Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Jile Singh Tanwar on 12 January, 2026
DLST010008602014
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS DJ. 206937/2016
Filing No. 39483/2014
CNR No. DLST01-0008602014
In the matter of
Ashok Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Sh Ramesh Gupta
R/o AS-50, Rawat Farm, Asola Village,
New Delhi ......Plaintiff
VERSUS
Jile Singh Tanwar
S/o Late Sh Jaswant Singh
R/o H No 961, Village Chattarpur, Main Road,
New Delhi
.......Defendant
Date of Institution : 26.05.2016
Date of reserving the judgment : 22.12.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2026
Decision : Dismissed
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 1 of 30
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar
Digitally signed
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:00 +0530
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF.................................................3
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS.............................................6
III. ISSUES FRAMED........................................................................................ 8
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PARTIES...................................................................9
V. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES................................11
VI. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO................................13
i. Issue no 1: Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD?..................13
ii. Issue no 2: Whether Jyoti Singh Rawat executed Will dated 10.01.2007.
If so, its effect on sale deed dated 08.01.2007 and on suit property?.......16
iii. Issue no 3: Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for cancellation of
sale deed dated 08.01.2007 as prayed?....................................................20
iv. Issue no 4: Whether plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner of the
suit property i.e. AS-50 Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi?.................................30
v. Issue no 5: Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent
injunction as claimed?..............................................................................30
vi. Issue no 6: Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory
injunction as claimed ?.............................................................................30
VII. RELIEF......................................................................................................30
Digitally
signed by
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 2 of 30 Arul Arul Varma
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:04
+0530
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
1. The facts as asseverated by the Plaintiff are hereby
recapitulated: Late Sh. Jyoti Singh Rawat, uncle of the
plaintiff herein had purchased 4 bigha of land comprising in
Khasra no 473 Min (4-0) situated in Revenue Estate of
Village Asola, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi. It was alleged
that out of said 4 bighas of land, 2 bighas was purchased by
Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat from Nammo Man Singh by way
of registered sale deed dated 13.10.1967, 1 bigha was
purchased by Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat from Pratap Singh by way
of registered sale deed dated 25.10.1968 and the remaining 1
bigha of land was purchased by Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat
from Madan Mohan Bhardwaj by way of registered sale deed
dated 08.06.1979.
2. It was further alleged that Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat being
issue-less, brought up the plaintiff herein and the plaintiff
was also looking after his uncle namely Late Sh Jyoti Singh
Rawat and his wife, and used to reside along with them in
their house. It was brought to the fore that the plaintiff got
married in the year 1990 and after his marriage, his uncle
donated him a plot no AS-50, measuring 227 sq yards out of
Khasra no 473 in Village Asola, Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi
('suit property') and suggested the plaintiff to construct a
house on the said plot.
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 3 of 30 Digitally signed
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:09
+0530
3. It was averred that the plaintiff therefore constructed a house
on the said plot using his own money in the year 1990,
installed an electricity power therein in his name and started
living separately therein along with his family.
4. Further, Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat with intention to dispose
of 3,526 sq yards area spoke to the defendant and the
defendant agreed to purchase 3,526 sq yards land @ Rs
4,500/- per sq yard. It was also made clear to the defendant
that the land of approximately 227 sq yards whereupon the
plaintiff had constructed a house, was donated to his
nephew/plaintiff Sh Ashok Kumar Gupta, and that he should
not be disturbed by the defendant from the said land.
5. It was averred that the defendant paid Rs 22,50,000/- on
15.11.2006, and that for the above said transaction, a receipt
dated 15.11.2006 was prepared which was duly signed by
Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat and the defendant in the presence
of witnesses. It was contended that though the land mentioned
in the receipt dated 15.11.2006 is 200 sq yards, the actual land
on which the house was constructed by the plaintiff is 227 sq
yards. It was contended that Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat
bequeathed this 227 sq yards of land to the plaintiff by way of
a WILL dated 10.01.2007.
6. It was averred that though the defendant had purchased 4
bighas of land barring the above mentioned 227 sq yards from
Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat, but he requested Late Sh Jyoti
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 4 of 30 Digitally signed
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:13
+0530
Singh Rawat to sign a NOC for entire 4 bighas of land, as
under Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 the land could not have
been registered with concerned Registrar in a piecemeal
manner. It was contended that the defendant further assured
Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat that he would get 4 Bighas of land
registered in his name and after sale deed, he would give a
General Power of Attorney with a right of sale to the plaintiff.
