Delhi District Court
Naresh Bhagi vs Anuradha Arora And Ors on 8 April, 2025
-:: 1 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI BANSAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-03 (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT010011172017
CS No. 105/2017
In the matter of :-
Sh. Naresh Bhagi
S/o late Sh. K.L. Bhagi
R/o A-6, C.C. Colony,
Near Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi - 110007. ...... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Anuradha Arora
W/o Sh. Ramesh Arora
R/o A-8, C.C. Colony,
Near Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.
2. Sh. Manoj Panchal
S/o Sh. Ishwar Lal Panchal,
Proprietor of Palace Furniture,
A-6, C.C. Colony, Delhi - 110007.
Also at:
B-982, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi - 110052. ......Defendants
Date of Institution : 28.01.2017.
Date of Final Arguments Heard : 24.03.2025.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.04.2025.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 1 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
16:34:47
+0530
-:: 2 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1 The present suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction on behalf
of the plaintiff.
2 The brief facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are:
2.1 It is stated that father of the plaintiff i.e. Sh. K.L. Bhagi (since deceased)
was the owner of the property bearing no. A-6, C.C. Colony, Near Rana
Pratap Bagh, Delhi, admeasuring approximately 320 Sq. Yards (hereinafter
referred to as “suit property”). It is stated that father of the plaintiff i.e. Sh.
K.L. Bhagi (since deceased) purchased the suit property from Delhi State
Govt. Employee’s Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Delhi vide
Sale Deed dated 03.04.1963 and thereafter, he constructed the structure over
the plot.
2.2 It is stated that the front portion of the ground floor of the suit property
comprises of two shops (one ad-measuring 12 x 30 feet and another
admeasuring 12 x 26 feet). The shop ad-measuring 12 x 26 feet was given a
private number i.e. P-1 and shop ad-measuring 12 x 30 was give a private
number i.e. P-2.
2.3 It is stated that defendant no. 1 is a neighbour of the plaintiff and defendant
no. 2 is the tenant of the shop bearing no. P-1 on the ground floor of the suit
property, ad-measuring 12 x 26. The aforesaid shop was let out by the father
of plaintiff, i.e. Sh. K.L. Bhagi (since deceased) to defendant no. 2 initially
at a monthly rent of Rs. 750/- per month vide Rent Deed dated 01.09.1988.
The rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 1331/- per month.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 2 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
16:34:51
+0530
-:: 3 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
2.4 It is stated that father of the plaintiff, i.e. Sh. K.L. Bhagi (since deceased)
inducted Smt. Amrit Kaur Baweja as a tenant in the shop bearing no. P-2 on
the ground floor of the suit property, ad-measuring 12 x 30. It is stated that
late Sh. K.L Bhagi initiated an eviction proceedings against her being
Eviction Petition No. E/1275/2006 titled as ” Sh. K.L Bhagi Vs. Smt. Amrit
Kaur Baweja” and Smt. Amrit Kaur Baweja also initiated a recovery suit
against late Sh. K.L Bhagi and Sh. Virendra Bhagi (since deceased), who
was the youngest son of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi) . Litigation over the said issue
was looked after by late Sh. Virendra Bhagi due to old age of late Sh. K.L
Bhagi.
2.5 It is stated that late Sh. Virendra Bhagi was not keeping well and his
condition deteriorated in May 2010 and late Sh. K.L Bhagi also could not
look after the case due to his old age. It is stated that late Sh. Virendra Bhagi
had very good family relations with Sh. Ramesh Arora (husband of
defendant no. 1). It is stated that on account of good family relations with
Sh. Ramesh Arora (husband of defendant no. 1), late Sh. K.L. Bhagi
entrusted the responsibility of the litigation to Sh. Ramesh Arora. However,
husband of defendant no. 1 had obtained signatures of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi
on various documents on the pretext that those signatures were required to
be filed in the court proceedings. It is stated that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi signed
those documents in good faith without going through the contents of those
documents.
2.6 It is stated that in May 2010, the condition of late Sh. Virendra Bhagi
deteriorated and he suggested to late Sh. K.L. Bhagi to execute a Power of
Attorney in favour of husband of defendant no. 1. Late Sh. K.L. Bhagi on
the suggestion of late Sh. Virendra Bhagi executed a Power of Attorney
dated 29.07.2010 in favour of husband of defendant no. 1 only to look after
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 3 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:34:55 +0530
-:: 4 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
the litigation initiated by and against Smt. Amrit Kaur Baweja. Thereafter,
Sh. Virendra Bhagi died on 20.01.2011.
2.7 It is stated that Smt. Amrit Kaur Baweja filed a suit for declaration and
injunction being suit no. 210-A/2012 titled as “Smt. Amrit Kaur Baweja Vs.
K.L. Bhagi”. It is submitted that while the entire family was mourning at the
death of Sh. Virendra Bhagi, the wife of late Sh. Virendra Bhagi received the
summons of that suit. It is stated that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi came to know
about one Sale deed dated 04.10.2010 purported to have been executed by
son of defendant no. 1 (as a Power of Attorney of husband of defendant no.
