Delhi District Court
Ranjeet Singh vs Amita Jain on 4 March, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE - 07, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO. :- 611904/2016
CNR NO. DLWT010001302008
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SHRI RANJEET SINGH
S/o Late Shri Gurmej Singh,
R/o G-41, Bali Nagar,
New Delhi-110015. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1.
SMT. AMITA JAIN
W/o Sh. Sanjeev Jain,
R/o 476, Sector-6,
Panchkula, Haryana.
2. SH. JAGADISH SINGH
(Since Deceased, through LRs)
(a) SMT. JASBIR KAUR
W/o Late Sh. Jagdish Singh,
R/o A-76, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015.
(b) SMT. KIRANDEEP KAUR
W/o Sh. Rohit Chawla,
R/o A-76, Kirti Nagar,
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 1 of 64
2
New Delhi-110015.
(c) SMT. JASPREET KAUR
W/o Sh. Praveen Nagpal,
R/o 3891, Cornerstone,
BLVD NE Calgary,
T3N1M2, Canada.
(d) SH. GURPREET SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Singh,
R/o A-76, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015. ....Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY
BEARING NO.41, (OLD NO.WZ-29), RAJA GARDEN,
NAJAFGARH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AND DECLARATION.
Date of institution of the Suit : 16.07.2008
Date of Judgment was reserved : 21.12.2024
Date of Judgment : 04.03.2025
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff against
the defendants seeking recovery of possession of the suit
property bearing no. 41 (Old No. WZ-29), Raja Garden,
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property), decree
of permanent injunction restraining defendants, her agents,
attorneys, assignee, representatives, legal heirs etc. from
creating any third party interest in the suit property and
decree of declaration thereby declaring all the documents,
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 2 of 64
3
if any, in favour of defendant no.1 qua the suit property as
illegal, null and void having no legal force.
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 property bearing no.41 (Old No. WZ-29), Raja
Garden, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred
to as suit property) was purchased by Smt. Karam Kaur
W/o Sh. Tara Singh vide registered sale deed dated 26 th
June, 1953 and she executed a bunch of documents
including an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney
and Receipt, all dated 8th May, 1986 in favour of defendant
no.2 in respect of the suit property and also handed over
the actual peaceful, physical and vacant possession of the
same to him and thereafter mutation was also carried out in
favour of defendant no.2 in the records of MCD.
2.2. On 9th October, 1998, defendant no.2 executed a
registered sale deed of the suit property in favour of
plaintiff and also handed over the lawful possession to him
and the said fact was in the knowledge of Smt. Karam
Kaur.
2.3. Later on, the intention of Smt. Karam Kaur and her
son Sh. Joginder Singh got dishonest and they exerted
emotional pressure upon the father of plaintiff and
defendant no.2 and in collusion with the local police,Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 3 of 64
4coerced the plaintiff and defendant no.2 to execute an
illegal compromise dated 18.03.2002 in respect of suit
property and they were also forced to handover the original
documents and possession to Smt. Karam Kaur. The said
compromise was the outcome of undue pressure, coercion
and influence exercised upon the plaintiff and defendant
no.2. However, the sale deed dated: 09.10.1988 executed
by defendant no.2 in favour of plaintiff of the suit property
has not been cancelled by any court of law till today.
2.4. Thereafter, Late Smt. Karam Kaur filed a civil suit
seeking declaration and injunction before the Court of Ld.
Sr. Civil Judge, Delhi bearing Suit No.302/2002 titled as
“Smt. Karam Kaur Vs. Mr. Ranjeet Singh & Another” on
26.04.2002, wherein plaintiff and defendant no.2 were
impleaded as parties and they filed their written statement
disclosing the true state of facts impugning the validity of
compromise deed dated 18.03.2002. However, Smt. Karam
Kaur did not file replication despite several opportunities
and ultimately the suit was dismissed in default on
29.10.2003.
2.5. When on 17.04.2008, the plaintiff applied for
mutation of the suit property in his favour before Assistant
Assessor and Collector, MCD, he received a letter from
MCD that defendant no.1 has also applied for mutation of
the same property.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 4 of 64
5
2.6. On 30.05.2008, defendant no.1 installed a sign board
at the suit property showing her name as owner.
2.7. The defendant no.1 is in the unlawful occupation of
the suit property as a rank tresspasser, having no right, title
whatsoever thereto. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of
the suit property and entitled for its possession and the
documents relied upon by defendant no.1 for asserting her
right in the suit property are illegal, null and void and have
no legal force.
3. Summons for settlement of issues of the present suit
were issued to the defendants and they put their
appearance on 03.11.2008 and written statement was filed
on behalf of defendant no.1 on 01.11.2008. Thereafter,
none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and vide order
dated 03.03.2009, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in
default for non-prosecution.
4. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of
the plaintiff for the restoration of the suit, which was
allowed vide order dated 17.09.2009, subject to a cost of
Rs.20,000/- and the suit was restored to its original
number.
5. No written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant
no.2.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 5 of 64
6
6. CASE OF DEFENDANT No.1.
6.1. The present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of
law and is a classic case of abuse of process of law. The
present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff in collusion
with defendant no.2 to extort money from her.
6.2. The plaintiff has no right in the suit property as he
and defendant no.2 admittedly executed a compromise
agreement dated 18.03.2002 alongwith Sh. Joginder Singh,
the authorised agent of Late Smt. Karam Kaur, wherein it
was admitted by them that the alleged unregistered power
of attorney dated 08.05.1986 purportedly executed by Late
Smt. Karam Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 is a false,
fictitious, fraudulent and impersonated document and most
importantly, the plaintiff himself has referred to the
aforesaid settlement agreement in the body of the plaint
and the same is an admission on his part that Late Smt.
Karam Kaur never executed the General Power of
Attorney dated 08.05.1986 on the strength of which
defendant no.2 executed the registered sale deed dated:
09.10.1988 in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit
property.
6.3. Due to the aforesaid admission made by the plaintiff,
he is not entitled to claim any kind of relief in respect of
the suit property.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 6 of 64
7
6.4. Sh. Joginder Singh became the owner of the suit
property on the death of her mother Late Smt. Karam Kaur
and sold the same vide registered sale deed dated
24.11.2004 in favour of Smt. Balwant Kaur Thakur, W/o
Sh. Birender Singh, who became its absolute owner and
also got mutated her name in the records of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and thereafter, the said Smt. Balwant
Kaur transferred the suit property in her favour vide
registered sale deed dated 18.04.2007 for a valuable sale
consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and she has also
obtained NOC from the Municipal Authority regarding the
payment of property tax. She has also obtained the
requisite sanction from the Municipal Authorities for
raising construction at the suit property.
6.5. The present suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-
joinder of necessary and proper parties as the right / title of
of defendant no.1 in the suit property originated from Sh.
Joginder Singh S/o Late Smt. Karam Kaur and passed on
to her through Smt. Balwant Kaur and both the aforesaid
persons are necessary parties to the present suit and
without impleading them, the present suit is not
maintainable.
6.6. The present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff
has neither laid any challenge to the compromise
agreement dated 18.03.2002 regarding the suit property
nor impugned the previous registered sale deeds dated
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 7 of 64
8
24.11.2004 executed in favour of Smt. Balwant Kaur and
the dated: 18.04.2007 executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur in
her favour.
6.7. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in
collusion with his brother / defendant no.2 by fabricating
documents and both of them have no concern about the
suit property, hence, the present suit is not maintainable.
6.8. The plaintiff is well aware of the fact that defendant
no.1 is in the possession of the suit property as an absolute
owner. The factum of mutation of the property in question
in favour of defendant no.1 and sanction of building plan
in her favour is also in the knowledge of plaintiff.
7. Replication filed by the plaintiff.
7.1. The contents of the written statement have been
denied being wrong and incorrect.
7.2. Late Smt. Karam Kaur was survived by three sons and
two daughters and Sh. Joginder Singh was not competent
to sell the suit property to Smt. Balwant Kaur Thakur W/o
Sh. Birender Singh by executing sale deed dated
24.11.2004.
7.3. The husbands of Late Smt. Karam Kaur and one
Smt. Rattan Kaur purchased the suit property i.e. Plot
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 8 of 64
9
No.41 and adjacent Plot No.40 in the name of Late Smt.
Karam Kaur and Smt. Rattan Kaur respectively and as
both of them were based in Kenya, so both the aforesaid
plots were looked after by the brother and nephews of Smt.
Rattan Kaur and later on some business disputes arose
between the families of Late Smt. Karam Kaur and Smt.
Rattan Kaur and when in the year 1986, Late Smt. Karam
Kaur visited India, she was not allowed to enter into the
suit property by the brother and sons of Smt. Rattan Kaur.
7.4. After the intervention of father of plaintiff and
defendant no.2, the dispute got settled and Late Smt.
Karam Kaur surrendered some area from her plot / suit
property in favour of the relatives of Smt. Rattan Kaur and
to that effect an Ikrarnama dated 03.05.1986 was executed
and on the same day, Late Smt. Karam Kaur executed a
GPA in favour of her nephew Sh. Jagdish Singh /
defendant no.2 to lookafter the suit property.
7.5. Smt. Balwant Kaur Thakur is based in London and
dealing in sale purchase of disputed properties and several
criminal cases have been registered against her in Delhi.
8. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings, the following
issues were framed on 15.02.2012:-
(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been
properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and
jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD-1.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 9 of 64
10
(2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation, as alleged? OPD-1.
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit? OPD-1.
