Delhi District Court
Chanchal Saxena vs Vijay Naithani Ors on 30 June, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01
DISTRICT- SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Sh. SAURABH GOYAL, DJS
CT. CASE No. 4989957/2016
CHANCHAL SAXENA VS. VIJAY NATHANI & ORS.
PS Palam village
U/s 420/468/120B IPC
1) CNR No. : DLSW020000552010
2) The date of commission of offence : 21.05.2009
3) The name of the complainant : Smt. Chanchal Saxena
W/o Sh. Ravindra Saxena
R/O 79, TYPE-II, AlIMS,
Masjid Moth, New Delhi
4) The name & parentage of accused : 1) Vijay Nathani
S/o Sh. S P Nathani
R/O RZ-D1/51, Manavir
Enclave, New Delhi.
2) Madhu Nathani
S/o Sh. Vijay Nathani
R/O M, Gautam Nagar, Second
Floor, New Delhi
3) Govind Singh Bist
S/o Sh. Prem Singh Bisht
4) Hema Bisht
W/o Sh. Govind Singh
BishtBoth R/Ỏ A-94, Ayur
Campus, AllMS, New
Delhi.
Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016
2
5) Veena Kaintura W/O/D/O
Anil Kaintura R/O RZ-8-15/A.
Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi.
5) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Vikas Kharb
6) Offence involved : U/s 420, 468, 120 B IPC
7) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order : Acquittal
9) Judgment reserved on : 28.06.2025
10) Judgment announced on : 30.06.2025
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.The present case arises out of a complaint U/s 190 Cr.P.C against the accused person for commission of offence punishable under section 406/420/464/468/471/506/120/34IPC.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has filed the present complaint on the allegation that accused No.2 is an old friend and she introduced her husband accused No.1 as a Builder. It has been alleged that accused No.2 was aware that the complainant wants to purchase a flat for herself in Delhi. Accused No.1 became closer to the complainant and treated her like his sister. It has been alleged that on one day, accused No.1 offered one property for sale belonging to his friend and accused No. 1 & 2 disclosed the details of the property as bearing No. RZF - 127/3, Kasara number 98, Village, Nasirpur, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi and also disclosed that the said property in question is a built up property upto 2nd floor and that second floor is available for sale with Terrace rights. It has been alleged that Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 3the complainant along with aunt of complainant Smt. Leela Devi, along with accused No.1 went to see the property and the deal was finalized for a sum of ₹ 12 lakhs along with Terrace rights and the date of execution of sale deed was fixed to be 21.05.2009 but the complainant was not introduced to the property owner. The complainant has alleged that the accused No.1 took ₹7,00,000 by way of cheque prior to the date of execution of sale deed, but no receipt was taken by the complainant on account of near relation between the parties. The complainant has alleged that she was not in a position to arrange ₹8,00,000/- and the accused No.1 & 2 assured to arrange home loan from the bank and took sum of ₹56,000/- in cash from the complainant for arranging the home loan. It has been further stated that on 21.05.2009 at around 11:30 am to 12 noon, the complainant reached the office of Sub Registrar, Kapashera along with witness Shakti Singh and Leela Devi for getting the sale deed registered and where accused No. 3 & 4, who were the actual owners of the property were also present. It has been alleged that accused No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 obtained the signatures of the complainant on sale deed in a hasty manner by misrepresenting the facts due to which the complainant could not read the contents of the said documents as accused No. 1, 3 & 5 had already put their signatures on it. It has been further alleged that when the complainant received the copy of sale deed then she came to know that accused No. 1 to 5 have cheated her because the complainant had purchased the second floor with Terrace but it was mentioned in the sale deed that property purchased was second floor without terrace. It is further alleged that the value of the property was mentioned as ₹8,00,000/- instead of ₹12,00,000/- and the property in question was mentioned as built upto 4 stories whereas the property was built Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 4upto 2 stories only. When the complainant questioned the accused No.1 , 2, 3 & 5, then accused No. 1 assured that they will get the sale deed corrected and they will be giving the terrace rights to the complainant. When complainant asked accused No. 2 as to whom the third floor was sold, then she stated that third floor has not been sold to anyone, but due to typographical mistake, the same has been wrongly mentioned in the sale deed. In view of the above stated facts, the complainant became suspicious and thereafter she filed an RTI before Sub Registrar-IX, Kapashera. Through the RTI information, she came to know that accused No. 3 in collusion with remaining accused had sold the third floor with Terrace rights to accused No. 2 for a sum of ₹2.5 lakhs. The complainant after coming to know the real position, asked accused No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to return the money, but the accused persons threatened her and also abused her. The complainant went to police authorities but in vain and therefore, the present complaint was filed by the complainant. PRE SUMMONING EVIDENCE
3. In support of her allegations, complainant produced Smt. Leela Devi as CW1 and appeared herself as CW2 and produced Mr Suresh Kumar from Central Bank of India as CW3 in pre-summoning evidence who have testified the execution of the sale deed EX. CW2/A, and produced valuation documents i.e. Ex. CW 3/3 and CW3/4, Affidavit of accused No. 3 with regard to selling of property in question with roof rights dated 12.05.2009 EX. CW3/7 and Agreement to Sell Ex CW3/8 executed by accused no 4 with regard to property in question, which accused No. 4 had agreed to sell to complainant along with roof rights.
4. The complainant has also placed on record sale deed EX.CW2/A of the Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 5property in question wherein the property has been shown to be built upto 2nd floor. The complainant has also placed on record photographs Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW1/B, where also the property has been shown to be built upto 2nd floor. The complainant has also placed on record RTI information Ex. CW2/C as per which proposed accused No. 4 sold the third floor of the property in question on 23.05.2009 to accused No. 2.
5. Subsequently, on finding the prima facie case, the then Ld. MM vide order date 07.03.2012, ordered the summoning of accused No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for commission of offence U/S 420/468/120B IPC, but accused No. 5 was not summoned in the present case, as no prima facie case was found to be made out against her.
CHARGE FRAMED :
6. After appearance of all the persons in the court and after compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Pre charge evidence was lead by the complainant and complainant appeared herself as CW1 and examined Smt. Lila Devi as CW-2. On the basis of Pre charge evidence, on finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, accused No. 1 to 4 were ordered to be charged for commission of offence punishable U/s 420/468/120BIPC vide order dated 12.11.2014.
