Delhi District Court
Rajender Bhandari vs Vijay Gaur Ors on 22 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
(1) In the matter of:-
CNR No. DLNT01-001750-2016
CS DJ No. 59502/2016 (Old No. 2117/2009)
Shri Rajender Bhandari
S/o Late Mohan Mal Bhandari
R/o F-97, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1,
Delhi-110052. Plaintiff
Through: Sh. Ankit Gupta,
Advocate.
Versus
1. Sh. Vijay Gaur
S/o Late M.P. Gaur Through : Sh. Rajesh Vashisht
Advocate
2. Smt. Prabha Gaur (since deceased)
W/o Vijay Gaur
Both R/o
A-1, Mahendru Enclave,
Delhi-110033.
Also at :
G-1-30, G.T. Karnal Road,
Delhi-110033.
3. Sh. Dinesh Sharma (since deceased)
S/o Late Deep Chand Sharma
R/o 39/7, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi-110007.
4. Sh. Vijender Bhandari
S/o Late Mohan Mal Bhandari
R/o A-122, First Floor, Kamla Nehru Nagar
Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Through: Sh. V.K. Jha,
Advocate.
5. Smt. Anita Jain VINAY
KUMAR
KHANNA
Digitally signed by
CS no. 59502/2016,
VINAY KUMAR
KHANNA
Date: 2025.01.23
CS No. 57716/2016
11:44:35 +0530
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 1 / 87
W/o Anil Jain
D/o M.M. Bhandari
R/o 703-AV, Odyssey, Wadala,
Bhakti Park, Wadala Estate,
Mumbai-400037.
6. Smt. Sarita Bhandari (Ex-parte vide order
23.11.2019)
W/o Shri A.M. Kothari
R/o 102, Arihant Apartment,
Pali, Marwar, Rajasthan.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 09.11.2009
Date of transfer to District Court : 12.01.2016
&
(2) In the matter of:-
CNR No. DLNT01-001027-2016
CS DJ No. 57713/2016 (Old No. 1497/2010)
Sh. Vijay Gaur
S/o Late M.P. Gaur
R/o A-37, Mahendru Enclave,
Delhi-110033 Plaintiff
Through : Sh. Rajesh Vashist,
Advocate.
Versus
1. Sh. Rajender Bhandari
S/o Late Mohan Mal Bhandari
R/o F-97, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1,
Delhi-110052. Through : Sh. Ankit Gupta,
Advocate.
2. Smt. Anita Jain
W/o Anil Jain
D/o M.M. Bhandari
Digitally
signed by
VINAY
VINAY KUMAR
KUMAR KHANNA
KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23
11:44:43
CS no. 59502/2016, +0530
CS No. 57716/2016
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 2 / 87
R/o 703-AV, Odyssey, Wadala,
Bhakti Park, Wadala Estate,
Mumbai-400037.
3. Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari
W/o Shri Anil Jain
R/o F-97, Ashok Vihar,
Phase-I, New Delhi.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION WITH
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF PARTITION,
POSSESSION & INJUNCTION
Date of initial institution : 26.07.2010
Date of transfer to District Court : 02.03.2016
&
(3) In the matter of:-
CNR No. DLNT01-001030-2016
CS DJ No. 57716/2016 (Old No. 727/2008)
Sh. Vijay Gaur
S/o Late M.P. Gaur
R/o G-1-30, G.T. Karnal Road,
Industrial Area, Delhi-110033. Plaintiff
Through :
Sh. Rajesh Vashist,
Advocate.
Versus
1. Sh. Pradeep Bhardwaj
S/o Surender Bhandari
R/o F-97, Opposite Jain Mandir
Ashok Vihar, Phase -I,
Delhi-110052. Through : Sh. Kaushalender Singh,
Advocate.
2. Sh. Vijender Bhandari
S/o Late Mohan Mal Bhandari
R/o 14/115, Housing Board,
Digitally
signed by
VINAY
CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR
KUMAR KHANNA
KHANNA Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23
11:44:52
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 3 / 87
+0530
Chaupsini, Jodhpur.
Through : Sh. V.K. Jha,
Advocate.
3. S.K. Passi (since deceased)
S/o I.D. Passi
R/o 1st Floor, F-97,
Opposite Jain Mandir,
Ashok Vihar-I, Delhi.
SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF IMMOVABLE
PROPERTY AND FOR DECLARATION
Date of initial institution : 25.04.2008
Date of transfer to District Court : 02.03.2016
Date of judgment : 22.01.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. This common judgment shall decide the aforementioned three civil suits, all filed about 14 years ago and during its pendency before the High Court of Delhi, (in original jurisdiction) were clubbed together vide order dated 02.08.2013. Subsequently, in view of Section 4 of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, the matters were transferred to District Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in the year 2016.
2. Brief factual matrix common in all three cases in a chronological order is as follows : on 23 rd January, 1973, Mohan Mal Bhandari (since deceased) was allotted Plot No. 97, Block F, in Wazirpur Residential Scheme, Ashok Vihar Phase I, Delhi, by the DDA vide a Perpetual Lease Deed executed in his favour. Mohan Mal Bhandari expired on 15 th November, 1976 leaving behind his wife Smt. Ratan Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 4 / 87 2025.01.23 11:45:21 +0530 Kanwar (since deceased) and four children i.e. two sons ( Rajender Kumar Bhandari and Vijender Kumar Bhandari) and two daughters (Smt. Shakuntala Kuthari and Smt. Anita Jain). Smt. Ratan Kanwar had also expired on 17th September, 2005 intestate leaving behind aforementioned four legal heirs.
3. On 19.07.2006, a family settlement (Ex. PW 1/5) was arrived amongst the legal heirs of Late Mohan Mal Bhandari, whereby his legal heirs Smt. Shakuntala Kothari and Anit Jain had relinquished their rights in the suit property in favour of their brothers namely Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari and it was further agreed that ground floor shall be the property of Rajender Bhandari, whereas the first floor will be the property of Vijender Bhandari, and that second floor with roof above became joint property of both brothers. On 18.12.2006, mutation was effected in the record of DDA in favour of only two brothers Rajender Kumar Bhandari and Vijender Kumar Bhandari. On 12.06.2007, Conveyance Deed was also executed by President of India in their favour with respect to property in question.
4. On 29th September, 2006, Vijay Gaur issued a legal notice (Ex. DW 1/6) to Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari calling upon them to execute Sale Deed to enforce agreement to sell dated 02nd March, 2006, which was replied to by Rajender Bhandari vide Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 5 / 87 2025.01.23 11:45:28 +0530 reply dated 06th October, 2006 (Ex. DW 1/7) and also by Vijender Bhandari vide reply of even date (Ex. DW 1/8). Vijay Gaur lodged a criminal complaint at PS Model Town against Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari on 30th October, 2006.
5. In view of non-action on the complaint dated 30th October, 2006, Vijay Gaur filed a complaint case before the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate against Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari, whereupon an FIR No. 359/2007 was registered u/s 420/467/406/34 IPC at PS Model Town.
6. A suit bearing CS (OS) no. 895/2007 was filed by Vijay Gaur seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell executed against Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari, wherein defendants were restrained from alienating, transferring or creating third party interest till the next date of hearing vide order dated 29th May, 2007 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
7. Compromise took place between Vijay Gaur and Vijender Bhandari during the pendency of the suit no. CS (OS) No. 895/2007 and an application u/o 23 Rule 3 CPC dated 01st November, 2007 was moved. On 18th October, 2007, Vijender Kumar Bhandari executed a Sale Deed in favour of Vijay Gaur with respect to the first floor, which was registered as Document no. 10930 Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 6 / 87 11:45:34 +0530 in Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 1429 at Pages 80-87. On 20th December, 2007, another Sale Deed with respect of the half undivided share in portion comprising second floor along with roof rights was also executed and registered by Vijender Bhandari in favour of Vijay Gaur vide Document no. 10340, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. 1518 at Page 103-108. Thereafter, on 22 nd November, 2007, Vijay Gaur had withdrawn his suit bearing CS (OS) No. 895/2007 in the High Court of Delhi.
Pleadings of Parties
8. Case of Rajender Bhandari in main case bearing CS No. 59502/2016 (CS (OS) 2117/09) and defence in case bearing CS 57713/16 (CS (OS) 1497/2010) is that after the demise of his mother, the property in question with the consent of sisters, was mutated in the name of Rajender Bhandari and Sh. Vijender Bhandari, as pleaded in para 6 of his plaint. It is further his case, as set out in para 7 of his plaint, is that after the demise of their mother, Sh. Vijender Bhandari entered into an agreement dated 24.09.2005, whereby they agreed that if anyone among them wanted to sell his share, he will first ask the other for the purchase of the same and in case other one is not interested in purchasing, then only he (who intends to sell his share) will sell his share in the open market.
9. It is further the case of Rajender Bhandari VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date: 2025.01.23 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 7 / 87 11:45:41 +0530 that on 24.12.2005, on being offered by Vijender Bhandari to sell his entire share in property in question, Rajender Bhandari agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and took the possession of the entire property and since then he is in possession of the entire property.
10. It is further pleaded by Sh. Rajender Bhandari that his brother Vijender Bhandari had promised him that he will help Rajender Bhandari in getting the property mutated in their names in DDA record, and they had already applied for free-hold of property with DDA, and thereafter Sh. Vijender Bhandari would execute a registered sale deed in his favour.
11. It is the case of Sh. Rajender Bhandari that aforesaid property got mutuated in favour of two brothers Rajender Bhandari and Sh. Vijender Bhandari on 12.06.2007, whereafter Rajender Bhandari asked Sh. Vijender Bhandari several times for executing the sale deeds in his favour, but his brother Sh. Vijender Bhandari avoided the same on one pretext or the other.
12. It is further the case of Sh. Rajender Bhandari that in the month of November, 2007, he received summons from Hon'ble High Court in respect of suit filed by "Vijay Gaur titled Vijay Gaur Vs. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, Digitally signed by CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 8 / 87 Date: 2025.01.23 11:45:46 +0530 Vijender Bhandari & Ors, bearing CS (OS) No. 895/07", wherein Rajender Bhandari was impleaded as defendant no. 2 and Vijender Bhandari pleaded as defendant no. 1.
13. It is averred that one day Sh. Vijay Gaur tried to illegally enter into the house of the plaintiff stating that he had purchased the same from Sh. Vijender Bhandari, but due to intervention of police, he was stopped. It is averred that again in July, Vijay Gaur tried to enter the suit property, showing him the sale deed executed by Vijender Bhandari in his favour. It is pleaded that subsequently, on enquiry, Rajender Bhandari came to know that Vijay Gaur in connivance with other defendants executed a forged agreement, wherein he (Rajender Bhandari) was also made a party, whereupon his signatures were forged and on the basis of the same, defendants declared Vijender Bhandari as the owner of the suit property. Thereafter, on the basis of the said forged agreement, Vijender Bhandari in connivance with other defendants executed false sale deeds in favour of Vijay Gaur.
14. On behalf of Rajender Bhandari, it was prayed that sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007 qua suit property executed by defendant no. 4 Vijender Bhandari in favour of defendant no. 1 be declared null, void and illegal having no force in law. He further seeks a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR Date:
KHANNA 2025.01.23 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 9 / 87 11:45:52 +0530 defendants from disturbing the possession of Rajender Bhandari in suit property and from creating any third party interest therein.
15. Case of Vijay Gaur in CS No. 57713/16 [CS (OS) 1497/2010)] and CS 57716/16 [CS (OS) 727/2018], and defence in CS 59502/16 [CS (OS) 2117/2009) are that version of the Rajender Bhandari does not hold good as mere execution of alleged agreement to sell dated 24.12.2005 allegedly executed between Rajender Bhandari and his brother Vijender Bhandari does not confer any right, title or interest of the Rajender Bhandari in the suit property, especially when admittedly no sale deed has ever been executed, and also keeping in view the fact that plaintiff Rajender Bhandari and his brother Vijender Bhandari became joint owner of the property in question on 12.06.2007. It is submitted that the suit of the Rajender Bhandari is not maintainable in the present form and that no suit for specific performance has ever been filed by Rajender Bhandari within three years of alleged agreement to sell dated 24.12.2005. It is further submitted that Rajender Bhandari has pleaded for the first time about execution of alleged agreement to sell dated 24.12.2005 only on 11.12.2009 when an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was moved by him seeking impleadment in Civil Suit No. 2/2008 before Ld. Addl. District Judge, Delhi titled as Pradeep Bhardwaj Vs. Vijender Bhandari.
