Delhi District Court
Ram Kaur vs Harish Yadav on 23 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA :
DISTRICT JUDGE-07, TIS HAZARI COURTS (WEST), DELHI.
CS No. 611600/2016
CNR NO.DLWT010007782012
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. SMT. RAM KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs.
A. SH. SHYAM BIR YADAV (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs.
a) SMT. DINESH YADAV (WIFE)
W/o Late Shri Shyam Bir Yadav.
b) SH. VIPIN YADAV (SON)
S/o Late Shri Shyam Bir Yadav.
c) SH. AMIT YADAV (SON)
S/o Late Shri Shyam Bir Yadav.
d) SMT. TEENA YADAV (DAUGHTER)
D/o Late Shri Shyam Bir Yadav.
1(A)(a to d)
All R/o. 636, Main Bus Stand Wali Gali,
Village Mundka, Delhi.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 1/45
e) SMT. JYOTI YADAV
W/o Shri Vikas Yadav
R/o K2/4, Ground Floor,
Vatika India Next, Sec-83,
Gurugram, Haryana-122004.
B. SMT. KAMLESH (DAUGHTER)
D/o Late Smt. Ram Kaur
W/o Sh. Jaikishan
D/o Late Sh. Ram Mehar
R/o Paprawat, Delhi.
C. SMT. SANTOSH (DAUGHTER)
W/o Sh. Baljeet
D/o Late Sh. Ram Mehar
R/o Paprawat, Delhi. ......Plaintiffs
Versus
1. SH. HARISH YADAV
S/o Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav
R/o C/13-14, Friends Enclave,
Mundka, Delhi-110041.
2. SH. SURENDER YADAV
S/o Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav
R/o C/13-14, Friends Enclave,
Mundka, Delhi-110041.
3. SH. OM PARKASH
S/o Sh. Sunder Lal
R/o A-74, Shyam Colony,
Near Shiv Mandir, Budh Vihar,
Phase-II, Delhi-110086.
4. SH. SANJAY KUMAR GOYAL (HUF)
S/o Shri R. S. Goyal
R/o AM-40, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 2/45
5. SMT. RITU
W/o Sh. Harish Kumar
R/o 302, Block-A, Pkt-1,
Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063.
6. SH. NARESH KUMAR
S/o Shri Ami Chand
R/o A-3/80, Sector-5,
Rohini, Delhi.
7. SH. MISHRI LAL
S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal
R/o 275A, Block-D,
Nangloi Extn.-II,
New Delhi-110041.
8. SH. HARIT GUPTA
S/o Shri Rajesh Gupta
R/o 405, New Swastik Apartments,
Plot No.2, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi-85.
9. SH. KARAMBIR SINGH
S/o Shri Sukhdev Singh
R/o D-218, Astha Vihar,
Prem Nagar - III, Kirari Suleman Nagar,
Delhi-86.
10. SH. LALIT KUMAR
S/o Sh. Daya Chand
R/o House No. 193,
V.P.O. Rani Khera,
New Delhi-110081. ......Defendants
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 3/45
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND
POSSESSION.
Date of institution of the Suit : 17.09.2012
Date of Judgment was reserved : 10.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 23.08.2025
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff (Late Smt. Ram
Kaur) against the defendants seeking the following reliefs :
A. A decree of declaration thereby declaring the sale deed dated
08.11.2000 bearing Registration No.11287 in Additional Book
No.1 book no. I, Volume No. 9735 at page no. 134 to 139
registered on 13.11.2000 in respect of agricultural land
admeasuring 7 Bighas 6 Biswas out of Khasra No.33/10/2 (1-12),
33/11/3 (3-14) and 33/20/1 (2-0) situated in Village Mundka,
Delhi allegedly executed by Late Smt. Ram Kaur in favour of
Late Sh. Rajbir and defendant no.1, Sh. Harish Yadav as null and
void;
B. A decree of declaration thereby declaring the sale deed dated
22.02.2013 registered as document no.1296, Book No.I, Volume
No.2, 140 on pages no.192 to 199 dated 30.03.2013 executed by
defendant no.1 and 2 in favour of defendant no.3 to 9 with
respect to the aforesaid agricultural land as null and void;
C. A decree of declaration thereby declaring the Agreement to Sell,
General Power of Attorney, Receipt and Affidavit, all dated
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 4/45
19.03.1997 allegedly executed by Late Sh. Ram Mehar Singh in
favour of defendant no.2 with respect to Plot No.14, admeasuring
100 sq.yds out of Khasra No.891 situated at Village Mundka,
Friends Enclave, Delhi as null and void; and
D. A decree of declaration thereby declaring the Agreement to Sell,
General Power of Attorney and WILL dated 17.04.2008 with
respect to property bearing no.A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka,
Nangloi, New Delhi allegedly executed by Late Smt. Ram Kaur
in favour of defendant no.2 as null and void;
E. A decree of declaration thereby declaring the General Power of
Attorney dated 14.11.2011 executed by defendant no.2 in favour
of defendant no.10 / Sh. Lalit Kumar with respect to property
bearing no. A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka, Nangloi, New
Delhi as null and void (It be noted that plaintiff has mentioned
the date of General Power of Attorney as 14.11.2011 in the
prayer clause of the plaint, however, the said document is dated
14.10.2011);
F. A decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing defendant
no.1 and 2 to handover the amount withdrew by them from the
bank account of Late Sh. Ram Mehar after his death;
G. A decree of possession against defendant no.1 to 9 with respect
to agricultural land admeasuring 7 Bighas and 6 Biswas situated
out of Khasra No.33/10/2 (1-12), 33/11/3 (3-14) and 33/20/1 (2-
0) situated in Village Mundka, Delhi; and
H. A decree of possession against defendant no.1, 2 and 10 with
respect to property bearing no. A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka,
New Delhi.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 5/45
1.1. The original plaintiff, Late Smt. Ram Kaur expired during the
pendency of the present suit and her LRs have been impleaded in her
place.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT
The necessary facts for the adjudication of the present suit, as stated in
the plaint, are as under :
2.1. The plaintiff (Late Smt. Ram Kaur) is an illiterate and 85 years
old widow having blessed with four children namely Sh. Rajbir Yadav
/ son, Sh. Shyambir Yadav / son, Smt. Santosh / daughter and Smt.
Kamlesh / daughter, out of whom Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav expired in
the year 2006.
2.2. Defendant no.1 Sh. Harish Yadav and defendant no.2 Sh.
Surender Yadav are the grandsons of plaintiff Late Smt. Ram Kaur,
sons of Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav.
2.3. The plaintiff is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring 7
Bighas and 6 Biswas out of Khasra No.33/10/2 (1-12), 33/11/3 (3-14)
and 33/20/1 (2-0) situated in Village Mundka, Delhi, the ancestral
property of their family, which was transferred in her favour by her
husband, Late Sh. Ram Mehar during his lifetime.
2.4. The plaintiff is also the owner of property bearing no. A-200,
Friends Enclave, Mundka, Delhi-110043 wherein she was residing
with her husband, Late Sh. Ram Mehar till 2007, while her elder son
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 6/45
Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav alongwith his two sons Sh. Surender Yadav
and Sh. Harish Yadav was residing in the house no.C-13 and 14,
Friends Enclave, Mundka, Delhi-110041.