7. It was also averred that by playing fraud, defendant got a sale
deed registered in his name from Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat
under an assurance that he would not disturb the plaintiff, and
a General Power of Attorney with a right to sell would be
given to plaintiff. It was further alleged that Late Sh Jyoti
Singh Rawat, on the basis of the above assurance, executed a
sale deed dated 08.01.2007 in favour of the defendant.
8. It was also asserted that Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat on his
own volition, and in a physically and mentally fit state of
mind, executed a WILL dated 10.01.2007 in favour of the
plaintiff, and that the said WILL was prepared in the presence
of the witnesses and got notarized with a Notary public on the
same day.
9. It was alleged that on account of the assurance of the
defendant, the possession of the said plot was never given to
the defendant and neither did the defendant disturb the
possession thereof till 2011 when he filed a suit C.S (O.S) No.
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 5 of 30 Digitally
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:16
+0530
294 of 2008 for possession, permanent injunction and
recovery of mesne profits and damages.
10.Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for cancellation of
sale deed dated 08.01.2007 as being null and void to the
extent of suit property viz. plot no AS 50 measuring 227 sq
yards in Khasra no 473 situated at Asola, Fatehpur Beri, New
Delhi, declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the suit
property, permanent injunction retraining the defendant not to
interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and a mandatory
injunction to not create third party rights qua the property.
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS
11.Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant
wherein it was contended that no cause of action had arisen in
favour of plaintiff. It was primarily contended that the sale
deed with respect to the entire property measuring 4 bighas
comprise in Khasra no 473 Min (4-0) situated in Village
Asola, Tehsil, Hauz Khas, New Delhi was registered in favour
of defendant including the suit property by virtue of sale deed
dated 08.01.2007. Thus, according to the defendant, he is the
owner of the property mentioned above including the suit
property.
12.It was contended that the plaintiff did not dispute the
execution of the abovementioned sale deed. It was thus
averred that the suit was filed in 2014, i.e more than 7 years
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 6 of 30 Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar
Arul Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:21
+0530
after execution of the sale deed, and therefore the suit is time
barred. The case set up by the plaintiff was that subsequently
a GPA would have been executed by the defendant and
plaintiff, transferring the suit property to the Plaintiff, and
which admittedly has not been executed till date, therefore the
plaintiff could have filed a suit for specific performance for
execution of the same, but this remedy too is time barred.
Furthermore, the case of the plaintiff was that an oral
agreement was entered into qua execution of the GPA
however no such oral agreement was mentioned in the
registered sale deed. In this regard, it was contended that a
registered document could be altered by virtue of another
registered document and not by ab alleged oral agreement.
13.It was also contended that even though the plaintiff had not
set up a case u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
the plaintiff would be barred from retaining possession in
view of the fact that the receipt dated 15.11.2006 is an
unregistered document, and as per law, a person cannot
protect his possession u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act
on the basis of an unregistered document.
14.It was also contended that all rights, title and interest in the
suit property vested with the defendant upon execution of the
sale deed dated 08.01.2007, and hence WILL executed
subsequently on 10.01.2007 could not result in transfer of the
Digitally
signed by Arul
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 7 of 30
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:24
+0530
suit property, as Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat was left with no
right, title interest w.e.f 08.01.2007.
15.It was also contended that the suit was barred by the
provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the Plaintiff did
not seek a declaration for declaring the sale deed dated
08.01.2007 as null and void rather he sought cancellation of
the same. It was submitted that cancellation could not have
been sought without first seeking a declaration, as
cancellation is a consequential relief to the main relief of
declaration.
16.Thus, it was contended that the present suit of the plaintiff is
liable to be dismissed.
17.It would be pertinent to note at this juncture that the present
suit was initially instituted before the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in the year 2014, and was received by way of transfer to
this court on 26.05.2016 in view of Notification No.
27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated 24.11.2015
III. ISSUES FRAMED
18.Vide order dated 24.05.20175, the following issues were
framed:-
"1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD
2. Whether Jyoti Singh Rawat executed Will dated
10.01.2007. If so, its effect on sale deed dated
08.01.2007 and on suit property? OPP
Digitally
signed by
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 8 of 30
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:54
+0530
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for
cancellation of sale deed dated 08.01.2007 as prayed?
OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner
of the suit property i.e. AS-50 Fatehpur Beri, New
Delhi? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent
injunction as claimed? OPP
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory
injunction as claimed ? OPP
7. Relief.
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PARTIES
19. In the proceeding, plaintiff examined 03 witnesses and
defendant examined only one witness, succinct testimonies
whereof are as follows:
20.PW-1 Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta/ Plaintiff: He tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon
certain documents i.e. Ex PW1/1( Objected to the mode of
proof), Ex PW1/2, Ex PW1/3, ExPW1/4, Mark PW1/6 (Ex
PW1/6 as per evidence affidavit, de-exhibited because
original was not produced) Mark PW1/7, (Ex PW1/7 as per
evidence affidavit, de-exhibited because original was not
produced) Mark PW1/8 ( Ex PW1/8 as per evidence affidavit,
de-exhibited because original was not produced) Mark
PW1/9 ( Ex PW1/9 as per evidence affidavit, de-exhibited
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 9 of 30
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:09:58 +0530
because original was not produced) Ex PW1/10 (objected to
the mode of proof), Ex PW 1/11 (objected to the mode of
proof stating that the document is not original however, PW-1
stated that it is an original documents signed in black ink)
Mark PW1/12 (Ex PW1/12 as per evidence affidavit, de-
exhibited because original was not produced) Ex P5 (Ex
PW1/13 as per evidence affidavit) and Ex PW1/14 (objected
to the mode of proof). He was cross examined by Ld Counsel
for defendant.
21. PW-2 Sh Pawan Kumar Bansal: He tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit as Ex. PW2/A. He relied upon certain
documents i.e. already Ex PW1/11 and Ex PW1/13. He
deposed that he had seen the Will Ex PW1/14 and the
documents bore his signature at point A. He was cross
examined by Ld Counsel for defendant.
22.PW-3 Ms Devendra Rawat w/o Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat :
She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW3/A.
She was cross examined by the Ld Counsel for defendant at
length.
23.DW-1 Sh Jile Singh Tanwar /Defendant): He tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. He relied upon
certain documents i.e Ex DW1/1 de-exhibited as Mark
DW1/1, Ex DW1/2 de-exhibited as Mark DW1/2, Ex DW1/3,
de-exhibited as Mark DW1/3, Ex DW1/4, de-exhibited as
Mark DW1/4, Ex DW1/5, de-exhibited as Mark DW1/5, Ex
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 10 of 30 Digitally
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar signed by Arul
Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:10:03
+0530
DW1/6, Ex DW1/7, Ex DW1/8, Ex DW1/9, already Ex D-1
(Ex DW1/10), Ex DW1/11, already Ex D2 (Ex DW1/12 as
per the evidence affidavit) Ex DW1/13, Ex DW1/14 already
Ex D3 (Ex DW1/15 as per evidence affidavit) Ex DW1/16,,
Ex DW1/17, Ex DW1/18, Ex DW1/19, Ex DW1/20, Ex
DW1/21, Ex DW1/22, Ex DW1/23, Ex DW1/24, Ex DW1/25,
Ex DW1/26 and Ex DW1/27. He was cross examined by Ld
Counsel for plaintiff.
24.Evidence was closed on 26.05.2023. Thereafter, the matter
was fixed for final arguments
V. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
25. Both the Ld Counsels had argued extensively. The respective
arguments have been considered whilst dealing with the
issues at hand. In addition, Ld Counsel for the defendant filed
written submissions along with the following judgments:
(a) Dahiben Vs Arvindbhari Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr.LRs
and Ors Civil Appeal no 9519 of 2019
(b) Sushil Bharadwaj Vs Ved Prakash Shashtri & Ors 2008
SCC OnLine Del 993
(c) Razia Begum Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors
215 (2014) DLT 290 (DB)
(d) Sanuj Bathla and Ors Vs Manu Maheshwari & Ors C.R.P
166/2018
(e) Mukesh Hans Vs Uma Bhasin 2010 SCC Online Del 2776
Digitally
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 11 of 30 signed by
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:10:07
+0530
(f) Thotha Ganga Laxmi vs Government of Andhra Pradesh
(2010) 15 SCC 207
(g) Latif Estate Line India Ltd Vs Hadeeja Ammal (2011) 2
CTC 1
(h) Vidhyadhar Vs Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573
(i) Suhrid Singh & Sardool Singh Vs Randhir Singh (2010)
12 SCC 112
(j) Deccan Paper Mills Ltd Vs Regency Mahavir Properties
and Ors (2021) 4 SCC 786
(k) Muppudati Pillai Vs Krishnaswami Pillai 1959 SCC
OnLine Mad.5
(l) Jail Prakash Aggarwal vs State 2017 SCC OnLine Del
6478,
(m) Karthik Gangadhar Bhatt Vs Nirmala Namdeo Wagh 2018
(1) MhLJ 726.