Digitally
signed by
VINAY
VINAY KUMAR
CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA
CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 10 / 87 11:45:58
+0530
16. It is further pleaded by Vijay Gaur that on 02.03.2006 he entered into an agreement to sell with Vijender Bhandari qua sale of first floor and second floor along with roof rights for a total consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/-. However, later on, it was revealed that Vijender Bhandari was owner only to the extent of undivided 50% share of second floor and roof. At the time of execution of agreement dated 02.03.2006, Vijay Gaur had paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Vijender Bhandari as earnest money, and thereafter intermittently amounts total to Rs. 17,00,000/- were paid to Vijender Bhandari, pursuant whereto he was also delivered the possession of first floor of suit property.
17. Since repeated requests made by Vijay Gaur to Vijender Bhandari to execute sale deed in terms of agreement to sell dated 02.03.2006 proved futile, Vijay Gaur filed a suit for specific performance bearing CS (OS) No. 895/2007. During the pendency of the said suit, a compromise was arrived at between them and Vijender Bhandari executed two separate registered sale deeds i.e. first sale deed dated 18.10.2007 in respect of first floor of suit property and second sale deed dated 20.12.2007 in respect of half undivided share of second floor along with roof rights in suit property.
18. It is further averred by Vijay Gaur that on Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 11 / 87 11:46:03
+0530
28.03.2008 at about 7 PM, when he visited the suit property for the purpose of starting some renovation work, he was surprised to see that one Pradeep Bhardwaj had trespassed into the first floor of suit property after breaking open the locks installed by him. A police complaint was lodged by Vijay Gaur in this regard. It is pleaded that in such manner, Rajender Bhandari in collusion with Pradeep Bhardwaj and Vijender Bhandari succeeded in taking over the possession of first floor of suit property illegally and unlawfully. Having left with no other option, Vijay Gaur filed suit bearing CS (OS) No. 727/2008 / [CS 57716/16] seeking possession against Pradeep Bhardwaj, Vijender Bhandari and S.K. Passi, and also lodged an FIR bearing No. 247/2009 dated 27.11.2009 with Economic Offence Wing, u/s 420/467/468/471/380/120B IPC, against Rajender Bhandari, Vijender Bhandari, Pradeep Bhardwaj and Sudarshan Passi. Another FIR bearing no. 359/2007 dated 01.06.2007 was registered at PS Model Town against Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari at the instance of Vijay Gaur.
19. Case of Pradeep Bhardwaj as set out in Written Statement in case CS 57716/16 [CS (OS) 727/08] is that Vijender Bhandari received a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- on two different dates i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- on 25.03.2007 and Rs. 10,00,000/- on 14.08.2007 at the time of handing over the possession of two rooms, Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS No. 57716/2016 11:46:09 +0530 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 12 / 87 kitchen, latrine-bathroom and varanda on front side of first floor of property in question to him and also granted him right to collect rent @ Rs. 1400/- per month from Sudershan Passi who was a tenant in respect of two rooms, store, latrine-bathroom on back side of first floor. In the meantime, since the property rates increased, Vijender Bhandari became dishonest, and in collusion with Vijay Gaur and Rajender Bhandari. It is further the case of Pradeep Bhardwaj that he resided in half portion of the property in question from August, 2007 to December, 2008 and thereafter, he shifted to somewhere else, as he wanted to renovate the same. Pradeep Bhardwaj has also filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. (Pertinently, the said suit of Pradeep Bhardwaj Which could not proceed further as agreement to sell 25.03.2007 impounded by court on 19.03.2010 as Sh. Pradeep Bhardwaj did not pay dues stamp duty and no steps were taken by said Pradeep Bhardwaj in said matter.
20. Case of Vijender Bhandari as set out in Written Statement in CS 57716/2016 (CS OS 727/08) is to the effect that though he agreed to sell the property in question to Vijay Gaur for a total consideration of Rs.
90,00,000/- vide agreement dated 2nd March, 2006, but Vijay Gaur paid only Rs. 25,00,000/- to him. However, Vijay Gaur took him (Vijender Bhandari) in confidence and got executed sale deed dated 18 th October, 2007 in Digitally CS no. 59502/2016, signed by VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 13 / 87 KUMAR KHANNA Date:
KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:46:15 +0530 his favour, and the balance amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- is yet to be paid to him. It is submitted that though Vijay Gaur deposited a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- in the High Court in a earlier suit filed for specific performance but the same was later on withdrawn by him. It is submitted that possession of property in question was never given to Vijay Gaur, as it was to be given only after payment of balance amount of Rs. 65,00,000/-, and that the alleged possession letter was got signed by Vijay Gaur from Vijender Bhandari to secure his money. It is submitted that Vijender Bhandari never proclaimed himself to be the absolute owner of in possession of first and second floor with roof rights. At the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 02.03.2006, the value of first floor of property in question was Rs.90,00,000/-, but Vijay Gaur had paid only Rs. 25,00,000/-. It is denied that Vijay Gaur was ever in occupation or possession of first floor of property in question.
21. Case of S.K. Passi as set out in Written Statement in CS 57716/2016 [CS (OS) 727/08] is to the effect that the present suit filed by Vijay Gaur is barred by provisions of DRC Act, and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of parties as he is a tenant of Rajender Bhandari, who had let out to him the entire first floor of property in question. It is averred that he had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Rajender Bhandari, wherein Rajender Bhandari made a Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 14 / 87 KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:46:22 +0530 statement that he would not dispossess him without following due process of law, and the matter was disposed off as compromised / satisfied vide order dated 08.12.2006. It is averred that he was inducted as tenant in respect of the entire first floor of property in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- per month. It is denied that on any date much less on 24.11.2006, the possession of first floor was handed over to Vijay Gaur by Vijender Bhandari.
22. Written Statement was also filed on behalf of defendant no. 5 Anita Jain in CS 59502/16 [CS (OS) 2117/2009] and CS 57716/16 [CS (OS) 727/08], after her impleadment as party. She denied the exclusive possession or ownership of Rajender Bhandari or Vijender Bhandari qua suit property, submitting that she being the legal heir of Late Mohan Mal Bhandari (who died intestate) had a share in the suit property and is in constructive possession of the same. It is further pleaded that the sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007 are sham documents and no consideration has been paid in any manner by Vijay Gaur and the same have not been signed by competent persons. It was submitted that the alleged family agreement was never executed by her and that same does not have any force in the eyes of law in terms of section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Rest of the contents of the plaint are denied by Anita Jain. Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS no. 59502/2016, 11:46:27 +0530 CS No. 57716/2016 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 15 / 87
23. All the three cases were clubbed and tried together by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 02.08.2013 and following consolidated issues were framed :
ISSUES :
1. Whether the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) No. 2117/2009 is entitled to a decree of declaration against the defendant no. 1 that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no. 1 in December, 2007 be declared as null, void, illegal and having no force in law? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 is entitled to decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their associates, servants and employees etc from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and / or creating third party interest in respect of second floor with roof rights of property bearing Plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme, now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase- I, Delhi? OPP in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
3. Whether the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 entered into any agreement dated 24.09.2005 with his brother Shri Vijender Bhandari? If so, its effect. OPP in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
4. Whether any deal dated 24.12.2005 was entered into by and between the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 and his brother Shri Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 16 / 87 11:46:36
+0530
Vijender Bhandari? If so, its effect. OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
5. Whether no sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 to Shri Vijender Bhandari as stated in paragraph 16 of the preliminary objection? OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 is within time prescribed by law? Onus on parties in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 is maintainable in the present form? OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/009 is based on false, frivolous and vexatious pleas which are inconsistent with the pleas set up by the plaintiff in the previous litigation? If so, its effect. OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
9. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee? OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
10. Whether the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) 1497/2010 is entitled to a decree of declaration against the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff is a co-owner in respect of undivided share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi to the extent of 50%?
OPP in CS (OS) 1497/2010.
VINAY
KUMAR
KHANNA
Digitally signed by
CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR
KHANNA
CS No. 57716/2016 Date: 2025.01.23
11:46:50 +0530
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 17 / 87
11. Whether the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) 1497/2010 is entitled to a decree of partition against the defendant in respect of 50% share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing No. Plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi? OPP in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010.
12. Whether the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010 is entitled to a decree of possession against the defendant in respect of 50% share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing Plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi? OPP in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010.
13. Whether the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010 is entitled to a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his associates, servants and employees etc. from selling, assigning, parting or mortgaging or creating any charge in respect of second floor with roof rights of property bearing plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi? OPP in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010.
14. Whether the defendant in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010 entered into any agreement dated 24.09.2005 with his brother Shri Vijender Bhandari as stated in paragraph 5 of the preliminary objection? If so, its Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 18 / 87 11:46:55 +0530 effect? OPD in CS (OS) 1497/2010.
15. Whether any deal dated 24.12.2005 as stated in paragraph 6 of preliminary objection by defendant in CS (OS) 1497/2010 was entered into by and between the defendant and his brother Shri Vijender Bhandari? If so, its effect. OPD in CS (OS) 1497/2010.
16. Whether no sale consideration was paid by plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 1497/2010 to Shri Vijender Bhandari as stated in paragraph 16 of the preliminary objection? OPD in CS (OS) 1497/2010.
17. Whether Mr. Vijay Gaur plaintiff in CS (OS) 727/2008 is entitled to a decree for possession against the defendants, their associates, assignees etc. including Shri Sudershan Passi in respect of first floor of property bearing No. F-97, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110052? OPP in CS (OS) 727/2008.
18. Whether Mr. Vijender Bhandari executed receipts of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- coupled with handing over of alleged possession in favour of the defendant no. 1 (Rajender Bhandari)? If so, its effect? OPD in CS (OS) 727/2008.
19. Relief.
Separate Additional Issues in all three cases After impleadment of defendant no. 5 in CS 59502/16 / CS OS 2117/2009, the following additional issues were framed in this suit vide order dated 21.04.2017.
Digitally
signed by
VINAY
VINAY KUMAR
KUMAR KHANNA
KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23
CS no. 59502/2016, 11:47:01
+0530
CS No. 57716/2016
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 19 / 87
19. Whether the defendant No. 4 (Vijender Bhandari) has any right to sell the property in question? OPD-4.
20. Whether any Family Settlement was arrived between the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) and defendant No. 4 (Vijender Bhandari) and other co-owners of suit property? OPD-1.
21 If yes, whether the said family settlement is required to be compulsory registered as per Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908? OPD-1.
22. Relief In case CS 57713/16 (CS OS 1497/2010), after impleadment of defendant no. 2, the following additional issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 21.04.2017 :
19. Whether the plaintiff Vijay Gaur has approached this Court without disclosing the true facts and thus has rather concealed material facts? OPD-2 Anita Jain
20. Whether plaintiff Vijay Gaur has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-2 Anita Jain
21. Whether the present suit is without any cause of action? OPD-2 Anita Jain.
22. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued and stamped? OPD-2 Anita Jain.
23. Whether the plaintiff has not complied with VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, Digitally signed by CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 20 / 87 Date: 2025.01.23 11:47:16 +0530 provisions of Order VII Rule 14 and Order VII Rule 18 CPC? OPD-2 Anita Jain.
24. Whether any Family Settlement was arrived between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and other co- owners of suit property? OPD-1.
25. If yer, whether the said family settlement is required to be compulsory registered as per Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908? OPD-1.
26. Relief.
& In case CS 57716/16 (CS OS 727/2008), after impleadment of defendant no. 3, the following additional issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 21.04.2017 :
19. Whether the suit of the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) is barred by the provisions of DRC Act? OPD-3 S.K. Passi.
20. Whether the suit is bad for non-joined and mis joinder of necessary parties? OPD-3 S.K. Passi.
21. Whether the present suit is without any cause of action? OPD-3 S.K. Passi.
22. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-3 S.K. Passi.
23. Relief.
24. In the present cases, Local Commissioner was appointed by the concerned courts at the relevant time to record evidence in the main case, to be read in all VINAY KUMAR KHANNA Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KHANNA Date: 2025.01.23 CS No. 57716/2016 11:47:23 +0530 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 21 / 87 the cases. First of all Rajender Bhandari entered the witness box as PW 1 and he tendered an affidavit in evidence as PW 1/A, and relied upon the following documents :
S.N. Document Date Exhibit
1. Agreement / Settlement 24.09.2005 Ex. PW 1/1
2 Sale Letter 24.12.2005 Ex. PW1/2
3 Photocopy of plaint of suit - Mark PW1/A
CS(OS) No. 895/07 titled as
Vijay Gaur Vs. Vijender
Bhandari and other.