1) in favour of defendant no. 1 in respect of shop ad-measuring 12 x 26 feet
alongwtih one bathroom and open verandah forming part of the suit
property. It is stated that the husband of defendant no. 1 executed the Power
of Attorney in favour of his son without knowledge and consent of late Sh.
K.L. Bhagi. It is further stated that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had no intention to
sell the shop on the ground floor ad-measuring 12 x 26 feet. It is stated that
Sale Deed dated 04.10.2010 executed by son of defendant no. 1 in favour of
defendant no. 1 was without the knowledge and consent of late Sh. K.L.
Bhagi. It is stated that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi never gave any authority to
husband of defendant no. 1 regarding sale of the shop on the ground floor
admeasuring 12 x 26 feet. It is stated that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had already
revoked the Power of Attorney dated 29.07.2010 executed by him in favour
of husband of defendant no. 1. Husband of defendant no. 1 has no right or
obligation to act under Power of Attorney dated 29.07.2010. It is stated that
husband of defendant no. 1 has unauthorisedly and without knowledge,
approval and consent of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi executed the Power of Attorney
in favour of his son which was registered on 25.09.2010 as document no.
4957 in additional Book No. IV, Volume No. 714 on pages 103-105. It is
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 4 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:35:00 +0530
-:: 5 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
stated that in April, 2012, late Sh. K.L. Bhagi instituted a suit for declaration
and permanent injunction against Sh. Ramesh Arora (husband of defendant
no. 1), Sh. Puneet Arora (son of defendant no. 1) and defendant no. 1 being
suit no. CS/447/2014 pending disposal before Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. ADJ,
Delhi. It is further stated that in compliance of order of Ld. ADJ dated
27.10.2014, where Ld. ADJ directed the defendants to file ownership
documents in respect of shop admeasuring 12 X 30 feet, defendant no. 1 had
filed documents alongwith copy of Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 on
10.03.2025.
2.8 It is stated that Sh. K.L. Bhagi died on 01.03.2013 and he left behind a Will
dated 22.12.2011 duly registered with the Registrar of Assurance as
Document No. 3760 in Addl. Book No. 3, Vol. No. 240 at pages 90 to 93
whereby he bequeathed the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
became the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit premises after the death
of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi. It is stated that thereafter, plaintiff has filed a suit for
injunction against defendant no. 2 being CS No. 96/2014 tilted as “Naresh
Bhagi Vs. Manoj Panchal.” It is stated that defendant no. 2 filed his WS and
alleged that defendant no. 1 was claiming herself to be the owner of the suit
property on the basis of a Sale Deed purported to have been executed in
June, 2008. It is further stated that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had no intention to
sell the shop on the ground floor admeasuring 12 x 26 feet. It is further
stated that the Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 is a fictitious document as
husband of defendant no. 1 had fraudulently obtained the signatures of late
Sh. K.L. Bhagi on the Sale Deed dated 30.6.2008. It is stated that after
execution of the aforesaid Sale Deed, defendant no. 1 never asked defendant
no. 2, to attorn her as her landlord. It is stated that defendant no. 2 had been
paying rent to late Sh. K.L. Bhagi. It is further stated that late Sh. K.L.CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 5 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
16:35:04
+0530
-:: 6 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
Bhagi issued notices dated 07.07.2008 and 19.04.2010 upon defendant no. 2
expressing his need for the suit property and asked him to vacate. It is stated
that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi instituted an eviction petition in the year 2010 under
Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act being Eviction Petition No.
E-102/10 titled as “K.L. Bhagi Vs. Manoj Panchal.” In that eviction petition,
late Sh. K.L. Bhagi claimed himself to be the owner and landlord of the suit
property. It is stated that defendant no. 2 issued a cheque bearing no. 400536
dated 01.06.2012 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi for
Rs. 7,986/- as rent for six month. On 01.03.2013, Sh. K.L. Bhagi had died
and till March, 2013, defendant no. 1 never demanded any rent from
defendant no. 2. Hence, the present suit is filed on behalf of the plaintiff
with the following prayers:-
i. To pass a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendants declaring that the Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 as null and
void because the husband of defendant no. 1 in collusion with
defendant no. 1 perpetuated a fraud upon late Sh. K.L. Bhagi and
obtained his signatures on the sale deed without his knowledge and
consent;
ii. To pass a decree of relief of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff
and against the defendants restraining the defendants from transferring,
alienating, parting with possession ( actual or symbolic) or creating
third party interest in the shop or other portion mentioned in the Sale
Deed dated 30.06.2008;
iii. To award cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants;
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 6 of 26
Digitally signed
SHIVALI by SHIVALI
BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.04.08
16:35:09 +0530
-:: 7 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
iv. To pass any other or such further relief, which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants;
3 The defence stated by the defendant no. 1 in his WS are as under:
3.1 It is stated that as per the Sale Deed dated 28.03.1968, late Sh. K.L. Bhagi
was the owner of the suit property and late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had also
constructed two shops on the ground front portion and one residential
portion on the back side with mezzanine floor there on the back side portion.
Besides two set of residential portion (front and back) on the first floor and
one set of residence on the front side on the second floor.