POST CHARGE COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE:
7. In post charge evidence, the complainant appeared herself again as CW-1 and produced Smt. Leela Devi as CW-2 and Shri Ashok Kumar, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar, New Delhi as CW- 2(wrongly mentioned as CW-2, instead of CW-3).
Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 68. After conclusion of complainant's evidence, the statement of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons were put to them and the accused denied the allegations leveled against them and pleaded false implication.
9. Accused Vijay Nathani has pleaded that he has not committed any fraud and there was no agreement between him and the complainant regarding giving roof rights to her and he stated that roof rights were given to accused No. 2 Madhu Nathani along with partly constructed structure on the third floor. The accused has denied the receipt from complainant of sum of ₹2,00,000/- in cash on 20.01.2009, ₹1,00,000 on 21.01.2009 and ₹1,00,000 on 15.05.2009 and ₹56,000/- for arranging home loan and pay order of ₹7,00,000/- in the name of Hema Singh Bisht, issued by Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar and further payment of ₹1,00,000/- when copy of sale deed was given to the complainant. The accused No.1, has further pleaded that initially in the month of February, 2009, one Bayana Receipt was executed with respect to the same property by accused No. 3 & 4 in his favour upon receiving payment of Rs. 3 Lakhs in presence of property dealer Sh. Chander Bahadur @ Chandu and the total agreed consideration was Rs. 11 Lakhs and he was given 3 months time for making payment of entire consideration amount. Later on, since the property price increased, the dealer and accused No. 3 & 4 did not materialized the transaction. He asked them to return his amount, then, the dealer told that the amount cannot be returned as the same amount has been invested by accused No. 3 & 4 in purchase of another flat. Thereafter, dealer along with Accused No. 3 & 4 gave him Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 7proposal to purchase roof right for the same amount stating that he can make structure upon the same to which also he agreed. However, again they retracted from this agreement and did not execute sale deed even for roof rights. Then again accused No. 3 & 4 gave another proposal to him as the purchaser to whom he intended to sell Second floor was unable to make the payment so they demanded ₹1,00,000/- in cash from him with assurance to return the same within one month. Further, it is deposed that complainant gave him three cheques total amounting to ₹1,00,000/- and told him that now they will execute sale deed for second floor in favour of complainant Chanchal Saxena, and on the same day, they will execute sale deed for roof rights in his favour. This deal happened at the office of Chandra Bahadur and in presence of all other accused persons, complainant and Chandra Bahadur. After 3 days, sale deed was executed for 2nd floor in favour of Complainant Chanchal Saxena and for 3rd floor with roof rights in favour of his wife as he intended to raise construction on roof and his wife could have only obtained loan for the same being a Govt. Employee. On the day when the sale deed was executed, the complainant was accompanied by one lady namely Smt. Veena Kanturia and one boy namely Shakti Singh. Since Shakti Singh was not having any identity card, he could not be cited as witness on sale deed of complainant and the property dealer Chander Bahadur insisted him to become a witness in the sale deed of complainant and since he had read the contents of the sale deed of complainant which was for 2 nd floor without roof rights, he became a witness. He has further deposed that firstly sale deed in favour of his wife was registered as per agreed terms and then complainant's sale deed was registered. After about 1 week he received copy of his sale deed Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 8from property dealer and since he intended to raise construction upon his floor/ roof, he demanded return of Rs. 1 Lakh from the complainant but despite her assurances to return the amount time and again she did not return the same and she also filed one false plaint/FIR against him in Saket Court regarding loss of her cheques and it has been decided in his favour. Accused No. 3 & 4 have also filed one case against him wherein proceedings have been stayed by Hon'ble High Court for last 3 years.
10. Accused No. 2, Madhu Nathani has taken the defence that she has been falsely implicated in the present case and stated that there was no agreement executed between her husband and the complainant regarding giving of roof rights to the complainant. Rather, the roof right was given to her along with partly constructed structure on the third floor. She has also pleaded that her husband had not received any payment from the complainant as deposed by the complainant, rather her husband had given ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant and the sale deed of the roof right was executed in her favour by accused NO. 3 & 4.
11. Similarly, accused No. 3 & 4 in their examination U/s 313 Cr. P. C have denied entering into conspiracy with accused No. 2 to prepare forged document for the purpose of cheating the complainant by not mentioning the roof right in the sale documents dated 21.05.2009. It has been pleaded that agreement to sell of second floor was executed in favour of Vijay Nathani, who was introduced to them through property dealer Chander Bahadur. The accused No. 3 & 4 have denied preparation of any sale document Ex. CW2/A in favour of the complainant. The accused person denied execution of Agreement to Sale dated 12.05.2009 by them in favour of the complainant. However, they admitted that the property in question was received by Hema Singh Bisht from Rashpal Singh vide Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 9execution of property documents dated 05.05.2004. They have also pleaded ignorance about receiving of payment by accused Vijay Nathani from the complainant. It is further the defence of accused No. 3 & 4 that property dealer Chandra Bahadur introduced them with accused Vijay Nathani after which it was agreed that second floor of the property in question would be sold to accused No. 1 for total consideration of ₹11,00,000 and regarding the same, agreement to sell/Bayana receipt dated 26.02.2009 was executed between accused No.1 Vijay Nathani and accused No. 4 Hema Bisht out of which accused Vijay Nathani made a payment of ₹3,00,000 in cash. After one month Vijay Nathani again met them in presence of property dealer Chander Bahadur and told to transfer 2nd floor in favour of his sister and roof right in favour of his wife. Thereafter, at request of accused Vijay Nathani on the ground that there was some legal issue in transfer of property from the GPA existing in favour of accused No. 4, accused No. 4 executed GPA in favour of accused No.3 (Govind Singh Bisht) wherein Vijay Nathani has been cited as witness. After few days Accused Vijay Nathani obtained signatures of accused No. 3 Govind Singh Bisht on some blank papers and stamp papers and the same were signed in good faith, as accused No. 3 and Accused No. 1 are both residents of Uttarkhand and have even studied together in school. After some days, accused Vijay Nathani called accused No. 3 & 4 to Sub Registrar office, where he asked them to sign on two sale deeds already prepared stating that the Registrar is about to leave from the office, thus, he did not give them time to read the contents and the said sale deeds were signed in good faith. At the registrar office, complainant Chanchal Saxena admitted that only sale deed for 2nd floor was executed in her favour and accused Vijay Nathani admitted that the only sale deed for roof rights have been executed in his favour. After 1-2 Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 10months of execution of sale deeds complainant Chanchal Saxena came to office of Accused No.3 Govind Singh Bisht and told that accused No.1 & 2 cheated with her stating that accused No. 1 & 2 have got second floor with roof right for total consideration of Rs. 11 Lakhs, however, they have sold to complainant only 2d floor for Rs. 12 Lakhs. She asked us to help her in proceeding legally against accused No. 1 & 2 and they agreed. When in the year 2012, they received summons then they were shocked to find that they have been summoned as accused in the present complaint case and then only they got to know that in the sale deed executed in favour of accused No. 2 Madhu Nathani, there was sale of third and fourth floor, whereas the property was constructed only upto 2nd floor. Thereafter, they asked accused No. 1 and 2 to rectify the sale deed, but they did not rectify it and therefore they filed a complaint case against them. It is further alleged that the blank papers signed by accused No. 3 were used by accused No. 1 and 2 for creating agreement to sell Ex. CW3/A with complainant.
