Delhi District Court
Suraj Bhan vs Satyavinder on 20 January, 2025
Suit No. 375/21 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR, LD. DJ-03, SOUTH-
WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No: 375/2021
CNR No.: DLSW01-004588-2021
In the matter of:-
Sh. Suraj Bhan
S/o Late Sh. Chet Ram
R/o VPO Ujwa
New Delhi-73
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Satyavinder
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
2. Smt. Saroj
W/o Sh. Satyavinder
3. Sh. Neeyat Dagar
S/o Sh. Satyavinder
All R/o VPO Ujwa,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-73
.....Defendants
Sh. Suraj Bhan Vs. Sh. Satyavinder and Ors.
Suit No. 375/21 2
SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF DOCUMENTS, RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF MONEY, PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND MESNE PROFITS
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.04.2021
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS: 13.01.2025
DATE OF DECISION: 20.01.2025
DECISION: DECREED
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking (a) a decree of
recovery of possession with respect to the plot bearing khasra no.
392/1, situated in the extended lal dora of Village Ujwa, New Delhi
measuring 125 sq. yards; (b) a decree of cancellation of sale related
documents dated 17.03.2020 executed by Plaintiff in favour of
Defendant no. 1 in respect of the aforesaid suit property; (c) a decree of
recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from
the date of legal notice i.e. 01.04.2021 till its realization; (d) a decree of
permanent and mandatory injunction with respect to the aforesaid suit
property; (e) a decree of recovery of Rs. 10,000/- per month as mesne
profits from 01.04.2021 till the handing over of actual physical
possession and (f) costs of the suit.
PLAINT
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the plaint are as follows:
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 3
(i) It is submitted that the Defendant no. 1 is the real younger son of
the Plaintiff and the Defendant no. 2 is the daughter-in-law and
Defendant no. 3 is the grandson of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the
Plaintiff had purchased a property in the extended lal dora of Village
Ujwa i.e. a vacant plot bearing khasra no. 392/1, situated in the revenue
estate of village Ujwa, New Delhi, area measuring 125 sq. yards in the
year 1990 out of his hard earned money and life savings from one Sh.
Ramdhan S/o Sh. Laxman R/o VPO Ujwa, New Delhi. It is alleged that
the original documents of purchase of the suit property by the Plaintiff
are also in the custody of the Defendants which they took in good faith.
It is further submitted that in the year 2002, the Plaintiff out of his love
and affection had given half portion of the aforesaid suit property i.e.
about 62.5 sq. yards and thereafter, the Plaintiff constructed the said
portion with his hard money and savings and that the Defendant no. 1
did not spent any amount in the construction of the said premises except
supervising the construction and started residing with his family i.e. the
Defendants no. 2 and 3 and that the Defendants are residing in the said
premises as licensees.
(ii) It is alleged that in the month of March 2020, the Defendant no. 1
had approached the Plaintiff and requested the Plaintiff to execute a
GPA of the aforesaid property in the name of Defendant no. 3 so that he
may take a loan on the said property to start some business for his son.
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 4
It is further submitted that Defendant no. 1 had promised the Plaintiff
not to use the aforesaid GPA dated 17.03.2020 for any other purpose. It
is alleged that in good faith, Plaintiff had executed the said GPA in
favour of his grandson i.e. Defendant no. 3 on 17.03.2020 in respect of
his entire aforesaid plot measuring 125 sq. yards without receiving any
consideration amounting. It is alleged that Defendant no. 1 had
deliberately showed the aforesaid property to be purchased by the
Defendant no. 3 by paying a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Plaintiff and
also mentioned the said amount in the agreement to sell as well as in the
receipt. It is pertinently mentioned that at the time of drafting of the
legal notice, inadvertently, it was wrongly mentioned that the title
documents i.e. the GPA in respect of the suit property was being
executed in the name of the Defendant no. 1 in place of Defendant no.
3. It is further alleged that in the month of June 2020, the Defendants
no. 1 and 2 had approached the Plaintiff and requested him for some
financial help to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- with a promise to return
back the said amount within a very short period and accordingly,
Plaintiff had issued a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of Defendant
no. 2 which was duly encashed on 01.07.2020, however, the said
amount was not repaid by the Defendants till date. It is alleged that the
Defendants have flatly refused to return the said amount and also to
cancel the said GPA set. It is also alleged that the Defendants have also
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 5
stopped the Plaintiff to construct a small structure for him to reside in
the remaining vacant portion of the plot in question and called the
police in order to implicate the Plaintiff.
(iii) Subsequently, Plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 01.04.2021
to the Defendants which was duly served and thereafter, the present suit
has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of possession, cancellation
of documents, recovery of sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, permanent and
mandatory injunction and mesne profits.