(4) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable without seeking declaration in
respect of the purchase of the suit property under
registered sale deed dated 18.04.2007 in favour of
defendant No.1 from her vendor Smt. Balwant
Kaur, as alleged? OPD-1.
(5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the
necessary parties, as alleged? OPD-1.
(6) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit
property by virtue of sale deed dated 09.10.1998
executed by defendant No.2, as alleged in the
plaint? OPP.
(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the
suit property, as prayed for? OPP.
(8) Relief.
9. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED
UPON.
9.1. In support of his case, plaintiff examined the
following witnesses :
9.2. PW-1 Sh. Ranjeet Singh deposed that husbands of
Late Smt. Karam Kaur and one Smt. Rattan Kaur
purchased the suit property i.e. Plot no.41 and the adjacent
Plot No.40 in the name of their respective wives and laterSh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 10 of 64
11on some dispute arose between them and Late Smt. Karam
Kaur when visited India, was not allowed by the relatives
of Smt. Rattan Kaur to enter in the suit property and at that
time, father of plaintiff and defendant no.2 stepped in for
helping her and a settlement was arrived at and in
pursuance thereof, Late Smt. Karam Kaur surrendered a
parcel of land from the suit property and to that effect an
Ikrarnama dated 03.05.1986 Mark A was executed and on
the same day, Late Smt. Karam Kaur also executed a GPA
in favour of defendant no.2 to manage the suit property.
9.3. PW-1 further deposed that on 08.05.1986, Late Smt.
Karam Kaur transferred the suit property in favour of
defendant no.2, Sh. Jagdish Singh vide Agreement to Sell
Mark B, GPA Mark D, Receipt Mark C, all dated
08.05.1986 at the total sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-
and defendant no.2 raised construction on ground and first
floor of the suit property and mutation was also effected in
his name and after installation of electricity meter, he
started carrying on his business from the suit property and
obtained all the necessary trade licences by showing the
suit property as his address. On 09.10.1988, defendant no.2
transferred the suit property in his favour vide registered
sale deed Ex. PW1/29. In the year 2002, Sh. Joginder
Singh S/o Late Smt. Karam Kaur became dishonest and
influenced his mother, who by exerting emotional pressure
on the father of plaintiff and defendant no.2, being her first
cousin and in collusion with the area SHO, coerced him
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 11 of 64
12
and defendant no.2 to enter into a compromise agreement
dated 18.03.2002 Ex. PW4/D3 and he was also forced to
handover the original documents and the physical
possession of the suit property. Thereafter, Late Smt.
Karam Kaur filed a civil suit seeking declaration of the
GPA set of documents dated 08.05.1986 and registered sale
deed dated 09.10.1988 as null and void but the said suit got
dismissed in default. The sale deed dated 09.10.1988 of the
suit property is still valid and has not been declared void
by any competent civil court and by virtue of which, he is
the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant no.1
has also manipulated the municipal record and successful
in securing NOC and sanction for the construction of
building in the suit property.
9.4. PW-2 Sh. Nitin Sharma, LDC, Record Room, Civil,
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi brought the relevant record
of Civil Suit No.121/03/02 titled as Karam Kaur Vs.
Ranjeet Singh & Anr., filed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur
against the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 seeking
declaration and cancellation of the GPA set of documents
dated 08.05.1986 and the sale deed dated: 09.10.1988
executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of plaintiff.
9.5. PW-3 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, LDC, SR-II brought the
certified copy of the sale deed Ex. PW1/29.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 12 of 64
13
9.6. PW-4 Sh. P. Bose, Zonal Inspector, A&C
Department brought the relevant record from office of
South Delhi Municipal Corporation regarding the various
applications filed by plaintiff and defendants regarding the
suit property and the details of notices issued by the
department to them alongwith the details of filing of
property tax of the suit property by the plaintiff, defendant
no. 2 and defendant no. 1.
9.7. PW-5 Sh. Jagdish Singh reiterated the pleas taken by
PW-1 Sh. Ranjeet Singh in his testimony to the effect that
plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and entitled to
recover its possession from defendant no.1.
9.8. PW-6 Sh. Rajesh Behl deposed that Late Smt.
Karam Kaur executed the General Power of Attorney,
Agreement to Sell and Receipt, all dated 08.05.1986 in
favour of Sh. Jagdish Singh in his presence. The actual
physical and vacant possession of the suit property was
also handed over by Smt. Karam Kaur to Sh. Jagdish
Singh in his presence and thereafter Sh.Jagdish Singh
raised construction at the suit property and started carrying
on a business in the name and style of M/s Karry Frost and
in the year 2002, Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Late Smt. Karam
Kaur used his influence in the Police Department and got
Mr. Gurmej Singh and his sons, plaintiff Ranjeet Singh and
defendant no.2, Sh. Jagdish Singh captive at Police Station
Moti Nagar with the help of the concerned SHO, Sh.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 13 of 64
14
Gurdeep Singh and they were forced to enter into a
settlement agreement dated 18.03.2009 and to handover
the original GPA set of documents dated 08.05.1986 and
the sale deed dated 09.10.1988 of the suit property to Sh.
Joginder Singh.
9.9 PW-7 Sh. Raj Kamal deposed that the registered sale
deed Ex. PW1/29 was executed by Sh. Jagdish Singh in
favour of Sh. Ranjit Singh in his presence.
9.10. In his evidence, the plaintiff / PW-1 has relied upon
the following documents:
A. The Photocopy of Iqrarnama as Mark A;
B. The Certified copy of agreement to sell dated
08.05.1986 as Mark B;
C. The Photocopy of receipt dated 08.05.1986 as Mark
C;
D. The copy of General Power of Attorney dated
08.05.1986 as Mark D;
E. The receipt dated 24.12.1986 issued by DESU as
Ex.PW-1/4;
F. The receipt dated 17.03.1987 issued by MCD as
Ex.PW-1/5;
G. The receipt dated 04.04.1988 issued by MCD as
Ex.PW-1/6;
H. The property tax bill for 1989-1990 dated
31.08.1999 by MCD as Ex.PW-1/7;
I. The photocopy of the rectification order dated
01.03.1996 by MCD as Ex.PW-1/8;
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 14 of 64
15
J. The electricity and water bills in the name of
defendant no.2 as Ex.PW-1/9 to Ex.PW-1/23;
K. The trade licence issued by Licencing department
MCD dated 06.06.1991 for period uptill 1999 in
favour of defendant no.2 as Ex.PW-1/24;
L. The sale tax registration dated 20.06.1996 in favour
of M/s Picasso India (P) Ltd as Ex.PW-1/25 bearing
his signatures at point “A” and of Sh. Jagdish Singh,
his brother / defendant no.2 at point “B”, his
photograph at point “C” and of Jagdish Singh at
point “D”;
M. The licence issued by MCD in favour of his brother
Jagdish Singh dated 18.03.1987 as Ex.PW-1/26;
N. The photocopy of the certificate under VDS 1997 by
his brother Jagdish Singh dated 07.01.1998 as
Ex.PW-1/27;
O. The photocopy of the deposit challan dated
29.12.1977 as Ex.PW-1/28;
P. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.10.1998
executed by Sh. Jagdish Singh/ defendant no.2 his
brother in his favour as Ex.PW-1/29 (16 pages);
Q. The site plan showing the location of the suit
property as Ex.PW-1/30;
R. The certified copy of the compilation of order
sheets containing the orders passed in the civil suit
which was filed by Smt. Karam Kaur against him
and his brother Sh.Jagdish Singh as Ex.PW-1/31 (12
pages);
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 15 of 64
16
S. The certified copy of suit for declaration and
injunction filed by Smt. Late Karam Kaur dated
19.03.2002 filed against him and his brother as
Ex.PW-1/32 (5 pages);
T. The certified copy of written statement filed on his
behalf and his brother Sh. Jagdish Singh as
Ex.PW-1/33 (20 pages) bearing his signatures at
point A and that of his brother Sh. Jagdish Singh at
point B;
U. The Certified copy of application filed by Smt.
Karam Kaur under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
read with Section 151 CPC for interim directions
as Ex.PW-1/34;
V. The certified copy of the reply to the application
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC on his behalf and
on behalf of his brother dated 20.03.2003 as
Ex.PW-1/35 (6 pages) bearing his signatures at point
A and that of his brother Sh. Jagdish Singh at point
B;
W. The certified copy of the application under Section
151 CPC for restoration of the suit which was
dismissed in default on 23.07.2002 as Ex.PW-1/36
(3 pages);
X. The certified copy of list of documents dated
19.03.2002 filed by Smt. Karam Kaur alongwith the
said suit and certified copy of documents relied upon
by Smt. Karam Kaur as Ex.PW-1/37 (26 pages); and
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 16 of 64
17
Y. The photocopy of the application dated 17.04.2008
filed by him before the MCD for mutation as
Ex.PW-1/38 and photocopy of the letter received
from MCD as Mark A and Mark F.
9.11 During cross examination, the following
documents were put to PW-1 :
A. Certified copy of General Power of Attorney given
to his brother Sh. Jagdish Singh by Smt. Karam
Kaur as Ex.PW-1/D1 :
B. Copy of General Power of Attorney dated
12.03.1993 as Mark Z1;
C. Copy of Agreement of the Compromise for settling
inter se disputes as Mark Z2; and
D. Photographs as Mark X-1, X-2 and X3.
9.12. In his evidence, PW-2 Sh. Nitin Sharma brought the
original judicial file of civil suit No.121/03/02 titled as
“Karam Kaur Vs. Ranjit Singh & Anr.” and compared the
documents already Ex.PW-1/31 (12 pages), Ex.PW-1/32 (5
pages), Ex.PW-1/33 (20 pages), Ex.PW-1/34, Ex.PW-1/35
(6 pages), Ex.PW-1/36 (3 pages) and Ex.PW-1/37 (26
pages) with the certified copies on record in the judicial
file brought by him.