4 Photocopy of agreement 19.07.2006 Mark PW 1/B
(family settlement)
5 photocopy of sale deed dated 18.10.2007 Ex. PW 1/5
6 Photocopy of sale deed 20.12.2007 Ex. PW 1/6
7 Copy of order passed in CS 22.112007 Ex. PW 1/7
(OS) No. 895/2007.
8 Copy of order passed by 18.05.2011 Ex. PW1/8
Hon'ble High Court on
application for grant of
anticipatory bail in FIR No.
247/09
9 Copy of anticipatory bail 12.01.2009 Ex.PW1/9 and
passed by Hon'ble High Court
Ex. PW 1/11
in bail application no.
2603/2008 in FIR No. 359/07.
10. Copy of status report filed by - Ex. PW 1/10
police in bail application in
FIR No. 247/09.
25. PW 2 Pankaj Kumar Singh, Assistant
Manage, Syndicate Bank, Bhanot Building, Nangal Raya, New Delhi produced the summoned record comprising of statement of account of A/C No. 90192210001974, which stands in the name of Vijay Gaur as Ex. PW2/1.
26. PW 3 Dishant Chauhan, Singh Window Operator Grade B, Punjab National Bank, Gujrawala Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23
11:47:29
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 22 / 87 +0530
Town, Delhi brought the summoned record comprising of correspondence i.e. email dated 18.12.2019 and 19.12.2019 as Ex. PW 3/1, and statement of account of A/C No. 1470000100079135 which stands in the name of Vijay Gaur and Prabha Gaur along with transaction details as Ex. PW 3/2 (colly).
27. DW 1 Sachin Oberoi, JSA LAB (residential), DDA, INA Vikas Sadan produced summoned record pertaining to property bearing no. F-97, Ashok Vihar, Delhi as Ex. DW2/X (colly from Page no. 1 to 89).
28. Vijay Gaur entered the witness box as DW 1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW 1/A and relied upon the following documents :
S.no. Document Dated Exhibit
1 Sale deed 18.10.2007 Ex. DW1/1
2 Sale deed 20.12.2007 Mark Y-1
3 Agreement to Sell 02.03.2006 Ex. DW1/3
4 Receipt 02.03.2006 Ex. DW1/4
5 Family Settlement 19.07.2006 Mark Y-4
6 Certified copy of legal notice 29.09.2006 Ex. DW1/6
7 Certified copy of reply issued 06.10.2006 Ex. DW 1/7
by Shri Yogesh Kumar Verma,
Advocarte
8 Certified copy of reply issued 06.10.2006 Ex. DW 1/8
by Shri S. D. Dixit
9 Police complaint 30.10.2006 Ex. DW1/9
10. Agreement / undertaking cum 24.11.2006 Ex. DW 1/10
receipt
11. Possession letter 24.11.2006 Ex. DW 1/11
12. Order passed by High Court in 29.05.2007 Mark Y-2
CS 895/2007
13. Certified copy of application 01.11.2007 Ex. DW 1/13
under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC
Digitally
CS no. 59502/2016, signed by
VINAY
CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR
KUMAR KHANNA
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 23 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23
11:47:34
+0530
14. Certified copy of order passed 22.11.2007 Ex. DW 1/14
by Hon'ble High Court in CS
No. 895/2007.
15. Certified copy of order passed 17.12.2008 Ex. DW 1/15
by Ld. ASJ
16. Certified copy of order passed 12.01.2009 Ex. DW 1/16
by Hon'ble High Court in Bail
Application No. 2603/2008
17. Order passed by Hon'ble High 20.01.2009 Mark Y-3.
Court in CS No. 727/2008.
29. Pradeep Bhardwaj entered the witness box as DW 2 and tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. DW 2/A.
30. On 30.03.2024 Vibhash Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel for Vijender Bhandari made a statement before the court that he does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of Vijender Bhandari as he is a proclaimed offender.
31. On 15.04.2024, in view of statement made by Smt. Anita Jain, her evidence was closed and matter was adjourned for final arguments.
32. This court has heard lengthy arguments advanced by Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel appearing for Rajender Bhandari, Sh. Rajesh Vashist, Ld. Counsel for Vijay Gaur, Sh. Kaushlendra Singh, Ld. Counsel for Pradeep Bhardwaj and Sh. Vibhash Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel for Vijender Bhandari, and have carefully gone through the entire evidence brought on record and the testimony of witnesses.
Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, KHANNA Date: 2025.01.23 11:47:39 +0530 CS No. 57716/2016 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 24 / 87
33. It is pertinent to note the legal position at the outset in order to appreciate the submissions advance and evidence brought on record by the parties in these three connected cases.
Legal Standard.
34. A sale deed of an immovable property is executed in accordance with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the 1882 Act'). Section 54 reads as under :
54. "Sale" defined.--
"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part- promised. Sale how made.--Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.--A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
35. There cannot be any dispute that normally, on the execution of a registered Sale Deed by the owner VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, Digitally signed by CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 25 / 87 Date: 2025.01.23 11:47:45 +0530 of the property, the title in the property subject matter of the Sale Deed stands transferred to the purchaser. Considering the principles laid down in sub−section (4)
(b) of Section 55 of the 1882 Act, the seller will have a charge over the property subject matter of the sale for unpaid consideration and he can enforce the charge by filing a suit.
36. The concept of cancellation of an instrument is discussed under specific Relief. Section 31 to 33 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 deal with "Cancellation of an Instrument". Sec.31 of the Act provides as to when cancellation may be ordered as under:
(1) Any person against whom a written instrument if void or voidable and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
37. If the conditions requisite under section 31 are satisfied, the court can adjudge the instrument to be void or voidable, and Order it to be delivered up and cancelled. Conditions to be fulfilled for cancellation of Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS No. 57716/2016 11:47:52 +0530 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 26 / 87 an instrument are :
(i) Written instrument in question must be either void or voidable as against the plaintiff; (ii) Plaintiff must have reasonable apprehension of serious injury from the instrument being left outstanding; and (iii) In view of all the circumstances of the case, the Court should consider it reasonable and proper to administer the protective and preventive justice asked for.
38. In Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a presumption that a registered document is validity executed. So a registered document is prima facie valid in law. The person who challenges it has to rebut the presumption. In Vidyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that non- payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground.
Discussion and findings on the issues are as under :
Issue 6 :
Whether the suit of the plaintiff in CS(OS) 2117/2009 is within time prescribed by law? Onus on parties in CS(OS) 2117/2009.
39. Rajender Bhandari is seeking declaration on the basis of an unstamped and unregistered agreement Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 27 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:47:58 +0530 dated 24.09.2005, whereby it is asserted that Vijender Bhandari (D4 in lead suit) offered his share in the suit property to Rajender Bhandari - his brother, who agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and took the possession thereof.
40. On behalf of Vijay Gaur it was urged that the alleged agreement at the best only talks about preferential right to acquire property by Rajinder Bhandari against 3rd party. Now the only right which emanates from such agreement is that if Vijender Bhandari sells his share to some other person, Rajinder Bhandari would be entitle to institute a suit of pre- emption against such person and to institute such suit the period of limitation is 1 year according to Article 97 of Limitation Act,1963, which reads as under :
97. To enforce a right of pre-emption whether the right is founded on law or general usage or on special contract. One year. When the purchaser take under the sale sought to be impeached, physical possession of the whole or part of the property sold, or, where the subject matter of the sale does not admit of physical possession of the whole or part of the property, when the instrument of sale is registered.
41. It is submitted that in view of the same the plaintiff in the suit no. CS 59502/16 [CS (OS) 2117/2009] is raising and claiming a time barred relief Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS no. 59502/2016, 11:48:14 +0530 CS No. 57716/2016 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 28 / 87 indirectly by challenging the sale deeds validly executed in favour of Vijay Gaur. It is submitted that alleged deal dated 24.12.2005, has no effect on the suit property as well as it does not create any right, title, interest, in favour of Rajinder Bhandari as it is purportedly a document of sale but the same is neither registered nor stamped and is in clear violation of the mandate of section 54 of TPA and impeaches the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "'Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt.Ltd, vs. State of Haryana & Anr. - 2009 (7) SCC 363".
42. On behalf of Rajender Bhandari, it is submitted that as soon as he came to know that Vijay Gaur in connivance with other defendants including his brother Vijender Bhandari executed forged documents. He approached the court for protection of his rights / ownership in the property in question and that the present suit is within time prescribed by law, as the period of limitation starts from the date as and when Rajender Bhandari came to know about the execution of sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007.
43. As per Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, if any suit, appeal, or application is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the same is liable to be dismissed even though the plea of limitation has not been taken as a defence. Article 59 of the Limitation Act, Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 29 / 87 Date:
KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:48:20 +0530 1963 states that a suit for cancellation of a sale deed must be filed within three years of the aggrieved party becoming aware of the circumstances that entitle them to relief.
44. This court finds no merit in the submission of Ld. Counsel for defendant as this is not a suit for pre- emption but for cancellation of sale deed. Admittedly, the present case was filed on 09.11.2009. Therefore this court finds that the suit filed by Rajender Bhandari seeking cancellation of sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007 respectively, is within the prescribed limitation period of three years.
This issue is accordingly decided in favour of Rajender Bhandari (plaintiff in CS 59502/16 / CS OS 2117/2009).
Issue no. 7 Whether the suit of the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 is maintainable in the present form? OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
45. The onus to prove the said issue was placed upon defendant. On behalf of defendant no. 1, it is submitted that Rajender Bhandari was supposed to file a suit for specific performance as his case is based on alleged unregistered agreement dated dated 24.09.2015, whereby he claims to have purchased the share of Vijender Bhandari in the suit property for Rs.
Digitally
signed by
VINAY
CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR
KUMAR KHANNA
CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 30 / 87 2025.01.23
11:48:26
+0530
15,00,000/-, as described in para no. 27 of plaint.
46. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Rajender Bhandari submits that Rajender Bhandari is claiming his right/title as an "owner, occupier and resident of F-97, Ashok Vihar, Phase -1, Delhi -52 and that is in exclusive possession of entire building Ground Floor, First floor and Second Floor" on the basis of two agreements i.e. agreement dated 24.09.2005 whereby they agreed that if anyone among them wants to sell his share, he would first ask to the other for the purchase of the same, in case the other one is not interested in purchasing, then the only he (who is intending to sell his share) would sold his share in the open Market and second agreement dated 24.12.2005 whereby defendant No. 4 Vijender Bhandari offered his share in the property in question to the Plaintiff Rajender Bhandari and he had purchased the same for Rs. 15,00,000/- and took the possession of the suit property and that since then Plaintiff is in possession.
47. It is argued that as per settled law an Unregistered Agreement do not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the unregistered agreement / documents dated 24.09.2005 and 24.12.2005 mentioned in Plaint do not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the Plaintiff Rajender Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 31 / 87 2025.01.23 11:48:31 +0530 Bhandari.
48. On behalf of defendant, it has been argued that the plaintiff in his plaint has sought a relief of permanent injunction and declaration, without seeking a relief of Specific Performance despite Vijender Bhandari being plaintiff's real brother and with whom he claims to have entered into above mentioned unregistered agreements / documents dated 24.09.2005 and 24.12.2005 as the plaintiff knew that the relief of Specific Performance is barred by law. It is further submitted that it is well settled position in law that "an unregistered document / agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence". It is further submitted that as plaintiff could not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as same was Unregistered he filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. In the present case, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he cannot get in a suit for specific performance.
49. It was further argued that Rajender Bhandari has deliberately omitted to seek other relief of specific performance, (proviso 34 RELIEF ACT) and that plaintiff without seeking the relief of Specific Performance cannot seek the relief of Permanent Injunction and Declaration against Registered Sale Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA Date:
KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23 11:48:37 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 32 / 87 +0530 Deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20,12.2007 on basis of mere Unregistered Agreements / documents as mentioned in the Plaint. Reliance was placed on Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi 2022 SCC Online SC.
50. As per case of Rajender Bhandari the property was got mutated in his favour and in favour of his brother Vijender Bhandari on 12.06.2007 meaning thereby that they both become the joint owner of the entire undivided property in question i.e. F-97, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, having ground floor, first floor and second floor. During arguments Sh. Ankit Gupta Ld. Counsel for Rajender Bhandari submitted that since the sale deed had already been executed by Vijender Bhandari in favour of Vijay Gaur, therefore the suit of specific performance as regards suit property was not maintainable, and it could only be filed seeking declaration earlier to the effect that sale deeds were null and void.
