Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Dhara Singh vs Sh. Bhim Singh on 2 January, 2016

     IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR: ADDL. DISTRICT
           JUDGE­09: TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06)
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0745472006


Sh. Dhara Singh 
S/o late Sh. Mam Chand, 
R/o Village & P.O. Ladpur, 
Delhi­110081.                                         ........... Plaintiff. 


                                       VERSUS 

1.     Sh. Bhim Singh 
       S/o Late Sh. Mauji Ram
       presently R/o H. No. 58, 
       Rajdhani Enclave, Pritampura, 
       Delhi.

2.     Sh. Raghbir Singh
       S/o late Sh. Mauji Ram, 
       presently R/o H. No. 58, 
       Rajdhani Enclave, Pritampura, 
       Delhi.                                         ......... Defendants. 


Date of institution of the suit            :     25.08.2006
Date on which order was reserved           :     22.12.2015
Date of decision                           :     02.01.2016


     SUIT FOR DECLARATION & PREMANENT INJUCNTION

JUDGMENT
Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 1/24

The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit filed by the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint, are that the plaintiff and other persons namely Sh. Sabha Chand S/o Sh. Mam Chand, Sh. Raghbir Singh, Sh. Maha Singh, Sh. Karn Singh, Sh. Ran Bir Singh, Sh. Bijender Singh S/o Sh.Mange Ram, Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Surrender Kumar S/o Sh. Khem Chand, Sh. Ramesh Kumar,Sh. Satish, Sh. Sushil, Sh. Sanjay S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh are the recorded Bhumidars of the land of Khasra Nos. 93/20 (4­16), 93/19/1 (2­06), 93/12/3 (2­06), 30/1 (4­16), 30/2 (4­16), 30/9 (4­16) and 30/10 (4­12), total measuring 28 bighas and 8 biswas of Khata Khatauni no. 77­A/77, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ladpur, Delhi­81, according to their shares as per the revenue record. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has 1/4th share in the suit land. It has been further stated that the suit land has never been partitioned amongst its Co­Bhumidhars. It has been further stated that the plaintiff and the abovesaid persons are in actual and physical cultivatory possession of the suit land. It has been further stated that the plaintiff and the abovesaid persons are also the recorded Co­Bhumidhar to the extent of 1/4th share in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 29/5/2 (0­12), 29/6/2 (1­01), 31/11 (4­16), 71/1 min. (4­0), 71/2 min. (4­0), 71/3/1 min. (3­15), 71/3/2 (0­05), 71/8 (4­11), 71/9 (4­16), 71/12 (6­17), 71/19 (3­