During cross examination, following
documents were put to PW-2:
A. Xerox copies of the documents as Mark Z1 and Z2.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 17 of 64
18
9.13. In his evidence, PW-3 Sh. Ravinder Kumar brought
the summoned record and compared the document already
Ex.PW-1/29 certified copy of the sale deed dated
09.10.1998 and submitted that the sale deed in the original
book bears original coloured photographs of the
photographs in Ex.PW-1/29 at points “A” and “B”.
9.14. In his evidence, PW-4 Sh.P. Bose brought the
original assessment file with respect to property no.41,
Raja Garden, New Delhi (Old No. WZ-29) and compared
the document already Ex.PW-1/8 and submitted that the
same is true copy of the original rectification order. He has
further proved the following documents :
A. Receipt No.412075 dated 17.04.2008 as Ex.PW-4/1;
B. Original of document already Mark E, Mutation of
freehold property bearing no.41 (WZ-29) Raja
Garden in favour of S.Ranjit Singh as Ex.PW-4/2;
C. Photocopy of Affidavit dated 17.04.2008 as
Ex.PW-4/3;
D. Photocopy of Indemnity bond dated 17.04.2008 as
Ex.PW-4/4;
E. Original of document already Mark F, letter issed by
A& C Department, West Zone, Ashok Nagar as
Ex.PW-4/5;
F. Xerox copy of the letter bearing acknowledgment of
the department dated 30.05.2008 as Mark X-1;
G. Receipt bearing No.774065 dated 30.03.2001 issued
by department as Ex.PW-4/6;
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 18 of 64
19
9.14.1 PW-4 has further relied upon the following
documents :
H. The noting dated 25.04.2008 mentioning the
mutation in the name of Sh.Jagdish Singh which was
already allowed on 21.10.1987 of the assessment file
as Ex.PW-4/7;
I. Photocopy of Notice dated 13.06.2008 received by
MCD addressed to the Commissioner MCD and
A.A&C (West Zone) from advocate Mr. Parmod K.
Sharma on behalf of Sh. Ranjeet Singh as
Ex.PW-4/8;
J. Photocopy of Letter dated 17.08.1994 by Sh.Jagdish
Singh addressed to Assessor and Collector bearing
the acknowledgement of the department of the dated
19.08.1994 as Ex.PW-4/9;
K. Photocopy of Indemnity bond dated 05.08.1987
executed by Sh. Jagdish Singh as Ex.PW-4/10;
L. Photocopy of receipt dated 08.05.1986 as Mark B;
M. Photocopies of sale deed dated 26.06.1953, GPA
dated 08.05.1986, agreement to sell dated
08.05.1986 as Mark “C”, Mark “D” and Mark “E”
respectively;
N. Photocopy of The letter dated 03.08.1987 by Sh.
Jagdish Singh as Ex.PW-4/11; and
O. Photocopy of Demand and collection register in the
name of Jagdish Singh for period 1991-1992, 1992-
1993 as Ex.PW-4/12.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 19 of 64
20
9.14.2 During cross examination of PW-4, following
documents were put to him :
A. Photocopy of letter issued by SHO PS Moti Nagar
showing the pendency of complaint regarding Plot
No.41 with SI Sanjay Kundu as Ex.PW-4/D1;
B. Photocopy of the letter dated 23.05.2008 qua
mutation of property no.41, Raja Garden in the
name of Amita Jain as Ex.PW-4/D2;
C. Photocopy of application for mutation moved by
Smt. Amita Jain bearing receiving of 26.04.2007,
also enclosing the copy of title documents, copy of
identification, indemnity bond and affidavit and
latest paid house tax receipts as Ex.PW-4/D3;
D. Photocopy of indemnity bond as Ex.PW-4/D4 and
E. Photocopy of affidavit as Ex.PW-4/D5.
F. Possession letter dated 18.03.2002 issued by Ranjeet
Singh and Jagdish Singh to Smt. Karam Kaur
through her son / GPA Sh. Joginder Singh Kalsi as
Ex.PW-4/D1;
G. Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated
12.03.1993 cancelled by Smt. Karam Kaur issued in
the name of Sh.Jagdish Singh as Ex.PW-4/D2;
H. Copy of agreement for setting interse dispute dated
18.03.2002 as Ex.PW-4/D3;
I. Receipt of payment as Ex.PW-4/D4:
J. Certified copy of sale deed dated 24.04.2007 as
Ex.PW-4/D5;
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 20 of 64
21
K. Certified copy of No Dues Certificate in respect of
Plot No.41, Raja Garden issued to Balwant Kaur
Thakur as Ex.PW-1/D6;
L. Certified copy of mutation letter issued on
16.02.2005 as Ex.PW-4/D7;
M. Certified copy of sale deed dated 24.11.2004
executed by Sh. Joginder Singh Kalsi in favour of
Smt. Balwant Kaur Takur as Ex.PW-4/D8;
N. Certified copy of Mutation letter issued in the name
of Ms. Amita Jain dated 23.05.2008 as Ex.PW-4/D9;
O. Certified copy of issue of No Dues Certificate in
respect of Plot No.41, Raja Garden as
Ex.PW-4/D10;
P. Letter from SHO of Police Station Moti Nagar on
22.05.2008 as Ex.PW-4/D11; and
Q. Verification letter dated 23.05.2008 issued by MCD
as Ex.PW-4/D12.
9.15 In his evidence, PW-5 Sh. Jagdish Singh has relied
upon the following documents :
A. Notice to produce documents dated 23.05.2013
issued to defendant no.1 by speed post as Ex.PW-
5/1; and
B. Postal receipt as Ex.PW-5/2.
During cross examination, the following documents
were put to the witness :
A. Photocopy of register maintained by the Notary
Public Sh. Ateeq-ur-Rehman for the day of 18.03.2003Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 21 of 64
22showing entry at Sr. No.83 bearing the signatures of
witness at point A as Ex.PW-5/D1.
9.16 In his evidence, PW-6 has relied upon the following
documents :
A. Agreement to sell dated 08.05.1986 as Ex.PW-6/1;
B. General Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1986 as
Ex.PW-6/2; and
C. Receipt of Rs.45,000/- paid in cash by Sh. Jagdish
Singh to Smt. Karam Kaur in his presence as
Ex.PW-6/3.
9.17 In his evidence, PW-7 has relied upon the document
already Ex.PW-1/29.
10. Thereafter, no other witness was examined by the
plaintiff, hence, plaintiff evidence was closed.
11. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS
RELIED UPON.
11.1. DW-1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jain deposed that he is the
husband and GPA of defendant no.1, Smt. Amita Jain, who
purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated
18.04.2007 from Smt. Balwant Kaur and also obtained its
possession. Smt. Balwant Kaur had purchased the suit
property from Sh. Joginder Singh son of Late Smt. Karam
Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 24.11.2004 and
thereafter, the suit property was mutated in her name.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 22 of 64
23
Plaintiff also had obtained No Dues Certificate from the
concerned Municipal Authorities before the sale
transaction dated: 18.04.2007. Defendant no.1 also got
mutated the suit property in her name in the municipal
record and got sanctioned construction plans as well and
has been regularly paying the property tax as per the
applicable rates. Sh. Joginder Singh became the owner of
suit property by virtue of a WILL dated 20.03.1995
executed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur in his favour. The
plaintiff has no right or title in the suit property as vide
compromise agreement dated 18.03.2002, the execution of
which has been admitted by him in the plaint itself wherein
it is recorded that he made an admission alongwith
defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh that Late Smt. Karam
Kaur did not execute the GPA set of documents dated
08.05.1986, on the strength of which defendant no.2
executed the sale deed dated: 09.10.1988 in respect of suit
property in his favour.
11.2. DW-2 Sh. Sanjay Malik deposed that he worked as a
property dealer and acted as a broker to the transaction
between Smt. Balwant Kaur and defendant no.1 in respect
of suit property and before the execution of sale
documents, he got the title of Smt. Balwant Kaur verified
from the concerned Sub Registrar Office and also obtained
the house-tax clearance certificate from the Municipal
Authorities and when he visited the suit property, the guard
present at the site informed him that the same belongs to
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 23 of 64
24
Smt. Balwant Kaur and the said fact was also verified from
one neighbour.
11.3. DW-3 Sh. Ateeq-ur-Rehman deposed that he was
working as a Notary Public and attested the compromise
agreement entered between Smt. Karam Kaur through her
son, Sh. Joginder Singh as first party and plaintiff, Sh.
Ranjeet Singh and defendant no.2, Sh. Jagdish Singh as
second and third party on 18.03.2002.
11.4 DW-4 Sh. Gopal Dutt, Record Keeper, SR-IV,
Seelampur, Delhi brought the record pertaining to the
WILL dated: 20.03.1995 executed by Late Smt. Karam
Kaur in favour of Sh. Jogender Singh Ex. DW4/1 and the
cancellation deed Ex. DW4/D2 whereby Late Smt. Karam
Kaur cancelled the GPA executed by her in favour of
defendant no. 2 in respect of the suit property.
