Delhi District Court
Satpal Kaur vs Sardar Manmohan Singh Kohli on 14 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE05: WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CivDJ/609562/16
1. Satpal Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Manjeet Singh
2. Ms. Gurleen Kaur
D/o Late Sh. Manjeet Singh
3. Master Hardeep Singh Kohli
S/o Late Sh. Manjeet Singh
All R/o 362, Mahavir NagarIII,
Opp. Opra Hospital, Kota,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
.....Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Sardar Manmohan Singh Kohli
S/o Late Sh. Jodh Singh,
R/o K43, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Satvir Singh
S/o Late Sh. Jodh Singh,
R/o 4A/28, Mahavir NagarIII,
Kota, Rajasthan.
3. Smt. Amrit Kaur
W/o Sardar Manmohan Singh Kohli
R/o K43, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur
D/o Sardar Manmohan Singh Kohli
R/o K43, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Tarandeep Kaur
W/o Sardar Tarvinderpal Singh
R/o A36, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
.....Defendants
Date of institution : 22.12.2011
Reserved For Order On : 03.09.2020
Date of Decision :- 14.09.2020
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 1 / 33
JUDGEMENT
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION, POSSESSION, MANDATORY AND PROHIBTORY INJUNCTION
1. The issue involved in the present case is whether on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney, a person becomes the owner of an immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/ ?
2. Plaintiffs namely (i) Satpal Kaur (ii) Ms. Gurleen Kaur (iii) Master Hardeep Singh Kohli had filed present suit for declaration, partition, possession and mandatory and prohibitory injunction against defendants namely (i) Sardar Manmohan Singh Kohli (ii) Satvir Singh (iii) Smt. Amrit Kaur (iv) Ms. Gurpreet Kaur (v) Smt.Tarandeep Kaur.
3. During course of proceedings, with the permission of the Court as noted in the ordersheet dated 09.09.2014, defendant no.5 Smt. Tarandeep Kaur was also added in the memo of parties and suit was accordingly amended.
4. Plaintiffs have alleged following facts in the amended plaint.
"That Sh. Jodh Singh was the owner and in possession of House bearing no. K43, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi measuring 150 sq. yds and he had purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 21.06.1925 (hereinafter referred to "Suit property"). Therefore, said suit property was self acquired property of Late Jodh Singh. Jodh Singh expired intestate on 17.05.1974 and he was survived by following legal heirs: Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 2 / 33 Relationship with S. No. Name deceased (Jodh Singh)
1. Smt. Vidyawati Widow
2. Manmohan Singh Son
3. Satvir Singh Son
4. Manjeet Singh Son
5. Smt. Gurbachan Singh Daughter
6. Smt. Mahender Kaur Daughter
7. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur Daughter
8. Smt. Narinder Kaur Daughter Aforesaid legal heirs of Late Sh. Jodh Singh therefore inherited right in suit property in equal shares and they became coparceners. Wife of Sh.
Jodh Singh namely Sh. Vidyawanti expired on 25.06.1978. Further Sh. Manjeet Singh was suffering from various medical ailments and he expired on 12.02.2008. Sh. Manjeet Singh was survived by plaintiffs. Daughter of Late Sh. Jodh Singh namely Gurcharan Kaur, Narinder Kaur, Mahinder Kaur and Paramjeet Kaur executed relinquishment deed dated 28.05.1996, 23.05.1997 and 09.10.1997 which were duly registered with Sub Registrar Office. Thus, Sh.
Manjeet Singh alongwith defendant no.1 & 2 became owners in equal share in property in question. After the death of Sh. Manjeet Singh, plaintiffs became joint owners of 1/3rd share in the suit property. Late Sh. Manjeet Singh was Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 3 / 33 permanent resident of Kota, Rajasthan and was suffering from various diseases and therefore, he could not write properly. Defendant no.1 & 2 approached Sh. Manjeet Singh for getting suit property mutated in the records of MCD and other authorities in equal shares. At that time, defendant no.1 demanded General Power of Attorney from Sh. Manjeet Singh in his favour for meeting out this legal formalities in the said mutation proceedings. Since Manjeet Singh was not keeping good health so he asked defendants no.1 & 2 for preparing said attorney. Consequently, defendant no.1 got prepared attorney and took thumb impression of Sh. Manjeet Singh for getting the property mutated in the first week of February, 2008. No copy of General Power of Attorney was provided either to Late Manjeet Singh or to the plaintiff no.1 & 2. Sh. Manjeet Singh expired on 12.02.2008 in Rajasthan and subsequently, plaintiff no.1 & 2 approached defendant no.1 & 2 for enquiring about the mutation proceedings.
Defendant no.1 assured plaintiffs that suit property had been mutated in various Government records including MCD in the name of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh and the defendant no.1 & 2. Since plaintiff no.2 was studying and the plaintiff no.3 was minor, so for meeting out their study expenses, plaintiff no. 1 required some amount. Therefore, Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 4 / 33 she requested defendants no.1 & 2 that 1/3rd share in the suit property in question be given to her so that she can generate funds for meeting out the expenses of education of the plaintiff no.2 and 3 by selling their share. Plaintiff no.1 asked defendant no.1 & 2 that either her share may be given or funds equivalent to her share may be given with respect to the suit property in question. Plaintiff no.1 did not get any proper reply from the defendants no. 1 & 2. When she visited in suit property in October, 2011, alongwith plaintiff no.2 she was not properly welcomed by defendant no.1.
Infact, defendant no.1 told her that she had no right to take the suit property in question as he has already sold the suit property in favour of defendant no. 3 & 4 being his wife and daughter on the basis of attorney executed by late Sh.