15), 73/21/2 (1­04) and 73/22 (4­16) situated at Village Ladpur, Delhi. It has been further stated that the defendants have illegally, under threat, pressure and coercion got a sale deed dated 26.08.2003 executed from the plaintiff fraudulently in collusion with the concerned Tehsildar Sh. Ranbir Singh and Patwari Sh. Balraj duly registered on 30.08.2003 in the office of the Sub­Registrar, Pitampura, Delhi for a total consideration Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 2/24 amount of Rs. 4,00,000/­. The plaintiff has alleged that no amount of consideration was paid to the plaintiff at any point of time. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendants had threatened to kidnap and kill the son of the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the family members of the plaintiff were scared and as such, the plaintiff had no option but to execute and get the sale deed registered on account of threat and pressure. It has been further stated that the plaintiff reported the matter to the SDM on 28.07.2003 against the registration of the sale deed in question. It has been further stated that the plaintiff also sent a complaint to the Joint Commissioner of Police, DCP, Ashok Vihar and the matter was investigated by Sh. Rajkumar, SI, P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi. It has been further stated that the statement of the plaintiff and the defendants were also recorded by Sh. Subhash Chand, SI on 19.09.2005 on the complaint to DCP, Vigilance, Delhi, but, no action was taken on the complaints of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further alleged that on the basis of the abovesaid sale deed dated 26.08.2003, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land illegally and forcibly in September 2003, but, they could not succeed in their illegal designs due to timely intervention of the plaintiff and other co­bhumidhars and respectable persons of the village. The plaintiff has further alleged that the sale deed dated 26.08.2003 is illegal, invalid, null and void because the same is in contravention of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It has been further stated that the physical possession of the suit land was never transferred to the defendants and the said sale deed does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the defendants. It has been further stated that the defendants illegally got the said sale deed Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 3/24 registered on the basis of the bogus, illegal and forged NOC. It has been further stated that clause 2 of the said sale deed dated 26.08.2003 states that the actual physical and peaceful possession of the land of Khasra no. 93/20 (4­16) & 93/19/1 (2­6) has been handed over by the vendor to the vendee on the spot, but, the same is illegal and invalid. It has been further stated that the actual market price of the land was not less than Rs. 23,00,000/­ per acre as declared by the Delhi Govt. It has been further stated that the defendants also committed fraud upon the plaintiff by creating false evidence against the plaintiff by misusing and forging the blank cheques obtained from the plaintiff under threat and pressure. It has been further stated that the names of Sh. Bijender Dhaiya, Sh. Jeet Singh and Sh. Balbir Singh Rathi were filled up in the aforesaid blank cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/­ each. It has been further stated that the defendants are also expert in manipulation and forging the documents. It has been further stated that the defendants are also the land Mafia and are involved in the land grabbing. It has been further stated that the defendants are also doing illegal acts through Sh. Ram Dhari Dhayia, Sh. Inder Singh Daiya, SI in CAW Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi. It has been further stated that Sh. Inder Singh Dhayia is nephew of Sh. Bhim Singh, the defendant no. 1 in the present suit. It has been further stated that the defendants on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.08.2003 applied for mutation vide application dated 09.09.2003 to the Ld. Tehsildar, (North/West District), Kanjhawala, Delhi. It has been further stated that the plaintiff filed the objections against the sanction of the mutation in favour of the defendants and the matter is sub­judice before the Ld. SDM/RA, Kanjhawala, Delhi. It has been further stated that the plaintiff Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 4/24 was also a member of the Chit Fund Committee run by the defendants from 1997 to 2001 and the plaintiff had taken Rs. 4,00,000/­ from the defendants on account of the chit fund. It has been further stated that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/­ was returned in four installments by the plaintiff, but, in lieu of the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/­, the defendants got the abovesaid three blank cheques from the plaintiff under threat and pressure. The plaintiff has alleged that on 30.07.2006 and 09.08.2006, the defendants tried to take illegal possession of the suit land from the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that the defendants are bent upon to sell/ dispose off the suit property and to create third party interest therein and hence, the present suit.

2. On the basis of the abovesaid allegations as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 26.08.2003 be declared as illegal, invalid, fraudulent, null and void and in violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It has been further prayed that the said sale deed be ordered to be cancelled. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents etc. from creating any third party interest in the suit land on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.08.2003. The plaintiff has also prayed for the costs of the suit.

3. Written statement has been filed on record by the defendants stating therein that the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff with a view to extract huge money from the defendants and as such, the present suit is not maintainable. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has not paid appropriate court fees and the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. It has been alleged by the defendants that Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 5/24 the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts such as voluntary sale of the land in question, getting NOC from the concerned Authorities, receipt of the full consideration amount, withdrawal of the objections in the mutation proceedings in black and white by way of duly attested affidavit and also of the handing over of the physical and actual possession of the suit land to the defendants. It has been further stated that the present suit is without any cause of action. It has been further stated that the present suit is also barred by law of limitation and the present suit is also bad for non­joinder of the necessary parties. It has been further stated that the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 1 is a highly respected person in the society and retired as teacher with distinguished service in Haryana and Delhi. It has been further stated that the defendants purchased the agricultural land vide registered sale deed dated 26.08.2003 and the plaintiff also handed over the vacant and physical possession of the suit land to the defendants after receiving the entire sale consideration. It has been further stated that the sale deed was executed in the presence of the witnesses and the plaintiff also acknowledged the sale and receipt of the entire consideration amount before the Sub­ Registrar. The defendants have alleged that with malafide intention, the plaintiff filed objections before the Revenue Authorities after selling of the suit land and later on, withdrew the said objections. It has been further stated that the allegations levelled by the plaintiff are defamatory in nature. The defendants have denied the extension of any kind of threat to the plaintiff. The defendants have taken the stand that the said sale deed dated 26.08.2003 was got registered by the plaintiff himself after Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 6/24 appearing before the Sub­Registrar concerned. It has been further stated that since the date of the sale, the defendants are in actual and physical possession of the suit land. The defendants have denied that the suit land has never been partitioned amongst its co­bhumidhars. The defendants have further denied that the amount of consideration was never paid to the plaintiff. The defendants have further denied that the sale deed dated 26.08.2003 is illegal and invalid. The defendants have further denied that the sale deed in question is in violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The defendants have taken the stand that the plaintiff had himself got the NOC from the concerned Authorities. The defendants have denied that any kind of fraud was committed upon the plaintiff by them. The defendants have taken the stand that they have no concern with the cheques as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendants have denied that they are willing to sell the suit land. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with special costs.