12. In defence evidence, accused No.1 Vijay Nathani appeared as DW-1, accused Govind Singh Bisht appeared as D3W1 and produced Chandra Bahadur as D3 W2. Thereafter, after conclusion of Defence evidence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
13. I have heard, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the accused gone through the evidence on record.
14. It is the case of the complainant that the accused No. 2/Madhu Nathani, is her office colleague and she disclosed that her husband accused No. 1 Vijay Nathani was in the business of property dealing. The complainant expressed her desire to purchase a property after which in the month of December 2008, she Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 11along with accused No. 1 & 2 visited the property in question that is RZF - 127/3, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi where she was shown second floor with roof rights and was assured a meeting with the owners of the property. As per her deposition, she made a payment on 20.01.2009 of ₹2,00,000/- and ₹1.5 lakh on 21.01.2009 in cash to accused No. 1 Vijay Nathani. She has further deposed that accused No. 1 Vijay Nathani arranged a loan of ₹7,00,000/- from Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar, Delhi and she paid a sum of ₹56,000/- as fee for the loan and thereafter, an agreement to sell dated 12.05.2009 i.e. Ex CW3/8 was executed between her and accused No. 4 Hema Singh Bisht, through her Power of Attorney holder and her husband accused No. 3 Govind Singh Bisht. She has further testified the GPA executed by accused Hema Singh based in favour of her husband Govind Singh Bisht and Will as Ex. CW3/9 and Ex. CW3/10, respectively. The complainant has also testified the sale documents executed by Rashpal Singh in favour of accused Hema Singh Bisht which have been produced in evidence as Ex. CW3/11 - Ex. CW3/16, all dated 05.05.2004. The complainant CW-1 has also produced the legal scrutiny document report, prepared by the bank at the time of processing the loan application of the complainant as Ex. CW3/17. The valuation report has been produced as Ex. CW 3/3. Another valuation report dated 08.05.2009 is Ex. CW3/4, the site plan Ex. CW3/5, photograph Ex. CW3/6 and affidavit dated 12.05.2009 has been produced as Ex. CW3/7. The complainant as per record has deposed that she was called by accused Vijay Nathani for execution of the sale documents before the Sub Registrar office along with two witnesses and thereafter, she along with Smt. Leela Devi and Sh. Shakti Singh reached at the office of Sub Registrar at around 12 noon, and by that time, accused Vijay Nathani had got the documents prepared Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 12and asked them to give their signatures quickly as he informed that the Sub Registrar was leaving early from the office and therefore, she put the signatures without going through the documents. She further testified the Sale Deed Ex. CW3/1 (which is also Ex CW-2/A) executed by the accused Hema Singh Bisht through her GPA holder, accused Govind Singh Bisht. It is further stated that she received the photocopy of the sale deed after one month and gave a sum of ₹1,00,000/- to accused Vijay Nathani and when she read the said sale deed, then she came to know that only second floor without roof rights has been mentioned in the said sale deed i.e. EX.CW3/1 and the property has been shown as built upto 4 floors and when she asked from accused Vijay Nathani, then he pleaded ignorance for the same. Thereafter, she filed an RTI application Ex. CW2/B and obtained the reply Ex. CW2/C and came to know that second floor was registered in her name without roof rights and third floor was registered in the name of Madhu Nathani with roof rights and when she again asked Vijay Nathani, he intimidated her and threatened her and stated that he would not alienate roof rights to her, despite the fact that roof rights were mentioned in the agreement to sell in her favour and thereafter, she reported the matter to the police vide complaint i.e. Ex. CW2/X. However, the witness was subjected to lengthy cross examination by all the accused persons.
15. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she has got no proof of giving ₹56,000/- to accused Vijay Nathani. She has also admitted that accused Govind Singh Bisht and Hema Singh were not present when she gave money to Vijay Nathani. She has also admitted that when Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2009 i.e. Ex. CW3/8 was presented by accused Vijay Nathani for the purpose of Signing, then also accused Hema Singh and Govind Singh Bisht were Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 13not present. She has categorically admitted that when the said Sale Agreement was presented to her for signature, at that time, the said agreement did not bear the signature of any one else and the same was got prepared by Vijay Nathani himself.