(n) Prem Chandra Jain Vs Shri Ram 2009 (113) DRJ 617
(o) Zile Singh Vs Sanjay Tanwar & Anr RFA No 871/2017
(p) N Ramaiya Vs Nagraj S ILR (2001) Karnataka 3466
(q) Joseph John Peter Sandy Vs Veronica Thomas Rajkumar
(2013) 3 SCC 801
(r) Padma Nair Vs Deputy Collector AIR 1994 Bombay 160
(s) Sunil Kapoor Vs Himmat Singh 167 (2010) DLT 806
(t) Karan Madaan Vs Nageshwar Pandey 209 (2014) DLT
241
(u) Gomtibai Vs Mattulal (1996) 11 SCC 681
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 12 of 30 Digitally signed
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar by Arul Varma
Arul Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:10:12
+0530
(v) (Wg Cdr. (Retd.) RN Dawar Vs Shri Ganga Saran Dhama
DRJ 1992 Delhi 24
(w) Prem Prakash Gupta Vs Sanjay Agarwal 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 6730
(x) Nageshwar Pandey Vs karan Madaan 2016 SCC OnLine
Del 816
(y) Manjeet Kaur Vs Devender Dagar 2019 SCC Online Del
11919
(z) Ram Sarup Gupta Vs Bishun Narain Inter College (1987)
2 SCC 555
(aa) Panchugopal Barua Vs Umesh Chandra Goswami (1997)
4 SCC 713
(ab) Rakesh Gupta Vs Ramesh Gupta RFA (OS) 19/2015
(ac) Thomas Cook Vs Hotel Imperial 127 (2006) DLT 431
VI. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
i. Issue no 1: Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD?
26. The present suit, instituted in the year 2014, has been filed
primarily seeking a relief of cancellation of the impugned sale
deed dated 08.01.2007. Article 59, under Part IV of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes the period of
limitation qua the same, which is reproduced hereunder:
"59. To cancel or set aside an Three Years When the facts entitling the
instrument or decree or for the plaintiff to have the instrument
rescission of a contract. or decree cancelled or set aside
or the contract rescinded first
become known to him."
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 13 of 30
Digitally
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar signed by Arul
Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:10:16
+0530
27.Thus, the period of limitation is three years from the date of
facts entitling the plaintiff to have the deed cancelled became
known to the plaintiff. The 'fact' entitling the plaintiff to do
so is the factum of execution of the sale deed itself as well as
the knowledge on the part of the plaintiff qua its execution. At
this juncture, it would be pertinent to reproduce the following
extracts of the testimony elicited from the plaintiff during his
cross examination on 04.07.2018:
"Q. Was any written document of donation referred
by you in para no.3 of the plaint executed?
A. No written document was executed.
I was present when the sale deed was executed on
08.01.2007"
28.Ergo, when the factum of execution of sale deed was in the
knowledge of the plaintiff on the date of execution of the sale
deed i.e 08.01.2007 itself, the period of limitation for filing
the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed was three
years therefrom. The terminus a quo for calculating period of
limitation was thus 08.01.2007, and the present suit was filed
on 27.08.2014. Thus, the suit is irrefragably time barred.
29.Furthermore, as discussed in para 41 hereinafter,even in the
eventuality of the plaintiff seeking a relief of declaration that
the sale deed is null and void, even then the period of
limitation to institute a suit for declaration has elapsed in
terms of Article 58 under Part III of the Schedule to the
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 14 of 30 Digitally
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar signed by Arul
Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:10:20
+0530
Limitation Act, 1963. It would be thus apt to reproduce
Article 58 of the Limitation Act which reads as thus:
"58. To obtain any Three years When the right to
other declaration sue first accrues"
30.The meaning of right to sue first has been elucidated in Sushil
Bhardwaj (supra) as thus:
"27. While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the
legislature has designedly made a departure from
the language of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The
word "first" has been used between the words
"sue" and "accrued". This would mean that if a suit
is based on multiple causes of action, the period of
limitation will begin to run from the date when the
right to sue first accrues. To put it differently,
successive violation of the right will not give rise to
fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be
dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation
counted from the day when the right to sue first
accrued."