Proceedings of the Case
3. A perusal of the Court file reveals that the suit was instituted on
27.04.2021 and summons for settlement of issues were issued which
were duly served. An application under Order VI R 17 of CPC was filed
on behalf of the Plaintiff which was allowed and disposed off vide
order dated 22.09.2021. Thereafter, WS was filed on behalf of the
Defendants wherein, it is alleged that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not
maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed as the
Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and also
suppressed the material facts. It is further alleged that the present suit is
bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and has not been properly
valued for the purpose of court fees.
4. It is submitted that the suit property belongs to Gaon Sabha of
village Ujwa, Najafgarh, New Delhi as the suit property was originally
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 6
allotted to Sh. Ramdhan S/o Sh. Laxman R/o VPO Ujwa, New Delhi by
the Gaon Sabha in the year 1982-83 under the 20 point programme /
scheme and till date, the aforesaid property is in the name of the
original allottee as a Aasami. It is further submitted that in the revenue
records, the name of the original allottee was clearly mentioned as the
Asami of the said plot of land. It is submitted that the grandfather of the
Defendant no. 1 namely late Sh. Chet Ram was having an ancestral
agricultural land i.e. 12 bigha 02 biswas (2.52 acres), out of khasra no.
30/10(4-11), 26(0-5), 44/18/2(1-7), 18/3(0-17), 23/1(2-8), 88/21(2-14),
situated in the revenue estate of village Ujwa, Tehsil Najafgarh, New
Delhi and after his death, the Lrs/sons of late Sh. Chet Ram i.e. the
Plaintiff, Sh. Veerbhan and Devender jointly became the owners of the
aforesaid land. It is further submitted that thereafter, the Plaintiff, his
brother Devender and sons of Veerbhan namely Harinder and
Gyanender Singh had sold the aforesaid agricultural land in the month
of May 2013 for an amount of Rs. 3,15,10,500/- to M/s Vastu Valley
Pvt Ltd having its office at 2556/194, Tri Nagar, New Delhi-35. It is
also submitted that the Plaintiff was not having any family requirement
to sold his share in the aforesaid agricultural land and that the
Defendant no. 1 had objected the Plaintiff for selling the aforesaid
property. It is also alleged that the Plaintiff has received three
residential houses / properties in village Ujwa from his father late Sh.
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 7
Chet Ram i.e. one property measuring 175 sq. yards approximately,
second property measuring 50 sq. yards and third measuring 100 sq.
yards situated in the lal dora of Village Ujwa, New Delhi and that the
Plaintiff received a share of Rs. 1,05,03,500/- as consideration amount
after selling the aforesaid agricultural land and all the aforesaid three
properties and amount are lying with the Plaintiff and that the said
amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was given by the Plaintiff from the sale
consideration amount of the aforesaid agricultural land.
5. It is further submitted that the Defendant no. 1 is 80%
handicapped person and working as a Government JBT teacher in
primary school of MCD, Delhi in the year 1998 and that he had
constructed the suit property in the year 2001 and since then, the
Defendant no. 1 along with his mother and other family members are
residing in the suit property. It is also submitted that the nephew of the
Defendant no. 1 namely Ms. Ritika was married on 27.02.2020 and it
was an arrange marriage and the entire expenses incurred on the
marriage were borne by the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff had given a
cheque for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the name of Defendant no. 2
in advance and the same was noted down in the Kanyadan register at
the time of marriage of Ms. Niyati who is the daughter of Defendant no.
1 which was solemnized on 20.02.2022.
6. It is further submitted that the suit property was not a transferable
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 8
property and was allotted to Sh. Ramdhan under 20 point programme. It
is also submitted that Defendant no. 1 had constructed the suit property
in the year 2001, obtained electricity and water connections in his name
and since then, he is residing with his family in the suit property for the
last 22 years. It is also submitted that Defendant no. 3 had never raised
any request to start a business or to take any loan for the same. It is also
submitted that Plaintiff had received an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from
the Defendant no. 1 and executed GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit,
possession letter, receipt and Will on 17.03.2020 on the pretext that
whenever the property would become freehold, he undertook to get the
same registered in the name of Defendant no. 3 from the original
allottee. It is alleged that Plaintiff is not having any right, title or
interest over the suit property.
7. Replication was thereafter, filed by the Plaintiff to the WS of the
Defendants wherein the Plaintiff has denied the averments of the
Defendants and reiterated the contents of the plaint. Thereafter, affidavit
of admission-denial of documents was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff
and Defendants and on the basis of pleadings, following issues were
framed on 21.02.2023:-
(I) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of suit
property bearing Kh. No. 392/1, situated in the extended Lal Dora of
Village Ujwa, New Delhi, measuring 125 sq. yards, in his favour and
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 9against the Defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)
(II) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of cancellation of sale
related documents dated 17.03.2020 executed by the Plaintiff in favour
of Defendant no. 1 with respect to the suit property bearing Kh. No.
392/1, situated in the extended Lal Dora of Village Ujwa, New Delhi,
measuring 125 sq. yards, in his favour and against the Defendant, as
prayed for? (OPP)
(III) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.
