Delhi District Court
Mohd. Suleman vs Noor Jahan on 31 May, 2025
DLCT010119542022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL :
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL) -01 : CENTRAL, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 2015/22
Mohd. Suleman
S/o late Haji Babu Khan,
R/o 629, Ganj Mir Khan, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002
....... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Noor Jahan
W/o Dr. Abdul Qayyum,
R/o 9, L.F. Todarmal Lane,
Bengali Market, New Delhi-110001
Also at :
1959/2, Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal,
Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002
.... DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Date of reserving Judgment : 23.04.2025
Date of decision : 31.05.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of possession, damages, permanent injunction and mesne profits.
Digitally
signed by
SANJEEV
SANJEEV KUMAR
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, KUMAR
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date:
Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan 2025.05.31
17:17:11
+0530
Page No. 1 of 52
2. Brief facts as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint are that :-
(i) That the plaintiff is the absolute and lawful owner of the property no. 1959, 1960 and 1961, Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and the plaintiff operates shop no. 1959 & 1959/1 under the name & style of Classic Mens & Kids Ware from the said property.
(ii) That the address of the suit property is 1959/2 Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and the area of suit property which is illegally possession of the defendant is 200 sq. feet and same is marked in Red colour in the site plan (in short referred to as Suit Property), which is bounded as under :
East : Front Gate Open to Ganj Mir Khan Road West : Property No. 1956 North: Shop No. 1958 opening to Ganj Mir Khan Road South: Stair case of property no. 1960 & shop no. 1960
(iii) That late Sh. Dharam Pal S/o late Sh. Jairam was the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property which he inherited from his father late Sh. Jairam and the property was ancestral in nature and late Sh. Dharm Pal acquired the same after demise of his father late Sh. Jairam and late Sh.
Jairam acquired the said property from his father late Sh. Deena Nath.
(iv) That the plaintiff gave public notice dated 17.07.2019 in CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 2 of 52 newspaper "Statements" and "Virat Vaibhav", published on 18.07.2019, but no one raised any objection to the purchase of the said property by the plaintiff from late Sh. Dharam Pal.
(v) That the plaintiff purchased the said property from late Dharam Pal against valuable sale consideration vide sale deed dated 29.07.2019 which was got duly registered with the Sub Registrar on 02.08.2019. and late Dharam Pal handed over the physical possession of the said property in terms of said sale deed and in the sale deed, it is duly recognized that there were several tenants in the said property, which includes the defendant herein.
(vi) That after purchase of said property, the plaintiff again gave a public notice dated on 23.10.2019 in English newspaper "Indian Express" and Hindi newspaper "Jansatta".
(vii) That plaintiff also applied before the Municipal Corporation for assessment and collection department and vide order dated 02.08.2019, NDMC mutated the said property in the name of plaintiff and the plaintiff also informed the Sub-Registrar vide letter dated 22.10.2019 that he is the sole and absolute owner of the said property
(viii) That since the defendant was using and occupying the suit property and the plaintiff approached the husband of defendant for payment of rent, however, he refused to pay the rent, therefore, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 3 of 52 21.12.2019 in the name of husband of defendant whereby plaintiff directed the husband of defendant to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 25,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2020 and the plaintiff also reserved his right to initiate eviction proceeding against the husband of the defendant in case of failure of payment of the rent. The said legal notice was duly served upon the husband of defendant and the plaintiff under bonafide mistake issued legal notice in the name of husband of defendant, however, neither the husband of defendant nor the defendant replied to the said legal notice.
(ix) That the plaintiff sent a reminder dated 07.04.2021 and for the first time, the husband of the defendant vide reply dated 12.05.2021 alleged that his wife / defendant herein has purchased the suit property. The plaintiff has conducted the due diligence of Sub-Registrar office there is no registered conveyance deed in the name of defendant with respect to suit property. It is stated that the defendant has only alleged that she has purchased the suit property from Smt. Phoolwati, wife of late Dharam Pal, however, wife of late Dharam Pal has no ownership right over the suit property.
(x) That the plaintiff again served a legal notice dated 24.03.2022 upon the defendant inter alia directing her to either pay the rent of Rs. 25,000/- per month or to vacate the suit property and handed over the peaceful & physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The said legal notice was duly served upon the defendant, however, CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 4 of 52 defendant has refused to comply with the same.
(xi) That from the suit property one shop is being operated in the name of Zeeshan Hair Salon and the said shop is being used for commercial purposes and the rent of the shop would be more than Rs. 25,000/- per month, hence, the plaintiff is restricting the claim for damages / mesne profit @Rs. 25,000 per month w.e.f. from the date of filing of the present suit till the date actual and physical possession of the suit property is handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff.
(xii) That the defendant can at best be treated as a licensee to the suit property and actually a person who is in unauthorized possession of the suit property. Hence, since legal notice has been served upon the defendant, therefore, after service of legal notice the right of the defendant to occupy the said property stands terminated / forfeited, therefore, the plaintiff is claiming following reliefs :-
a) Pass a decree of possession of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and accordingly the defendant be ordered to forthwith remove herself and her belongings from property no.
1959/2 situated at Ganjmir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 and hand over vacant,, peaceful and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 5 of 52
b) Pass a decree for damages / mesne profit of Rs.
25,000/- p.m. in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from the date of filing of the suit till the date actual physical possession of the suit property is handed over to the plaintiff.
c) Pass a decree for interest on damages / mesne profit @12% p.a. in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant on delay on the payments of the damages / mesne profit from the date the paypments became due till the date of actual payment.
d) Allow the cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
e) Grant any other relief or reliefs to the plaintiff, which the Court deems fit in the interest of justice.
3. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant and the defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. In written statement, defendant has made submissions that :
i. The defendant is lawful absolute owner and in possession of the suit property being its owner having purchase the same from its erstwhile owner namely Ms. Phoolwati W/o late Sh. Dharampal vide documents of sale dated 20.05.2008 ii. That the plaintiff is well aware of the facts that defendant is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property and is in legal possession but he forged and fabricated the documents in CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 6 of 52 connivance with late Sh. Dharampal, who was neither owner nor having any right, title or interet in the suit property.
iii. That since late Sh. Dharampal was neither the owner nor having any right, title or interest in the suit property, therefore, the alleged sale deed dt. 29.07.2019 is void ab- initio therefore, the plaintiff has to prove that the alleged vendor of sale deed dt. 29.07.2019 was having clear and absolute title in the suit property on the date of its alleged execution in favour of the plaintiff.
iv. That the plaintiff chooses to institute present suit under the commercial dispute of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 but the mandatory requirements has not been fulfilled in terms of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 v. That the present suit is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the plaintiff is having the equally efficacious relief, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed as per the Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
4. On merits, the defendant has denied the contents of the plaint. It is again reiterated that the defendant is the lawful owner and in possession of the suit property as she purchased the property from Phoolwati. It is further stated that prior to purchasing the same, the defendant was the tenant of Smt. Phoolwati W/o late Sh. Dharampal on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 7 of 52 per month and was paying regularly rent to her. It is further stated that even otherwise the plaintiff as well as other occupants of remaining portion of property no. 1959, 1960 and 1961, Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi was under the tenancy of Ms. Phoolwati and were paying the rent to her as she is the owner of entire property. It is also denied that the plaintiff operates shop no. 1959 and 1959/1 under the name and style of Classic Mens & Kids ware from the suit property. It is also denied that the address of the suit property is 1959/2 Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. It is stated that there is no municipal number of the properties in (/) format. It is further stated that as per knowledge & information of the plaintiff, late Sh. Jairam was having three sons namely (1) Sh. Dharampal, (2) Sh. Satbir Singh & (3) Sh. Partap and two daughters namely (1) Ms. Kamlesh & (2) not known. It is further stated that the pedigree of late Sh. Dharampal is as under :
Sh. Dharampal (Husband) Smt. Phoolwati (Wife) SONS DAUGHTERS
1. Sh. Devender 1. Ms. Radha
2. Sh. Kulbhusan 2. Ms. Geeta
3. Ms. Mala
4. Ms. Jyoti.
5. It is further stated that it has also come into the knowledge of defendant that there were some disputes between late Sh.