31.Ld Counsel for the plaintiff had contended that the right to
first sue arose in the year 2014 only when PW-3 Ms Devendra
Rawat, wife of Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat discovered the
WILL dated 10.01.2007 while sorting out papers in the month
of July, 2014. Assuming these facts to be true, this would be,
at the most, a successive violation of the right. But it cannot
be gainsaid that the first right to accrue arose on the date of
execution of sale deed itself i.e. on 08.01.2007. Thus, the suit
would be time barred on this score too.
Digitally
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 15 of 30 signed by Arul
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:10:24
+0530
ii. Issue no 2: Whether Jyoti Singh Rawat executed Will dated
10.01.2007. If so, its effect on sale deed dated 08.01.2007 and
on suit property?
32. To prove the factum of execution of the WILL, the plaintiff
examined PW2 Pawan Kumar Bansal. PW2 was an attesting
witness to the WILL and he identified the signatures of Late
Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat as well as those of PW2 on the WILL,
and proved his evidence by way of affidavit EX PW2/A
wherein he averred that Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat executed
the WILL in favour of the plaintiff Ashok Kumar Gupta in all
sound senses, voluntarily without any threat, pressure and
coercion and bequeathed the suit property to the plaintiff. It
was thus contended by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff that PW2
has proved the execution of the WILL in terms of Section 63
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
33.Ld Counsel for the defendant argued that the said WILL is a
forged and fabricated document as the signatures of the
testator were forged. It was also averred that it is the case of
the plaintiff that the suit property was earlier donated by Late
Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat to the plaintiff and therefore there
would be no occasion to again execute a WILL qua the suit
property in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, the WILL is
silent qua the above mention prior donation.
Digitally
signed by
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 16 of 30 Arul
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Arul Varma
Varma Date:
2026.01.12
17:10:27
+0530
34. This Court finds force in the above submissions of the
defendant. Further, as per the evidence by way of affidavit of
the plaintiff PW1, the execution of the WILL was not in his
knowledge. The beneficiary of the WILL i.e the plaintiff not
being aware of the execution of the WILL is a fact
incredulous ex facie, given their close association, as is
forthcoming from a perusal of the plaintiff. What is
significant to note is that the wife of Late Sh Jyoti Singh
Rawat averred in her cross examination as thus:
" I do not remember when me and my husband left
Delhi and moved to Haldwani, Nainital,
Uttarakhand. My husband never told me that he
had executed a Will dated 10.01.2007 in favour of
the plaintiff. I came to know about the execution of
the WILL in July 2014/August 2014."
35.The execution of the WILL thus becomes suspect in light of
the above. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a
recent verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed
on 17.07.2025 in a case titled Gurdial Singh (dead) through
his Lrs v Jagir Kaur 2025 INSC 866 which also revolved
around the validity of a WILL executed by the testator
husband whereby he completely bequeathed his land to his
nephew, completely disinheriting his wife. It was observed as
thus:
"19. Appellant's case was not only to propound the
Will in his favour but even to deny the very status
of 1st respondent as Maya Singh's wife. When one
reads the contents of the Will, appellant's stand is stark and palpable in its tenor and purport. The Will CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 17 of 30 Digitally signed Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Arul by Arul Varma Date:
2026.01.12 Varma 17:10:31 +0530 is a cryptic one where Maya Singh bequests his properties to his nephew i.e. the appellant, as the latter was taking care of him. However, the Will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, i.e. the 1st respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance. Evidence on record shows 1st respondent was residing with Maya Singh till the latter's death. Nothing has come on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter. As per the appellant, she was nominated by Maya Singh and was entitled to receive his pension which demonstrates the testator's conduct in accepting 1st respondent as his lawfully wedded wife. Further, the Trial Court erroneously observed that non-performance of last rites of Maya Singh by 1st respondent hinted at sour relations between the couple. Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed by Male Sapinda relations. Given this practice, 1st respondent not performing last rites could not be treated as a contra indicator of indifferent relationship with her husband during the latter's lifetime. In this backdrop, it cannot be said Maya Singh had during his lifetime, denied his marriage with 1st respondent or admitted that their relation was strained, so as to prompt him to erase her very existence in the Will. Such erasure of marital status is the telltale insignia of the propounder and not the testator himself. A cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the Will, gives rise to serious doubt that the Will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the 'free will' of the testator.
20. In this background, we have no hesitation to hold that nonmention of 1st respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will, is an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant.