10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, as prayed
for? (OPP)
(IV) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent and
mandatory injunction with respect to the suit property, as prayed for?
(OPP)
(V) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of recovery of Rs.
10,000/- per month as mesne profits from the date of legal notice i.e.
01.04.2021, as prayed for? (OPP)
(VI) Whether Defendant has become the owner of the suit property by
way of adverse possession? (OPD-1)
(VII) Whether the Plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit
property? (OPD)
(VIII) Whether the Plaintiff executed a GPA for consideration of Rs.
5,00,000/- in favour of the Defendant no. 3 due to undue influence?
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 10
(OPP)
(IX) Whether the Defendant has any right, title and interest in the suit
property? (OPD)
(X) Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for by the parties and matter was
fixed for Plaintiff’s evidence.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
8. On 03.05.2023, PW-1 / Plaintiff had tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following
documents:
(a) Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) i.e. photocopy of Aadhar Card of the deponent;
(b) Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) i.e. photograph of suit property;
(c) Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) i.e. copy of site plan; (d) Mark PX i.e. photocopy of electricity bill in the name of the deponent; (e) Mark A (colly) i.e. photocopy of GPA and other title documents
dated 17.03.2020 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant no. 3;
(f) Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) i.e. copy of bank statement showing the
transaction in question;
(g) Ex. PW1/6 i.e. legal notice dated 01.04.2021;
(h) Ex. PW1/7 (colly) i.e. postal receipt of the speed post and
registered post and
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 11
(i) Mark B i.e. internet generated delivery / track report of the speed
post and registered post as proof of service of legal notice.
9. During cross-examination, it was deposed by PW-1 / Plaintiff
that late Sh. Chet Ram had left behind agricultural land of area
measuring 12.5 bighas in village Ujwa, New Delhi and had also left
behind 125 sq. yards of residential land and that this land was allotted
to them by way of consolidation. It is further deposed that apart from
this, another piece of land measuring 150 sq. yards were also allotted on
consolidation proceedings out of which their uncle (chacha) Maan
Singh S/o Hari Narayan had 50% share and also, a piece of land
measuring 100 sq. yards was also allotted after consolidation which was
jointly shared by him and his brothers. He further deposed that he has
the ownership and possession of three properties after partition between
him and his brothers. Relevant portion of the cross-examination is
extracted herein:
“……..I have the ownership and possession of three properties after
partition between me and my brothers. I have complete possession and
ownership of property measuring 100 sq. yards and I am having
possession and ownership of other other two property measuring 150
sq. yards and 125 sq. yards of upto 50%. It is correct that I alongwith
my elder son Ravinder alongwith his family are residing in the
aforesaid properties. I have two sons…….”
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 12
10. It is further deposed that the agricultural land was sold in the year
2013 for Rs. 2.15 crores per acre jointly by him and his two brothers
and that his share was Rs. 1.78 crores. He has denied the suggestion
that he did not give any money out of the share consideration to the
Defendant and his family. The Plaintiff has admitted that the suit
property was initially allotted to Ramdhan S/o Laxman by virtue of the
20 point programme by the Government and denied the suggestion that
the said plot was not transferable.
11. During further cross-examination, he admitted that he has not
filed any document regarding the material used in the construction of
the said property. The Plaintiff has denied the suggestion that the suit
property was constructed by Defendant no. 1 at his own cost and
expenses. He further deposed that he has borne the expenses of the
marriage of the daughter of Ravinder. He had denied the suggestion that
he had given a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- to Defendant no. 2 for
marriage of her daughter. He deposed that he does not have any
document to show that he or his wife have given the ancestral property
of his wife to a close relative (nephew). He admitted that during the
period of execution of the document i.e. Mark A (colly), no bank
executive had visited him for providing bank loan. He further deposed
that Defendants no. 1 and 3 have not discussed anything with him about
opening any business. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was further cross
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 13
examined and discharged.
No other witness was examined on behalf of the Plaintiff and
therefore, PE was closed vide separate statement of the Plaintiff.
12. On 24.02.2024, DW-1 Sh. Satyavinder had tendered his evidence
by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/A and relief upon the
following documents:
(a) Ex. DW1/1 (OSR) i.e. copy of disability certificate dated
27.07.1993;
(b) Ex. DW1/2 i.e. electricity bill of the suit property;
(c) Ex. DW1/3 i.e. marriage card; (d) Ex. DW1/4 i.e. marriage / marriage programme photograph of son-in-law and (e) Mark A i.e. photocopy of sale deed dated May 2013 already Ex. D-3.
