Delhi District Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Smt. Indira Devi on 23 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL GUPTA, CIVIL JUDGE-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016
CNR No. DLCT03-000058-2009
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Amar Nath
R/o A-338, Ground Floor,
Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony, Delhi. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Indira Devi
W/o Late Sh. Lekh Ram
R/o A-338, First Floor, Mangolpuri,
J.J. Colony, Delhi.
2. Maya Devi
W/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal R/o A-707,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110007. ...... Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION
Date of Institution : 02.09.2009
Date of Reserving for Judgment: 14.11.2024
Date of Judgment : 23.12.2024
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 1/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:33:57
+0530
JUDGEMENT
1. The present suit was filed seeking decree for Declaration and
Possession in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants and costs
of the suit. It is pertinent to mention that a connected case between
the parties titled as Indira Devi vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. bearing CS
SCJ No. 98173/16 is also being decided by way of separate
judgement and vide order of the Ld. Predecessor dated 02.11.2021
in such other case, it was observed that the evidence led in such case
shall be read for both the suits.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased built up
property covering an area of about 25 sq. yds. on 09.02.1988 from
Sh. Rama Shanker S/o Sh. Ram Jagat who was the original allottee
from the Delhi Development Authority, for consideration of Rs.
15,000/- on the basis of Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Will all
dated 09.02.1988 duly executed by him in favour of the plaintiff and
plaintiff was also handed over vacant and peaceful possession of
such property and since then, plaintiff has continued to occupy and
enjoy its possession being the bonafide transferee for consideration.
It is stated that in the month of March, 1999, plaintiff allowed the
defendant to occupy temporarily one room on the first floor portion
of the aforesaid property (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”)
on compassionate grounds as she had to vacate the nearby built up
property bearing no. A-337, Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony, Delhi owned
by Smt. Maya Devi w/o Chunni Lal who had sold the same to a
third party being in need of money. It is submitted that the plaintiff
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 2/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:34:09
+0530
has been insisting upon the defendant from time to time to vacate
the suit property but the defendant has been avoiding to do so on
one pretext or the other.
3. It is stated that the defendant to perpetuate his illegal
occupation of the suit property, filed a false case against the plaintiff
and his wife Smt. Laxmi for permanent injunction for restraining
them from causing her forcible dispossession from the said portion
by alleging herself as co-sharer in possession with the plaintiff on
the basis of false, fake and collusive documents of title dated
06.11.1998 from Smt. Maya Devi w/o Sh. Chunni Lal who had no
saleable title in the said property on any basis whatsoever. It is
submitted that the plaintiff came to know about the Agreement to
Sell, General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Will,
Receipt and Possession Letter all dated 06.11.1998 alleged to have
been executed by Smt. Maya Devi w/o Chunni Lal jointly in favour
of the plaintiff by falsely showing him as son of Sh. Chunni Lal,
Smt. Chando Devi w/o Bhola Ram (mother of the defendant) and
the defendant herself when the defendant filed suit for permanent
injunction against him and his wife Smt. Laxmi by alleging herself
as co-owner of the suit property and sent the copies of the aforesaid
documents alongwith the summons of the suit and injunction
application in pursuance of which the plaintiff and his wife put in
appearance to contest and defend the said suit of the defendant. It is
stated that since the plaintiff had already purchased the suit property
from the original allottee for consideration on 09.02.1988, there
could have been no occasion for him to enter into a fresh bargain for
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 3/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:34:17
+0530
purchase of the suit property subsequently by joining hands with the
defendant and her mother Smt. Chando Devi on 06.11.1998. It is
contended that the defendant is vested with no legal right to retain
possession of the suit property and is liable to be dispossessed from
the same at the instance of the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff is
also entitled to the relief of declaration against the defendant to the
effect that Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Special
Power of Attorney, Will, Receipt and Possession Letter all dated
06.11.1998 being false, collusive and fraudulently procured by the
defendant, in connivance with her mother Smt. Chando Devi from
one Smt. Maya Devi are null, void and illegal and are not binding
upon the plaintiff and that they be cancelled. It was prayed that a
decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant by cancelling the Agreement to Sell dated
06.11.1998, General Power of Attorney dated 06.11.1998, Special
Power of Attorney dated 06.11.1998, Will Dated 06.11.1998,
Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dated 06.11.1998 and Possession Letter
dated 06.11.1998 executed by Smt. Maya Devi wife of Chunni Lal
jointly in favour of the plaintiff by showing his father’s name as
Chunni Lal, Smt. Chando Devi w/o Bhola Ram (late mother of the
defendant) and the defendant in respect of the property bearing no.