36.In the present case too, the WILL is conspicuously silent qua the existence of wife of Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat. Further, CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 18 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.12 17:10:35 +0530 there is nothing on record to suggest that the relationship of PW3 with her Late husband was estranged. Rather, it seems that she and her Late husband were together when they moved from Delhi to Haldwani. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that a husband would dissemble from his wife the factum of execution of WILL and bequeath the suit property to the plaintiff thereby disinheriting the sole natural heir i.e the wife PW3. The averment of PW2 Pawan Kumar Bansal that Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat instructed him to not disclose the execution of the Will to his wife, adds to this suspicion.The last link affirmatively establishing this sophistry would be pellucid from a perusal of the cross examination of PW2 Pawan Kumar Bansal on 15.12.2018, when he uttered as thus:
"I do not know whether the plaintiff was present at the time of execution of the sale deed. The Will dated 10.01.2007 was executed in the presence of the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that Jyoti Singh Rawat did not execute any Will."
37. The above admission is in direct contravention of the contents of para 21 of the evidence by way of affidavit of the plaintiff PW1 wherein he averred that the execution of the WILL was not in his knowledge, and para 15 of the evidence by way of affidavit of PW2 Pawan Kumar Bansal himself wherein he averred that the execution of the Will was not supposed to be disclosed to the plaintiff. The credibility of both plaintiff witnesses PW1 and PW2 thus stands impeached CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 19 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.12 17:10:40 +0530 and in view of the same, coupled with suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the WILL, the issue is hereby decided against the plaintiff. De hors the above, since the execution of the sale deed dated 08.01.2007 has been cogently established, as is apparent from a perusal of succeeding paragraphs, late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat did not retain any right, title on interest in the suit property on 10.01.2007 and therefore could not have bequeathed the suit property by way of the abovementioned WILL.
iii. Issue no 3: Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.01.2007 as prayed?
RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFF TO SEEK CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED
38.Ld Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the sale deed is a fraudulent document and was registered by the defendant by exercising fraud with Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat. However, this contention is bereft of any justification as no evidence was led by the plaintiff to establish this alleged fraud. In rebuttal, Ld Counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff, being a non executant qua the instrument, is precluded from filing a suit for cancellation of the sale deed in view of the express proscription provided in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 20 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.01.12 17:10:45 +0530
39.It would be thus apposite to reproduce relevant extracts of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which read as thus:
"31. When cancellation may be ordered (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2)If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation."
40.During the course of arguments, Ld Senior Counsel for the defendant had placed reliance on the following extracts of Suhrid Singh (supra):
"7. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' -- two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 21 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:10:49
+0530
binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non- executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act."
41.The above judgment makes it abundantly explicit that the plaintiff, being a non executant qua the sale deed, could not have filed a suit for cancellation. Further, a non executant has to first seek a relief for declaration declaring the sale deed to be invalid, before he seeks cancellation thereof as an ancillary relief.Therefore, this Court concurs with the submissions of the Ld Senior Counsel for the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable on this score.
42.It was further brought to the fore that the plaintiff could not have even filed a suit for rectification of the sale deed as he was not a party to the sale deed.Reliance was placed on Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act in this regard and on the verdict of Joseph John Peter (supra) wherein it has been categorically laid down that rectification qua an instrument is CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 22 of 30 Digitally signed Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:10:53 +0530
permissible only by a party to the instrument and by none else.
43.Moreover, as far as the challenge by the plaintiff to the execution of sale deed itself is concerned, it would be pertinent to highlight the inconsistencies in the testimony of the plaintiff PW1. On 04.07.2018, PW1 averred in his cross examination as thus:
"Q. Was any written document of donation referred by you in para no.3 of the plaint executed? A. No written document was executed. I was present when the sale deed was executed on 08.01.2007"
44.However, on 22.10.2018, it was elicited from the testimony of PW1 as thus:
" I did not object to the execution of the sale deed dated 08.01.2007 in favour of defendant which included area of 227 sq yard occupied by me. (Vol. This sale deed was not executed in my presence since I was on a touring job.)"
45.The first contradiction is thus qua the presence of the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed. The other contradiction is qua the point of time when the plaintiff had the knowledge of the sale deed. In his cross examination dated 22.10.2018, he avowed as thus:
" I came to know about the sale deed dated 08.01.2007 when suit titled Sh Jile Singh v Sanjay Tanwar & Anr was dismissed and when appeal against the judgment was filed by Jile Singh before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Before filing of appeal by defendant I was not aware of the execution of the sale deed dated 08.01.2007".