13. During cross-examination, DW-1 / Defendant no. 1 deposed that
he was living with his father and mother along with his brother and
sister till the year 2001 and thereafter, he had been living in his own
house constructed by him. He further deposed that he is in government
job and working as a teacher. He admitted that he has not filed any
detail regarding the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in his affidavit and
written statement. He also admitted that the marriage of all of the
children was done by his parents. He deposed that he owns a property
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 14
in village Ujwa which was purchased by him from his uncle in the year
2010 approximately. He also deposed that he had purchased the
property in village Ghummanhera in the name of his son in the year
2021 measuring 240 sq. yards and the same was purchased for an
amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. He further deposed that he had purchased
the said land from his father out of his own savings and had not given
any information about the same to his department. He deposed that the
said property is under 20 point programme. He deposed that he is not
sure whether the said property was purchased by his father out of his
funds received by selling agricultural land of his village. He admitted
that after selling the agricultural land in his village, his father had
purchased three properties, one in village Ghummanhera measuring 240
sq. yards and two plots at Rawta Mor. He had denied the suggestion
that his father had transferred the property in village Ghummanhera in
his name and the two plots in Rawta Mor in the name of his brother
without any consideration.
14. He further deposed that a receipt was signed by his father
acknowledging the receipt of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Defendant has denied
the suggestion that the photograph annexed as Ex. PW1/2 wherein the
construction was going on, was not being done by his father along with
his brother namely Ravinder. The Defendant was further cross
examined and discharged.
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 15
15. On 09.04.2024, DW-2 Smt. Saroj had tendered her evidence by
way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW2/A and she had relied upon copy
of her Aadhar Card which was exhibited as Ex. DW2/1 (OSR). During
cross-examination, she admitted that she had taken Rs. 10,00,000/-
from her father-in-law and the same was encashed in her bank account
but she voluntarily stated that the same was given for marriage
expenses of her daughter. She deposed that her son had given Rs.
5,00,000/- to the Plaintiff. She deposed that she did not know whether
she has placed on record any bill to show the expenses incurred in her
daughter’s marriage. She admitted that half of the suit property was
constructed and the other half was under construction. It is further
deposed that the Plaintiff had stopped the construction work at the suit
property. She deposed that the Plaintiff has not taken Rs. 5,00,000/-
fraudulently. The witness was discharged thereafter.
16. On 05.09.2024, DW-3 Sh. Neeyat Dagar was examined and
during his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he had paid Rs.
5,00,000/- to the Plaintiff which was paid partially by him and his
father. He further deposed that the expenses for the marriage of his
cousin sister were borne by his grandfather in the year 2020. He
deposed that during the covid pandemic, his grandfather had given the
said amount as a gift from his side for marriage of his sister namely
Niyati and that all the movable and immovable properties are lying with
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 16
his grandfather. Thereafter, DW-3 was further examined on 11.12.2024
and ITR for the period 2021-22 was exhibited by him as Ex. DW3/A.
He was cross examined and discharged on the even date. No other
witness was examined on behalf of the Defendants and therefore, DE
was closed on 11.12.2024 and matter was proceeded for final
arguments.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
17. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties. Ld. Counsel
for Plaintiff has argued that the Plaintiff is the owner of the property i.e.
a vacant plot in village Ujwa which was purchased from one Ram Dhan
and the Plaintiff was also having electricity connection in his name on
the property. The Plaintiff gave half portion of the suit property of about
62.5 sq. yards to Defendant no. 1 who is the real son of the Plaintiff and
the Plaintiff got constructed half portion with his own money and
started residing with his family i.e. Defendants no. 2 and 3 as licensee
without fee. In March 2020, the Defendant no. 1 approached the
Plaintiff that he wanted to open business for his son i.e. Defendant no. 3
and requested the Plaintiff to execute GPA so that he may take loan on
the property. The Plaintiff therefore, executed the GPA without any
consideration but the Defendants fraudulently showed that a sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- has been paid to the Plaintiff in consideration of the GPA.
Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff submits that the Defendants took advantage of
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 17
the old age of the Plaintiff who was more than 88 years old. It is
submitted that the Defendants could not show a single proof of the
payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the Defendants
no. 1 and 2 had approached the Plaintiff in June 2020 with request for
loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- and therefore, the Plaintiff had paid a sum of
Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of Defendant no. 2. It is therefore, submitted
that the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of possession of the suit
property, a declaration that the GPA is void and liable to be cancelled
and a recovery of the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- given as loan to the
Defendants.
18. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Defendants submitted that Plaintiff
has not proved any ownership documents of the suit property and that
till date, as per revenue record, Ram Dhan is the owner of the suit
property. He has also objected to the fact that different causes of action
have been included in the present suit against the Defendants by the
Plaintiff. It has also been submitted that as the Plaintiff is not the owner
of the suit property, therefore, the GPA cannot be cancelled. He has also
submitted that it is not possible that the Plaintiff would have believed
that a loan can be taken on the basis of an unregistered GPA and the
same was for consideration. He has submitted that the sum of Rs.
10,00,000/- was given in the covid period as ‘ kanyadaan’ amount for
the future marriage of the grand-daughter of the Plaintiff and the
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 18
Plaintiff had also participated in the marriage. The same was not given
as a loan.
