96. The plaintiffs are claiming their right in the suit property
through late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj being his legal heirs.
Defendant/Smt. Rekha is also Class-I legal heir of late Sh. Har
Govind Bajaj. During life time, late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj can
evict the defendant from suit property but after death of Sh. Har
Govind Bajaj, the licensee right of defendant has been merged into
her right of inheritance of the share of late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj, in
the suit property. Plaintiffs and defendant are on equal footing
regarding inheriting the estate of late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj being
Class-I legal heirs though their amount of share in suit property is
different. It is settled law that one co-sharer cannot evict other co-
sharer from the portion of suit property in their possession.
97. It is admitted case of parties that suit property belongs to
late Sh. Har Govind Bajaj, so his right in the suit property will
devolve upon plaintiffs and counter-claimant as per Section 8 of
the Hindu Succession Act, in the following manner:
1. Sh. Mahender Bajaj 1/3
2. Smt. Renu 1/3
3. Smt. Rekha 1/12
4. Ms Indu 1/12
5. Ms Puja Bajaj 1/12
6. Ms Mansi 1/12
98. The above said shares of parties in the suit property has not
been partitioned, so no party can make claim on any specific
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 43/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
portion of the suit property without getting it partitioned by metes
and bounds and till then the parties in possession of portion of suit
property are entitled to enjoy the possession of said portion of the
suit property.
99. In view of above said facts & observation, it is held that
the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property is not
unauthorized as they are co-sharer in the suit property. So
defendant/counter-claimant is not entitled for decree for directing
the non-counter claimants to hand over the vacant and peacful
possesion of suit property to her.
100. It is also settled law that each co-sharer has right to
sell/transfer or create third party interest over her/his undivided
joint share but the co-sharer cannot sell/transfer any specific
portion of the suit property to third person.
101. In view of above said observations & findings, issue no. 7,
9, 10 & 12 are decided against the defendant/counter-claimant and
in favour of the plaintiffs/non-counter claimants.
102. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 11.
11. Whether the defendant is entitled for a decree of recovery
against the plaintiff directing the plaintiff to pay the rent
and arrears of rent collected by him from the tenants from
the suit property i.e. H. No. R-900, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi-110027, as per her counter- claim? OPD
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 44/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
103. Onus to prove issue no. 11 is upon
counter-claimant/defendant. The Counter-claimant/defendant has
not led any evidence to prove rent collected by the erstwhile
plaintiff from the tenants and even no question regarding rent
collected from tenants has been asked to PW-1/erstwhile plaintiff.
Accordingly, issue no. 11 is decided against the counter-
claimant/defendant and in favour of non-counter
claimant/plaintiffs.
104. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory
injunction against the defendant thereby directing
defendant to remove her belonging and articles from the
portion in her occupation on the first floor of the property
no. R-900, Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi? OPP
105. Onus to prove issue No. 1 is upon plaintiffs/non-counter-
claimants. It is already held in issue no. 7, 9, 10 & 12 that
defendant/counter-claimant is co-sharer in suit property, so
defendant/counter-claimant has the right to reside in the portion of
suit property which is in her possession. Hence, plaintiffs are not
entitled for decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant
thereby directing defendant to remove her belonging and articles
from the portion in her occupation on the first floor of the property
no. R-900, Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi. Accordingly, issue no. 1
is decided against plaintiffs and in favour of defendant/counter-
claimant.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 45/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
106. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Permanent
injunction against the defendant, her representatives,
agents, assignee and associates restraining them entering
the property of the plaintiff bearing No. R-900, ground
floor, as well as on the first floor, Raghuvir Nagar, New
Delhi? OPP
107. It is also held above that defendant/counter-claimant is co-
sharer in the suit property, so she has right to reside in the portion
of the suit property which is in her possession. Without partition
of suit property by metes and bounds, the defendant/counter-
claimant cannot be evicted from Ist floor of suit property, where
she is residing. No party of the suit & counter-claim can evict
other party from possession of any portion of the suit property
without getting decree of partition of suit property by metes &
bounds. It is admitted case of parties that plaintiffs are residing on
the ground floor of suit property and defendant is residing on the
Ist floor of the suit property. The defendant/counter-claimant has
no right to interfere in possession of plaintiffs over ground floor of
the suit property without getting the relief of possession of ground
floor of suit property, in her favour by way of decree of partition of
suit property by metes and bounds. Accordingly, issue no. 2 is
decided in favour of plaintiffs/non-counter claimants and against
the defendant/counter-claimant.
108. FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 3
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs. 15,000/-
towards use and occupation charges for the period July
2014 to September, 2014 @ Rs. 5,000/- per month
alongwith cost of the suit.? OPP
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 46/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
109. Onus to prove issue no. 3 is upon plaintiffs. It is already
held above that defendant/counter-claimant is co-sharer in the suit
property, so her possession over Ist floor is legal. Therefore, it is
held that plaintiffs are not entitled for recovery of any damages
from defendant/counter-claimant for use & occupation of Ist floor
of suit property. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided against the
plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant.
110. RELIEF IN CIVIL SUIT BEARING
NO.610490/2016
111. In view of findings on issue no. 1, 2 and 3, suit of plaintiffs
is partly decreed without cost and following relief has been
granted to the plaintiffs.
1. The defendant and her representatives are restrained from
interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs upon the ground floor
of suit property without getting the relief of possession of ground
floor of suit property by way of decree of partition of the suit
property by metes and bounds in her favour.
112. RELIEF IN COUNTER-CLAIM BEARING
NO. 610471/2016
113. In view of findings on issue no. 9, 10, 11 and 12, it is held
that counter-claimant is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly,
counter claim of counter-claimant stands dismissed without cost.
114. Signed common judgment be placed in each file and be
uploaded on e-portal in each case.
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 47/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj
115. Separate Decree Sheet be prepared in both cases
accordingly.
116. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
SHIV Digitally signed by
SHIV KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.08.08
17:15:14 +0530
Announced in the open court (Shiv Kumar )
on 8th August, 2025 District Judge-02
Room No. 127
(West: Delhi)
Civ Dj No. 10490-16 Har Govind Bajaj Vs Rekha 48/48
Civ DJ. No. 610471-16 Rekha Bajaj Vs Har Govind Bajaj