Delhi District Court
Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Sh. Lal Singh Hanot on 31 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, ADJ04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 81/2013
Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Sarup Sharma
R/o B1/B1/1, Hari Nagar, Ashram,
Behind Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi. ...............Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Lal Singh Hanot
S/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Singh Hanot
R/o B1/1, Hari Nagar, Ashram,
Behind Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi. ..............Defendant
Date of institution of the suit:12.08.2011
Date reserved for judgment: 30.03.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 31.03.2016
JUDGMENT
Suit for specific performance in respect of Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.1998 in relation to Property No. B1/B1/1, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Behind Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi.
1. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property bearing No. B1/B1/1, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Behind Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi; the defendant is immediate neighbour of the plaintiff residing at B1/1, Hari Nagar Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 1 of 21 Ashram; the defendant who was then the owner of the suit property entered into an agreement to sell on 6.7.1998 whereby the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff the suit property viz. 31 sq. yds of land (26 sq. mtr.) bearing No. B1/B1/1, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Behind Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi, situated in Khasra No. 1114/26, Village Kilokari, Tehsil and Revenue State of Mehrauli, New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/; on the same day i.e 6.7.1998, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/ to the defendant and the defendant in turn handed over the vacant physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff; by virtue of the aforesaid agreement to sell executed by the defendant, the plaintiff had acquired unimpeachable ownership and interest in the suit property; accordingly, the plaintiff raised construction on the suit property consisting of basement, ground floor and first floor at his own costs; the defendant is residing next to the suit property in the same complex; the construction was raised in the year 1998; vide clause 6 of the Agreement to Sell dated 6.7.1998, it was agreed between the parties that " all expenses of sale deed"
shall be borne by the plaintiff; vide clause 10 of the said Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 2 of 21 Agreement to Sell, it was agreed that in case the defendant violates the terms and conditions laid down in the Agreement to Sell, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the transaction completed through court of law by a 'suit for specific performance' at the cost and expenses of the defendant; since first week of September 2008, the plaintiff has approached the defendant many times personally and through his friends to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at the expenses of the latter; the defendant, however, avoided to perform his part of the contract in the matter of execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other; that instead the defendant has filed a suit for possession in respect of the suit property in or about July 2009, thereby manifesting his intention that he was not willing to execute the sale deed. Hence, the present suit has been filed with the prayer to pass a decree directing the defendant to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff by executing the sale deed.
2. In the WS the defendant has taken the preliminary objection that the plaintiff has instituted the present suit on the basis of fabricated documents which does not bear the signatures of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 3 of 21 defendant; the suit was barred by limitation because the agreement is of 06.04.1998 and the suit has been filed after 13 years and as such not maintainable as per ScheduleII, article 54 of the Limitation Act; the suit of the plaintiff was barred under section 10 CPC because the defendant has also filed the suit for possession against the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff has not filed any counter claim or set off; the plaintiff has filed the suit without any cause of action and is liable to be rejected under order VII Rule 11 CPC; the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit as the suit property is worth more than Rs. 10 lakhs.
3. On merit all averments have been controverted and denied stating that the plaintiff was old friend of the defendant and was inducted as licensee in the suit property with the understanding to vacate it as and when required by the defendant; the defendant never entered into agreement to sell in respect to the suit property and the documents i.e. agreement to sell is forged and fabricated document and does not bear the signatures of the defendant; the defendant raised funds to construct the house of plaintiff also; the defendant constructed a Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 4 of 21 portion/dwelling unit comprising one room, kitchen and toilet for the plaintiff; the plaintiff has raised illegal construction of the basement and first floor in the year 2009 and 2010 for which the defendant lodged various complaints to appropriate authorities; the construction of the ground floor only was carried out in the year 1998 by the defendant from his own funds for the plaintiff's residence as licensee; in the beginning of 2008 the defendant requested the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the suit properties which was required by the defendant for his family; the plaintiff deliberately avoided to vacate the suit property as a result the defendant revoked the GPA in favour of the plaintiff vide deed dated 04.08.2008 and also got published notice in newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara" dated 09.08.2008; no agreement to sell was ever executed between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the suit property, therefore, execution of sale deed does not arise; the defendant has never received any amount of consideration from the plaintiff at any point of time in respect of suit property.