FINDINGS
19. At the outset, the contention of the Ld Counsel for the defendants
that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of
parties can be dealt with. This issue was only raised at the final stage
and not before. Order I Rule 13 and Order II Rule 7 of the CPC are a
sufficient answer to this belated objection and therefore, I find that the
present suit cannot fail on this ground.
20. I shall decide all the issues together as they are interconnected.
The following observations arise from the perusal of the evidence
adduced by the parties:
(a) The plaintiff avers that he is the owner of the suit property where
the defendants 1,2 and 3 (being the son, daughter-in-law and grandson
respectively of the plaintiff) are residing as the same was given to them
on a gratuitous license (by dint of the relationship between the parties).
He had purchased the same from his own funds back in the year 1990
from one Ramdhan. The defendants contest the suit against the plaintiff
with the defence that (i) Ramdhan is still the owner of the suit property
as he was allotted the property under the 20 point programme; (ii) that
the plaintiff had received the amount of Rs 5,00,000 from the defendant
no 1 and had executed the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit,
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 19
Possession Letter, Receipt and Will etc on 17.03.2020 on the pretext
that whenever the property will become freehold, he undertakes to the
defendant no 3 to get the property registered in the name of the
defendant no.3 from the original allottee.
(b) In Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand MANU/DE/1690/2012: 188
(2012) DLT 538, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held thus:
“A right to possession of an immovable property arises not
only from a complete ownership right in the property but
having a better title or a better entitlement/right to the
possession of the property than qua the person who is in
actual physical possession thereof.”
Therefore, even if both parties might not plead absolute title, in a
suit for possession, the better title can be adjudicated. Here, it is
pertinent to note that the defendants have not disclosed as to how they
came into possession of the suit property i.e. on what basis they are
residing in the suit property. In para no 3 of the plaint the plaintiff
specifically aver the origin of the defendants possession of the suit
property through a gratuitous license granted by him. In response, the
defendants, in order to set up a contest to this, should have pleaded the
origin of his possession, however, the defendants set up an evasive
denial by pleading that “it is however respectfully submitted that the
defendant no 1 constructed the suit property in the year 2001,
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 20
obtained/installed electricity and water connection in his name and
since then the defendant no 1 along with his family are residing in the
suit property from the last 22 years and since then nobody raised any
objections in the peaceful residing and possession of the defendant no
1, hence being in the adverse possession of the above said plot i.e. the
suit property since last 22 years, the defendant no 1 is the owner of the
suit property.” It can be noticed that the defendants do not reveal as to
how the possession of the suit property devolved upon them and from
whom they received the possession. It is not their case that they had any
dealing with Ramadhan directly. Therefore, an adverse inference has to
be drawn for this evasive reply in the written statement and on a
preponderance of probabilities, the plaintiff’s case of the gratuitous
license has to be accepted, even if only the pleadings are seen. Merely
because the plaintiff has not placed his documents of sale from
Ramadhan on record, and by averring that the actual title is of
Ramadhan and not the plaintiff leads the defendant’s nowhere. Firstly
the defendants are in no position to challenge the absolute title of the
plaintiff and say that it vests with some other person, when they have
not even disclosed the origins of their possession over the suit property.
Secondly, the fact that they admit to having got executed documents
such as GPA, Agreement to Sell etc imply that they admit the better title
of the plaintiff and are estopped from claiming that the plaintiff has no
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 21
title and that the same vests in Ramadhan, the alleged original allottee
under the 20 point programme. Even though the said documents have
been found to be inadmissible by this Court in the reasons to follow,
does not mean that the admission of the defendants to the execution of
such documents of sale by the plaintiff in their favor cannot be read as
against them.
(c) The alleged GPA, Agreement to sell and sundry other documents
dated 17.03.2020 cannot have the effect of giving the defendants any
right, title or interest in the property as against the plaintiff. It is well
settled that the unregistered GPA and agreement to sell cannot have the
effect of transferring any rights in the immovable property. In Shakeel
Ahmed vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain: MANU/SC/1257/2023, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held that:-
“10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to
be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the
case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains
that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable
properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell
or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of
Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a
document which requires compulsory registration under the
Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 22enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis.
Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the
Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said
that the Respondent would have acquired title over the
property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered
agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific
performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard,
reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in
immovable property can be conferred without a registered
document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of
Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same
proposition. Reference may also be made to the following
judgments of this Court:
(i) Ameer Minhaj v. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and
Ors. MANU/SC/0685/2018 : 2018:INSC:578 : (2018) 7
SCC 639
(ii) Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi MANU/SC/1241/2022 :
2022:INSC:10111
(iii) M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 23Chand Mitra and Anr. MANU/SC/1051/2023 :
2023:INSC:8542
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not
override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the
basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable
property. Once this is the settled position, the Respondent
could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne
profits against the Appellant, who was admittedly in
possession of the property in question whether as 10. Having
considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be
emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case
of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that
no title could be transferred with respect to immovable
properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell
or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of
Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a
document which requires compulsory registration under the
Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally
enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis.
Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the
Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said
that the Respondent would have acquired title over the
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 24
property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered
agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific
performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard,
reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
13. The argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent that
the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be
prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of
compulsory registration and effect on non-registration
emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act
and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps
& Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two
enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the
same view.” In Balraj vs. Nathuram Sharma and Ors.
MANU/DE/7377/2023, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
traversed the entire law in this respect of the effect of
unregistered GPA sales and observed that:-
“37. This Court deems it fit to discuss the scope of
admissibility of the documents which are both unregistered
and unstamped, in the Court of law. As per the statutes
governing the registration of the documents, as discussed
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 25above, there is a compulsory registration in cases where
there is a transfer of any title in the immovable property and
if the said document is not registered, then there is no valid
transfer of interest in the said immovable property.
Moreover, as per the statute governing the stamping of the
documents, it is mandatory that the party to pay the requisite
stamp duty on the instruments the parties are executing and
non-stamping of the said instruments make it inadmissible
as evidence before the Court of law.
38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the aspect of
unstamped and unregistered document not admissible as
evidence before the Court of the in the judgment titled as
K.B. Saha & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd.,
MANU/SC/7679/2008 : (2008) 8 SCC 564 and observed as
follows:
“27. Section 49 clearly provides that a document purporting
to be a lease and required to be registered under Section 107
will not be admissible in evidence if the same is not
registered. Proviso to this section, however, as noted
hereinabove, provides that an unregistered lease deed may
be looked into as evidence of collateral facts. Mr Mukherjee,
learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 26tenancy in question was exclusively granted for the benefit
of the named officer and his family and unless the landlord
gave his consent, no other person could use it and such
condition in the lease agreement is admissible for
ascertaining the purpose of allotting the suit premises which
according to the appellant is a collateral fact.
29. As we have already noted that under the proviso to
Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered
document can also be admitted into evidence for a collateral
fact/collateral purpose, let us now look at the meaning of
“collateral purpose” and then ascertain whether Clause 9 of
the lease agreement can be looked into for such collateral
purpose.
30. In Haran Chandra Chakravarti v. Kaliprasanna Sarkar
[AIR 1932 Cal 83(2)] it was held that the terms of a
compulsorily registrable instrument are nothing less than a
transaction affecting the property comprised in it. It was also
held that to use such an instrument for the purpose of
proving such a term would not be using it for a collateral
purpose and that the question as to who is the tenant and on
what terms he has been created a tenant are not collateral
facts but they are important terms of the contract of tenancy,
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 27which cannot be proved by admission of an unregistered
lease deed into evidence.
31. The High Court in the impugned judgment relied on a
decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ratan Lal v. Hari
Shanker [MANU/UP/0198/1980 : AIR 1980 All 180] to hold
that since the appellant wanted to extinguish the right of the
respondent with the help of the unregistered tenancy, the
same was not a collateral purpose. In Ratan Lal case
[MANU/UP/0198/1980 : AIR 1980 All 180] while
discussing the meaning of the term “collateral purpose”, the
High Court had observed as follows : (AIR pp. 180-81, para
4)
“4. The second contention was that the partition deed, even
if it was not registered could certainly be looked into for a
collateral purpose. … but the collateral purpose has a limited
scope and meaning. It cannot be used for the purpose of
saying that the deed created or declared or assigned or
limited or extinguished a right to immovable property. …
term ‘collateral purpose’ would not permit the party to
establish any of these acts from the deed.”
32. In Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Behari Lal Kohli
[MANU/SC/0327/1989 : (1989) 4 SCC 39 : AIR 1989 SC
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 28
1806] this Court observed that if a document is inadmissible
for non-registration, all its terms are inadmissible including
the one dealing with landlord’s permission to his tenant to
sub-let. It was also held in that decision that if a decree
purporting to create a lease is inadmissible in evidence for
want of registration, none of the terms of the lease can be
admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the
purpose of proving an important clause in the lease is not
using it as a collateral purpose. Again this Court in Rai
Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla
[MANU/SC/0185/1991 : (1991) 1 SCC 422 : AIR 1991 SC
744] reiterated the above and observed in para 10 as under :
(SCC p. 429, para 10)
“10. … the lease deed, Ext. P-1 dated 19-5-1978 executed
both by the appellant and the respondent i.e. the landlady
and the tenant, Rai Chand Jain, though unregistered can be
considered for collateral purposes and as such the findings
of the appellate authority to the effect that the said deed
cannot be used for collateral purposes, namely, to show that
the purpose was to lease out the demised premises for
residential purposes of the tenant only is not at all legally
correct. It is well settled that unregistered lease executed by
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 29both the parties can be looked into for collateral purposes. In
the instant case the purpose of the lease is evident from the
deed itself which is as follows: ‘The lessor hereby demises
House No. 382, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, to the lessee for
residential purposes only’. This clearly evinces that the
property in question was let out to the tenant for his
residence only.”