51. In the present matter, the executant of Sale Deeds Vijender Bhandari is not seeking cancellation of sale deeds. Pertinently, said Vijender Bhandari's counsel Sh. Vibhash Kumar Jhas has been participating in the proceedings and he even made statement on 30.03.2024 that he does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of Vijender Bhandari. However, Rajender Bhandari is not seeking relief of declaration that he be declared as the Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 33 / 87 2025.01.23 11:48:43 +0530 owner of the portion sold by Vijender Bhandari in favour of Vijay Gaur i.e. first floor and ½ portion of second floor, therefore proviso 34 is not applicable to the present suit. Suit filed by Rajender Bhandari is for cancellation of sale deeds by a non-executant, which is maintainable. Therefore, issue is decided in favour of plaintiff Rajender Bhandari.ISSUE No. 9
Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee? OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009
52. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the defendant Vijay Gaur. Ld. Counsel for Vijay Gaur during arguments submitted that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. Before filing of his suit, Hon'ble High Court in CS (OS) No. 727/2008 i.e. CS 57716/2016 (one of the present suit) vide Order dated 20.01.2009 was pleased to pass an interim order directing parties concerned i.e. Shri Pradeep Bhardwaj and Mr. S.K. Passi to maintain status quo qua possession and title of the suit property, who were further restrained from encumbering the property in any manner. Therefore it is clear that Rajender Bhandari was not in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of suit i.e. in November 2009.
53. Law is well settled that where a person who Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 34 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:48:49 +0530 has not executed a sale deed and is in possession of the property seeks declaration, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee under Article 17 (iii) of the Second Schedule of Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The position would be different in case the person seeking a declaration is not in possession of the property, then ad- valorem court fee as per Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act is to be paid.
54. Pertinently, in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an issue regarding court fee payable in regard to the prayer for seeking declaration that sale deeds were void and were not binding on the co- parcenery as well as for consequential relief for joint possession and injunction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' -- two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is CS no. 59502/2016, Digitally signed by CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 35 / 87 KUMAR Date:
KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:48:55 +0530 invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to RCA No.43/18 Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anuradha Chowdhry & Ors Page No. 10/14 merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad- valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause
(v) of Section 7.
55. In view of the above, this court finds that suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fees. The issue is decided accordingly.
Issue no. 3, 4, 14 and 15.
3. Whether the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 entered into any agreement dated 24.09.2005 with his brother Shri Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, KHANNA Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 36 / 87 11:49:00
+0530
Vijender Bhandari? If so, its effect. OPP in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
14. Whether the defendant (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010 entered into any agreement dated 24.09.2005 with his brother Shri Vijender Bhandari as stated in paragraph 5 of the preliminary objection? If so, its effect? OPD in CS (OS) 1497/2010.
4. Whether any deal dated 24.12.2005 was entered into by and between the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 and his brother Shri Vijender Bhandari? If so, its effect. OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
15. Whether any deal dated 24.12.2005 as stated in paragraph 6 of preliminary objection by defendant in CS (OS) 1497/2010 was entered into by and between the defendant and his brother Shri Vijender Bhandari? If so, its effect. OPD in CS (OS) 1497/2010.
56. These issues being inter connected are taken up together. In these four issues, in short, the question to be addressed is whether Rajender Bhandari entered into agreements dated 24.09.2005 and 24.12.2005 with his brother Sh. Vijender Bhandari?
57. The mother of Rajender Bhandari and Sh. Vijender Bhandari had died intestate on 17.09.2005. As per case of Rajender Bhandari the agreement was entered into between him and Sh. Vijender Bhandari on 24.09.2005 regarding selling of their shares and on 24.12.2005, Sh. Vijender Bhandari had offered his share in the property, which Rajender Bhandari claims to have purchased in a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and took possession as well.
Digitally
signed by
VINAY VINAY KUMAR
CS no. 59502/2016, KHANNA
KUMAR Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA 2025.01.23
11:49:06
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 37 / 87 +0530
58. Rajender Bhandari has not specified how much share was purchased by him, whether it was ½ th share or ¼th share as submitted during arguments. Perusal of material on record makes it clear that the shares of two brothers had been ascertained. It may be noted that admittedly, with the consent of their sisters, the property in question had been mutated in the name of Rajender Bhandari and Sh. Vijender Bhandari, as the case pleaded by Rajender Bhandari himself, and this implies that both the brothers were having equal share in the said property. Initially, an oral family settlement took place and only thereafter, questions of sale of shares by Vijender Bhandari could have arisen, as per case of Rajender Bhandari also. Now, according to Rajender Bhandari, Sh. Vijender Bhandari, who appears to be behind the root cause of controversy, had allegedly sold his share to Rajender Bhandari. He allegedly also agreed to sell his share to Pradeep Bhardwaj and agreed to sell his share of first floor and second floor along with roof rights to Vijay Gaur by obtaining money from all of them but fact remains that he had executed two registered sale deeds in favour of only Vijay Gaur.
59. The entire claim of Rajender Bhandari is based upon two handwritten, unstamped unregistered documents dated 24.09.2005 and 24.12.2005 i.e. Ex. PW 1/1 and Ex. PW 1/2 respectively. During his cross Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 38 / 87 2025.01.23 11:49:13 +0530 examination dated 21.02.2015 conducted on behalf of defendants, Rajender Bhandari as PW 1 deposed that documents Ex. PW 1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 were in the handwriting of Vijender Bhandari and that the same do not bear his (Rajender Bhandari's) signature though the same were prepared in his presence.
60. PW 1 Rajender Bhandari also deposed in his cross examination that he did not think it necessary to visit any deed writer / document writer for preparation of Ex. PW 1/1, nor did he consult any lawyer whether writing like Ex. PW 1/1 could be executed. He further testified that perhaps, he set up document Ex. PW 1/1 in CS 59502/16 [CS (OS) 2117/2009] for the first time. Rajender Bhandari has categorically admitted that he had not filed any suit for specific performance against his brother Vijender Bhandari to get the agreement Ex. PW 1/1 executed. Strangely Rajender Bhandari deposed that perhaps he wrote letters to Vijender Bhandari for execution of transfer documents but he could not tell date, month or year of those letters.
61. Perusal of documents Ex. PW 1/1 and Ex. PW 1/2 shows that the same are drafted on plain paper, and bear alleged signature of Vijender Bhandari and no other person including Rajinder Bhandari, who claims to be the beneficiary from these agreements. Vijender Bhandari, alleged signatory of these documents, has not Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA Date:
KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23 11:49:19 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 39 / 87 +0530 been got examined in court. Further, it is the own admission of Rajender Bhandari that execution of these agreements Ex. PW 1/1 and PW 1/2 was disclosed, by him for the first time, while filing the present suit i.e. CS 59502/16 [CS (OS) 2117/2009) for declaration and permanent injunction against Shri Vijay Gaur on 04.11.2009, though he had dispute with defendants including Vijay Gaur, Vijender Bhandari since long. No explanation has been furnished as to why he did not disclose about those documents in previous litigations.
Further more, Rajinder Bhandari never disclosed about this Plain Paper agreement before any other authorities including DDA while getting property mutated in the joint name of himself and Shri Vijender Bhandari on 12.06.2007. Even in the case CS(OS)895/2007 filed by Shri Vijay Gaur against Vijender Bhandari and Rajinder Bhandari for Specific Performance, or while filing his Bail Applications before the Hon'ble High Court in the year 2009, there is no mention about execution of any such document. It may be noted that in the suit CS 02/2008 filed by Shri Pradeep Bhardwaj for specific performance, Rajinder Bhandari while filing his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC himself mentioned as only a co-owner of the property along with Shri Vijender Bhandari
62. It is apparent that documents allegedly executed by Vijender Bhandari in favour of Rajender Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 40 / 87 11:49:26 +0530 Bhandari are merely on plain papers and without paying any stamp duty till date, and they have no legal consequence or effect in law. Even if the contention of Rajender Bhandari is accepted and agreement dated 24.09.2005 Ex. PW 1/1 is gone through, such document only confers a right to preferential right to acquire property by Rajinder Bhandari as against any other 3rd party. The only right which emanated from such agreement was for Rajinder Bhandari's entitlement to institute a suit of pre-emption against such 3rd person within a period of one year as per Limitation Act,1963.
Admittedly, no such suit was ever filed by Rajender Bhandari.
63. Agreement Ex. PW1/2, by any stretch of imagination cannot be termed as agreement to sell as neither it is signed by both parties nor has it been got registered. Further more, it is well settled that an agreement for sale in respect of an immovable property does not transfer title in favour of the purchaser under the agreement. In view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property. The only mode by which an immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) can be sold is by a sale deed duly registered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Digitally
signed by
VINAY
VINAY KUMAR
KUMAR KHANNA
KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23
11:49:32
+0530
CS no. 59502/2016,
CS No. 57716/2016
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 41 / 87
64. This court is of considered opinion that agreements dated 24.09.2005 Ex. PW 1/1 and 24.12.2005 Ex. PW 1/2 have no legal validity and it is held accordingly. All these issues i.e. issue nos. 3, 4, 15 and 16 are decided accordingly against Rajender Bhandari and in favour of Sh. Vijay Gaur.
Issue no. 5 :
Whether no sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 to Shri Vijender Bhandari as stated in paragraph 16 of the preliminary objection? OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
65. The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon defendants in CS (OS) 2117/2009. Question is whether any sale consideration or more particularly Rs.
15,00,000/- was paid by Rajender Bhandari to his brother Vijender Bhandari. To answer this question, one need to go through the testimony of Rajender Bhandari. Admittedly, no receipt qua alleged payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- by Rajender Bhandari to Sh. Vijender Bhandari has been placed or proved on record.
66. During cross examination of Rajender Bhandari, it remained an admitted fact by the Plaintiff that he did not have any proof to support the claim that he ever paid any sale consideration to Vijender Bhandari. Further more, no registration or stamp duty has been paid to any authorities. It has already been held above Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 42 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:49:38 +0530 that documents Ex. agreements dated 24.09.2005 and 24.12.2005 i.e. Ex. PW 1/1 and PW 1/2 have no legal validity and hence it is held that there is no documentary / satisfactory evidence on record to establish that Rajender Bhandari paid any sale consideration to his brother Sh. Vijender Bhandari. Issue no. 5 is accordingly decided.
Issue no. 8 :
Whether the suit of the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/009 is based on false, frivolous and vexatious pleas which are inconsistent with the pleas set up by the plaintiff in the previous litigation? If so, its effect. OPD in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
67. In this suit, plaintiff is seeking declaration that sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007 executed by his brother Sh. Vijender Bhandari in favour of Vijay Gaur with respect to his equal share in the property in question be declared null and void. The version of Vijay Gaur is that this suit filed by Rajender Bhandari is false, frivolous and vexatious, pleas which are inconsistent with the pleas set up in previous proceedings. The main pleas, which has been taken up on behalf of Rajender Bhandari are disputing the family settlement on the one hand and claiming that both the sisters as well as each of the brother were having 1/4th share in the property but on the other hand admitting that mutation of the property in question has been effected in Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 43 / 87 KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:49:44 +0530 favour of two brothers only in his own pleadings itself but at the same time his contradictory version is that Sh. Vijender Bhandari his brother sold his share to him for a consideration Rs. 15,00,000/- vide unregistered and unstamped document written on a plain paper, bearing signature of only Vijender Bhandari.
68. Sh. Rajesh Vashist Ld. counsel appearing for Vijay Gaur submitted that this alleged agreement dated 24.12.2005 was disclosed for the first time by Rajender Bhandari while filing his suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Vijay Gaur after almost four years on 04.11.2009.