Dharampal and his wife Smt. Phoolwati & Sons and the cases were pending between them. It is further stated that alleged CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 8 of 52 publications in the English newspaper "Stateman" dated 17.07.2019 and Hindi newspaper "Virat Vaibhav" dated 18.07.2019 in the form of public notice are very small in fonts and not legible and the contents of public notice is not admitted being contrary. It is further stated that defendant was in possession OF the suit property since 2004 being tenant and thereafter, she purchased the suit property vide documents of sale dated 20.05.2008 and thereafter, the suit property was mutated in the name of defendant and she started paying the house tax regularly being owner for which the receipts were also issued by the MCD. It is further stated that the NDMC, Assessment and Collection Department, City Zone also issued a letter no. Tax/CZ/2015-351 dated 02.09.2015 in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant, which is much prior from alleged mutation of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the issuance of notice dated 21.12.2019 in the name of husband of defendant whereby directing the husband of defendant to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 25,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2020 is contrary to the law of land as the rate of the property was @Rs. 150/- per month up to the date of its purchase by the defendant. Thus, the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Plaintiff has filed replication in which he denied the contents of WS as incorrect and stated that the contents of the plaint are true and correct.
7. Both parties have filed their respective affidavits qua admission-denial of documents, in which the plaintiff has denied all the documents filed by the defendant whereas the defendant CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 9 of 52 has only admitted following documents :-
1. Site Plan
2. Copy of the property tax receipt no. 76538 dt. 22.09.2015 for sum of Rs. 13,280/- for the period 2004-05 to 2015-16
3. Copy of assessment of property dated 02.09.2015 in the name of defendant
4. Copy of reply dated 12.05.2021 issued by husband of defendant to the reminder dated 07.04.2021
8. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 15.07.2023 as under :-
1. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction ? OPP
2. Whether late Sh. Dharam Pal S/o late Sh. Jaitram R/o House No. 340, Village Hiran Kudna, Delhi-110041 was the sole and exclusive owner of the property no. 1959, 1960 & 1961, Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (suit property) ? OPP
3. Whether the sale deed dated 29.07.2019 executed by late Sh. Dharam Pal in favour of plaintiff is null and Void ? OPD
4. Whether the unregistered agreement sale deed, power of attorney as filed by the defendant is hit by Section 17 & 19 of the Registration Act and is liable to be impunded as per Section 35 and Article 23A (Schedule 1A) of Stamp Act ? Onus upon parties
5. Whether the plaintiff is absolute and lawful owner of the CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 10 of 52 suit property ? OPP
6. Whether the defendant is the owner of the suit property ? OPD
7. Whether the defendant is unauthorized and unlawful use and occupation of the suit property ? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of the suit property ? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages / mesne profit @ Rs. 25,000/- per month w.e.f. 29.07.2019 ? OPP
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @12% p.a. upon damages / mesne profits ? OPP
11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the litigation ? OPP
12. Relief.
9. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined four witnesses i.e. himself as PW1, Sh. Rizwan Alai as PW2, Sh.
Shafiquddin as PW3 and Sh. Shivajit as PW4.
10. On the other hand defendant has examined her husband Sh. Sh. Abdul Qayyum as DW1 and Sh. Sh. Davinder Chahal son of Phoolwati as DW2.
11. Final arguments were heard from Sh. Sanjeev Sahay & Sh. Archit Rajput, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Noor-ul-Islam & Sh. Swadesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for defendant.
Plaintiff's evidence CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 11 of 52
12. Plaintiff/ PW1 led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and almost repeated the same facts as stated in the plaint, therefore, same are not repeated here. He has relied upon the following documents :-
1. Site plan of property No. 1959, 1960 and 1961, Ganj Mir Khan, Darya Ganj as Ex. PW1/1.
2. Copy of MCD records for inspection dated 18.7.1963 as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) (4 pages).
3. Computerized print out of death certificate of Sh.
Jairam as Ex. PW1/3.
4. Copy of receipt of property tax paid by Sh. Dharampal for the years 2004-05 to 2019- 2020 on 16.5.2019 as Ex. PW1/4.
5. Copy of request to the newspaper for issuance of public notice as Ex. PW1/5.
6. Photocopies of extract of newspapers of public notices in newspapers Virat Vaibhav and The Statesman as Ex. PW1/6 (OSR).
7. Sale deed dated 29.7.2019 as Ex. PW1/7.
8. Copy of document for e-change of name in taxpayer certificate dated 2.8.2019 obtained from the website of MCD as Ex. PW1/8.
9. Copy of public notice dated 17.7.2019 as Ex.
PW1/9 (OSR).
10. Copy of public notice dated 21.10.2019 as Ex.
PW1/10 (OSR).
11. Copy of advertisement cash bill as Ex. PW1/11 (OSR).
12. Copy of letter to the Sub-Registrar dated 22.10.2019 as Ex. PW1/12.
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 12 of 52
13. Copies of newspapers for publication of public notices in Indian Express and Jansatta dated 23.10.2019 as Ex. PW1/13 (OSR).
14. Copy of legal notice dated 21.12.2019 as Mark PW1/14.
15. Copy of application dated 24.12.2019 before NDMC as Ex. PW1/15 (OSR).
16. Copy of RTI reply by the NDMC dated 31.12.2019 as Ex. PW1/16.
17. Computerized print out of death certificate of Sh.
Dharampal as Ex. PW1/17.
18. Copy of tax payment checklist for the year 2020- 21 obtained from the website of MCD as Ex. PW1/18.
19. Copy of reminder to the legal notice dated 7.4.2021 along with postal receipt as Ex. PW1/19 (Colly.).
20. Copy of reply dated 12.5.2021 as Ex. PW1/20.
21. Copy of power of attorney dated 13.8.2021 as Ex.
PW1/21 (OSR).
22. Copy of property tax payment receipt obtained from the website of MCD dated 11.2.2022 as Ex. PW1/22.
23. Copy of legal notice dated 24.3.2022 along with postal receipt as Ex. PW1/23 (Colly.).
24. Photographs of suit property as Ex. PW1/24.
25. Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/25.