11.5 DW-5 Sh. Vivek Yadav, Jr. Assistant, Sub-Registrar-
II, Basai Darapur, Delhi brought the record of the sale
deed of the suit property executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur
in favour of defendant no. 5 Smt. Amita Jain as Ex.
PW4/D5 and the sale deed executed by Sh. Jogender Singh
in favour of Ms. Balwant Kaur as Ex. PW4/D8.
11.6. DW-6 Sh. Ramesh Vashisht deposed that he drafted
the WILL dated 20.03.1995 executed by Late Smt. Karam
Kaur in favour of her son, Sh. Joginder Singh Kalsi of the
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 24 of 64
25
suit property and also attested the said WILL alongwith
one other witness Sh. Gurpreet Singh as attesting witness.
The General Power of Attorney dated 12.03.1993
Ex.DW-4/2 in favour of Sh. Joginder Singh with respect to
the suit property was also prepared by him at the instance
of Late Smt. Karam Kaur and on the same day, she also
executed and got registered a cancellation deed regarding
one GPA in favour of Sh. Jagdish Singh, Ex.PW-4/D3.
11.7. In his evidence, DW-1 has relied upon the following
documents:
A. Power of Attorney dated 25.01.2000 executed by
his wife Smt. Amita Jain as Ex.DW-1/1 (OSR);
B. Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.04.2007 already
Ex.PW4/D5 (OSR) (mentioned as Ex.DW-1/2 in
evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A);
C. Certified copy of Possession letter dated 18.04.2007
as Ex.DW-1/3 (OSR);
D. Certified copy of Sale deed dated 24.11.2004
already Ex.PW-4/D8 (OSR)(mentioned as
Ex.DW-1/4 in evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A);
E. Certified copy of Mutation letter issued by
Assistant Assessor and Collector already Ex.PW-
4/D7 (OSR)(mentioned as Ex.DW-1/5 in evidence
affidavit Ex.DW-1/A);
F. Certified copy of No due certificate from the office
of MCD already Ex.PW-4/D6 (OSR)(mentioned as
Ex.DW-1/6 in evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A);
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 25 of 64
26
G. Certified copy of Mutation letter issued by the
MCD already Ex.PW-4/D9 (OSR)(mentioned as
Ex.DW-1/7 in evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A);
H. Certified copy of No Due Certificate issued by the
MCD already Ex.PW-4/D10 (OSR)(mentioned as
Ex.DW-1/8 in evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A);
I. Original sanctioned site plan as Ex.DW-1/9;
J. The original receipts of payment of property tax
made by Smt.Balwant Thakur till 2007 as Ex.DW-
10 and Ex.DW-1/11;
K. Original receipts of payment of property tax made
by Smt. Balwant Kaur Thakur till 2008-2009 as
Ex.DW-1/12 and Ex.DW-1/13;
L. Registered General Power of Attorney dated 12 th
March, 1993 executed by Smt. Karam Kaur in
favour of her son Sh.Joginder Singh Kalsi qua the
suit property as Mark A (mentioned as Ex.DW-
1/14 in evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A);
M. Photocopy of the WILL dated 20.03.1995 as Mark
B (mentioned as Ex.DW-1/15 in evidence affidavit
Ex.DW-1/A);
N. Possession letter as already Ex.PW-4/D1
(mentioned as Ex.DW-1/16 in evidence affidavit
Ex.DW-1/A);
O. Receipt of Rs.20 lacs as already Ex.PW-4/D4
(mentioned as Ex.DW-1/17 in evidence affidavit
Ex.DW-1/A);
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 26 of 64
27
P. Cancellation of General Power of Attorney duly
registered on 12th March, 1993 executed by Smt.
Karam Kaur as already Ex.PW-4/D2 (mentioned as
Ex.DW-1/18 in evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A); and
Q. Photographs already Mark X1-X3 and three other
photographs as Mark X4-X6 (mentioned as Ex.DW-1/19 in
evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A).
11.7.1 During cross examination of DW-1, the following
documents were put to him:
A. Covering letter as Ex.DW-1/X1;
B. Original envelop as Ex.DW-1/X2.
11.8. In his evidence, DW-2 has relied upon certified copy
of original sale deed as already Ex.PW-4/D5.
11.9. In his evidence, DW-4 has relied upon the following
documents:
A. Certified copy Photocopy of WILL dated
20.03.1995 as Ex.DW-4/1;
B. Photocopy of cancellation of GPA dated 12.03.1993
as already Ex.PW-4/D2; and
C. Certified copy Photocopy of GPA dated 12.03.1993
as Ex.DW-4/2 already Mark A.
11.10. In his evidence, DW-5 has relied upon the following
documents:
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 27 of 64
28
A. Photocopy of sale deed executed by Smt. Balwant
Kaur in favour of Smt. Amita Jain through her duly
registered GPA dated 25.01.2000 as already
Ex.PW-4/D5 (OSR); and
B. Photocopy of sale deed executed by Sh. Joginder
Singh Kalsi in favour of Ms. Balwant Kaur on
24.11.2004 as already Ex.PW-4/D8 (OSR).
11.7. In his evidence, DW-6 has relied upon documents
already Ex.DW-4/1, Ex.DW-4/2 and Ex.PW-4/D3.
12. Defendant did not examine any other witness and
therefore, DE was closed and final arguments were heard.
13. The matter was fixed for orders, after hearing final
arguments, however, during dictation of the judgment, the
undersigned noticed that the plaintiff has sought in prayer
(C) of the plaint a declaration thereby declaring all the
documents in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of suit
property as null and void and no issue touching the said
aspect was framed, hence, the following additional issue
was framed vide order dated 23.01.2025:
(7A) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
declaration thereby declaring all the documents executed
in favour of defendant no.1 qua the suit property as null
and void, as prayed for? OPP.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 28 of 64
29
13.1 Thereafter, an opportunity was given to the parties to
the suit to lead additional evidence in light of the aforesaid
additional issue, however, Ld. counsels for the parties
submitted that they did not wish to lead any additional
evidence and would rely upon the evidence already led by
them during the trial of the present suit.
14. ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS AND THE CONCLUSION OF
THE CASE.
ISSUE No.6:-
Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by
virtue of sale deed dated 09.10.1998 executed by
defendant No.2, as alleged in the plaint? OPP.
And
ISSUE No.7:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit
property, as prayed for? OPP.
And.
ISSUE NO.7A
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration
thereby declaring all the documents executed in favour of
defendant no.1 qua the suit property as null and void, as
prayed for? OPP.
14.1. As all the above noted three issues are interlinked
and fundamental to the controversy involved herein, hence
they are taken up together for adjudication at the verySh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 29 of 64
30outset. The onus to prove all these three issues is upon the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 and deposed
that he became the owner of the suit property i.e. property
bearing no.41 (Old No.WZ-29), Raja Garden, New Delhi
by purchasing the same from his brother / defendant no.2 /
PW-5 Sh. Jagdish Singh through registered sale deed dated
09.10.1998 Ex.PW-1/29, who had purchased the same
from Late Smt. Karam Kaur vide GPA set of documents
dated 08.05.1986 consisting of the Agreement to Sell
Mark B, Receipt Mark C, General Power of Attorney Mark
D. The plaintiff has also examined defendant no.2 Sh.
Jagdish Singh as PW-5 who also deposed on the similar
lines and averred that he purchased the suit property from
Late Smt. Karam Kaur vide GPA set of documents dated
08.05.1986 Mark B, C & D and thereafter sold the same to
his brother plaintiff Sh. Ranjeet Singh vide registered sale
deed dated 09.10.1988 Ex.PW-1/29.
14.2. It is clear from the pleadings and the evidence
brought on record on behalf of the plaintiff that he is
seeking recovery of the possession of the suit property on
the basis of his title/ sale deed Ex. PW1/29.
14.3. In rebuttal, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, SPA of
defendant no.1 appeared as DW-1 and deposed that the
defendant no.1 Smt. Amita Jain purchased the suit property
from one Smt. Balwant Kaur vide registered sale deed
dated 18.04.2007 Ex.PW-4/D5, who had purchased the
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 30 of 64
31
same from Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Late Smt. Karam Kaur
through registered sale deed dated 24.11.2004
Ex.PW-4/D8 and now she is in the possession of the suit
property as an absolute owner. DW-1 has further deposed
that the plaintiff has no right whatsoever in the suit
property as he made an admission in the plaint itself about
the execution of the compromise agreement dated
18.03.2002 Ex.PW-4/D3 by him and defendant no. 2
wherein they had admitted that the unregistered Power of
Attorney dated 08.05.1986 was never executed by Late
Smt. Karam Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish
Singh on the strength of which, the sale deed Ex.PW-1/29
was executed. DW-1 has further deposed that the
aforesaid admission made by the plaintiff and defendant
no.2 categorically indicates that plaintiff has no right in the
suit property and hence the present claim filed by the
plaintiff seeking recovery of the possession of the suit
property is not maintainable in the eyes of the law.
14.4. Ld. counsels for the parties to the suit have raised a
number of arguments in support of their respective case,
however, at the very outset, it is necessary to deal with the
argument advanced on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the
defendant whereby he pleaded that the present suit is not
per se not maintainable in the eyes of the law and the claim
of plaintiff should be rejected at the very inception as it is
an admitted position of fact on his behalf that the alleged
General Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1986 Mark D is an
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 31 of 64
32
unregistered document, on the basis of which defendant
no.2 executed the registered sale deed dated 09.10.1988
Ex.PW-1/29 in his favour, so in view of the settled legal
position and mandate of Section 32 and 33 of The
Registration Act, 1908, it is clear that the said General
Power of Attorney was not a valid document for the
purpose of registration of the sale deed in question and as a
result of which, no valid title of the suit property could
have been transferred in favour of the plaintiff at the
instance of defendant no.2 because if this Court finds the
present argument/ contention of defendant no.1 tenable,
the entire claim of the plaintiff falls flat on the ground and
there would be no need to carry out any further
discussion / adjudication. In support of his argument, Ld.