A-338, Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony, Delhi being null, void, illegal,
collusive and fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff in any
manner, decree for possession be granted in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendant in respect of the premises comprising of
one room with open space existing on the first floor portion of the
property bearing no. A-338, Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony, New Delhi
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 4/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:34:25
+0530
and costs of suit be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
4. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 it
was stated that the present suit has been filed more than 11 years
after the execution of the documents in question and is barred by
limitation. It is stated that the LRs of Smt. Chando Devi, co-owner
of the suit property have not been impleaded as parties in the present
suit and thus, the suit is as such bad due to non-joinder of the
necessary party. It is contended that the defendant is the co-owner of
the property no. A-338, Mangolpuri, JJ Colony, Delhi and in
possession of the first floor of the said property and plaintiff,
defendant and Late Smt. Chando Devi W/o Sh. Bhola Ram had
purchased such property from Smt. Maya Devi W/o Sh. Chunni Lal
in equal ratios vide Agreement to Sell, Registered GPA, Registered
SPA, Will dated 06.11.1998. It is further stated that the defendant is
in possession of the first floor of the said property and the plaintiff
and his wife are in possession of the ground floor of the said
property since 06.11.1998. It is averred that Smt. Chando Devi
unfortunately expired intestate in the year 2004 leaving behind legal
heirs including the defendant being her daughter. It is further
submitted that in the first week of December, 2006, when the
officials of NDPL came for verification, the wife of the plaintiff
made hue and cry and created obstruction in the verification by the
NDPL officials and stated that she will not permit the defendant to
get the new electricity connection/meter installed and further,
plaintiff threatened the defendant that in case the defendant tries toCS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 5/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:34:33
+0530
get the new electricity connection/meter installed, he will forcibly
throw the defendant and her family out of the said property and in
case the defendant will try to stop him, she and her family shall have
to face dire consequences and further threatened that since all the
original title documents of the said property are in his possession, he
would sell off the said property to some third person. It is contended
that on 03.01.2007, it came to the knowledge of the defendant that
the plaintiff and his wife have forged and fabricated the title
documents of the said property in their name and have approached
the property dealers on the basis of the said forged and fabricated
documents to sell, alienate or otherwise create third party interest in
the said property. It is averred that the defendant is the co-owner of
the said property and the plaintiff and his wife have no right, title or
interest in the share of the defendant and cannot sell, alienate or
otherwise create third party interest in the share of the defendant.
5. It is stated that Smt. Maya Devi is the Aunt (Chachi) of the
plaintiff and erstwhile owner of the said property and the plaintiff
was adopted by Smt. Maya Devi and her husband as their own son
and the name of the father of the plaintiff in various documents was
mentioned as Chunni Lal. Other contentions of the plaintiff were
denied. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
6. In the Written Statement filed by defendant no. 2 it was stated
that the present suit has been filed in collusion with defendant no.1
with an intention to garb the suit property knowing fully well that
the defendant no. 2 is the rightful owner of the suit property and thatCS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 6/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:34:41
+0530
the plaintiff is claiming ownership on the basis of forged and
fabricated documents as he never purchased the suit property from
anybody. It was submitted that the ground floor of the suit property
was given to the plaintiff by defendant no. 2 as tenant @ Rs.2600/-
p.m. in the year 1998 and since then he is in possession of the
ground floor of the suit property. It is averred that defendant no.1
was inducted as tenant being relative and in need @ Rs.2000/- p.m.
on the first floor of the property. It was denied that any title
document as alleged was ever executed by defendant no.2 in favour
of defendant no.1 or anybody else. Other contentions of the plaintiff
were denied. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. It is pertinent
to mention that defendant no. 2 was thereafter proceeded ex-parte.
7. Replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff to both Written
Statements of the defendants wherein the stand of the plaintiff was
reiterated.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed for adjudication:-
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession,
as prayed for? OPP.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 7/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:34:48
+0530
Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus
standi to file the suit in hand? OPD.
Issue no. 4: Whether the suit in hand is barred by law of limitation?
OPD.
Issue no. 5: Whether the suit in hand is bad for non-joinder and mis-
joinder of necessary party? OPD.
Issue no. 6: Whether the plaintiff is a tenant of defendant no.2 in
respect of the ground floor of the suit property? OPD.
Issue no. 7: Relief.