16. The complainant has produced Smt. Leela Devi as CW-2 to substantiate her case. But in her cross-examination, she has admitted that she did not sign any document at the time of execution of sale deed. The complainant has also produced a third witness Shri Ashok Kumar as CW-3, Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar during post charge evidence, in view of the order dated 30.11.2017 of the Ld. Session's Court. As per his deposition, he brought the entire loan file of Chanchal Saxena. During his cross-examination, the witness has admitted the certified copy of his statement dated 06.04.2017, given in CS. No. 7630/2016 titled as Chanchal Saxena, Vs. Vijay Nathani, which is Ex. CW2/D1. He has also admitted the certified copy of statement of account of the complainant which was filed in the court of Ld. ADJ, Saket on 06.04.17 is Ex. CW2/D2. The witness was put certified copies of certain documents which were filed in the court of Ld. ADJ, Saket, i.e. Visit slip i.e. Ex. CW2/D3, Sale Deed dated 02.05.1983 i.e. Ex. CW2/D4, Khatauni i.e. Ex. CW2/D5, Notice of MCD dated 07.03.1986 i.e. Ex. CW2/D6, Credit facility sanction form i.e. Ex. CW2/D7, Schedule i.e. Ex. CW2/D8, Annexure II i.e Ex. CW2/D9, Consent clause to be executed by borrower dated 14.05.2009 i.e. Ex. CW2/D 10. This witness after seeing the above said documents stated that all these documents were not in the loan file, which was brought by him in court on the day of his examination. However, the witness admitted the Insurance policy issued by New India Assurance Company Ltd. i.e. Ex. CW2/D-11, Loan application form i.e. Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 14Ex. CW2/D-12, Financial Report dated 12.05.2009 i.e. Ex. CW2/D-13, Process note i.e. Ex. CW2/D-14, Sanction letter i.e. Ex. CW2/D-15, Pre Sanction inspection report i.e. Ex.CW2/D-16, Post sanction inspection report i.e. Ex. CW2/D-17, Election I-Card i.e. Ex. CW2/D-18, Salary slip i.e. Ex. CW2/D-19, Office I-Card i.e. Ex. CW2/D-20, Certified copy of PAN card i.e. Ex. CW2/D- 21, Certificate and valuation report dated 08.05.2009 i.e. Ex. CW2/D-22, Registration form no.3 is Ex. CW2/D-23 and Form 16 is Ex. CW2/D-24.
17. After the conclusion of post charge evidence, the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. P. C was recorded and accused No. 1, 2, & 4 denied all incriminating evidence and claimed false implication.
18. The accused No. 1 Vijay Nathani appeared as DW1 to substantiate its defence version and accused No. 3 appeared himself as D3W1 and produced property dealer, Chander Bahadur as D3W2. Accused No. 1 when appeared, as DW1 has stated that when he visited the office of Chander Bahadur/D3W1, property dealer, then he showed the second floor with roof rights of property in question we paid ₹3,00,000 to accused Hema Bisht/accused No. 4. At that time, it was agreed that remaining payment shall be made in two months and in case property was not transferred, then double the part payment amount that is ₹6,00,000 was to be returned as mentioned in Bayana receipt Ex. DW1/A. Thereafter, he met accused No. 3, along with Chander Bahadur regarding the return of his amount but instead of returning the Bayana, a proposal was given by accused No. 3 Govind Singh and Chander Bahadur to purchase the roof rights and they would adjust ₹3,00,000 towards the purchase of the same and a further sum of ₹3,00,000 is to be spent for raising construction on roof and thus, the total cost of the said construction would come out to be Rs 6-7 lakhs and the flat at Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 15second floor was agreed to be sold for ₹11,00,000. Since the accused had no intention to return the money, thus, they agreed to the proposal of accused Govind Singh Bisht and Chander Bahadur and Chander Bahadur assured to get the sale deed registered within a week. He went to the office of Chandra Bahadur. After the receipt of message, there, he introduced him to the complainant, Chanchal Saxena regarding which Bayana receipt Ex. DW1/A was already executed. It was also revealed to him that home loan has already been sanctioned to the complainant, but she was not having registry amount and it was thus, agreed that both the sale deeds would be executed on same day. As per his deposition, on the appointed day, he reached at Sub Registrar Office, Kapashera and at that time, complainant with two witnesses, Shakti Singh and Veena Kanturia were already present and property dealer. Chander Bahadur introduced him to them. After going through the sale documents, he put the signatures on sale deed executed in favour of complainant. Veena Kanturia also put her signatures as a witness on the said sale deed executed in favour of his wife. He has also stated that when they appeared before Sub Registrar, he also enquired from accused No. 3 and the complainant regarding sale transaction and stated that firstly, sale deed in the name of his wife was registered and thereafter sale deed in favour of complainant was registered. The Registrar also inquired from the complainant about the said sale document to which she replied in affirmative and after few days, he collected the copy of sale deed from office of property dealer Chander Bahadur. DW-1/Vijay Nathani also deposed that complainant had also filed a civil suit in Saket court and accused No. 3 & 4 have filed their written statement certified copy of which is Ex. DW1/F and replication filed by complainant is Ex. DW1/G. He has also testified the verification report Ex.
Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 16DW1/H of Shri Subhash Jha, Bank advocate in said civil Case and the reply of the bank is Ex. DW1/I. He has also testified the verification report which was filed by the police before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Ex. DW1/J. He placed on record the certified copy of complaint filed by accused Govind Singh Bisht as Ex. DW1/K and has placed on record copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Ex. DW1/L vide which summoning proceedings against accused No. 1 and 2 have been stayed. He has deposed that he, his wife and the complainant have filed several complaints against each other. He has also produced cancellation order dated 13.03.2023 and order dated 19.12.2022 as Ex. DW1/B & Ex. DW1/C respectively, which were the complaint filed against him by complainant Chanchal Saxena. He has also filed copy of reply dated 09.03.15 by the Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar, stating that the accused Vijay Nathani has got no role in getting the loan sanctioned in favour of the complainant and the same is Ex. PW1/D. During his cross-examination on behalf of the complainant, he denied the suggestion that he used to treat complainant Chanchal Saxena as her sister being colleague of his wife in AIIMS Hospital. He has further stated that contents of sale deed were correct as some kuccha pucca structure was made on roof of second floor, but he could not produce any document to show any structure existing either at the time of sale or even today, but has volunteered to say that it can be seen from the adjacent property whether kuccha pucca structure was existing, as roof of existing property in question and adjacent building were divided by one wall. The photographs Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW1/B were put to the accused No. 1 and he admitted that the said photographs are of the property in question and the property in question was built up to 2nd floor only. However, he has volunteered to say that said photographs does not show the portion above Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 17second floor and the roof is not clearly visible. The accused was put the sale deed Ex. CW2/A, in favour of the complainant and the sale deed Ex. CW2/D, in favour of accused No. 2 and after going through it, he admitted his signatures as well as signatures of witness Veena Kanturia as witness to the said sale deeds. The witness/accused No.1 was also confronted with photographs i.e. Ex. DW1/C1 to Ex. DW1/C6 of property in question, but the witness stated that the said photo does not cover the entire roof of second floor. However, the accused No. 1 admitted that in the photographs, there is no Kacha pakka structure over roof of second floor. However, he denied the suggestion that his wife accused No. 2 gave a false declaration in sale deed that a structure existed on the roof of second floor at the time of registration of sale deed. The witness has admitted the filing of civil suit regarding cancellation of sale deed against them in civil court, Saket and had admitted the filing of written statement, the copy of which has been placed on record as Ex. DW1/C1 - Ex. DW1/C7 and filed by accused No. 1 and his wife. However, the witness has admitted that no separate agreement to sell was executed between him and his wife on one side and accused No. 3 & 4 on the other side regarding the purchase of roof rights.