13. In his cross examination, he testified that father of Late Sh. Dharampal is Chaudhary Jai Ram and his grandfather's name is Late Sh. Deenanath and the name of his great grandfather is Sh. Udhami Jaat and name of his great-great grandfather is Late Sh. Hardyal. The name of wife of Late Sh. Dharampal is Smt. CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 13 of 52 Parmeshwari. The name of son of Late Sh. Dharampal and Smt. Parmeshwari Devi is Sh. Lalkeshwar and Sh. Mahender. He further deposed that Smt. Phoolwati was the wife of Late Sh. Dharampal and he vol. stated that Dharampal has abandoned her prior to the year 1980. He does not know whether from the wedlock of Dharampal and Phoolwati, there are two sons namely Devender and Kulbhushan and four daughters namely Radha, Geeta, Mala and Jyoti. He admitted that there were other children of Late Sh. Jai Ram, father of Sh. Dharampal but he does not know their names. He denied the suggestion that the property bearing No. 1959, 1960 and 1961 is occupied by tenants. He vol. deposed that they are unauthorized occupants. He further deposed that he came in possession of property No. 1959 and 1959/1 around 10 years ago i.e. around the year 2013 and he was put into possession by Late Dharampal as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. he deposed that he used to pay said rent to Dharampal. He denied the suggestion that he was not put into possession of the suit property by Dharampal. He denied the suggestion that he was given the said property on rent by Smt. Phoolwati. He denied the suggestion that he used to pay rent to her but stopped paying rent to her. He deposed that he used to work in the property No. 1959 and 1959/1 of selling of clothes. He further deposed that the electricity bill in respect of property No. 1959 and 1959/1 is in the name of his wife Smt. Sagiran.
He further deposed that he had known Dr. Abdul Qayyum and his wife Smt. Noor Jahan (defendant) since last 7-8 years as they used to come to collect rent for the shop they have CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 14 of 52 given on rent to one barber who is still tenant of said shop. The shop number of said shop is 1959/2 i.e. the suit property. He does not know whether Phoolwati has given the suit property i.e. 1959/2 on rent to the defendant Noor Jahan on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- (the shop which is in occupation of barber at present). He does not know whether Phoolwati used to give rent receipt to Noor Jahan. He admitted that Municipality has not given any number 1959/1 and 1959/2 and the municipal number is only 1959 and vol. stated that they have privately given the number 1959/1 and 1959/2 in site plan to identify the suit property.
He stated that the total consideration amount has been mentioned in sale deed Ex. PW1/7 is Rs. 70 lacs. He had paid Rs. 20 lacs by cheque and Rs. 50 lacs in cash. The cash amount was paid on the day of registration of the sale deed Ex. PW1/7. Said amount was paid prior to going to Sub-Registrar for registration of the same at the house of defendant at his village Hirankudna. The payment was made in between 11:00 am to 1:00 pm. The payment was made in part. Rs. 25 lac was given on one day and Rs. 10 lac was given on another day and Rs. 5 lacs each was given thrice on some other days but he does not remember the dates. No receipt was taken for the aforesaid payments given to Dharampal. His son was also present when the payments were given. He denied the suggestion that since he has made no payment to Dharampal therefore he does not remember the dates when the said payments were made. He denied the suggestion that no receipt was issued by Dharampal as no payment was made to him and the same is his concocted story.
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 15 of 52 The payment of Rs. 20 lacs was made by several cheques i.e. as follows : -
1. Cheque bearing No. 640366 for Rs. 3 lacs which was deducted from my account bearing No. 0348101011527 in Canara Bank, Darya Ganj branch on 12.4.2019;
2. Cheque bearing No. 217811 for Rs. 2 lacs which was deducted from my account bearing No. 0348101011527 in Canara Bank, Darya Ganj branch on 4.4.2019;
3. Cheque bearing No. 217812 for Rs. 2 lacs which was deducted from my account bearing No. 0348101011527 in Canara Bank, Darya Ganj branch on 24.7.2019;
He also given amount of Rs. 3 lacs on 4.4.2019 and Rs. 2 lacs on 30.7.2019 to Dharampal from his son Md. Irshad's account. Rest of the payment was made by his other sons namely Md. Aqil, Md. Shahnawaz and Md. Irfan Asif but he does not remember the details of said payments or date, month or year.
14. PW2 Sh. Rizwan Ali as PW2, in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW2/A, has deposed that sale deed dated 29.07.2019 for the property no. 1959, 1960 & 1961, Ganj Meer Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi was executed between the plaintiff and late Sh. Dharampal in his presence.
15. In his cross examination PW2 has deposed that he knows Mohd. Suleman since his childhood as he is one of his distant relative and is residing in the same vicinity where he is also CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 16 of 52 residing. In the month of July 2019, he visited the office of Sub- Registrar for the purpose of execution of sale deed (Ex. PW1/7). Md. Suleman had told him one or two days ago that he has to get the sale deed registered and asked him to come at Sub-Registrar office to become witness for the said sale deed. He further deposed that no cash was given by the plaintiff Md. Suleman to the seller in his presence. He stated that sale deed already Ex. PW1/7, was executed in his presence. But he does not know what was the amount mentioned as sale consideration in the said sale deed, he vol. Stated that Sub-Registrar has asked from the seller and buyer whether there is any consideration is left to be paid "koi lena dena to nahi hai" and they said no. He further deposed that Dharampal was present at the Sub-Registrar office but he does not remember whether he signed on the sale deed or not in his presence.
His attention is drawn at the figure written in handwriting as "Fifty lakhs" "Twenty Lakhs" and "00" at page No. 4 of Ex. PW1/7, he deposed that said figures was not written by anybody in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was not witness of Ex. PW1/7. He denied the suggestion that the sale deed Ex. PW1/7 was not executed in his presence before office of Sub-Registrar.
16. PW3 Sh. Shafiquddin as PW3, in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW3/A, has deposed that sale deed dated 29.07.2019 for the property no. 1959, 1960 & 1961, Ganj Meer Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi was executed between the plaintiff and late Sh. Dharampal in his presence.
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 17 of 52
17. In his cross examination, he deposed that Mohd. Suleman is his brother and he knows about the property of which sale deed Ex. PW1/7 was executed. Said property was ancestral property of Sh. Dharampal. Father of Dharampal Sh. Jairam was earlier occupying the property and prior to him, grandfather of Dharampal was occupying the said property with their family. Dharampal has left the said property about 3/4/5 years ago and shifted to his native village. He does not know what is the name of wife of Dharampal. he does not know Phoolwati who is the wife of Dharampal. No money in cash or cheque was given by Md. Suleman to Dharampal in his presence. Md. Suleman asked him one or two days prior to the date of execution of sale deed to come to Sub-Registrar office for the purpose of execution of sale deed. He deposed that he went to Sub-Registrar office with his brother Md. Suleman, Dharampal and Rizwan. He went to Sub-Registrar office alone and meet his aforesaid brothers at Asaf Ali Road as his house is just in the back lane of Asaf Ali Road.
His attention is drawn at the figure written in handwriting as "Fifty lakhs" "Twenty Lakhs" and "00" at page No. 4 of Ex. PW1/7, he deposed that said figures was not written by anybody in his presence. he does not know who has written the same. He denied the suggestion that he was not witness of Ex. PW1/7. He denied the suggestion that the sale deed Ex. PW1/7 was not executed in my presence before office of Sub-Registrar.
He deposed that the property of which sale deed Ex. PW1/7 is executed was purchased from Dharampal. The sale deed CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 18 of 52 Ex. PW1/7 involve the property No. 59, 60 and 61, Ganj Meer Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. In the property No. 59, 60 and 61 there were six shops on ground floor and there were other floors over the said ground floor. He does not know how many other floors are there. he does not know who was in occupation of these six shops. His brother Md. Suleman was also in occupation of one or two shop out of the said six shops before purchasing of said property. He does not know whether his brother Md. Suleman was in occupation of said shop as tenant of Phoolwati. He deposed that he does not know any Md. Arif.