2.5. Since the plaintiff was old and illiterate, so she had entrusted the
the entire management of her properties and bank accounts to her
elder son, Sh. Rajbir Yadav and his two sons i.e. her grandsons /
defendant no.1 and 2, who used to obtain her signatures on regular
intervals on various documents, blank papers and stamp papers on the
pretext that the same were required to conduct the affairs of her
properties and as she had complete trust on her grandsons, she never
hesitated in signing the aforesaid blank papers / documents.
2.6. Sh. Shyambir Yadav, another son of plaintiff was residing in
House No. 636, Main Bus Stand Wali Gali, Village & P.O. Mundka,
Delhi-41 and was having differences with her over the distribution of
the ancestral properties as he wanted to get the entire ancestral
property transferred in his name, the desire which was rejected by her
as she had complete faith in his elder son / Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav and
her grandsons, i.e. defendant no.1 and 2 and she even stopped visiting
the house of Sh. Shyambir Yadav.
2.7. The plaintiff intended to retain / keep the ancestral property
during her lifetime and thereafter bequeath and distribute the same
among her two sons and in pursuance thereof, she asked her elder son
Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav and defendant no.1 and 2 for making necessary
arrangements for the execution of her WILL and upon this, they took
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 7/45
her to the Office of concerned Sub Registrar on the pretext of
execution of her WILL and obtained her thumb impressions on some
documents in the name of execution of her WILL and when she
expressed her desire to share the factum of the WILL of her properties
with her son Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav, she was stopped by defendant
no.1 and 2 by telling her that it would create a big controversy as Sh.
Shyambir Yadav always wanted to get the entire property transferred
in his name.
2.8. After the death of plaintiff's elder son, Sh. Rajbir Yadav in the
year 2006 and her husband Late Sh. Ram Mehar's death in the year
2007, defendant no.2 brought her to his House at No.C-13/14, Friends
Enclave, Mundka on the pretext of providing proper food and shelter,
however, with the passage of time, the behaviour of defendant no.1
and 2 became very harsh towards her and they even stopped providing
timely meal and started abusing her on small issues. By the end of
March, 2012, the plaintiff had fed up with the bad behaviour of
defendant no.1 and 2 and warned them that she would debar them
from her entire ancestral property including the aforesaid land. Upon
this, the defendant no.1 and 2 disclosed that she was left with no
property in her name as they had already got her entire property
transferred to their name. The defendant no.1 and 2 also used to lock
her inside the house so that she could not reveal the cheating and fraud
committed by them to any of the visitors.
2.9. In July, 2012, Smt. Santosh, the plaintiff's daughter made a
surprise visit and saw her pathetic condition and with the help of her
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 8/45
other daughter, Smt. Kamlesh, she rescued her from her grandsons
and thereafter the plaintiff made complaints to concerned SHO and
Tehsildar.
2.10. The plaintiff never intended to execute sale deed / transfer her
properties in favour of her son / Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav and defendant
no.1 and it appears that her son and grandsons in collusion with each
other have misused blank documents on which they used to obtain her
thumb impressions on the pretext of using them for managing the
affairs of her properties or have forged her thumb impression on the
sale deed in question.
2.11. The plaintiff also inspected the records of Sub Registrar office
on 05.09.2012 and found a sale deed showing her as a vendor and her
son Sh. Rajbir and defendant no.1 Sh. Harish Kumar as vendee, which
was allegedly executed on 08.11.2000 and the same might be the
document which her elder son and the defendant no.1 and 2 got
executed from her on the pretext of execution of the WILL.
2.12. Defendant no.1 and 2 have also manufactured false and
fabricated GPA set of documents dated 19.03.1997 allegedly executed
by Late Sh. Ram Mehar Singh in favour of defendant no. 2, Sh.
Surender Yadav with respect to plot No.14 admeasuring 100 sq.yds
out of Khasra No.891 situated at Village Mundka, Friends Enclave,
Delhi and during his lifetime, Late Sh. Ram Mehar never discussed
about the execution of the aforesaid documents in favour of defendant
no.2 with the plaintiff.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 9/45
2.13. Defendant no.1 and 2 became nominee in the bank account of
Late Sh. Ram Mehar by misusing his blank signed documents and
after his death made an unauthorised transfer of Rs.6,66,512/- to the
account of defendant no.2, despite the fact that the said amount
should have been distributed amongst all his legal heirs.
2.14. Defendant no.1 and 2 have also prepared false and fabricated
documents of plot bearing no.A-200, admeasuring 133 sq.yds.,
Friends Enclave, Village Mundka, New Delhi allegedly executed by
Late Smt. Ram Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 and later on
transferred the aforesaid plot in favour of defendant no.10 Sh. Lalit
Kumar.
3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no.3 to 10 were
impleaded as defendants vide orders dated 07.09.2015 and 13.08.2019
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
4.CASE OF DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2.
4.1. The plaintiff is the executant of the sale deed dated 08.11.2000
registered on 13.11.2000 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 7
Bighas and 6 Biswas, hence, the present suit for declaration of the said
sale deed as null and void is not maintainable in the eyes of the law.
4.2. The suit property is not an ancestral property as the concept of
ancestral property is not applicable on the bhumidari rights provided
to the cultivator of the agricultural land under the provision of Delhi
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 10/45
Land Reforms Act, 1954 and Late Sh. Ram Mehar was the original
bhumidar of suit land and he had transferred the same in favour of the
plaintiff.
4.3. After the death of their father, Late Sh. Rajbir Singh, both of
them inherited the agricultural land in question and became the joint
bhumidars and the plaintiff was left with no right whatsoever in the
said property as she had already transferred her title therein vide the
registered sale deed dated 08.11.2000 in favour of Late Sh. Rajbir
Singh and defendant no.1.
4.4. Late Sh. Ram Mehar, husband of plaintiff and grandfather of
defendant no.1 and 2 was the owner of property bearing No.C-13 and
14, Friends Enclave, Village Mundka, Delhi and during his lifetime,
he transferred the title and possession of the same in favour of
defendant no.2 vide GPA set of documents dated 19.03.1997 at the
total sale consideration of Rs.55,000/- and since then defendant no.2 is
in the possession of the same and has been depositing the due
development charges with DESU and Delhi Jal Board for consuming
electricity and water.
4.5. On 17.04.2008, the plaintiff transferred the title and possession
of the property bearing No.A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka, Delhi to
defendant no.2 after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.1,30,000/-
vide GPA set of documents and thereafter on 14.10.2011, the said
property was further transferred by defendant no.2 to defendant no.10,
Sh. Lalit Kumar.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 11/45
4.6. The daughters of the plaintiff are married and living in their
respective matrimonial homes.
4.7. The other son of plaintiff namely Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav used
to harass and ill treat her and Late Sh. Ram Mehar Yadav and
consequently both of them started living with Late Sh. Rajbir Singh
and defendant no.1 and 2, who provided them all the comforts of the
life.
4.8. The defendant no.1 and 2 never obtained any signature or thumb
impression of the plaintiff on any blank document or stamp paper and
they have treated their grandmother / plaintiff with great respect and
love.
4.9. After the registration of the aforesaid sale deed, Late Smt. Ram
Kaur also appeared before the concerned Tehsildar and got recorded
her statement on oath on 05.01.2005 whereby she admitted having
executed a registered sale deed in favour of Late Sh. Rajbir Singh and
defendant no.1 with respect to the agricultural land in question and
upon this, the concerned Tehsildar mutated the land in favour of
defendant no.1 and 2.