Manjeet Singh. Plaintiff no.1 & 2 questioned defendant as to how they sold the suit property to defendants no.3 & 4 as he had no power to sale. In response to same defendant no.1 showed plaintiffs no.1 & 2 copy of attorney wherein defendant no.1 had the authority to do so. Plaintiffs at that time found that defendant no.1 used his influence and had committed a fraud by getting executed the attorney with the power of sale and as the power of attorney was got prepared by the defendant no.1 & 2 when late Sh. Manjeet Singh was Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 5 / 33 suffering from various disease and was not in a position to read the same. Infact defendants no.1 & 2 did not allow him to read the same, when he put his thumb impression on the GPA. On enquiry from various other relatives, plaintiffs came to know details of sale deed dated 22.05.2008 and the rectification deed dated 18.06.2008 made by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendants no.3 & 4. As such, based on aforesaid averments, plaintiffs claimed that sale deed dated 22.05.2008 is also void, abinitio qua the share of Late Sh.
Manjeet Singh as he expired on 12.02.2008 and the said sale deed on the basis of said attorney was obtained by defendant no.1 by using undue influence and fraud upon late Sh. Manjeet Singh.
For the similar reason, rectification deed so executed on the basis of the said attorney dated 18.06.2008 is also void, abinitio qua the share of late Sh. Manjeet Singh. Later on defendants no.1, 3 & 4 threatened plaintiffs that they will sell, assign, or create third party interest in the suit property. Plaintiff no.1 was earlier called by the defendant no.1 on the pretext of giving her share and for which he stated that the property should be mutated in her name and as the plaintiff no.1 is not much literate so she was taken to the Office of Sub Registrar, where she was made to sign the document. Now when the copy of the sale deed Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 6 / 33 was supplied to her and the same was seen by the plaintiff no.2 who was doing Engineering Course and knew English language, plaintiff no.1 came to know that she was made a witness in the said sale deed dated 22.05.2008 and despite that no share was given to her. Based on said claims plaintiffs filed the present suit. During the pendency of the present suit, the defendants no.3 & 4 illegally and unlawfully transferred the first floor in suit property in question to defendant no.5. The said transfer of property is illegal and void. Based on said averments, plaintiff moved to the Court seeking following prayers:
(i) pass a decree of declaration whereby the GPA dated 02.02.2008 be declared as null and void being executed out of undue influence and it became even otherwise void after the death of Sh. Manjeet Singh on 12.02.2008;
(ii) pass a further decree of declaration thereby declaring that the sale deed dated 22.05.2008 as null and void abinitio qua the share of late Manjeet Singh as at the time of execution of the sale deed, late Sh. Manjeet Singh was not alive and even otherwise, power of attorney was obtained by the defendant no.1 & 2 by using of undue influence on late Manjeet Singh and in consequence thereto, the rectification deed dated 18.06.2000 is also void, ab initio qua the share of S. Manjeet Singh;
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 7 / 33(ii) (a) That a decree of declaration be also passed in respect of the Sale deed dated 07.12.2011 registered as Document No. 34678 in Book No.1, Vol. No. 19458 on Pages 35 to 39 registered on 24.12.2011 with the SubRegistrarII, Janak Puri, New Delhi declaring the same as null and void and thereafter the same be ordered to be produced and original of the same be canceled/destroyed and concerned SubRegistrarII be directed to remove all the entries from the records of the SubRegistrar.
(iii) pass a decree of partition whereby the plaintiffs be declared as 1/3rd of the suit property and after getting the suit property partitioned by meets and bounds by appointing a local commissioner, the plaintiffs may be given 1/3rd share and a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 1/3rd share in respect of the suit property i.e. property no. K43, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi;
(iv) Decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants whereby the defendants be called upon to produce the GPA dated 02.02.2008, sale deed dated 22.05.2008 and rectification deed/s as set out herein above and the same may be destroyed and necessary directions may be issued to the concerned authority/office of Sub Registrar to delete the entries recorded qua the said documents from their records;
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 8 / 33(v) pass a decree of permanent and prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, their agents, servants, assignees etc. from carrying out any additions, alterations or raising any unauthorised construction over the suit property without the permission of MCD and also from creating third party interest, selling, transferring and otherwise parting with possession of the suit property and otherwise parting with possession of the property no. K43, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi in any manner whatsoever."