4. In replication, the plaintiff has reiterated the stand taken in the plaint and denied the averments of the defendant made in the written Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 5 of 21 statement.
5. It is reaffirmed that the defendant having executed power of attorney, Will and agreement to sell creating an impeachable interest in the suit property in favour of plaintiff; the suit for possession was filed by defendant after 19.07.2009 and on the service of the notice of the said suit in September 2009, the plaintiff came to know the intention of the defendant for not executing and performing his part of agreement; accordingly, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in August 2011 within the period of limitation.
6. The present suit was initially instituted before the court of Ld. Civil Judge02, South. On the basis of pleadings on 23.11.2012, Ld. Civil Judge02 framed the following preliminary issues as under:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPP
2. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 CPC? OPD
7. Both these issues were decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant vide order dated 21.03.2013 of Ld. Civil Judge02.
8. On 30.07.2013 on the application of the plaintiff, the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South has transferred the present suit to be tried alongwith suit of the defendant observing that in the facts and circumstances it is desirable that both the suits are brought before Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 6 of 21 the same court. The question as to whether they are to be clubbed for further proceedings are to be decided by the concerned court. The present suit was transferred and assigned to the court of Ld. Predecessor of this court.
9. On 09.04.2015, Ld. Counsels for parties pointed out that the question of consolidation of this case with the case of defendant was left open by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South to be decided by the transferee court. It was therefore ordered that since the subject matter i.e. suit property is same in both the cases, for that reason in order to avoid multiplicity of decision, both the matter needs to be disposed off by the same court and accordingly, Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South transferred this matter from the court of Ld. Civil Judge02 to the court of Ld. ADJ i.e. Ld. Predecessor of this court where the suit of the defendant was pending trial. Accordingly, issues were framed in this case and it was ordered that the defendant has already led evidence in the main suit which will be read in the present case also and the plaintiff was given opportunity to lead evidence in support of the issues framed as under:
1. Whether the agreement to sell is forged and fabricated document as alleged in preliminary objection no.1 of the WS? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to institute the present suit? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance? OPP Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 7 of 21
4. Relief.
10. The plaintiff has examined Sh. Surender Singh Negi, Meter Reader, Delhi Jal Board as PW1 and has examined himself as PW2. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has made a statement that the evidence of DW2 and DW3 in the connected suit may be read as evidence on behalf of plaintiff in the present suit. Thereafter plaintiff's evidence was closed.
11. Ld. counsel for defendant has made statement on 06.08.2015 stating that the evidence in suit no. 84/13 led by defendant herein, may be read as part and parcel of evidence in the present suit in order to avoid repetition.
12. Both the parties filed written arguments.
13. I have perused the evidence as well as arguments on record.
MY ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the agreement to sell is forged and fabricated document as alleged in preliminary objection no.1 of the WS? OPD
14. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the defendant. The defendant herein as PW1 in suit no.84/13 has filed his affidavit Ex.P
1. In para no.9 of the affidavit it is stated that:
"Deponent further says that there was electricity prior to partition but thereafter it was disconnected some time in the year 199192. Since there was a precondition of the defendant without electricity defendant will not shift in the premises, just to Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 8 of 21 get the electricity and water connection Deponent execute an unregistered Power of attorney and agreement to sell of 31 sq yds (26 sq mtr) way back in the year 1998 in favour of the defendant without any consideration amount. Without the GPA and agreement to sell, the concerned department refused to install new electricity and water connection in the premises. It is further submitted that the deponent has not sold the property or had taken any consideration amount. It is further submitted that the documents filed by the defendant is false and fabricated which does not bears the signature of the deponent".
