Delhi District Court
Sandeep Kumar Jain vs Ved Prakash Verma And Ors on 23 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-01,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of
CS No. 130/21
CNR No. DLNE01-002461-2021
Sandeep Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. Niranjan Lal Jain
R/o K-49/4, 33 Ft. Road,
Shiv Vihar, Delhi-110094 ..... Plaintiff
versus
1. Sh. Ved Prakash Verma
S/o Sh. Charan Singh
R/o D-3, Second Floor,
Gali No. 3, D-Block,
Near Ambedkar Dharamshala,
Dayalpur, Delhi-110094
Also at :
2/45-A, First Floor,
Gali No. 4, Prem Gali, Babarpur,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032
2. Smt. Madhu Bala
W/o Sh. Ved Prakash Verma
R/o D-3, Second Floor, Gali No. 3,
D-Block, Near Ambedkar Dharamshala,
Dayalpur, Delhi-110094
Digitally
signed by
Also at : AASHISH
AASHISH GUPTA
2/45-A, First Floor, GUPTA Date:
Gali No. 4, Prem Gali, Babarpur, 2025.12.23
17:05:11
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 ..... Defendants +0530
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 1 of 37
Date of institution : 02.07.2021
Reserved on : 05.12.2025
Date of Decision : 23.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff inter alia wants declaration, as owner of the under-described property; recovery of possession of the said property; recovery of a sum of Rs.1,87,400/- with future mesne profits/damages; and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from inter alia creating any third party interest in the suit property.
2. D-1 is husband of D-2.
3. It is plaintiff's case that he purchased second floor of property bearing no. D-3, Gali No. 3, D-Block, Near Ambedkar Dharamshala, Dayalpur, Delhi-94, measuring about 40 square yards i.e. 33.44 square meters (hereinafter referred to as `suit property' and more specifically shown in red in the site plan annexed to the plaint) on the basis of unregistered GPA, agreement to sell, Will etc, all dated 24.05.2016.
4. The said purchase is stated to have been made from D-2 for a consideration amount of Rs.5 lacs. As per plaint, the said money was paid vide cheque no. 125993 dated 21.05.2016. But, as per the documents filed with the plaint, especially the receipt of payment dated 24.05.2016, the said cheque is stated to be dated 21.05.2015. I shall come back to this fact a little later.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 2 of 37
5. It is plaintiff's case that by virtue of aforesaid transaction, he became the owner of the suit property and on the same date i.e. 24.05.2016 itself, he gave the suit property on rent to D-2 for a period of two years at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. A written rent agreement dated 24.05.2016 is stated to have also been executed between the parties.
6. Thus, as per plaintiff, initially D-2 executed documents detailed at serial no. 1 of Table-A below in his favour; thereafter, she executed the rent agreement detailed at serial no. 2 of Table-A. It is pertinent to note that as per the documents placed on record by the plaintiff, initially D-1 was the original owner of the suit property and he transferred it to D-2 on the basis of documents detailed at serial no.
3 of Table-A.
Table-A
S. No. Name of Document Remarks
1 Unregistered GPA, Agreement to sell, Receipt, Undertaking, Will, all dated These documents were eventually
24.05.2016 executed by D-2/Madhu Bala in favour of plaintiff/Sandeep exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) to Kumar Jain for second floor of property No. D-3, Gali No. 3, D-Block, Ex.PW1/6 (OSR). Near Ambedkar Dharamshala, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094 measuring about 40 sq. yards i.e. 33.44 sq. meters.
2 Unregistered Rent Agreement dated 24.05.2017 executed by This document was eventually plaintiff/Sandeep Kumar Jain in favour of D-2/Madhu Bala. exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR). 3 Registered GPA, Registered Will, Agreement to Gift, Affidavit, Possession These documents were eventually Letter, all dated 25.05.2015 executed by D-1/Ved Prakash Verma in favour exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 to of D-2/Madhu Bala. Ex.PW1/12.
7. It is plaintiff's case that defendants were irregular in paying rent to him and some cheques issued by D-2 as arrears of rent were dishonoured. The tenancy is stated to have been terminated vide a CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 3 of 37 legal notice dated 14.01.2021 and thus, plaintiff is before this court inter alia seeking the above described reliefs.
8. It is pertinent to note, plaintiff has averred that a separate suit bearing no. CS 366/19 titled as 'Ved Prakash Verma & Another vs. Sandeep Kumar Jain' was also filed by defendants against the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that this suit was eventually decided by the undersigned vide judgment dated 23.10.2024. This suit was inter alia for declaration of certain documents as null and void. These are inter alia the same documents on the basis of which plaintiff herein claims ownership and has set up a case of landlord- tenant relationship with D-2. The said suit was dismissed vide the said judgment as the defendants' contention of fraud or undue influence exerted at the time of signing of the aforesaid documents was declined by the court. I shall come back to this fact in a little while.
Defendants' Case
9. Both the defendants have filed a joint written statement and have categorically denied that plaintiff is their landlord. They specifically deny any relationship of landlord-tenant with the plaintiff. They also dispute that they have ever sold the suit property to plaintiff.
10. It is their case that their son Prashant and D-2 were unwell. D-2 was suffering from breast cancer in May, 2015 and thus, they had approached plaintiff to lend some money. It is their case that CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 4 of 37 plaintiff agreed to pay a loan of Rs.5 lacs to the defendants and he gave said sum to them as loan.
11. Additionally, plaintiff also agreed to arrange/get sanctioned loan from a bank and in this regard signatures on certain blank papers and at least four blank signed cheques were obtained from D-2. Eventually, the said documents were misused by the plaintiffs to draw forged papers described at serial no. 1 and 2 of Table-A above.