4.10. Smt. Santosh, Smt. Kamlesh and Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav
turned dishonest and in the year 2012 made an unlawful demand of a
substantial share in the suit properties and when defendant no.1 and 2
did not accede to their aforesaid demand, all of them concocted a false
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 12/45
story and coerced Late Smt. Ram Kaur to file the present suit.
5. Defendant no.3 to 10 have not filed any written statement.
6. Thereafter, based upon pleadings of parties, the following issues
were framed on 15.01.2022:--
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration and
mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaint is bad for mis-joinder / non-joinder of
parties? OPD.
(3) Whether suit is not properly valued and court fee not paid?
OPD.
(4) Whether suit is barred U/s 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act?
OPD.
(5) Relief.
7. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
7.1. In support of their case, the plaintiffs have examined the
following witnesses :
(i) Plaintiff no.1 / Smt. Dinesh Yadav as PW-1, who tendered her
evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/X in her examination-in-chief.
(ii) Sh. Manoj Kumar Dahiya, Patwari, Office of the SDM, Punjabi
Bagh, Nangloi, Delhi as PW-2;
(iii) Sh. Deepak Dabas Clerk, Delhi State Co-operative Bank Limited
as PW-3;
(iv) Sh. Ram Krishan Singh, Guard (CDV), SR-IIA, Punjabi Bagh as
PW-4;
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 13/45
(v) HC Sandeep Kumar, PS Mundka as PW-5;
(vi) Sh. Amit Gupta, Banking Assistant, Delhi State Co-operative
Bank Limited, Mundka Branch as PW-6;
(vii) Sh. Manoj Kumar Dahiya, Patwari, SDM Punjabi Bagh Officc as
PW-7;
(viii)Sh. Devender Kumar, Junior Assistant, Sub Registrar, Basai Dara
Pur, Delhi as PW-8; and
(ix) Ms. Monika Rani Ahlawat, Senior Branch Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Paschim Vihar Branch as PW-9.
7.2. In her evidence, PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
A. True copy of the site plan of the agricultural land as Ex.PW-1/1;
B. True copy of the site plan of property bearing no. A-200, Friends
Enclave, Mundka, Delhi-110043 as Ex.PW-1/2;
C. The death certificate of Sh. Ram Mehar Yadav as Ex.PW-1/3;
D. The office copy of complaint dated 22.08.2012 as Ex.PW-1/4;
E. The original postal receipts dated 22.08.2012 as Ex.PW-1/5;
F. The office copy of complaint dated 22.08.2012 bearing the
acknowledgment stamp of PS Mundka at the last page as
Ex.PW-1/6;
G. The certified copy of sale deed dated 08.11.2000 executed by
plaintiff in favour of Sh. Rajbir Singh and Sh. Harish Kumar,
registered on 13.11.2000 as Ex.PW-1/7 and Ex.PW-1/8;
H. The sale deed executed by defendant no.1 and 2 in favour of
defendant no.3 to 9 qua agricultural land as Ex.PW-1/9;
I. The Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt,
Affidavit executed by Sh. Ram Mehar Singh in favour of Sh.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 14/45
Surinder Singh Yadav, all dated 19.03.1997 as Ex.PW-1/10;
J. GPA set of documents dated 14.10.2011 executed by
defendant no.2, Surender Yadav in favour of Sh. Lalit Kumar as
Ex.PW-1/15;
K. Death certificate of Smt. Ram Kaur as Ex.PW-1/16;
L. Copy of death certificate of Sh. Shyambir Yadav as Ex.PW-1/17,
(however application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section
151 CPC has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/17).
(Ex.PW-1/11 to Ex.PW-1/4 are not on record, duly noted in the
ordersheet dated 11.05.2022).
During cross examination, following documents were put to
PW-1:
A. Certified copy of appeal under Section 64 of DLR Act titled as
"Shyambir Yadav Vs. Ram Kaur & Ors" as Ex.PW-1/D-1;
B. Certified copy of order dated 08.10.2011 passed by Sh.G.S.
Meena, Ld. ADM, West, Rampura, Delhi as Ex.PW-1/D2;
C. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC filed on behalf of Sh.
Shyambir Yadav as Ex.PW-1/D3;
D. Certified copy of mutation order dated 05.01.2005 as
Ex.PW-1/D-4.
7.3. In his evidence, PW-2 has relied upon the following documents:
A. The photocopies of Khatauni Pamaish in the name of Smt. Ram
Kaur and Khatauni pertaining to the year 2005-2006 are
Ex.PW-2/1 and Ex.PW-2/2 respectively (OSR).
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 15/45
7.4. In his evidence, PW-3 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Office copies of application under RTI Act, 2005 filed by Smt.
Ram Kaur, reply to the same, complaint by Smt. Ram Kaur and
the bank statement of Sh. Ram Mehar and Sh. Surender Yadav as
Ex.PW-3/1 (Colly).
7.5. In his evidence, PW-4 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Certified true copy of sale deed dated 22.02.2013 registered as
Document No.1296 in Book No.1 Volume No.2140 from page
192 to 199 dated 30.03.2013 as Ex.PW-4/1 (OSR); and
B. The letter issued by Sh. Deepak Kadyan, Sub Registrar IIA (PB)
as Ex.PW-4/2.
7.6. In his evidence, PW-5 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Photocopy of Register No.2, Daily Station Report regarding the
DD entry no. 30B dated 04.09.2012 as Ex.PW-5/1 (OSR); and
B. Photocopy of order dated 18.01.2019 vide which the record
pertaining to the present complaint has been destroyed as
Ex.PW-5/2.
7.7. In his evidence, PW-6 has relied upon the following documents:
A. The RTI application moved by the plaintiff alongwith reply and
the bank statement of Sh. Surender Yadav and Sh. Ram Mehar
maintained with Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. as
Ex.PW-6/1 (Colly) {inadvertently exhibited as Ex.PW-1/6
(colly)}.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 16/45
7.8. In his evidence, PW-7 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Letter dated 28.03.2023 issued by Tehsildar, Sub Division
Punjabi Bagh, Delhi as Ex.PW-7/1.
7.9. In his evidence, PW-8 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Certified true copy of sale deed dated 08.11.2000 registered as
document no.11287 in Book No.1, Volume No.9735 from page
no.134 to 139 dated 13.11.2000 as Ex.PW-8/1; and
7.10. In her evidence, PW-9 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Certified copy of statement of account of account
no.08462010047690 in the name of Ram Kaur w.e.f. 01.04.2011
to 31.03.2013 as Ex.PW-9/1 (2 pages); and
B. Certified copy of Customer ID details of Ram Kaur as
Ex.PW-9/2.
C. Certified copy of the certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act as Ex.PW-9/3.
8. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiffs.
Accordingly, plaintiffs evidence was closed.
9. DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED
UPON.
9.1. In support of their case, defendant no.2 Sh. Surender Singh
Yadav examined himself as DW-1 and tendered evidence affidavit
Ex.DW-1/X in his examination-in-chief.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 17/45
9.2. In his evidence, the DW-1 has relied upon the following
documents:
A. Certified copy of mutation order dated 05.01.2005 as Ex.DW-1/1
already Ex.PW-1/D-4.