Counsel for defendant no.1 has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kishan Pal
Singh Vs. G.L. Dhara and Others CM (M) 16088/2014 ,
dated: 24.09.2014 wherein it was observed by Hon’ble
High Court that as per Section 32 and 33 of The
Registration Act, a sale deed can be registered by a Power
of Attorney Holder only if the said Power of Attorney is
duly registered as per law before the concerned Sub
Registrar.
14.5. In a nutshell, the argument of Ld. Counsel for
defendant no.1 is that the sale deed dated 09.10.1988
Ex.PW-1/29 on the premise of which the plaintiff has filed
the present suit seeking recovery of possession of the suit
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 32 of 64
33
property is not a valid document as the same has been
executed by defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh on the
strength of General Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1986
Mark D allegedly executed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur in
his favour, which is not a duly registered document. It be
noted that the GPA Mark D is indeed an unregistered
document.
14.6. However, this Court is of the opinion that the
aforesaid contention of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff lacks
merit and does not need much deliberation as Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rajni Tandon Vs. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh
Dastidar & Ors., (2009) 14 SCC 782 categorically
observed that only in cases where the person signing the
document cannot present the same before the registering
officer and gives a Power of Attorney to present the
document, only in those cases Section 33 The Registration
Act, 1908 gets attracted and only in such a case, the said
Power of Attorney has to be necessarily executed and
authenticated / registered in the manner provided under
Section 33 (1)(a) of the Act.
14.7. In a nutshell, in the case of presentation of the
document by the actual executant himself, the General
Power of Attorney is not compulsorily registrable under
Section 33 The Registration Act for the registration of a
sale deed.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 33 of 64
34
14.8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the plea taken
by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 that the sale deed
Ex.PW-1/29 upon the basis of which the present claim has
been filed is a void document being executed on the basis
of an unregistered GPA, stands rejected.
14.9. Briefly stating, the claim of the plaintiff is premised
upon the ground that Late Smt. Karam Kaur executed GPA
set of documents dated 08.05.1986 Mark B, Mark C and
Mark D in favour of defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh and
upon the basis of the GPA Mark D, Sh. Jagdish Singh
executed the registered sale deed Ex.PW-1/29 dated
09.10.1998 in his favour and on the strength of his title, he
is entitled to evict defendant no.1 from the possession of
the suit property who is relying upon the registered sale
deed dated 18.04.2007 Ex.PW-4/D5 of the suit property
executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur, who purchased the same
from Sh. Joginder Singh vide registered sale deed dated
24.11.2004 Ex.PW-4/D8, son of the original owner Late
Smt. Karam Kaur as the title of the suit property had
already been transferred in his favour on 09.10.1998 by
defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh, so, Sh. Joginder Singh
as son of Late Smt. Karam Kaur was left with no right /
title in the suit property to transfer the same in favour of
Smt. Balwant Kaur, vendor of defendant no.1, accordingly,
defendant no.1 is having no right in the suit property and
liable to the evicted.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 34 of 64
35
14.10. Firstly, it be noted that the plaintiff has not brought
on record the original GPA set of documents dated
08.05.1986 Mark B, Mark C and Mark D allegedly
executed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur in favour of defendant
no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh during the course of the trial and
has taken the plea that the same were taken away by Sh.
Joginder Singh with the help of the area SHO, Sh. Gurdeep
Singh on 18.03.2002 at the time of the execution of the
compromise agreement Ex.PW-4/D3 executed between
him, Sh. Joginder Singh as agent of Late Smt. Karam Kaur
and defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh.
14.11. At this stage, it is important to highlight that
defendant no.1 has not admitted the execution / existence
of the aforesaid GPA set of documents Mark B, Mark C
and Mark D and have disputed their execution and rather
have taken the plea that such alleged GPA set of
documents of the suit property were never executed by
Late Smt. Karam Kaur in favour of Sh. Jagdish Singh/
defendant no.2. So, the onus to prove the aforesaid
documents which are source of his title, lies squarely upon
the plaintiff and the same becomes extremely important for
this case as his claim is entirely founded upon the plea that
Late Smt. Karam Kaur executed the aforesaid documents
and upon the strength of same, defendant no.2 executed the
registered sale deed dated 09.10.1998 in his favour in
respect of suit property.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 35 of 64
36
14.12. It is a matter of record that the aforesaid GPA set
of documents Mark B, Mark C and Mark D are the xerox
copies of the original documents and Section 63 Indian
Evidence Act provides the definition of secondary
evidence wherein the xerox copies have been prescribed as
one of the types of secondary evidence. However, it is a
settled position of law that before secondary evidence can
be allowed to be led, the following two conditions have to
be satisfied :
(i) That the original document was in existence and
duly executed as per law and was admissible in
evidence; and
(ii) That one of the conditions enumerated in Section 65
IEA entitling the leading of secondary evidence has
been established.
14.13. Before getting any further, it is hereby clarified
that in law there is no necessity of filing a formal
application for leading secondary evidence.
14.14. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that for
secondary evidence to be admitted foundational evidence
has to be given being the reasons as to why the original
evidence has not been furnished and unless it is established
that the original documents are lost or destroyed or is
being deliberately withheld by the opposite party,
secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot be
accepted.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 36 of 64
37
14.15. In the present case, the plaintiff has taken a two
fold plea for leading secondary evidence. Firstly, the
plaintiff has pleaded that the original documents are not in
his possession as at the time of the execution of the
compromise agreement Ex.PW-4/D3 the same were
forcibly taken away by Sh. Joginder Singh with the help of
the area SHO, Sh. Gurdeep Singh. However, it is a matter
of record that he has not filed any complaint made to the
higher officials of the then SHO, Sh. Gurdeep Singh for his
alleged unlawful conduct in pressurizing the plaintiff to
handover the custody of aforesaid documents to Sh.
Joginder Singh alongwith the plaint and when during his
cross examination, a specific question was put to him by
Ld .counsel for defendant no.1 as to whether he filed any
police complaint against Sh. Joginder Singh and concerned
SHO, Sh. Gurdeep Singh for exerting unlawful pressure
upon him, he responded that no such complaint was ever
filed by him, which is quite unnatural. During his cross
examination, PW-5 Sh. Joginder Singh has also given the
same reply that no police complaint was made by them for
the unlawful pressure exerted upon them by Sh. Joginder
Singh and the area SHO. In the same breath, it is also
relevant to highlight that the record of the present case
reflects that the plaintiff and defendant no.2 / PW-5 are
not only reasonably well educated but financially well off
as well and not making any police complaint at their
instance for the aforesaid alleged conduct of Sh. Joginder
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 37 of 64
38
Singh and the area SHO, Sh. Gurdeep Singh, appears
unconscionable / unnatural.
14.16. In A.B. Govardhan Vs. P. Raghothaman SLP (Civil)
No. 5034-35/2019, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court
that the bald assertions made by the parties to the suit are
of no use unless they are backed by admissible evidence.
This Court has pointed out the aforesaid position of law as
the pleas of the plaintiff regarding the pressure exerted by
Sh. Joginder Singh and area SHO and thereby taking away
the originals of GPA set of documents Mark B, C and D,
all dated: 08.05.1986 are nothing but bald pleas without
any substance and deserves to be rejected.
14.17. Secondly, the plaintiff has pleaded that defendant
no.1 was served with a legal notice Ex. PW5/1 under
Order XII Rule 8 CPC for the production of the originals
of GPA set of documents Mark B, Mark C and Mark D as
the same are in her possession. However, it is a matter of
record that the plaintiff has not properly established the
alleged chain of events in pursuance thereof, the said
documents came in the possession of defendant no.1.
Moreover, during his cross examination PW-5 admitted
that the aforesaid documents were never handed over by
them to defendant no.1.
14.18. In Harish Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain, RFA No.
4/2008 dated 19.11.2008, it was observed by Hon’ble
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 38 of 64
39
Delhi High Court that before a presumption can be drawn
against a party under Order XII Rule 8 CPC who has been
called upon to produce a document, it has to be proved that
the document production whereof is sought is in the
possession of the party concerned and without establishing
the physical custody of the said document with the party
from whom the production has been sought, no adverse
inference could be drawn against him / her.
14.19. The aforesaid discussion makes it clear that the
plaintiff has failed to establish the foundation / pre-
requisite required for furnishing secondary evidence as
prescribed under Section 64 and 65 Indian Evidence Act,
1872 and as a consequence of which, he fails to establish
the original / source of the title flowing from Late Smt.
Karam Kaur through defendant no.2 in the form of alleged
GPA set of documents Mark B, C and D. Hence, an
inference can be drawn to the effect that he fails to
establish his title over the suit property and accordingly,
the present claim/ suit deserves dismissal.
14.20. However, for the sake of completion, this Court
will get into the remaining pleas and material brought on
record on behalf of the parties to the suit.