12. They claim that as far as the loan of Rs. 5 lacs is concerned, the same, to the extent of Rs.4.7 lacs has been returned to plaintiff.
13. It is their case that they occupied the property as owner and they never handed over the suit property to the plaintiff against any sale consideration; or entered into any rent agreement so as to make them tenants in the property.
14. Additionally, they have pleaded that they sued the plaintiff inter alia for getting a decree of declaration so that the forged documents described at serial no. 1 and 2 of Table-A above can be declared as null and void.
15. Thus, as per the defendants, the documents of ownership/rent agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was got prepared by the plaintiff after the relevant documents were signed in blank by D-2. It may be recalled that the suit filed by defendants was qua the same documents i.e. CS no. 366/19 titled as 'Ved Prakash Verma & another Vs. Sandeep Jain'. As already noted, the said suit was dismissed by this court on merits vide judgment dated 23.10.2024.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 5 of 37
16. Thus, the plea of the defendants that D-2 was made to sign the aforesaid documents in blank or by exerting any undue influence etc was declined by this court and the said judgment has attained finality as it was never challenged by the defendants.
17. Based on pleadings, following issues were framed :
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in respect of the suit property i.e. second floor (sic) D-3, Gali No.3, D-Block, Near Ambedkar Dharamshala, Dayalpur, Delhi-94, measuring about 40 sq. yards, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of Rs.1,87,400/- along with future mesne profit/damages, till the possession is delivered, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the plaintiff as the lawful owner of the suit property, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendants, their associates etc. from sub-letting / transferring / creating any third party interest in the suit property, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
(v) Whether there exists no tenant-landlord relationship between the parties as claimed in the written statement ? OPD
(vi) Whether the plaintiff has not valued the present suit properly for the purpose of court fees ? OPD
(vii) Relief.
18. Plaintiff led his evidence, detailed below:-
Particulars of witness Nature of witness PW-1/Sh. Sandeep Kumar Plaintiff himself. He reiterated his case by way of his affidavit in evidence Jain. Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of rent agreement executed by plaintiff in favour of D-2 (Ex. PW-1/1) (OSR).
2. Copy of GPA dated 24.05.2016 executed by D-2 in favour of plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/2) (OSR).
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 6 of 37
3. Copy of agreement to sell dated 24.05.2016 executed by D-2 in favour of plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/3) (OSR).
4. Copy of receipt dated 24.05.2016 executed by D-2 (acknowledging the receipt of Rs.5 lacs) in favour of plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/4) (OSR).
5. Copy of undertaking dated 24.05.2016 executed by D-2 in favour of plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/5) (OSR).
6. Copy of Will Deed dated 24.05.2016 executed by D-2 in favour of plaintiff (Ex.PW-1/6) (OSR).
7. SR office receipt dated 25.05.2015 (Ex.PW-1/7) (OSR).
8. Copy of Family GPA dated 25.05.2015 executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 (Ex.PW-1/8) (OSR).
9. Copy of Family Will deed dated 25.05.2015 executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 (Ex.PW-1/9) (OSR).
10. Copy of agreement to gift executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 (Ex.PW-1/10) (OSR).
11. Copy of affidavit executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 (Ex.PW-1/11) (OSR).
12. Copy of possession letter executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 (Ex.PW-1/12) (OSR).
13. Copy of Will deed dated 01.05.2015 executed by Charan Singh in favour of D-1 (Ex.PW-1/13) (OSR).
14. Legal notice dated 14.01.2021 sent by plaintiff to defendants (Ex.PW-1/14).
15. Speed post receipt along with tracking report (Ex.PW-1/15) (colly).
16. Original site plan (Ex.PW-1/16).
19. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants .
After plaintiffs' evidence, defendant examined himself as his only witness detailed below:-
S. No. Particulars of witness Nature of witness
1. D1W-1/Sh. Ved Prakash He is D-1. He reiterated his case by way of his affidavit in evidence Verma. Ex.D1W1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Cheque bearing no. 117972 of Rs.5 lacs in favour of plaintiff (Ex.DW1/1).
2. Statement of paid amount of Rs.4,70,000/- (Ex.DW1/2) (colly.).
3. Legal notice dated 25.05.2017 issued by D-1 to plaintiff (Ex.DW1/3).
4. The reply dated 15.07.2017 to aforesaid legal notice (Ex.DW1/4).
5. Bank statement of account no. 083001506543 of the month of May, 2015 (Ex.DW1/5).
6. Bank statement of clearance of cheque no.129050 dated 05.08.2016 of Rs.13,000/- (Ex.DW1/6).
2. D2W1/Smt. Madhu Jain. She is D-2. She reiterated her case by way of her affidavit in evidence Ex.DW2W1/A. She relied upon the aforesaid documents.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 7 of 37
20. Defendants were duly cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiff.
21. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
Issue No. (i) to (v)
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession in respect of the suit property i.e. second floor (sic) D-3, Gali No.3, D-Block, Near Ambedkar Dharamshala, Dayalpur, Delhi-94, measuring about 40 sq. yards, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of Rs.1,87,400/- along with future mesne profit/damages, till the possession is delivered, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration thereby declaring the plaintiff as the lawful owner of the suit property, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendants, their associates etc. from sub-letting / transferring / creating any third party interest in the suit property, as claimed in the plaint ? OPP
(v) Whether there exists no tenant-landlord relationship between the parties as claimed in the written statement ? OPD
22. The entire case of the plaintiff is premised on the contention that D-2 is his tenant. D-1 is admittedly husband of D-2 and thus, as per plaintiff, both the defendants should be evicted from his property. The outcome of all the aforesaid issues shall depend on the finding as to whether plaintiff, based on his evidence, has been able to establish the said relationship between the parties or not.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 8 of 37
23. Further, plaintiff has also claimed declaration of ownership. The same shall be dependent on the analysis of documents relied upon by the plaintiff to seek the said declaration.