4. Replication has been filed on record by the plaintiff reiterating and reaffirming the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint and denying the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide orders dated 24.10.2007 :

1) Whether the sale deed dated 26.08.2003 had been obtained by committing fraud, pressure and manipulation. OPP
2) Whether the sale deed is null and void in view of Section 33 of DLR Act?OPP Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 7/24
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for?OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction?OPP
5) Relief.

EVIDENCE :

6. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. He has filed on record the certified copy of the Khatoni for the year 2003­04 as Ex. PW1/1, certified copies of the Khasra Girdawaris pertaining to the years 2003­04, 2004­05 and 2005­06 as Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4, copy of the unregistered sale deed as Ex. PW1/5, certified copy of the registered sale deed as Ex. PW1/6, copy of the complaint dated 27.08.2003 as Ex. PW1/7, copy of the information provided under the RTI alongwith the report dated 20.03.2007 of the SDM as Ex. PW1/8 and Ex. PW1/9, certified copy of the application dated 11.11.2003 as Ex. PW1/10, information received under RTI dated 20.11.2006 issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner (North­West), Kanjhawala, Delhi alongwith report dated 17.11.2006 of SDM/RA, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi as Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12, copy of the letter pertaining to the issuance of the bogus NOC and Mutation proceedings alongwith report of the Patwari as Ex. PW1/13 and Ex. PW1/14, the order dated 25.04.2007 of the Ld. SDM/RA alongwith the report of the Patwari as Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/16, copy Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 8/24 of the reply dated 02.02.2005 sent to Sh. Bijender Dahiya alongwith its postal receipt dated 10.02.2005 as Ex. PW1/17 and Ex. PW1/18, original envelope received back unserved as Ex. PW1/19, copy of the reply dated 02.02.2005 sent to Sh. Om Datt Sharma, Advocate alongwith its postal receipt dated 03.02.2005 as Ex. PW1/20 and Ex. PW1/21, letter dated05.01.2006 and its postal receipt dated 06.01.2006 as Ex. PW1/22 and Ex. PW1/23, letter dated 10.01.2006 written to Sh. Jeet Singh and Sh. Sh. Bijender Singh together with its postal receipts as Ex. PW1/24 to Ex. PW1/27, the certified copy of the criminal complaint U/s 138 of the N.I. Act as Ex. PW1/28, the certified copy of the evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant as Ex. PW1/29, the certified copy of the cheque as Ex. PW1/30, the certified copy of the return memo as Ex. PW1/31, the certified copy of the notice as Ex. PW1/32, the certified copy of the criminal complaint U/s 138 of the N.I. Act as Ex. PW1/33, certified copy of the evidence by way of affidavit of complainant as Ex. PW1/34, certified copy of the cheque as Ex. PW1/35, the certified copy of the return memo as Ex. PW1/36, the certified copy of the notice dated 17.01.2005 as Ex. PW1/37, the certified copy of the reply dated 02.02.2005 as Ex. PW1/38, certified copy of the criminal complaint U/s 138 of the N.I. Act pending in the court of SDJM, Bahadurgarh as Ex. PW1/39, the certified copy of the evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant as Ex. PW1/40, the certified copy of the cheque as Ex. PW1/41, the certified copy of the return memo as Ex. PW1/42, the certified copy of the notice as Ex. PW1/43, letter dated 23.01.2006 as Ex. PW1/44 and the copy of the statement and that of Sh. Raghubir Singh Dahiya as Ex. PW1/45 and Ex. PW1/46.

Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 9/24

7. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Om Prakash as PW2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A on record, he has stated that the plaintiff and other co­bhumidhars are in physical and cultivatory possession of the suit land.

8. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Raghubir as PW3 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A on record, he has stated that the plaintiff and other co­bhumidhars are in physical and cultivatory possession of the suit land.

9. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Manjit Singh, UDC, from the office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar, Kanjhawala, Delhi as PW4 and this witness produced in the Court the originals of Ex. PW1/10, Ex. PW1/15 and Ex. PW1/16.

10. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Satish Yadav, Halqa Patwari, Ladpur, Delhi as PW5 and this witness has stated that Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4 were issued by Halqa Patwari Sh. Balraj Singh.

11. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Jugraj, UDC, from the office of Sub Registrar­VIA, Pitampura, Delhi as PW6 and this witness produced in the Court the letter/ notification no. 3154 dated 17.07.2003 issued by the office of the Additional District Magistrar (LA), Delhi as Ex. PW6/1.

12. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. S.K. Vashisht, Office Kanoongo in the office of SDM, Distt. North­West, Kanjhawala, Delhi as PW7 and this witness produced in the Court copy duly certified by the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi pertaining to the office noting sheet dated 04.02.2010 as Ex. PW7/1.

13. The defendant no. 2 Sh. Raghubir Singh has examined Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 10/24 himself as DW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D1 on record, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the defendants in the written statement.

14. The detailed testimonies of these witnesses shall be discussed in the later part of this judgment.

15. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record and heard the rival submissions of Ld. counsels for both the parties. Both the parties have filed on record their written final arguments as well. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the written final arguments filed on record by the both the parties.

16. My issuewise finding on the abovesaid issues is as under:

Issues No. 1 to 4 :

17. All these issues are taken up together as the same are connected interse and overlap each other. The onus to prove all the abovesaid issues has been placed upon the plaintiff.

18. The factual matrix, which is within a narrow compass in the present suit, has already been narrated hereinabove. In the written final arguments filed on record by the plaintiff, it has been argued that the plaintiff has 1/4th share in the entire agricultural land, which is divided in two Rakbas i.e. the land measuring 47 bighas 1 biswa in Khatoni bearing no. 132/77 and the land measuring 25 bighas 19 biswas in Khatoni no. 252/177. It has been further argued that the aforesaid land has never been partitioned in any manner whatsoever amongst its co­bhumidhars Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 11/24 including the plaintiff and all the co­bhumidhars are in actual and physical cultivatory possession of the said land. It has been further argued that the plaintiff was a member of the Chit Fund Committee, which was being run by the defendants and the plaintiff had owed Rs. 4,00,000/­ to the defendants with regard to the committee transaction, out of which, Rs. 2,00,000/­ were refunded and against the rest of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/­, the plaintiff had given three blank cheques bearing no. 979923, 979924 and 979925 as security. It has been further argued that the plaintiff could not pay the rest amount of Rs. 2,00,000/­ and then the defendants Sh. Raghubir Singh made a proposal for selling part of his land to the extent of 2 bighas and 7 biswas. It has been further argued that the plaintiff applied for issuance of NOC with regard to the land measuring 2 bighas and 7 biswas, but, by playing fraud, the NOC was obtained in respect of the suit land and the sale deed was executed. It has been further argued that the sale deed was executed under threat to the life of the plaintiff and his family members. The plaintiff has relied upon the statement of the plaintiff and the documents Ex. PW1/45 and Ex. PW1/46 on record. It has been further argued that not only this, the defendants again played fraud and affidavit dated 11.11.2003 Ex. PW1/10 was also obtained from the plaintiff.