69. Material on record shows that a family settlement had occurred between brothers and sisters, wherein two sisters Shakuntala Kothari and Anita Jain relinquished their share and it was on the basis of this understanding and settlement that two brothers applied for and got the property mutated in name of two brothers only, on 12.06.2007 and also conveyance deed later on. Admittedly Rajender Bhandari as well as his brother Sh. Vijender Bhandari both had executed documents including affidavits and indemnity bonds. At page 76 of Ex. DW2/DX1 (record produced by DDA - DW2), there is an indemnity bond executed jointly by Rajender Bhandari and Sh. Vijender Bhandari, wherein they claimed that they were the only legal heirs and Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 44 / 87 2025.01.23 11:49:50 +0530 successors of deceased and had become co-owners in the property in question, which was allotted to late Sh. M.M. Bhandari, on the basis of perpetual lease deed. At page no. 80 of Ex. DW2/DX1, there is an affidavit of Rajender Bhandari and at page no. 83 of Ex. DW2/DX1 there is an affidavit of Sh. Vijender Bhandari, wherein they had mentioned only their names i.e. Rajender Bhandari and Sh. Vijender Bhandari as legal heirs. These documents had been attested on 18.10.2006. Neither of the sister has chosen to enter the witness box to claim their share in the suit property. Therefore, this fact supports the factum of pre-existence of family settlement. The court has to consider the totality of facts and circumstances, the conduct of the parties and pre- ponderance of probabilties and Rajender Bhandari cannot be allowed to blow cold and hot in the same breath.
70. It has already been held above that the documents Ex. PW1/1 and PW 1/2, upon which the case of the plaintiff hings, do not have any legal validity, being unstamped and unregistered. It is also noted that suit CS No. 59502/2016 has been filed after about one year of filing of the suit CS No. 57716/2016, wherein Rajender Bhandari, for the first time has come up with purported agreements dated 24.09.2005 and 24.12.2005. Further more, admittedly no suit for specific performance has been filed by Rajender Bhandari till Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 45 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:49:55 +0530 date. All these facts establish that Rajender Bhandari has not been able to show any fraud or foul play on the part of Vijay Gaur. Accordingly, it is held that suit no. CS 59502/16 [CS (OS) 2117/2009] is based on inconsistent and false pleas.
This issue no. 8 is decided accordingly against Rajender Bhandari and in favour of Vijay Gaur.
Issue no. 18 :
Whether Mr. Vijender Bhandari executed receipts of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- coupled with handing over of alleged possession in favour of the defendant no. 1 (Pradeep Bhardwaj)? If so, its effect? OPD in CS (OS) 727/2008.
71. The version of Pradeep Bhardwaj is to the effect that in the year 2007, on coming to know that Vijender Bhandari wanted to sell first floor of the suit property, approached him for purchasing the same and after negotiations, Vijender Bhandari agreed to sale the said floor to him for a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- on 25.03.2007, and he executed one earnest money / bayana receipt after receiving of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash out of total consideration amount of Rs.18,00,000/- in the presence of two witnesses. Vide said agreement Vijender Bhandari had undertaken that he would first get the property mutated in his name in the record of DDA and after completion of all the formalities in DDA, the balance payment of Rs. 13,00,000/- shall be paid by the Pradeep Bhardwaj to Vijender Bhandari. Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS no. 59502/2016, 2025.01.23
CS No. 57716/2016 11:50:00
+0530
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 46 / 87
72. It is submitted that as per the family settlement dated 19.07.2006, Vijender Bhandari became the owner of the first floor of suit property, which supports the version of Vijay Gaur as well. Subsequently, the conveyance deed dated 12.06.2007 was executed in favour of Rajender Bhandari and Sh. Vijender Bhandari. The version of Pradeep Bhardwaj is that on 14.08.2007, he paid Rs. 10,00,000/- to Sh. Vijender Bhandari against a receipt cum possession letter executed by Vijender Bhandari in favour of Pradeep Bhardwaj in the presence of two witnesses, wherein Sh. Vijender Bhandari handed over the actual possession of two rooms, kitchen and latrine, bathroom and varandah on the front side of first floor of suit property and constructive possession of two rooms, store and latrine, bathroom on back side of first floor being given to Pradeep Bhardwaj along with right to collect the rent from tenant @ 1400/- per month who is occupying the said back portion with effect from 01.09.2007 as the said tenant was earlier in tenancy in the entire first floor much prior to 25.03.2007 @ Rs. 2500/- per month and thereafter, the said tenant Sudarshan Passi started paying rent to Pradeep Bhardwaj regularly @ Rs. 1400/- per month.
73. It is further his case that Pradeep Bhardwaj resided in the said property from 14.08.2007 till December, 2007. Thereafter, Sh. Pradeep Bhardwaj Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 47 / 87 KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:50:06 +0530 made several request to Sh. Vijender Bhandari to execute the registered sale deed in his favour, but to no avail. On 13.12.2007 at about 07:50 pm Pradeep Bharadwaj received a threatening call from Vijender Bhandari to dispossess him from the suit premises forcibly, upon which Pradeep Bhardwaj made a written complaint to P.S. vide DD No. 62B, dated 13.12.2007 qua that incident. Having left with no other option, Pradeep Bharadwaj filed a suit titled as "Pradeep Bhardwaj Vs Vijender Bhandari" vide CS No. 02/2008 before Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, wherein Vijender Bhandari appeared and admitted the possession of Pradeep Bhardwaj in the first floor of F-97, Ashok Vihar, Phase 1, Delhi and on the basis of the same, status quo order as regard suit property was passed.
74. Subsequently, in the said suit, the concerned court directed Sh. Pradeep Bhardwaj to pay the stamp duty on the documents upon which Pradeep Bhardwaj relied vide order dated 19.03.2010 and also impounded the documents. The said order was challenged by the Pradeep Bhardwaj before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide CM(M No. 587/2010 and CM No. 799/2010 but same was upheld vide order dated 01.11.2011 and thereafter suit filed by Pradeep Bhardwaj was dismissed as non-prosecution vide order dated 07.07.2012.
75. Pradeep Bhardwaj has neither paid requisite VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 Digitally signed by CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 48 / 87 VINAY KUMAR KHANNA Date: 2025.01.23 11:50:13 +0530 stamp duty nor took any steps for revival of his said case since more than 12 years. Therefore, now indisputably, there is no legal claim of Pradeep Bhardwaj in the suit property and he cannot get any relief in the face of duly registered sale deeds of the portion of property in favour of Vijay Gaur.
76. Pradeep Bhardwaj in his deposition as DW2 placed on record copies of the receipts as Ex. DW 2/1 and DW 2/2. Scrutiny of the said receipts shows that both the said receipts are allegedly signed by Sh. Vijender Bhandari and two witnesses Vipin Kumar and Surinder Bhardwaj and are not signed by Sh. Pradeep Bhardwaj, who made the alleged payments of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/-. The said documents are unstamped and unregistered, and as discussed above, the same do not have any validity in the eyes of law. None of signatures of said receipts have been got examined. In the result, payment of said amount by Pradeep Bhardwaj to Vijender Bhandari is not proved on record. However, he could have exercised his right to recover his money from Vijender Bhandari but it appears no steps are taken by him till date in that regard.
Accordingly, this issue no. 8 is decided against Pradeep Bhardwaj.
Issue no. 19, 20 and 21 CS 59502/16 (CS (OS) 2117/2009 and Issue no. 24 and 25 in CS 57713/16 (CS Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 49 / 87 KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:50:18 +0530 OS 1497/2010)
19. Whether the defendant No. 4 (Vijender Bhandari) has any right to sell the property in question? OPD-4.
20. Whether any Family Settlement was arrived between the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) and defendant No. 4 (Vijender Bhandari) and other co-owners of suit property? OPD-1.
21 If yes, whether the said family settlement is required to be compulsory registered as per Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908? OPD-1.
24. Whether any Family Settlement was arrived between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and other co-owners of suit property? OPD-1.
25. If yes, whether the said family settlement is required to be compulsory registered as per Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908? OPD-1.
77. These issues are being taken up together being interconnected and related to the validity of family settlement dated 19.07.2006 Ex. PW 1/5. The onus to prove the issue no. 19 was placed on defendant no. 4 Sh. Vijender Bhandari, who chose not to enter the witness box. As regards, issue no. 20 the onus to prove the said issue was placed on Vijay Gaur, who claimed that after Vijender Bhandari became the sole owner of first floor and ½ undivided portion of second floor with roof rights, he purchased the same from Vijender Bhandari. It is to be noted that these issues were not framed initially CS no. 59502/2016, Digitally signed by CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 50 / 87 KUMAR Date:
KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:50:24 +0530 during its pendency in the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 02.08.2013 and these issues were framed only after defendant Anita Jain (sister Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari) was impleaded. Surprisingly, though Anita Jain placed on record her affidavit in evidence dated 07.01.2020 but she chose not to enter the witness box for the reasons best known to her and it remained a case of no evidence on her part. In fact, both sisters of Rajender Bhandari have not chosen to depose against Vijay Gaur which substantiate the case regarding their family settlement. It is actually on the basis of this family settlement that the property was got mutated by both brothers namely Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari in their names before DDA and said mutation has never been challenged by them. It has already been discussed above that no suit to question it has ever been filed by any party having interest in the said family settlement.
78. Now, the question is whether the said family settlement is required to be compulsory registered per Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908? Section 17 reads as under :
17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.--(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KHANNA KUMAR Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:50:29 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 51 / 87 +0530 or this Act came or comes into force, namely:--
(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;
(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and
(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
1[(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:]
79. This court finds that a family settlement was arrived at between the legal heirs of late M.M. Bhandari, and Vijender Bhandari had a right to sell the property in question, which he actually sold to Vijay Gaur on the basis of due mutation as well as conveyance deed existing in his favour and non-registration of family settlement reduced in writing later on has no effect on the right, title and interest of Vijay Gaur.
These issues no. 19, 20, 21, 24 & 25 are decided against Rajender Bhandari and in favour of Vijay Gaur.
Digitally
signed by
VINAY
CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR
KUMAR KHANNA
CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 52 / 87 11:50:34
+0530
ISSUES No. 19, 20, & 21 in CS 57713/16 (CS OS 1497/2010)
19. Whether the plaintiff Vijay Gaur has approached this Court without disclosing the true facts and thus has rather concealed material facts? OPD-2 Anita Jain
20. Whether plaintiff Vijay Gaur has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-2 Anita Jain
21. Whether the present suit is without any cause of action? OPD-2 Anita Jain.
80. These issues are taken up together being inter linked, having been framed only after impleadment of sister Anita Jain. As noted above, though Anita Jain had placed on record her affidavit in evidence, but chose not to enter the witness box to tender her affidavit in evidence and she did not subjected herself to cross examination. Therefore, Anita Jain has failed to establish her assertions / pleadings.
81. Vijender Bhandari has executed two registered sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007 in favour of Vijay Gaur thereby selling the first floor and 50% undivided portion of second floor with roof rights. The contention raised on behalf of Anita Jain to the effect that Vijay Gaur approached this court without disclosing the true facts and thus has concealed material facts has no merits. Further more, this court is of the CS no. 59502/2016, Digitally signed by CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 53 / 87 KUMAR Date:
KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:50:41 +0530 considered opinion from the evidence on record and foregoing discussion that Vijay Gaur has locus standi to file the present suit seeking declaration with consequential relief of partition, possession & injunction.
Accordingly, these issues i.e. issue nos. 19, 20, 21 are decided in favour of Vijay Gaur and against Anita Jain and Rajender Bhandari.
Issue no. 22 in CS 57713/16 (CS OS 1497/2010)
22. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued and stamped? OPD-2 Anita Jain.
82. This court finds from evidence on record and in view of my findings on issue no. .. that suit has been properly valued and that Anita Jain has failed to discharge her onus. This issue is decided accordingly against her.
Issue no. 23 in CS 57713/16 (CS OS 1497/2010) Whether the plaintiff has not complied with provisions of Order VII Rule 14 and Order VII Rule 18 CPC? OPD-2 Anita Jain.
83. The onus to prove this issue was on Anita Jain. She has failed to discharge her onus as no evidence was led by her. She has failed to establish as to how the plaintiff has not complied with the procedural provision u/O VII Rule 14 CPC. Order VII Rule 14 CPC relates with production of documents, and the court can grant the leave to produce the documents, which are not listed Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 54 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:50:46 +0530 at the time of presentation of the plaint. Order VII Rule 18 CPC has been ommitted by the Act 22 of 2002.
Accordingly, this issue is decided against Anita Jain and in favour of Vijay Gaur. Issue no. 19, 20, 21 and 22 in CS 57716/16 (CS OS 727/2008)
19. Whether the suit of the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) is barred by the provisions of DRC Act? OPD-3 S.K. Passi.
20. Whether the suit is bad for non-joined and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD-3 S.K. Passi.
21. Whether the present suit is without any cause of action? OPD-3 S.K. Passi.
22. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-3 S.K. Passi.