14.21. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for
the plaintiff pleaded that even if just for the sake of
arguments, this Court assumes the case set up by defendant
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 39 of 64
40
no.1 to be correct, in that case as well, she has no valid
defence against his claim seeking recovery of the suit
property as till today defendant no.1 has not filed any
separate suit or counter claim seeking declaration of the
sale deed dated 09.10.1998 Ex.PW-1/29 in respect of suit
property in his favour and being a registered sale deed
prior in time, the same would prevail upon all the
subsequent sale deeds executed regarding the suit property
including the sale deed dated 18.04.2007 Ex.PW-4/D5.
14.22. In rebuttal, the plea of defendant no.1 is that the
plaintiff has no right whatsoever in the suit property as the
sale deed Ex.PW-1/29 executed in the favour of plaintiff
was premised upon the GPA dated 08.05.1986 Mark D,
which was admittedly a false and misconceived document
and the said fact was admitted by the plaintiff himself at
the time of the execution of the compromise agreement
Ex.PW-4/D3.
14.23. This Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid plea
of defendant no.1 would render the sale deed Ex.PW-1/29
a void document provided it is established that the GPA
dated 08.05.1986 Mark D was a not a genuine document
and not executed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur in favour of
defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh as alleged by the
plaintiff. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to a well
settled position of law that a forged and fabricated
document is a nullity as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 40 of 64
41
in Steel Authority of India Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and
Others, LPA No. 1115/2004, dated: 13.12.2012. This Court
has referred to the aforesaid position of law because if it
gets established by the evidence on record that the GPA
dated 08.05.1986 Mark D was not executed by Late Smt.
Karam Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish
Singh, it would render the same a manufactured made up
document bearing not only forged and fabricated
signatures of Late Smt. Karam Kaur but also unlawful
Notary attestation and the necessary corollary to the said
finding would be that the sale deed dated 09.10.1998
Ex.PW-1/29 executed in favour of plaintiff would also
become null and void as it is trite to mention that a vendor
cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than which he
himself possess. At this stage, it is also pertinent to
highlight the position of law that in case a document is
void ab initio, a formal decree for setting aside the same
would not be necessary as the document itself is non est in
the eyes of the law and a nullity. Reference can be made to
the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Prem
Singh Vs. Birbal, AIR 2006 SC 3608.
14.24. Besides the aforesaid legal position, it is apposite to
highlight that in law it is not mandatory for a third party
non-executant to seek a declaration of a document as null
and void as Section 31 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963
uses the work ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. Reference can be
made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 41 of 64
42
SK. Golam Lal Chand Vs. Nandu Lal Shah @ Nand Lal
Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes and Others, Civil Appeal
no.4177 of 2024. This Court has referred to the aforesaid
position of law as defendant no.1 is not a party to the
registered sale deed dated 09.10.1988 Ex. PW-1/29
executed by defendant no.2 in favour of the plaintiff.
14.25. So this Court will now examine the issue of
execution and validity of the compromise agreement
Ex.PW-4/D3 dated 18.03.2002 as the same not only have
direct bearing upon the title of the plaintiff over the suit
property rather the validity of his claim completely hinges
upon the aforesaid issue because if this Court comes to the
conclusion that the aforesaid agreement Ex.PW-4/D3 was
validly executed with the free consent of plaintiff and
defendant no.2, then it would amount to an admission to
the effect that the alleged General Power of Attorney dated
08.05.1986 on the premise of which defendant no.2
executed the registered sale deed dated 09.10.1998 in
favour of plaintiff in respect of suit property was never
executed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur in favour of defendant
no.2 and the same would render the plaintiff’s sale deed
ExPW-1/29 a null and void document having no legal
implication as this Court has already referred to a general
principle of law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the
vendee better than he himself possess and the principle
arises from the legal maxim nemo dat quod non habet
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 42 of 64
43
which means no one can confer a better title than what he
himself has.
14.26. The perusal of the case set up by the plaintiff
reveals that in the body of the plaint as well as in his
evidence affidavit, he has taken the plea that the possession
of the suit property was illegally taken away from him by
Sh. Joginder Singh in collusion and connivance with the
local area SHO, thereby forcing him and his brother
defendant no.2, Sh. Jagdish Singh to enter into a
compromise and made them execute the compromise
agreement dated 18.03.2002 Ex.PW-4/D3.
14.27. So even if this Court goes by the version of the
plaintiff, it is an admitted case on his behalf that he was
signatory to the said compromise agreement alongwith
defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh and they were made to
execute the said document under coercion and undue
influence exercised by the local police and the emotional
pressure put by Late Smt. Karam Kaur upon their father.
14.28. Section 19 and 19A of The Indian Contract Act,
1872 provides that the agreement caused by coercion and
under influence are voidable.
14.29. So, it clear that the agreements caused by coercion
and undue influence are only voidable in nature and not
void. This Court has pointed out the aforesaid position of
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 43 of 64
44
law as even if the version of the plaintiff is presumed to be
correct, in that case as well, the compromise agreement
Ex.PW-4/D3 is at the most a voidable document, which
would remain in force / valid until set aside by a competent
Civil Court. Reference can be made to the judgment
passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Dularia Devi Vs.
Janardan Singh and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1173.
14.30. In view thereof, the compromise agreement dated
18.03.2002 admittedly executed by the plaintiff and
defendant no.2 is still in force as the same has not been
declared null and void by a competent Civil Court and the
situation becomes more difficult for the plaintiff especially
in view of the fact that the time period provided under The
Limitation Act is of three years for seeking cancellation of
document as null and void has already expired as the
document in question is dated 18.03.2002.
14.31. So, it is clear that the compromise agreement
Ex.PW-4/D3 dated 18.03.2002 is binding upon the plaintiff
and defendant no.2 wherein they admitted that Late Smt.
Karam Kaur never executed any General Power of
Attorney dated 08.05.1986 thereby authorising defendant
no.2 to execute sale of the suit property. Section 58 of The
Indian Evidence Act very categorically provides that the
facts which are admitted need not to be proved, so
accordingly it becomes clear beyond any pale of doubt that
the plaintiff himself admitted the averments of defendant
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 44 of 64
45
no.1 to the effect that Late Smt. Karam Kaur never
executed any General Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1986
in favour of defendant no.2.
14.32. Even otherwise, the plea taken by the plaintiff that
the aforesaid document is an outcome of emotional
pressure exerted upon his father and the coercion and
undue influence exercised by the officials of the local
police station has remained unsubstantiated and bereft of
any corroborative material admissible in the eyes of the
law.
14.33. In respect of execution of the compromise
agreement dated 18.03.2002 Ex.PW-4/D3, an another
important piece of evidence which is material and deserves
to be discussed is the testimony of DW-3 Sh. Ateequr
Rehman Khan, who was the attesting Notary Public of the
said document. DW-3 very categorically deposed that the
compromise agreement Ex.PW-4/D3 was executed
between Late Smt. Karam Kaur through her son Sh.
Joginder Singh on one part and Sh. Ranjeet Singh and
Sh.Jagdish Singh on second and third part in his presence
and the proceedings were duly recorded by him in his
register and the relevant extract therefrom were exhibited
as Ex.PW-5/D1 and during his cross examination, nothing
came out which could put a dent on the credibility of the
said witness. In the opinion of this Court, DW-3 Sh.
Ateequr Rehman who is an independent witness has duly
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 45 of 64
46
established the participation of plaintiff and defendant no.2
in the execution of the compromise agreement
Ex.PW-4/D3. Reference can be made to the judgment
passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kamla Rani and
Others Vs. Texmaco Limited, AIR 2007 Delhi 147
wherein it was observed by Hon’ble High Court that
authentication by the Notary Public is a solemn act
performed by the Notary Public whose duty is to ensure
that the executant is the person before him and is identified
to his satisfaction and once a document is authenticated by
a Notrary public, it would be presumed the document was
duly executed and was in order. It is also important to
highlight that during his cross examination, DW-3 Sh.
Ateeq-ur-Rehman identified the plaintiff and defendant
no.2 as the executant of the compromise agreement
Ex.PW-4/D3 and no suggestion was given to him on the
part of plaintiff that he committed any irregularity in the
notarization or that plaintiff and defendant no.2 were
forced to participate in the transaction of execution of Ex.
PW4/D3.
14.34. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the material on record
clearly establishes that plaintiff and defendant no.2
voluntarily executed the compromise agreement
Ex.PW-4/D3.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 46 of 64
47
14.35. Now, coming to the contents of aforesaid
document, the relevant paragraphs of the compromise
agreement in question have been reproduced herein below
for proper appreciation :
“AND WHEREAS, the first part also cancelled/
revoked the said powers of Attorney dated 3 rd May, 1986
notorised on 12th May, 1986 vide dated 12th day of March,
1993. The same is also annexed as ANNEXURE – B.
Thereafter, Sardar Jagdish Singh has no authority, power
or priviledge to act or exercise anythingelse either in his
favour or for anybody else for and on his behalf of Smt.
Karam Kaur, the first part. The conferred rights, authority
and privileges came to an end.
AND WHEREAS, the third part herein has prepared
a misconceived General Power of Attorney and Agreement
to Sell representing to have been executed by the first part
in favour of the third part vide dated 8th May, 1986 which
was illegally notarized by the third part. The same is also
annexed as ANNEXURE – C (Colly.).