24. Counsel for plaintiff had argued that plaintiff has produced the original rent agreement before this court as Ex.PW1/1. He further argued that plaintiff has also produced the documents executed by D-2 in his favour Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6; the earlier title chain Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/12 and thus, plaintiff is not only the owner of the suit property, he is also landlord of D-2.
25. The claim of ownership of plaintiff is based on the documents described at serial no. 1 and serial no. 3 of Table-A. The said Table is reproduced hereinafter for easy reference:
Table-A S. No. Name of Document Remarks 1 Unregistered GPA, Agreement to sell, Receipt, Undertaking, Will, all dated These documents were 24.05.2016 executed by D-2/Madhu Bala in favour of plaintiff/Sandeep eventually exhibited as Kumar Jain for second floor of property No. D-3, Gali No. 3, D-Block, Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) to Ex.PW1/6 Near Ambedkar Dharamshala, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094 measuring about 40 (OSR). sq. yards i.e. 33.44 sq. meters.
2 Unregistered Rent Agreement dated 24.05.2017 executed by This document was eventually plaintiff/Sandeep Kumar Jain in favour of D-2/Madhu Bala. exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
3 Registered GPA, Registered Will, Agreement to Gift, Affidavit, Possession These documents were
Letter, all dated 25.05.2015 executed by D-1/Ved Prakash Verma in favour eventually exhibited as
of D-2/Madhu Bala. Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/12.
26. If one peruses the aforesaid documents, it would show that as per plaintiff's own case, the original owner of the suit property was D-1/Ved Prakash Verma. He, as per plaintiff's case, executed CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 9 of 37 GPA, Agreement to Gift etc in favour of D-2 Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/13.
27. Thereafter, D-2, as per plaintiff's case became owner of the suit property and she then sold the suit property to plaintiff on the basis of unregistered GPA, Agreement to Sell etc Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6.
28. It is now settled law that the aforesaid documents described at serial no. 1 and 3 of Table-A (relied upon by plaintiff as ownership documents) cannot convey any right, title or interest in favour of any party. Thus, even if it is presumed that any such documents were actually executed D-1 in favour of D-2 on 25.05.2015; or thereafter, by D-2 in favour of plaintiff on 24.05.2016, still, plaintiff cannot become absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of said documents.
29. In this regard, I may take note of the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana & Anr. AIR 2012 Supreme Court 206 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:-
"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 misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 10 of 37 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 recognized 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 regard 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.
18. We have merely drawn attention to and reiterated the well-settled legal position that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not `transfers' or `sales' and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale.
Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. The said `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision.
19. We make it clear that our observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions. For example, a person may give a power of attorney to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance. A person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for developing the land either by forming plots or by constructing apartment buildings and in that behalf execute an agreement of sale and grant a Power of Attorney empowering the developer to execute agreements of sale or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers. In several States, the execution of such development agreements and powers of attorney are already regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty. Our CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 11 of 37 observations regarding `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' are not intended to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions".
(emphasis supplied)
30. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, D-1 conveyed any right, title or interest to D-2 (on the basis of Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/13). If that be the case, D-2 got no right, title or interest in her (save and except being treated as an attorney of D-1) so as to be treated as an owner of the property. If that be the case, there is no question of D-2 conveying any right, title or interest to plaintiff (on the basis of Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6).
31. Simply put, on the basis of documents relied upon by the plaintiff (as described in serial no. 1 and 3 of Table-A) plaintiff cannot be declared to have become owner of the suit property and therefore, his prayer of declaration made in prayer (c) of the plaint is liable to fail.
32. Counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that there is a written rent agreement Ex.PW1/1 executed by plaintiff in favour of D-2/Madhu Bala. It was argued that the thumb impression on the said document was admitted by D-1 during his cross-examination and therefore, on the basis of the said document, plaintiff should be held to be the landlord of the defendants.
33. I am not inclined to accept the said argument raised on behalf of the plaintiff. As per document Ex.PW1/2 dated 24.05.2016, the CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 12 of 37 said rent agreement was for a period of two years w.e.f. 21.05.2016 to 20.05.2018.
34. Presuming, for the sake of argument, that the said document was actually entered between plaintiff and D-2 (with D-1 signing/thumb impressing the same as witness), it could only be read in evidence if the same was registered under the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Any rent agreement for a term exceeding one year is mandatorily required to be registered u/s 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908. Since Ex.PW1/1 is not a registered document, therefore, in light of Sec. 49 of the said Act, the said document cannot be received in evidence for any transaction affecting the suit property or conferring such power.
35. Plaintiff has specifically relied upon the said rent agreement to seek eviction of the defendants. It is not being relied upon for any collateral purpose. Plaintiff specifically wants that the defendants be removed from the property by treating D-2 as tenant of plaintiff (with D-1 being husband of D-2 and thus, liable to be removed in such capacity). Since the said document Ex.PW1/1 is not a registered document, therefore, it cannot be read in evidence and thus, plaintiff cannot rely upon it to seek eviction.
36. Even otherwise, once it is held that the documents purportedly executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 (i.e. Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/13) do not confer any right, title or interest on D-2, there is no CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 13 of 37 question of she selling the suit property to plaintiff (on the basis of documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6).