19. Further, accused No. 3 Govind Singh Bisht appeared as D3W1 to substantiate his defence and has stated that his wife accused No. 4 was the owner of property in question that is second floor with roof rights and when they intended to sell it, they approached Chander Bahadur, property dealer who introduced them to Vijay Nathani, who was willing to purchase the property in question and on 26.02.2009, an agreement to sell/Bayana Ex. DW1/A was executed for a sum of ₹11,00,000/- regarding second floor with roof rights between accused No. 3 and 1. Accused Vijay Nathani paid a sum of ₹3,00,000 Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 18and agreed to pay ₹8,00,000 at the time of sale deed to be executed on 26.04.2009. He has stated that after one month of Bayana receipt, accused No. 1 along with Chander Bahadur came to his residence and asked him to transfer second floor of the property in favour of his sister (name not disclosed.) and asked the roof rights to be transferred in favour of his wife/accused No. 2 Madhu Nathani and Accused No. 3 agreed to execute the sale deed as desired by him. He has further deposed that on 15.04.2009, accused No. 1 asked him to visit the office of Sub Registrar, Kapashera to execute GPA i.e. EX.CW3/9, which was required to execute the necessary documents and sale deed and accused No. 1 sought some time to execute sale deed instead of agreed date 26.04.2009. He has further stated that on 12.05.2009, accused No.1 with Chandra Bahadur came and obtained his signatures on blank papers which he signed in good faith. He has further deposed that on 20.05.2009, accused No.1 asked him to appear on 21.05.2009 in the office of Sub Registrar - IX, Kapashera. When they reached there, they found property dealer Chandra Bahadur, complainant Chanchal Saxena and one Lady Veena Kanturia and accused No.1/Vijay Nathani placed before him two sale deeds Ex. CW2/A in favour of complainant and Ex. CW2/D, in favour of accused No. 2 and obtained their signatures in a hurriedly manner and he could not go through the contents of sale deed. Accused No.1 paid a sum of ₹8,00,000.(₹7,00,000 through pay order and ₹1,00,000 in cash.) and after the completion of formalities, the said sale deed was registered and copies were to be collected after sometime. He has stated that after sometime, complainant who was projected as sister of accused No. 1, met him for first time in the Sub Registrar office, and he got to know her name at that time only. The accused No. 3 has further deposed that there was no Kacha pakka structure on the second Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 19floor of the house. As per his statement, second floor with roof rights of the property in question, was purchased by him in 2004, and there was no room on the terrace of the said property. He has admitted that the deal was done by property dealer, Chander Bahadur between him and accused No. 1/Vijay Nathani, but has admitted that he had received complete payment from Vijay Nathani before appearing in the office of Sub-Registrar and Sub Registrar had made inquiries from the parties regarding the description of the properties to be transferred and in whose name.
20. Accused No. 3 Govind Singh Bisht also produced Chander Bahadur, property dealer as D3W2 who stated that accused No.3 was having second floor with roof rights in property in question and accused No. 3 & 4 four expressed their desire to sell the same and accused No. 1 had approached him to purchase the same. He arranged meeting between accused No. 1 & 3 and deal was fixed for consideration of ₹11 lakhs and accused No. 1 gave earnest money of ₹3,00,000 to accused No. 3 & 4 and Bayana receipt, Ex. DW 1/A was executed on 26.02.2009. He has stated that thereafter, accused No. 1 asked accused No. 3 that he wants to get second floor of property in question registered in the name of his sister Chanchal Saxena/complainant and roof rights in favour of his wife accused No. 2/Madhu Nathani and accused No. 1 had arranged loan from bank for his so called sister and thereafter final sale deeds of both the floors were prepared by accused Vijay Nathani and sale deeds were got registered. This witness has denied the execution of document Ex. CW1/D1 in his office as alleged by accused No.1.
21. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused No. 1 & 2, he has admitted his signature on Ex. CW3/11 to Ex. CW3/16 as an attesting witness and has Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 20admitted that the deed with regard to 2nd floor with roof rights in the year 2004 in favour of accused No. 3 & 4 was got done through him. He has admitted that property deal pertaining to the property in question between accused No. 1 & 3 got matured through him.
22. Therefore, after going through the evidence on record, arguments advanced, it has come to notice that accused No. 4 Hema Singh Bisht purchased the second floor with roof rights of property bearing number RZF - 127/3 measuring 40 yd.² out of Kasara number 98, situated in revenue, state of village Nasirpur, Abadi, Mahavir enclave, New Delhi from Rashpal Singh S/o Mehar Singh through execution of chain of documents, i.e. GPA executed by Rashpal Singh in favour of Hema Bisht(Mark CW2/F and CW3/11), agreement to sell(Ex. CW3/12), affidavit(Ex. CW3/13), receipt (Ex. CW3/14), Will (Ex. CW3/16), possession letter (Ex. CW3/15), and the said sale deed was got done through Chander Bahadur/D3 W-2, who was a property dealer and the said property has been shown in photographs. Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW1/B. As per the site photographs, the building is of three stories. There is no dispute regarding the title and possession of vendor Hema Singh/accused No. 4 over the property in question. It has come in evidence that accused No. 4 Hema Bisht executed registered GPA dated 15.04.2009 vide Ex. CW3/9 and registered Will Ex. CW3/10, in favour of her husband/accused No. 3 Govind Singh Bisht in order to manage the property in question. It has come evidence that accused No.1 Vijay Nathani, executed a Bayana receipt on 26.02.2009 i.e. Ex. DW1/A with accused no. 4 Hema Singh Bisht for the purchase of second floor with roof rights of the property in question , which was purchased by her from Rashpal Singh in the year 2004. The deal was got done through D3W2/Chander Bahadur, property dealer.
Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 21From the document Ex DW1/A, it emerges that the deal was finalized for an amount of ₹11,00,000 out of which ₹3,00,000 was paid by accused No. 1 as earnest money, and it was agreed that in case of default on the part of purchaser, earnest money was liable to be forfeited and in case of default of seller, then double the amount of earnest money that is ₹6,00,000 will be paid by the vendor. The due date has been mentioned as 26.04.2009 and the set terms and conditions have been mentioned in Bayana receipt dated 26.02.2009, Ex. DW1/A. From the evidence on record, it transpires that when accused No.1 Vijay Nathani went to accused No. 3 & 4 to get the Sale Deed registered in terms of Bayana receipt Ex. DW1/A, then some issues arose and accused No. 4 Hema Bisht executed GPA Ex. CW3/9 to facilitate the execution of sale deed in favour of accused No. 3. From the evidence on record, it emerges that when accused No.1 Vijay Nathani went to get the sale deed registered, then accused Govind Singh Bisht also sought some time and when accused No. 1 , demanded his money back in terms of receipt, Ex. DW1/A, i.e. double the amount of earnest money, then accused No. 3 expressed his inability to pay the same on the pretext that money has been invested in some other property. Thereafter, the date of execution was extended and accused No. 3 agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of so-called sister of accused Vijay Nathani. Thereafter, it has come in evidence that accused No. 4 entered into agreement to sell dated 12.05.2009, Ex. CW3/8 in favour of so called sister of accused No. 1, that is Chanchal Saxena/complainant who is posted in AIIMS Hospital along with wife of accused No. 1 Madhu Nathani who is accused No. 2. As per the terms and conditions of agreement to sell, vendor/accused No. 4 Hema, Bisht through her husband/GPA holder, Govind Singh Bisht/accused No. 3 agreed to sell the second floor with roof rights of the property in question for a Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 22consideration amount of ₹8,00,000 out of which a sum of ₹1,00,000 was paid by complainant as earnest money on 15.04.2009 and the balance sale consideration of ₹7,00,000 was to be paid on or before 25.05.2009. It has come in evidence that vendee/complainant applied for a loan of ₹7,00,000 to complete the sale transaction and submitted her document to Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar for housing loan. The bank loan application form is Mark X1 and CW2/D12 running into seven pages which mentions the property description as " second floor without roof rights at RZF127/3, Mahavir enclave,"
23. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant has mentioned in the loan application form that she had paid a sum of ₹1,00,000 as advance to the seller. Thereafter, the bank appointed Shri Subhash Kumar Jha, advocate to scrutinize the property documents and he submitted his scrutiny report dated 29.04.2009, Ex. CW3/17. However, there seems to be some clerical mistake in the name of owner mentioned in Column "Brief history of the property and how the owner derived the title". It has come an evidence vide Ex. CW2/D14 that the loan was sanctioned to the tune of ₹7,00,000, to be disbursed through pay order. Further, vide document issued by central bank of India Ex. CW2/D15, Ex. CW2/D17 and Ex. CW2/D18, the description of property regarding which loan has been sanctioned is "second floor, RZF127/3, Mahavir enclave, New Delhi". There is no mention of description of the property having roof or without roof rights. It is again pertinent to mention that the bank appointed Shri Gautam Akhauri as a valuer to submit valuation report of the property, and after examining the documents and conducting the inspection of the property, the valuer submitted its report dated 08.05.2009, Ex. CW2/D22, wherein it has been mentioned that :-
"This is to certify that the residential free hold built up Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 23
second floor without roof rights out of the three storied building, consist of two rooms, one bathroom and one Kitchen having plinth area measuring 360 Sq.ft. out of the built up property bearing no. RZ-F-127/3, Total plot measuring 40 Sq.yards out of the khasra no.98, Situated in the Village Nasirpur, Colony known as Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi 110045 which is purchasing by Mrs Chanchal Saxena W/O Shri Ravindra Saxena is built within the permissible limits and also this colony is a approved colony, so this will not be demolished by any authority".
24. It is further mentioned in the report that :-
"Report of the valuation to access the fair market value of the residential free hold built up second floor without roof rights out of the three storied building, consist of two rooms, one bathroom and one Kitchen having plinth area measuring 360 Sq.ft. out of the built up property bearing no. RZ-F-127/3, Total plot measuring 40 Sq. yards out of the khasra no.98, Situated in the Village Nasirpur, Colony known as Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi 110045 belongs to Mrs. Hema Bisht W/o Sh.Gobind Singh Bisht through her attorney Mr. Gobind Singh Bisht S/o Sh. Prem Singh Bisht (Valuation is based on the inspection)"
25. Further, it is also mentioned at point 4 that :-
"Property is a residential free hold built up second floor without roof rights out of the three storied building, consist of two rooms , one bathroom and one Kitchen having plinth area measuring 360 Sq.ft. out of the built up property bearing no. RZ- F-127/3, Total plot measuring 40 Sq-yards out of the khasra no. 98, Situated in the Village Nasirpur, Colony known as Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi 110045."
26. It is also mentioned in the said report that :-
"8. Type of the property-whetherAgricultural/ Industrial/ Residential (flat/apartment) /Commercial Institutional/Other :
residential second floor flat without roof rights.
9. d) number of floors/stories : here we area considering Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 24
only second floor without roof rights, here it is three story building.
12 . Whether the property is residential/flat/apartment, if so, then state : residential entire second floor without roof rights.
15.Whether the building/property is constructed strictly according to the sanctioned plan: property building construction is with permissible limits. We are considering only second floor without roof rights.
21. Details of valuation of the property. i.e. Cost of land construction thereon: What is the length area of flat? : Total length area of the flat is 360 Sq. ft. Approx for second floor without roof rights.