5. Defendants no. 1, 3 & 4 filed their written statement jointly. In their written statement, defendants took preliminary objections viz. that present suit was without any cause of action, that plaintiff have no right, title or interest in the suit property, which was owned and possessed absolutely by defendant no.1 only. That defendant no.1 had legally transferred the said property in favour of defendants no.3 & 4, who in turn sold the said property to Smt. Tarandeep Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 07.12.2011 which was duly registered with the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi. That suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action and that plaintiff has not approached to this Court with clean hands, and that the suit property belonged to the father of defendants no.1 & 2, the late Sh. Jodh Singh. Further, after the death of Jodh Singh, and his wife, Smt. Vidywanti, the property in question devolved on his legal heirs namely Manmohan Singh, Satvir Singh, Manjeet Singh, Smt. Gurbachan Kaur, Smt. Mahinder Kaur, Smt. Paramjeet Kaur and Smt. Narinder Kaur. Subsequently, vide relinquishment deeds dated 28.05.1996, 09.10.1997 & 23.05.1997, smt. Narinder Kaur, Smt. Mahinder Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 9 / 33 Kaur, Smt. Gurbachan Kaur and Smt Paramjit Kaur relinquished their undivided share in the suit property in favour of their brothers. Accordingly, defendants no.1 & 2 and S. Manjeet Singh became coowners of the suit property with their respective shares to the extent of 45.14%, 31% and 23.86% respectively. In 1974, defendant no.2 and Manjeet Singh shifted to Kota, Rajasthan. Defendant no.1 continued to reside in Delhi in the suit property, which was in his exclusive possession and control. Since defendant no.2 and S. Manjeet Singh were permanent residents of kota, Rajasthan and had no plans to return to Delhi, so they had no interest in the suit property. Accordingly, both of them agreed to transfer the suit property to defendant no.1 for consideration. Defendant no.2 and S. Manjeet Singh executed GPA in favour of defendant no.1. The sid GPA was executed by these persons in Kota, Rajasthan. Defendant no.1 paid them the entire consideration amount and they gave complete and exclusive powers to defendant no.1 to deal with the suit property as his own. It was agreed that defendant no.1 would become the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff no.1 was always fully aware of the transfer of property by S. Manjeet Singh to defendant no.1. After the untimely death of S. Manjeet Singh on 12.02.2008, plaintiff no.1 started demanding more money from defendant no.1 although defendant no.1 had paid the entire consideration amount to late S. Manjeet Singh. Considering the close relationship and the fact that his father had died, defendant no.1 decided to give a further amount of Rs.1,20,000/ to the plaintiff no.1 as demanded by her. Since defendant no.1 wanted to transfer suit property in question in favour of defendants no.3 & 4, so, defendant no.1 asked plaintiff no.1 to come to Delhi. Consequently, plaintiff no.1 came to Delhi in May, 2008 and agreed to become an attesting witness in the sale deed to be executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.3 & 4. It was agreed that defendant no.1 would pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ to Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 10 / 33 plaintiff no.1 for satisfying her financial need. Thereafter, plaintiff no.1 became an attesting witness in the sale deed dated 22.05.2008 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.3 & 4. Plaintiff no. 1 also appeared in the office of the Sub Registrar concerned with photograph which was affixed on the back side of the sale deed as an attesting witness. The Sub Registrar also took photo identification of plaintiff no.1 i.e. her ECI card. Thumb impression of plaintiff no.1 were taken by Sub Registrar. She was duly informed about the said sale deed. As agreed, defendant no.1 paid an amount of Rs.80,000/ to the plaintiff no.1 in cash and deposited Rs.40,000/ in the account standing in the name of S. Manjeet Singh on 12.06.2008 on her instructions. Thereafter, she left for Kota, Rajasthan. Subsequently, she never contacted defendant no.1 after that. It is only now when the prices of the properties in Delhi have escalated that the intentions of plaintiffs have against become dishonest and they have come up with the false and frivolous story of mutation of property in their names. Defendant no.2 who also received the consideration amount from defendant no.1 is aware of the entire transaction. Ms. Harvinder Kaur, daughter of Mrs. Mahinder Kaur had also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants and plaintiff no.1 herein being suit no. 35/2008 which is pending adjudication in the concerned Court. Thus, plaintiff no.1 is fully aware of the sale deed in favour of defendants no.3 & 4 and she chose to remain silent. Infact counsels for plaintiff in present suit and counsel for plaintiff in the said suit are same. So the plaintiffs cannot claim the illegal transfer of the suit property first by S. Manjeet Singh in favour of defendant no.1 and subsequently, by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.3 & 4.
6. In my subsequent paragraphs, defendant no. 1, 3 & 4, who had contested the matter are referred as "defendants".
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 11 / 337. On merits, defendants refuted the version of the plaintiff by referring to aforesaid preliminary objections. Same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
8. Plaintiff filed Replication to written statement of defendants no. 1, 3 & 4 wherein contents of plaint were reiterated and version of defendants was denied.
9. Right of defendant no.5 to file Written Statement was closed vide order dated 19.03.2015.
10. Written Statement was not filed by defendant no. 2.
11. After completion of pleadings, following issues were settled:
(i) Whether the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property and suit property is exclusively owned by the defendant no.1 ? OPD.
(ii) Whether after the execution of the relinquishment deeds dated 28.05.1996, 09.10.1997 and 23.05.1997 the share of the defendant no.1 in the suit property came to 45.14%, the share of defendant no.2 came to 31% and the share of late husband of plaintiff no.1 came at 23.86% only and not of 1/3rd share as claimed in the suit?OPD.
(iii) Whether the late husband of plaintiff no.1 transferred his share in the suit property to defendant no.1 for consideration?OPD.
(iv) Whether defendant no.1 further paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ to the plaintiff on demand as consideration?OPD.
(v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 12 / 33(vi) Whether defendant no. 5 is bonafide purchaser of the portion of the suit property for value without knowledge of disputes between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 to 4 ? Onus on parties.
(vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration whereby the GPA dated 02.02.2008 be declared null and void being executed out of undue influence and it became ever otherwise void after the death of Sh. Manjeet Singh on 12.02.2008 as claimed ? OPP.
(viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration whereby the sale deed dated 22.05.2008 be declared null and void ab initio qua the share of Late manjeet Singh as at the time of execution of the sale deed, Late Manjeet Singh was not alive and even otherwise, power of attorney was obtained by the defendant no. 1 and 2 by using of undue influence on Late Manjeet Singh and in consequence thereto, the rectification deed dated 18.06.2000 is also void ab initio qua the share of S. Manjeet Singh as claimed ? OPP.
(ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration in respect of the sale deed dated 07.12.2011 whereby the same be declared null and void and the same be ordered to be produced and the original of the same be cancelled/ destroyed and concerned subregistrarII be directed to remove all the entries from the records of the subregistrar as claimed ? OPP.
(x) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of partition whereby the plaintiffs be declared as 1/3 rd of the suit property and after getting the suit property partitioned by metes and bounds by appointing a local commissioner, the plaintiff be given 1/3 rd share and a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 1/3 rd share in respect of suit property, as claimed ? OPP.
(xi) Relief.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 13 / 3312. Consequently, matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
13. Plaintiff examined two witnesses to prove its case. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A in which he reiterated the contents of plaint which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. PW1 relied upon following documents: (1) Ex. PW1/1 Death Certificate of Late Manjeet Singh. (2) Ex PW1/2 Relinquishment Deed dated 28.05.1996. (3) Ex. PW1/3 & 4 Relinquishment Deeds.