At this stage, witness is shown the site plan of th suit property already Ex. PW1/1.
Q. Can you point out from the said site plan which are the shops in which your brother Md. Suleman was in occupation prior to purchasing the property mentioned in Ex. PW1/7? Ans. The witness has pointed out the shop as shown in red colour in the site plan and the other shop which is bearing No. 1959/1.
He denied the suggestion that the shop shown in red colour in site plan is not that shop which was in possession of his brother before purchasing the property mentioned in the sale deed Ex. PW1/7. No documents of ownership of the property was given by Dharampal to Md. Suleman in his presence. He admitted that Dharampal has other brothers and sisters but he does not know how many brothers and sisters Dharampal has. He does not know whether Sh. Bhagat Singh, Pratap Singh and Satbeer Singh are the brothers and six sisters namely Sheela, Meena, Vidya, Kamla, Renu and Kiran of Dharampal.
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 19 of 52 He is shown sale deed already Ex. PW1/7, he deposed that the said document was executed in his presence. He does not know what was the amount mentioned as sale consideration in the said sale deed. Dharampal was present at the Sub-Registrar office and he signed on the sale deed in his presence.
Defendant's evidence
18. DW1 Dr. Abdul Qayyum in his testimony led by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A has deposed that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit property is null and void-ab- initioas as late Sh. Dharampal was not the owner and has not right, title or interest in the suit property and further deposed that Smt. Phoolwati was the owner / landlord of the suit property and as such the defendant inducted as tenant in the suit property in the year 2004 by Smt. Phoolwati monthly rent of Rs. 150/- per month and was paying regularly rent to her. He further deposed that even otherwise the plaintiff as well as other occupants of remaining portion of property no. 1959, 1960 & 1961 was under the tenancy of Smt. Phoolwati and were regularly paying the rent to her as she was the owner of the entire property. He further deposed that Smt. Phoolwati sold the suit property to the defendant in year 2008 after payment of total consideration amount by executing the agreement to sell dt. 20.05.2008, affidavit dated 20.05.2008, receipt dated 20.05.2008 and advance payment receipt dated 03.11.2004. He also deposed that the suit property was mutated in the name of defendant and she started paying the house tax regularly. He further deposed that as per knowledge and CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 20 of 52 information, the father of late Sh. Dharampal was late Sh. Jairam and the pedigree of late Sh. Jairam is as under :-
Late Sh. Jairam Sons Daughters
1. Sh. Dharampal 1. Ms. Kamlesh
2. Sh. Satbir Singh 2. Not known Further, the pedigree of late Sh. Dharampal is as under :-
Late Sh. Dharampal (Husband) Smt. Phoolwati (Wife) Sons Daughters
1. Sh. Devender 1. Ms. Radha
2. Sh. Kulbhushan 2. Ms. Geeta
3. Ms. Mala
4. Ms. Jyoti He further deposed that there are disputes between late Sh.
Dharampal and his wife Smt. Phoolwati and Sons Sh. Devender & Sh. Kulbhushan with respect to property no. 1959, 1960 & 1961, Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 21 of 52 and the litigations / cases are pending them, thus, late Sh. Dharampal has not acquired the suit property from his father late Sh. Jairam. He further deposed that It is highly impossible that late Sh. Dharampal acquired the aforesaid property from his father as late Sh. Jairam was also having other children namely Sh. Satbir Singh, Ms. Kamlesh and another daughter name not known. In order to corroborate his testimony, he relied upon rent receipts qua the suit property issued by Smt. Phoolwati as Ex. PW1/DX1 to Ex. PW1/DX4, agreement to sell dated 20.05.2008 executed by Smt. Phoolwati in favour of defendant as Ex. DW1/6, affidavit dated 20.05.2008 as Ex. DW1/7, copy of receipt dt. 20.05.2008 as Ex. DW1/8 and copy of advance payment receipt dated 03.11.2004 executed by Smt. Phoolwati in favour of defendant as Ex. DW1/9, three property tax payment receipts issued by MCD in favour of defendant as Ex. DW1/10 to Ex. DW1/12 and copy of self assessment property tax pertaining to year 2016-17 as Mark- A. Copy of self assessment property tax pertaining to year 2016- 17 as Mark A and Copy of cheque No. 000281 dated 6.12.2019 as Mark B.
19. In his cross examination he deposed that that suit property was given on rent to his wife by Smt. Phoolwati. He admit that suit property was ancestral property of Phoolwati husband. He stated that he does not know which property has came into share of Dharampal after partition and voluntarily depose that he only know children of Dharampal has stayed in property no. 1959 or 1960. He also depose that he cannot say whether JaiRam expired intestate on 08.01.1990. He stated that he does not know whether CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 22 of 52 Dharampal, Partap and Satbeer has divided their ancestral property among them. He also stated that he does not know whether sale deed of property no.1956 mark DW1/PX2, was executed by Partap, or sale deed of property no. 1958/2-3 mark DW1/PX3 also executed by Pratap, or sale deed of property no.1962 mark DW1/PX4, was executed by Kamlesh.
20. DW2 Sh. Davinder Chahal, who was the summoned witnesses, in his testimony has deposed that agreement to sell Ex. DW1/6 bears his signature at point B and vide said agreement to sell, his mother has sold the property i.e. Shop No. 1959, Suiwalan, Ganj Mir Khan, Delhi-110006 to defendant Smt. Noor Jahan for total sum of Rs. 3 lakh.
21. In his cross examination he stated that Noorjahan has given Rs. 290000/- with respect to sale of shop property in year 2004 for which agreement to sale EXDW1/6 was executed. He denied that said money was taken as rent and security by his mother. He further depose in his cross examination that he shifted to address at Dwarka in year 2008 from Darya Ganj. The case for property proceeded between him and his father in Court at Jhazzar. He also admit that case was file by him at Punjab & Haryana High Court. He also admit that his father has filed a criminal case against him and his brother. He admit that litigation between him, his brother and his father started probably in 1997- 1998. His father has performed second marriage. He depose his father has three brother, Bhagat Singh, Satbir Singh and Partap Singh. Property no. 1956 and 1958 to 1962 was joint property of his father and father brothers but he is doubtful whether property CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 23 of 52 no.1957 included in it or not. Ha admitted that property no. 1956 after division came into share of Satbir Singh, after division but do not know that whether ground floor and first floor of property no. 1958 came into share of Partap Singh though he stated that same came into share of his father brother's but he do not now whether it came into share of Satbir Singh or Pratap Singh. He denied the suggestion that third floor of property no. 1958 has came into share of Dharam Pal, but he voluntarily stated that his mother resides in the one floor of the property no. 1960 and 1961 which is in back portion of property no. 1958 and she has given on rent said portion. He stated that he do not know whether his father sold property no. 1962 in year 2017 by sale deed. He admitted that his father has not executed any document in respect of property no.1951 to 1961 in favour of his mother. (He voluntarily depose that since his father left and mother was residing therefore she has rented the same).