Be that as it may, pursuant to the misconceived
powers of attorney, Jagdish Singh executed a sale deed
before concerned Sub-Registrar, Delhi vide a document
no.6372 Volume No.9104, Additional Book No.1 at pages
130 – 136 dated 9th October, 1998 in favour of the second
part and in pursuance thereto the second part was put into a
illegal possession of the property. However, some portion
thereof is also being occupied by the third part. All the
parties herein namely First, Second and the Third partSh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 47 of 64
48mutually declared, admitted and realized that the third part
had no authority, power or justification to execute the
misconceived General Powers of Attorney and Agreement
to Sell dated 8th May, 1986 in his favour and Sale Deed
dated 09.10.1998 in favour of second part. All the parts
declared that both the documents are fictitious, bogus and
illegal.
(a) This second and third part do hereby returned back
and restored absolute physical, peaceful and vacant
possession of the entire property no. 41, Raja Garden, New
Delhi, Main Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi in favour of the
first part who is also taking back the just mentioned
possession by herself and her son Sardar Joginder Singh
s/o Sardar Tara Singh at the present in New Delhi and
permanent r/o. 604, KentonLane, Harrow Weald, Middle
Sex, U.K. (London).
(b) The first part has compensated to the second and
third part for return back and restoration of the possession
of the property. Separate receipt is being executed in
respect of thereto.
(c) The second and third part also undertake to either
move before the concerned Sub-Registrar for cancellation
of the said illegal Sale Deed or alternatively approach
competent Court of Law seeking declaration for
cancellation of the said Sale Deed alongwith the first part
by way of mutual petition/ application/ suit.
(d) The second and third part henceforth, will not claim
anythingelse either from the first part or his son JoginderSh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 48 of 64
49Singh or anybody who is acting or will act for or on behalf
of the first part and her son Joginder Singh; the second and
the third part also undertake not to create any problem in
future in dealing in any manner whatsoever so far as the
property bearing no.41, Raja Garden, Main Nazafgarh
Road, New Delhi I favour of the first part and his son and
or anybodyelse to the act for and on their behalf would be
fully entitled to deal with the entire property agreed to her/
his own choice and or will.
(e) In case anybody else raise any dispute relating to the
said property pursuance to the acts, deeds or things done
by second or third part, it would definitely be their
liability. The first part will have no responsibility at all for
the just mentioned acts, things and deeds.
(f) The powers of attorney and agreement to sell dated
08.05.1986 allegedly executed by the first part in favour of
the third part, due to misconception of the third part and
ultimate execution of sale deed dated 9 th October, 1998 in
favour of second part by the third part stood automatically
cancelled/ revoked and the same have no value in the eyes
of law.”
14.36. The contents of the aforesaid compromise
agreement Ex. PW4/D3 executed by plaintiff and
defendant no.2 clearly indicates that both of them
admitted the fact that Late Smt. Karam Kaur never
executed any General Power of Attorney thereby
authorising defendant no.2 to execute the registered sale
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 49 of 64
50
deed dated 09.10.1998 in favour of the plaintiff in respect
of suit property and also admitted that alleged GPA dated:
08.05.1986 Mark D was a misconceived, fictitious, bogus
and illegal document. So consequently, it can be safely
concluded that defendant no.2 was not having any
authority to transfer the title of the suit property in favour
of the plaintiff and the aforesaid unauthorised transaction
did not confer any right, title or interest upon the plaintiff
in respect of suit property as well.
14.37. Besides the aforesaid discussion, an another fact
which is important and shed light upon the issue of
genuineness of the Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1986
allegedly executed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur in favour of
defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh is that during his cross
examination, plaintiff / PW-1 has admitted that only one
Power of Attorney was executed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur
in favour of defendant no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh i.e. dated
03.05.1986 Ex. PW1/D1, which was got notarized on
12.05.1986. The aforesaid reply given by the plaintiff
clearly indicates that Late Smt. Karam Kaur never
executed any General Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1986
Mark D, which renders the main plank of plaintiff’s case at
naught that his brother defendant no.2 executed the
registered sale deed in his favour in respect of suit property
upon the basis of General Power of Attorney dated
08.05.1986 executed by Late Smt. Karam Kaur in his
favour.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 50 of 64
51
14.38. Even otherwise, it is a matter of record and
admitted case on part of the plaintiff that Late Smt. Karam
Kaur had also executed an another Power of Attorney
dated 03.05.1986 in favour of defendant no.2 in respect of
suit property whereby no right to sale was given to Sh.
Jagdish Singh. Hence, this Court is of opinion that the
factum of notarization of the Power of Attorney dated
03.05.1986 in respect of suit property on 12.05.1986 raises
a question upon the claim of the plaintiff that during the
intervening period, Late Smt. Karam Kaur executed an
another General Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1986 in
respect of the same property as this Court fails to
understand as to what was the occasion / reason for getting
notarized the General Power of Attorney dated 03.05.1986
on 12.05.1986 when she had already executed the GPA set
of documents Mark B, C and D in favour of defendant no.2
in respect of suit property as per the case of the plaintiff.
In a nutshell, the claim of the plaintiff that the General
Power of Attorney dated: 03.05.1986 executed by Late
Smt. Karam Kaur in respect of suit property was got
notarized on 12.05.1986 is in direct contradiction with his
claim that on 08.05.1986, she executed GPA set of
documents regarding the same property in favour of
defendant no.2.
14.39. In light of the foregoing discussion, material on
record and the settled position of law that in civil cases the
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 51 of 64
52
standard of proof is preponderance of probability as held
by Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of Goa through
The Chief Secretary Vs. Maria Julieta D’Souza (D) and
others, Civil Appeal No.722 of 2016, this Court has come
to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish
his title over the suit property .
14.40. It is a well settled position of law that in a suit for
possession, the defendant cannot be dispossessed unless
the plaintiff establishes his title over the suit property and
a person in possession of a piece of land in the assumed
character as the owner and exercising peaceably the
ordinary rights of ownership, has a legal right against the
entire world except against the rightful owner and in a suit
for possession the plaintiff has to establish his title over the
suit property for dispossessing the defendant. Reference
can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex
Court in Smt. Smriti Debbarma (D) through LR Vs. Sri
Prabha Ranjan Debbarma & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 878 of
2009, dated: 04.01.2023.
14.41. Briefly stating, the plaintiff has failed to establish
his title over the suit property and consequently he has no
right to recover possession of the same from defendant
no.1 or to seek cancellation of any document in existence
in favour of defendant no.1 qua the suit property.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 52 of 64
53
14.42 Apart from the aforesaid discussion, for the sake of
completion, this Court is highlighting the following
points:-
(i) The testimony of PW- 4 Sh. P. Bose, has not been
discussed as this Court is of the opinion that a person does
not acquired title just by filing applications before the
Municipal Authorities or depositing property/ house tax.
Moreover, mutation of property in Municipal records also
does not confer any title over the suit property.
(ii) The proceedings which took place before Ld. Civil
Judge in civil suit no. 302/2002 titled as Smt. Karam Kaur
Vs. Sh. Ranjit Singh & Anr. are of no relevance as the suit
was dismissed in default and no finding on any fact was
returned.
(iii) The testimony of PW-6 Sh. Rajesh Behl has not been
discussed and relied upon as this Court return the finding
that the GPA set of documents of which he was the alleged
attesting witness were not genuine.
(iv) The testimony of DW-6 Sh. Ramesh Vashisht has not
been elaborated as the plaintiff himself failed to establish
his title over the suit property and there was no occasion
for this Court to get into the adjudication of title of
defendant over the suit property.
14.43. Accordingly, all the three issues are decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no.1.
15. ISSUE NO.1.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 53 of 64
54
Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly
valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, as
alleged? OPD-1.
15.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon defendant no.1
and the same pertains to the sufficiency of court fee affixed
on the plaint and the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, SPA of defendant no.1, appeared
in the witness box as DW-1 and tendered his evidence
affidavit in his examination-in-chief as Ex.DW-1/A, the
perusal of which reveals that he has not averred even a
single word about the issue of deficiency of court fee and
want of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court therein.
15.2. Even otherwise, in the body of the plaint, the
plaintiff has valued the suit property for the purpose of
court fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1,40,00,000/- and has
affixed the court fee of Rs.1,45,000/- upon the plaint,
which is not deficient in the opinion of this Court.
15.3. So far as the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is
concerned, defendant no.1 has not brought on record any
material rebutting the valuation of the suit property made
by the plaintiff at Rs.1,40,00,000/- and in view of the fact
that this Court is competent to try a suit upto the valuation
of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, it is clear that this Court is competent
to entertain and try the present suit.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 54 of 64
55
15.4. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
16. ISSUE NO.2.
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, as
alleged? OPD-1.
16.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon defendant no.1.
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, SPA of defendant no.1, appeared
in the witness box as DW-1 and deposed that the present
suit is barred by the Law of Limitation as the plaintiff and
defendant no.2 never filed any suit seeking cancellation /
declaration of the compromise agreement dated
18.03.2002 Ex.PW-4/D3 as null and void within three
years from the date of its execution and as a result of
which the cause of action to file the present suit has
become time barred.
16.2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff
seeking a decree of possession of the suit property, a
decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the
defendant no.1 and her agents from creating any kind of
third party interest in the suit property and decree of
declaration thereby declaring all the documents in
existence in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of suit
property as null and void having no legal consequence.
16.3. It is trite to mention that the limitation period for a
suit for possession is 12 years from the date of possession
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 55 of 64
56
of the defendant getting hostile towards the plaintiff and a
period of three years for seeking cancellation of any
document from the date of its execution or gaining
knowledge about its existence.