15. In para no.11 he has further deposed that on the basis of an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell, the defendant (plaintiff herein) got installed electricity and water connection in his name in the premises of the deponent (defendant herein). Hence, it is clear from the examination in chief as find deposed in affidavit Ex.P1 of the defendant Lal Singh Hanot that he has executed the power of attorney, agreement to sell of the suit property in the year 1988 in favour of plaintiff herein because there was a pre condition of the plaintiff herein that without electricity he will not shift in the suit property and just to get the electricity and water connection the defendant herein executed a unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell in the year 1988 in favour of plaintiff herein but without any consideration amount. He has further admitted that without any GPA and agreement to sell the concerned department has refused to install the new electricity and water connection in the suit property.
Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 9 of 21
16. In his cross examination the defendant has stated that the GPA Mark A dated 06.07.1998 was not signed by him at point X and he has not executed any agreement to sell dated 06.07.1998 with the defendant and agreement to sell Mark B was not signed by him at point X. Similarly, he has deposed in cross examination that he has not executed Will Mark C dated 06.07.1998 in favour of defendant with regard to the suit property and has not signed the same at point X. He further asserted in cross examination that he has given photocopy of the documents relating to the ownership of the property only for obtaining electricity and water charges. His this deposition in cross examination is contradictory to his affidavit Ex.P1 wherein he has categorically stated that he has executed an agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff herein for the purpose of obtaining electricity and water charges of the suit property. It is not categorically stated by the defendant that the agreement to sell was forged and fabricated because he has simply stated in the affidavit Ex.P1 that the documents filed by defendant (plaintiff herein) was false and fabricated and did not bear his signatures.
17. In his further cross examination carried out on 26.07.2012 the defendant has categorically admitted as under:
"It is correct that in para no.8, 10 and 22 of my plaint, I have stated that I executed the agreement to sell in favour of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 10 of 21 defendant so that he can get electricity connection in his name".
18. It is not the case of defendant that the agreement to sell executed by him in favour of plaintiff was some other agreement to sell and not the agreement to sell Mark B dated 06.07.1998.
19. Defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the agreement to sell Mark B was forged and fabricated document. The averments in the affidavit in that regard remained bald averments and more so defendant has not categorically deposed that the agreement to sell Mark B was forged and fabricated document.
20. The plaintiff herein filed the affidavit in the suit no. 84/13 as DW1 wherein he has deposed that the defendant herein was the owner of the suit property and entered into an agreement to sell with him on 06.07.1998 Ex.DW1/A whereby he has agreed to sell the suit property to him which was measuring 31 sq. yds bearing no. B1/B 1/1, Hari Nagar, Ashram behind Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi for consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/. He has further deposed that the document agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A, GPA Ex.DW1/B and Will Ex.DW1/C was executed in his favour by the defendant in the presence of one Sh. Vimal Kumar and Sewak Ram Bansal; he further deposed that plaintiff falsely denied his signatures on the document Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/C and has deliberately signed the Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 11 of 21 vakalatnama and the plaint in different way. In his cross examination he has denied the suggestion that the signatures on Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/C were fabricated by him.
21. The plaintiff asserted that the document Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/C were prepared by defendant himself.
22. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Vimal Kumar in the main suit by filing affidavit Ex.DW2/A who has deposed that the GPA, agreement to sell and Will Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/C were executed and signed by the plaintiff (defendant herein) in his presence and also in the presence of Sewak Ram Bansal; the documents were signed by the plaintiff (defendant herein) in consideration of Rs. 60,000/ received by him from the plaintiff for the sale of the suit property and not just for obtaining electricity and water charges.