(5) Ex PW1/5 Power of attorney.
(6) Ex PW1/6 Sale deed.
14. After examining PW1, plaintiff examined PW2 Gurleen Kaur who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW2/A. After examining the said witnesses, plaintiff closed her evidence.
15. Matter was then fixed for defendant's evidence. In his defence, defendants examined Sardar Manmohan Singh Kohli as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the documents viz.;
Ex.PW2/D1 - Affidavit/ NOC executed by plaintiff no. 1 & 2. Mark DW1/A Sale Deed dated 07.12.2011 Mark DW1/B Bank Receipt dated 12.06.2008.
Mark DW1/C Certified copy of the plaint in CS No. 358/08
16. Subsequently, defendants closed their defence evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
17. After hearing final arguments, matter was reserved for pronouncement of judgement.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 14 / 3318. In subsequent paragraphs issues are decided.
ISSUES NO. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9 & 10.
19. All the aforesaid issues were interrelated and therefore, I am deciding the said issues, jointly in my subsequent paragraphs.
20. Aforesaid issues were based on the rights of the rival parties and therefore, a brief recap of the case of rival parties is required.
21. Admitted case of plaintiffs and defendants is that suit property in question, was initially owned by Sh. Jodh Singh, who had purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated 19.06.1925. Further, it is also admitted position that Sh. Jodh Singh had died intestate on 17.05.1974. After his demise, he was survived by his legal heirs (as mentioned in 'para 2' of this judgement and same is not repeated here for the sake of brevity). It is also admitted position of the parties that daughters of Sh. Jodh Singh namely Smt. Narender Kaur and Smt. Mahender Kaur had relinquished their shares in suit property in question vide Relinquishment Deed dated 28.05.1996 in favour of defendant no. 1, defendant no. 2 and Sh. Manjeet Singh (husband of plaintiff no. 1). The said Relinquishment Deed dated 28.05.1996 was referred as Ex.PW1/2, during course of evidence. Further, another daughter of Sh. Jodh Singh namely Smt. Gurbachan Kaur had executed Relinquishment Deed dated 09.10.1997, which she executed in favour of defendant no. 1 only and that Relinquishment Deed was referred as Ex.PW1/3, during course of evidence. Finally, last daughter of Sh. Jodh Singh namely Smt. Paramjeet Kaur had executed relinquishment deed in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2 dated 23.05.1997 which was referred as Ex.PW1/5 during course of evidence.
22. Claims of plaintiffs and defendants on the basis of subsequent chain of events, were contrary to each other.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 15 / 3323. So far as plaintiffs were concerned, Late Sh. Manjeet Singh had executed General Power of Attorney alongwith defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 for the purpose of getting done mutation in Government records. That attorney as such was not given by Late Sh. Manjeet Singh for sale of suit property in question. As such, Late Sh. Manjeet Singh never intended to sell or relinquish his right in suit property in question in favour of defendant no. 1. So, the sale deed dated 22.05.2008 executed by defendant no. 1 and rectification deed dated 18.06.2008 executed by defendant no. 1 with respect to suit property in question had no legal value. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant no. 1 played fraud upon Late Sh. Manjeet Singh by inducing him to sign General Power of Attorney dated 02.02.2008 when defendant no. 1 had ulterior motive to misuse said attorney. Plaintiffs were ignorant about the said execution of title documents by defendant no. 1 and misuse of General Power of Attorney dated 02.02.2008 till recently. It is only when plaintiff no. 1 did not get proper reply from defendant no. 1 and 2 with respect to share of legal heirs of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh, that relations became sour and she became suspicious. In her ignorance, she had signed registered sale deed dated 22.05.2008, before SubRegistrar concerned as a witness. Therefore, plaintiffs claimed that suit property in question till today is joint family property and being legal heirs of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh, they are entitled to have 1/3rd share in said property jointly.
24. Defendant no. 1, 3 & 4, on the contrary disputed the said case of plaintiffs. As per them, Late Sh. Manjeet Singh consciously and knowingly had executed General Power of Attorney dated 02.02.2008. Vide said attorney, Late Sh. Manjeet Singh had transferred his right in suit property in question in favour of defendant no. 1, for which he got consideration amount from defendant no. 1. Late Sh. Manjeet Singh, during his lifetime had executed said Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 16 / 33 attorney, as he was permanent resident of Kota, Rajasthan and he never intended to return back to Delhi. As such, Late Sh. Manjeet Singh had lost his interest in suit property in question and therefore, had legally transferred his right in suit property in question, in favour of defendant no. 1. The General Power of Attorney dated 02.02.2008 was also executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1. On the strength of said attorney, defendant no. 1 had become sole owner of suit property in question and that is why he had executed registered sale deed dated 22.05.2008 and rectification deed dated 18.06.2008 in favour of defendant no. 3 & 4. Infact, not only Late Sh. Manjeet Singh during his lifetime had received consideration amount from defendant no. 1, for transfer of his share in suit property in question in favour of defendant no. 1, plaintiff no. 1 also had received Rs. 1,20,000/ from defendant no. 1, which defendant no. 1 had given to her considering family relation. Defendants claimed that plaintiff no. 1 knew that she and her children had no legal right over suit property in question when she signed the registered sale deed dated 22.05.2008 as a witness. Now, with malafide intention, she has taken uturn from her previous stand and has filed present suit. As such, no illegality was committed by defendants.
25. The aforesaid paragraphs as such, give precise claims of rival parties.
26. Focal point involved in this case on the basis of claims of rival parties is, whether plaintiffs have any legal right in suit property in question or their right extinguished once Sardar Manjeet Singh executed the GPA Ex.PW1/5 in favour of defendant no. 1 ?