ARGUMENTS
22. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that defendant neither in the WS nor in the testimony of DW1 or DW2 has denied that the suit property was not an ancestral property of late Sh. Jairam. Defendant has only vaguely denied that late Sh. Dharampal was not the owner of the suit property , whereas defendant herself claiming right in suit property having purchasing the same from Phoolwati but he did not explain how Phoolwati is the owner of suit property. He argued that from evidence led by defendants witness itself it is prove that she was CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 24 of 52 wife of Dharampal and thus presumption can be drawn that defendant herself admit suit property came into possession being wife of Dharamplal. Defendants did not produce any documents that Dharampal authorize the Phoolwati to sell the suit property hence alleged sale by Phoolwati to defendant is not valid and does not confer any ownership of suit property in favour of defendant.
23. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further argued that from testimony of plaintiff and even DW2 it is prove that oral partition took place between children of late Sh. Jairam and suit property came to the share of Late Dharampal, thus, he was entitled to sell the suit property and he sold the same to the plaintiff. He further argued that defendant is alleging that Smt. Phoolwati qua the suit property has not produced any document that she became the owner of the suit property.
24. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further argued that the documents of alleged purchased of property is agreement to sale and same is also unregistered. The agreement to sale does not transfer any title of ownership as an immovable property could be sell only through sale deed.
25. Ld. Counsel for defendant further argued that since defendant did not given the rent of Rs. 25,000/- despite sending legal notice therefore plaintiff is entitle to decree of possession of suit as well of damages/ mesne profit @25000/- per month.
26. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that it is not disputed by the plaintiff that late Sh. Jairam has CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 25 of 52 following legal heirs, i.e. Sh. Dharampal (son), Sh. Satbir Singh(Son), Ms. Kamlesh (Daughter) and one more daughter whose name not known, but did not produce any documents that oral partition took place between them qua the aforesaid property and the property came into the share of late Sh. Dharampal, thus, the plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus that late Sh. Dharam Pal S/o late Sh. Jaitram was the sole and exclusive owner of the property no. 1959, 1960 & 1961, Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and was entitled to sell the property in question to the plaintiff.
27. Ld. Counsel for defendant further argued that from the evidence of the witnesses it is prove that the property in question was always in possession of Smt. Phoolwati and she was collecting rents from tenants whereas Late Dharampal has left the property in year 1980 and performed second marriage, hence, she became the owner by virtue of possession of the said property since 1980 exclusively hence She become owner and thus was authorize to sell the same, therefore the sale transaction of suit property made by her vide documents EXDW1/6 is valid hence after said sale defendant become owner of the suit property, therefore suit is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE/ ISSUE WISE FINDING Issue No. 1 : Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction ? OPP CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 26 of 52
28. The as per para-18 of the plaint @ Rs. 25 lakhs is the market value of the suit property and further for relief of recovery of possession, the suit is valued at Rs. 2,50,000/- i.e. rent for the period of ten months, for relief of permanent injunction he valued @ Rs. 130 on which the Court fee of Rs. 13 is paid whereas for relief of mesne profit @ Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of filing, therefore, the suit is valued at Rs. 27,55,000/- whereon a court fees of Rs. 29,500/- is affixed.
29. The onus is upon the defendant to prove that proper Court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff but defendant neither given any suggestion to the plaintiff / PW1 that the Court fees paid by him is deficient nor anything has been stated by him in this regard in the evidence led by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A by Dr. Abdul Qayyum, her husband, and Sh. Davinder Chahal as DW2, therefore, in this regard I held that defendant has failed to prove that plaintiff has paid deficient court fees. Though in my view if plaintiff is seeking possession from tenant he is required to fix court fees on the yearly rent as per section section 7(cc) of Court fees Act and not 10 months rent hence value for the property for relief of possession would be 3 lakh on which Court fees would be Rs. 2450/-. However I am agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant that since defendant in WS has denied the tenancy and claim ownership of the property therefore plaintiff is liable to pay Court fees on market value of suit property and not on yearly rent. The plaintiff has assess Rs. 25 lakh as market value of the suit property on which Rs. 26414/- is to be paid as Court fees. Further for the relief of permanent injunction CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 27 of 52 plaintiff can determine the value as per his discretion which he has determine as Rs. 130 and has assess the Court fees as Rs. 13 which appear to be correct. Further since plaintiff has paid Court fees of Rs. 29500/- therefore in my view he has not paid the deficient Court fees. Hence, I decide issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No. 2 : Whether late Sh. Dharm Pal S/o late Sh. Jaitram R/o House No. 340, Village Hiran Kudna, Delhi-110041 was the sole and exclusive owner of the property no. 1959, 1960 & 1961, Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (suit property) ? OPP
30. The onus to prove that Dharam Pal was sole and exclusive owner of the suit property is upon the plaintiff. On analyzing his testimony of PW1 and PW3 it is evident that that both have testified that late Sh. Dharm Pal has inherited suit property from his father late Sh. Jairam who inherited the same from his ancestor but they did not prove any sale deed in the name of ancestor of Dharampal, however, on analyzing testimony of DW1 Dr. Abdul Qayyum it is evident that he depose that Smt. Phoolwati was the owner / landlord of the suit property who sell the suit property to his wife i.e. defendant. He has not depose that she was having any sale deed in her favor or same was inherited by her from her parental side.
DW2 Sh. Davinder Chahal in his cross examination has admitted that his grand father name is Late. Jai Ram and his CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 28 of 52 father has three brother, Bhagat Singh, Satbir Singh and Partap Singh and they were joint owner of Property no. 1956 and 1958 to 1962 though he stated that whether property no. 1957 include in it or not. Hence from his cross examination it is prove that suit property which is part of property no. 1959 is ancestral property of late Sh. Dharampal father and his father brothers. DW2 also admitted that property no. 1956 after division came into share of Satbir Singh, after division but do not know that whether ground floor and first floor of property no. 1958 came into share of Partap Singh. Thus he also admit that ancestral properties has been partitioned. Thus from testimony of DW1 and DW2 it self it is prove that suit property was ancestral property of Late Sh. Dharam Pal.
Further from cross examination DW1 it is evident that he was put copy of the plaint filed for permanent injunction qua the properties no. 1958, 1959, and 1960 Suiwalan Darya Ganj, Delhi restraining his sons Kulbhushan & Devender and Smt. Phoolwati form recovering rents from the tenants of the said properties, WS and judgement of case suit no. 671/02 title as Dharam Pal vs Kulbhushan and others EXDW1/P2. From plaint of said suit file by Dharampal against his children and wife Phoolwati it is evident that he file suit for for permanent injunction restraining him or his attorney to receive rent claiming himself to be exclusive owner of property no.1958, 1959, and 1960 Suiwalan Darya Ganj, Delhi which also include suit property, on the basis that suit property was his ancestral property. From WS file by the defendants it is evident that defendants have taken the objection that Dharam Pal CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 29 of 52 is not exclusive owner of suit property and he is having share in the aforesaid properties which is an ancestral property and besides plaintiff defendants have equal rights in said property as per provision of Hindu Succession Act. From judgement dt. 21.05.23 passed by Sh. Jitender Parsad Singh then Ld. Civil Judge it is evident that he has dismissed the suit by holding that property is ancestral and his first wife i.e.Phoolwati and her children have rights by birth being ancestral property. Further it is evident that Dharam Pal has filed the appeal against said judgement bearing appeal no. RCA39/2013 and said appeal was also dismissed vide order dt. 17.07.2015 by Ms. Shivali Sharma Ld. ASCJcum Scc cum GJ( central). Since plaintiff did not produce any document that said judgment has been set aside by Higher Courts therefore said judgement become final.