19. The plaintiff, in the written final arguments, has relied upon his own cross­examination and has also heavily relied upon the cross­ examination of DW1. It has been further argued that DW1 has admitted the issuance of the receipt to the tune of Rs. 4,000/­ as Ex. DW1/P1 on record. It has been further argued that issuance of the legal notices in respect of the dishonouring of the cheques has also been admitted by the Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 12/24 defendant no. 2 i.e. DW1. It has been further argued that there are cuttings, additions and alterations in the NOC Ex. PW1/6 on record. It has been further argued that from the cross­examination of DW1, it is apparently clear that the value of the suit land was much more and not Rs. 4,00,000/­. It has been further argued that no consideration amount was ever paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the authorities cited as AIR 1965 SC (1364) (D) titled as Surasaibalini Debi vs. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar, AIR 20105 SC (1779) titled as State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar, AIR 2010 (NOC) (773) (ORISSA) titled as Sarat Chandra Panda & Ors. v. Narsingh, AIR 1985 Allahabad (437) titled as Ram Chandra Singh (deceased by Lrs.) vs. Basdeo Singh and Another, AIR 1998 Guhati (22) titled as Mahiruddin Borbhuiya vs. Musit Rythun Nessa, AIR 2002 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 147 titled as Hamelo (deceased) by L.R. v. Jang Sher Singh, AIR 2007 Rajasthan (166) titled as Prahlad & Ors. V. Laddevi & Ors., AIR 2009 SC Supplementary (1218) titled as Ranganayakamma & Anr. v. K.S. Prakash (D) by Lrs. & Ors., AIR 2007 PATNA (136) (DB) titled as Udho Rai & Ors. v. Ambika Tiwary & Ors., AIR 2004 SC (3957) titled as Jayamma vs. Maria Bai (deceased by Lrs.) and another, AIR 2014 SC (3070) titled as Ram Karan (Dead) through Lrs & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1997 SC (2676) titled as Papaiah v. State of Karnataka and ors., AIR 2009 NOC (264) KAR. titled as Chandrashekar G. Sullad & Ors. v. Tuheed Co­operative Housing Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 13/24 Society (Regd.) & Anr. and 2011 (VIII) AD (Delhi) 338 titled as Subhash Chand Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Others.

20. Whereas, on the other hand, in the written final arguments filed on record by the defendants, it has been argued that the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the ground that the sale deed in question was executed by him on account of the threat of kidnapping and killing of his son. It has been further argued that as such, the other grounds such as collusiveness, manipulation and forgery are automatically not sustainable because the abovesaid pleas are mutually destructive. It has been further argued that no particulars of the alleged threat, fraud, manipulation, forgery etc. has been given by the plaintiff at all, either in the plaint or in the evidence and as such, the abovesaid pleas have not been proved at all by the plaintiff.

21. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has relied upon an authority cited as AIR (38) 1951 SC 280 titled as Bishnudeo Narain & another vs. Seogeni Rai & others. Relying upon the ratio of the abovestated authority, Ld. Counsel for the defendants has argued that it was necessary for the plaintiff to give particulars as to the nature of the threat, the circumstances, the date, the time and the place, in which the threat was administered, but, the plaintiff has utterly failed to do so. It has been further argued that there is no violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act as well and the consequences of the violation of the Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act have been given in Section 42 of the aforesaid Act. It has been further argued that the plaintiff herein had Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 14/24 himself moved an application before the Tehsildar concerned on 11.11.2003 stating therein that the full amount was received by him and he had no objection to the sanction of the mutation in favour of the defendants and the said letter/ affidavit is there on record in the form of Ex. PW1/10. It has been further argued that the partition of the property in question stand already admitted by PW1 in his cross­examination. It has been further argued that the plaintiff is M.A. B.Ed. and not a layman. Ld. Counsel for the defendants has heavily relied upon the cross­ examination of PW1 and has argued that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his case.