37. It can be argued that D-1 had validly appointed D-2 as his attorney vide Ex.PW1/8 and thereafter, D-2, acting on the same could sell the property to plaintiff. Even if the said argument is taken on its face value and it is presumed that D-2 was only acting as attorney of D-1 when she executed documents Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6, still, the said documents themselves cannot make plaintiff the owner of the suit property. This is in view of the ratio of Suraj Lamp's (supra) as noted above.
38. Now, if on the basis of the said documents, plaintiff cannot become owner of the suit property, there is no question of plaintiff thereafter, executing a rent agreement in favour of D-2 so as to make D-2 a tenant in the property. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.PW1/1, plaintiff claims to be owner of the property. It is in that capacity that he is executing the rent agreement Ex.PW1/1 in favour of D-2. When D-2 never conveyed any title to plaintiff, where is the question of plaintiff and D-2 entering into a landlord-tenant relationship with plaintiff being the owner of the property.
39. Thus, even if the agreement Ex.PW1/1 was read in evidence, still, the same could not be relied upon to hold that plaintiff and D-2 had a landlord-tenant relationship amongst them.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 14 of 37
40. At best, D-2, in the capacity of attorney of D-1, could execute an agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff. This agreement to sell Ex.PW1/3 would then give a right to the plaintiff to sue D-1/D-2 for performing the said agreement and it would not create any right, title or interest in favour of plaintiff. This is in light of Sec. 54 of Transfer of Property Act. But, plaintiff has not sued the defendants seeking any such performance and therefore, the said agreement cannot be read to mean that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property.
41. On the other hand, defendants, during the cross-examination of plaintiff confronted a hand-written document to plaintiff. This document was eventually exhibited as Ex.PW1/D-1 (OSR).
42. It is pertinent to note that plaintiff admitted his signatures on the said document; he identified his writing and admitted the fact that it was written by him; and identified the document as a whole.
43. A perusal of the said document Ex.PW1/D-1 (OSR) shows that the same is dated 22.05.2016 and the same is a tabulation of certain payments starting from 20.05.2015 till 20.05.2016. The said tabulation records a sum of Rs.13,000/- on a monthly basis and also state that some penalty shall be payable at the rate of Rs.500/- per week if payment is made after 15 of every month.
44. Plaintiff tried to explain the said writing by claiming that he had not received any payment against the said document from the CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 15 of 37 defendants and he wrote the said document at the request of defendant.
45. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW-1/Sandeep Kumar Jain dated 09.01.2024 reads as under:
"At this stage, witness is confronted with the original document bearing the date 22.05.2016 at bottom (photocopy on record). After going through the document, witness identify the said document and identified his signature and handwriting on this document. The document returned to the ld. counsel for defendant and the photocopies hereby hereby Ex.PW1/D1. The signature of plaintiff is at point X. I have not received any payment against the document Ex.PW1/D1 from the defendants. I had written Ex.PW1/D1 at the request of defendant as they want to have record regarding a committee in which they were member. I had written Ex.PW1/D1 for the payments in the committee as apprised by me by the defendants. I was not running any committee in the year 2016. It is correct that it is appearing in my handwriting at point at circle Z- "After 15 of every month penalty due Rs.500/- per day/week payable". Vol. I had written whatever I asked to write by the defendants. I considered the request made to me by the defendants and written the document Ex.PW1/D1."
(emphasis supplied)
46. Plaintiff tried to explain the reasons of he writing Ex.PW1/D-1 (OSR) on the ground that he was requested to write the said document by the defendants. Presuming the same is true, a question arises that why would the plaintiff put his signatures on said document if he was only a scribe of the document? It does not appeal to logic that a mere scribe would actually sign the said document with date. If the plaintiff was only a scribe and was drawing the document at the request of the defendants at their dictation, there is no question of he signing it. His signing the same would essentially mean that he was acknowledging the facts CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 16 of 37 stated in the said document and wanted the said document to have effect inter se between plaintiff and D-1 (who is the other signatory to the said document).
47. It is not the case before this court that defendants are completely illiterate. In fact, D-1 has also signed the said document Ex.PW1/D-1 and it is a matter of record that the said individual signs in English language. If that be so, D-1 could have easily written the schedule of payment/tabulation as contained in Ex.PW1/D-1 himself.
48. The tabulation/schedule of payment recorded in Ex.PW1/D-1 indicates that it records payments made on monthly basis starting from 20.05.2015 till 20.05.2016. It may be recalled that defendants have categorically claimed before this court that owing to illness of their son Prashant and due to the breast cancer of D-2, they were constrained to take a loan of Rs.5 lacs from plaintiff. Possibly, the schedule recorded in Ex.PW1/D-1 is actually the schedule of repayment made by defendants to plaintiff. This is because the signatures of both plaintiff and D-1 are present on the document Ex.PW1/D-1 and the chronology of dates read with the fact that some penalty is being agreed between the parties as per Ex.PW1/D-1 gives credence to the defence case that the actual transaction between plaintiff and defendants was a loan transaction and not a sale transaction or an eventual landlord-tenant relationship.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 17 of 37
49. The claim of plaintiff that he drew Ex.PW1/D-1 at the instance of defendants is essentially an after-thought; only to somehow wriggle out of the said document which points to the direction that transaction between the parties was a loan transaction and not otherwise.
50. There is another important aspect to the matter which also supports the claim of the defendants that the transaction between the parties was essentially a loan transaction.
51. As per plaintiff's case, he was purportedly sold the suit property by D-2 on 24.05.2016. It has come in his cross-examination dated 09.01.2024 that he was approached for sale of property in the year 2016. He further claims in his cross-examination that "Prior 2016 I did not know defendants".
52. This means that prior to 2016, plaintiff did not know the defendants and it was only in the year 2016 that defendants purportedly approached him for selling the suit property.
