Delhi District Court
Sudhir Panwar Ors vs Vinod Kumar on 5 January, 2026
-1-
In the Court of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, Principal District &
Sessions Judge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Sh. Sudhir Panwar & another
vs.
Sh. Vinod Kumar
(Ex. no.- 42952/2013)
{Objections under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Rules 97-100
CPC and Section 1 5 1 CPC filed by Smt. Sushma Chopra}
********************************
5-1-2026.
ORDER:-
1) The execution of the possession decree dated 4-6-2013 was once satisfied on 4-9-2013. Smt. Sushma Chopra (herein after called as objector) filed her objections within 3 days of her dispossession from suit property i.e. on 7-9-2013, which were decided by undersigned on 28-1-2015 (when I was posted as Addl. District Judge-01, North East District in Karkardooma) in her favour on merits after recording evidence. Decree holders challenged the said order in the Hon'ble High Court and matter was remanded back vide order dated 19-7-2018 by framing two additional issues with directions to decide all the issues afresh.
-2-2) This matter was pending at final arguments stage earlier in the court of Sh. Aashish Gupta, ld. District Judge-01, North East District but decree holders due to some act and conduct of the ld. Presiding Officer and for his alleged biasness and improper behaviour had moved transfer application on 9-10-2025 before the court of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, the then ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge. I took over the court of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur on 19-11-2025 and transfer application came before me for hearing on 20-11-2025. Without discussing anything on merits, counsels for both the parties consented for disposal of this matter again by undersigned as once it was pending before me about 10 years back and I had once passed the order dated 28-1-2015 which was set aside and matter was remanded back by Hon'ble High Court for fresh decision. Thus, with the no objection and consent of both the parties, I have taken up the case again. Some brief background of the case necessary for disposal of the objections are as under.
Averments made in the suit
3) Two plaintiffs Sh. Sudhir Panwar and Sh. Hari Kant (herein after referred to jointly as DHs) filed the suit bearing no. 75/2013 on 8-5- 2013 for recovery of possession of the ground floor of suit property bearing no. C-2/127, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and for mesne profits against the defendant Sh. Vinod Kumar (herein after referred as judgment debtor) with the averments that they had purchased the suit property on 25-3-2013 for Rs. 19,80,000/- through registered sale deed executed by the JD. At the request of the JD, he was allowed to stay in the suit property as a licensee at the rate Rs. 6,000/- per month -3- license fee. However, when the suit property was not vacated, then DHs filed the suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit in the court. Alongwith the suit, certain documents were filed which shows that the suit property was once jointly owned by JD Sh. Vinod Kumar and objector Smt. Sushma Chopra in equal shares and DDA even executed registered conveyance deed dated 14-10-1997 jointly in their favour. However, the entire suit property was sold by the JD only by executing the sale deed dated 25-3-2013 in favour of DHs. It is alleged on page no. 4 of this sale deed that objector Smt. Sushma Chopra had executed one notarized General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 19-5-1998 in respect of her share in the property in favour of JD who was her husband. The record of the court shows that no copy of such GPA dated 19-5-1998 was annexed with the documents.
Proceedings of the suit
4) The summons of the suit was issued to the JD for 14-5-2013 who appeared in person on the said date and stated that he does not wish to contest the suit and gave undertaking to vacate the suit property on or before 24-5-2013. The court adjourned the matter to 27-5-2013 but it was found that the JD has not vacated the suit property and he sought one week more time to vacate the same. The matter was adjourned to 4-6-2013 on which date JD did not appear in the court. The suit property was found still not vacated, so the court vide order of the same day, decreed the suit for relief of possession by invoking the powers under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Subsequently, DHs by giving statement on 7-8-2013 withdrew the relief of arrears of license fee and damages and the suit was finally closed.