22. PW1 i.e. the plaintiff, in the cross­examination, has stated that he does not remember as to whether his affidavit was got drafted by his Advocate or he himself drafted his affidavit. PW1 has further stated that he used to cultivate this land himself by ploughing. PW1 has further stated that he is M.A. B.Ed. and he was in service. PW1 has further stated that he joined as Assistant Teacher in 1958 and he retired as a Vice Principal in the year 1994. PW1 has further stated that he did not execute any sale deed on 26.08.2003 in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2. PW1 has further stated that however, his signatures were got on the sale deed under pressure and coercion. PW1 has further stated that the threat was given to him by Sh. Bhim Singh and his brother when he threatened to his family with a pistol. PW1 has further stated that he directed either sign the sale deed or otherwise, he himself and his family members would be kidnapped and killed. PW1 has further stated that the said incident was prior to 26.08.2003. PW1 has further stated that the signatures were put on the sale deed in the office of Sub­Registrar, Delhi Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 15/24 on 26.08.2003. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that he did not tell the fact of threat to Sub­Registrar when he appeared before him. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that he had signed the NOC for the 1/4th agricultural land in Khasra no. 93/20, 19/1 and 12/3. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had signed on NOC for whole land. PW1 has further stated that he was in cultivatory possession of land 18 bighas and 5 biswas out of 73 bighas in respect of Khatoni no. 132/77 and Khatoni no. 252/177. PW1 has further stated that no such khasra of 28.8 bighas exists in the revenue record. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that the suit land was divided into four parts and every part was cultivated by respective co­owners. PW1 has further stated that he was cultivating 1/4th share of the suit land. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that in the sale deed, this land has been mentioned, but, part of the agricultural land of the co­owners is also included. PW1 has further stated that he had filed objections against registry/ mutation in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2. PW1 has further stated that his co­sharers had also filed objections. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had withdrawn the objections filed by him. PW1 has further stated that on 21.05.2005, he had also filed affidavit in support of application to register the mutation in favour of Sh. Bhim Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that the mutation was registered in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2 by Ld. SDM concerned. PW1 has further stated that after the order, it was again objected by him to the DC and FC. PW1 has further stated that he cannot say whether he had filed the present suit before or after filing of complaints U/s 138 of N.I. Act. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that he had tired to get a Kishan credit card in the sum of Rs.

Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 16/24

5,00,000/­ from the State Bank of India, Kanjhawala, against his total land holding including the land mentioned in the sale deed dated 26.08.2003. PW1 has further stated that he does not know whether any complaint was lodged or not by the defendants to the bank. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that he did not get the said credit card as he himself declined the same.

23. By the abovesaid testimony of the plaintiff himself, it is apparently clear that the due execution of the sale deed dated 26.08.2003 Ex. PW1/6 on record is admitted by none other, but by the plaintiff himself. In the plaint, the plaintiff has merely stated that the abovesaid sale deed dated 26.08.2003 was got executed by the defendants from him under threat, pressure and coercion in collusion with the concerned Tehsildar and the then Patwari. It has been stated by the plaintiff in para no. 4 of the plaint that the defendants had threated to kidnap and kill the son of the plaintiff.

24. In the evidence i.e. in the cross­examination for the first time, the plaintiff has disclosed that he himself and his family members were threatened with a pistol prior to 26.08.2003. The plaintiff has admitted that on 26.08.2003, he had signed the abovesaid sale deed in the office of the Sub­Registrar, Delhi and he failed to tell the alleged fact of threat to the Sub­Registrar when he appeared before the Sub­Registrar.

25. It has to be seen that for the first time, in the cross­ examination, PW1 has stated that he was threatened with a pistol. In the entire plaint, it has not been stated that the threat was extended by the defendants with the help of a pistol. Furthermore, it has to be seen that in the cross­examination, PW1 has merely stated that the incident of threat Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 17/24 took place prior to 26.08.2003. Neither in the plaint, nor in the evidence, the plaintiff has disclosed the alleged date of the alleged incident of threatening.

26. In the authority cited as AIR (38) 1951 SC 280 titled as Bishundeo Narain & another vs. Seogeni Rai & others., it has been categorically held that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to give the particulars as to the nature of the threat, the circumstances, the date, the time and the place in which it was administered. To my mind, the plaintiff has utterly failed to disclose the abovesaid particulars, either in the plaint or in the evidence by way of affidavit or in the cross­ examination.