31. I am not agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that said judgement cannot be considered being contrary to Judgement of Hon, ble Supreme Courts Commission of walth Tax vs Chander Sain & others (1986) 3 SCC567 and Yudhishter vs Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204 where in it is held that a person acquire exclusive right in ancestral property and same like his self acquired property ecluding his children, therefore Dharam Pal wife and children have no right in ancestral suit property. In my view once a competent Courts has held that Dharam Pal is not exclusive owner of properties which include suit property, this Court not judgement set aside the finding of said judgement even if not agreed to the finding as this court is not appellate Court of the Court of Ms. Shivali Sharma. Hence on the basis of CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 30 of 52 aforesaid judgement EXDW1/P2 I hold that Dharam Pal was not the sole and exclusive owner of property no. 1959, 1960 & 1961, Ganj Mir Khan, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Issue No. 2 is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3 : Whether the sale deed dated 29.07.2019 executed by late Sh. Dharam Pal in favour of plaintiff is null and Void ? OPD
32. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that there are discrepancies in the copy of sale deed filed by the plaintiff with the plaint and the original sale deed filed during evidence as there is manipulation in the original sale deed with respect to the word written in hand "Fifty Lakhs" and "Twenty Lakhs" and two additional "00" after the figure 20,000 at page no. 4 in the sale deed, which is not in the copy of the sale deed file with plaint.
He further argued that plaintiff's witness PW2 Sh. Rizwan Ali who is the witness of execution of sale deed, has admitted that said figure not written by anybody in his presence, hence, when the said changes in the original sale deed is not written in his presence means either he was not witness when the sale deed was signed by late Sh. Dharampal or the changes which have been brought in the sale deed is material alteration and thus sale deed nullity.
33. Ld. Counsel for defendant further argued that there is no proof that plaintiff paid Rs. 50 Lakh cash or that in the sale deed it is not mentioned how plaintiff paid Rs. 20 Lakh thus sale deed is without consideration. Hence sale deed is nullity CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 31 of 52
34. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that photocopy of the sale deed which was filed on record with the plaint was error which was corrected later on. He further argued that PW2 and PW3 has categorically depose that sale deed is signed by Dharam Pal in their presence and, hence it prove that sale deed has been executed by Late. Dharam Pal. He further argued that since authenticity of sale deed has not been challenged therefore sale deed cannot be declared as nullity.
35. I have heard submissions. The plaintiff has prove the original sale deed of property no. 1959, 1960 and 1961 measuring 152 Sq. years as EXPW1/7 which also include suit property i.e. oe shop as shown in red colour in site plan. It is undisputed fact that with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed copy sale deed as documents no. D-3 which was Ex.PW1/D1 when same was put into the cross examination of PW1/plaintiff.
36. On perusal of original sale deed it is evident that at page -4, it is evident that "Rs. 50,00,000/- already paid in cash, is written by typing through computer but after it fifty thousand is written in handwriting. Similarly athe figure Rs. 20,000 " has been written by typing through computer but there two "00" has been written by handwriting two make 20 though to twenty lakh. But in the copy of sale deed EXPW1/D1 the aforesaid alteration which is in handwriting is not written. Scan copies of relevant pages of both copy of sale deed as well as original sale deed are as under
for better understanding :-
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 32 of 52 PAGE NO. 4 OF COPY OF SALE DEED EX. PW1/D1 CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 33 of 52 PAGE NO. 4 OF ORIGINAL SALE DEED EX. PW1/7
37. Thus, from the copy of the sale deed Ex. PW1/D1 and CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 34 of 52 original sale deed Ex. PW1/7 it appears that there is alteration in the original sale deed and in my view same is material alteration. The onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that said alteration in approved by the Late. Dharam Pal but there is no signature of late Sh. Dharampal acknowledging the said alteration.
38. The onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that said alteration was done with the consent of defendant but Plaintiff neither in the plaint nor in his evidence affidavit has depose that when the handwritten portion on sale deed EXPW1/7 was written despite asking specific question about said alteration. He even did not depose that it was done with the consent of Late. Dharam Pal though in my view any error even if presume there was error in the amount as mistakenly written as 20,000/-instead of Rs. 20 lakh same is need to corrected by way of rectification after registration of sale deed and cannot be corrected without consent of defendant.
PW2 and PW3 who are witness to the execution of sale deed have categorically admitted that said alteration in sale deed was not done in their presence. Hence plaintiff has failed to prove that alteration in sale deed EXPW1/7 was done with the consent of plaintiff or was done till it was presented before Sub Registrar. Further since Copy of sale deed EXPW1/D1 also bears stamp of Registrar and signature of sub registrar, which means said alteration might have been done after registration of sale deed. The plaintiff has not examined the witness from sub Registrar office to prove that said alteration existed in copy of sale deed CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 35 of 52 which was kept by Sub Registrar for their record.
Since the alteration in sale deed relate to payment of sale consideration therefore in my view said alteration goes into root of sale transaction between plaintiff and Late Dharam Pal and thus affect the validity of sale deed EXPW1/7. Though in my view due to said alteration sale deed may not be nullity as only the portion which was altered will be considered as not altered at all as held in Kanwar Raj Singh (D) through LRs and GEJO.(D) through LRs & others civil appeal no. 9098/ 2013 dt. 02.01.24 passed by Hon,ble Supreme Court where in para 11 Honble Supreme Court has held that "correction unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored."
Further PW2 who is attesting witness of sale deed has depose that Dharampal was present at the Sub-Registrar office but he does not remember whether he signed on the sale deed or not in his presence. Hence his testimony create doubt that he is the witness of signing of Late. Dharam Pal on the sale deed. He
39. Further even if I ignore the said alteration in sale deed, on perusal of sale deed I found that total sale consideration has been mentioned as Rs.70 Lakh. Out of which Rs. 50 lakh is stated to be given to Dharam Pal by cash and Rs. 20 Lakh by cheque. There is no detail of cheque in sale deed by which Rs. 20 lakh was given in the sale deed. Neither any bank statement has been produced by plaintiff that any cheque given by document has been produced qua the said cheque. Though in his cross examination he depose CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 36 of 52 that he gave the payments by several cheques i.e. Rs. 3 lakh by cheque no. 640366, dt. 12.04.2019, Rs. 2 lakh by cheque no. 217811 dt.04.04.2019, Rs. 2 lakh by cheque no. 217812 dt. 24.07.2019 all of his bank account Canara Bank, and Rs. 3 lakh on 04.04.2019 and Rs. 2 lakh on 31.07.2019 by his son account and rest of the amount was given by his other son Mohd. Adil, Mohd. Shahnawaj, and Mohd. Irfan Nawaj but he did not produce any document to support the said deposition. Hence in my view he failed to prove Rs. 20 lakh payment to plaintiff by cheque.