-4-Execution proceedings
5) DHs filed execution bearing Ex. no. 54/13 on 6-8-2013 for recovery of possession of suit property and in pursuance of warrants of possession, it was handed over to them on 4-9-2013. As per report of bailiff, when warrants for possession were executed, JD was not present in the suit property and possession was taken from objector. The objector is the wife of the JD who was found not traceable as per some reports already received on record. However, objector filed her objections on 7-9-2013 and court framed three issues on 20-9-2013 and one additional issue on 25-10-2013 and took evidence of the parties. On the basis of the evidence led, undersigned (while working as Addl. District Judge) vide order dated 28-1-2015 allowed the objections and further directed the DHs to return the vacant possession of the suit property to the objector and also held that the decree has become un-executable.
Appeal in Hon'ble High Court
6) DHs challenged the said order dated 28-1-2015 before Hon'ble High Court in appeal and Hon'ble High Court remanded back the matter by framing two fresh issues vide order dated 19-7-2018 and given directions for fresh disposal of the objections. Para no. 31 of the order of Hon'ble High Court gives details of history, facts and circumstances of the case in details which had already come on record in this court as well as came before Hon'ble High Court during hearing first time. This order also points out certain lapses and inactions of both sides, not bringing on record various important facts by both the parties, non-leading of evidence on certain crucial points -5- etc. and accordingly directed in para no. 34 that matter be decided afresh not only on the issues already decided but also on two additional issues framed. In para no. 35, Hon'ble High Court also directed that DHs who have got possession of the suit property during execution shall not alienate, part with possession of the suit property till the fresh decision on objections of objector.
Grounds of objections of objector
7) In her objection application, objector claimed that she is the real owner of the suit property and the decree has been obtained fraudulently by the DHs in connivance with JD/her husband with whom she was having matrimonial disputes and both are living separately since year 2006. She also stated in her objections that she had purchased the suit property on 13-10-1997 from her mother's money in the joint name of herself and JD and since then she is residing in the same. According to objector, JD even vide registered release deed dated 10-9- 2004 released his half share in the suit property in her favour and thus, she became exclusive full owner of the suit property. Due to matrimonial disputes and the act and conduct of the JD, objector even severed her relationship with him by giving a public notice in the newspaper dated 11-8-2011. Objector further stated that she came to know about the decree only when she was dispossessed through the bailiff of the court on 4-9-2013. According to objector, when the JD was not the owner of the suit property and he has already left the same in 2006, then he could not sell it in favour of the DHs nor was competent to give any undertaking in the court to vacate it upon which basis the decree was -6- passed. Thus, the objector has blamed her husband JD and DHs for concealing the true facts and obtaining the decree by playing fraud upon the court without impleading her party in the suit. Objector even referred to various police complaints lodged from February to August 2013 against JD regarding giving of threats to kill, selling the suit property etc. Objector specifically denied execution of any GPA dated 19-5-1998 in favour of JD and described it as forged document.
Issues to be decided
8) On the basis of objections, the court vide order dated 20-9-2013 had framed the following three issues;
1) Whether the objector is the owner of the suit property and the judgment debtor Vinod Kumar did not have any right to sell the same to the decree holder? (OPO)
2) Whether the objector is entitled to be put back into possession of the suit property? (OPO)
3) Whether the objector is entitled to any compensation on having been dispossessed from the suit property and having to approach the court for redressed? If so, the extent of compensation and the person who is liable to bear the same? (OPO).