27. Furthermore, it has to be seen that in the cross­examination, PW1 has categorically admitted that he is M.A. B.Ed. and he joined as a Assistant Teacher and he retired as a Vice Principal in the year 1994. As such, I am of the opinion that it has been rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants, in the written final arguments, that the plaintiff is not a layman and he knows the consequences of his action.

28. In the written final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff owes the land in Khatoni bearing no. 132/77 and Khatoni no. 252/177 and there is no such land measuring 28 bighas and 8 biswas.

29. It has to be seen that in the entire plaint, this is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff does not own any land measuring 28 bighas and 8 biswas. Rather, in para no. 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically asserted that the plaintiff and other persons are the co­ Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 18/24 bhumidhars of the total land measuring 28 bighas and 8 biswas of Khata Khatoni no. 77­A/77, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ladpur, Delhi. As such, I am of the opinion that the abovesaid contention of the plaintiff as contained in the written final arguments is beyond the pleadings and the same cannot be taken into consideration. Furthermore, it has to be seen that in the written final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff had agreed to sell only 2 bighas and 7 biswas of the land and not the suit land. To my mind, the abovesaid assertion of the plaintiff as contained in the written final arguments is also beyond the pleadings as this is not the case of the plaintiff in the plaint.

30. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that no amount was ever received by the plaintiff against the execution of the sale deed dated 26.08.2003. In this regard, it has to be seen that PW1, in his cross­examination, has admitted that on 21.05.2005, he had also filed an affidavit in support of the application to register the mutation in favour of Sh. Bhim Singh and Sh. Raghbir Singh. PW1 has admitted it to be correct that the mutation was registered in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2 by the Ld. SDM concerned. The said application is dated 11.11.2003 Ex. PW1/10 on record. In the aforesaid application, which was moved by none other, but by the plaintiff himself, it has been categorically stated that the land measuring 7 bighas and 2 biswas was sold to the defendants by the plaintiff and the plaintiff had received the entire sale consideration. The plaintiff has categorically mentioned in the said application Ex. PW1/10 that whatever objections, he had with regard to the mutation of the land in question in favour of the defendants, the Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 19/24 same are being withdrawn by the plaintiff.

31. The sale deed is dated 26.08.2003. The abovesaid application Ex. PW1/10 on record is dated 11.11.2003. In the cross­ examination, PW1 has categorically admitted that on 21.05.2005, he had filed an affidavit in support of his application to register the mutation in favour of the defendants and that the mutation was registered in favour of the defendants on the basis of that application.

32. The abovesaid chronology of the events leads, to my mind, only to one conclusion that the plaintiff has taken different stands on different occasions. In the application dated 11.11.2003 Ex. PW1/10 on record, not only the execution of the sale deed has been confirmed by the plaintiff, but, the receipt of the entire sale consideration has also been admitted by none other, but by the plaintiff himself.

33. As such, the question arises as to how far the testimony of the said witness can be relied upon. To my mind, the answer is in the negative. During the course of the final arguments as well, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff was unable to explain as to how the said application Ex. PW1/10 and supporting affidavit was given by the plaintiff in the office of the SDM. The only explanation coming forward from the side of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff was that some talks of settlement were going on and that is why, the said application and the supporting affidavit were submitted. I am of the opinion that the abovesaid explanation is not sustainable at all. The plaintiff, to my mind, cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. To my mind, in the abovesaid application dated 11.11.2003, the plaintiff had himself admitted that he had received the entire sale consideration for the execution of the sale Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 20/24 deed dated 26.08.2003.

34. In the written final arguments filed on record by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, it has been argued that DW1, who is the sole witness examined by the defendants, has admitted the receipt for the amount of Rs. 4,000/­ Ex. DW1/P1 on record. It has been further argued that if the cross­examination of DW1 is carefully gone through, it becomes apparently clear that the Chit Fund Committee was being run by the defendants.

