Delhi District Court
Vidhya Devi vs Rama Devi Ors on 8 January, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-000299-2008
CS DJ No. 613324/2016
In the matter of :-
Smt. Rama Devi
W/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal
R/o House No. B-1640,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Vidhya Devi (Since deceased)
Through her Legal Heirs
i. Smt. Mamta (since deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Deepak
ii. Sh. Shubham
S/o Late Sh. Deepak
Both R/o B-6/226,
Sector-8, Rohini,
Delhi-110085
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Siri Chand
R/o House No. B-1796,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
.....Defendants
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 1 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:54:18 +0530
AND
CNR No. DLCT01-000027-2009
CS DJ No. 610944/2016
In the matter of :-
Smt. Vidhya Devi (deceased-through her Legal Heirs)
A) Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Sri Chand Gupta,
R/o B-1796, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
B) Smt. Mamta (since deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Deepak
C) Shubham
S/o Late Sh. Deepak
Resident of B-6/226, Sector-8,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Rama Devi
W/o Sh. Rameshwar Dayal
R/o B-1640, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
2. The Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi
3. SDM Sadar Bazar
Room No. 27 and 28,
Old Civil Supply Building,
Tis Hazari, Delhi
.....Defendants
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 2 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:54:25
+0530
Date of institution of CS DJ No. 613324/2016 : 26.06.2008
Date of institution of CS DJ No. 610944/2016 : 15.01.2009
Reserved for Judgment : 04.01.2025
Date of decision : 08.01.2025
J U D G M E N T:
(1) Vide this common judgment this Court shall dispose off two suits, that is, CS DJ No. 613324/2016 titled as 'Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.' and CS DJ No. 610944/2016 titled as 'Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors.' as both these suits were consolidated vide orders dated 17.07.2014 and 30.11.2021. Plaintiffs in both the matters have lead evidence and it is submitted by them that their plaintiff's evidence be treated as their respective defendant's evidence in connected cases.
CS DJ No. 613324/2016:
SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (2) This is a suit for possession and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff Smt. Rama Devi against the defendants with respect to property bearing No. B-1796, constructed on plot of land measuring 50 square yards (42 square meters approximately) with covered area 30 square meter, out of Khasra No. 478/179, situated in the area of Village Sadhora Kalan, abadi known as Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
(3) Succinctly put, the case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that she is the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property by virtue of registered sale CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 3 of 43 NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:54:32 +0530 deed dated 19.06.2008 executed by defendant no.1, in her favour, for valuable consideration. The plaintiff's husband Sh. Rameshwar Dayal had been running his clinic in a corner shop in the said property in the capacity of a tenant earlier under Sh. Siri Chand Gupta and after his death under defendant no.1, at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The plaintiff and her husband, in order to own and possess the said shop as well as the portion falling on its side as well as on the rear, decided to purchase the portion of the said property and accordingly approached defendant no.1 for the same. Defendant no.1 claimed herself to be the sole and exclusive owner of the entire property bearing no. B-1796, constructed on plot of land measuring 150 square yards, Shastri Nagar, Delhi on the basis of Will dated 19.01.1986 duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar-I, Delhi as document no. 521, in Addl. Book No. III, Volume No. 395 on pages 15 to 16 dated 20.01.1986, executed by her husband Sh. Siri Chand Gupta s/o Sh. Khubi Ram in her favour. Prior to finalization of the sale transaction by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff, it was further informed by defendant no.1 that after the death of her husband on 04.06.1986, she became the sole and absolute owner of the entire property being the sole beneficiary of the said Will. Defendant no.1 also made available with the plaintiff photocopy of the sale deed dated 19.02.1966 in favour of her husband Sh. Siri Chand Gupta. Before finalization of the sale, the plaintiff herself as well as through legal experts got verified the marketable title of defendant no.1 qua the said property, agreed to be sold by her in favour of the plaintiff, by physically inspecting the index register/ records of the rights maintained in the office of Sub Registrar-I, Delhi and even obtained the certified copy of the Will dated 19.01.1986 and it was only after satisfying the clear and marketable title of defendant no.1, the plaintiff CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 4 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:54:44 +0530
agreed to purchase 50 square yards of the partly built property from defendant no.1 for valuable consideration.
(4) It is further the case of the plaintiff that the deal for the sale of the said property was finalized amongst the plaintiff and defendant no.1 on 17.06.2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- and accordingly it was mutually agreed between the parties that after purchasing the stamp duty, the sale deed shall be executed and got registered on 19.06.2008. Before purchasing the stamp duty and execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff paid to defendant no.1 a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards part payment, by virtue of cheque bearing No. 734828 dated 18.06.2008 drawn on State Bank of India, Kamla Nagar, Delhi in favour of defendant no.1, with an assurance and understanding that the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- shall be paid before the Sub Registrar concerned. After purchasing of stamp duty, the sale deed was got prepared through one legal expert and defendant no.1 executed the same after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No. 006325 dated 19.06.2008 drawn on HDFC Bank and Rs.50,000/- in cash. The plaintiff and defendant no.1 signed and put their thumb impressions on the said sale deed in the presence of witnesses, who in-turn also affixed their hands to the sale deed in presence of defendant no.1 and the plaintiff.
(5) It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 handed over the symbolic possession of the two shops, that is, one in occupation of husband of the plaintiff and another in occupation of one Sh. Mahipal who was occupying the other shop as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.550/- and running his tailoring business therein. Defendant no.1 although handed over CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 5 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:54:51 +0530
the actual and physical possession of the remaining entire property to the plaintiff while executing the sale deed, yet she categorically assured the plaintiff to hand over the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the rear portion, shown in red colour in the site plan, on or before 23.06.2008. After execution of the sale deed, the same was presented before the Sub Registrar, Sub District-I, Delhi for its registration on 19.06.2008 and defendant no.1 appeared before the Sub Registrar, admitting the execution of the sale deed, admitting the receipt of the entire sale consideration and subsequently in order to ensure the completion of the sale deed, defendant no.1, the plaintiff and the witnesses affixed their hands on the back of the sale deed as well as on the official records maintained in the office of Sub Registrar-I, Delhi. On 24.06.2008, the plaintiff along with her husband visited defendant no.1 at about 8:00 AM and asked her to handover the actual and vacant possession of the remaining portion of the property as per mutual understanding, but defendant no.1 at the instance and instigation of her sons, that is, defendants no.2 and 3, refused to hand over the possession of the remaining portion to the plaintiff and rather threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the two shops in front, of which the symbolic possession was handed over at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff as well as her husband tried to resolve the matter peacefully but considering the adamant attitude of the defendants and apprehending any foul play at the hands of the defendants, the plaintiff sent a telegram on 24.06.2008 to the Commissioner of Police as well as to the SHO, PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
(6) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have no right to retain the possession of the said portion of the property and since defendant CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 6 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:54:59
+0530
no.1 had failed to deliver the possession of the portion of the property shown in red colour in the site plan, the occupation of the defendants have become illegal and unauthorized and as such defendant no.1 as well as her sons, that is, defendants no.2 and 3 who are occupying the said portion already sold, are liable to hand over the possession of the said portion to the plaintiff. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendants in collusion with each other are intending to illegally and unauthorizedly sell, transfer, alienate, part with possession and/ or create third party interest in respect of the said property and hence, the defendants are liable to be restrained from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the suit property or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever.