40. Further, there is no detail is mentioned in the sale deed or plaint or in his evidence affidavit i.e. when the said Rs. 50 lakhs was paid by plaintiff/ PW1. In his cross examination he depose that cash amount was paid on the day of registration of the sale deed Ex. PW1/7 and further state that same was paid prior to going to Sub-Registrar for registration of the same at the house of defendant at his village Hirankudna. The payment was made in between 11:00 am to 1:00 pm. Then he change stand and say that payment was made in part. Rs. 25 lac was given on one day and Rs. 10 lac was given on another day and Rs. 5 lacs each was given thrice on some other days but he does not remember the dates. Thus his testimony is contradictory regarding the day when cash amount was paid. He denied the suggestion that since he has made no payment to Dharampal therefore he does not remember the dates when the said payments were made. He denied the suggestion that no receipt was issued by Dharampal as no payment was made to him and the same is his concocted story. I found substance in the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 37 of 52 it look qua unbelievable that plaintiff is paying such a huge amount in cash but not taking the receipt of the same.
PW2 and PW3 who are witnesses of sale deed have not deposed in their testimonies that any amount of cash was paid in their presence, rather PW3 in his cross examination has stated that no money or cash was paid in his presence. No other witness has been examined by the plaintiff in whose presence cash of Rs. 50 lakh was paid to Sh. Dharampal. Hence in these circumstances I held plaintiff has failed to prove that he paid Rs, 50 lakh in cash to the Sh. Dharampal.
Further transaction more than Rs. 2 lakh is prohibited by Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the said transactions is illegal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar & Another, CIVIL APPEAL No. 5200 of 2025, decided on 16.04.2025, has held that Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, was introduced to curb black money by digitalizing the transactions above Rs.2,00,000/- and contemplating equal amount of penalty under Section 271DA of the Act. As per the said provisions, action is to be taken on the recipient. However, there is also an onus on the plaintiffs to disclose their source for such huge cash. Hon'ble Apex Court has also issued the following directions:
(A) Whenever, a suit is filed with a claim that Rs.
2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any transaction, the courts must intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 38 of 52 the transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, if any, (B) Whenever, any such information is received either from the court or otherwise, the Jurisdictional Income Tax authority shall take appropriate steps by following the due process in law, (C) Whenever, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is claimed to be paid by cash towards consideration for conveyance of any immovable property in a document presented for registration, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Authority who shall follow the due process in law before taking any action, (D) Whenever, it comes to the knowledge of any Income Tax Authority that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- or above has been paid by way of consideration in any transaction relating to any immovable property from any other source or during the course of search or assessment proceedings, the failure of the registering authority shall be brought to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary of the State/UT for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against such officer who failed to intimate the transactions.
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 39 of 52
41. In view of material alteration in the sale deed which is not signed by the Late Dharam Pal and failure of the plaintiff to prove that sale consideration was paid to Late Dharam Pal, I hold that sale deed EXPW1/7 is null and void. Issue no. 3 is decided against the plaintiff.
Issues no. 4 : Whether the unregistered agreement sale deed, power of attorney as filed by the defendant is hit by Section 17 & 19 of the Registration Act and is liable to be impounded as per Section 35 and Article 23A (Schedule 1A) of Stamp Act ? Onus upon parties and Issue no. 6 : Whether the defendant is the owner of the suit property ? OPD
42. From testimony of DW1 & DW2 it is is evident that defendant has claimed ownership of suit property having being purchased from Phoolwati be way of Sale Transaction EXDW1/6.
43. On perusal of the same it is evident that same is an unregistered agreement to sale dt. 20.05.2008 executed by Smt. Phoolwati in favor of defendant by which she agree to sell shop no.1959 i.e. suit property for total sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakh. Further it is accompanied with an affidavit dt. 20.05.2008 EXDW1/7 executed by Phoolwati that she has sold the property to defendant and receipt dt. 20.05.2008 EXDW1/8 executed by CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 40 of 52 Phoolwati by which she acknowledge receiving of balance amount of Rs. 10 thousand out of total sale consideration Rs. 3 lakh from defendant and another receipt dt. 03.11.2004 EXDW1/9 executed by Phoolwati by which she acknowledge receiving of amount of Rs. 290,000/- out of total sale consideration Rs. 3 lakh from defendant.
44. I am agree with the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that immovable property can be sold by way of executing sale deed as per section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1885. The documents of agreement to sell dated 20.05.2008 executed by Smt. Phoolwati in favour of defendant as Ex. DW1/6, affidavit dated 20.05.2008 as Ex. DW1/7, copy of receipt dt. 20.05.2008 as Ex. DW1/8 and copy of advance payment receipt dated 03.11.2004 executed by Smt. Phoolwati in favour of defendant as Ex. DW1/9, are not the sale seed, therefore, the said document do not confer any legal title for transfer of the property. In this regard, I relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 206. The relevant para of judgement is reproduce as below:
Scope of an Agreement of sale
11. Section 54 of TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam and Anr.
(1977) 3 SCC 247, observed:
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 41 of 52 A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. See Rambaran Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [1967]1 SCR
293. The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation cre-
ated by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein."
In India, the word `transfer' is defined with reference to the word `con- vey'. The word `conveys' in section 5 of Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership... ...that only on execu- tion of conveyance ownership passes from one party to another...." In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra [2004 (8) SCC 614] this Court held:
"Protection provided under Section 53A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitles the trans- feror from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a regis- tered sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect pos- session against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed in service against a third party."
It is thus clear that a transfer of immoveable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be transferred.
12. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor trans- fer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under section 53A of TP Act). According to TP Act, an agree- ment of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable prop- erty can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter. Scope of Power of Attorney CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 42 of 52
13. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when exe- cuted will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see section 1A and section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of trans- ferring title to the grantee. In State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nehata - 2005 (12) SCC 77, this Court held :
"A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally con- ferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of at- torney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent de- rives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience.
Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers-of-Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee."
An attorney holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in ex- ercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey ti- tle on behalf of the grantor.
Scope of Will
14. A will is the testament of the testator. It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death. It is not a transfer inter vivos. The two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the life time of the testator. It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not be worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time re-
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 43 of 52 voke it. If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked. (see sections 69 and 70 of Indian Succession Act, 1925).
Registration of a will does not make it any more effective. Conclusion
15. Therefore, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank - 94 (2001) DLT 841, that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly mis- leading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a rec- ognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substi- tute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or ac- cept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be rec- ognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property.
They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in re- gard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/ GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales.
45. Hence document EXDW1/6 to EXDW1/9 do not confer any ownership right to defendant Since the documents i.e. agreement CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 44 of 52 to sell dated 20.05.2008, affidavit and receipts dt. 20.05.2008, which merely agreement to sell, and does not confer any rights, title or interest in an immovable property as held in judgement Suraj Lamp ( Supra).
46. Further since the suit property was ancestral property of late Sh. Dharampal or even joint family property of late Sh. Dharam Pal and his children as held in above mentioned civil suit that Sh. Dharampal was not owner of the suit property. Defendant has not produce any documents that said property was sold or bequeathed or gifted to Phoolwati by Late Jai Ram or by Late. Dharam Pal. Therefore I hold that defendant has failed to prove Phoolwati was the owner of suit property and when he failed to prove that Phoolwati has any right in suit property he also as a consequence failed to prove that phoolwati transfer any ownership right in suit property to him and as a consequence of same he do not get any ownership right in suit property from her. Thus I hold he is not the owner of suit property
47. As far as requirement of registration of the agreement to sale EXDW1/6 is concerned, section 17 provides of Registration Act, provides documents which are compulsory to be registered:
17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.