PROPERTY :
Property is a residential free hold built up second floor without roof rights, out of the three storied building, consist of two rooms, one bathroom and one Kitchen having plinth area measuring 360 Sq.ft. out of the built up property bearing no. RZ- F-127/3, Total plot measuring 40 Sq.yards out of the khasra no.98, Situated in the Village Nasirpur, Colony known as Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi 110045."
27. It has also come in evidence that a Verification Report regarding the two valuation reports both dated 08.05.2009, one of second floor with roof right and the other of second floor without roof right and legal scrutiny report dated 29.04.2009 in CRL MISC (Main) No. 3742 of 2016, titled as Madhu Nathani Vs. State and Ors. was called by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 12.01.2018 and after verification from the concerned bank, the SHO, PS Palam Village has given the report Ex. DW1/J as under:
"As per the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 22/01/18, Valuation report dated 08/05/2009, Valuation Report dated 08/05/2009 exhibited as Ex, CW3/3 in the court of Ld. MM, Dwarka Court and Legal Scrutiny Report of plot no. RZF- 127/3, Khasra no. 98, Village Nasirpur Mahavir Enclave, dated 29/04/2009 exhibited as Ex. CW3/17 in the court of Ld. MM, Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 25
Dwarka Court have been verified from the Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar, Delhi.
The above three documents have been found annexed in the loan file of Ms. Chanchal Saxena. Bank Manager Sh. N. K Barman verified these three documents and told that these documents are genuine. Bank Manager of Central Bank of India gave in writing that on 30/04/2009, Ms. Chanchal Saxena applied for housing loan of Rs. 7 Lac rupees to purchase the house property bearing no. RZF-127/3, 2nd floor without roof right, Village Nasirpur, Mahavir Enclave Delhi. As per the procedure, Bank obtained Legal Scrutiny report of the said property without roof right from M/s Subhash Kümar Jha on 29/04/2009.
Further two Valuation reports of the said property one is with roof right and another is without roof right were submitted in the bank by Valuer M/s Gautam Akhauri on 08/05/2009. The bank considered the Valuation report without roof right to sanction the loan to Ms. Chanchal Saxena. However both the reports were kept in the loan file. Ms. Chanchal Saxena paid the entire loan amount and book back original title documents of the property bearing no. RZF-127/3, 2nd floor without roof right, Village Nasirpur, Mahavir Enclave "
28. It is again pertinent to mention that complainant Chanchal Saxena had filed civil suit bearing number CS NO 7360/2016, for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.05.2009 against accused No. 1 to 4 and Ors. and in the said suit, Central Bank of India was also a party and filed the following reply Ex. DW1/I :-
"3. It is most respectfully submitted that the Approved Valuer Namely Gautam Akhori, had given two valuation report one pertaining to Second Floor without roof rights and other Roof of the Second Floor af property bearing No. RZ-F-127/3, area measuring 40 sq, yrds, out of Khara No. 98, situated in the area of Village Nasirpur, Delhi State, Colony known as Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi -110045, assuming that the entire second floor with roof rights was supposed to be mortgaged as the Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 26
previous owner was owner in possession of Second Floor with roof rights and further the then concerned bank official has not given any letter to the Valuer. Thus, due the above said bona-fide miscommunication the Approved Valuer has given two valuation reports in respect of above said property. However, the Bank has acted upon only one valuation report i.e. Valuation report of Second Floor without roof rights. The True Copy of Valuation Report of Second Floor without roof rights of above said property is already on record".
29. Therefore, the reply of Central Bank of India and the verification report Ex. DW1/J filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, leads to irresistible conclusion that second floor without roof rights of the property in question was sold to the complainant Chanchal Saxena for a sum of ₹8,00,000 out of which ₹1,00,000 was given in cash and ₹7,00,000 was sanctioned as loan by bank and released to her through pay order, which was paid by her to the vendor at the time of registration of sale deed, Ex. CW2/A.
30. In the said sale deed, the total sale consideration is mentioned as ₹8 lakh. It has been mentioned that a sum of ₹1,00,000 has been given in advance and ₹7,00,000 are given through bankers Cheque of Central Bank of India, and all the payments were given to Hema Bisht, accused No. 4. The side sale deed pertain to 2nd floor without roof rights of property in question and possession was also handed over to the complainant. It is also evident from evidence on record that another sale deed Ex. CW2/D was also executed on the same day between accused No. 4 Hema Bisht and the said sale deed pertain only to the roof rights of second floor and for a sum of ₹2.5 lakhs. Therefore, evidently the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, Ex. CW2/A in favour of the complainant relating to the second floor of property in question without roof right Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 27and the sale consideration mentioned in sale deed Ex. CW2/D in favour of accused No. 2 with roof rights is almost the same as mentioned in the initial receipt Ex. DW1/A dated 26.02.2009, which was executed between accused No. 1 Vijay Nathani and accused No. 3 Govind Singh Bisht. The complainant has mainly relied upon the agreement to sell dated 12.05.2009 Ex. CW3/8 where in the second floor with roof rights has been proposed to be sold in favour of complainant for a sale consideration of ₹8,00,000 for which ₹1,00,000 was given as earnest money. The said earnest money has also been mentioned in loan application form mark X1 which was filled by complainant for availing the loan from Central Bank of India, Naya Bazar, Delhi. Therefore, it is seen that in Ex. CW3/8 roof rights may have been inadvertently mentioned because in all the other subsequent documents ranging from loan document to valuation report and even in the sale deed, there is no mention of roof rights. It is a settled law that an agreement to sell does not confer any ownership right over the property. If the complainant was willing to purchase the second floor along with roof rights, then sale consideration was to be 11 lakhs as mentioned in Bayana receipt dated 26.02.2009, Ex. DW1/A. It is difficult to believe that accused No. 1 who had entered into an agreement with accused No. 3 & 4 for purchase of second floor with roof right for consideration of ₹11,00,000 will get negotiations done with accused No. 3 and 4 and enter into an agreement to sell Ex. CW3/8. with the complainant, to sell the same at a loss of ₹3,00,000 without any justifiable reason.