3.2 It is stated that as per the knowledge, late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had gifted
backside ground floor portion to his son i.e. late Sh. Virender Bhagi, one
backside portion of first floor to Sh. Naresh Bhagi and front portion on the
second floor to third son, namely, Narender Bhagi and her wife Smt. Vijay
Bhagi, while the remaining portion i.e. two shops on the ground floor, back
side mezzanine floor, front portion of the first floor was retained by late Sh.
K.L. Bhagi.
3.3 It is stated that the relations between late Sh. K.L Bhagi and his sons,
namely, Sh. Naresh Bhagi and his family and Sh. Narender Bhagi and his
family were not cordial and both of them and their family did not care of
late Sh. K.L Bhagi during his life time. It is stated that late Sh. Virender
Bhagi was not well off at that time and as such he has sold the ground floor
portion, gifted out by his father, namely, late Sh. K.L Bhagi and late Sh.
Virender Bhagi has shifted out to a tenanted portion at JP-102, 1 st Floor,
Pitampura, Delhi alongwith late Sh. K.L. Bhagi and his wife as none of the
abovesaid sons were taking care of their father and mother. It is stated that
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 7 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
16:35:13
+0530
-:: 8 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
the alleged Will filed by the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Naresh Bhagi is forged and
fabricated and has never been executed by Sh. K.L. Bhagi.
3.4 It is stated that late Sh. K.L Bhagi and late Sh. Virender Bhagi were short of
money due to the marriage of both the daughters of late Sh. Virender Bhagi
and as such, late Sh. K.L. Bhagi sold the various properties to the defendant
no. 1 from time to time, as per the details given below:-
S. No. Dates Details of properties:
1. 21.03.2005 Front portion of 1st Floor with area measuring 175
Sq. Yards
2. 10.05.2006: Mezzanine floor back side measuring 100 Sq.
Yards
3. 30.06.2008 Shop under the tenancy of Manoj Panchal - front
portion of G.floor measuring 29 Sq. Mtr - 12 x
26 with 1/3rd share in the bathroom with open
court yard at front side.
4. 29.07.2010 One shop on the ground floor with bathroom
04.10.2010 alongwith open verandah etc.
3.5 It is stated that the amount of sale consideration of the aforesaid portions of
the properties has been utilized for the welfare and benefits of deceased Sh.
K.L bhagi himself and his wife and also for the marriage of two daughters of
late Sh. Virender Bhagi, who was also died on 20.01.2011. It is stated that
the shop sold on 29.07.2010 by late Sh. K.L Bhagi to defendant no. 1 was
sold by him without disclosing about the factum of any litigation pending at
the time of execution of General Power of Attorney / Will dated 29.07.2010
and also at the time of execution of GPA by husband of defendant no. 1 in
favour of the son of defendant no. 1 and also at the time of execution of Sale
Deed dated 04.10.2010 on behalf of late Sh. KL. Bhagi.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 8 of 26 Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL Date: BANSAL 2025.04.08 16:35:17 +0530 -:: 9 ::- Date: 08.04.2025 3.6 It is stated that the present suit is undervalued and plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit property. It is stated that the present suit is bad for
misjoinder of parties as defendant no. 2 is not a necessary party to the
present suit. It is stated that the suit is not maintainable as no probate has
been granted nor the plaintiff has approached the concerned court for grant
of probate. Hence, the present suit be dismissed. Remaining averments
made in the plaint are denied and false.
4 The defence stated by the defendant no. 2 in his WS is as under:
4.1 It is stated that defendant no. 2 is a lawful tenant in a shop situated on
ground floor of the suit property. It is stated that defendant no. 1 claims to be
the owner of the tenanted shop of the defendant no. 2 by virtue of an alleged
Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008. On the basis of said sale deed, the defendant
no. 1 had filed an eviction petition no. 24/13 against defendant no. 2 which
is pending disposal before Ld. R.C. North, Rohini Courts. Vide order dated
25.11.2013, Ld. R.C. observed that there is a dispute over ownership of
property, hence defendant no. 2 was directed to deposit the money rent in
the court u/s 15 (4) of DRC Act. On the one hand, the defendant no. 1 is
claiming to have purchased the property in question by virtue of alleged
Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 and on the other hand, plaintiff was also
claiming to be the owner of the property and claimed rent from the
defendant no. 2. However, defendant no. 2 has nothing to do with the said
dispute as the same is between defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff. Once,
whoever will be able to show his / her title / right over the property in
question, defendant no. 2 will attorn the said person as his landlord.
4.2 It is stated that late Sh. K.L Bhagi had sent a legal notices dated 07.07.2008
and 19.04.2010 wherein he claimed himself to be the owner of the tenantedCS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 9 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
16:35:21
+0530
-:: 10 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
shop. The said notices were duly replied by defendant no. 2 vide reply
notice dated 11.07.2008 and 26.04.2010 respectively. It is stated that on
perusal of alleged Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008, it is a vague document as the
sold portion is not clear / specific in the said sale deed. It is further stated
that no site plan is annexed with the alleged sale deed to clarify the portion
under alleged sale.