53. Now, if the same is true, a question arises that how and why D-1 came in possession of plaintiff's cheque bearing No. 125993 drawn on Central Bank of India dated 21.05.2015. This is the same cheque which finds mention in document Ex. PW1/4 (OSR). The entire sale consideration of Rs. 5 lac for the suit property was purportedly paid by plaintiff to D-2 through this cheque only.
54. D-1/Ved Prakash Verma has placed on record his bank statement Ex.
DW1/5 as per which the said cheque of Rs. 5 lac was credited into CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 18 of 37 D-1's account on 27.05.2015 itself. This means that the cheque recorded in Ex.PW1/4 as sale consideration was credited into D-1's account in 2015 itself and thus, plaintiff's claim that he entered into the sale transaction with D-2 (with D-1 also being aware of it) in 2016; or plaintiff not knowing the defendants prior to 2016; or plaintiff paying sale consideration in 2016 only, is false.
55. The credit of the cheque described above in 2015 (in the account of D-1) clearly shows that parties knew each other in 2015 itself. If the cheque in question was actually a sale consideration, with the sale negotiated in May, 2016 only, there is no question of plaintiff giving money to D-1/D-2 in 2015 itself.
56. It may be recalled that at the time of narration of facts, I had noted that the receipt of payment placed on record by plaintiff Ex.PW1/4(OSR) records payment through cheque described above with the date of the cheque recorded as 21.05.2015. But, interestingly, in the plaint as well as in the affidavit in evidence of plaintiff Ex.PW1/A, the same cheque is stated to be dated 21.05.2016. This claim of the plaintiff made in the plaint and in his own affidavit in evidence is contrary to his own document Ex. PW1/4 (OSR). Defendant's account statement Ex. DW1/5 also shows that the same cheque was credited into D-1's account on 27.05.2015. This clearly means that the sum of Rs. 5 lac was paid by plaintiff to D-1 in May, 2015 itself and plaintiff's claim that he paid money to D-2 through the same cheque in May, 2016 is clearly false.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 19 of 37
57. A specific query was put by this Court to the Counsel of plaintiff. Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the said cheque was actually credited into D-1's account in May, 2015 and did not offer any cogent explanation for the above.
58. Now, it may be recalled that defendants had confronted a document Ex. PW1/D1 to the plaintiff which was admitted by him to have been prepared by him in his handwriting and which also bears his signatures. This document is dated 22.05.2016 and records transactions starting from 20.05.2015 onwards.
59. It was argued on behalf of defendants that if one looks at the transaction between the parties and see it in light of the above document EX. PW1/D1 and consider it with the fact that the purported sale money was actually given in 2015 by plaintiff, it would show that the transaction between the parties was actually a loan transaction.
60. There is substantial weight in the said argument of the defendants. If I read the entire evidence holistically, I am of the view that the actual transaction between the parties was a loan transaction and there was no actual sale of property by D-2 to plaintiff or a subsequent landlord-tenant relationship between them. It was essentially a facade created by the parties to cover up the loan transaction.
61. It appears from the record that plaintiff gave a sum of Rs. 5 lac to D-1 in May, 2015 vide cheque bearing No. 125993 dated 21.05.2015; this cheque was credited into D-1's account on 27.05.2015. This money CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 20 of 37 was actually given as loan. Thereafter, it appears that D-2 signed GPA, agreement to sell etc in favour of plaintiff and the loan already given was shown as sale consideration in Ex. PW1/4. At the same time, a rent agreement was also entered between plaintiff and D-2. These documents i.e. Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 were essentially a facade to cover the loan transaction. Even the said loan transaction and the payments made in pursuance thereto were recorded in Ex. PW1/D1 and it was on that count that plaintiff signed the said document and prepared it in his own hand.
62. Instead of stating the truth, plaintiff has set up a false case of sale/landlord-tenant relationship before this Court by taking shelter of Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/6. Since these documents were essentially a facade, there is no question of relying upon the said documents to hold in favour of the plaintiff.
63. It can be argued that under section 91/92 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral testimony of a party to a document cannot be admitted to vary the terms of a written document. The said argument, even if raised, cannot be accepted in the facts of this case. In my humble opinion, the said bar of section 91/92 Indian Evidence Act shall not apply to the facts of this case. Before coming to the reasons of the said conclusion, I may fruitfully rely upon a couple of judgments on the said issue which shall be a complete answer to the said argument, if raised.
64. In Gangabai vs Chhabubai AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 20, 1982 (1) SCC 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with a CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 21 of 37 case wherein the appellant was relying upon a sale deed; while the respondent was contending that the said document was never an actual sale and in fact, she had taken a loan from appellant with an understanding that she should execute a nominal document of sale with the rent note. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was presented with the argument that u/s 92(1) of Indian Evidence Act, the respondent therein was restrained from contending that there was no sale and no oral evidence to the contrary should be admitted in evidence. While answering the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that sub-s.(1) of s. 92 of the Evidence Act bars the respondent from contending that there was no sale and, it is submitted, the respondent should not have been permitted to lead parole evidence in support of the contention. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides that when the terms of contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself. Sub-s. (1) of s. 92 declares that when the terms of any contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms And the first proviso to s. 92 says that any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contradicting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. It is clear to us that the bar imposed by sub-s. (1) of s. 92 applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. In that event, the law declares that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 22 of 37 modifying its terms. The sub- section is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties ( Tyagaraja Mudaliyar and another v. Vedathanni AIR 1936 PC 70, 1936 All LJ 136). The Trial Court was right in permitting the respondent to lead parole evidence in support of her plea that the sale deed dated January 7, 1953 was a sham document and never intended to be acted upon. It is not disputed that if the parole evidence is admissible, the finding of the court below in favour of the respondent must be accepted. The second contention on behalf of the appellant must also fail."