(7) Thus, it is prayed by the plaintiff that a decree of possession be passed in her favour and against the defendants in respect of the portion of the suit property directing the defendants to deliver the vacant and peaceful/ physical possession of the said property to the plaintiff. It is also prayed by the plaintiff that a decree of permanent injunction be passed in her favour and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants, their associates, family members etc. from selling, transferring, parting with, alienating and / or creating third party interest in any manner whatsoever in respect of the suit property.
(8) Summonses for settlement of issues were issued to the defendants. Joint written statement was filed by the defendants to the plaint wherein preliminary objections were taken that the present suit was filed after committing fraud with the defendants before the Registrar. The plaintiff's husband in connivance with the plaintiff took undue advantage of the old age CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 7 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:55:07 +0530
and illness of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 was aged almost 90 years and remained ill. She was taken into confidence by deceitful means by the plaintiff and undue advantage was taken of her vulnerable position. The suit property was attempted to be grabbed without paying anything to defendant no.1. The plaintiff and her husband exploited the situation to cause undue loss to the defendants and wrongful gain to herself. The plaintiff got executed the sale deed fraudulently from defendant no.1 without any consideration and defendant no.1 had no intention nor she willingly executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The witnesses to the sale deed were interested persons being henchmen of the plaintiff. The suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction and requisite court fees has not been been affixed. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit.
(9) It is further the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts before this court and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff and her husband conspired with each other in order to grab the suit property of hapless widow lady of 90 years of age who used to remain sick at times and she used to take medicine from the plaintiff's husband who happened to be tenant in part of the suit property. Consorted efforts were made under the garb of medical treatment in order to induce and coax defendant no.1, in a manner to repose confidence in her and different modes were used to grab the valuable property of the defendants sometimes on false assurances of providing widow pension scheme and sometime under the subterfuge of medical treatment. On the eventful day, that is, on 19.06.2008 defendant no.1 was administered some injection as she was suffering from loose motion and CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 8 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:55:15
+0530
the moment the injection was injected, she felt giddy and became mentally upset and after that she found herself in the office. When she inquired where was she, she was told that she has been brought there for the purposes of widow pension scheme and there she put thumb marks on various places under the impression of getting the pensionary benefits. When the plaintiff and her husband were in the process of getting open the account in bank in the name of defendant no.1 as she was not having any account, there she was intercepted by her sons and daughter-in-law, then she narrated the entire incident to her sons which revealed that fraud and cheating was committed with her by the plaintiff, her husband and their henchmen. Immediately thereafter, defendant no.1 made police complaint with Sarai Rohilla Police Station and other concerned authorities. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as she is not having any right, title or interest in the suit property and hence, the same is liable to the dismissed.
(10) In the reply on merits, in the written statement, the defendants had denied each and every contention of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff and her husband in connivance with other relations had got executed the sale deed by committing fraud and exercising undue influence upon defendant no.1 as no single penny was ever given to defendant no.1. It had been specifically denied by the defendants that husband of the plaintiff was a tenant at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. The defendants had also denied that any consideration was ever paid to defendant no.1 by the plaintiff. It was submitted that no person will sell the property when the alleged transaction is taking place on 17.06.2008 and will take post dated cheques. It is the case of the defendants that the alleged forged and CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 9 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:55:22 +0530
fabricated sale deed is a sham document. It is further the case of the defendants that the moment fraud was detected, a police complaint was filed on 23.06.2008. Thus, it is prayed that the present suit be dismissed with costs.
(11) Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendants wherein the plaintiff had reiterated the contents of her plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff, in her replication, that the sale deed transferring the ownership rights qua the property in question had been executed and got registered by defendant no.1 in her full senses, without any pressure, force or undue influence upon receipt of sale consideration. The sale deed has been legally and validly executed for valuable consideration and the objection as raised in the written statement is false, frivolous and after-thought.
(12) Vide order dated 03.06.2011 the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff, was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and the defendants, their servants, agents, attorneys, associates etc. were restrained from selling, transferring, parting with, alienating and/ or creating third party interest in any manner in respect of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.
(13) Perusal of the file shows that during pendency of the suit, defendant no.3 Sh. Deepak Kumar Gupta expired on 09.01.2009 and vide order dated 08.02.2011 his class-I legal heirs, that is, defendants no.1 and 2 were impleaded in place of deceased defendant no.3. Further, on 05.09.2012 defendant no.1 Smt. Vidya Devi also expired. An application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for impleading defendant no.2 Ashok Kumar Gupta as it was CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 10 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:55:30 +0530
informed that she was survived by only one LR namely Ashok Kumar Gupta (defendant no.2). The said application was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2012. However, it transpired vide order dated 15.07.2016 that in connected suit no. 610944/2016 (old no. 28/2016), son and wife of late Sh. Deepak Kumar were impleaded as his legal representatives (there in the capacity of LRs of plaintiff) and therefore, in this matter also, all the LRs of defendant no.1 were taken on record including Smt. Mamta wife of late Sh. Deepak Kumar and Shubham son of late Sh. Deepak Kumar. However, it transpired that Smt. Mamta had also expired on 14.10.2015 and it came in the order sheet dated 09.11.2017 that she was survived by Mr. Shubham only.
(14) After perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed on 27.04.2012 by the learned Predecessor of this Court for trial, namely:-
1. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 19.06.2008 is perfectly fair and reasonable and that no advantage has been taken by the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 19.06.2008 was not result of fraud and misrepresentation or undue influence? OPP
3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 1&2
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession and permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
5. Relief.
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 11 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:55:37
+0530
(15) It was held vide order dated 30.11.2021 that the connected case
bearing CS No. 610944/2016 titled as 'Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi' will be treated as main case for the purposes of evidence and evidences will be read together in both the suits.
CS DJ 610944/2016:
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED DATED 19.06.2008 AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION (16) This is a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 19.06.2008 and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff Smt. Vidhya Devi (since deceased-through LRs) against the defendants, that is, Smt. Rama Devi (defendant no.1), Secretary GNCT of Delhi (defendant no.2) and SDM Sadar Bazar (defendant no.3).