4.3 It is stated that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had received the rent of the tenanted
shop from defendant no. 2 up to July, 2012 i.e. much after the execution of
the alleged Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008. After the death of Sh. K.L. Bhagi,
defendant no. 1 sent the said legal notice dated 01.04.2013 to the defendant
no. 2 claiming to be the owner by virtue of alleged Sale Deed dated
30.06.2008. It is stated that plaintiff also sent a legal notice to the defendant
no. 2 vide legal notice dated 03.05.2013 thereby claiming himself to be the
owner of the property in question by virtue of some alleged Will dated
22.12.2011 executed by late Sh. K.L. Bhagi. It is stated that defendant no. 2
denied the alleged claim of both the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 as both of
them have claimed to be the owner of the tenanted shop by virtue of Will
dated 22.12.2011 and Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 respectively.
4.4 It is stated that plaintiff has not filed any document to show any probate etc.
has been obtained by him in respect of the said Will dated 22.12.2011. It is
stated that defendant no. 2 paid the rent to Sh. K.L. Bhagi by cheque. It is
further stated that remaining averments made in the plaint are denied and
false.
5 Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the WS of defendant no. 1.
The contents of which are as under:-
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 10 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:35:26 +0530
-:: 11 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
5.1 It is stated that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had gifted the back portion of the 1 st
floor of the suit property to the plaintiff on 09.04.2001. It is stated that late
Sh. K.L. Bhagi had expressed his desire to stay with late Sh. Virendra Bhagi
and he then stayed with late Sh. Virendra Bhagi as Sh. Virendra Bhagi was
not keeping well at that time. It is further stated that all three sons of late Sh.
K.L. Bhagi were taking care of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi. It is stated that late Sh.
K.L. Bhagi was retired as Superintendent from Education Department under
Delhi Administration and was getting good pension sufficient to meet his
and his wife requirements. It is stated that late Sh. Virendra Bhagi had a
factory of automobile parts in Samaypur and had sufficient funds for the
marriage of his daughters. Moreover, marriage of both daughters were taken
place on 19.04.2006 and 15.12.2006 therefore, there was no requirement to
sell the property to defendant no. 1 in June 2008. It is submitted that the
Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 in respect of the suit property is a fraudulent
transaction as neither late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had any intention to sell the shops
on the ground floor nor he entered into any transaction with defendant no. 1
for the sale of the shops at the ground floor. It is further stated that Sale
Deed dated 04.10.2010 is also a fraudulent one.
5.2 It is denied that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi received any sale consideration for the
aforesaid portions of the suit property or that he utilized the sale
consideration for his welfare as well as for the welfare of his wife or on the
occasion of marriage of 02 daughters of late Sh. Virendra Bhagi as alleged
or at all. It is stated that all the legal heirs of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had
admitted the genuineness of the Will dated 22.12.2011 and had given their
respective no objections in respect of the aforesaid Will. It is stated that
since there is no contentious right between the legal heirs of late Sh. K.L.
Bhagi in respect of the property bequeathed by late Sh. K.L. Bhagi by his
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 11 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
16:35:31
+0530
-:: 12 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
Will dated 22.12.2011, therefore, there is no requirement to seek probate of
the aforesaid Will. It is stated the defendant no. 2 has been occupying the
suit property as a tenant. Plaintiff denied the objections of defendant no. 1
stated in his WS and has reiterated the facts as stated in the plaint.
6 No replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the WS of defendant no.
2.
7 On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated
24.09.2018:-
i. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts, if so, to what effect?
OPD.
ii. Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court
fees? OPD.
iii. Whether the present suit has been filed on the basis of false and
fabricated documents? OPD.
iv. Whether suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
v. Whether suit is without any cause of action and bad for misjoinder of
D-2. OPD.
vi. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for?
OPP.
vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as
prayed for? OPP.
viii. Relief.
8 In the instant case, defendant no. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
05.09.2022.
9 Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined following witnesses:
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 12 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:35:37 +0530
-:: 13 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
9.1 PW-1 Sh. Naresh Bhagi S/o Late Sh. K.L.Bhagi, Age 66 years R/o. A-6,
C.C. Colony, Delhi-110007. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon
the following documents:-
i. Site-plan is Ex.PW1/1.
ii. Copy of rent deed dated 01.09.1988 is mark PW1/2.
iii. Copy of the sale deed dated 30.06.2008 is Ex.PW1/3.
iv. Copy of the Will dated 22.12.2011 is Ex.PW1/4. (OSR).
v. Certified copy of the notice dated 07.07.2008 is Ex.PW1/5. (objected
to).
vi. Certified copy of reply dated 11.07.2008 is Ex.PW1/6. (objected to).
vii. Certified copy of the notice dated 19.04.2010 is Ex.PW1/7. (objected
to).
viii. Copy of cheque bearing no. 400536 dated 01.06.2012 for Rs.7,986/-
is Ex.PW1/8. (OSR) (objected to).
ix. Certified copy of the eviction petition filed by Sh. K.L.Bhagi against
Sh. Manoj Panchal/D-2 is Ex.PW1/9.
x. Certified copy of reply on behalf of D-2 to the eviction petition filed
by late Sh. K.L.Bhagi is Ex.PW1/10 (objected to).