9. In his support of his case, plaintiff/Sh. Rajesh Kumar was
examined in the other connected case as DW1 who relied upon his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A in which he reiterated the
averments made in the plaint and relied upon the following
documents:
i. Agreement to Sell was Ex. DW-1/1.
ii. Receipt for consideration amount of Rs. 15,000/- was
Ex. DW1/2.
iii. Deed of Will was Ex. DW1/3.
iv. Possession slip was Ex. DW1/4.
v. Receipt no. 328281 dated 08.08.2003 was Ex. DW1/5.
vi. Mark A was photocopy of Identity card of the
deponent.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 8/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:35:01
+0530
vii. Certified copy of site plan was Ex. DW1/7.
10. In his cross-examination on behalf of the defendant no. 1,
witness stated that he is residing in the suit property since the year
1988. He admitted that has also resided in the property bearing no.
A-707, Shastri Nagar, Delhi for a period of about 7 years and that in
the year 1998, he was residing in Shastri Nagar property. Witness
was confronted with photocopy of Voter ID card Ex.DW1/P1 and
witness stated that he studied in Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Sarai
Rohilia, Delhi-110035 in the session 1988-89. The witness was
confronted with a photocopy of School Leaving Certificate
Ex.DW1/P2 and witness states that the same was issued to him. He
denied the suggestion that he had purchased the suit property jointly
with Indra Devi and Chando Devi. Witness was confronted with
photocopy of Voter ID card Ex.DW1/P3 which the witness admitted
to be his Voter ID card. Witness was confronted with photocopy of
Ration Card Ex.DW1/P4 which the witness admitted to be issued to
him. He denied the suggestion that the suit property had been sold
by Rama Shankar Prasad to one Sachidanand Prasad and from
Sachidanand Prasad, the suit property was purchased by Maya Devi
and that he alongwith the plaintiff and Chando Devi had jointly
purchased the suit property from Maya Devi. He further denied the
suggestion that Maya Devi had transferred the said property in
favour of him, plaintiff (defendant no.1 herein) and Chando Devi
vide agreement to sell, registered GPA, registered SPA, registered
Will all dt. 06.11.1998. He also denied the suggestion that on
06.11.1998, he had visited the office of Sub-Registrar for the
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 9/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:35:09
+0530
purpose of registration of the aforesaid sale documents and stated
that he had had visited the Sub- Registrar’s office in the year 1988.
He denied the suggestion that Ex.DW1/4 and Ex. DW1/5 were
among the title documents of the suit property which were handed
over by the plaintiff (defendant no.1 herein) alongwith other original
title documents and voluntarily stated that the same were handed
over by Rama Shankar. He stated that he cannot produce the
witnesses Mr. Basanta and Mr. Ram Singh who are the witnesses of
Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW1/2 and Ex.DW1/3. He denied the suggestion
that the plaintiff (defendant no.1 herein) is residing in the suit
property being co-owner since the same was purchased in the year
1998 and that he is not the exclusive owner of the suit property.
Witness was not cross-examined by defendant no. 2. Thereafter,
plaintiff’s evidence was closed.
11. In support of his case, defendant no. 1 was examined in the
other connected case as PW-1 who relied upon evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.PW1/A in which she reiterated the averments made in
the Written Statement and relied upon the following documents:
i. Mark A was copy of Agreement to Sell dated
06.11.1998.
ii. Ex. PW1/2 was certified copy of the GPA dated
06.11.1998.
iii. Ex. PW1/3 was certified copy of the SPA dated
06.11.1998.
iv. Mark B was copy of Will dated 06.11.1998.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 10/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:35:17
+0530
v. Mark C was copy of Receipt dated 06.11.1998.
vi. Mark D was copy of possession letter dated
06.11.1998.
12. In cross-examination on behalf of plaintiff, witness stated
that she has not filed any documents on record to show that
defendant no.1 (plaintiff herein) is the son of Chunni Lal. She stated
that she had mentioned the fact that the original documents dated
06.11.1998 relied upon by her in the present suit had been given to
defendant no. 1 (plaintiff herein). She further stated that she had
demanded the original documents from the defendants (including
the plaintiff herein) before filing the present suit in the year 2007
and he had given the said documents to her and she has filed those
documents before the Court at the time of filing the suit in the year
2007. She denied the suggestion that Rajesh Kumar had not joined
with her, as a vendee in the said documents and stated that Rajesh
Kumar had signed and was one of the signatory in the said
documents. She denied the suggestion that since defendant no.1
(plaintiff herein) had already purchased the suit property on
09.02.1988 for consideration of Rs. 15000/- on the basis of
Agreement of Sell, Receipt and Will on 09.02.1988 from Sh. Rama
Shanker, there could have been no occasion for him to repurchase
the said property by joining hands with her and voluntarily stated
that the suit property was purchased jointly by three people i.e.