B. Certified copy of appeal under Section 64 of DLR Act titled as
"Shyambir Yadav Vs. Ram Kaur as Ex.DW-1/2 already
Ex.PW-1/D-1;
C. Certified copy of order dated 08.10.2011 passed by DC, West,
Rampura, Delhi as Ex.DW-1/3 already Ex.PW-1/D2;
D. Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt,
Affidavit executed by Sh. Ram Mehar Singh in favour of Sh.
Surinder Singh, all dated 19.03.1997 as Ex.DW-1/4 already
Ex.PW-1/10;
E. The receipts issued by Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Electric Supply,
undertaking in his favour as Ex.DW-1/5 (Colly); and
F. Photocopy of General Power of Attorney executed by defendant
no.2 qua property bearing no.A-200, Khasra No.906, Village
Mundka, Friends Enclave, Delhi in favour of Sh. Lalit Kumar as
Mark A.
During cross examination, following documents were put to
DW-1:
A. Photocopy of documents of property bearing no.C-13, Friends
Enclave, Mundka, New Delhi as Ex.DW-1/P1 (Colly); and
B. GPA set of documents dated 12.10.1993 executed by Smt. Laxmi
Devi in favour of Sh. Ram Mehar Singh as Ex.DW-1/P2
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 18/45
10. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendants.
Accordingly, defence evidence was closed.
11. I have heard Ld. counsels for both the parties and have gone
through the material brought record.
12. My issue-wise findings is as under:--
13. ISSUE NO.1.
Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration and
mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
13.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. It is a matter of
record that the original plaintiff Late Smt. Ram Kaur expired during
the pendency of the suit and her daughter-in-law Smt. Dinesh Yadav,
who was impleaded as one of the LR, has stepped into the witness box
as PW-1 and deposed that she is well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the present suit was originally
filed by her mother-in-law Late Smt. Ram Kaur, who was an old and
illiterate lady, against her grandsons / defendant no.1 and 2 and the
subsequent purchasers of the properties involved herein. PW-1 has
deposed that the original plaintiff / Late Smt. Ram Kaur was the
owner of agricultural land admeasuring 7 bighas and 6 biswas in
Khasra No. Khasra No.33/10/2 (1-12), 33/11/3 (3-14) and 33/20/1 (2-
0) of Village Mundka, Delhi and the said piece of land was transferred
in her favour by her husband Late Sh. Ram Mehar. PW-1 has deposed
that Late Smt. Ram Kaur was having four children namely, Late Sh.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 19/45
Rajbir Yadav, Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav, Smt. Santosh and Smt.
Kamlesh. PW-1 has deposed that due to the old age of Late Smt. Ram
Kaur, her bank transactions and other property related matters were
taken care of by her elder son, Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav and his two sons
i.e. defendant no.1 and 2, who used to obtain her signatures on a
number of documents including several blank papers and stamp
papers on the pretext of using the same for managing the affairs of her
properties and owing to her trust on defendant no.1 and 2, being her
grandsons, Late Smt. Ram Kaur used to sign those documents without
any hesitation. PW-1 has deposed that her husband Late Sh. Shyambir
Yadav also requested the original plaintiff to transfer the ancestral /
suit property in his name for ensuring that the same remained within
family as defendant no.1 and 2 were of bad character and could not be
trusted upon for the purpose of handling the property related matters.
PW-1 has further deposed that Late Smt. Ram Kaur never intended to
transfer the agricultural land in question as she desired to retain the
same in her name during her lifetime and thereafter bequeath and
distribute it amongst her two sons and for giving effect to her
aforesaid wish, she directed her elder son Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav and
defendant no.1 and 2 to make necessary arrangement for the execution
of her WILL and upon this, Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav and defendant no.1
and 2 took her to the Office of concerned Sub Registrar and obtained
her thumb impressions on some documents on the pretext of execution
of WILL and during the said process, she was also taken to an official
of Sub Registrar Office to whom she told that she had affixed her
thumb impression on the aforesaid documents out of her own freewill
and without any threat or pressure. PW-1 has deposed that after the
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 20/45
execution of the aforesaid document at the Sub Registrar Office when
Late Smt. Ram Kaur expresssed her intention to meet Sh. Shyambir
Yadav, she was stopped by Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav and defendant no.1
and 2 by saying that if the factum of execution of WILL would be
shared with Sh. Shyambir Yadav, he could create a big controversy as
he always wanted to get the entire ancestral property transferred in his
name and owing to the aforesaid reason and for maintaining peace in
family, Late Smt. Ram Kaur did not inform her son Sh. Shyambir
Yadav regarding the execution of aforesaid document at the Sub
Registrar Office.
13.2. PW-1 further deposed that in March, 2012, when Late Smt.
Ram Kaur warned defendant no.1 and 2 about their bad behaviour
towards her, they disclosed that she was left with no property in her
name as they have already got transferred her entire property in their
name and further threatened her with dire consequences. PW-1 has
deposed that Late Smt. Ram Kaur never intended to execute sale deed
of her property in favour of her son Late Sh. Rajbir Singh and
defendant no.1 Sh. Harish Yadav and they in collusion with each other
either misused / misappropriated the blank documents on which her
thumb impressions were obtained on the pretext of using them for
managing the affairs of her properties or her thumb impression has
been forged on the documents which they got executed in the year
2000 or she was deceived in the execution of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/7
of the subject matter property on the pretext of execution of her
WILL.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 21/45
13.3. PW-1 has further deposed that defendant no.1 and 2 in collusion
with defendant no.3 to 9 have also created a sham document in the
form of sale deed dated 22.02.2013 Ex.PW-1/9 in respect of the land
admeasuring 7 Bighas and 6 Biswas belonging to Late Smt. Ram
Kaur.
13.4. PW-1 has further deposed that defendant no.1 and 2 have also
manufactured / created forged and fabricated documents of Plot
No.14, admeasuring 100 sq.yds out of Khasra No.891, Village
Mundka, Friends Enclave, Delhi in the form of GPA set of documents
dated 19.03.1997 allegedly executed by Late Sh. Ram Mehar Singh,
husband of Late Smt. Ram Kaur in favour of defendant no.2. PW-1
has deposed that defendant no.1 and 2 also misused the blank signed
documents of Late Sh. Ram Mehar Singh and got themselves
appointed as nominee of his bank account and transferred the entire
amount from his bank account at The Delhi State Co-operative Bank
at Mundka, Delhi to the account of defendant no.2.
13.5. PW-1 has further deposed that defendant no.1 and 2 have also
manufactured forged and fabricated documents of property bearing
no.A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka, Nangloi, New Delhi in the form
of GPA set of documents allegedly executed by Late Smt. Ram Kaur
in favour of defendant no.2 and later on, they transferred the said
property in favour of defendant no.10, Sh. Lalit Kumar.
13.6. PW-1 has further deposed that during the pendency of the
present suit, Smt. Ram Kaur expired and her legal heirs were brought
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 22/45
on record and she is the wife of Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav, son of the
original plaintiff Late Smt. Ram Kaur.
13.7. The plaintiffs have also examined PW-2 to PW-9, who have
brought on record several documents as noted hereinabove in support
of their case.