84. These issues were framed on 21.04.2017 and onus to prove these issues was on Sh. S.K. Passi. However, no evidence has been led by Sh. S.K. Passi or any of his LRs as Sh. S.K. Passi is stated to have expired. In the absence of any evidence on these issues, the same are decided in favour of Vijay Gaur and against the dednfant.
Issue no. 1 and 2 :
1. Whether the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) No. 2117/2009 is entitled to a decree of declaration against the defendant no. 1 that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no. 1 in December, 2007 be declared as null, void, illegal Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 55 / 87 11:50:52
+0530
and having no force in law? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff (Rajender Bhandari) in CS (OS) 2117/2009 is entitled to decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their associates, servants and employees etc from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and / or creating third party interest in respect of second floor with roof rights of property bearing Plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme, now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi? OPP in CS (OS) 2117/2009.
85. These issues are regarding entitlement of decree by Rajender Bhandari with respect to sale deed executed in December 2007. In the prayer clause 28 (a), the sale deeds are dated 18.10.2007 and 12.12.0007 are described. Plaintiff is seeking declaration that the sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007, which are in respect of first floor and 1/2 portion of second floor, be declared null and void.
86. The basis of the suit of the plaintiff Rajender Bhandari was that in June, 2007, entire property had been mutated in the name of two brothers Vijender Bhandari and Rajender Bhandari and they jointly applied for conversion of property from lease hold to free hold, and Vijender Bhandari sold the property to Rajender Bhandari on 24.12.2005. He had agreed to execute the necessary documents after property had become freehold. But instead of executing sale deed in favour of Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 56 / 87 2025.01.23 11:50:58 +0530 Rajender Bhandari, he executed sale deed in favour of Vijay Gaur with respect of first floor and ½ portion of second floor.
87. It is further case of Rajender Bhandari that Vijay Gaur in connivance with other defendants including Vijender Bhandari executed a forged documents, in which they made plaintiff a party and forged his signatures, and with the help of forged document, defendant Vijender Bhandari was declared as owner of suit property.
88. In para no. 20 of the plaint, Rajender Bhandari has pleaded about execution of a forged agreement, wherein he was made a party and that the defendants had forged his signatures and with the help pf that forged documents, defendants declared defendant no. 4 Vijender Bhandari as owner of the suit property.
89. During arguments, it was submitted on behalf of Rajender Bhandari that this forged documents was actually a family settlement dated 19.07.2006, on the basis of which Vijender Bhandari was declared as owner of first floor and ½ portion of second floor, and Rajender Bhandari was declared as owner of ground floor and ½ portion of second floor. On asking, during arguments, it was submitted that at the time of filing the suit Rajender Digitally CS no. 59502/2016, signed by VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 57 / 87 KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:51:08 +0530 Bhandari was not aware as to which was the forged document or whether this forged document was a family settlement.
90. It is found false on the face of record that Rajender Bhandari was not aware family settlement. Admittedly, in plaint Rajender Bhandari has not disclosed when he had come to know about the alleged forged document / family settlement.
91. Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. counsel submitted that Vijender Bhandari - brother of Rajender Bhandari was not competent to execute sale deeds and that this fact was in the knowledge of buyer Vijay Gaur. This court finds no merit in the contention of Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel appearing for Rajender Bhandari that doctrine of lis-pendeus applies. Vijay Gaur purchased the property during pendency of said suit by virtue of the sale deed from Sh. Vijender Bhandari in breach of status quo order in the suit CS (OS) No. 895/2007 seeking specific performance of agreemtn with Vijender Bhandari filed by Vijay Gaur in May, 2007, vide order dated 29.05.2007 Hon'ble High Court has restrained the defendants from alienating transferring or creating any third party right or parting with the possession till next date of hearing. On the next date i.e. 13.06.2007, when the case was again taken up it was mentioned that loans Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 58 / 87 KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:51:14 +0530 were being arranged and plaintiff was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 43,00,000/- within two weeks and matter was listed on 05.07.2007. Parties Vijay Gaur and Sh. Vijender Bhandari were negotiating settlement and Sh. Kamal Mehta, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 2 Rajender Bhandari had also appeared in the court on 22.11.2007 during the pendency of application u/O XXIII Rule 3 CPC, Hon'ble High Court declined to gave any time stating that application did not relate to him and that if he had any remedy in law, he could pursue the same and the application u/o XXIII Rule 3 CPC filed jointly by Vijay Gaur and Vijender Bhandari was allowed and suit CS (OS) 895/2007 was dismissed as withdrawn.
92. Perusal of record shows that notice dated 29.09.2006 Ex. DW 1/6 was given by Vijay Gaur to both Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari, which was replied by them vide reply dated 06.10.2006 (Ex. DW 1/7) by Rajender Bhandari and reply dated 06.10.2006 (Ex. DW1/8) by Vijender Bhandari. On receipt of the notice, Vijay Gaur lodged a complaint dated 30.102006 with SHO PS Model Town against Vijender Bhandari, Rajender Bhandari, as well as two sisters Anita Jain, Shakuntala and Sandhya Jain wife of Vijender Bhandari, regarding cheating and forgery, whereupon an FIR 359/07 was registered u/s 420/120 B IPC. Charge-sheet in the said FIR was filed, and during trial Vijender Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 59 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:51:21 +0530 Bhandari has been declared as proclaimed offender, whereas Rajender Bhandari was discharged, and the said discharge order was challenged by Vijay Gaur, but upheld by Ld. Sessions Court. The observation made by the court in criminal proceedings at the stage of bail or charge cannot be given much weight in tilting the balance in a civil proceeding as standard of proof are totally different. DW 2/X is the record of DDA as regards mutation of property in the name of Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari. It is pertinent to note counsel Sh. Vibhash Kumar Jha had been appearing for Vijender Bhandari, who informed the court that Vijender Bhandari is proclaimed offender in criminal proceedings pending against him.
93. It was pointed out that in mutation proceedings in the name of Vijender Bhandari and Rajender Bhandari indemnity bond was also executed jointly by Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari apart from affidavits. In the affidavits, it is also mentioned that late M.M. Bhandari left behind Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari and they had no objection in case mutation is cancelled in case of concealment of facts. If facts were concealed, those were concealed by both brothers in collusion with each other.
94. The contention raised on behalf of Rajender Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 Date:
KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 60 / 87 2025.01.23 11:51:27 +0530 Bhandari that on the specimen signatures of Rajender Bhandari, photograph of Vijender Bhandari is pasted and similarly above the specimen signature of Vijender Bhandari, photograph of Rajender Bhandari is pasted, does not suggest any foul play as indisputably these are signatures and photographs of two brothers only and not of any third person. Mutation letter dated 18.12.2006 is Ex. DW 2/X1, vide which property was mutated in the name of Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhandari. Further the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for Rajender Bhandari that Vijender Bhandari had obtained signatures of Rajender Bhandari on blank papers for mutation purpose has not been established by any cogent evidence and the same appears to be after thought unworthy of any credibility.
95. Rajender Bhandari had been summoned in the matter in IA No. 895/2007 in May 2010, filed on 10.05.2007 along with list of document and in list at serial No. 4 is copy of family settlement dated 19.07.2006 alleged to have been executed between legal heirs of deceased Rajender Bhandari. Pertinently, he in his own pleadings referred above, admitted that there was an oral settlement.
96. It is to be further noted that Rajender Bhandari has not specified the date of his knowledge of this Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 61 / 87 2025.01.23 11:51:34 +0530 alleged family settlement / deed and has not specified the same in the plaint. It is also the admitted fact that in CS 57713/16 (CS OS 1497/2010) filed by Vijay Gaur against Rajender Bhandari, written statement was filed wherein copy of family settlement was attached and the list of documents in the index at page No. 38-40.
97. Indisputably, Rajender Bhandari or other LRs have not sought any declaration for cancellation of the family settlement dated 19.05.2006 but the edifice of their claim seeking declaration for cancellation of sale deed, is based on the challenge to said family settlement.
In Para No. 6 of the plaint, it is pleaded that after the demise of the mother, the property was mutated in the name of plaintiff Rajender Bhndari and defendant No. 4 Vijender Bhandari with the consent of the sisters. Submission on behalf of counsel for Rajender Bhandari is that three LRs namely Rajender Bhandari, Smt. Shakutnala and Smt. Anita Jain have disputed the fact of family settlement. However, their LRs namely Smt. Anita Jain, Smt. Shakuntala and Sh. Vijender Bhandari have chosen not to enter in the witness box to dispute the family settlement.
98. Admittedly, Smt. Shakuntala Kothari one of the daughter / LR of late M.M. Bhandari never appeared in any of the case despite service of publication and was proceeded ex parte. Further more, Anita Jain second Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 62 / 87 2025.01.23 11:51:39 +0530 daughter of late Sh. M.M. Bhandari appeared and filed written statement in one of the cases but she has not adduced any evidence. Smt. Anita Jain had filed her response dated 25.05.2024 to the application seeking interrogatories filed on 29.04.2024 and it is a matter of record that in her reply to the interrogatory, Anita Jain stated that based on trust of her brother Rajender Bhandari, she signed on papers / family settlement.
99. PW 1 Rajender Bhandari during his cross- examination dated 02.05.2015 has admitted impression of his signature at point 'X' on page No. 1 of the photocopy of family settlement marked as Mark PW1/B, but disputed his signatures at point 'Y' and 'Z' on page No. 2 and 3. PW 1 deposed that in the said family settlement, it was written that "after the death of our father, property devolved upon my mother, two brothers and two sisters". Further it was testified that "after the death of my mother, the property devolved upon both the brothers and both the sisters". It was mentioned that "Vijender Bhandari would obtain signatures of both the sisters for transfer of property in favour of both the brother". The settlement also mentioned that if any brother wanted to sell his share, he would sell the same in favour of other brother and in case the property was to be sold to outsider, that brother would obtain NOC from the other brother." VINAY KUMAR KHANNA Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR KHANNA Date: 2025.01.23 11:51:44 +0530 CS no. 59502/2016, CS No. 57716/2016 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 63 / 87
100. In his cross-examination dated 21.02.2015, PW1 Rajender Bhandari admitted that after the demise of his father and mother, suit property devolved upon him, his brother and his two sisters. The sisters did not execute any relinquishment deed in favour of brothers. PW1 voluntary stated that an oral settlement took place. Thus, Rajender Bhandari deposed that an oral settlement took place. However, he did not remember the date of oral settlement. It is own admission of Rajender Bhandari that there existed a family settlement, where after a document was executed by Vijender Bhandari whereby he became owner of the portyion of specific property.
101. The conveyance deed dated 12.06.2007 of DDA Ex.DW2/X (colly.) exists in favour of Rajender Bhandari and Vijender Bhnadari wherein Pradeep Bhardwaj is one of the witness apart from one Hemraj- father in law of Rajender Bhandari.
102. The contention of Ld. Counsel appearing for Rajender Bhandari that his signatures were obtained by fraud, is not plausible on the scales of preponderance of probabilities as his father-in-law was also a witness and both of them did appear before Registrar on 12.06.2007 for conversion of property from leasehold to freehold in the name of only two brothers.
VINAY KUMAR KHANNA Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 59502/2016, Date: 2025.01.23 CS No. 57716/2016 11:51:50 +0530 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 64 / 87
103. In his cross-examination dated 21.12.2019, a question was put to PW1 Rajender Bhandari to the effect that "Is it correct that after completing the formalities in DDA (for free hold of property No. F-97), family settlement dated 19.07.2006 (already Exhibited as Ex. PW1/D2X) was entered into between Rajender Bhandari, Shri Vijender Bhandari, Smt. Anita Jain and Smt Shakuntla Kothari for partition of property no. F-97, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, to which he replied that one family settlement was got typed by Vijender Bhnadari for partition of the property.
104. Issues regarding family settlement were framed on 21.04.2017, when Smt. Anita Jain was added as party in the year 2017. On perusal of para No. 20 of the plaint of the suit filed by Rajender Bhandari (leading suit), it appears that Rajender Bhandari knew about the family settlement. Para No. 20 of plaint is being reproduced herein to appreciate the position as under :
"20. That on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that defendant no. 1 in connivance with other defendants executed a forged agreement ( where plaintiff was made party) and in that forged document, defendants forged the signatures of the plaintiff and with the help of that forged document, defendants had declared the defendant no. 4 as the owner of the suit property.".