(17) Succinctly put, the case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that she is the owner and in possession of property no. B-1796, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 constructed on plot of land measuring 50 square yards (approximately 42 square meters) with covered area of 30 square meter out of Khasra No. 478/ 179 situated in the area of Village Sadhora Kalan abadai known as Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 (herein after referred to as the suit property) by virtue of Will executed in her favour by her husband, except for clinic measuring 9' x 9' which is in possession of husband of defendant no.1. It is further the case of the plaintiff that she is a widow aged 90 years, illiterate, had a weak vision, remained ill and used to take medical treatment from the husband of defendant no.1 who in-turn exploited her situation with CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 12 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:55:43
+0530
ulterior motive for usurping the suit property. Defendant no.1 in connivance with her husband and relatives fraudulently exploited the vulnerable situation of the plaintiff in order to grab the suit property without paying anything to the plaintiff and in fact nothing was paid to the plaintiff.
(18) It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 got executed the sale deed fraudulently from the plaintiff without any consideration in connivance with the husband of defendant no.1 and with the help of so called witnesses, namely, Sh. Bachchu Singh and Sh. Inder Dev. The plaintiff had no intention nor was willing to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 had filed a fictitious suit on the basis of forged sale deed against the plaintiff and her sons wherein she had been restrained from parting with, transferring the suit property by virtue of the order of the Court. The plaintiff used to take medicines from the husband of defendant no.1 who happened to be a tenant in part of the suit property and defendant no.1 in connivance with her husband made consorted efforts under the garb of medical treatment and instill confidence of her upon them. They further falsely assured her of providing widow pension scheme and at times, under the subterfuge of medical treatment, mislead her. On the eventful day, that is, on 19.06.2008 the plaintiff was administered some injection as she was suffering from loose motion and the moment the injection was injected, she felt giddy and mentally upset and after that she found herself in some office and when she inquired where was she, she was told that she has been brought there for the purposes of widow pension scheme and under that belief she put thumb marks on various places under the impression of getting the pensionary benefits. When defendant no.1 and her husband were in the CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 13 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:55:52
+0530
process of getting opened the account in bank in the name of the plaintiff as she was not having any bank account, there she was intercepted by her sons and daughter-in-law. She then narrated entire incidents to her sons and then it was revealed that the fraud and cheating was committed upon her by defendant no.1, her husband and their henchmen. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff made police complaint with Sarai Rohilla Police Station and other concerned authorities.
(19) It is further the case of the plaintiff that thereafter she made various complaints to various authorities including Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and after issuing notices to the plaintiff and defendant no.1, the Sub- Registrar found illegality, irregularity, discrepancy in execution of the said sale deed and found the same under valued due to which reason the sale deed dated 19.06.2008 was impounded and sent to the office of SDM. Thereafter the Executive Magistrate, issued notice dated 26.09.2008 to both the parties and after examining the parties, the Executive Magistrate was of the opinion that no payment was made to the plaintiff in respect of impugned sale deed. Defendant no.1 had categorically admitted in her reply before the Executive Magistrate that fraud was committed with the plaintiff, which reply is in the record of court file of defendant no.3. The plaintiff's son made inquiry about the outcome of the case of plaintiff before Executive Magistrate, however, did not get any satisfactory response and as plaintiff received notice through SDM Sadar Bazar on 10.01.2009, the plaintiff apprehended collusion of defendant no.1 along with defendant no.3 and therefore, had filed the present suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 got the sale deed executed fraudulently in a deceitful manner and hence, the same is liable to be CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 14 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:55:59
+0530
canceled as the same is void and the plaintiff has reasonable apprehension that such void sale deed, if left outstanding, shall cause serious injury to the suit property and as such the same is liable to adjudged void and be delivered and canceled.
(20) Thus, it is prayed by the plaintiff that a decree of declaration be passed in her favour and against the defendants thereby declaring that the sale deed dated 19.06.2008 in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant no.1 is null and void and be canceled and delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prayed that a decree of mandatory injunction be passed in her favour and against the defendants thereby directing defendant no.3, his agents, representative and assignees not to register the sale deed and not to handover the same to defendant no.1. It is further prayed by the plaintiff that a decree of permanent injunction be passed in her favour and against the defendants thereby restraining defendant no.1 from interfering in the peaceful use and occupation of the property in dispute and also restrain defendant no.3 not to manipulate the case file in respect of the property in dispute which is pending adjudication.
(21) Summonses for settlement of issues were issued to all the defendants. Written statement was filed by defendant no.1 wherein preliminary objections were taken that there does not exist any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1 and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The sale deed dated 19.06.2008 was presented by the vendor Smt. Vidhya Devi herself on 19.06.2008 while appearing before the Sub Registrar concerned. The plaintiff admitted the execution of the sale deed, also admitted the receipt of CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 15 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:56:09
+0530
consideration amount from defendant no.1 and also admitted the willful sale of the property in question to defendant no.1 before the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar while fully satisfying itself about the legality of the said document, admitted the same for registration and issued a receipt in favour of defendant no.1 for receiving the sale deed in original after its registration. There was no discrepancy, illegality and irregularity in execution, presentation and registration of the said document in as much as the plaintiff put her thumb impression on the sale deed in the presence of the witnesses, herself appeared before the Sub Registrar as well as before its officials for getting the said sale deed registered. The plaintiff of her own, without any pressure, force or coercion agreed to sell the property in favour of defendant no.1 for valuable consideration and upon receipt of the entire consideration, she executed the sale deed in question and got the same registered in the office of Sub Registrar. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff without any cause of action with the sole motive to extort money from defendant no.1. The present suit was filed as a counter blast to the suit filed by defendant no.1 for recovery of possession etc. and the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is left with no right, title or interest qua the property in question having already legally and validly sold all her rights qua the property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 19.06.2008. No site plan, as required under the law, has been filed by the plaintiff and in the absence thereof, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
(22) In her reply on merits, defendant no.1 had denied each and every contention of the plaintiff. It is the case of defendant no.1 that the possession and occupation of the plaintiff qua the portion of the suit property is illegal CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 16 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:56:20 +0530
and unauthorized. At the time of registration of the sale deed, the plaintiff handed over the symbolic possession of two shops, that is, one in occupation of husband of defendant no.1 and the other in occupation of the tenant namely Sh. Mahipal. Although while executing the sale deed, the plaintiff handed over the actual and physical possession of the remaining entire property to defendant no.1, yet the plaintiff failed to handover the vacant possession of the remaining rear portion of the property to defendant no.1 as per her commitment on or before 23.06.2008 and having left with no other option, defendant no.1 filed a suit for recovery of possession against the plaintiff and her sons. A cash amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff by way of account payee cheques and the factum of receipt of the payment by cheque is depicted on the face of the document/ sale deed in question. The complaints, if any, were lodged by the plaintiff or her sons in a motivated manner so as to defeat the legitimate claim of defendant no.1 and to extort more money from her. Hence, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
(23) Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement, wherein she had denied each and every averment of the defendant and had reiterated her version in the plaint. The plaintiff had denied having received any payment from defendant no.1.
(24) So far as defendants no.2 and 3 are concerned, they were duly served with the summons of the present suit. On 21.01.2009 Sh. Vinod Kumar, Bailiff had appeared from the office of defendant no.2 and had brought the relevant record. As per the said record, the sale deed was already CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 17 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:56:29
+0530
executed on 19.06.2008 and was registered vide Registration No. 4646 in Addl. Book no.1 Volume no. 2615. Considering the same, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court declined the request of the plaintiff to grant interim relief. No written statement was filed on behalf of defendants no.2 and 3 and vide order dated 12.02.2014, defendants no.2 and 3 were proceeded with exparte.