27. During course of evidence, plaintiffs had examined plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2. The said witnesses placed on record power of attorney Ex.PW1/5 dated 02.02.2008 executed by Late Sh. Manjeet Singh in favour of defendant no. 1. The said attorney/ mukhtiarnama was written in Hindi Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 17 / 33 language. Copy of the said attorney in Hindi and English language are part of this judgement and are referred as 'Annexure A' and 'Annexure B', respectively. Coupled with the same, copy of registered sale deed dated 22.05.2008 Ex.PW1/6 and Rectification Deed Dated 18.06.2008 are 'AnnexureC and AnnexureD' respectively.
28. Contents of Annexure A to Annexure D are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. They are considered by me for adjudication of this case. Reader of this judgement, may refer to those documents, for appreciating the reasoning given in this judgement.
29. Rival parties in this case, have led oral and documentary evidence. I am appreciating both the said types of evidence, separately.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
30. The General Power of Attorney dated 02.02.2008 Ex.PW1/5 and its interpretation with respect to transfer of suit property in question, allegedly in favour of defendant no. 1, forms the bedrock of this litigation. Before appreciating it, I must mention here the law governing transfer of immovable properties by General Power of Attorney.
31. Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries P. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 2009 (7) SCC 363 had referred to the ill effects of transfer of immovable properties by General Power of Attorney. It was held in the said judgement that General Power of Attorney sales are misnomers as there cannot be a sale by execution of power of attorney. It was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that such transactions had evolved to avoid prohibitions/ conditions regarding certain transfers, to avoid payment of stamp duty and Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 18 / 33 registration charges on deed of conveyance, to avoid payment of capital gains on transfers, to invest unaccounted money and to avoid payment of unearned increase due to development authorities on transfer.
32. Further, it was held in Suraj Lamb Case (supra) that a power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him. A power of attorney is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even, an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee.
33. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Basant Nehata, 2005 (12) SCC 777, Hon'ble Apex Court held "A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powersof Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinabove, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 19 / 33 under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee".
34. Aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore clearly hold that title in an immovable property, whose value is more than Rs. 100/, cannot be transferred by the executant of that attorney in favour of the person who he refers as his attorney, on the basis of power of attorney. A power of attorney as such creates an agency in favour of the grantee by the grantor. Based on said agency, the grantee can perform acts on behalf of grantor and such act of grantee shall bind grantor. The grantee can perform acts on behalf of grantor, to the extent mentioned in the attorney.
35. Reverting back to the facts of this case, I find that by way of general power of attorney Ex.PW1/5 Late Sh. Manjeet Singh never intended to transfer his right in suit property in question in favour of defendant no. 1. As per said attorney, Late Sh. Manjeet Singh, during his lifetime had declared that he was doing his business in Kota, Rajasthan and that is why he was not in a position to manage and maintain suit property in question. Therefore, he had given attorney to defendant no. 1 to use the suit property in question in the manner defendant no. 1 likes. Late Sh. Manjeet Singh also authorized defendant no. 1 to do all acts with respect to suit property in question, if they are related to Government, NonGovernment, Banks and other departments and Courts. Said attorney also authorized defendant no. 1 to sell off suit property in question through registered sale deed. The said attorney was jointly executed by Late Sh. Manjeet Singh and defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 20 / 3336. So, on the bare perusal of the said attorney, it cannot be deduced that Late Sh. Manjeet Singh had transferred his legal right in favour of defendant no. 1. The claim of defendant no. 1 that Late Sh. Manjeet Singh had transferred his right in favour of defendant no. 1, therefore was not correct.
37. The aforesaid attorney was notarized. It was not a registered document. Therefore, in the absence of its registration, as per the mandate of Order 17 Registration Act, said attorney did not create any right, title or interest in favour of defendant no. 1. Coupled with the same, said attorney nowhere noted that Sh. Manjeet Singh had received any consideration amount from defendant no. 1. Therefore, that attorney was executed without any consideration.
38. Defendant no. 1, 3 & 4 who had contested this matter, had not mentioned in their pleadings and evidence the details of consideration which defendant no. 1 had given to Late Sh. Manjeet Singh when Ex.PW1/5 was executed.
39. In addition to the aforesaid reasoning, I found that Sh. Manjeet Singh expired on 12.02.2008, as per record. He had executed the GPA Ex.PW1/5 on 02.02.2008. The agency which Sh. Manjeet Singh had created in favour of defendant no. 1, was terminated as per Sec. 201 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, on the death of Sh. Manjeet Singh. Therefore, after 12.02.2008, there was no agency in favour defendant no.1. In such situation, after 12.02.2008, defendant no. 1 had no authority to deal with the share of Manjeet Singh. In other words, defendant no. 1 could not have sold the share of Manjeet Singh after 12.02.2008. Therefore, sale deed dated 22.05.2008 Ex.PW1/6 was illegal, as defendant no. 1 had no right to execute said sale deed on behalf of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh or legal heirs of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 21 / 3340. The net result is that, general power of attorney Ex.PW1/5, by itself did not create any right, title or interest in favour of defendant no. 1.
41. Similarly, rectification deed dated 18.06.2008, lost its legal sanctity, on the basis of aforesaid reasoning.
ORAL EVIDENCE
42. Coming to the oral testimonies, I find that plaintiff no. 1 had examined herself as PW1. She reiterated the contents of plaint in her examinationin chief Ex.PW1/A. In her crossexamination, she deposed that she had no knowledge as to what written in her examinationinchief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A as she did not know English language. Coupled with the same, she had no knowledge about the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/6. Ld. Counsel for defendants highlighted the said aspects in her testimony and argued that she was not a trustworthy and reliable witness.
43. In order to appreciate aforesaid arguments of Ld. Counsel for defendants, I must mention here the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court regarding appreciation of evidence.