31. It is pertinent to mention that complainant has herself tried to establish that she had agreed to purchase second floor with roof rights for consideration of ₹12,00,000 and she paid ₹1,00,000 in cash in ₹7,00,000 through bank and Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 28remaining amount was paid in cash to accuse No. 1. But admittedly, at the time of payment, no one was present when the complainant gave cash amount to the accused No. 1. She has further admitted that no amount of cash was ever paid by the complainant to accused No. 3 & 4 at any point of time. Therefore, the story as projected by the complainant that she paid a sum of ₹5,00,000 in cash as remaining payment towards total sale consideration of ₹12,00,000 for purchase of second floor with roof rights in the property in question is not substantiated in the eyes of law and has been projected only to usurp the roof rights of second floor which has been sold by accused No. 3 & 4 to accused No.1 and 2 through sale deed Ex. CW2/D on the same day and same time when the sale deed in favour of complainant i.e. Ex. CW2/A was executed.
32. The argument on behalf of the complainant that sale deed Ex. CW2/A & Ex. CW2/D were executed in hurried manner and the complainant was not allowed to go through the draft sale deed, and as such she was not aware about the description of property sold to her is not sustainable in the eyes of law as there is Voluminous evidence in the form of loan application form, verification report filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, pleadings before Civil Court in various cases and also in view of the fact that a property which was agreed to be sold for ₹11,00,000 on 26.02.2009 as mentioned in Ex. DW1/A cannot be agreed to be sold subsequently at a lesser amount for a sum of ₹8,00,000 and there is no evidence to prove the sale consideration of ₹12,00,000 as projected by the complainant.
33. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the complainant filed RTI application dated 29.03.2010 Ex. CW2/B in the office of Sub Registrar, Kapashera, vide which information was sought regarding status of building and Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 29the Sub Registrar office submitted reply Ex. CW2/C to the following effect:
"As per document Registration No.3716 Book No.1, Volume No.4818 from pages 130 to 137 dated 23.5.2009, the property is Built up four stories as mentioned at page 1 and the second floor without roof terrace rights has been transferred. The site plan attached with the document is for second floor i.e. for the floor under transfer.
Further, another Sale Deed has also been executed by Hema Bisht in respect of the IlIrd floor of the same property vide registration no- 3715 Book-I, Vol No-4818, on pages 112 to 129 on dated 23/05/2009"
34. Therefore, after going through the evidence and in view of the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant, it cannot be said that complainant purchased the portion of the property beyond the portion/area i.e. Second floor without roof right as mentioned in the sale deed Ex. CW2/A in her favour.
35. Moreover, in view of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the oral testimony of the complainant has got no relevancy in view of the registered sale deeds in favour of the complainant regarding 2 nd floor without roof rights. The contents of both the sale deeds i.e. Ex. CW2/A and Ex. CW2/D will prevail over the oral deposition of the complainant.
36. In this regard, sections 91 & 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read as follows:
"91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 30
cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions herein before contained.
Exception 1. - When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2. - Wills 75[ admitted to probate in 40[India] may be proved by the probate.
Explanation 1- This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.
Explanation 2--Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.
Explanation 3. - The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other then the facts referred to in this section, shall, not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
[ emphasis supplied ]
92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement When the terms of any such contract, grantor other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement of statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms;
Provision (1) - Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 76[want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 31
Proviso (2) - The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3). - The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso (4). - The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
Proviso (5) - Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved.
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with the express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6).--Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts."
37. Further, in Sharex Acting Through Vinod Kumar Chadha Vs. Sudershan Suri, 170 (2010) DLT 600, the learned Single Judge rejected the plea of the appellant on the premise that the said plea was belied by the terms of the lease deed, the execution of which had been unequivocally admitted by the appellant. Reliance was placed on Parivar Seva Sansthan v. Dr (Mrs.) Veena Kalra & Ors., 2000 (54) DRJ (DB). In para 20, the Court, inter alia, held as follows:
"20. To conclude, in the instant case the execution of the lease Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 32
deed has been unequivocally admitted by the appellant. Once the execution of the document has been admitted, Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, come into play. Section 91 lays down that when the terms of a contract or of any other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract or other disposition of property, except the document itself. Section 92 further lays down that when the terms of any such contract or other disposition of property have been proved according to the last Section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted as between the parties to any such instrument for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting therefrom. Thus, quite obviously, the pleas raised by the appellant against the contents of the lease deed are barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and appear to have been made only for the purpose of delaying the trial of the case. Such pleas as ruled by this Court in the Parivar Seva Sansthan case (supra) can be ignored by the Court while adjudicating an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC if otherwise the Court finds, either on an application of any party or on its own motion, that the admissions made in the pleadings or otherwise taken as a whole justify the passing of a decree thereon. In fact, the Court in the said case has gone so far as to say that even a constructive admission firmly made can be made the basis of the decree. All that the Court is required to do is to satisfy itself that the question raised in the suit can be determined without evidence".
38. Therefore, from the above stated discussion, there is nothing that the accused even cheated or misrepresented the complainant regarding the sale deed qua the 2nd floor without roof rights. There is nothing to infer that any forgery was committed or any false signature was made by the accused persons to attract the provisions of section 468 IPC. Therefore, neither the ingredients of section 420 IPC nor that of section 468 IPC can be said to be attracted against any of the accused persons. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove the ingredients to attract the commission of offences punishable U/S 420/468 IPC.
Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016 3339. In view of the discussion made above, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and holds the accused persons namely 1) Vijay Nathani, 2) Madhu Nathani, 3)Govind Singh Bist and 4) Hema Bist not guilty of commission of the offences charged with. Accordingly, the Accused 1) Vijay Nathani, 2) Madhu Nathani, 3)Govind Singh Bist and 4) Hema Bist are thus, acquitted of the offence U/S 420/468/120 B IPC. Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.06.30 16:59:47 +0530 Pronounced in the open (SAURABH GOYAL) Court on 30.06.2025 JMFC-01 South West District, DWARKA/NEW DELHI It is certified that this judgment contains 33 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.06.30 16:59:51 +0530 (SAURABH GOYAL) JMFC-01 South West District, Dwarka/ New Delhi Chanchal Saxena Vs. Vijay Nathani &Ors.
Ct Case No. 4989957/2016