(25) After perusal of the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed on 27.04.2012 by the learned Predecessor of this Court for trial, namely:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 19.06.2008? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 19.06.2008 was not the result of fraud and undue influence? OPP (The word 'not' appears to be inadvertently written in the original issue as the case of the plaintiff was that the sale deed was the result of fraud and undue influence)
4. Relief.
(26) However, thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2013 and issue no.3 was re- framed as under:
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 18 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:56:36
+0530
Whether the sale deed/ transaction dated 19.06.2008 was exercised in good faith? OPD-1 (27) Perusal of the file further shows that on 05.09.2012 the plaintiff Smt. Vidya Devi had expired. An application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was moved for impleading her only legal heir, namely, Sh. Ashok Kumar. The said application was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2012 on the ground that the right to sue survives in his favour. Later on, another application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was filed for impleading the other legal heirs of deceased Smt. Vidhya Devi and vide order dated 15.07.2016, Smt. Mamta wife of Late Sh. Deepak Kumar (daughter-in-law of Late Smt. Vidhya Devi) and Sh. Shubham son of Late Sh. Deepak Kumar (grandson of Late Smt. Vidhya Devi) were taken on record. However, it transpired that Smt. Mamta had also expired on 14.10.2015 and it came in the order sheet dated 09.11.2017 that she was survived by Mr. Shubham only.
EVIDENCE:
(28) Vide order dated 17.07.2014, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had consolidated both the cases, that is, CS DJ 613324/2016 titled as 'Rama Devi Vs. Vidya Devi & Ors.' and CS DJ 610944/2016 titled as 'Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors., with directions that the leading case will be Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Also, vide order dated 30.11.2021, it was directed that 'Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi' is the leading case for the purpose of evidence and the evidence will be lead together in both the suits.
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 19 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:56:45 +0530
(29) In CS DJ 613324/2016 at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the
plaintiff in support of her case had examined five witnesses. PW1 Smt. Rama Devi is the plaintiff herself. She had tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and had deposed, in the affidavit, in consonance with the plaint. She had further relied upon following documents in her evidence by way of affidavit:
1. Site plan, Ex.PW1/1.
2. Attested copy of the sale deed, Ex.PW1/2.
3. Copy of Will dated 19.01.1986, Mark A.
4. Copy of sale deed in favour of Sri Chand, Mark B.
5. Death certificate of Sri Chand, Ex.PW1/3.
6. Copy of ID card of defendant no.1 Smt. Vidya Devi, Mark C.
7. Telegrams dated 24.06.2008 along with receipts, Ex.PW1/4.
(30) PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants at length. She had deposed in her cross-examination that her husband is a PMP doctor. She had paid Rs.50,000/- in cash to Smt. Vidhya Devi and rest of the amount was given by way of cheques to Smt. Vidhya Devi at the time of purchase of the property on 19.06.2008. She does not know whether the cheques were encashed or not. She does not remember on which date she paid Rs.5 lacs. She further deposed on the next date of her cross-examination that she had given two cheques of Rs.8 lacs to Smt. Vidhya Devi on 16.06.2008 and Rs.50,000/- in cash to Smt. Vidhya Devi on 19.06.2008. She again deposed that the said cheques were handed over to Smt. Vidhya Devi on 19.06.2008 on the date of execution of the sale deed. She further stated that on that date she had sufficient balance in the bank accounts of which the CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 20 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:56:54
+0530
cheques were given, on 19.06.2008, in order to honour the cheques which were given. One cheque was from her daughter's account and another cheques was from her husband's account. She admitted that there was no written agreement to sell in respect of the suit property but there was verbal agreement prior to purchase of the property. Oral negotiations were made 2-3 months prior to execution, however, no advance money was paid. She admitted that another tenant Mr. Mahipal is still in possession of the other tenanted shop which is part of the suit property and there was no discussion between her and Late Smt. Vidhya Devi with respect to eviction of Mr. Mahipal from the suit property. There is no demarcation in respect of the suit property till date. She has no independent source of income. She had no knowledge about the bank details and the amount available in the bank accounts of her husband and children. Wife of Sh. Ashok Kumar was informed about the purchase prior to the transaction. Son of Smt. Vidhya Devi, namely Sunil Kumar, had gone with her (plaintiff) for execution of sale deed. No receipt was executed between her and Late Smt. Vidhya Devi in respect of receipt of sale consideration amount in the form of cheques. She had not asked Smt. Vidhya Devi whether she was having any bank account in her name or not at the time of handing over the cheques in question. She is not aware whether the cheques were encashed or not. No site plan was prepared in respect of the suit property at the time of execution of the sale deed. Rent is being collected by Mr. Ashok Kumar, son of Late Smt. Vidhya Devi in respect of the adjacent tenanted shop occupied by Mr. Mahipal.
(31) PW2 Sh. Bachhu Singh is the brother of the plaintiff. He had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex.PW2/A wherein he had CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 21 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:57:21 +0530
supported the case of plaintiff to the effect that the Sale Deed Ex.PW1/2 was executed in his presence by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and he had signed the said sale deed as a witness at point A in the presence of plaintiff, defendant and other witness namely Sh. Inder Dev who had also signed the same at point B. The receipt of the entire sale consideration was admitted and acknowledged by the defendant before the Sub Registrar in his presence at the time of presentation of sale deed.
(32) He was also duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. He had deposed in his cross-examination that he is not aware whether any receipt was issued with respect to the cheques and cash amount. He is not aware whether the cheques for the sum of Rs.8 lacs were encashed or not.
(33) PW3 Sh. Inder Dev is another witness to the alleged sale deed. He had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A wherein he had supported the case of the plaintiff to the effect that the Sale Deed Ex.PW1/2 was executed in his presence and he had appended his signatures on the said sale deed at point B in the presence of plaintiff, defendant and other witness namely Sh. Bachhu Singh who also appended his signatures on the same at point A. He had further deposed that the plaintiff is the real sister of PW2 Bachhu Singh, who in turn is his close friend. He had further deposed that at the time of presentation of sale deed before the Sub Registrar, the defendant had categorically admitted and acknowledged receipt of the entire sale consideration in his presence.
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 22 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:57:30
+0530
(34) He was also duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the
defendant. He had deposed in his cross-examination that no receipt was issued with respect to the cheques and cash amount. He is not aware whether the cheques for the sum of Rs.8 lacs were encashed or not.