44. In Harijana Thi Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP (2006) 6 SCC 470. It was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that "the approach of the Court must be integrated and not truncated or isolated meaning thereby inferences should not be drawn by picking up an isloated statement, from here or there".
45. In Bhagwan Tana Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 1974, Hon'ble Apex Court ordained that the function of the Court is to disengage the truth from the falsehood and to accept what it finds to be true Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 22 / 33 and reject the rest. It is only where the truth and falsehood are inexplicably mixed up, polluted beyond refinement down the core the entire fabric of the narration given by a witness, that the Court might be justified in rejecting the same.
46. Therefore, in the wake of aforesaid observations, testimony of the witness, has to be appreciated as a whole and not in piecemeal, for the purpose of unearthening the truth.
47. Plaintiff no. 1, in this case had examined herself as PW1. She deposed that she had no knowledge about the English language. The examinationin chief of this witness, was in English language. So, her want of knowledge regarding contents of her examinationinchief, as such did not make her testimony doubtful. More so where, Ld. Counsel for defendants, did not give any suggestion, to the effect that she had signed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A, without having any knowledge about the contents of it. Further, counsel for defendants, did not give any suggestion, to the effect that she was a tutored witness.
48. Further, plaintiff no. 1 was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for defendants. More than 08 pages of crossexamination were recorded. In her crossexamination she stuck to the version that she had 1/3 rd share in the suit property in question after the death of her husband. She identified the General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/5 when it was put to her. She deposed that she had signed sale deed Ex.PW1/6 at the instance of defendant no. 1. She explained her visits to defendant no. 1, in the manner as stated in the plaint.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 23 / 3349. The most significant part of her testimony as recorded in her cross examination was that she had no knowledge about the documents which she had signed in SubRegistrar office on 22.05.2008. She stuck to her version that she had signed the documents in SubRegistrar office on 22.05.2008, at the instance of defendants. She explained, that she was under duress and pressurized by defendant no. 1 who had told her that she will not get money if she did not sign those documents. The said deposition was not countered by defendant no. 1 by giving suggestion to the contrary.
50. Further, she had deposed that her husband was unconscious, 78 days prior to his death. That deposition indicated that GPA Ex.PW1/5 was executed by Late Sh. Manjeet Singh for the purpose of maintenance of suit property in question, as Sh. Manjeet Singh was not well physically to maintain that property. Since civil law cases have to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, so aforesaid probability is observed by me in this case.
51. Not only that, counsel for defendants, in order to demolish veracity of her testimony, went on further and asked various questions regarding the manner and circumstances in which Late Sh. Manjeet Singh had signed GPA Ex.PW1/5. Plaintiff no. 1 answered those questions, without any contradiction.
52. She deposed that she was paid Rs. 40,000/ by defendant no.1 on account of her financial hardships, which supported her case. She deposed that her husband used to fell unconscious and regain his consciousness frequently, in the last 34 years, prior to his death. She also stated that she can produce documents in support of said deposition. Defendants never asked Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 24 / 33 this witness to bring those documents which means that defendants did not doubt the said deposition of this witness. Though she had not stated those facts in her pleadings but defendants did not give any suggestion to the effect that those facts were deposed by her in her crossexamination, with ulterior motives or for some other specific reasons. She was given suggestion to the effect that she had withheld true and correct facts from the Court but that suggestion was refuted by this witness. Infact, defendants did not clarify as to what "true and correct facts" were withheld by her.
53. Plaintiff no. 1 was also deposed in her crossexamination that contents of GPA Ex.PW1/5 to the effect that defendant no. 1 had told Late Sh. Manjeet Singh that suit property in question had to be mutated and thereafter it had to be sold, for which power of attorney was required from Late Sh. Manjeet Singh, were not correct. Even if, the aforesaid claim of defendants, is to be believed to be true, then also, it did not make any difference, for the reason that validity of said GPA was terminated on the death of Sh. Manjeet Singh.
54. Plaintiff no. 1 deposed in her crossexamination that she had not made any complaint to the police or any other authority regarding the fact that defendant no. 1 had obtained thumb impression of her husband in unconscious condition or regarding defendant no. 1 fraudulently obtaining her signatures on the sale deed Ex.PW1/6, as a witness. The said inaction on the part of the plaintiff no. 1, did not make her case doubtful for the reason that she had legal right to make said complaints but she opted not to do so. Here, her relation with defendant no. 1, who is her brotherinlaw cannot be forgotten. Coupled with the same, it is not the case of defendants that she is a working lady who has confidence, to go out and out against the family members by registering complaints. Fact of the matter remains that from her Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 25 / 33 testimony I find her to be a lady who is housewife and who is only engaged in maintaining her children, after the death of her husband. Professionally, defendants failed to bring on record any fact, which could probablized the situation that she is an extrovert. The only impression I got from her demeanor, as reflected in her testimony, is that she is ignorant about her legal rights. The said ignorance as such cannot be made the basis of dismissing her testimony in totality.
55. Plaintiff no. 1 deposed that she had signed 2/3 blank papers in the presence of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3. No suggestion to the contrary was given to her by defendants, which probablized her case.
56. She also refuted the defence of defendants regarding her filing this case with ulterior motives in order to get money from defendants on account of increased market value of suit property in question.
57. PW1 was put suggestion by defendants to the effect that her husband had received the entire consideration amount from defendant no. 1, which she refuted. As such, defendants did not specify the consideration amount which defendant no. 1 had allegedly given to Late Sh. Manjeet Singh at the time of execution of GPA Ex.PW1/5. Coupled with the same, it was suggested by defendants to her that she had agreed to stand as an attesting witness in her sale deed in order to avoid "all controversies in the matter", she refuted the suggestion. Defendants did not explain as to what they meant by "controversies in the matter". The only possibility remained that defendant no. 1 very well knew at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.PW1/6 that legal heirs of Sh. Manjeet Singh had 1/3 rd share in the suit property in question and therefore, in order to usurp the said share, they tried to Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 26 / 33 purchase the share of legal heirs of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh in suit property in question by paying Rs. 1,20,000/ to plaintiff no. 1.