105. It is not clear why he had not mentioned the word 'family settlement'. In para 20 of his plaint, while referring to alleged forged agreement (wherein he was Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 65 / 87 11:51:57 +0530 made party) it is averred that defendants allegedly forged his signatures. When or which defendant out of four, forged his signatures is not specified and it appears that deliberately this para no. 20 is drafted vaguely and evasively to hide the truth. It has been mentioned that with the help of forged document defendant No. 4 Vijender Bhandari had been declared owner of the suit property. There is no document which declares Vijender Bhandari as owner of entire suit property.
106. Para No. 27 of plaint of suit filed by Rajender Bhandari talks about cause of action, which is reproduced as under:
"27. That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on 24.09.2005 when the plaintiff No. 1 entered into the compromise with defendant No. 4 in suit No. CS (os) No. 895/2007. The cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff when the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant No. 4. It further arose when the defendants refused to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It further arose on when defendant No. 1 tied to enter into the House of plaintiff. It further arose when the defendants tried to create third party interest in the suit property and still threatening to transfer the same to somebody else or to create third party interest in the same and the cause of action is still accruing in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants".
107. It can be seen that even this para qua cause Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 66 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:52:02 +0530 of action does not mention the fact that due to executing of a family settlement any cause of action arose in favour of Rajender Bhandari.
108. This court is of the considered opinion from the evidence on record that Vijender Bhandari had the authority to sell the first floor on 18.10.2007 as well as half undivided second floor with roof rights on 20.12.2007, and during the sales, parties Sh. Vijender Bhandari and Vijay Gaur had also appeared before the Registrar for getting the sale deeds registered as per law.
109. Now, it is pertinent to examine the recitals of sale deeds as well. In the registered sale deeds Ex. PW 1/5 and PW 1/6 executed by Sh. Vijender Bhandari in favour of Vijay Gaur, it has been specifically mentioned therein that the vendor i.e. Sh. Vijender Bhandari is the sole and absolute owner of first floor and in possession of the property i.e. first floor as well as built up second floor with roof rights of the built up property bearing no. F-97, measureing 169.45 square meter situated at Ashok Vihar Phase I, Delhi-110052. It recites that the vendor has sold, conveyed, transferred and assigned all rights, title, interest in the property to the vendee i.e. Vijay Gaur and also the vendor has delivered actual, vacant, physical possession of the property to the vendee, and that vendee can get the said property mutated / transferred in their name from the concerned department / authority on the Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 67 / 87 11:52:08 +0530 basis of these sale deeds
110. On overall reading of the sale deeds, it is apprent that under the sale deeds entire right, title and interest of Vijender Bhandari in the suit property have been transferred to Vijay Gaur with respect to the first floor as well as half undivided portion of the second floor with roof rights along with common entrance, passage and stair case and water connection comprising two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom in front and courtyard in back fitted with separate two electric connections a part of free hold built up property bearing no. F-97, Land Area measuring 169.45 Sq. mtrs, situated in the area of Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110052, also with the proportionate rights of the land under the said property.
111. The sale deeds Ex. PW 1/5 and PW 1/6 also recite that a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the first floor and and Rs. 13,25,000/- for the half share in second floor with roof rights as consideration has already been received in advance by the vendor Sh. Vijender Bhandari from the vendee Vijay Gaur.
112. Now the contention of Sh. V.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel appearing for Sh. Vijender Bhandari to the Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 68 / 87 KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:52:14 +0530 effect that the complete payment has not been made by Vijay Gaur or that the amount of Rs. 73,00,000/- deposited in the Registry of the Hon'ble High Court had been withdrawn has no merits and no effect on validity of sale deeds in question having regard to the legal positions noted above and discussed in earlier part of judgment. Similarly, the contention of Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel appearing for Rajender Bhandari to the effect that initially agreement to sell dated 02.03.2006 was for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000/- and later on Vijay Gaur paid a total sum of Rs. 38,25,000/- only as sale consideration for the first floor and half portion of second floor with roof rights has also no merits as it is for the executant parties to settle and agree upon the terms of sale.
113. Chain of events already noted and discussed in earlier part of this judgment establish on record the facts namely existence of oral family settlement between two brothers and two sisters then entering into an agreement by Vijender Bhandari with Vijay Gaur dated 02.03.2006 Ex. DW 1/3 for selling his share in the property to him, recording of family settlement dated 19.07.2006, legal notice dated 29.09.2006 by Vijay Gaur to both brothers and thereafter effecting of mutation on 18.12.2006 and conveyance deed on 12.06.2007, whereby property was converted from leasehold to freehold in the name and in favout of only two brothers i.e. Sh. Vijender Bhandari Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 69 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:52:20 +0530 and Rajender Bhandari and thereafter execution of the sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007 by Sh. Vijender Bhandari in favour of Vijay Gaur pursuant to their compromise and filing of joint application u/o 23 Rule 3 CPC in the suit bearing CS (OS) No. 895/2007 and permitting withdrawl thereof by the Hon'ble High Court in the presence of counsel for Rajender Bhandari.
114. On appreciation of totality of material on record, it cannot be held that there was any fraud or any misrepresentation by or on behalf of Vijay Gaur or Sh. Vijender Bhandari upon Rajender Bhandari.
Accordingly, both the said issues i.e. issue no. 1 and 2 are decided against plaintiff Rajender Bhandari.
Issue no. 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17.
10. Whether the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) 1497/2010 is entitled to a decree of declaration against the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff is a co-owner in respect of undivided share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi to the extent of 50%? OPP in CS (OS) 1497/2010.
11. Whether the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) 1497/2010 is entitled to a decree of partition against the defendant in respect of 50% share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing No. Plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi? OPP in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010.
Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 70 / 87 2025.01.23 11:52:26 +0530
12. Whether the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010 is entitled to a decree of possession against the defendant in respect of 50% share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing Plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi? OPP in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010.
13. Whether the plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010 is entitled to a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his associates, servants and employees etc. from selling, assigning, parting or mortgaging or creating any charge in respect of second floor with roof rights of property bearing plot No. 97, Block F in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi? OPP in CS (OS) No. 1497/2010.
16. Whether no sale consideration was paid by plaintiff (Vijay Gaur) in CS (OS) 1497/2010 to Shri Vijender Bhandari as stated in paragraph 16 of the preliminary objection? OPD in CS (OS) 1497/2010.
17. Whether Mr. Vijay Gaur plaintiff in CS (OS) 727/2008 is entitled to a decree for possession against the defendants, their associates, assignees etc. including Shri Sudershan Passi in respect of first floor of property bearing No. F-97, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110052? OPP in CS (OS) 727/2008.
115. Having regard to the legal positiond and the finding on the issue no. 1 and 2, this court finds that Vijay Gaur is entitled to decree of possession against the defendants with respect to the first floor of the property in question and also being the owner of the half portion is entitled to 50% share as well as possession of the Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 71 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:52:32 +0530 second floor along with 50% roof rights in the property in question.
116. Rajender Bhandari in his deposition testified that he came to know that Vijay Gaur entered into an agreement to purchase qua first floor, second floor and roof rights of suit property, when he received summons of suit no. 897/2007 but even after coming to know of above agreement he did not initiate any legal proceedings against Vijay Gaur for cancellation of said agreement. He volunteered that he did not do so as Vijay Gaur and Dinesh Sharma (since deceased) told him that nothing further would be done and that agreement would be got cancelled, but the same is found unworthy of any credence in view of the evidence on record.
117. Sh. Vijay Gaur has purchased the first floor as well as half undivided share in the second floor along with roof rights by virtue of the register and duly stamped sale deeds date 18.10.2007 and 30.12.2007 respectively. Defendants Rajender Bhandari, Anita Jain and Shakuntala Kothari have failed to establish existence of any fraud, misrepresentation or coercion on the part of the purchaser Sh. Vijay Gaur in execution of the sale deeds in question and have therefore, failed to rebut the presumption that the registered sale deeds were validly executed. The said defendants have failed to satisfy the Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 72 / 87 KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:52:37 +0530 requisite conditions for adjudging the sale deeds in question as void or voidable. It has already been noted above that the settled law is that once the title in the property has already passed, even if balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale cannot be invalidated on the said ground. Therefore, this court finds that the title in the suit property stands validly transferred in favour of the purchaser i.e. Sh. Vijay Gaur through the registered sale deeds.
118. This court also finds no merit in the contention of Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel appearing for Sh. Rajender Bhandari that Sh. Rajender Bhandari agreed to get mutated the property in their joint name of himself and Sh. Vijender Bhandari, believing the words of Sh. Vijender Bhandari as true and correct and therefore he agreed to apply for conversion of property from lease hold to freehold. There is nothing on record to show that Sh. Rajender Bhandari filed any complaint against his brother Sh. Vijender Bhandari for the alleged acts of fraud and deception.
119. It is not acceptable that merely because Vijender Bhandari informed Rajender Bhandari that their sisters had agreed to relinquish their rights in the property in their favour, he believed the words as true and correct. There is no reason as to why Sh. Rajender Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA CS No. 57716/2016 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 73 / 87 11:52:43 +0530 Bhandari could not verify the said fact on his own from his sisters Smt. Anita Jain and Smt. Shankuntala Kothari. Vide notice dt. 29.09.2006 Sh. Rajender Bhandari had come to know that a family settlement existed whose copy was handed over to Sh. Vijay Gaur by Sh. Vijender Bhnadari, who had agreed to sell his portion i.e. initially the first floor and second floor along with the roof to Sh. Vijay Gaur for a sale consideration of Rs.90,00,000/-.
120. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that Rajender Bhandari had received summons from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in suit bearing No. CS (OS) No. 895/2007 filed by Vijay Gaur against Vijender Bhandari and him Ex.DW1 or DW2/Z3, wherein he was arrayed as performa defendant. Sh. Vijay Gaur had sought specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 02.03.2006 but before filing written statement, Vijay Gaur and Vijender Bhandari jointly moved an application u/o 23 Rule 3 CPC dated 01.11.2007 wherein Vijender Bhandari admitted the execution of Agreement to Sale dated 02.03.2006 between him and Vijay Gaur and executed sale deeds of his share of first floor and second floor along with roof rights in property No. F-97, area measuring 170 square meters, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi. (Proviso of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC).
121. Vijender Bhandari had also admitted that Sh.
Digitally
signed by
VINAY
VINAY KUMAR
CS no. 59502/2016, KUMAR KHANNA
KHANNA Date:
CS No. 57716/2016 2025.01.23
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 74 / 87 11:52:49
+0530
Rajender Bhandari and Sh. Vijender Bhandari were the joint owners and by virtue of family settlement dated 19.07.2006 arrived at between the legal heirs of late Sh. M.M. Bhandari, who was owner of the said property. Sh. Rajender Bhandari admitted that by virtue of family settlement he had become the owner of the entire first floor of the property along with half share of the second floor with roof rights, while Sh. Rajender Bhandari became the owner of entire ground floor and the half share of the second floor with its roof rights by virtue of the family settlement dated 19.07.2006. In the said application, it was also mentioned that Sh. Vijender Bhandari had executed a sale deed in respect of the entire first floor in favour of Sh. Vijay Gaur against the consideration and handed over the possession of the same to him. Vijender Bhandari had further averred that he had no objection in case the FDRs dated 20.06.2007 and 16.06.2007, in the name of Registrar General are released to Vijay Gaur as both parties had amicably settled their disputes. Admittedly, Rajender Bhandari was a party in the said suit and the Hon'ble High Court had granted liberty to Sh. Rajender Bhnadari to seek remedies available with him in law, but strangely he took two years in filing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as regards the sale deeds executed by Sh. Vijender Bhandari in favour of Sh. Vijay Gaur and same belies the conduct of any reasonable person of ordinary prudence if there was any case of fraud or forgery as Digitally signed by VINAY CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 75 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:52:53 +0530 being claimed by Rajender Bhandari.
122. This court also find no merit in the contention that when Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate had represented Vijender Bhandari in the said suit and that although, he had sent a legal notice dated 29.09.2006 on behalf of Vijay Gaur in the said matter. There is nothing on record to show that if it was a misconduct on the part of the counsel, any action was taken or any complaint was filed in the concerned forum by Rajender Bhnadari. In this suit where Sh. Rajender Bhandari sought declaration for declaring the sale deeds executed by Sh. Vijender Bhandari in favour of Sh. Vijay Gaur as null and void, it was vaguely pleaded that Sh. Vijay Gaur and Sh.