13.8. In rebuttal, defendant no.2 Sh. Surendra Yadav appeared as
DW-1 and deposed that Late Smt. Ram Kaur was her grandmother
who executed the registered sale deed of the agricultural land in
question dated 08.11.2000 admeasuring 7 Bighas and 6 Biswas in
favour of his brother Sh. Harish Kumar / defendant no.1 and their
father, Late Sh. Rajbir Singh. DW-1 has deposed that after the
execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the vendor i.e. Late Smt. Ram
Kaur and the vendee i.e. Sh. Harish Kumar and Late Sh. Rajbir singh,
appeared before the concerned Tehsildar and their statements were
recorded on oath on 05.01.2005 wherein Late Smt. Ram Kaur
admitted the execution of the sale deed in question and the delivery of
the possession of the subject matter property to them. DW-1 has
further deposed that upon the basis of the aforesaid statement made by
Late Smt. Ram Kaur, the agricultural land in question admeasuring 7
bighas and 6 biswas was mutated in favour of defendant no.1 Sh.
Harish Yadav and their father Late Sh. Rajbir Singh vide mutation file
Ex.DW-1/1.
13.9. DW-1 has also deposed that the aforesaid mutation proceedings
were even challenged by Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav, son of Late Smt.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 23/45
Ram Kaur before the concerned Revenue Appellate Court, which was
dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2011 Ex.DW-1/3.
13.10. DW-1 has deposed that Late Smt. Ram Kaur voluntarily sold
the property bearing no.A-200, Friends Colony, Mundka to him and
transferred the possession of the same as well. DW-1 has further
deposed that Late Sh. Ram Mehar also sold property bearing No.C-13
and 14 to him vide documents Ex.DW-1/4 after the receipt of the total
sale consideration mentioned therein.
13.11. DW-1 has deposed that the present suit was not instituted by
Late Smt. Ram Kaur out of her own freewill rather she was coerced by
Late Sh.Shyambir Yadav to do the same for usurping the suit
properties. DW-1 has further deposed that he is in the possession of
C-13 and 14, Friends Enclave, ever since the same was purchased by
him from Late Sh. Ram Mehar and the material thing is that Late Sh.
Ram Mehar never filed any case or challenged the transaction vide
which the deponent came into the possession.
13.12. DW-1 has further deposed that the property bearing no.A-200
was sold by Late Smt. Ram Kaur after receiving a sum of
Rs.1,30,000/- as a sale consideration and she also executed the GPA
set of documents in his favour.
13.13. So in a nutshell, the following properties and documents are
involved in the present case:
(i) Sale deed dated 13.11.2000 allegedly executed by Late Smt. Ram
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 24/45
Kaur in favour of Sh. Rajbir Singh and defendant no.1 / Sh.
Harish Yadav in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 7
bighas and 6 biswas, part of Khasra No.33/10/2 (1-12),
33/11/3(3-14) and 33/20/1 (2-0) of Village Mundka, Delhi -
Ex.PW-1/7 and Ex.PW-1/8;
(ii) Sale deed dated 22.02.2013 executed by defendant no.1 and 2 in
favour of defendant no.3 to 9 of the aforesaid property i.e.
agricultural land admeasuring 7 bighas and 6 biswas, part of
Khasra No.33/10/2 (1-12), 33/11/3(3-14) and 33/20/1 (2-0) of
Village Mundka, Delhi - Ex.PW-1/9;
(iii) Agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit and
Receipt, all dated 19.03.1997 allegedly executed by Late Sh.
Ram Mehar Singh in favour of defendant no.2 with respect to
Plot No.14 admeasuring 100 sq.yds. out of Khasra No.8/9/1,
Village Mundka, Friends Enclave, New Delhi - Ex.PW-1/10;
(iv) Agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney and WILL dated
17.04.2008 allegedly executed by Late Smt. Ram Kaur in favour
of defendant no.2 with respect to property bearing no.A-200,
Friends Enclave, Mundka, New Delhi (These documents have
not been brought on record on behalf of either of the parties); and
(v) GPA set of documents dated 14.10.2011 executed by defendant
no.2 in favour of defendant no.10 with respect to property
bearing no.A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka, New Delhi -
Ex.PW-1/15.
13.14. Now, this Court will adjudicate the validity and genuineness
of all the aforesaid transactions / documents individually in the light
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 25/45
of the factual matrix of the present case and the evidence brought on
record by the parties to the suit in support of their respective pleas.
13.15. Firstly, the plaintiff Late Smt. Ram Kaur has taken the plea
that she never intended to execute the registered sale deed Ex.PW-1/7
with respect to her agricultural land admeasuring 7 bighas and 6
biswas in Village Mundka in favour of defendant no.1 Sh. Harish and
his father Late Sh. Rajbir Singh and the said document Ex.PW-1/7
was obtained / manufactured by defendant no.1 and 2 in collusion
with their father, Late Sh. Rajbir Singh either by forging her thumb
impressions thereon or by misappropriating and misusing the blank
stamp papers on which they used to obtain her thumb impressions on
regular basis on the pretext of managing her properties or she was
deceived into the execution of the said sale deed on the pretext of
execution of her WILL.
13.16. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiff is built upon the
alternative pleas of either fraud or forgery alleged by her against
defendant no.1 and 2 and their father.
13.17. So far as the issue of proving the forgery of her thumb
impression on the sale deed Ex.PW-1/7 is concerned, the record
reveals that the plaintiff has not examined any expert witness to the
said effect, which was the only possible course of action to do the
same. Hence, it is clear that there is no evidence available on record
for the plea of forgery taken by the plaintiff.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 26/45
13.18. Insofar as the plea of fraud is concerned, it is trite to mention
that for establishing the element of fraud, plaintiff is required to
demonstrate that the representations made by defendant no.1 and 2
alongwith their father during the transaction in question were
deceptive and false in subject and in fact and the onus of proof to
prove the same rests entirely upon her and she must prove the alleged
fraud which vitiated the transaction in question, to the hilt in
categorical terms by showing the false representation knowingly made
by the defendants and the act in question done by the plaintiff after
relying upon such misrepresentation. It be noted that fraud must be
proved by clear, cogent and conclusive evidence and mere suspicion
or circumstantial evidence is not sufficient.
13.19. Now coming to the factual matrix of the present case. It is a
matter of record that Late Smt. Ram Kaur approached this Court in the
year 2012 with plea that the defendant no.1 and 2 in collusion with
their father Late Sh. Rajbir practised fraud upon her and made her
execute the registered sale deed Ex.PW-1/7 dated 08.11.2000 with
respect to her agricultural land and she got to know about the
existence of the aforesaid sale deed only in the year 2012, when the
said fact was disclosed by defendant no.1 and 2 themselves.
13.20. So it is clear from the case set up by the plaintiff herself that
she has not disputed her thumb impression on the sale deed
Ex.PW-1/7. In other words, the plaintiff has not disputed her
standing / status of the executant of the document Ex.PW-1/7.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 27/45
13.21. This Court has specifically pointed out the aforesaid
unambiguous admission made by Late Smt. Ram Kaur regarding the
execution of sale deed in question, which is a registered document
executed in the presence of a designated Government Authority / Sub
Registrar, an independent public official who was acting in the
discharge of his official duties at the time of registration of the sale
deed and the law recognises and places a registered document on a
higher pedestal in comparison to an unregistered one and bestows it
with a statutory presumption to the effect that a registered document is
presumed to be genuine / validly executed unless proved otherwise.
Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Prem Singh and Others Vs. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353.
13.22. So, in light of the statutory presumption of genuineness, it is
clear that a heavy onus of proof lies upon the plaintiff to establish
illegality / element of fraud in the execution of the registered sale deed
in question Ex.PW-1/7 and for discharging / shifting the onus, the
plaintiff is required to prove the same in categorical and unqualified
terms and a mere oral plea to the said effect is grossly inadequate.
13.23. Even so, a bare perusal of the evidence affidavit of PW-1 Smt.
Dinesh Yadav clearly demonstrates / reflects that except making bare
allegations, she has not brought on record an iota of evidence which
could substantiate her plea of fraud committed by defendant no.1 and
2 with Late Smt. Ram Kaur at the time of execution or registration of
sale deed Ex.PW-1/7. At this stage, it is relevant to highlight the
settled position of law that bald assertions of facts are of no use to the
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 28/45
parties to the suit unless they are backed by the admissible evidence.
Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in A.B. Govardhan Vs. P. Ragothaman, Civil Appeal no.9975-
76 of 2024.
13.24. Before getting any further, it is important to point out that
during the course of his arguments, Ld. counsel for plaintiff relied
heavily upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in MST.
Sethani Vs. Bhana, 1993 supp (4) SC Cases 639 for advancing the
argument that in a case where the executant of the document is a old
lady, the onus of proof to prove the validity / free consent of the
executant lies upon the propounder / beneficiary of the said document,
defendant no.1 and 2 in the present case.
13.25. This Court is in respectful agreement with the observations
made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, however, the
ratio of the same does not apply on the factual matrix of the present
case as in MST Sethani, supra, the executant was an old, blind,
illiterate and tribal woman while in the case in hand Late Smt. Ram
Kaur was neither Tribal nor blind, hence it is clear that there is a
fundamental difference between the factual matrix of both the cases.
13.26. Secondly, the record of the present case clearly reflects that
Late Smt. Ram Kaur was well versed with the concept of transfer of
property by execution of documents as the properties in question were
acquired by her through sale documents executed by Late Sh. Ram
Mehar in her favour. Hence, it cannot be pleaded that Late Smt. Ram
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 29/45
Kaur was totally oblivious to the concept of execution of property
transfer documents and she was simply deceived by defendant no.1
and Late Sh. Rajbir Yadav in the execution and registration of sale
deed Ex.PW-1/7, on the pretext of execution of her WILL.
13.27. Moreover, the record also reflects that Late Smt. Ram Kaur
also participated in the mutation proceedings conducted before the
concerned Tehsildar after the execution of sale deed for making
consequent mutations in the Revenue record in terms of the sale deed
Ex.PW-1/7.
13.28. Hence, it is clear that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
MST Sethani, supra is not applicable on the factual matrix of the
present case and the onus of proof to establish the genuineness of the
sale deed in question cannot be placed upon defendant no.1 and 2.
13.29. An another noteworthy aspect of the factual matrix of the
present case which needs to be underlined is that Late Sh. Rajbir or
defendant no.1 and 2 were not total strangers to Late Smt. Ram Kaur
rather her real son and grandsons, with whom she admittedly resided
for a long period of time and vested them with the authority to
administer her properties including the subject matter property of the
sale deed, hence, prima facie the transaction is not inherently
improbable or unnatural. Moreover, in the body of the plaint itself, the
original plaintiff Late Smt. Ram Kaur had pleaded that she was having
differences with her other son Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav, predecessor
in interest of PW-1 Smt. Dinesh Yadav, over the issue of distribution
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 30/45
of assets and she had even stopped visiting his house, a material fact
which to an extent corroborates the possibility of execution of the sale
deed Ex.PW-1/7 in favour of his other son Late Sh. Rajbir.
13.30. Succinctly stating, PW-1 has not brought on record sufficient
material / evidence which could cast any aspersion upon the
genuineness of the sale deed in question Ex.PW-1/7.
13.31. Besides the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds the case
pleaded / set up by the plaintiff meritless due to the following
additional reasons as well :
A. Firstly, it is a matter of record that the original plaintiff Late Smt.
Ram Kaur expired during the pendency of the trial and she never
stepped into the witness box for establishing the averments made by
her in the body of the plaint and the plaintiffs have examined only
PW-1 Smt. Dinesh Yadav, daughter-in-law of Late Smt. Ram Kaur in
support of their case.
13.32. This Court has highlighted the aforesaid aspect of the present
suit as even during her cross examination, PW-1 Smt. Dinesh Yadav
admitted that she was not present at the time of the execution of the
sale deed on 08.11.2000 Ex.PW-1/7, which clearly indicates that she
does not have the first-hand knowledge of the facts deposed by her
during her deposition. The following replies given by PW-1 during the
cross examination to the several questions put to her by Ld. Counsel
for the defendants also indicates the same :
(a) "I was not present at the time of sale deed dated 08.11.2000 in
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 31/45
favour of Rajbir Yadav and Harish Yadav by Ram Kaur. I was not
present before Tehsildar on 05.01.2005 when Ram Kaur given no
objection for mutation of the property in favour of Rajbir Yadav and
Harish Yadav"
(b) I had never accompanied plaintiff to Tis Hazari Courts. (Vol. My
husband had come with her).
(c) As per my knowledge the plaintiff has also filed criminal case
against the defendants in the Court. It is correct that I have no details
of such case. I have not attended hearing of such case.
(d) I personally had not inspected the present case file.
13.33. Hence, it is crystal clear from the aforesaid replies that the
evidence / testimony of PW-1 Smt. Dinesh Yadav is chiefly /
substantially hearsay.
13.34. Hearsay evidence means any information that a person gathers
or collects from a person who has first-hand knowledge of the fact or
information.
13.35. The general rule is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in the
Court of Law. Section 60 of The Indian Evidence Act / Section 55
BSA 2023 categorically provides that the oral evidence should be
direct in the following manner :
(i) If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence
of the witness who says he saw it;
(ii) If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence
of the witness who says he heard it;
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 32/45
(iii) If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense
or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of the witness
who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner; and
(iv) If it refers to an opinion or to the ground on which that opinion is
held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that
opinion on those grounds.
13.36. In light of the aforesaid position of law, it is clear that the
evidence of PW-1 Smt. Dinesh Yadav is per se inadmissible in law
being hearsay as admittedly she was not present at the time of
execution or registration of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/7. It be also noted
that she has not taken any plea in her examination-in-chief / evidence
that Late Smt. Ram Kaur narrated the entire gamut of facts and
circumstances surrounding the execution / registration of sale deed
Ex.PW-1/7 to her, during the same transaction. Hence, the testimony
of PW-1 cannot be taken into consideration for establishing the
alleged fraud played by defendant no.1, 2 and their father, Late Sh.
Rajbir Yadav upon Late Smt. Ram Kaur at the time of execution /
registration of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/7.