(35) PW4 Sh. Vinod Kumar is a summoned witness from the office of Sub Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi who had produced the original Peshi Register having entries in respect of sale deed dated 19.06.2008 executed by Smt. Rama Devi. Certified copy of the relevant page bearing Book No.1, Serial No. 25, Regn. No. 4646 from 19.06.2008 to 19.06.2008 of the said Peshi Register is Ex.P1/X. However, the original sale deed dated 19.06.2008 was not produced by the witness on the ground that the same was not available on record. He deposed in his cross-examination that the receipts with regard to receiving of consideration amount in respect of the sale deed are also not available on record. He, in his cross-examination, deposed that complaints made by the seller for cancellation of sale deed are not available in their records and the receipts with regard to receiving consideration amount of sale deed are also not available in their records.
(36) PW5 Sh. Dalip Kumar is the summoned witness from State Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch who had produced the summoned record, that is, statement of account from the period 1.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal in respect of savings bank account no. 10343823000, which is Ex.PW5/1 (collectively).
(37) Vide separate statement of the plaintiff Smt. Rama Devi, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 21.11.2023. Thereafter the matter was CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 23 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:57:38
+0530
fixed for defendant's evidence.
(38) At the stage of defendants' evidence, defendant no.2 Sh. Ashok
Kumar adopted his evidence recorded as plaintiff's evidence in connected matter bearing CS No. 610944/2016 titled as Vidhya Devi vs. Rama Devi & Ors.
(39) In CS DJ 610944/2016, at the stage of plaintiff's evidence, the LR of the plaintiff namely Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta had examined three witnesses. No witness was examined on behalf of other LR namely Shubham. PW1 Ashok Kumar Gupta had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he had deposed in consonance with the plaint. He had relied upon following documents in his evidence by way of affidavit:
1. Copy of format of pension form in the handwriting of Sh.
Rameshwar Dayal, Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copy of ration card of Smt. Vidhya Devi, Mark A (mentioned as Ex.PW1/2 in the affidavit of evidence and was de-exhibited).
3. Copy of voter card of Smt. Vidhya Devi, Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
4. Complaint addressed to SHO PS Sarai Rohilla along with postal receipts, Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
5. Copy of complaint addressed to Sub-Registrar Kashmere Gate, Mark B (mentioned as Ex.PW1/5 in the affidavit of evidence and was de-exhibited).
6. Notice dated 28.06.2008 of Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Ex.PW1/6.
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 24 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:57:45 +0530
7. Letter addressed to Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Ex.PW1/7.
8. Notice dated 26.09.2008 of Sub Registrar, Ex.PW1/8.
9. Copy of notice dated 09.01.2009 issued by SDM Sadar Bazar, Mark C (mentioned as Ex.PW1/10 in the affidavit of evidence and was de-exhibited).
(40) There was no document with the citation Ex.PW1/9. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 at length. He, in his cross- examination, had deposed that his mother became owner of property no. B-1796, Shastri Nagar, Delhi pursuant to the demise of his father. He further deposed that his father had purchased the land in the year 1966 but he does not know as to from whom his father had purchased the land. He further deposed that the documents qua ownership of the property were in possession of their relative namely Ram Niwas Gupta as his father was suffering from cancer and had taken a loan of Rs.45,000/- from Ram Niwas Gupta due to which reason the title documents were mortgaged in the year 1986. He deposed that the entire property bearing no. B-1796, Shastri Nagar is measuring 150 square yards containing 5 shops (measuring 9 ft. x 9 ft.), 3 rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom on the ground floor and one room, one kitchen and one store on the first floor. He was not in possession of the Will and had seen the Will when papers were sent on 26.06.2008 by defendant no.1 Rama Devi to him.
(41) PW1 further deposed that after the demise of his parents, the entire property came to his share and had volunteered that the entire property stood CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 25 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:57:54 +0530
in his name as well as in the name of his brothers and mother. He further deposed that his father was suffering from cancer and executed a Will in January 1986 and handed over the Will and documents of sale deed to Ram Niwas Gupta with the understanding that till the time the entire payment was not made by his father to Ram Niwas Gupta, the Will would be inoperative. He further deposed that on 23.06.2008 he came to know about the execution of the sale deed by his mother, when she gained consciousness. He could not disclose about the dates of the complaints lodged by him with the police and other authorities at the time of cross-examination. He further deposed that his mother was unconscious and she could not recognize anybody since 19.06.2008 and used to recognize the person by hearing the voice only. He did not go to any doctor in that regard since his mother was diabetic and they kept on waiting for her improvement. He is not aware as to who had prepared the complaints lodged by his mother with police after 23.06.2018. He also deposed that he went to the police station along with his mother on many occasions after 23.06.2008 and he made the complaints to Sub Registrar, SDM, LG, Deputy Commissioner, Police Commissioner, Deputy Police Commissioner, Chief Minister, Central Home Minister and Prime Minister. He further deposed that neither he nor his mother lodged any complaint prior to 23.06.2008 nor they lodged any case in the Court when they came to know about the fraud committed by defendant no.1. He admitted that his mother instituted the suit after six months of the receipt of the notice of the suit for recovery of possession instituted by Smt. Rama Devi against his mother, himself and his brother. He further deposed that he came to know about registration of the sale deed on 23.06.2008 and probably on 14.07.2008, he made a complaint to the SDM concerned.
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 26 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:58:02 +0530
(42) PW1 further deposed that after having a look of the sale deed, he
came to know that a consideration of Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash and two cheques of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.3 lacs were issued by Rameshwar Dayal and Kirti. The witness volunteered that there is no payment in the bank account and no consideration was paid. He has no knowledge of the fact that his mother issued a notice to Dr. Rameshwar Dayal to seek the recovery of rent after the institution of the suit by Rama Devi and after institution of the suit by his mother against Smt. Rama Devi. He further deposed that there is another tenant namely Mahipal Singh but he is not aware of the rate of rent of tenant Mahipal and had volunteered that he was not getting any rent since the year 2009. PW1 further deposed that his mother might have given a notice to Mahipal for recovery of rent. The complaint Ex.PW1/4 was made by his mother under her thumb impression.
(43) PW2 Sh. Dalip Kumar is the summoned witness from State Bank of India, Kamla Nagar Branch who had produced the summoned record, that is, statement of account for the period 1.06.2008 to 31.01.2009 of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal in respect of savings bank account no. 10343823000, which is Ex.PW2/1 (collectively).
(44) PW3 Sh. Kumar Saurav is the summoned witness from HDFC Bank, Udyog Vihar Branch, Gurgaon who had produced the summoned record, that is, statement of account for the period 1.06.2008 to 31.01.2009 of Ms. Kirti Dayal along with certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act as well as covering letter, which are Ex.PW3/1 (collectively).
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 27 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:58:10
+0530
(45) Vide order dated 08.11.2021, plaintiff's evidence was closed by the
Ld. Predecessor of this Court and the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence.
(46) At the stage of defendant's evidence, defendant no.1 had adopted the evidence recorded as plaintiff's evidence in suit bearing CS DJ No. 613324/2016 titled as 'Rama Devi Vs. Vidya Devi & Anr.' as defendant's evidence in the present matter. Defendants no.2 and 3 are already exparte.