10 Defendant no. 1 in order to prove her case has examined herself as DW1,
the testimony of DW1 is as under:-
10.1 DW-1 is Smt. Anuradha Arora, W/o Sh. Ramesh Arora, R/o A-8, C.C.
Colony, Near Rana Partap Bagh, Delhi. She tendered her evidence by wayCS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 13 of 26
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:35:49
+0530
-:: 14 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
of affidavit which is Ex. DW1/A bearing her signatures at point A and B.
She relied on documents as under :-
i. Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 executed by Sh. K.L. Bhagi in favour of
the deponent is Ex.DW1/1 (OSR).
11 I have heard the final arguments and perused the record.
12 My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
13 Issue no. (i) Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts, if so, to what
effect?OPD
13.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The defendants have not
led any evidence to prove the same. Accordingly, this issue is decided in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
14 Issue no. (ii) Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of
court fees? OPD.
14.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The defendants have not
come forward to lead evidence and therefore, the burden of proof upon the
defendants remains undischarged. Otherwise also, on perusal of the plaint, it
is found that an ad-valorem court fees is paid by the plaintiff valued at Rs.
7,00,000/-, which is the sale consideration of the instrument i.e. the Sale
Deed dated 30.06.2008. Technically, since plaintiff was not the executant of
the impugned Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 and has not sought relief of
recovery of possession against the defendants, he was only liable to pay
fixed court fees as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in “Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors, AIR 2010
SUPREME COURT 2807″, wherein it was held as under:-
“…..6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to
seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment ofCS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 14 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:35:55 +0530
-:: 15 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or
illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer
for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of
transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration
relating to `A’ and `B’ — two brothers. `A’ executes a sale deed in favour
of `C’. Subsequently `A’ wants to avoid the sale. `A’ has to sue for
cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B’, who is not the
executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration
that the deed executed by `A’ is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he
is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set
aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee
is also different. If `A’, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of
the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated
in the sale deed. If `B’, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues
for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his
share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article
17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B’, a non- executant, is not
in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is
invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an
ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.
Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with
consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the
amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso
thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with
consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation
shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner
provided for by clause (v) of Section 7…..”
14.2 And for the consequential relief, an ad-valorem court fees valued by the
plaintiff in his plaint had to be paid, which is done by the plaintiff in the
instant suit as per Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. There is no reason
for this court to question the valuation made by the plaintiff as per Rule 10
of rule framed under Chapter 3 (C) of Delhi High Court Rules, which had to
be determined on the basis of value of the subject matter of the suit, which is
Rs. 7,00,000/- in the instant case. Accordingly, this issue is decided in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
15 Issue no. (iii) Whether the present suit has been filed on the basis of false
and fabricated documents? OPD.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 15 of 26
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:35:59
+0530
-:: 16 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
15.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The defendants have not
led any evidence to prove the same. Accordingly, this issue is decided in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
16 Issue no. (iv) Whether suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
16.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The defendants have not
led any evidence to prove the same. Otherwise also, it is stated in the plaint
that the plaintiff became aware about the existence of Sale Deed dated
30.06.2008 when in another suit between Sh. K.L. Bhagi Vs. Ramesh Arora
& Ors. in CS No. 57929/2016, the defendant no. 1 had filed the copy of the
impugned Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 on 10.03.2015. The present suit for
declaration was filed thereafter on 28.01.2017 which is within the limitation
period as per Article 58 of Limitation Act 1963. The right to sue had first
accrued to the plaintiff on 10.03.2015, when the Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008
was filed by the defendant no. 1 in another suit on 10.03.2015. The
defendants have not led any evidence to rebut the same. In fact, the plaintiff
has sustained the cross examination on this particular aspect, it was deposed
by him as under:-
“I came to know about the Sale Deed Ex.PW1/3 in March, 2015. The
court in another proceeding filed by my father late Sh. K.L. Bhagi
against Smt. Anuradha Arora & Anr., directed defendant no. 1 to
produce all documents of her title and in pursuance of that order,
defendant no. 1 produced a copy of Ex.PW1/3. At that time, I came to
know about the existence of Ex.PW1/3. Prior to that, I had no
knowledge of the existence of Ex.PW1/3”.
16.2 The plaintiff in the instant case had sued in his personal capacity as it is
stated by him that he has received the said property by virtue of Will dated
22.12.2011 i.e. Ex.PW1/4 of his deceased father, namely, Sh. K.L. Bhagi.
Therefore, as regards, the question of limitation qua plaintiff is concerned,
the same shall be counted from the date of his knowledge qua the Sale Deed
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 16 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:36:04 +0530
-:: 17 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
dated 30.06.2008 i.e. Ex.PW1/3, which he got on 10.03.2015. Accordingly,
this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
17 Issue no. (v) Whether suit is without any cause of action and bad for
misjoinder of D-2? OPD.