One another issue was framed vide order dated 25-10-2013;
4) Whether in the absence of intimation of execution of the release deed dated 10-9-2004 to the DDA and whether in absence of execution of fresh conveyance deed solely in favour of the objector Sushma Chopra, she can be said to have become exclusive owner of -7- the suit property? (OPDH) After remand back of the matter and in compliance of directions of Hon'ble High Court dated 19-7-2018, following two more additional issues were framed, the burden to prove was put upon DHs by Hon'ble High Court itself;
(I) Whether the respondent no. 2/objector executed a Power of Attorney dated 19th May, 1998 in favour of the respondent no. 1/ defendant/judgment debtor and the respondent no. 1/defendant/ judgment debtor executed the sale deed in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs/decree holders on the basis of the said Power of Attorney and if so, to what effect? (OPDH) (II) Whether the respondent no. 1/defendant/judgment debtor and the respondent no. 2/objector are in collusion with each other and if so, to what effect? (OPDH) Evidence on record
9) At the pre-remand stage, there is statement of only objector OW-1 on record whereas DHs had examined total four witnesses including decree holder no. 1. After remand back, DH no. 1 re-examined himself again and also examined six more witnesses but objector did not choose to examine herself again or any other witness. The details of witnesses examined at pre-remand and after remand stage are as follows;
Witnesses examined at pre-remand stage OW-1 Smt. Sushma Chopra (Objector) DHW-1 Sh. Sudhir Panwar (DH no. 1) -8- DHW-2 Sh. Omkar Singh (official from DDA) DHW-2A Sh. Kalyan Singh (inadvertently was given number DHW-2 again, so is re-numbered now as DHW-2A) DHW-3 Sh. Budh Parkash Gautam (from Sub-Registrar Office) Witnesses examined after remand back stage DHW-1 Sh. Sudhir Panwar (DH no. 1) DHW-2 Sh. Hari Kant Verma (DH no. 2) DHW-3 Sh. Nand Kishor Chairasiya (Reader of the Court of JMFC Sh. Pankaj Rai).
DHW-4 Sh. Pradeep, (JA from record room, Family Court). DHW-5 Sh. Rahul Chaudhary DHW-6 Sh. Shubham Tiwari (Official from Notary Cell) DHW-7 Sh. Pradeep Sharma.
DHs tried hard to summon and examine JD Sh. Vinod Chopra as their witness but he was found not traceable even by police and his address given by DHs did not exist at all, so he was ultimately dropped. Order of Hon'ble High Court dated 19-7-2018 also shows that JD could not be served through ordinary manner, so was ordered to be served through publication in an appeal. Lateron objector informed the court on 9-12-2021 that JD has expired on 25-7-2020. Besides leaving behind objector, JD had left behind two major married daughters and one son also but DHs did not move any application to implead them despite taking time. Mere fact that wife of JD i.e. objector was already party to -9- the proceedings itself is not a ground to ignore the children of the JD. Thus, on the basis of statements of the above witnesses, the objections of the objector are to be decided afresh.
Certain important proceedings taken place after remand back
10) After remand back of the matter, objector moved one application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for permission to recall DHW-1 (DH-1) but it was dismissed on 1-10-2024. One application was also moved on behalf of DHs for examination of 6 more witnesses on 4-10-2024 but court allowed examination of three witnesses and rejected the request for examination of remaining three.
11) Objector had also moved one application under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act for comparison of her signature appearing on photocopy of disputed GPA dated 19-5-1998 with her admitted signatures but court declined this request vide order dated 28-10-2025 by giving liberty to parties to request court to compare itself signatures under power of Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
12) During pendency of this execution, one Sh. Yashpal Mittal came in possession of the suit property. Vide order dated 10-10-2025, court even directed that the question whether he was inducted in suit property by DHs in violation of directions of Hon'ble High Court dated 19-7- 2018 and what action has to be taken will be also decided at the final disposal. I have heard counsel for both the parties and gone through the record and written arguments placed on record. Certain case laws were cited in written arguments of the DHs but none was produced. Similarly, in the -10- written arguments of JD, few case laws cited but only four were produced. My decision on above issues is as under;
Issue no. 1 framed on 20-9-2013 and Issues no. (I) and (II) framed under orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 19-7-2018
13) These three issues are interconnected so are required to be decided together. Objector has claimed that she is an exclusive owner of the suit property and JD had no right to sell the same to DHs. According to objector, she was having half undivided share in the suit property due to execution of joint conveyance deed by DDA Ex. OW1/1 dated 13-10-1997 in her favour and in favour of JD and subsequently JD had relinquished his half undivided share in the suit property in her favour vide registered release deed Ex. OW1/3 dated 10-9-2004 and thereafter JD was having no right to deal with the suit property in any manner. On the other hand, DHs pleaded that objector had already transferred her half share in favour of JD through GPA dated 19-5- 1998 Ex. DHW-1/A (Mark-A) and thus JD had become full exclusive owner of the suit property and sale deed Ex. DHW-3/A executed by him in favour of DHs on 25-3-2013 is legal and valid. As per DHs after execution of GPA on 19-5-1998, objector had lost all her rights and title in the suit property and they had become exclusive owner due to execution of sale deed in their favour. Thus, firstly the question of legality and validity of GPA dated 19-5-1998 and release deed dated 10-9-2004 is to be decided. Which is a genuine, legal and binding document and which is a forged or invalid document would ultimately determine the fate of the present objections.