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 23 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.12 17:10:58 +0530
46.The date of admitting the appeal is 16.10.2017, as is reflected from order of even date passed in Zile Singh (supra). Further, in the same cross examination he volunteered and stated thus:
"(Vol. By virtue of the sale deed dated 08.01.2007 I came to know that defendant had played fraud upon late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat and me)"
47.Thus, the plaintiff became aware of the alleged fraud on 16.10.2017. However, a perusal of his cross examination would belie this assertion inasmuch on 04.07.2018 the plaintiff avowed as thus in his cross examination:
"At this stage attention of the witness has been draw to para no. 7 of the plaint and following question is put.
Q. When did you become aware of the alleged fraud by the defendant?
A. I became aware of it when I received the notice of the suit filed by the defendant."
48.The suit by the defendant was filed in the year 2011.The averments of the plaintiff are thus mendacious on this score. Be that as it may, the plaintiff has not denied the execution of the sale deed but has only assailed the basis on which it is predicated. However, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the exercise of fraud in execution of the sale deed. ADMISSIBILITY OF RECEIPT DATED 15.11.2006 VIS-A- VIS THE SALE DEED
49.As far as the validity of the Sale Deed is concerned, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff had vehemently contended that Late CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 24 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.01.12 17:11:01 +0530 Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat had agreed to sell only 4 bighas of land sans the suit property of 227 sq yards.To substantiate his contention, Ld Counsel for the Plaintiff placed reliance on receipt dated 15.11.2006 which, according to the plaintiff, is reflective of an agreement between Late Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat and the defendant Zile Singh whereby the entire property sans suit property was to be sold to the defendant. It is pertinent to note that this is the only document by which the plaintiff sought to establish his right over the suit property. Ld counsel referred to the following extracts of the cross examination of DW1/defendant conducted on 08.08.2019 to buttress his arguments:
"It is correct that before execution of the sale deed dated 08.01.2007 a written document was executed. The written document was on a plain paper which was executed between me and Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat. The said documents contained recitals about the payment."
50.Ld Counsel for the plaintiff had further argued that the land in question could not be purchased in piecemeal as per the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and therefore the sale deed qua the entire 4 bighas was executed. However, barring an averment that the sale deed contained a recital that the land was agricultural in nature, no cogent proof was adduced on record. No Khasra Khataunis or Khasra Girdawari was produced nor any witness from the office of the ADM were examined to prove revenue records or to prove that the land was CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 25 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.12 Varma 17:11:05 +0530 agricultural in nature and could not be sold in a piece meal manner. Thus, assertions of the plaintiff qua this plea is a mere ipse dixit.
51.Ld Counsel for the plaintiff has adverted to the cross-
examination of DW1/defendant to substantiate his claims qua the purport of receipt dated 15.11.2006. Albeit vide cross examination dated 08.08.2019 and 26.05.2023, the defendant acknowledged the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, and he denied a suggestion that the receipt dated 15.11.2006 was prepared by him and Jyoti Singh Rawat and he advanced Rs 22,50,000/- by virtue of cheque no 047643 dated 15.11.2006, but beyond that, his testimony qua material facts remain uncontroverted. In fact, he categorically denied that the receipt dated 15.11.2006 was a document on which the sale deed was based, as is apparent from the following extracts of his cross examination on 08.08.2019:
" At this stage the witness is shown the document Ex PW1/11 and asked regarding his signture on the same. The witness replied that ExPW1/11 is a photocopy and he cannot admit or deny the signatures on the same. I also cannot testify whether Ex PW1/11 is the same document as aforementioned. The document which was executed in writing pror to the execution of sale deed was destroyed at the time of execution of sale deed. According to the written document it was agreed between me and Sh Jyoti Singh Rawat to purchase a land of four Bigha from him, however I do not remeber at what per square yard rate it was sold."
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 26 of 30
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally
signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.01.12
17:11:09
+0530
52.The defendant had further averred as thus:
" It is incorrect that the document executed prior to execution of the sale deed was containing the entire terms and conditions of the sale transaction. (Vol It was only containing the payment schedule)"
53.Thus, the defendant has completely denied the execution of receipt dated 15.11.2006, as it clearly is not just a payment schedule. Ld Senior Counsel for the defendant had vociferously contended that the said document is a mere photocopy and the same cannot be placed reliance on. Further, it is an unregistered document. Moreover, in the suit no. 2948/2011 filed by the defendant, the plaintiff herein did not mention this receipt dated 15.11.2006 in his written statement, and introduction thereof in the present suit is an afterthought.