Rajesh, Chando Devi (her mother) and herself. She also stated that
the suit property was not purchased from Rama Shanker and same
was purchased from Maya Devi. She stated that she had receivedCS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 11/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:35:27
+0530
title documents of the suit property when she purchased the same
from Ms. Maya Devi and stated that she had handed over the title
documents to Sh. Rajesh and title documents of the suit property of
Ms. Maya Devi are still with Sh. Rajesh as on date. She also stated
that she had asked for the title documents of the suit property of Ms.
Maya Devi from Sh. Rajesh at the time of filing of the suit,
however, he did not hand over the same to her. She denied the
suggestion that Sh. Rajesh is the sole and exclusive owner of the
suit property.
13. Sh. Saifuddin, CDV, Sub Registrar-1, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
was examined in the connected case as PW-2. He had brought
General Power of Attorney bearing registration No. 1545 in
additional Book No. IV, Vol. No.21 on pages 19 to 20 dated
06.11.1998 and stated that the Certified copy of the same is on
record already Ex. PW-1/2 and the same is true and correct as per
the records brought by him. He had also brought Special Power of
Attorney bearing registration No. 1546 in Book No. IV, Vol. No .21
on pages 21 and 22 dated 06.11.1998 and stated that the Certified
copy of the same is on record already Ex. PW-1/3 and the same is
true and correct as per the records brought by him. He had also
brought certified copy of Will dated 06.11.1998 bearing registration
No.1189 in Book No. III, Vol. No.8 on page 183 dated 06.11.1998
and the certified copy of the same was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1.
Witness was not cross-examined as witness was summoned witness
in view of Section 139 of Evidence Act.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 12/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:35:36
+0530
14. Defendant no. 2 did not enter the witness box. Thereafter,
defendants’ evidence was closed.
15. I have heard the arguments put forth by the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and perused the material available on
record. Final arguments were not led on behalf of defendant no. 2.
16. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that plaintiff is the sole
and absolute owner of the suit property and the defendants have
forged title documents of the suit property and such documents are
liable to be cancelled and defendant no. 1 is liable to surrender
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It was further argued
that plaintiff has proved his case on test of preponderance of
probabilities and it was prayed that the suit be decreed.
17. It was argued on behalf of defendant no. 1 that she alongwith
the plaintiff and some other persons had purchased the suit property
from defendant no. 2 and thus, such persons are the co-owners of
the suit property and plaintiff has no exclusive right in the suit
property. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
18. The issue-wise finding is as under:-
Issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 13/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:35:44
+0530
19. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. It was
prayed that a decree for declaration be passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant by cancelling the Agreement to
Sell dated 06.11.1998, General Power of Attorney dated 06.11.1998,
Special Power of Attorney dated 06.11.1998, Will Dated
06.11.1998, Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dated 06.11.1998 and
Possession Letter dated 06.11.1998 executed by Smt. Maya Devi
wife of Chunni Lal jointly in favour of the plaintiff by showing his
father’s name as Chunni Lal, Smt. Chando Devi w/o Bhola Ram
(late mother of the defendant) and the defendant in respect of the
property bearing no. A-338, Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony, Delhi being
null, void, illegal, collusive and fraudulent and not binding upon the
plaintiff in any manner. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had
purchased the suit property on 09.02.1988 from Sh. Rama Shanker,
who was the original allottee from the Delhi Development Authority
vide Agreement to Sell, Receipt and Will all dated 09.02.1988 and
thus, plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit property. On the
other hand it is the case of defendant no. 1 that plaintiff, defendant
no. 1 and Late Smt. Chando Devi W/o Sh. Bhola Ram had
purchased such property from Smt. Maya Devi W/o Sh. Chunni Lal
in equal ratios vide Agreement to Sell, Registered GPA, Registered
SPA and Will dated 06.11.1998. It has been pleaded by defendant
no. 2 in her Written Statement that defendant no. 2 is the exclusive
owner of the suit property.
20. In order to substantiate its claim, plaintiff in his evidence has
relied upon Agreement to Sell Ex. DW-1/1, Receipt Ex. DW1/2,CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 14/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:35:53
+0530
Deed of Will Ex. DW1/3 and Possession slip Ex. DW1/4.
Admittedly, there is no sale deed in favour of the plaintiff qua the
suit property.
21. Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides as
follows:
Section 54. “Sale” defined.–
“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid
or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made.–
Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of
the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case
of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a
registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less
than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by
a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when
the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in
possession of the property.
22. The value of the suit property has been shown to be more than
Rs.100/-. Thus, it can be seen that the sale of the suit property could
have only been done by a registered document. At this juncture,
reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 15/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:36:02
+0530
the case titled Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1526 wherein it was held as follows:
“10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is
to be emphasized that 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.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in
immovable property can be conferred without a registered
document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of
Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same
proposition. Reference may also be made to the following
judgments of this Court:
(iii). Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chand
Mitra
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would
not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on
the basis of unregistered documents with respect to
immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the
respondent could not have maintained the suit for
possession and mesne profits against the appellant, who
was admittedly in possession of the property in question
whether as an owner or a licensee.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 16/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:36:11
+0530
13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that
the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be
prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of
compulsory registration and effect on non-registration
emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration
Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj
Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in
the two enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have
taken the same view.
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.”
23. In view of the above binding judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court it is observed that no title can be transferred with
respect to an immovable property on the basis of unregistered
documents including unregistered Agreement to Sell and therefore,
no title could have been transferred by Sh. Rama Shanker in favour
of the plaintiff vide unregistered Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will
and Possession slip and thus, plaintiff cannot be said to acquired any
right or legal character including ownership right in the property
bearing no. A-338, Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony, New Delhi and the suit
property and since, plaintiff does not have any right or legal
character in such property, plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the
Agreement to Sell dated 06.11.1998, General Power of Attorney
dated 06.11.1998, Special Power of Attorney dated 06.11.1998, Will
Dated 06.11.1998, Receipt for Rs.25,000/- dated 06.11.1998 and
Possession Letter dated 06.11.1998 in respect of the propertyCS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 17/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:36:19
+0530
bearing no. A-338, Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony, Delhi and a declaration
that such documents be declared null, void, illegal, collusive and
fraudulent cannot be granted.
24. In view of the above discussion, issue no. 1 is decided against
the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
25. Let us now consider issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is
entitled to decree for possession, as prayed for? OPP.
26. The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. It has been
prayed by the plaintiff that a decree for possession be granted in his
favour and against the defendant in respect of the premises
comprising of one room with open space existing on the first floor
portion of the property bearing no. A-338, Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony,
New Delhi. It has been observed while dealing with issue no. 1 that
plaintiff does not have any right or legal character in the suit
property as the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in support of
his case are unregistered. Since plaintiff does not have any right or
legal character in premises comprising of one room with open space
existing on the first floor portion of the property bearing no. A-338,
Mangolpuri, J.J. Colony, New Delhi, plaintiff is not entitled to
possession of the same.
27. In view of the above discussion, issue no. 2 is decided against
the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 18/20
Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:36:26
+0530
28. It is deemed fit to decide issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff has
no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit in hand? OPD,
issue no. 4: Whether the suit in hand is barred by law of limitation?
OPD and issue no. 5: Whether the suit in hand is bad for non-joinder
and mis- joinder of necessary party? OPD together.
29. The onus to prove these issues was on the defendants. These
issues are being taken up together as they are based upon common
pleas and evidence. No evidence has been led by the defendants in
order to discharge the onus of proving these issues. The said pleas
have merely been taken by the defendants as a matter of routine.
The allegations of the defendants without any evidence or
documentary proof merely remain bald allegations. In view of the
same, such issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendants.
30. Let us now consider issue no. 6: Whether the plaintiff is a
tenant of defendant no.2 in respect of the ground floor of the suit
property? OPD.
31. The onus to prove the issue was on the defendants. No
evidence has been led by the defendants in order to discharge the
onus of proving this issue. The allegations of the defendants without
any evidence or documentary proof merely remain bald allegations.
In view of the same, issue no. 6 is decided in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendants.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 19/20
Kapil
Gupta
Digitally signed
by Kapil Gupta
Date: 2024.12.23
17:36:36 +0530
Relief
32. In view of the evidence adduced, documents put forth and
arguments advanced by the parties and further in view of the above
discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff
has failed to prove its case and accordingly, the present case is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
33. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally
signed by
Kapil
Kapil Gupta
Announced in the Court Gupta Date:
2024.12.23
17:36:44
on 23.12.2024. +0530(KAPIL GUPTA)
Civil Judge-06 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
CS SCJ No. 97652/2016 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Indira Devi & Anr. pg. no. 20/20
[ad_1]
Source link