-11-14) Ex. OWl/2 is the release deed executed in favour of the objector by the JD in respect of his equal half undivided rights, interest and share in the suit property. This document was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 10-9-2004. Nothing substantial was put in the cross examination of the objector to question the legality and validity of this release deed as main consideration of the DHs remained surrounding GPA. Even DHW-2 showed ignorance in his cross examination about this release deed dated 10-9-2004 executed by JD in favour of objector in respect of his half share in the suit property. From the testimony of the objector, this release deed is proved to have been duly executed by JD in favour of objector. When JD had already relinquished his share in the suit property in favour of the objector on 10-9-2004, then he was also not competent to sell any portion on 25-3- 2013 as he had lost all his ownership rights and interest in every inch of the property. Hence, it is held that though at one stage the JD and the objector were the joint owner of equal undivided portion of the suit property but after release deed of the JD, the objector had become exclusive sole owner of the same and thereafter JD could not execute any sale deed in favour of the DHs. Now only question left is whether JD could sell and transfer the suit property to DHs on basis of GPA dated 19-5-1998 and whether objector had sold the suit property to JD on basis of this GPA and whether it was giving some limited powers to JD to perform certain acts qua the suit property. Since, objector described this GPA as forged and fabricated document, so its legality and validity was to be proved by the DHs and even Hon'ble High Court also put burden upon them to prove the same as legal and authentic document.
15) It is submitted on behalf of DHs that JD got all the powers of executing sale deed due to prior execution of GPA in his favour by objector and -12- thus JD had become full owner of the suit property including half share of objector and thus was competent to sell the same to DHs. According to DHs, the GPA would prevail over release deed and the sale deed Ex. DHW-3/A executed by the JD in favour of the DHs is an enforceable document and binding upon the objector. DH-1 filed his fresh affidavit of evidence dated 26-7-2019 basically to prove the GPA Ex. DHW-1/A (Mark-A) dated 19-5-1998 allegedly executed by objector in favour of JD. This GPA allegedly is bearing signatures of objector and two witnesses namely Sh. Soran Singh and Sh. Ram Nath Sharma which was attested by Sh. K. L. Singal, advocate cum Notary Public. This GPA is described as invalid, forged and fabricated document by objector having no force in the eyes of law.
16) DHW-3 Sh. Budh Prakash Gautam LDC from office of Sub Registrar simply proved that sale deed Ex. DHW3/A dated 25-3-2013 was registered in his office executed by JD in favour of DHs in respect of the suit property. Record of this office however was found not having any chain of previous papers including any GPA dated 19-5-1998. This witness was unable to tell whether the copies of previous chain of documents were seen or kept on record by the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of this sale deed. The argument of counsel for DHs that presumption arises that sale document has been genuinely executed by executant who was having authority to execute the same on basis of GPA and his identity was also verified by Sub-Registrar at the time of registration cannot be accepted because registration of a document does not dispense with the need of proving the due execution and attestation of a document. Presumption attached to the registered documents is only in respect of matters of the registration as per requirement of provisions of Indian Registration Act and not in respect of factum of attestation and due execution as per law laid -13- down in case Bhagat Ram vs. Suresh AIR 2004 SC 436. In absence of any such evidence on record, no presumption can be raised that concerned Sub-Registrar had seen and verified the GPA dated 19-5- 1998 before registering sale deed Ex. DHW-3/A on 25-3-2013 in favour of DHs.
