Delhi District Court
Sh. Kuldip Singh vs Raj Kumar & Ors on 14 December, 2017
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. G. N. PANDEY
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (NE)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 161/16
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Kuldip Singh
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh
R/o Village & PO Bhkhtawarpur,
Delhi36
........ Plaintiff
V E R S U S
(1) Sh. Raj Kumar
S/o Avinash Kumar
R/o C412, Main Market,
Seemapuri, Delhi.
(2) Sh. Om Prakash Giri
S/o Sh. Shiv Kumar Giri
Village Gokulpuri,
Ganga Vihar Colony,
Delhi.
(3) Shiv Kumar Giri
S/o Late Sh. Ram Swaroop Giri
(4) Surender Pal Giri
(5) Jagdish Giri
(6) Raj Kumar
CS No. 161/16 page 1 of 17
Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Defendant No. 3 to 6 R/o Gali No. 5,
Village Gokulpur, Ganga Vihar Colony,
Delhi. ........ Defendants
Received in this Court : 07.10.2017
Date of argument : 02.11.2017
Date of Judgment/Order : 14.12.2017
Decision : Suit is dismissed with cost.
Suit for specific performance & permanent injunction
J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for specific performance of
agreement dated 08.02.2007 or in the alternative for recovery of damages /
mesne profits filed by plaintiff against the defendants.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint is that plaintiff
entered into an agreement dt. 08.02.2007 with the defendant No. 2 to 6
through attorney defendant No. 1 to purchase the land admeasuring 3600 Sq.
land out of total land 4 Bighas 19 Biswas of Khasra No. 98, revenue Estate of
Village Gokal Puri, Delhi registered at Ganga Vihar Colony ( hereinafter
called the suit property). In view of the agreement, the defendants received
the earnest money in cash and acknowledged the receipt and total
consideration was Rs. 1 Crore 40 Lakhs. With the consent of the parties, the
time period of agreement was extended for further three months and lastly on
11.12.2008, the time was extended till February, 2009. The defendants
delayed the matters after taking the huge earnest money and plaintiff also
came to know regarding litigation with respect to the suit property wherein
CS No. 161/16 page 2 of 17
Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
the decree was executed by defendant No. 1. As the defendants did not
perform their part of the agreement and tried to sell the property to some
other persons, the plaintiff issued public notice through publication on
01.07.2010. Legal notice was also issued by the plaintiff to the defendants on
15.07.2010 to perform their part of the agreement but of no avail. The
plaintiff therefore filed this suit against the defendants praying for decree of
specific performance, decree of injunction for restraining the defendants from
selling the property to the third party.
3. The defendant No. 1 in the WS also reiterated the averments of
defendant No. 2 to 6 in one way or the other.
The defendant No. 2 to 6 by way of WS claimed that this suit is not
maintainable ; plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit; this suit is barred
by time of limitation; plaintiff has suppressed the materials facts. The
answering defendants denied any receipt of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/
contending that the GPA in favour of defendant No. 1 dt. 01.03.2000 was
revoked/ cancelled by the defendant No. 2 to 6 on 28.05.2010. The
defendants also denied regarding the ownership of the land admeasuring
3600 Sq. Yards. While denying rest of the material contentions of the
plaintiff in the plaint, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
4. Replication to the WS of the defendants was filed by the plaintiff
whereby the plaintiff has reiterated the averments made in the plaint while
denying the contentions of the defendants in the written statements.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have
been framed vide order dated 26.05.2014:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific
CS No. 161/16 page 3 of 17
Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
performance of the contract/agreement to sell dated 08.02.2007
as extended from time to time and for possession of the suit
property as prayed for in prayer no. a of the plaint ? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
permanent injunction in respect of suit property as prayed for in
prayers no. b and c of the plaint? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD
(4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ?
OPD
(5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by section 41
(h) (i) and (j) of the Specific Relief Act?OPD.
The case was thereafter fixed for plaintiff's evidence.
6. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A
and deposed regarding the facts as mentioned in the plaint. The witness has
deposed nothing but the averments made in the plaint. The witness has also
deposed regarding the relevant documents i.e. Ex. PW 1/ 1 to Ex. PW 1/ 16.
The plaintiff also examined Sh. Devender Kumar and Sh. Krishan
Kumar as PW2 and PW3 by way of their respective affidavits Ex. PW 2/A
and Ex. PW 3/A.