(B). Secondly, it is a matter of record that the sale deed in question
Ex.PW-1/7 was registered on 13.11.2000 and the present suit was
filed by Late Smt. Ram Kaur in the year 2012, which is beyond the
prescribed the period of three years provided under The Limitation
Act, 1963 for seeking cancellation / declaration of a void / voidable
document as null and void. However, this Court is well aware of the
position of law that in cases where fraud is pleaded / allegedly
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 33/45
practised by the defendants to conceal the true nature of the
transaction, the plaintiff is allowed to take the plea that earlier she had
no opportunity to discover the deceit and the limitation seeking
cancellation would be calculated from the date of knowledge of the
plaintiff regarding the existence of such instrument. Hence, in the
factual matrix of the present case, the question of limitation is a mixed
question of fact and law and it is clear from the record that the
plaintiff has not brought on record sufficient material for establishing
that she came to know about the existence of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/7
in the year 2012 only, the true nature of document executed by her on
08.11.2000. Hence, it is clear that the claim made by the plaintiff /
executant through the present suit is barred by the law of limitation as
well.
(C). Thirdly, during the cross examination of PW-1, defendant no.1
and 2 brought on record the mutation proceedings Ex.PW-1/D4
reflecting that Late Smt. Ram Kaur herself appeared before the
concerned Tehsildar and recorded her statement that she had
transferred the suit property i.e. agricultural land admeasuring 7
Bighas and 6 Biswas to defendant no.1 Sh. Harish Kumar and his
father Late Sh. Rajbir Singh through a registered sale deed, which
clearly establishes that the original plaintiff Late Smt. Ram Kaur was
well informed and aware about the existence and execution of the sale
deed Ex.PW-1/7 and her conduct of making an admission before the
concerned Tehsildar, a public servant who was discharging his official
duties was nothing but a clear cut admission made by her regarding
the execution of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/7. This Court is of the opinion
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 34/45
that the mutation proceedings Ex.PW-1/D4 has certain sanctity and
cannot be outrightly rejected without any plausible explanation and
reason and should be read as an admission made by the original
plaintiff Late Smt. Ram Kaur about the execution of the sale deed
Ex.PW-1/7 and practically / legally estopped her from seeking the
cancellation of the same.
(D) Fourthly, the defendants have brought on record the order dated
08.10.2011 Ex.PW-1/D2 passed by Additional Collector, Sh. G.S.
Meena in Revenue Appeal No.83/DC(W)/2007 whereby the appeal
filed by Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav, husband of PW-1 against the
mutation order Ex.PW-1/D4 was dismissed. The said order clearly
records that Late Smt. Ram Kaur was respondent no.1 therein, who
filed reply to the appeal thereby supporting the mutation order made
in favour of defendant no.1 and his father Late Sh. Rajbir Singh with
respect to the property in question based upon the sale deed
Ex.PW-1/7. Hence, it is clear that the original plaintiff Late Smt. Ram
Kaur was not only well aware of the existence of the sale deed
Ex.PW-1/7 but she also admitted the execution of the same time and
again.
(E) Fifthly, it is clear from the record that the sale deed in question
Ex.PW-1/7 is a registered document which carries a statutory
presumption of genuineness and the plaintiff has not brought on
record any concrete material / evidence for rebutting such
presumption.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 35/45
(F) Sixthly, plaintiff no.6 / Smt. Kamlesh and plaintiff no.7 / Smt.
Santosh, daughters of Late Smt. Ram Kaur have chosen not to step
into the witness box as witnesses for substantiating the claim made by
PW-1 in her evidence affidavit that the original plaintiff Late Smt.
Ram Kaur was rescued by them from the house of defendant no.1 and
2 in July, 2012 and thereafter, the legal proceedings were initiated by
her against them. So, the non-examination of plaintiff no.6 and 7
entails an adverse inference against the claim of the plaintiffs as it is a
well settled position of law that if the plaintiff fails to appear in Court
to testify or be cross examined, the Court may draw an adverse
inference against them.
13.37. So in view of the entire aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the opinion that the plaintiffs have not brought on record sufficient
material / evidence which could establish that any kind of fraud was
practised by defendant no.1 and 2 in connivance with their father Late
Sh. Rajbir Singh upon Late Smt. Ram Kaur at the time of execution /
registration of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/7 pertaining to the subject
matter property i.e. agricultural land admeasuring 7 Bighas and 6
Biswas of Village Mundka, New Delhi.
13.38. So far as the agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney
and WILL dated 17.04.2008 allegedly executed by Late Smt. Ram
Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 with respect to property bearing
no.A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka, New Delhi is concerned, the
plaintiffs have not brought on record any material either for
establishing the alleged forgery committed by defendant no.2 in
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 36/45
creation of those documents or any fraud played by defendant no.2
upon Smt. Ram Kaur at the time of their execution. It be noted that
neither the plaintiffs nor defendant no.2 have placed on record even
the photocopy of the aforesaid set of documents. Hence, it is apparent
that the plea of plaintiffs is meritless and hollow.
13.39. With respect to the aforesaid set of documents as well, the
entire testimony of PW-1 Smt. Dinesh Yadav is hearsay and deserves
outright rejection and moreover, even as per the case of plaintiff
herself, the WILL dated 17.04.2008 is a registered document, which
carries a presumption of genuineness in favour of its execution. In a
nutshell, there is not an iota of material available on record which
could establish that Late Smt. Ram Kaur was deceived in executing
the aforesaid document i.e. GPA set of documents dated 17.04.2008 in
favour of defendant no.2 with respect to property bearing no.A-200,
Friends Enclave, Village Mundka, Delhi.
13.40. The plaintiff has also sought declaration of Agreement to Sell,
Affidavit, Receipt and General Power of Attorney dated 19.03.1997
Ex.PW-1/10 allegedly executed by Late Sh. Ram Mehar Singh in
favour of defendant no.2 with respect to plot no.14, admeasuring 100
sq.yds. out of Khasra No. 8/9/1, Village Mundka, Friends Enclave,
New Delhi Ex.PW-1/10. However, the perusal of plaint reveals that
the plaintiff has not even set out the necessary particulars of the fraud,
which is a mandatory requirement under Order VI Rule 4 CPC. The
record also reveals that there is no legally admissible evidence
available on record which could establish that Late Sh. Ram Mehar
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 37/45
Singh did not execute the GPA set of documents Ex.PW-1/10 of the
aforesaid suit property in favour of defendant no.2 during his lifetime.
13.41. It be also noted that PW-1 Smt. Dinesh Yadav has not pleaded
in her evidence the source of information from where she got to know
that Late Sh. Ram Mehar Singh did not execute the documents
Ex.PW-1/10 as he had died in the year 2007, prior to the institution of
the present suit. Even otherwise, the entire testimony of PW-1 Smt.
Dinesh Yadav regarding the aforesaid documents is hearsay and
consequently inadmissible in law.
13.42. Briefly stating, the plaintiffs have not brought on record even
a shred of legally admissible evidence in support of their case and
consequently, the same deserves rejection in light of the observation
made by Hon’ble Apex Court in A.B. Govardhan, supra to the effect
that bald assertions made by the parties to the suit are worthless unless
the same are substantiated by a legally admissible evidence.
13.43. Before concluding the discussion regarding the genuineness of
the documents allegedly executed by Late Smt. Ram Kaur and Late
Sh. Ram Mehar, it is pertinent to highlight that as this Court has
already returned the finding that there is no material available on
record for questioning the genuineness of sale deed dated 08.11.2000
Ex.PW-1/7 and the GPA set of documents dated 17.04.2008 executed
by Late Smt. Ram Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 with respect to
property bearing no.A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka, New Delhi, so
the natural corollary of the same would be that the sale deed
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 38/45
Ex.PW-1/9 executed by defendant no.1 and 2 in favour of defendant
no.3 to 9 and GPA set of documents Ex.PW-1/15 executed by
defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.10 are unassailable.