35. The settled law is that in order to obtain the relief from the Court, the plaintiff has to stand upon his own legs. The plaintiff has to prove his own case by way of cogent and reliable testimony and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of the lacuna left, if any, by the defendant in proving his own case. I am of the opinion that in the case in hand, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that the sale deed in question was got executed from him under threat, pressure and coercion and further that no sale consideration was ever received by him. It is true that on the aspect of the Chit Fund Committee and the receipt to the tune of Rs. 4,000/­, the testimony of DW1 is shaken, but this does not mean that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case. To my mind, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his own case by way of cogent and reliable evidence.

36. Besides PW1, there are two more witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW3, who are the only material witnesses examined by the plaintiff. Rest of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff are the official witnesses.

37. PW2, in the cross­examination, has stated that the plaintiff is his uncle. PW2 has further stated that nobody told him that the plaintiff Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 21/24 had sold the land to the defendants. PW2 has further stated that even on the date of his deposition before the Court, he was not aware that the plaintiff had sold the land to the defendants. Similarly, PW3, in the cross­examination, has stated that the plaintiff is his real uncle. PW3 has further stated that he does not know as to who is cultivating the land today. PW3 has further stated that he is co­sharer with the plaintiff.

38. It has to be seen that both PW2 and PW3 have been examined by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff is in physical and actual cultivatory possession of the land in question, but, going by the abovesaid cross­examination of both the abovesaid witnesses, I am of the opinion that the testimony of both the abovesaid PWs cannot be relied upon. The plaintiff is the real uncle of PW3. PW2 has also admitted that the plaintiff is his uncle. As such, both the witnesses, to my mind, are the interested witnesses. Otherwise also, I am of the opinion that the testimony of both the abovesaid witnesses does not inspire any confidence at all in the light of their cross­examination. Besides PW2 and PW3, the rest of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff are merely of the official witnesses and as such, I am of the opinion that so far as the alleged fraud, forgery, manipulation and extension of threat as alleged by the plaintiff is concerned, the testimony of the said witnesses is of no help to the case of the plaintiff.

39. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that the said sale deed dated 26.08.2003 is in violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It has to be seen that in para no. 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that he is one of the recorded bhumidhars alongwith other co­bhumidhars of the land of Khasra Nos. 93/20 (4­16), 93/19/1 Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 22/24 (2­06), 93/12/3 (2­06), 30/1 (4­16), 30/2 (4­16), 30/9 (4­16) and 30/10 (4­

12), total measuring 28 bighas and 8 biswas of Khata Khatauni no. 77­ A/77, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Ladpur, Delhi­81. In para no. 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff has asserted that he is also the recorded co­bhumidhars to the extent of 1/4th share in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 29/5/2 (0­12), 29/6/2 (1­01), 31/11 (4­16), 71/1 min. (4­0), 71/2 min. (4­0), 71/3/1 min. (3­15), 71/3/2 (0­05), 71/8 (4­11), 71/9 (4­

16), 71/12 (6­17), 71/19 (3­15), 73/21/2 (1­04) and 73/22 (4­16) situated at Village Ladpur, Delhi. I am of the opinion that in the entire plaint, the plaintiff has failed to disclose as to how much agricultural land is owned by him. As such, to my mind, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the abovesaid sale deed dated 26.08.2003 is in violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

40. The sale deed in question is dated 26.08.2003. The present suit has been instituted only on 25.08.2006. As such, I am of the opinion that in the written final arguments, it has been rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as to why the plaintiff waited for three years for filing the present suit from the date of the execution of the registered sale deed, which also casts a shadow of doubt upon the version of the plaintiff.

41. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove all the abovesaid four issues in his favour and accordingly, all the abovesaid issues i.e. issues no. 1 to 4 are decided against the plaintiff.

Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06) Page No. 23/24

Relief :

42. In the light of my findings on the foregoing issues, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No orders as to the costs.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly by the Reader.

File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. 

Announced in the open court                            (RAJ KUMAR)
on this 02nd day of January 2016.                    ADJ­09 (Central)
                                              Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 




Suit No. 89/14 (Old Suit No. 109/06)                                Page No. 24/24