(emphasis supplied)
65. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India placed reliance on the judgment of Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni (1936) 38 BOMLR 373. The said judgment further elaborates upon the admissibility of parol evidence admissible u/s 92 of Indian Evidence Act. In the said judgment passed by the Ld. Privy Council, was called upon to decide the question as to whether under the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence was inadmissible to establish that it had been agreed that the provisions for the plaintiff's maintenance were not to be acted on, as the document was only intended to create evidence of the undivided status of the family. It was a case where one of the parties was trying to give oral evidence to show that the written agreement between the parties was no agreement in reality and therefore, there was no contract between them.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 23 of 37 While dealing with the said issue, the Ld. Privy Council noted section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act and laid as under:
"10. The two relevant sections are as follows, the exceptions and explanations in Section 91 being omitted as having no bearing on the question :
91. When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
92. When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Proviso (1).-Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want of failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law, Proviso (2),-The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3).-The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso (4).-The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 24 of 37 Proviso (5).-Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved :
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6).--Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.
xxxxxxxx
12. When a contract has been reduced to the form of a document, Section 91 excludes oral evidence of the terms of the document by requiring those terms to be proved by the document itself unless otherwise expressly provided in the Act, and Section 92 excludes oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from such terms. Section 92 only excludes oral evidence to vary the terms of the written contract, and has no reference to the question whether the parties had agreed to contract on the terms set forth in the document. The objection must therefore be based on Section 91 which only excludes oral evidence as to the terms of a written contract.
Clearly under that section a defendant sued, as in the present case, upon a written contract purporting to be signed by him could not be precluded in disproof of such agreement from giving oral evidence that his signature was a forgery. In their Lordships' opinion oral evidence in disproof of the agreement ( 1) that, as in Pym v. Campbell (1856) 6 E. & B. 370, the signed document was not to operate as an agreement until a specified condition was fulfilled, or (2) that as in the present case, the document was never intended to operate as an agreement but was brought into existence solely for the purpose of creating evidence of some other matter stands exactly on the same footing as evidence that the defendant's signature was forged.
13. In Pym v. Campbell the defendants were sued upon a written contract to purchase an invention, and Lord Campbell had ruled at the trial that on the plea denying the agreement oral evidence was admissible that it had been agreed between the parties before they signed that there was to be no agreement until the invention was approved by A. In his judgment discharging the rule nisi for a new trial, Lord Campbell said (p. 375) :
It was proved in the most satisfactory manner that before the paper was signed it was explained to the plaintiff that the defendants did not intend the paper to be an agreement till A had been consulted, and found to approve of the invention; and that the paper was signed before he was seen only because it was not convenient for the defendants to remain. The plaintiff assented to CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 25 of 37 this, and received the writing on those terms. That being proved, there was no agreement.
Erie, J., who gave judgment first had dealt more fully with this question (p. 373) :
The point made is that this is a written agreement, absolute on the face of it, and that evidence was admitted to shew it was conditional : and if that had been so it would have been wrong. But I am of opinion that the evidence shewed that in fact there was never any agreement at all. The production of a paper purporting to be an agreement by a party, with his signature attached, affords a strong presumption that it is his written agreement; and, if in fact he did sign the paper animo contrahendi, the terms contained in it are conclusive, and cannot be varied by parol evidence : . . . but, if it be proved that in fact the paper was signed with the express intention that it should not be an agreement, the other party cannot fix it as an agreement upon those so signing. The distinction in point of law is that evidence to vary the terms of an agreement in writing is not admissible, but evidence to shew that there is not an agreement at all is admissible.
14. The Indian legislature has thought well to give statutory effect decision in Pym V. Campbell in proviso 3 to Section 92 :-" The existence of any separate oral agreement constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract. . . may be proved "; and in Mottayappan v. Palani Goundan (1913) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 226, Benson and Sundara Ayyar JJ. have expressed the opinion that oral evidence to show that a document was never intended to operate according to its terms, 'but was brought into existence, as in the present case, solely for the purpose of creating evidence about some other matter is admissible under proviso 1 to Section 92, " any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document". This may well be so, but in their Lordships' opinion, even if there were no provisos to either section, the result in the present case would be the same, because there is nothing in either section to exclude oral evidence that there was no agreement between the parties and therefore no contract."
(emphasis supplied)
66. A bare perusal of the aforesaid decisions would show that in cases where there is a written agreement between the parties, the oral evidence to vary the terms of a contract is barred to be received in evidence u/s 92 of Indian Evidence Act. But, the said principle of CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 26 of 37 law is not applicable where parole evidence is sought to be led to show that there is no agreement at all. Again, it is settled principle of law that oral evidence to show that a document was never intended to operate according to its terms, but was brought into existence, solely for the purpose of creating evidence about some other matter is also admissible under proviso 1 of section 92 of Indian Evidence Act as the same would be eviden ce to prove a fact which would invalidate a document.