33. In Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh v. Ratiram
[MANU/SC/0562/1969 : (1969) 1 UJ 86 (SC)] the following
has been laid down:
“A document required by law to be registered, if
unregistered, is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction
affecting immovable property, but it may be admitted as
evidence of collateral facts, or for any collateral purpose,
that is for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring,
assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable
property. As stated by Mulla in his Indian Registration Act,
7th Edn., at p. 189:
‘The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad, Madras,
Patna, Lahore, Assam, Nagpur, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Orissa,
Rangoon and Jammu & Kashmir; the former Chief Court of
Oudh; the Judicial Commissioner’s Court of Peshawar,
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 30Ajmer and Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court have
held that a document which requires registration under
Section 17 and which is not admissible for want of
registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is
nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the
possession of the person who holds under it.’ ”
34 [Ed. : Para 34 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./76/2008 dated 15-9-2008.] . From the principles
laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High
Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that:
1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is
not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the
Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an
evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to
Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or
divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law
required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself
required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a
transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 31immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and
upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of
registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence
and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an
important clause would not be using it as a collateral
purpose.
39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further delved into the
principle discussed in the foregoing paragraphs in the
judgment of Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha
Jagadheeswararao, MANU/SC/1141/2015 : (2015) 16 SCC
787, and held as follows:
“15. It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the
document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance
of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the
terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a
document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained
in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up
by the party who seeks to introduce the document in
question. A thorough reading of both Exts. B-21 and B-22
makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in
respect of immovable property through a document which is
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 32compulsorily registrable document and if the same is not
registered, it becomes an inadmissible document as
envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence,
Exts. B-21 and B-22 are the documents which squarely fall
within the ambit of Section 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act
and hence are compulsorily registrable documents and the
same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of
proving the factum of partition between the parties. We are
of the considered opinion that Exts. B-21 and B-22 are not
admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary
purpose of partition.”
(d) Moreover, the defendants have led no evidence to show that any
consideration of Rs 5,00,000 genuinely changed hands at the time of
the execution of the unregistered GPA, which in any case, is not
admissible in evidence. Taking into account the aforesaid, it appears
that the defendants have not been able to show that they have a valid
defence to the suit of the plaintiff qua, the possession of the suit
property.
(e) The defendants have also not been able to make out any case of
adverse possession, as it is not pleaded as to when their possession
became hostile and adverse to the plaintiff. Merely arranging for the
water and electricity connection in the name of defendant no 1 would
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 33
not have the effect of rendering their possession hostile and inimical to
the plaintiff. The law of adverse possession is well settled and has been
dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments
including the judgment in Ram Nagina Rai & Anr v. Deo Kumar Rai
(Deceased) by Lrs & Anr 2019 13 SCC 324, the relevant paras are
extracted herein below:
“7. Since the contesting defendants have raised a plea of
adverse possession, the burden is on them to prove
affirmatively that the bar of limitation prescribed under
Article 65 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 viz.
12 years, is applicable in the matter to file a suit for
possession of immovable property based on title. The
limitation of 12 years begins when the possession of the
defendants would become adverse to that of the plaintiffs.
Thus, it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to file a suit for
possession within 12 years from when the possession of the
defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs.
8. Article 65 presupposes that the limitation starts only if
the defendants prove the factum of adverse possession
affirmatively from a particular time. Adverse possession
means a hostile assertion i.e. a possession which is
expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 34owner. The person who bases his title on adverse
possession must show, by clear and unequivocal
evidence, that the possession was hostile to the real
owner and it amounted to the denial of his title to the
property claimed. In deciding whether the acts alleged
by the person constitute adverse possession, regard must
be given to the animus of the person doing such acts,
which must be ascertained from the facts and
circumstances of each case. It is needless to observe that
where the possession can be referred to a lawful title, it
would not be considered to be adverse, the reason
being that the person whose possession can be drawn to
a lawful title, will not be permitted to show that his
possession was hostile to another’s title. Simply put, one
who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by
mere denial of the other’s title, make his possession
adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of
limitation.
9. In the matter on hand, though the defendants have
pleaded that they are the owners of the property, it seems
that during the course of the trial, they have given up this
contention, inasmuch as they have only concentrated on
the contention that they have perfected the title by
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 35adverse possession. All through, as is evident from the
material evidence on record and their contentions, the
defendants have tried to show that they have been in
continuous possession of the property for more than 60
years. But there is no iota of evidence show as to when
the defendants’ possession in fact became adverse to the
interest of the plaintiff. Except for the change of khatian
sometime in the year 1970 by the defendants and the
payment of taxes for being in possession of property, no
material is produced by the defendants to show
whether the possession was really hostile to the actual
owner. There is absolutely nothing on record to show
that there was a hostile assertion by the defendants. We
do not find that the defendants had hostile animus at any
point of time, from the facts and circumstances of this
case. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs
over the suit property only when the suit came to be
filed, inasmuch as the defendants have taken such a
contention for the first time in their written statements.