54.At this juncture it would be apt to refer to the following extracts of Jai Prakash Aggarwal(supra):
"22. Thus, the person wanting to prove the existence and execution of a document by secondary evidence, before doing so, is first required to prove the existence of one of the several situations in which Section 65 permits proof of a document by secondary evidence and thereafter prove the document by secondary evidence of the form and the kind permitted in that situation. Without fulfilling this twin task, no document can be said to have been proved by secondary evidence. Such task can be performed only while leading evidence and the Court, only at the time of appreciating such evidence and which generally is at the time of final arguments, can hold whether a situation in which Section 65 permits secondary CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 27 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.12 Varma 17:11:13 +0530 evidence has been proved to exist and if so, whether the document has been proved by secondary evidence. No such finding can be returned on an application and without leading evidence. The petitioner thus cannot take any advantage of the orders dated 22nd September, 2006 and 4th August, 2015 supra allowing the applications of the petitioner to prove the documents by secondary evidence. In fact, the applications were misconceived as no permission for proof of a document by secondary evidence which is permitted by Evidence Act itself, is required. It is for this reason that it needs to be examined on appreciation of the evidence led by the petitioner, whether the petitioner has proved before this Court existence of any of the situations mentioned in Section 65 in which secondary evidence is permitted to be led. Without the petitioner proving the existence of such situation, the question of proving the document by secondary evidence does not arise. This is what is meant by "laying the foundation for leading secondary evidence".
55.In the present case, the plaintiff has not been able to establish that the said receipt dated is covered under the situations mentioned in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
56. Arguendo, even if the said receipt was duly executed, yet it does not confer ownership to the plaintiff herein. It would therefore be apt to reproduce relevant extracts of Karan Madaan(supra) in this regard:
"22. Section 91, inter alia, stipulates that where the terms of a contract or of a grant or any other disposition of property have been reduced to a form of written document - as in the present case the sale deed dated 01.11.2011 has been registered on 02.12.2011, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such a contract, grant or other disposition of property, except CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 28 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.12 17:11:17 +0530 the document itself. Therefore, if there is a sale deed executed and registered in respect of an immovable property-registration whereof is compulsory under the law, neither party can claim that the terms of the sale - such as the consideration, or the nature of transaction/disposition is, in fact, different from that contained in the document itself. The sale deed in question does not contain any term, that the consideration recorded to have passed from the plaintiffs to the defendant of Rs. 1.65 crores was in respect of a loan transaction. In fact, the sale deed records that the amount of Rs.1.65 Crores is the consideration for sale of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiffs."
57.The above verdict categorically lays down that the terms of the instrument of sale completely rule out a so called understanding between the parties.The sale deed reflects the true nature of the transaction and is a record of absolute conveyance of property. Moreover, the receipt by itself would not result in transfer of the property. The sale deed is a duly registered document and has to be given credence over an unregistered, photocopy of a mere receipt. In Vidhyadhar (supra), it has been unequivocally laid down that even if the entire sale consideration is not paid or part of the sale consideration is paid, the right, title and interest of the transferor gets transferred in favour of the transferee when the sale deed is registered. Thus, the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant qua the entire property including the suit property has been cogently established.This issue is therefore decided against the plaintiff, and in favour of the defendant.
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 29 of 30 Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Jile Singh Tanwar Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:21 +0530 iv. Issue no 4: Whether plaintiff is entitled to be declared as owner of the suit property i.e. AS-50 Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi?
58.In view of decision on issues no1-3 above, this issue is decided against the plaintiff, and in favour of the defendant.
v. Issue no 5: Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as claimed?
59.In view of decision on issues no1-3 above, this issue is decided against the plaintiff, and in favour of the defendant.
vi. Issue no 6: Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction as claimed ?
60.In view of decision on issues no1-3 above, this issue is decided against the plaintiff, and in favour of the defendant.
VII. RELIEF.
61. Ergo, in view of the above in extenso discussion, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed.
62. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
63. No order as to costs.
64. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open Court
Arul Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
Date: 2026.01.12
on this 12.01.2026 Varma 17:11:26 +0530
(ARUL VARMA)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI
CS DJ 6937/2016 Page. 30 of 30