(1)The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the In-
dian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely, CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 45 of 52
(a)instruments of gift of immovable property;
(b)other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to cre- ate, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;
(c)non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and
(d)leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term ex- ceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
(e)[ non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property:] [Inserted by Act 21 of 1929, Section
10.]Provided that the [State Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950, for "Provincial Government" .] may, by order published in the [Official Gazette] [Substituted by A.O.1937, for "Local Official Gazette" .] , ex- empt from the operation of this sub-section any leases executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.[(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for con- sideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement then, they shall have no ef- fect for the purposes of the said section 53-A.] [Inserted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 3 (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).] (2)Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to
(i)any composition deed; or
(ii)any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock company, notwith- standing that the assets of such company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or
(iii)any debenture issued by any such company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or inter- est, to or in immovable property except insofar as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the com- pany has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 46 of 52
(iv)any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such company; or
(v)[any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1- A)] [Substituted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 3, for "any document" (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).] not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another docu- ment which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or
(vi)any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding] [Substituted by A.O.1937, for "and any award" .]; or
(vii)any grant of immovable property by the [Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950, for "Crown" .]; or
(viii)any instrument of partition made by a Revenue Officer; or
(ix)any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted un- der the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or
(x)any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists Loans Act, 1884, or in- strument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or[(x-a) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or] [Inserted by Act 39 of 1948, Section 2 (w.e.f. 3.9.1948).]
(xi)any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extin- guish the mortgage; or(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer.[Explanation [Inserted by Act 2 of 1927, Section 2.].a document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.] (3)Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the first day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered.
48. Further Section 18 of the Act provides documents which a party have option to register:
18. Documents of which registration is optional.
- Any of the following documents may be registered under this Act, namely,
(a)instruments (other than instruments of gifts and wills) which purport or CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 47 of 52 operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent, of a value less than one hundred rupees, to or in immovable property;
(b)instruments acknowledging the receipt of payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest;
(c)leases of immovable property for any term not exceeding one year, and leases exempted under section 17;(cc)[ instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of a value less than one hundred rupees, to or in immovable prop- erty;] [Inserted by Act 33 of 1940, Section 2. ](d)instruments (other than wills) which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest to or in movable prop- erty;(e)wills; and(f)all other documents not required by section 17 to be reg- istered.
49. Since as per section 17(1A) a contract to transfer for consideration any immovable property is required to be registered after commencement of the registration and other related amendment Act, 2001 which is in the nature of 53A of the Transfer of Property Act i.e. Part performance. Section 53A of the Act prescribed that where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or where transferee has in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part of property or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and where the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract. Now we see document Ex. DW1/6 it is evident that same is an agreement of sell by which Smt. Phoolwati has agreed to sell the suit property to defendant for sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and further admitted possession of the suit property has also been transferred to the defendant who was earlier in possession being tenant, CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 48 of 52 therefore, in these circumstances, in my view, agreement to sell Ex. DW1/6 was required compulsory registrable under Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act and since same is not registered, therefore, same is not admissible in evidence in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Further, since as per Article 23A of Schedule-1 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 on instrument ninety percent of the duty as a conveyance was required to be paid on the total value of sale consideration i.e. on value of Rs. 3 lakh the stamp duty is Rs. 2,70,000/- was required to be paid. Thus, the defendant was required to pay Rs. 2,70,000/- which he has not paid, therefore, agreement to sell Ex. DW1/6 was required to be impounded as per Section 35 of Stamp Act, 1899. However, as held above since Phoolwati is not the owner of the suit property therefore she cannot confer any ownership right in suit property in favour of defendant, therefore, in my view, no registration of agreement to sell Ex. DW1/6 is required u/s 17 of Registration Act and further, no stamp duty is required to be paid on the ninety percent on the value of sale transaction and said document is not required to be impounded. Hence, I decide issue no. 4 against the plaintiff and issue no. 6 against the defendant.
Issue no. 5. : Whether the plaintiff is absolute and lawful owner of the suit property ? OPP
51. In view of my finding of issue no.2 that Late Dharampal is not exclusive owner of suit property an in view of my finding of issue no.3 that sale deed EXPW1/7 by which plaintiff allegedly purchased suit property is null and void therefore I held that plaintiff is not the owner of suit property. Issue no.5 is decided CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 49 of 52 against the defendant.
Issue No. 7: Whether the defendant is unauthorized and unlawful use and occupation of the suit property ? OPP And Issue No. 8 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of the suit property ? OPP
52. First of all in view of my finding of issue no.3 I held that since sale deed EXPW1/7 is forged and fabricated and is null and void therefore plaintiff do no acquire any ownership right in suit property on the basis of said sale deed hence when he is not the owner he is not entitle to possession of suit property from defendant.
53. Further in view of aforesaid discussion though it is prove that Smt. Phoolwati was not the owner of suit property therefore she can not transfer ownership right in suit property but from the testimony of DW1 it is prove that she was in possession of suit property being of her husband late. Late Dharam Pal and she rented the same to defendant for a monthly rent of Rs. 150 per month. DW1 has also prove the rent receipt EXPW1/ DX1 to PW1/DX4 to corroborate his testimony. No suggestion has been given to him or DW2 that suit property was not taken on rent by defendant or that rent of suit property was not Rs. 150 per month or that he entered into property possession unauthorizedly. In my view Phoolwati may not be owner of suit property but could be landlord as no ownership is required to be a landlord. She was in possession of suit property with the permissive consent of her CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 50 of 52 husband Late. Dharam Pal. Her husband must be aware that she has given the suit property on rent to defendant but he never objected to the same hence defendant was lawful tenant in suit property. In my view his entering into agreement to sale to purchase suit property does not change his status of tenant. Hence he is not in possession of suit property unauthorizedly. Hence being tenant and rent being below Rs. 3500/- suit for possession is barred by section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act.1958. Therefore plaintiff is not entitle to possession of suit property even if for the sake of argument I presume that he become owner of suit property by virtue of sale deed EXPW1/7. Hence I decide issue no. 7 in favor of defendant and decide issue no. 8 against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 9 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages / mesne profit @ Rs. 25,000/- per month w.e.f. 29.07.2019 ? OPP
54. In view of my finding of aforesaid I held that plaintiff is not entitled to any damages / mesene profits much less @ Rs. 25,000/- per month from 29.07.2019 from the defendant. Issue No. 9 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No. 10 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest @12% p.a. upon damages / mesne profits ? OPP
55. In view of my findings in aforementioned issues that the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages / mesene profits much less @ Rs. 25,000/- per month from 29.07.2019 from the defendant, therefore, no question of grant of any interest arises.
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 51 of 52 Issue No. 10 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 11 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the litigation ? OPP
56. In view of aforesaid discussion, I held that since plaintiff has involved the defendant in unnecessary litigation, therefore, defendant is entitled to actual costs bear by him. Issue no. 11 is decided accordingly.
Relief
57. In view of above issues, I held that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Defendant is entitled to actual costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
58. Further in view of above directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar & Another, CIVIL APPEAL No. 5200 of 2025, decided on 16.04.2025, I order that copy of this judgment by sent to the concerned Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Delhi, in whose jurisdiction Darya Ganj area falls and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance for tacking action against the plaintiff under the Income Tax Act as per law.
File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV Pronounced in open Court KUMAR KUMAR AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
on 31.05.2025. 2025.05.31 17:17:27 +0530 (Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) No. 2015/22, Mohd. Suleman Vs. Noor Jahan Page No. 52 of 52