10. The non-use of the property by the owner even for a
long time may affect the title of the owner under certain
circumstances. The acquisition of title by adverse
possession springs into action essentially by default or
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 36inaction of the owner. There is a lot of difference
between simple possession and adverse possession.
Every possession is not adverse possession. The
defendants will not acquire adverse possession by simply
remaining in permissive possession for howsoever long
it may be.
11. Until the defendants’ possession becomes adverse to
that of the real owner, the defendants continue in
permissive possession of the property. Only if the
defendants’ possession becomes adverse to the interest
of the real owner and the real owner fails to file the suit
for possession within 12 years, as prescribed under
Article 65 of the Limitation Act, from the point of time
the possession by the defendants becomes adverse to the
plaintiffs, the real owner loses his title over the property.
12. The defendants are not only required to prove that
they have been in possession of the suit property
continuously and uninterruptedly, but also need to prove,
by cogent and convincing evidence, that there is hostile
animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the
real owner. This Court, while discussing the law relating
to adverse possession in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v.
Revamma held that, to assess a claim of adverse
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 37possession, a two-pronged enquiry is required viz.
application of the limitation provisions, and the specific
positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse
possessor.”
Therefore, in absence of the necessary pleadings it can be seen that no
case is made out for adverse possession of the defendants.
(f) The only thing remaining to be considered is the claim of the
plaintiff for the recovery of Rs 10 lakhs, on the ground that the same
was given to the defendants as loan. The fact that the same was given
vide a cheque and encashed in the account of defendant no 2 is not
denied. During the cross examination, DW-2 i.e. Saroj, the daughter in
law of the plaintiff admitted the same, however it was her defence (as
well as that of defendant no 1 & 3) that it was given for the marriage
expenses of her daughter as “kanyadaan”. The specific pleadings in the
written statement are that ” on the contrary, it is submitted that the
plaintiff himself has given a cheque bearing no— for Rs 10,00,000 in
the name of the defendant no 2 in advance and same was noted down in
the Kanyadan registere at the time of the marriage of the daughter of
the defendant no 1 namely Ms Niyati which was solemnized on
14.03.2022. The plaintiff has given the aforesaid cheque in advance
because at that time the Covid-19 pandemic was at its peak. It is
submitted that the plaintiff being the elderly person and being the father
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 38
of the defendant no 1 performed all the rituals of the marriage
ceremony of his granddaughter i.e. the daughter of defendant no 1
namely Ms Niyati.” Once it is admitted by the defendants that they
received the said amount, and they plead that it was given as
Kanyadaan and that the said amount was shown as such in the register,
at the very least, they should have produced the said register to
corroborate their defense. The same was not produced and therefore,
their claim that the said amount was given as such has not been
corroborated. In such situation, the onus was upon the defendant to
show the nature of the transaction since they have admitted to the
receipt of the said amount. Therefore, the plaintiff’s version stands
proved on a preponderance of probabilities. Merely the fact that the
plaintiff participated in the marriage of his granddaughter does not
prove that he gave the amount of Rs 10,00,000 as ” kanyadaan”, in
absence of any proof placed on record by the defendants.
(g) The plaintiff has not placed on record any proof to show that he
is liable to have his suit decreed for the sum of Rs 10,000 per month for
the relief of mesne profits. It is the admitted fact that he sent a legal
notice to the defendants to vacate the suit property. However, it is an
admitted fact also, that the defendants have been staying in the suit
property for a lengthy period of time, and that they are related by blood
to the plaintiff. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the plaintiff, mesne
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 39
profits pendente lite, however, he shall be entitled to mesne profits @
5000 per month starting from 15 days after the passing of the decree till
he is handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
property.
The issues are decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants.
RELIEF
21. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the following
reliefs :- (a) a decree of possession is granted to the plaintiff against the
defendants and the defendants are directed to hand over the vacant and
peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. Kh. No. 392/1, situated in
the extended Lal Dora of Village Ujwa, New Delhi, measuring 125 sq.
yards to the plaintiff immediately; (b) a decree of declaration that the set
of documents dated 17.03.2020 grant the defendants no right, title or
interest in the suit property i.e. Kh. No. 392/1, situated in the extended
Lal Dora of Village Ujwa, New Delhi, measuring 125 sq. yards; (c) a
decree for the sum of Rs 10,00,000 against the defendants who shall be
liable for the sum jointly and severally; (d) a permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the
suit property Kh. No. 392/1, situated in the extended Lal Dora of
Village Ujwa, New Delhi, measuring 125 sq. yards. (e) costs of the suit
are also awarded to the plaintiff to be paid by the defendants.
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
Suit No. 375/21 40
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
DIVYANG
DIVYANG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.01.20
15:57:29
+0530
Announced in the open court (Sh. Divyang Thakur)
On 20.01.2025 DJ-03/South West
Dwarka / New Delhi
Sh Suraj Bhan v. Satyavinder & Ors
[ad_1]
Source link