58. Defendants did not place on record any documentary proof regarding the manner in which they had given Rs. 80,000/ to plaintiff no. 1 out of Rs.1,20,000/ in total.
59. PW1 stuck to her version that in October, 2011, she had gone to the residence of defendant no. 1 for claiming her share in suit property in question, which was refuted by defendant no. 1. She knew the execution of GPA Ex.PW1/5 by her husband in favour of defendant no. 1. The circumstances in which thumb impression of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh were obtained, as such were of no consequence as I have already concluded that GPA Ex.PW1/5 became nullity on the death of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh on 12.02.2008.
60. Overall, testimony of PW1 remained uniform to the effect that after the death of Sh. Manjeet Singh, his legal heirs had 1/3 rd share in the suit property in question cumulatively and that defendant no. 1 had misused the GPA Ex.PW1/5 for his own gains for the purpose of usurping the suit property in question. Therefore, her testimony is found by me to be plausible and trustworthy.
61. So far as PW2 Ms. Gurleen Kaur is concerned, she deposed the facts in tune with the contents of the plaint. She also claimed her right based on share of her father Late Sh. Manjeet Singh. She also testified that defendant no. 1 refuted the claims of legal heirs of Sh. Manjeet Singh when he was confronted with the same. She was put one affidavit Ex.PW2/D1, which was a Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 27 / 33 photocopy. It was objected on the mode of proof by counsel for plaintiffs. Defendants did not file the original of the same therefore, said objection stands sustained. Even otherwise, contents of the said affidavit were declined by PW2, contents of which are reproduced in verbatim as under.
AFFIDAVIT/ NOC Affidavit of Smt. Gurleen Kaur daughter of Late S. Manjeet Singh resident of 4A/28, Mahavir Nagar, Tehsil Ladpura, Distt. Kota, Rajasthan, do hereby state and declare on solemn affirmation as under :
1. That I am citizen of India.
2. That my father Late S. Manjeet Singh was owner of share in ENTIRE BUILT UP PROPERTY BEARING NO. K43, HAVING OLD NO. WZ484, BUILT ON LAND AREA MEASURING 150 SQ. YDS., OUT OF KHASRA NO. 598, SITUATED IN THE AREA OF VILLAGE TIHAR COLONY KNOWN AS FATEH NAGAR, NEW DELHI110018.
3. That my father Late S. Manjeet Singh was executed a General power of Attorney on dt. 02/02/2008, duly attested by Notary Public, Kota, Rajasthan at Sl. No.338, in favour of S. Man Mohan Singh in respect of his share in the above siad property.
4. That I have no objection if S. Man Mohan Sigh sold the above said property to SMT. AMRIT KAUR WIFE OF S. MANMOHAN SINGH & MISS GURPREET KAUR DAUGHTER OF S. MAN MOHAN SINGH BOTH RESIDENT OF K43, FATEH NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110018, by virtue of Sale Deed dt. 22/05/2008.
5. That in future I, my children, legal heirs will not claim, demand any share, right, title, interest in the said property and any one shall raise any objection then treated as Null and Void.
VERIFICATION : at New Delhi, on the 30th day of May, 2008.
DEPONENT I do verify that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 28 / 33
62. Aforesaid affidavit as such, noted the execution of GPA dated 02.02.2008. The legality of said GPA Ex.PW1/5 came to the end on the death of Sh. Manjeet Singh on 12.02.2008. Said affidavit as such, did not talk about the right of other legal heirs of Sh. Manjeet Singh. It did not mention as to how defendant no. 1 could have sold the suit property in question on behalf of legal heirs of Sh. Manjeet Singh. Therefore, said affidavit on one hand was not proved by defendants and on the other hand, I find no legal sanctity causing the help of defendants. Defendants did not put the exact amount of consideration which defendant no. 1 had given to Late Sh. Manjeet Singh when GPA Ex.PW1/5 was executed.
63. The net result is that, testimony of PW2 did not help the cause of defendants. Same is found by me to be plausible and trustworthy.
64. Coming to the testimony of defendant no. 1, I find that he did not explain the exact amount of consideration which he had handed over to Late Sh. Manjeet Singh. He did not explain in his testimony as to how legally he could have sold the suit property in question when GPA Ex.PW1/5 became nullity on 12.02.2008. In his crossexamination, he admitted that except Ex.PW1/5, he had no other document pertaining to suit property in question, in his favour. Though, he had alleged that he had paid Rs. 1,20,000/ to plaintiff no. 1 but in his crossexamination, he admitted that he had no receipt in support thereof. He placed on record Receipt Mark DW1/DX dated 12.06.2008 for a sum of Rs.40,000/ which was given to plaintiff no. 1. Said receipt as such did not help his cause as it did not give any legal title to defendant no. 1 over suit property in question. The net result is that the testimony of defendant no. 1 did not prove the fact that defendant no. 1 had the legal right to execute the sale deed Ex.PW1/6 on the basis of GPA Ex.PW1/5.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 29 / 3365. Defendant no. 1 in his crossexamination admitted that he had no receipt of payment of Rs. 1,20,000/ which he had allegedly given to plaintiff no. 1. The absence of said receipt improbablized his claim regarding him giving of said amount to plaintiff no. 1. Coupled with the same, it is surprising that once Sh. Manjeet Singh had expired, defendant no. 1 gave money to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/ in the name of Sh. Manjeet Singh. Once, Sh. Manjeet Singh had expired, ordinarily money, given by defendant no. 1 should have been paid to legal heirs of Sh. Manjeet Singh. That was not done by defendant no. 1 and he did not explain the circumstances in which he had not followed the said ordinary course.