23. In his cross examination he has reiterated that the documents were prepared in his presence in the court and apart from him plaintiff (defendant herein), defendant (plaintiff herein) and one Sewak Ram Bansal were present at that time in the court at Tis Hazari. He further stated that the documents got prepared by plaintiff (defendant herein). The plaintiff further examined Syed Sarfaraz Ahmad, Hand writing expert as DW3 in the main suit who has filed his opinion and photographs Ex.DW3/A (colly). The DW3 has examined questioned Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 12 of 21 signatures of defendant Q1 to Q12 with the specimen signatures S7 to S9. Syed Sarfaraz Ahmad in his hand writing report as Ex.DW3/A (colly) has given his opinion stating that he has examined the questioned signatures from Q1 to Q12 with signatures Mark S7 to S9. In his opinion the signatures from Q1 to Q12 and S7 to S9 are of Lal Singh Hanot. Q3 and Q4 are the questioned signature of defendant on agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A. Thus, in view of the admission of the defendant having executed agreement to sell in favour of (plaintiff herein) and the evidence of the plaintiff and the witnesses of the plaintiff examined as DW2 and DW3 in the main suit has sufficiently proved that the defendant has executed the agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A with regard to the suit property in favour of plaintiff. The defendant has failed to prove that the agreement to sell was forged and fabricated document. Hence, issue no.1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to institute the present suit? OPP
24. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff.
25. What is meant by 'cause of action' was considered in AIR 1960 SC 1309. It means: "Every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of evidence Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 13 of 21 which is necessary to prove each fact but every fact which is necessary to be proved."
1.
26. In AIR 1966 Allahabad 333 it was held that: "Cause of Action' is thus a bundle of facts which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to a judgment in his favour but it is not evidence which would be adduced to prove each fact."
27. The term 'cause of action' has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2004, Supreme Court 1761 as under : "The expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right of the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises on 'cause of action'.''
28. Thus, the cause of action is a bundle of facts which is required to be alleged and proved by the plaintiff in order to succeed in its case.
29. The averments alleged in the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has further alleged and proved that the defendant herein has executed the agreement to sell qua suit property in favour of plaintiff. While deciding issue no.1 it is already decided that defendant has executed an agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A in favour of plaintiff. Thus the averments made in the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff is sufficient to show a valid cause of action Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 14 of 21 for institution of the present suit against the defendant by the plaintiff. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance? OPP
30. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his affidavit Ex.DW1/1 in the main suit where he was defendant has deposed that the defendant herein was the owner of the suit property and entered into an agreement to sell with him on 06.07.1998 vide Ex.DW1/A wherein defendant has agreed to sell the suit property to him which was measuring 31 sq yds. bearing no. B 1/B1/1. He further deposed that the suit property was agreed to be sold for the consideration of Rs. 60,000/ and on the same day he has paid Rs. 60,000/ to the defendant; the defendant then handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. While deciding issue no.1 it has been held that the defendant executed agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A in favour of plaintiff.
31. In the WS the defendant has alleged that the documents of the plaintiff are false and fabricated which does not bear his signatures but the same are contrary to what was deposed by him in para no.9 of his affidavit Ex.P1 filed in the main suit. The plaintiff herein has Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 15 of 21 successfully proved that the agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A was executed and signed by (defendant herein). The evidence of hand writing expert DW3 examined by plaintiff herein in the main suit has successfully proved the signatures of the defendant on the agreement to sell. Another stand of the defendant herein is that he has not received any sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/ from the plaintiff because the plaintiff was allowed as a licensee to stay in the property on payment of the license fees. It is also admitted case of defendant that the plaintiff has carried out some unauthorized construction in the suit property and defendant has lodged complaint to the concerned authority. No such complaint ever made by the defendant to the concerned authorities have been placed on record. The defendant has himself not led any evidence to prove the fabrication of agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A. The defendant has relied on the cross examination of plaintiff as DW1 in the main suit wherein the plaintiff has stated that he could not say who has written encircled portion from A to A, B to B and C to C on agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A. He has further admitted that Ex.DW1/A at point C to C is fluided and rewritten. He has further admitted that there is no initials on encircled portion mentioned above on Ex.DW1/A.
32. I have carefully perused the agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A. It is Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 16 of 21 mentioned in the agreement to sell as under: "Whereas the first party is interested to sell and second party is interested to purchase the said property, hence, it has been decided that the second party will pay a consideration price of Rs. 60,000/ only to the first party and the first party will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said property to the second party as and when full and final consideration price will be received by the first party from the second party."