17.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The defendants have not
led any evidence to prove the same. Otherwise also, as per CPC, a suit does
not become bad merely because of mis-joinder of a party as per Order 1
Rule 9 CPC. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in “Prem Lala Nahata and Anr. Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria“
(AIR 2007 SC 1247), wherein, it was held as under:-
“9. Based on this understanding, we can consider the respective positions of
Order I and Order II in the scheme of things. Order I deals with parties to a
suit and provides who may be joined as plaintiffs and who may be joined as
defendants. It also deals with the power of the Court to direct the plaintiffs
either to elect with reference to a particular plaintiff or a particular
defendant or to order separate trials in respect of the parties misjoined as
plaintiffs or defendants. It also gives power to the Court to pronounce
judgment for or against one of the parties from among the parties who have
joined together or who are sued together. The order also specifies that a suit
shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties,
so along as in the case of non-joinder, the non- joinder is not of a necessary
party. The Code also gives power to the Court to substitute the correct
person as a plaintiff or add parties or strike out parties as plaintiffs or
defendants, at any stage, if it is found necessary.
10. Order II deals with frame of suits. It provides that every suit shall be
framed as far as practicable so as to afford ground for final decision upon
the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. It is
also insisted that every suit shall include the whole of the claim that a
plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of its subject matter. There is a further
provision that the plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of
action against the same defendant and plaintiffs having causes of action in
which they are jointly interested against the same defendant, may unite such
causes of action in the same suit. It provides that objection on the ground of
misjoinder of causes of action should be taken at the earliest opportunity. It
also enables the Court, where it appears to the Court that the joinder of
causes of action may embarrass or delay the trial or otherwise cause
inconvenience, to order separate trials or to make such other order as may
be expedient in the interests of justice.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 17 of 26
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:36:08
+0530
-:: 18 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
11. Thus, in a case where a plaint suffers from the defect of misjoinder of
parties or misjoinder of causes of action either in terms of Order I Rule 1 and
Order I Rule 3 on the one hand, or Order II Rule 3 on the other, the Code
itself indicates that the perceived defect does not make the suit one barred by
law or liable to rejection. This is clear from Rules 3A, 4 and 5 of Order I of
the Code, and this is emphasised by Rule 9 of Order I of the Code which
provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of non- joinder or
misjoinder of parties and the court may in either case deal with the matter in
controversy so far as it regards the rights and interests of the parties actually
before it. This is further emphasised by Rule 10 of Order I which enables the
court in appropriate circumstances to substitute or add any person as a
plaintiff in a suit. Order II deals with the framing of a suit and Rule 3
provides that save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same
suit several causes of actions against the same defendant and any plaintiffs
having causes of actions in which they are jointly interested against the same
defendant may unite such causes of action in the same suit. Rule 6 enables
the Court to order separate trials even in a case of misjoinder of causes of
action in a plaint filed.”
17.2 Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.
18 Issue no. (vi) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as
prayed for? OPP.
18.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has examined
himself as PW-1 in the present suit and has relied upon Ex.PW1/1 to
Ex.PW1/10 to prove his case. Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 and
Ex.PW1/10 were objected to be taken on record by the counsel for the
defendants. No ground is mentioned, as to why, these documents were
objected to by the defendants. However, on perusal of Ex.PW1/5,
Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/10, it is found that these documents
were filed by the plaintiff in the eviction petition filed on behalf of late Sh.
K.L. Bhagi Vs. Sh. Manoj Panchal in the court of Rent Controller, Rohini
Court, Delhi. These documents can be taken on record as they reflect upon
the subsequent conduct of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi after the alleged execution of
the Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/3). There is nothing on record to
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 18 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:36:11 +0530
-:: 19 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
doubt the authenticity of these documents as they are the part of the Court
record. Therefore, the objections raised by the defendants for exhibiting
Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/10 are disallowed. However,
the copy of cheque bearing no. 400536 dated 01.06.2012 for Rs. 7,986/- i.e.
Ex.PW1/8 is not taken on record as the same was neither encashed by late
Sh. K.L. Bhagi nor was part of any court record.
18.2 The plaintiff has filed the instant suit as a successor-in-interest of late Sh.
K.L. Bhagi. It is averred by the plaintiff that late Sh. K.L. Bhagi had
executed as Will dated 22.12.2011 i.e. Ex.PW1/4 in favour of plaintiff. By
virtue of the said Will, the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit
property herein. It is averred by the plaintiff that the said Will is not disputed
by the other legal heirs of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi and therefore, the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit property herein. Per contra , defendant no. 1 had
alleged that the Will dated 22.12.2011 is a forged and fabricated document,
however, no evidence was led by the defendants to prove the same. The
question which falls for consideration of this court is that:
Whether the plaintiff ought to have proved the Will dated 22.12.2011 as per
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act ( Section 67 of Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023)?
18.3 As per the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
“Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors” , decided on
25.03.2008, wherein, it was held as under:-
“11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property
and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for
an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his
possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking
a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not
entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 19 of 26 Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI BANSAL Date: BANSAL 2025.04.08 16:36:15 +0530 -:: 20 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in
possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in
addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot
seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of
possession.
11.3) Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in
dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and
there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will
have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of
injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and
he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the
plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be
necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to
plaintiff’s title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A
cloud is said to raise over a person’s title, when some apparent defect in
his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over
it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to
remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the
plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without
any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely
denies the plaintiff’s title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the
title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for
declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the
plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful
claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit,
the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title
claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff’s
title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert
the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit
for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive
suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration
with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed,
where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of
title.”