16.4. In the present case, defendant no.1 has claimed that
she became the owner of the suit property by virtue of the
registered sale deed executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur on
18.04.2007 Ex.PW-4/D5. .
16.5. As this Court is now adjudicating the issue of
limitation, it is necessary to make a reference to the
contents of the plaint and the reliefs sought by the plaintiff
therein. Through the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking
the decree of possession, permanent injunction and
declaration. This Court has hereinabove noted the
limitation period of all the reliefs in question provided
under The Limitation Act, 1963. So far as the relief of
possession is concerned, even if the possession of
defendant no.1 is traced to the possession of Sh. Joginder
Singh vide the settlement agreement Ex.PW-4/D3 dated
18.03.2002, in that case as well, the present suit filed in the
year 2008 is well within the limitation period and so far as
the relief of declaration thereby declaring all the
documents executed in favour of defendant no.1 qua the
suit property as null and void is concerned, there is no
dispute to the fact that the registered sale deed
Ex.PW-4/D5 executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur in favour of
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 56 of 64
57
defendant no.1 of the suit property is dated 18.04.2007,
which renders the present claim / relief well within
limitation as the present suit filed in the year 2008 is
within the prescribed limitation period of three years.
16.6. It be noted that in the present suit, the plaintiff is
primarily seeking recovery of possession of the suit
property and declaration of the documents in existence in
favour of defendant no.1 in respect of suit property as null
and void and he has not sought any relief regarding the
compromise settlement Ex.PW-4/D3 dated 18.03.2002 or
the sale deed executed by Sh. Joginder Singh in favour of
Smt. Balwant Kaur dated 24.11.2004 Ex.PW-4/D8. So, this
Court is not in agreement with the argument of Ld.
Counsel for defendant no.1 that owing to the fact that the
plaintiff failed to challenge the aforesaid settlement
agreement and the sale deed between Sh. Joginder Singh
and Smt. Balwant Kaur, the present suit is barred by law of
limitation as no relief has been sought in respect of the said
documents on the part of the plaintiff and in view thereof,
the limitation period in respect of aforesaid documents
cannot be taken into consideration while adjudicating the
issue in hand.
16.7. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the
suit / claim of the plaintiff in the present form is not barred
by the law of limitation.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 57 of 64
58
16.8. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of
plaintiff and against defendant no.1.
17. ISSUE NO.3.
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
present suit? OPD-1.
17.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon defendant no.1.
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, SPA of defendant no.1, appeared
in the witness box as DW-1 and deposed that there is no
cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present
suit.
17.2. The term ‘Cause of action’ basically indicates the
origin of a civil suit as it gives a person the right to seek
judicial relief or redress from anothers wrongful act, the
ground that entitles the plaintiff to bring a suit. In other
words, for demonstrating / establishing cause of action to
file a suit, the plaintiff must first establish his / her legal
right to the subject matter of the suit, meaning thereby he
needs to show that he has a valid claim to the property or
the right in question and the violation of that right by the
defendant. Generally speaking, the cause of action arises in
favour of the plaintiff when his legal right has been
unlawfully violated by the defendant.
17.3. In the present suit, the plaintiff has pleaded that
defendant no.1 has no right to remain in the possession of
the suit property as the sale deed dated 18.04.2007
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 58 of 64
59
Ex.PW-4/D5 executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur in her favour
is of no legal consequence as Smt. Balwant Kaur herself
had no right / title in the suit property to transfer the same
in favour of the defendant no.1. In a nutshell, the plea of
the plaintiff is that the title of the suit property vests in him
and defendant no.1 is in the unlawful occupation thereto
having no right, title or interest therein and for establishing
his title in the suit property, he has relied upon the
registered sale deed dated 09.10.1988 Ex.PW-1/29
executed by defendant no.2 in his favour.
17.4. Briefly stating, it is the admitted case of plaintiff that
he is deriving his title in the suit property from defendant
no.2 Sh. Jagdish Singh and while adjudicating issue no.6, 7
and 7A, this Court has already returned a finding that
defendant no.2 had no right in the suit property and he was
not authorised by Late Smt. Karam Kaur to sell the same.
So it can be safely concluded that as a result/ consequence
of the aforesaid finding, defendant no.2 could not have
transferred any right / title in respect of suit property in
favour of the plaintiff by executing the registered sale deed
dated 09.10.1988 Ex.PW-1/29 as it is a well settled
position of law that a person cannot transfer a better title
which he himself does not possess. Reference can be made
to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
P.Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K Patkar, Neutral Citation
No.2023 INSC 1009.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 59 of 64
60
17.5. So, in light of the foregoing discussion, it is clear
that plaintiff has no right / title in the suit property. So the
question of its violation also does not arise on the part of
defendant no.1 who is asserting an independent title in her
favour, hence this Court is of the opinion that in the
absence of any lawful / valid right in the suit property,
there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file
the present suit.
17.6. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of
defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.
18. ISSUE No.4:-
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable
without seeking declaration in respect of the purchase of
the suit property under registered sale deed dated
18.04.2007 in favour of defendant No.1 from her vendor
Smt. Balwant Kaur, as alleged? OPD-1.
18.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon defendant no.1.
DW-1 has deposed that as the plaintiff has not laid any
challenge to the registered sale deed dated 18.04.2007
Ex.PW-4/D5 executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur in respect of
suit property in her favour, so he has no right to seek
recovery of the possession of the suit property which is
now in her lawful possession.
18.2. The perusal of the record of the present case reveals
that the sale deed dated 18.04.2007 Ex.PW-4/D5 was
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 60 of 64
61
executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur on the strength of the
registered sale deed dated 24.11.2004 Ex.PW-4/D8
executed by Sh. Joginder Singh son of Late Smt. Karam
Kaur in her favour. While the entire case of plaintiff is
built upon the premise that Late Smt. Karam Kaur during
her lifetime executed GPA set of documents dated
08.05.1986 Mark B, Mark C and Mark D in favour of his
brother defendant no.2, Sh. Jagdish Singh in respect of suit
property, who in turn executed a registered sale deed dated
09.10.1998 Ex.PW-1/29 in his favour and by virtue of the
said sale deed, he is now the owner of the suit property and
entitled to file the present suit. The plaintiff has further
pleaded in his case that Sh. Joginder Singh was not entitled
to execute any transfer documents regarding suit property
as her mother Late Smt. Karam Kaur had already
transferred the same in favour of defendant no.2 vide GPA
set of documents dated 08.05.1986.
18.3. In the light of the factual matrix of the present case,
this Court is of the opinion that in case the plaintiff is
successful in demonstrating his title over the suit property,
the consequence of the same would be that it would
establish the fact that the predecessors in interest of
defendant no.1 were having no right in the suit property to
transfer the same to her and as a natural corollary it would
lead to the situation that the registered sale deed dated
18.04.2007 executed by Smt. Balwant Kaur in favour of
defendant no.1 would be of no use / having no legal
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 61 of 64
62
consequences, as in law a vendor cannot transfer a title to
the vendee better than he himself possess. Hence, the
omission on the part of the plaintiff in not seeking a
declaration of the registered sale deed dated 18.04.2007
Ex.PW-4/D5 as null and void executed by Smt. Balwant
Kaur in favour of defendant no.1 is inconsequential and
has no bearing over the right of the plaintiff to reclaim the
possession of the suit property or on his cause of action to
file the present suit.
18.4. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of
plaintiff and against defendant no.1.
19. ISSUE No.5:-
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary
parties, as alleged? OPD-1.
19.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon defendant no.1.
DW-1 has deposed that the present suit is bad for non-
joinder of the necessary parties as defendant no.1 became
the owner of the suit property by purchasing the same from
Smt. Balwant Kaur, who had purchased the same from Sh.
Joginder Singh, s/o Late Smt. Karam Kaur and because the
plaintiff is pleading that Sh. Joginder Singh was having no
right / title in the suit property to transfer the title of
property in favour of Smt. Balwant Kaur, accordingly, both
Sh. Joginder Singh and Smt. Balwant Kaur, the
predecessors in interest of defendant no.1 are necessary
parties to the present suit.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 62 of 64
63
19.2. The term ‘necessary party’ stands for the person/
party whose presence is indispensable for the adjudication
of the issues involved in a particular suit and in whose
absence an effective decree could not be passed.
19.3. The present case has been filed by the plaintiff
seeking recovery of the possession of the suit property and
a declaration of documents in existence in respect of suit
property in favour of defendant no.1 as null and void. It is
also an admitted position of fact that defendant no.1 is in
the possession of the suit property. So, this Court is of the
opinion that even if the plaintiff had impleaded Sh.
Joginder Singh and Smt. Balwant Kaur, the predecessors in
interest of defendant no.1 as parties to the suit, the same
would not have made any difference to the final outcome
of the present case as for the decree of possession, it is
defendant no.1 who is in the possession of the suit property
and for the decree of declaration, the plaintiff has only
sought declaration of documents of defendant no.1 in
respect of suit property and nobody else. In other words,
the decree of the present case is not going to affect interest
of any person except plaintiff and defendant no.1 in respect
of suit property.
19.4. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that except
plaintiff and defendant no.1 there is no other necessary
party to the present suit.
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 63 of 64
64
19.5. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of
plaintiff and against defendant no.1.
20.RELIEF
20.1. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and
findings on the issues, the present suit stands dismissed.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed
MANOJ by MANOJ
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.03.04
Announced in the Open Court 17:01:45 +0530
on 4th March, 2025. (MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA)
DJ-07 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Sh Ranjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Amita Jain & Anr. Page 64 of 64
[ad_1]
Source link