33. Page2 of the agreement to sell term no.1 reads as under: "The first party has delivered the vacant possession of the said property to the second party on this court."
34. The term no. 10 reads as under: "That the first party violates and infringes the term and conditions laid down in the agreement to sell, the second party shall be entitled to get the said transaction to be completed through the court of law under suit for specific performance at the costs and expenses of the first party."
35. The first stipulation regarding handing over of the vacant possession to the second party shows that the sale consideration had been received by the first party. It is so because it was stipulated at the first page of the agreement that the vacant and peaceful possession of the said property to the second party will be given as and when full and final consideration price has been received by the first party from the second party. No time was given for execution of the sale documents in the agreement to sell.
36. It is the case of plaintiff herein that on receiving the summons of settlement of the suit for possession filed by the defendant herein against him, he came to know of the intention of the defendant herein Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 17 of 21 about not acting under the agreement to sell and as such he has instituted the present suit for specific performance of the contract within the period of limitation.
37. In his suit for possession and permanent injunction the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant herein as plaintiff in the said suit has alleged that the documents i.e. agreement to sell, Will and GPA dated 06.07.1998 are false and fabricated documents. The plaintiff herein in his WS filed in the main suit has alleged that the defendant herein has executed GPA, agreement to sell dated 06.07.1998 with one receipt of receiving the payment by the plaintiff from the defendant. There is general denial of the averments of the plaintiff herein by the defendant herein in replication to the WS of plaintiff herein. There is no specific denial that consideration amount was not received by the defendant herein. Copy of agreement to sell was placed on record by the defendant in the month of July 2010. The defendant herein in the main suit has taken no steps for seeking the relief of declaration of agreement to sell as null and void on the ground of it being false and fabricated document having been re written or forged or fabricated. There is no explanation coming forth from the defendant herein and plaintiff in the main suit as to why he has not considerably amended the plaint by seeking the relief of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 18 of 21 declaration of agreement to sell as null and void being false and fabricated document.
38. As per term and conditions of the agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff herein by the defendant herein on receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/.
39. Admittedly, the agreement to sell was an unregistered document.
However, on the date of execution of the said document i.e. agreement to sell there was no requirement of it being compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The Sub Section 1A to Section 17 making the agreement to sell to be compulsorily registered came into force w.e.f. 24.09.2001. Moreover, there is no objection taken by the defendant in that regard. Therefore, non registration of agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A shall have no bearing on the relief of specific performance sought by the plaintiff in the present suit.
40. One of the condition stipulated in agreement to sell was that:
"the first party shall get no claim, title or interest in the said property and the second party has become its sole and absolute owner and is at liberty to utilise the same in any manner".
41. It was also provided in stipulation no.10 that:
"in case the first violates and infringes the term and conditions laid down in the agreement to sell, the second party (plaintiff Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 19 of 21 herein) shall be entitled to get the said transaction to be completed through the court of law under suit for specific performance at the costs and expenses of the first party".
42. By filing the suit for possession against the plaintiff herein, the defendant has thus violated the term and condition of agreement to sell. The plaintiff is therefore has a cause of action to institute the present suit seeking specific performance of contract. The plaintiff has proved that he has already paid the sale consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/ to the defendant. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the execution of the sale deed qua suit property on the basis of agreement to sell Ex.DW1/A. The plaintiff is therefore held entitled for specific performance of contract by directing the defendant to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff by executing the sale deed. Hence, issue no.3 is accordingly decided in above terms in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4:
Relief.
43. In view of my findings on above mentioned issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The decree of specific performance is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to execute the sale deed of the suit property bearing no. B1/B1/1, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Behind Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi measuring 31 sq. yds in favour of plaintiff within the period of two months from Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 20 of 21 the date of decree. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
44. Decreesheet be prepared, accordingly.
45. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court. (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)
Dated: 31.03.2016 ADJ04 (South)
Saket Courts/New Delhi
Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Lal Singh Hanot Page no. 21 of 21