66. Defendant no. 1 admitted that Late Sh. Manjeet Singh could not sign and that is why had put his thumb impression on GPA Ex.PW1/5. It was not his case that he had read over the contents of said GPA to Manjeet Singh before thumb impression was given by Manjeet Singh. Coupled with the same, defendant no. 1 did not place on record the original of affidavit of plaintiff no. 2 Ex.PW2/D1. The said affidavit of plaintiff no. 2 was not having entry number or year of registration of the notary public. Defendant no. 1 had claimed that signatures on said affidavit were obtained by plaintiff no. 1. He did not explain the circumstances in which plaintiff no. 2 had allegedly made her said signatures on the said affidavit. It was not probablized by defendants that said affidavit was executed by plaintiff no. 2 when she had become major. That affidavit was therefore not proved by him, as per law.
67. Further, best case of defendant no. 1 remained that by way of GPA Ex.PW1/5, Late Sh. Manjeet Singh had transferred his share in suit property in question in favour of defendant no. 1 after receiving consideration amount. As such, that claim of defendant no. 1 meant that Late Sh. Manjeet Singh had sold his share to defendant no. 1 in exchange of consideration. The said Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 30 / 33 consideration amount as such was not specified and proved by defendant no.
1. In case, said consideration amount was paid to Late Sh. Manjeet Singh, then GPA Ex.PW1/5, should have specified the said fact. That GPA did not mention any consideration amount received by Late Sh. Manjeet Singh. Coupled with the same, once right, title or interest in an immovable property for an amount more than Rs. 100/ is transferred on the basis of a document than in the wake of Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, that document has to be registered in SubRegistrar office. As such, GPA Ex.PW1/5 was not registered, so it lost its legal significance.
68. In the wake of aforesaid appreciations and conclusions, I find that defendants failed to probablize their case based on preponderance of probabilities. The evidence of defendant no. 1 as such was not trustworthy and reliable.
69. The net result is that, all the aforesaid issues are decided in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2.
70. Onus of proving the aforesaid issue rested upon defendants. They did not lead any evidence in support thereof. They did not prove as to on what basis they had claimed that after the execution of the relinquishment deeds dated 28.05.1996, 09.10.1997 and 23.05.1997 the share of the defendant no.1 in the suit property came to 45.14%, the share of defendant no. 2 came to 31% and the share of late husband of plaintiff no.1 came at 23.86% only and not of 1/3rd share. Aforesaid issue is decided against defendants.
Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 31 / 33ISSUE NO. 4.
71. Onus of proving the fact that defendant no. 1 further paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ to plaintiff on demand as consideration, was on defendants.
72. Defendant no. 1 in his testimony had admitted that he had no documentary proof in support of the fact that Rs. 1,20,000/ was received by plaintiffs from him. He placed on record the Receipt of Rs. 40,000/ Mark DW1/DX dated 12.06.2008, but it did not help their cause as fact of the matter remains that they had to prove the payment of Rs. 1,20,000/ to plaintiffs. Therefore, aforesaid issue is decided against defendants.
ISSUE NO. 5.
73. Defendants have claimed that suit was barred by limitation. In their Written Statement, they had claimed that Sh. Manjeet Singh had executed the GPA in favour of defendant no. 1 on 02.02.2008 and subsequently, defendant no. 1 had executed sale deed in favour of defendant no. 3 and 4 on 22.05.2008. This Suit was filed on 02.11.2011 thereafter, it was time barred.
74. Aforesaid claim of defendants was not correct. Reason being that cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of plaintiffs when plaintiff no. 1 approached defendant no. 1 in third week of October, 2011 claiming her legal right over suit property in question. At that stage, defendant no. 1 refuted her legal right over suit property in question. It was said response of defendant no. 1 which promoted plaintiffs in moving the Court. This suit was filed on 02.11.2011 and therefore, it was filed within the limitation period starting from the date of said refusal of defendant no. 1. This issue is therefore, decided against defendants.
ISSUE NO. 6.
75. None of the parties to the present litigation led any evidence with regard to the fact that defendant no. 5 is bonafide purchaser of portion of suit Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 32 / 33 property for value without knowledge of disputes between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 to 4. Aforesaid issue was not proved by any of the litigating party in question. Therefore, this issue is decided against all the parties.
RELIEF
76. The net result of aforesaid appreciation is that, this suit was filed within the limitation period. Plaintiffs have legal right of 1/3 rd share in suit property in question cumulatively being legal heirs of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh. General Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/5 dated 02.02.2008, Sale Deed Ex.PW1/6 dated 22.05.2008 and Rectification Deed dated 18.06.2008 and subsequent Sale Deed dated 07.12.2011 executed by defendant no. 3 and 4 in favour defendant no. 5, are declared as null and void.
77. Thus, therefore I conclude that a person does not become the owner of an immovable property of value of more than Rs. 100/ on the basis of an unregistered general power of attorney.
78. Preliminary Decree is passed to the said effect.
79. The net result is that, plaintiffs being legal heirs of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh are entitled to have 1/3rd share in suit property in question i.e. K43, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi. The other share holders in suit property in question are defendant no. 1 and 2. The rest of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jodh Singh i.e. Smt. Gurbachan Singh, Smt. Mahender Kaur, Smt. Paramjit Kaur and Smt. Narender Kaur, had already relinquished their shares in favour of their brothers as noted above in the judgement, which is not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Preliminary decree be prepared accordingly.
Announced through Virtual Court [PRASHANT SHARMA] Dated : 14th, September, 2020 ADJ-05, WEST DISTRICT TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI Satpal Kaur Vs. S. Manmohan Singh Page No. 33 / 33