13.44. Accordingly, the prayer of the plaintiffs seeking declaration of
sale deed dated 08.11.2000 Ex.PW-1/7, sale deed dated 22.02.2013
Ex.PW-1/9, GPA set of documents dated 19.03.1997 Ex.PW-1/10,
GPA set of documents dated 14.10.2011 Ex.PW-1/15 and the GPA set
of documents dated 17.04.2008 allegedly executed by Late Smt. Ram
Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 with respect to property bearing
no.A-200, Friends Enclave, Mundka, New Delhi, as null and void
stands rejected.
13.45. Now coming to the prayer of plaintiff seeking a decree of
mandatory injunction thereby directing defendant no.1 and 2 to hand
her over the amount withdrew by them from the bank account of Late
Sh. Ram Mehar.
13.46. In regard to the aforesaid prayer, the plaintiff has specifically
pleaded that at the time of death, Late Sh. Ram Mehar was having a
balance of Rs.6,66,512/- in his account at The Delhi State Co-
operative Bank Limited, Mundka, Delhi and defendant no.2 got the
same transferred in his account with the same bank by becoming
nominee of Late Sh. Ram Mehar on the premise of false and
fabricated documents.
13.47. A bare perusal of written statement filed by defendant no.1 and
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 39/45
2 reveals that the aforesaid factual assertion made by the plaintiff is
not controverted / answered by them and moreover, during his cross
examination, defendant no.2 Sh. Surender Singh Yadav, categorically
admitted that all the balance / amount lying in the account of Late Sh.
Ram Mehar was got transferred by him to his account and he did not
share / distribute the said amount between the other legal heirs of Late
Sh. Ram Mehar.
13.48. The aforesaid factual assertion made by the plaintiff is also
duly established by the document Ex.PW-3/1 (Colly) and Ex.PW-6/1
(Colly).
13.49. Hence, it is clear that the transfer of aforesaid amount to the
tune of Rs.6,66,512/- by defendant no.2 in his bank account from the
account of Late Sh. Ram Mehar is duly established.
13.50. From a legal standpoint, it is well settled that a nominee
basically acts as a trustee or custodian of the assets of the deceased
and legally obligated to transfer the assets to the rightful legal heirs
who are the true owners.
13.51. In view thereof, it is clear that defendant no.2 Sh. Surender
Yadav is legally obligated to distribute / share the sum of
Rs.6,66,512/- received by him as a nominee from the bank account of
his grandfather Late Sh. Ram Mehar with the remaining legal heirs.
13.52. Accordingly, issue no.1 is partly decided in favour of plaintiffs
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 40/45
only for the relief of mandatory injunction and qua the relief of
declaration, the same is decided against them.
14. ISSUE NO.2.
Whether the plaint is bad for mis-joinder / non-joinder of parties?
OPD.
14.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The perusal
of the evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/X, tendered by defendant no.2, Sh.
Surinder Singh Yadav reveals that it is completely silent on the issue
of non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties.
14.2. The perusal of the written statement filed by defendant no.1 and
2 reveals that they have taken a plea therein that the suit of the
plaintiff is bad in law as she has not impleaded the seven vendees to
whom they have transferred one of the suit property i.e. agricultural
land admeasuring 7 Bighas and 6 Biswas vide the registered sale deed
dated 22.02.2013 Ex.PW-1/9.
14.3. However, the record reveals that during the pendency of the
present suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed on
behalf of the plaintiff seeking impleadment of the aforesaid vendees
and the same was allowed vide order dated 07.09.2015 and all of them
were made parties to the present suit as defendant no.3 to 9.
14.4. In view thereof, it is clear that the objection in hand raised by
the defendant no.1 and 2 stands answered / removed, by the
impleadment of defendant no.3 to 9. Accordingly, this issue is decided
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 41/45
in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
15. ISSUE NO.3.
Whether suit is not properly valued and court fee not paid? OPD.
15.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The perusal
of the evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/X, tendered by defendant no.2, Sh.
Surinder Singh Yadav reveals that it is completely silent on the aspect
of under valuation of the suit property / reliefs and payment of deficit
court fee.
15.2. Moreover, the record of the present case reveals that the
defendants have not brought on record any evidence in the form of
prevailing circle rates of the suit properties which could establish their
plea of under valuation.
15.3. Hence, it is clear that the defendants have not brought on record
any material which could establish their plea of under valuation and
payment of deficient court fees on the part of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants.
16. ISSUE NO.4.
Whether suit is barred U/s 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act? OPD.
16.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The perusal
of the evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/X, tendered by defendant no.2 Sh
Surender Singh Yadav reveals that it is completely silent upon the
aspect of applicability of Section 185 Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 42/45
upon the factual matrix of the present case.
16.2. However, for the sake of completeness, this Court will delve
into the issue in hand and for a better appreciation, Section 185 Delhi
Land Reforms Act is reproduced hereinbelow;
“185. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act:
(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other
than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule 1 shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or
proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof.
(2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie form
an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in
column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid.
(3) An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a court
mentioned in column 3 to the court or authority mentioned
in column 8 thereof.
(4) A second appeal shall lie from the final order passed in
an appeal under sub section (3) to the authority, if any,
mentioned against it in column 9 of the Schedule
aforesaid..”
16.3. A bare perusal of the aforesaid relevant section makes it crystal
clear that unless the suit falls within the columns 2 and 3 of Schedule
1 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred and the
suit seeking injunction, declaration of a registered document as null
and void and consequent relief of re-possession of the subject matter
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 43/45
property is not covered in any of the Sections mentioned in column 2
and 3 of Schedule 1.
16.4. It is a matter of record that in the present suit, the plaintiff has
not only sought the declaration of the registered sale deed dated
08.11.2000 executed by her in favour of Late Sh. Rajbir Singh and
defendant no.1 as null and void but also declaration of a number of
property documents as null and void alongwith a decree of mandatory
injunction. Hence, it is clear that the suit in hand is not barred by
Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act.
16.5. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants.
17. RELIEF.
17.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiffs
stands partly decreed in the following terms:
A. Legal heirs of plaintiff no.1A Late Sh. Shyambir Yadav i.e. Smt.
Dinesh Yadav (wife), Sh. Vipin Yadav (Son), Sh. Amit Yadav
(Son), Smt. Teena Yadav (Daughter), Smt. Jyoti Yadav
(Daughter) jointly, plaintiff no.1B Smt. Kamlesh and plaintiff
no.1C Smt. Santosh are held entitled to recover their 1/4th share
each out of Rs.6,66,512/- from defendant no.2 Sh. Surender
Yadav alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 6% per
annum till the date of realization;
17.2. The suit of the plaintiffs seeking reliefs of declaration and
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 44/45
recovery of possession of the suit properties stand dismissed.
18. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. File be consigned to record room. MANOJ Digitally signed
by MANOJ
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.08.23
SHARMA 15:12:49 +0530
Announced in the open court (MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA)
on 23rd August, 2025. DJ-07/WEST/THC/DELHI.
Smt. Ram Kaur (D) through LRs Vs. Sh. Harish Yadav and Anr.
Page: 45/45