Petitioner also summoned and examined the witness i.e. Sh. Sunil
Manchanda, Judicial Asstt. Record Room Civil, KKD Courts, Delhi as PW4
appeared with the summoned record i.e. judicial file bearing CS No. 538/08
title Om Prakash V/s Satbir Singh, Goshwara No. 60/09, Civil NE decided by
Sh. Anil Kumar Sisodia, Ld. Senior Civil Judge, KKD Courts, Delhi and date
CS No. 161/16 page 4 of 17
Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
of decision 04.06.2009 and the certified copies of the said judicial file already
Ex. PW 1/ 8. As no other witness was examined by the plaintiff, the PE was
closed and case was fixed for DE.
7. The defendant No. 1 filed his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. DW
1/A and examined himself as DW1 in support of his defence. The witness
has relied upon the documents i.e. certified copies of General Attorney
executed between the defendant No. 1 and 2 to 6 Ex. DW 1/1, certified copy
of newspaper publication Ex. DW 1/2, certified copy of the statement of
defendant No. 2 to 6 Ex. DW 1/3 and certified copy of order dt. 09.07.2010
Ex. DW 1/4. The DE was thereafter closed.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and considered the relevant
materials on record alongwith provisions of law. I have also gone through the
written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff.
9. My findings on the above said issues are as follows :
Issue No. III to V:
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit ? OPD
(4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ?
OPD
(5) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by section 41 (h) (i)
and (j) of the Specific Relief Act? OPD.
10. The onus to prove these issue was on the defendants and these issue
were famed in view of the contentions of the defendants in the WS. I have
gone through the plaint alongwith relevant materials relied by the plaintiff on
CS No. 161/16 page 5 of 17
Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
record in support of claim and contentions. The plaintiff has filed this suit on
the basis of agreement to sell entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.
1 being the attorney of defendant No. 2 to 6 and as the defendants failed to
perform their part of agreement, this suit is filed by plaintiff against the
defendants. The plaintiff has claimed the extensions of the agreement time
and again and during cross examination, the testimony of plaintiff in this
respect remained unimpeached/ uncontroverted. Moreover, the defendants
failed to prove as to how this suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable or
barred; nothing was deposed or proved by the defendants in this respect. In
nut shell, the defendant failed to prove these issues and discharged the onus.
These issue are decided against the defendants accordingly.
Issue No. 1 & II:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific
performance of the contract/agreement to sell dated 08.02.2007
as extended from time to time and for possession of the suit
property as prayed for in prayer no. a of the plaint ? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
permanent injunction in respect of suit property as prayed for in
prayers no. b and c of the plaint? OPP
11. The brief and relevant facts for filing of the suit along with the defence
of the defendants is mentioned at the outset. The onus to prove the issue No. I
and II remained on the plaintiff. Both these issues are examined and decided
together being interrelated and interconnected.
12. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings
of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of plaint and
CS No. 161/16 page 6 of 17
Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the
contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that.
Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities.
In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in
183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to
observe as under:
"A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The
balance of probabilities in the present case shows that the
Power of Attorney Ex. PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P1 were duly
executed by the deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power of
Attorney is after all a registered Power of Attorney, and
more importantly, the original title documents of the subject
property are in the possession of the respondent No. 1 and
which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent No. 1 her father inlaw Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
'' 8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can CS No. 161/16 page 7 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case visa vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit " preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance of probabilities
13. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines " burden of proof"
which is reproduced as below: " 101. Burden of proof whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to CS No. 161/16 page 8 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been liable to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party.
14. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The specific performance is an equitable relief and Section 20 of the Act preserves judicial discretion. The relief U/S 20 is not automatic as the Court is required to see the totality of the circumstances which are to be assessed by the Court in the light of facts and circumstances of each case. The party who seek specific performance being an equitable relief must come to the court with clean hands and while exercising the discretion, the court would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, the conduct of parties and the motive behind the litigation.
15. In a suit for Specific Performance, the plaintiff has to prove a valid sale agreement; the breach of the contract by the defendant and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The relevant provision of law i.e. Section 16 (c ) of the Specific Relief Acts mandates readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff as a condition precedent to seek specific performance. Section 16 (c ) is reproduced hereunder: " Section 16. Personal bars to relief Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person XXX XXX XXX CS No. 161/16 page 9 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
( C) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation. For the purposes of clause ( c ), where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction."
16. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RFA No. 83/2007, the readiness and willingness are two separate issues. The former depends upon the availability of the requisite funds whereas the later depends on the intention of the purchaser. The readiness has to be proved by the purchaser by leading evidence relating to the availability of the funds whereas the intention has to be inferred from the various circumstances on record. If there is not availability of the funds with the purchaser, he can be none suited on the ground of non readiness alone. If the plaintiff is able to show and prove the availability of balance sale consideration with him at the time fixed for performance in the agreement, it is an indication of his readiness but his willingness/intention to perform cannot be inferred from readiness alone. It is the duty of the Court to find out which party has not performed his part of the contract and the Court has to take into consideration the human probabilities, ordinary course of human conduct and commonsense to draw necessary CS No. 161/16 page 10 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
inference. The Court has to minutely examine the conduct of the parties in order to ascertain the truth.
17. In N. P. Thirugnanam Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, ( 1995) 5 SCC 115, the Supreme Court held that the Court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances to adjudge the " readiness" and "
willingness" of the plaintiff. The amount of balance sale consideration must be proved to be available with the purchaser right from the date of execution till the date of decree. The Court upheld the dismissal of the suit for specific performance on various grounds inter alia that the plaintiff was dabbing in real estate business without means to purchase the suit property and the very contract was speculative in nature.
In R. C. Chandiok V. Chunni Lal Sabharwal, (1970) 3 SCC 140, the Supreme Court held that " readiness" and " willingness" cannot be treated as a straitjacket formula. It has to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned. The plaintiff claimed the execution of the agreement dt. 08.02.2007 with defendant No. 1 being attorney as well as payment of Rs. 40,00,000/ in cash to defendant No. 1 towards part payment/ earnest money. In the WS, the defendants has denied the payment and also claimed the revocation of the GPA in favour of defendant No. 1. The defendants further denied their any concerned with the property. I have gone through the testimony of plaintiff which appears to be totally shattered during cross examination of witness regarding ownership of the property/ subject matter of the agreement as well as the payment of the consideration/ earnest money. The plaintiff admitted CS No. 161/16 page 11 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
that he had not seen the ownership documents of the property prior to the transaction; he cannot tell the dimension of the property ; no receipt was executed regarding the payment of any earnest money; he does not know where the said agreement was attested by notary and by which notary etc. The plaintiff even have not seen the ownership and title documents of the suit property till filing of the case except the attorney in favour of defendant No.
1. The claim of the plaintiff regarding the execution of the agreement to sell and payment of amount of Rs. 40,00,000/ in cash simply after seeing the attorney in favour of a person do not inspire confidence at all. The plaintiff or other PWs examined have even failed to show the source of income of the money arranged by the plaintiff and paid to defendants. In nut shell, the plaintiff failed to prove that defendant No. 2 to 6 being owner authorized the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 has authority to sell the suit property to plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove any payment of earnest money of Rs. 40,00,000/ to the defendant No. 1 as claimed in the plaint. Admittedly the earnest money of Rs. 40,00,000/ was paid in cash and therefore plaintiff is under liability to prove such amount while paying the same. It is further relevant to note that payment if any by plaintiff to be conversant with the provision of law of income tax act. It is interesting to note that plaintiff has not made the complaint against the defendants for his selling the property to third party or witness even failed to give the answer on basic question during cross examination like purchase of stamp paper, its attestation, place of attestation etc. In nut shell, the testimony of plaintiff appears to have no substance and caste shadow on the plaintiff case. Plaintiff is accordingly not entitled for the relief of specific performance as prayed in the suit. The CS No. 161/16 page 12 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
plaintiff therefore cannot seek specific performance of the agreement as prayed in the suit alongwith decree of permanent injunction.
18. There is no admission regarding payment of earnest money by the defendants. As stated by plaintiff, the earnest money was paid in cash but no income tax return is placed on record in support of contentions. There is nothing on record nor anything proved in this respect except the bald averments of the plaintiff. The testimony of the plaintiff was further controverted during crossexamination and his testimony was totally shattered. The plaintiff failed to show any such return to show the payment of Rs. 40,00,000/ in cash. No income tax return was placed on record by the plaintiff to corroborate his claim. The case of the plaintiff do not inspire confidence.