17) When there is no dispute of execution of conveyance deed by DDA dated 13-10-1997 Ex. OW1/1 jointly in favour of JD and objector, then question from which source money came to purchase the suit property and whether money belonging to mother of objector was used to purchase it or not need not be considered. Otherwise also, DHs have no concern with this controversy as it is not their case that they had given money to purchase the suit property initially from DDA as it could be a matter maximum between objector and JD only.
18) DHW-4 Sh. Pardeep, JA from record room of Family Court brought file of HMA no. 69/2015 decided exparte on 13-1-2016 by which divorce was granted in between JD and objector. In the divorce petition, most of the facts relating to suit property already narrated in the present objection application are repeated and action of JD in unauthorizedly transferring the same to DHs is described as an act of cruelty. This divorce petition was instituted on 10-2-2015 by objector much after her dispossession from the suit property and during pendency of appeal of DHs in the Hon'ble High Court, apparently without any justification just to create supporting evidence in her favour. Infact there was no necessity to institute such divorce proceedings because the JD by that time had already gone missing and not traceable.
-14-19) Objector in her statement mentioned that she started living separately from JD/her husband since year 2006 and even by issuing public notice in newspaper Ex. OW1/3 dated 11-8-2011 severed her relations with him and disowned him from her properties. Counsel for the DHs stated that objector in her divorce petition mentioned about her strained relationship with her by JD and extreme cruelty and torture caused by JD since year 1969. He argued that in such situation allegedly spending her mother's money upon suit property for purchasing it in the joint name of JD and herself in the year 1986 clearly point out that there were no matrimonial disputes between them as alleged in the divorce petition or in the present objection application. According to counsel for DHs, this leads to the inference that both objector and JD were in conspiracy with each other and acting together being single unit. However, this is an immaterial fact because it is a judicial noticeable fact that despite suffering from mental cruelty, Indian wife generally does not leave matrimonial home immediately and always keeps hope that her relations with husband will become smooth and cordial in future. DHs have not brought on record any evidence even of neighbours that after 2006 or after date of public notice Ex. OW-1/3 dated 11-8-2011 or at the time of talks of alleged sale transaction in February or March 2013, objector and JD lived together. Institution of divorce case by the objector against JD in year 2015 is of no consequences and probably was on wrong advice to create some evidence for objector qua which DHs cannot get any benefit.
20) The version of DHW-1 (DH no. 1) that negotiation and sale of the suit property took place in the presence of the objector cannot be believed especially when the DHs had come to know that the property was in the joint name of JD and objector, then despite it they did not -15- ask the objector to sign on the sale deed as a witness or give no objection in this regard. They even did not ask the objector to execute any agreement to sell, if it is presumed that objector was giving oral consent to sell the suit property through her husband/JD. Even in the suit, the objector was not impleaded as a party despite the fact that DHs had knowledge that possession of the suit property also was with her. Even no notice was issued to the objector before filing the suit. DHW-1 admitted in his cross examination that he has no document to show that objector at any stage participated in sale transaction. In such circumstances, it has to be held that JD was not having any right to sell the property to the DHs being not the owner of the same as well as the DHs were not the bonafide purchaser of the property.
21) According to the conveyance deed Ex. OW1/1 dated 13-10-1997, both JD and objector, at one point of time were joint owners of the undivided suit property in equal proportions. DHs relied upon photocopy of that GPA Ex. DHW-1/A ( Mark-A) allegedly executed by objector in favour of the JD to show that objector had transferred her share to JD who thereafter become full owner of the suit property. Objector raised objection about mode of proof of the photocopy of this GPA. First of all, the original of the same is not produced in court, so it cannot be read in evidence. Counsel for the DHs relied upon the legal notice dated 25-7-2019 Ex. DHW-1/B sent to both JD and objector under Section 163 of Evidence Act asking them to produce the original GPA dated 19-5-1998 in court. This notice was sent at the same address of suit property situated at house no. 127, 1 st floor, Block C-2, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi through courier company and only floor was different. When this notice was issued, objector was not living at the above address as come on record. Though, the notice -16- is addressed to both JD and objector but it was sent only to JD as per courier receipt Ex. DHW-1/C. There is no courier receipt on record to show that this notice was sent to objector also. In his cross examination, DH-1 even denied issuing of any legal notice in the year 2018 or 2019 to the objector. It has already come on record even during proceedings of Hon'ble High Court that JD was not traceable. DHs have not filed any acknowledgment of service of this notice issued by concerned courier company even upon JD. DHs have not fulfilled the necessary requirements before trying to prove photocopy of GPA through secondary evidence. In such circumstances, it can be said that this photocopy of GPA is not properly proved as per law and cannot be relied upon being inadmissible document.