Vijender Bhandari had forged some documents to show that the property bearing No. F-97 had already been partitioned between the legal heirs of Late Sh. M.M. Bhandari. Pleadings of Sh. Rajender Bhnadari are not specific and are vague in this regard. It is alleged that one day Vijay Gaur tried to illegally enter the house but on which date and which month is not pleaded. It is not written or specified when he came to know that Sh. Vijay Gaur in connivance with other defendants played fraud upon him.
123. This court also finds no merit in the contention of Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ld. Counsel to the effect that Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 76 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:53:01 +0530 Vijender Bhandari could not sell his share in the property in question to Vijay Gaur without specifying how he became the owner or why he filed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sale dated 02.03.2006 in respect of entire first floor and second floor and why no fresh agreement was executed. Trial court considers 'what is' and finds facts as per material placed and proved on record as per law. Answers to the 'why(s)', are evident from the material on record. Rather, it is for Sh. Rajender Bhandari to answer why he had appeared before the DDA authorities and actively participated in the mutation of the property in the joint name of himself along with Sh. Vijender Bhandari in exclusion of the sisters, and why they got conveyance deed executed from DDA on 12.06.2007.
124. On perusal of material on record, it appears that it was clearly on the basis of oral family settlement reduced in writing on 19.07.2006. Material on record also shows that Sh. Rajender Bhandari was well aware about the family settlement dated 19.07.2006 since beginning and it was executed and reduced into writing by him as well as other legal heirs of late Sh. M.M. Bhandari. Admittedly, it was a relied upon document filed by Sh. Vijay Gaur in the suit against Sh. Vijender Bhandari wherein he was made a performa defendant and Sh. Rajender Bhandari cannot deny about his knowledge of the suit and filing of family settlement Digitally CS no. 59502/2016, signed by CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 77 / 87 KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:53:08 +0530 therein or having received the copies of the documents including the family settlement dated 19.07.2006 filed on records of the said suit.
125. Strangely, Rajender Bhandari has totally avoided and was evasive about family settlement dated 19.07.2007. It was argued that only few of the pages of family settlement dated 19.07.2006 was signed by him. This court finds no reason why Sh. Rajender Bhandari could not challenge the said family settlement dated 19.07.2006, when he had come to know about the same not only through the legal notice received from Sh. Vijay Gaur but also in the civil suit filed in the High Court, and in considered opinion of this court now he cannot be allowed now to raise question or indirectly challenge the family settlement which he has not challenged, and rather utilized for getting mutation and conversion from DDA / government authorities. Moreover, the conveyance deed and mutation deed in which he himself was a party, has also not been challenged by any of the sister or by any of the brothers i.e. Vijender Bhnadari or Rajender Bhandari before DDA or any forum. Thus, the said conveyance deed and mutation cannot be disputed or repudiated by Rajender Bhandari.
126. Now, coming to the point of interrogatories dated 25.05.2024 filed, whereby reply was filed by Smt. Digitally CS no. 59502/2016, signed by VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 VINAY KUMAR CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 78 / 87 KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:53:14 +0530 Anita Jain, sister of Rajender Bhandari. She went to the extent of stating that she had never filed an application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC. This court finds no substance in the contention of Sh. Ankit Gupta, counsel appearing for Sh. Rajender Bhnadari that the said interrogatories is response to the interrogatories by Sh. Anita Jain could not be looked into as she filed the same without any reply. Court has to decide civil cases on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and while appreciating evidence and material on record, court can look into the entire material & conduct of parties too, pleadings, replies to the applications and the documentss filed by the parties to ascertain truth. Admittedly, neither Anita Jain nor Shakuntala Kothari have chosen to appear in the witness box or adduced any evidence to support the version of Rajender Bhandari.
127. Vijender Bhandair is admittedly a proclaimed offender in a criminal case filed by Sh. Vijay Gaur and pending trial but he has been appearing in these cases through counsel. Sh. Vibhash Kumar Jha, Ld. Counsel appearing of Sh. Vijender Bhandari admittedly has not adduced evidence. In his written synopsis, Sh. Vibahsh Kumar Jha has not disputed regarding agreeing for sale of the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 90.00 lakhs vide agreement to sale dated 02.03.2006 Ex.PW1/3, between Vijender Bhandari and Vijay Gaur. His case is that he has not received the Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 79 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:53:23 +0530 entire amount. He has also not disputed that the sale deed dated 18.10.2007 Ex.PW1/1 for a consideration of Rs. 25.00 lakhs and the sale deed dated 20.12.2007 Ex.PW1/2 for a total consideration of Rs.13,25,000/- was executed but his argument was that Sh. Vijay Gaur took him into confidence to execute the sale deed but it did not pay and had promised to pay balance amount of Rs.65.00 lakh in cash, but same was not received.
128. It was argued on behalf of Sh. Vijender Bhandari that he paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as the property sale commission and that Vijender Bhandari used to do brokerage business with Vijay Gaur. It is submitted that the document agreement to sale dated 02.03.2006 was got executed by Vijay Gaur under drunken condition and the sale consideration was never paid by him to Vijender Bhandari. In his submissions, Sh. V.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel appearing for Vijender Bhnadari has not disputed about the family settlement between the family members dated 19.07.2006 Ex.PW1/5. It is submitted that Vijay Gaur had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 73.00 lakhs, kept in the form of demand draft for the Registrar General, High Court, which he used for himself instead of giving it to him and possession of premises was not given to Vijay Gaur on 24.11.2006 or on 23.08.2008. Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:53:29 +0530 CS no. 59502/2016, CS No. 57716/2016 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 80 / 87
129. It is argued that Vijender Bhandari came to know that possession of suit premises was taken away by Pradeep Bhardwaj and that the possession of the premises was always with Sh. Vijender Bhandari. It is argued that Vijender Bhandari had handed over copies of all the documents and the family settlement dated 19.07.2006 but the said settlement was executed in drunken condition and consideration was never paid by Sh. Vijay Gaur.
130. In the considered opinion of this court, the arguments adduced on behalf of Sh. Vijender Bhandari are devoid of any merits as same are not substantiated by any evidence by said Vijender Bhandari. * Vijay Gaur has been able to establish on record that he is the owner of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing No. plot No.97, Block F, in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi by virtue of registered sale deed registered as document no.10340 in addl. Book no.l vol no. 15 18 at pages 103 to 108 on 20.12.2007 and that he also is the owner of first floor by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.12.2007 registered as Document no. 10340, Addl.
Book No. 1, Vol. 1518 at Page 103-108. Such documents are registered documents having been executed in pursuance of a settlement arrived before the Hon'ble high court of Delhi in the suit titled as bearing no.
Digitally 895/2007 which was withdrawn as compromised. It is VINAY signed by VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS no. 59502/2016, 2025.01.23
11:53:37
CS No. 57716/2016 +0530
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 81 / 87
settled principle of law that there is a presumption of correctness and free consent in favour of registered document, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors AIR 2006 SC 3608, wherein it was observed that "there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption."
131. In the present suit evidence has been led only by Rajinder Bhandari, Vijay Gaur and Pardeep Bhardwaj and all other parties have chosen not to enter the witness box. Smt. Anita Jain vide reply to interrogatories dated 25.05.2024 did state that she had relinquished her share in the said property vide family settlement dated 19.07.2006 in favour of her two brothers i.e. Rajinder Bhandri and Vijender Bhandari.
132. Declaration is a discretionary relief and may be sought when a person having a title wants a declaration to be made of that title against the ones denying or interested in denying the same. Other agreements which are discussed herein above, do not have any force in the eye of law, being in clear contravention of Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act. In the present case, Vijay Gaur has Digitally signed by CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 82 / 87 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:53:42 +0530 established on record that he has title, right and interest in his favour by virtue of two registered sale deeds in his favour conferring a valid title of ownership in his favor of Sh. Vijay Gaur in respect of first floor and undivided ½ portion in the second floor with roof rights.
133. Further from perusal of the Registered Sale Deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007, it is clear that payments of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 13,25,000/- vide various cheques and Cash have been made by Vijay Gaur to Sh. Vijender Bhandari towards sale consideration.
134. Accordingly, it is held that the sale deeds dated 18.10.2007 and 20.12.2007 executed by Sh. Vijender Bhandari in favour of Vijay Gaur qua sale of first floor and half undivided portion of second floor along with roof rights of property in question, have been validly executed, and by virtue of the same Vijay Gaur is the exclusive owner of first floor and half undivided portion of second floor along with roof rights of property in question and is entitled to a decree of declaration to the effect that he is a co-owner in respect of undivided share of the second floor along with roof rights of property in question to the extent of 50%. He is further entitled to a decree of partition against the defendants in respect of 50% share of the second floor along with roof rights in property in question. Digitally signed by VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
CS no. 59502/2016, 2025.01.23
CS No. 57716/2016 11:53:47
+0530
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 83 / 87
135. Vijay Gaur is further entitled to a decree of possession against the defendants in respect of 50% share of the second floor with roof rights of property in question. He is also entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction thereby restraining the defendants from selling, assigning, parting or mortgaging or creating any charge in respect of second floor with roof rights of property in question. Vijay Gaur is further entitled to a decree for possession against the defendants in respect of first floor of property in question.
These issues are decided in favour of Vijay Gaur and against other defendants.
Relief :
Relief in CS 59502/16 / CS OS 2117/2009
136. In view of aforementioned discussion on various issues, this court is of the opinion that plaintiff Rajender Bhandari is not entitled to any relief and his suit is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
Relief in CS 57713/16 (CS OS 1497/2010)
137. It is held that Vijay Gaur is entitled to a decree of declartion against the defendants to the effect that he is 50% co-owner in resepct of undivided share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing plot no. 97, Block F, Ashok Vihar, Phase, Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
CS no. 59502/2016, VINAY VINAY KUMAR
KHANNA
CS No. 57716/2016 KUMAR Date:
CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 84 / 87 KHANNA 2025.01.23
11:53:56
+0530
138. It is further held that Vijay Gaur is entitled to a decree of partition against defendants in respect of 50% share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing Plot No. 97, Block F, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi.
139. Vijay Gaur is further entitled to a decree of possession against defendants in respect of 50% share of the second floor along with roof rights of property bearing Plot No. 97, Block F, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi. He is also entitled to a decree for perpetual injunction thereby restraining the defendants their associates, servants and employees from selling, assigning, parting or mortgaging or creating any charge in respect of second floor of property bearing Plot No. 97, Block F, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi.
140. A Preliminary decree for partition with respect to second floor with roof rights of property bearing plot No. 97, in Wazirpur Residential Scheme now known as Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi for separation / division of 50% shares and handing over of possession of identified / divided portion thereof to the plaintiff Sh. Vijay Gaur be passed.
Digitally signedby VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA Date:
KHANNA 2025.01.23 11:54:16 +0530 CS no. 59502/2016, CS No. 57716/2016 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 85 / 87
141. It is made clear that in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubh Karan Babna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub Vs. Sita Saran Bubna & Ors. Reported as (2009) 12 SCALE 259, this case shall be finally disposed of only upon division of property by metes and bound and handing over of the possession of above noted 50% share in the property to the plaintiff Sh. Vijay Gaur.
142. In view of this, four weeks time is granted to the parties to explore the possibility of mutual agreement on the manner of division of property for passing final decree and in the alternative, if the division by metes and bounds cannot be made by the parties, without further inquiry / inspection of the property, this function would be entrusted to a Commissioner appointed by this court on the next date for the needful and upon receipt and consideration of his report / after hearing the parties, the court would pass a final decree.
Relief in CS 57716/16 (CS OS 727/2008)
143. It is further held that Vijay Gaur is entitled to a decree of possession against the defendants, their associates, assignees etc. including Shri Sudershan Passi in respect of first floor of property bearing No. F-97, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-110052.
Digitally signed by Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. VINAY VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:54:23 +0530 CS no. 59502/2016, CS No. 57716/2016 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 86 / 87 Before parting with the judgment, it is ordered that since all the three cases were clubbed together by the Hon'ble High Court, a copy of this judgment, digitally signed, be placed in two connected matters i.e. CS 57713/16 (CS OS 1497/2010) and CS 57716/16 (CS OS 727/2008).
Files be consigned to Record Room except case file of CS 57713/16 (CS OS 1497/2010).Digitally signed
Announced in the open court VINAY by VINAY KUMAR KUMAR KHANNA today i.e. 22nd January, 2025 KHANNA Date:
2025.01.23 11:54:54 +0530 (Vinay Kumar Khanna) Principal District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi CS no. 59502/2016, CS No. 57716/2016 CS no. 57713/2016 Page No. 87 / 87