19. Plaintiff has not produced any income tax return to show that any payment was made and same was reflected in the return at the relevant time. Had the amount been actually given by plaintiff to defendant and same would have been shown by plaintiff in his income tax return at the relevant time and said fact would have been proved on record by examining the concerned official from Income tax department. The witness/plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs. 40,00,000/ by way of cash which itself is unbelievable and also contrary to the provisions of law. This act and conduct appears to be suspicious and does not inspire confidence. There is no averments in the plaint nor any evidence to infer the capacity of the plaintiff for payment of such huge amount in cash nor there is anything as from where such large amount was arranged by the plaintiff in cash. The plaintiff failed to show the source of arranging such large money in cash. Moreover, even the alleged CS No. 161/16 page 13 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
transaction of Rs. 40,00,000/ in cash made by the plaintiff is violative of the provisions of Income Tax Act. Section 269(SS) of the Income Tax Act prohibits any person from taking or accepting from any other person any loan or deposit in any other way than by cheque or bank draft where the amount is more than Rs. 20,000/. Similarly Section269(T) prohibits the repayment of any loan or deposit other than by way of cheque or bank draft, if amount is more than Rs. 20,000/. These provisions have been extended to loans between two individual as well and in such cases, the Income Tax assessing officer can levy penalty as high on the amount itself. The whole idea behind this clause is to counter act tax evasion. In this case, plaintiff failed to show any reason or ground for alleged transaction in violation of provisions of Income Tax Act. The plaintiff has not produced any corroborative evidence to show or prove that such amount was arranged or paid, whether such payment was reflected in the income tax return or any records maintained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to gain from the illegal act violating any law of the land. Further, merely oral averments is not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff for entitlement of the relief particularly when the transaction appears to be barred by the provisions of law. There is nothing on record except the bald averments of the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid discussions, plaintiff failed to discharge the onus and prove the issue. I have gone through the judgment reported as AIR 2008( NOC) 2495( KAR.) which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further the judgment reported as 2009 (107) DRJ 271 squarely applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. The plaintiff has not filed CS No. 161/16 page 14 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
even a single document to show the availability of cash in such large volume along with the source of the same.
20. I have gone through the judgment titled as Sanjay Mishra Vs. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr, 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 563 (Bombay) and ratio of the case squarely applies in the facts of this case. The relevant para No. 13 of the judgment reads as under: 13" In the present case, there is a categorical admission that the amount allegedly advanced by the applicant was entirely a cash amount and that the amount was "unaccounted". He admitted not only that the same was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return at the relevant time but till recording of evidence in the year 2006 it was not disclosed in the Income Tax Return. By no stretch of imagination it can be stated that liability to repay unaccounted cash amount is a legally enforceable liability within the meaning of explanation to section 138 of the said Act. The alleged debt cannot be said to be a legally recoverable debt."
21. Examining the case of the plaintiff on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove the case for entitlement of the reliefs as prayed in the suit. The ratio of judgment reported as 1982 (1) RCR 637 is squarely applicable in the facts of this case. Further, as held in Subhra Mukharjee Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1203, the party which makes the allegation must prove it. Undisputedly, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish such facts. The CS No. 161/16 page 15 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
issue No. I and II is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
22. I have gone through the judgment reported as (2003) 8 SCC 752. As held: Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil of testing of "
proved", " disproved" and " not proved" as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the valuation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that makes the difference. In a suit for possession of property based on title, if the plaintiff creates a high degree of probability of his title to ownership, instead of proving his title beyond any reasonable doubts, that would be enough to shift the onus on the defendant. If the defendant fails to shift back the onus, the plaintiffs burden of proof would stand discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title ( Para 28,29 and 33).
The present case being a civil one, the plaintiff could not be expected to prove his title beyond any reasonable doubt; a high degree of probability lending assurance of the availability of title with him would be enough to shift the onus the plaintiff's burden of proof can safely be deemed to have been discharged. In the opinion of this court the plaintiff had succeeded in shifting the onus on the defendant and, therefore, the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff had stood discharged.
The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and CS No. 161/16 page 16 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.
Sh. G. N. Pandey, Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
circumstances of this case.
23. In view of the testimony of the PWs, documents on record, the pleadings of the parties and examining the case of the plaintiff on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, it is established that the plaintiff failed to prove the case and discharge the onus. This Court is therefore of the considered view that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus and prove the issues. Merely, oral contentions is not sufficient to prove the issue. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit.
Relief: In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, this court is of the considered view the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit. The suit of plaintiff is accordingly dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court on this 14th day of December, 2017 G. N. Pandey Addl. District Judge (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS No. 161/16 page 17 of 17 Kuldip Singh V/s Raj Kumar & Ors.