67. Now, in the present case, even if it is taken that a rent agreement dated 24.05.2016 Ex.PW1/1 and the other documents i.e. GPA etc. Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6 were executed between plaintiff and D-1 on 24.05.2016, still, defendants, in law, can lead oral evidence to show that the said documents are not the actual agreements which were agreed between the parties. Defendants have led oral evidence to show that they never intended to sign the said documents as sale documents or agreed to give their own property on rent by signing rent agreement Ex. PW1/1 as a rent agreement per se. Defendants have shown through Ex. PW1/D1 read with bank statement of D-1 EX. DW1/5 that sum of Rs. 5 lac was given to D-1 in May 2015 and have orally claimed before this court that took the said sum as loan. The contention of the plaintiff that he came in touch of defendants in 2016 is found to be false and it has been shown on record that parties know each other since May 2015 itself when money was given by plaintiff to D-1. This demonstrates that about a year prior to the said documents/agreements Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 parties knew each CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 27 of 37 other and possibly the money given by plaintiff to D-1 was loan money and thus, the documents were essentially a facade and were never intended to be signed as sale documents or as a rent agreement. This would mean that defendants have been able to show that there was no consensus ad idem between plaintiff and defendants qua any sale or rent agreement so as to intend that any sale or rent transaction was being entered between the parties. It appears from the evidence of defendants that possibly there was some other arrangement between the parties and the case being set up by the plaintiff of a sale transaction and on the same day of landlord-tenant dispute on the basis of Ex.PW1/1 is not the actual transaction. In other words, from the evidence of defendants, it appears that there was no actual agreement/contract of sale/rent between the parties and the documents filed by plaintiff Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 are essentially sham documents entered to cover for some other transaction. In my humble opinion, the oral evidence of defendants read with Ex.PW1/D1, Ex. PW1/D4 and Ex. DW1/5 would be admissible under proviso (1) of section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same essentially points out and makes it a fair possibility that the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/6 do not show a legal contract binding the parties and was created as a ruse for some other purpose. The said purpose, as per defence evidence was a loan transaction and was not as is being canvassed by the plaintiff.
68. Even if it is taken that the said proviso does not cover the case in hand, still, the said provision does not bar the defendants to CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 28 of 37 demonstrate from their evidence that there was no agreement in reality, amongst the parties.
69. In my humble opinion, evidence of the defendants is not only admissible, but is sufficient to shift back the onus of proving the sale transaction and the subsequent landlord-tenant relationship on the plaintiff. As already noted, with the plaintiff not explaining the aforesaid questions raised by the defendants, it would mean that he has failed to discharge the onus qua the said relationship.
70. Now if plaintiff fails to prove that there was an actual sale or landlord-tenant relationship between him and D-2, the question of he be given possession of the suit property; or any arrears of rent; or any declaration of ownership; or a decree of permanent injunction does not arise.
71. Counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that in the earlier suit between the parties bearing CS No. 366/19 titled as 'Ved Prakash Verma and Anr Vs. Sandeep Kumar Jain' decided on 23.10.2024, this Court had observed in the said judgment that possibly the sum of Rs. 5 lac given by plaintiff to defendant was actually sale consideration. It was argued that since the said judgment was never challenged by either of the parties, the said finding of fact shall bind the parties.
72. He further argued that during the cross-examination of Madhu Bala in the said case dated 28.08.2023, Madhu Bala/D-2 had admitted that a sum of Rs. 5 lac was credited into her husband's account as sale CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 29 of 37 consideration and this should be read as an admission of Madhu Bala/D-2 that her husband received sale consideration on her behalf.
73. I am not inclined to accept either of the said contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that the earlier suit between the parties was a suit where the issue under consideration before this Court was whether inter alia the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 were got signed by plaintiff from defendants on blank paper. Thus, the issue which fell for consideration in the said case was limited to the said facts only and any observation made by this Court while deciding the said issue cannot be treated as a finding of fact on the aspect of nature/reason why Rs. 5 lac were paid by plaintiff to D-1/D-2. In other words, the observation made in the said case shall have to be read in the context of the said case only and they cannot be read de hors of the context in which they have been made.
74. It may be noted that in the said case, it appears that defendants never produced the document EX. PW1/D1 or the bank statement EX.DW1/5. The argument made in this case were never the argument raised in the said suit and thus, on the basis of documents produced in the said case, some observations, if made qua the nature of amount of Rs. 5 lac have to be restricted to the said case only and they cannot be imported to this case de hors of the additional documents proved on record by the defendants in this case. Thus, the observations made in judgment dated 23.10.2024 in CS No. 366/19 qua the sum of Rs. 5 lac cannot be read in this case, in the manner prayed by the Counsel for plaintiff.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 30 of 37
75. Again, a perusal of cross-examination dated 28.08.2023 of Madhu Bala (forming part of Ex. D2W1/P1; done in CS No.366/19) would show that a suggestion was made by Counsel for plaintiff that whether Madhu Bala admits the fact that a sum of Rs.5 lac was credited in the account of her husband Ved Prakash and she admitted this fact. The relevant portion of the said cross-examination reads as follows:-
"It is correct that Rs. 5,00,000/- has been credited in the bank account of my husband Sh. Ved Prakash in lieu of the aforesaid sale consideration."
76. Counsel for the plaintiff wants this Court to read the said statement of Madhu Bala/D-2 in silos de hors of the other facts stated by her. If one reads her entire cross examination done in CS No. 366/19 dated 28.08.2023 (forming part of Ex. D2W1/P1), it would transpire that he had categorically denied that she sold the suit property to plaintiff or entered into any rent agreement with plaintiff. Her aforesaid statement appears to be aimed at an admission of the fact that D-1/Ved Prakash had received Rs. 5 lac from plaintiff. This was in May 2015. I am not inclined to read the same in isolation with other facts noted in the body of this judgment along with her cross-examination dated 28.08.2023. The facts already noted in the body of this judgment and the fact that Madhu Bala categorically denied any sale transaction or entering into landlord-tenant relationship with plaintiff has to be read holistically and not from the pinhole of a single line as noted above. If one reads the evidence on record holistically, the CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 31 of 37 conclusion is irresistible that the transaction between plaintiff and defendants was not a sale transaction and defendants never agreed to become tenants in their own property. It is highly possible that it was a loan transaction and the documents executed were a facade.