(47) Final arguments were heard as advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and the material available on record was perused.
Issue wise findings are as follows:
Issues no.1 & 2 in CS DJ No. 613324/2016 Whether the alleged sale deed dated 19.06.2008 is perfectly fair and reasonable and that no advantage has been taken by the plaintiff? OPP Whether the alleged sale deed dated 19.06.2008 was not result of fraud and misrepresentation or undue influence? OPP Issue no.3 in CS DJ No. 610944/2016 Whether the sale deed/ transaction dated 19.06.2008 was exercised in good faith? OPD-1 (48) All the above issues are taken up together being interconnected and as onus to prove all these issues was on Smt. Rama Devi, who is plaintiff in CS DJ No. 613324/2016 and defendant no.1 in CS DJ No. 610944/2016.
Smt. Rama Devi is referred to as 'Vendee/ purchaser of suit property' and CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 28 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:58:19 +0530
Smt. Vidhya Devi is referred to as 'Vendor/ seller of the suit property' in the adjudication of issues as both the parties in the respective suits instituted by them had lead plaintiff's evidence and had stated that the said evidence be treated as their defendant's evidence in the connected cross-cases.
(49) It is the case of Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee/ purchaser of suit property that the sale deed dated 19.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/2 in CS DJ No. 613324/2016) was executed in good faith in her favour by Late Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor/ seller of the suit property and was not a result of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence and that no advantage was taken by her at the time of execution of the same. On the contrary, it is the case of Smt. Vidhya Devi (since deceased)/ Vendor/ seller that she was aged about 90 years at the time of said execution, was illiterate and was taken into confidence by deceitful means by Vendee and her husband, namely, Sh. Rameshwar Dayal and they took undue advantage of her old age and vulnerable position. They exploited the situation and got executed the sale deed fraudulently from her without paying any consideration. She never intended nor consented to execute the impugned sale deed in favour of the Vendee.
(50) Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines consent and state that two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense. Free consent is defined under Section 14 of the Act to be free from coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake. Section 16 defines undue influence and states that a contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other, and he uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 29 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:58:27 +0530
other. Sub-section 2 of Section 16 states that a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another - (a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or (b) he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.
(51) Sub-Section 3 of Section 16 further lays the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence upon the person who is in a position to dominate the will of another and further when the transaction appears on the face of it or on the evidence adduced to be unconscionable.
(52) Section 19A of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that when consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
(53) A perusal of the impugned sale deed dated 19.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/2 in CS DJ 613324/2016) shows that the said sale deed was executed on 19.06.2008 between Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor and Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee. The said sale deed is with respect to house no. B-1796, area measuring 50 square yards, covered area 30 square meter, out of Khasra No. 478/179, situated in the area of village Sadhora Kalan, Delhi-110042. The entire said property was sold for a consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- and the said consideration amount was paid by way of two cheques, one bearing no. 734828 for an amount of Rs.5 lacs drawn on State Bank of India, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 dated 18.06.2008, other bearing no. 006325 for an amount of Rs.3 lacs drawn on HDFC Bank, Gurgaon, Haryana dated CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 30 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:58:42 +0530
19.06.2008 and the remaining Rs.50,000/- were paid by way of cash on 19.06.2008. It is further mentioned in the sale deed that the said sum was paid by Vendee to Vendor prior to the execution of the sale deed and that Vendor had delivered the vacant and physical possession of the property to Vendee prior to the registration of the sale deed. The age of Vendor is mentioned in the said sale deed to be that of 80 years. The Vendee had also relied upon the copy of the election ID card of Vendor, Mark C and the Vendor also in the cross-suit had relied upon her election ID Card as Ex.PW1/3 and perusal of both the same reveals that on the date when the sale deed was allegedly executed, the age of Vendor would be around 80 years. The sale deed Ex.PW1/2 further reflects that Vendor used to affix her thumb impressions and had not signed on the said sale deed. This gives credence to the contentions on behalf of the Vendor that she was illiterate and was of old age.
(54) The sale deed is witnessed by PW2 and PW3 namely Sh. Bachhu Singh and Sh. Inder Dev. Admittedly, Sh. Bachhu Singh is the real brother of the Vendee and Sh. Inder Dev is the friend of Sh. Bachhu Singh. It is the case of Vendee that the Vendor was accompanied by one of her sons namely Sh. Deepak at the time of execution of the sale deed before the office of the Sub- Registrar. However, no evidence has been lead with respect to the same. It is trite to mention that the onus of proving that the transaction was exercised in good faith and was not the result of fraud and misrepresentation or undue influence, was on the Vendee. No one from the side of the Vendor was a witness to the said sale deed as is manifest from the record.
(55) Furthermore, in the present matter, it is an admitted case that husband of the Vendee, namely, Sh. Rameshwar Dayal was a tenant of the CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 31 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:58:50
+0530
Vendor and was running a clinic therein in the capacity of doctor. Thus, the Vendee and her husband were aware about the family composition of the Vendor being tenant and landlord respectively. It is further admitted by the Vendee in her cross-examination that her residence is at a distance of about 100 meter from the suit property. Thus, the parties resided in the same vicinity, the husband of the Vendee was a doctor and was also the tenant of the Vendor who was an illiterate old aged lady, aged approximately 80 years.
(56) It is contented on behalf of the Vendee that they had consulted legal experts before purchasing the property in question and had also physically inspected the index register and had even obtained the certified copy of Will dated 19.01.1986 executed by the husband of the Vendor in her favour. All these documents are mentioned in the recital of Ex.PW1/2, which is the impugned sale deed. Sh. Ashok Kumar, who is the son of the Vendor and also one of the initial parties in the suit for possession and injunction filed by the Vendee, had deposed before the Court that he is not aware about the said documents as the said documents were mortgaged by his late father.
(57) Furthermore, in the present matter, glaringly no agreement to sell was executed between the parties and directly the impugned sale deed was executed on 19.06.2008. With respect to the payment of consideration as well, the two cheques of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.3 lacs were dated 18.06.2008 and 19.06.2008 respectively. The stamp papers were also purchased on 18.06.2008. Though it is mentioned that cash of Rs.50,000/- was paid prior to the registration of sale deed, however, there is no separate receipt qua the said payment in cash. Again, at the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to point out that no child/ relative from the side of the Vendor, who was an illiterate lady CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 32 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:58:58
+0530
aged about 80 years, had accompanied her to the office of the Sub-Registrar as manifested from record. Even both the attesting witnesses to the impugned sale deed were from the side of the Vendee, being her real brother and friend of her real brother.
(58) The contents of the impugned sale deed further reflect that the Vendor was shown as owner of 50 square yards of the property and it was mentioned in the recitals that the entire property of 50 square yards was sold by way of sale deed Ex.PW1/2. However, it is admitted by the Vendee in her cross-examination that the entire property ad-measures about 150 square yards and she had purchased only 50 square yards. More so and importantly, there is no site plan affixed to the impugned sale deed and the Vendee had admitted in her cross-examination that no site plan was prepared in respect of the suit property at the time of execution of the sale deed. In the absence of the site plan, the 150 square yards property could not have been demarcated to the extent that what portion was intended to be sold by way of the impugned sale deed.