18.4 In the instant case, the plaintiff is seeking declaration qua a registered Sale
Deed dated 30.06.2008 executed by late Sh. K.L. Bhagi (father of plaintiff)
in favour of defendant no. 1. The document i.e. Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008
i.e. Ex.PW1/3 itself gives title / ownership rights to the defendant no. 1 and
the plaintiff is a stranger to Ex.PW1/3. It is an admitted fact that late Sh.
K.L. Bhagi was the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff as well as
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 20 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
16:36:20
+0530
-:: 21 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
defendant no. 1 are claiming to be his successor-in-interest. As per Section
101 of Indian Evidence Act ( Section 104 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), the
plaintiff has the burden of proof required to be discharged in civil
proceedings as laid down in ” Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education
and Research Vs. Jaspal Singh, (2009) 7SCC 330″, the burden which ought
to be discharged in civil proceedings is not as strict as in criminal cases and
in order for any party to succeed, he is required to prove his case on
preponderance of probabilities. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
pronouncement is stated as under:-
“It has been held that there is a mark difference as to the effect of evidence,
namely, the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a
mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not
necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reason able doubt; but in criminal
proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty
as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man, beyond or
reasonable doubt.”
18.5 Further, Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 104 Bhartiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam), defines burden of proof and has laid down that the
burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts the fact.
Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called
upon to prove his case. Therefore, the plaintiff was duty bound to prove that
he is the successor-in-interest of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi. Just because, Will
dated 22.12.2011 is a registered document, the same would not discharge the
plaintiff from proving his title / ownership upon the suit property. Even
though, Will dated 22.12.2011 (Ex.PW1/4) is a registered document, still it
does not carry any presumption in his favour as stipulated under Section 68
of Indian Evidence Act (Section 67 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023),
unlike the document i.e. Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/3) in favour
of defendant no. 1. Ex.PW1/3 is sufficient to deny the title of the plaintiff
and it does raise a cloud on the title of the plaintiff to the property.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 21 of 26
Digitally
signed by
SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:36:43
+0530
-:: 22 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
Therefore, the plaintiff ought to have sought relief of declaration of title in
his favour alongwith other reliefs, which is not done by the plaintiff in the
instant case and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.
18.6 Having said so, no doubt, there are certain proved facts pertaining to the
subsequent conduct of late Sh. K.L. Bhagi to doubt the execution of Sale
Deed dated 30.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/3) in favour of defendant no. 1 and
considered himself to be the owner of the suit property, which are as under:-
a) Defendant no. 1 during the lifetime of the plaintiff’s father never asked
defendants no. 2 to attorn her as her landlord.
b) The Defendant no. 2 had been paying rent to the Plaintiff’s father all
throughout the relevant period of time.
c) The Plaintiff’s father issued a Notice dated 7 th July, 2008 exhibited as Ex.
PW1/5 upon Defendant no. 2 expressing his need for the suit property and
asked him to vacate.
d) Defendant no. 2 duly replied the aforesaid notice vide its reply dated
11.07.2008 exhibited as Ex.PW1/6.
e) The Plaintiff’s father issued another Notice dated 19 th April, 2010 exhibited as
Ex. PW1/7 upon Defendant No. 2 expressing his need for the suit property and
asked him to vacate.
f) The Plaintiff’s father was receiving rent from Defendant no .2 during his life
time.
g) The Plaintiff’s father instituted an eviction Petition in the year 2010 under the
provisions of section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act being Eviction
Petition No. E 102/10 titiled Shri K L Bhagi Vs. Shri Manoj Panchal is
exhibited as Ex. PW1/9. In the eviction petition the Plaintiff’s father claimed
himself to be the owner and landlord of the suit property. He also filed a reply
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 22 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:36:50 +0530
-:: 23 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
to Leave to Defend Application. The reply to the application under section 25-
B is exhibited as Ex. PW1/10.
h) Defendant no. 2 in his written statement has admitted tenant-landlord
relationship with late Shri K L Bhagi. He has also admitted the notices issued
by late Shri K L Bhagi and the eviction petition filed by him under the
provisions of section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The relevant
portion of the written statement of Defendant no. 2 is reproduced hereinafter”
“4. …. It is submitted that earlier one Sh. Kishan Lal Bhagi was the landlord
of the answering defendant who filed an eviction petition against the
answering defendant on 06.09.2010 on the ground of bonafide requirement
for himself vide eviction petition No. 102/2010, however, the counsel for
the landlord Sh K. L. Bhagi avoided to argue on the leave application on
various dates and ultimately on 08.02.2012, the counsel for the landlord Shri
K. L. Bhagi gave statement in the court that he had instructions to withdraw
the petition and accordingly, the said eviction petition was dismissed as
withdrawn on 08.02.2012. The answering defendant is unable to understand
as if the defendant no. 1 had purchased the property in question from Sh
K.L. Bhagi by virtue of alleged sale deed dated 30.06.2008, then why the
landlord Shri K. L. Bhagi filed the eviction petition against the defendant no.