77. Thus, in light of the above, issue No. (i) to (v) are all decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. (vi)
(vi) Whether the plaintiff has not valued the present suit properly for the purpose of court fees ? OPD
78. The valuation of the suit is done by the plaintiff in para 28 of the plaint which reads as under:
"28. That for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at 1,87,400/- for the relief of recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit/damages, on which the ad valorem court fee is payable; the suit is valued for the relief of possession at ₹60,000/- i.e. the rented value of the tenanted premises, on which, the court fee @ 2% is payable and the suit is valued at Rs.130/- each for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, on which, the Court fee of Rs.13/- each is payable and accordingly, the court fee has been affixed on the plaint."
(emphasis supplied)
79. A bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph shows that plaintiff has valued different reliefs sought from the court differently and if a cumulative total of the said reliefs is done, the said total would be less than Rs.3 lacs. This would mean that the valuation placed by CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 32 of 37 the plaintiff was below the valuation of Rs.3 lacs which is the minimum threshold of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff's suit is liable to fail on this ground itself.
80. Even if, the aforesaid is over-looked, perusal of plaint shows that plaintiff has prayed for a declaration of ownership against all the defendants; and the relief of possession against them is inter alia dependent upon the said declaration. The other reliefs including the relief of mesne profits and permanent injunction are also consequential to the relief of declaration of ownership. This means that the said relief of declaration is the main relief and the other reliefs including possession, mesne profits and injunction are essentially a relief of declaration with consequential reliefs which is covered by section 7(iv)(c) of Court Fees Act, 1870 (for the purposes of valuation for payment of court fees) and plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fees for the said relief.
81. This is because the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are in the nature of GPA, agreement to sell and the same were disputed by the defendants. They also disputed the landlord-tenant relationship entered on the same as the transaction of sale. Considering the nature of documents, plaintiff had sought a relief of declaration of ownership and the other reliefs would flow thereafter.
82. Again, for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of court, valuation of the said relief, as per section 8 of Suit Valuation Act, CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 33 of 37 1887, is to be the same as determined for computation of court fees. In other words, the relief of declaration and consequential reliefs shall have same valuation for court fees as well as for jurisdiction of court.
83. Further still, under Rule 8 contained in part A, Chapter 3 of Delhi High Court Rules (framed for the purpose of valuation of suits), a table is provided for showing value of different classes of suits for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees including for cases covered by section 7 (iv) (c) of Court Fees Act, 1870. As per the relevant entry in the said table, it is laid that the suits covered under the aforesaid provision, ad valorem court fees has to be paid on the amount or relief sought as valued and stated in the plaint. Provided that minimum court fees shall be Rs.13/- and provided further that when relief sought is with reference to property such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided in section 7 (v), Court Fees Act, 1870.
84. Thus, as per the said entry, in cases where the relief is qua a property (which in this case is admittedly a residential house), the valuation shall not be less than the value of the property as provided in section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Now, section 7 (v) (e) of Court Fees Act, 1870 inter alia lays that where the subject matter is a house, the valuation has to be according to the market value of the house.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 34 of 37
85. Thus, in sum and substance, the valuation for the relief of declaration and consequentially for possession etc of the suit property for the purposes of court fees and for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction of court shall have to be according to the market value of the property in dispute and both the valuations shall have to be the same.
86. But, in this case, plaintiff has placed a valuation of Rs.130/- to the relief of declaration and paid a court fees of Rs.13/- thereupon. This is grossly under-valued and is against the provisions discussed above.
87. This would mean that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to fail on this ground also.
88. It can be argued that the relief of possession and mesne profits would be governed by Sec. 7(xi) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and these reliefs cannot be treated as a consequential relief to the relief of declaration of ownership. As a corollary, it can be argued that since plaintiff had sued the defendants inter alia on the basis of a rent agreement dated 24.05.2016, therefore, plaintiff has rightly valued the relief of possession on the basis of rent @Rs.5,000/- per month for the last 12 months and paid appropriate court fees, as per law.
89. The said argument cannot be accepted on two counts. Firstly, even if I consider the relief of possession and mesne profits separately from the relief of declaration of ownership, still, the CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 35 of 37 relief of declaration sought in the plaint has a consequential relief of injunction dependent on title and thus, still, the valuation for the relief of declaration should have been at the market value of the property and appropriate valuation and subsequently court fees should have been paid by the plaintiff in the manner indicated above. Secondly, in this case, once the defendants had disputed the sale transaction and the landlord-tenant relationship, all the reliefs sought in the plaint were necessarily consequential on the outcome of the relief of declaration of ownership.
90. Thus, the suit herein would be covered u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and would be a suit for declaration of ownership with consequential reliefs of possession, mesne profits and injunction. This would mean that plaintiff should have valued his relief for the said declaration at market value of the suit property for the purposes of court fees and paid ad valorem court fees thereupon. The said valuation would also govern the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Even if it is taken that the valuation of the suit property was Rs.5 lacs (which is the purported sale consideration at which plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from D-2 in May, 2016), the valuation of Rs.130/- on the relief of declaration is much less than the said value and therefore, the valuation of the plaintiff is grossly undervalued and appropriate court fees thereupon has not been paid by the plaintiff.
CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 36 of 37
91. Accordingly, the issue under consideration is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
Conclusion
92. In view of the findings returned above, the suit fails. It is dismissed.
93. Parties to bear their own cost. Digitally signed by AASHISH AASHISH GUPTA
94. Let a decree sheet be prepared accordingly. GUPTA Date:
2025.12.23 17:05:28 +0530 Announced in the Aashish Gupta open Court on 23.12.2025 District Judge-01, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS No. 130/21 Sandeep Kumar Jain Vs. Ved Prakash Verma & Ors. 37 of 37