(59) More so, though it is mentioned that the vacant and physical possession of the entire property was handed over to the Vendee by the Vendor prior to the execution of the sale deed, however, the said statement/ recital in the sale deed is contrary to the submissions in the pleadings as well as evidence, as as per the pleadings the rear portion of the property was assured to be handed over by 23.06.2008 and when the same was not handed over, complaint was made by the Vendee to police by way of telegram on 24.06.2008. More so, it is admitted by the Vendee in her cross-examination that one of the shops was in the possession of a tenant, namely, Sh. Mahipal CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 33 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 17:59:53
+0530
and he is still in possession of the said shop. No discussion had taken place between her and the Vendor with regard to the eviction of the said tenant from the one shop which was part of the suit property. She further deposed that rent was not paid to them and the rent was collected by Sh. Ashok Kumar son of the Vendor from the tenant.
(60) Thus, in the present matter no site plan was prepared at the time when the impugned sale deed was executed, no demarcation of the sold property was specified in the sale deed and even the specification of the entire property was mentioned as 50 square yards whereas the property admittedly is of 150 square yards. The impugned sale deed further did not mention about the existence of another tenancy in respect of portion of the suit property, that is, it did not mention that one shop was in possession of a tenant, namely, Sh. Mahipal.
(61) The major consideration amount of Rs.8 lacs was purportedly paid through two cheques, that is, cheque bearing No. 734828 dated 18.06.2008 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Kamla Nagar, Delhi from the bank account of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (husband of the Vendee) and cheque bearing No. 006325 dated 19.06.2008 drawn on HDFC Bank from the bank account of Ms. Kirti Dayal (daughter of the Vendee). Perusal of the evidence of bank witnesses, that is, PW2 Sh. Dalip Kumar and PW3 Sh. Kumar Saurav in CS DJ No. 610944/2016 titled as 'Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors.' shows that the statement of accounts of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (husband of the Vendee) and Ms. Kirti Dayal (daughter of the Vendee) have been exhibited before the Court as Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW3/1 respectively. The statement of account of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (Ex.PW2/1) reveals that CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 34 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:00:20
+0530
neither on 18.06.2008 (the date when the cheque was issued from his account of Rs.5 lacs) nor on 19.06.2008 nor till 23.06.2008 he was having sufficient balance, that is, Rs.5,00,000/- in his account to honour the cheque. Only on 24.06.2008 balance of Rs.5,28,083.52p is reflected in his account. The account statement further shows that till 21.01.2009 the said cheque of Rs.5 lacs was not encashed from the said account. Similarly, the statement of account of Ms. Kirti Dayal (Ex.PW3/1) shows that on 19.06.2008 she was not having sufficient balance, that is, Rs.3,00,000/- in her account to honour the cheque and later on, on various dates amounts were deposited in her account and it was only on 23.06.2008 that the balance of Rs.3,04,259.09p is reflected in her account. More so, the entire statement shows that the cheque of Rs.3 lacs was not debited from her account till 30.01.2009. Thus, perusal of both the account statements show that the cheques which were given as consideration for the impugned sale deed, were never encashed and the amount of the said cheques was never debited either from the account of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal or from the account of Ms. Kirti Dayal. Furthermore, on the date when the said cheques were issued, the said account holders were not having sufficient balance in their bank accounts in order to honour the cheques in question. PW1 Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee was also evasive in her cross-examination towards the questions that whether the cheques were ever encashed or not and she refused to answer with respect to the same on the ground that she had not checked the statement of account of her husband or of her daughter.
(62) Thus, both the cheques were never encashed by or on behalf of the Vendor. It is the case of the Vendor that she was not having any bank account CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 35 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:00:28
+0530
in her name. No contrary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Vendee to show that the Vendor was having a bank account or that any money was transferred in any bank account belonging to the Vendor or her representatives. Thus, firstly the cheques were never encashed, secondly there is no separate receipt with respect to the receiving of Rs.50,000/- by way of cash by the Vendor from the Vendee on 19.06.2008 itself prior to the execution of the sale deed on 19.06.2008. Furthermore, as discussed above, no agreement to sell was entered into in the impugned transaction, which is contrary to the common practice in immovable property transactions.
(63) It is the case of the Vendor that she had never received the cheques or the cash amount as alleged. PW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar, LR of Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor in CS DJ No. 610944/2016, had deposed before the Court that after coming to know about the nature of the transaction entered on 19.06.2008, the Vendor had immediately made complaints before the office of Sub Registrar as well as before the police authorities. He had relied upon Ex.PW1/4 (colly) which is copy of complaint made to SHO PS Sarai Rohilla on dated 23.06.2008 along with postal receipts addressed to police and Sub Registrar all dated 23.06.2008. He had further relied upon the notice issued by the Sub Registrar Kashmere Gate on 28.06.2008 to the Vendor (Ex.PW1/6) and notice dated 29.09.2008 of Sub Registrar Kashmere Gate (Ex.PW1/8). These documents show that complaints were made by the Vendor to the authorities since 23.06.2008.
(64) Thus, keeping in view the above discussions and findings, it is established that at the time of execution of the impugned sale deed (Ex.PW1/2) Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor was aged approximately 80 years, CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 36 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:00:35 +0530
that she was illiterate and used to affix her thumb impressions, that the attesting witnesses to the said sale deed were brother and close friend of brother of Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee, that it has not come on record that the Vendor was accompanied by any of her relative or offspring to the office of the Sub Registrar, that Rs.8 lacs by way of cheques were never encashed by or on behalf of the Vendor or her legal representatives and that at the time when the above cheques were allegedly handed over by the Vendee from the accounts of her husband and her daughter, the said accounts were not having sufficient balance and post execution of the sale deed, amounts were deposited in their bank accounts in order to reflect adequate balance, that no agreement to sell was entered into between the parties prior to entering into the alleged sale deed dated 19.06.2008 which is contrary to the common practice, that there was no separate receipt with respect to the cash consideration of Rs.50,000/-, that the property was not demarcated and no site plan was affixed along with the sale deed Ex.PW1/2, that the sale deed even did not mention about part of property being under the tenancy of a third party, that though it was mentioned in the sale deed that the actual physical possession was handed over, however, the possession which was with the Vendee was of the only shop of which her husband was a previous tenant, that husband of the Vendee was the tenant of the Vendor and was also a doctor and thus was in a position to exercise influence over the Vendor who was an old illiterate lady aged 80 years, that complaints were made to police and Sub Registrar by the Vendor on 23.06.2008 itself, that in the recital of the sale deed the description of the entire property is mentioned as a house measuring 50 square yards having covered area of 30 square meters whereas it is admitted that the entire property ad-measures 150 square yards comprising of CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 37 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:00:48 +0530
five shops, three rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom on the ground floor and one room, one kitchen and one store on the first floor.