2 for bonafide requirement on 06.09.2010 and ultimately, withdrew the same
on 08.02.2012.
“5. That similarly prior to the filing of the aforesaid petition no. 102/2010,
Shri K. L. Bhagi and sent a legal notice dated 07.07.2008 wherein he claimed
himself to be the owner of the tenanted shop. The said notice was duly
replied by the answering defendant vide his reply notice dated 11.07.2008.
Thereafter, after about two years, Shri K. L. Bhagi again sent a legal notice
dated 19.04.2010 claiming himself to be the owner, which notice was also
duly replied by the answering defendant vide reply dated 26.04.2010. The
answering defendant is unable to understand as if the defendant no. 1 had
purchased the property in question from Shri K. L. Bhagi by virtue of alleged
sale deed dated 30.06.2008, then why the landlord Shri K. L. Bhagi was
issuing legal notices to the answering defendant vide his legal notices dated
07.07.2008 and 19.04.2010 thereby claiming himself to be the owner of the
property in question.
“6. ….. Further the defendant no. 1 had not issued any notice of attornment
to the answering defendant. The answering defendant for the first time
received a legal notice dated 01.04.2013 sent by the defendant no. 1. The
answering defendant is unable to understand as if the defendant no. 1 had
purchased the property in question on 30.06.2008, then why the defendant
no. 1kept silent till 01.04.2013 i.e for about five years. It is hard to believe
that a person who had incurred huge amount in purchasing a property is not
informing any person including the occupant/tenant of the said property. ItCS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 23 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
16:36:56
+0530
-:: 24 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
is further important to note here that the landlord Shri K. L. Bhagi had
received the rent of the tenanted shop from the answering defendant upto
July 2012 i.e. much after the execution of the alleged sale deed dated
30.06.2008……”.
18.7 Even, the conduct of defendant no. 1 would indicate that Sh. K.L. Bhagi
may not have executed Sale Deed dated 30.06.2008 in favour of the
defendant no. 1 willingly, which are as under:-
a) Defendant no. 1, from 30th June, 2008 till Shri K. L. Bhagi died, neither
asserted her right over the aforesaid shop nor did any act, deeds and things
thereby bringing to the knowledge of the plaintiff’s father of the execution of
the Sale Deed dated 30th June, 2008.
b) Defendant no. 1 neither placed on record any document nor led any evidence
or examined any witness to prove that late Shri K. L. Bhagi voluntarily and in a
sound state of mind executed the Sale Deed. In her evidence by way of
affidavit Defendant no. 1 only asserted that the sale deed dated 30.06.2008
executed by Shri K. L. Bhagi in favour of the deponent is Ex. DW1/1.
Defendant no. 1 did not appear in the witness box for her further cross
examination consequently her statement cannot be read in support of her
allegations.
c) Defendant no. 1 did not place on record any document to show that the sale
consideration shown in the Sale Deed was paid by her to late Shri K. L. Bhagi.
Her affidavit is also completely silent on this aspect. As per the Sale Deed the
consideration was paid through cheque issued by Defendant no. 1. Defendant
no. 1 could have easily adduce documentary evidence to prove the
consideration was apid by her. However, Defendant no. 1 neither placed her
statement of account from the bank nor led any evidence to prove the
consideration was actually paid.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 24 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:37:01 +0530
-:: 25 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
d) The studious silense of defendant no. 1 from 30 th June, 2008 till the death of
late Shri K. L. Bhagi on 1 st March, 2013 creates suspicion. However,
Defendant no. 1 neither explained nor led any evidence for not asserting her
right over the shop during the life time of Shri K L. Bhagi. Defendant no. 1
neither asked Defendant no. 2 to attorn her as his landlord nor got the property
mutated in her name even there was no change in the Electricity and water
connections.
e) Defendant no. 1 tried to explain that late Shri K L Bhagi sold the property to
give financial support to late Shri Virender Bhagi and also for the marriage of
his daughters. It is submitted that the marriage of elder daughter (Ms Nitin
Bhagi) of Shri Virender Bhagi was solemnized on 19 th April, 2006 and the
marriage of younger daughter (MS Nidhi Bhagi) of late Shri Virender Bhagi
was solemnized on 15th December, 2006 therefore, there was no requirement to
sell the property to Defendant no. 1 in June, 2008.
18.8 Even after observing the same on facts, the present issue is decided against
the plaintiff due to a legal question. Accordingly, this issue is decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
19 Issue no. (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent
injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
19.1 The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Since issue no. (vi) is
decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants, this issue is
also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
RELIEF
20 The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 25 of 26
Digitally signed
by SHIVALI
SHIVALI BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.04.08
16:37:07 +0530
-:: 26 ::- Date: 08.04.2025
Digitally signed
by SHIVALIAnnounced in open SHIVALI BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.04.08
Court on 08.04.2025 16:37:17
+0530
Shivali Bansal
District Judge-03, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS No. 105/17 Naresh Bhagi Vs. Anuradha Arora & Ors. Page: 26 of 26
[ad_1]
Source link