(65) Thus, it is established to the extent of preponderance of probabilities that husband of the Vendee was holding apparent authority over the Vendor being a doctor and her tenant and the Vendor being an illiterate old lady aged about 80 years, that the transaction appears on the face of it to be unconscionable as even the cheques were not encashed and on the date when the said cheques were issued, the drawers of the cheques in question were not having sufficient balance in their accounts. Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee had failed to discharge the onus in order to show that the transaction was entered in good faith and was not the result of misrepresentation or fraud or undue influence or that no advantage was taken of the old age and condition of Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor.
(66) Accordingly, all the above three issues are decided in favour of Smt. Vidhya Devi (through LRs)/ Vendor and against Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee.
Issue No.4 in CS DJ No. 613324/2016 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession and permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP Issues No. 1 and 2 in CS DJ No. 610944/2016 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 19.06.2008? OPP CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 38 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:00:55 +0530
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP (67) All the above issues are taken up together being inter connected. In view of the findings in respect of issues no.1 & 2 in CS DJ No. 613324/2016 and issue no.3 in CS DJ No. 610944/2016, wherein it is held that Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee had not been able to show to the extent of preponderance of probabilities that the impugned sale deed dated 19.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/2) was executed in good faith or that the same was perfectly fair, reasonable and no advantage was taken by her or that the same was not result of fraud or misrepresentation or undue influence, it is held that Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee (plaintiff in CS DJ No. 613324/2016) is not entitled to the relief of possession and injunction as asked for in the plaint (CS DJ No. 613324/2016).
(68) Further, it is held that Late Smt. Vidhya Devi (through her LRs)/ Vendor is entitled to the relief of declaration and cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 19.06.2008 (Ex.PW1/2) and is also entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
(69) Accordingly, the impugned sale deed dated 19.06.2008 in respect of property no. B-1796, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 allegedly executed by Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor in favour of Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee is hereby declared as null and void and is consequently canceled. Let an intimation be sent to the office of the concerned SDM/ Sub Registrar with respect to the cancellation of the impugned sale deed. Further, Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee, her associates, agents etc. are hereby restrained from interfering in the peaceful use and occupation of the suit property.
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 39 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:01:02 +0530
(70) However, no evidence has been adduced with respect to the status
of the complaint, if any, pending before the Sub Registrar. PW4 Sh. Vinod Kumar, who was the summoned witness from the office of Sub Registrar in CS DJ No. 613324/2016, had deposed that the complaints made by the seller/ vendor for cancellation of the sale deed are not available in their records. He had further deposed that the sale deed was registered. Nothing has come in the cross-examination with respect to the whereabouts of the complaint. No contrary evidence has been brought to show that any proceedings are going on and therefore, no mandatory injunction as prayed for qua SDM Sadar Bazar can be granted in the present matter. Further, the prayer of mandatory injunction that the Sub Registrar be directed not to register the sale deed has already become infructuous as the sale deed was already registered as is reflected in the order dated 21.01.2009 of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court that the bailiff from the office of SDM Sadar Bazar was present and had produced the relevant record, as per which the sale deed dated 19.06.2008 was registered vide registration no. 4646 in additional book no.1 volume no. 2615.
(71) All the above issues are accordingly disposed off.
Issue no.3 in CS DJ No. 613324/2016:
Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 1&2 (72) The onus of proving the above issue was upon the LRs of Late Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor. However, no evidence has been led on behalf of LRs of CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 40 of 43 NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA PALIWAL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:01:10 +0530 late Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor in order to prove the above issue. In fact, the evidence by way of affidavit of PW1 Ashok Kumar (in CS DJ No. 610944/2016) is totally silent on the above aspect. The reliefs claimed by Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee, were the reliefs of possession and permanent injunction. The suit was valued for the relief of possession at Rs.4,00,000/- and for the relief of permanent injunction at Rs.130/-. In order to see whether the suit has been properly valued, the contentions in the plaint are to be seen. The impugned sale deed mentioned the sale consideration as Rs.8,50,000/- and it was contention of Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee that the defendants, that is, Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor and her sons had not handed over the rear portion of the property to her, she already being in possession of part of suit property, that is, one shop and another shop was in possession of the tenant Sh. Mahipal against whom the relief of possession was not sought nor he was made a party. In view of the same, it is held that as the relief of possession was prayed with respect to the rear portion of 50 square yards of the suit property, the plaint was not under valued.
(73) Issue is accordingly decided in favour of Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee and against Late Smt. Vidhya Devi (through LRs)/ Vendor.
Relief:
(74) In the light of above discussions and findings, it is held that Smt. Rama Devi (plaintiff in CS DJ No. 613324/2016) is not entitled to the relief of possession and injunction as asked for in the plaint (CS DJ No. 613324/2016).
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 41 of 43
Digitally signed by NEHA
NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:01:18
+0530
(75) Further, it is held that Late Smt. Vidhya Devi (through her LRs)
(plaintiff in CS DJ No. 610944/2016) is entitled to the decree of declaration and cancellation of registered sale deed dated 19.06.2008 and is also entitled to the decree of permanent injunction.
(76) Accordingly, the sale deed dated 19.06.2008 registered vide registration no. 4646 in additional book no.1 volume no. 2615 in the office of Sub Registrar in respect of property no. B-1796, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 executed by Smt. Vidhya Devi/ Vendor in favour of Smt. Rama Devi/ Vendee is hereby declared as null and void and is consequently canceled. Let the copy of the judgment/ order be sent to the office of the concerned Sub Registrar for the purpose of cancellation of the said sale deed.
(77) Further, Smt. Rama Devi, her associates, agents etc. are hereby restrained from interfering in the peaceful use and occupation of the suit property. However, Late Smt. Vidhya Devi (through LRs) is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as asked for in the plaint.
(78) The suit filed by Smt. Rama Devi bearing CS DJ No. 613324/2016 titled as 'Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.' is hereby dismissed.
(79) The suit filed by Smt. Vidhya Devi (since deceased-through LRs) bearing CS DJ No. 610944/2016 titled as 'Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors.' is hereby decreed.
(80) Considering the nature of the suits, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly in both the suits.
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 42 of 43
NEHA PALIWAL Digitally signed by NEHA
PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:01:27 +0530
(81) Both the files of CS DJ No. 613324/2016 and CS DJ No.
610944/2016 be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:01:34
Announced in the Open Court
+0530
on 08.01.2025 (Neha Paliwal Sharma)
District Judge-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 43 pages and each page bears my signatures. It is further certified that this judgment is digitally signed after proof reading on 09.01.2025.
Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA PALIWAL PALIWAL SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.09 18:01:41
+0530
(Neha Paliwal Sharma)
District Judge-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari, New Delhi
CS DJ 613324/2016, Rama Devi Vs. Vidhya Devi & Ors.
CS DJ 610944/2016, Vidhya Devi Vs. Rama Devi & Ors. Page No. 43 of 43