22) Further, in his cross examination dated 18-12-2019, DH-1 (DHW-1) stated that JD when had not supplied the original GPA to them, then they even had issued legal notice in the year 2013 to him for supply of the GPA but no such notice is brought on record. Even no reference of issuing of any such legal notice to JD demanding original GPA is made in the plaint of the suit.
23) This is a fact that DHs had not filed even photocopy of this GPA Ex. DHW-1/A ( Mark-A) dated 19-5-1998 along with their suit despite the fact that they knew about it and were having possession of the same. This admission has also come on record during the cross examination of DHW-2, when suit file was summoned in the court. This was the material document which could show whether JD was competent to dispose of the share of objector also but DHs had concealed this document from the court. Nowhere in the plaint, DHs alleged that they were given only photocopy of GPA and original was not given despite demands. As per DHs, they were given photocopy of this GPA along -17- with certified copy of conveyance deed at the time of the purchase of the suit property by JD. No explanation is given by them why they concealed even photocopy of this GPA from court when they filed the suit as well as why they did not implead objector in the suit even as performa party. Had they brought this photocopy of GPA on suit record, then it might have been possible that court before grant of decree could call objector to clarify the same. Even if it is presumed that DHs were in possession of only photocopy of this GPA, but still they were required to place the same on court record in a suit especially when objector was not made party to the suit by them. On the other hand, DHW-2 in his cross examination stated that copy of this GPA was given to their advocate but he might had not deemed it appropriate to make part of the suit. This explanation is unreliable and cannot be accepted as genuine. This act and conduct of DHs in not placing even photocopy of GPA on court record amount to playing fraud upon the court and obtaining of decree by concealing material facts.
24) Objector is describing the GPA dated 19-5-1998 as forged and fabricated document. She by moving an application u/s 45 read with Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act had requested for opinion of handwriting expert but court declined that request by holding that parties can ask the court to compare her signatures itself under power of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. I have now seen the signatures of objector appearing on GPA dated 19-5-1998 Ex. DHW-1/A (Mark-A) and found that those are not matching with other admitted signatures of her lying on record such as on undisputed conveyance deed, on objections and affidavits filed in court etc. Thus, there is no hesitation to say that GPA apparently is a fake and forged document and signatures of objector on the same is not genuine.
-18-25) DHs in order to prove GPA also examined DHW-5 Sh. Rahul Chaudhary who identified the signatures of his father Sh. Soran Singh on photocopy of GPA at point 'A' being attesting witness. However, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of this GPA. When he was examined in court on 5-4-2025, he was aged about 32 years but he identified the signatures of his father on GPA dated 19-5-1998. At the time of execution of the GPA, this witness was aged about 5 years only. He has not brought any document bearing signatures of his deceased father to corroborate his own identification and giving an opportunity to the court to itself compare the same with signatures appearing on GPA. He never identified signatures of his father earlier at any time in court. Similarly, DHW-7 Sh. Pradeep Sharma was also examined by DHs to prove signatures of his maternal grand-father (Naana) late Sh. Ram Nath Sharma on disputed GPA Ex. DHW-1/A at point 'X' being attesting witness. He in his cross examination stated that he was identifying the signatures of his Naana on registry document but it is only a GPA and unregistered document. He admittedly was aged about 7-8 years when this GPA was executed. He also did not produce any other document bearing signatures of his Naana to show how he used to sign. Mother and Mausi of this witness were available but DHs did not examine them to identify signatures of deceased Sh. Ram Nath Sharma. Statement of both these witnesses DHW-5 and DHW-7 cannot be relied upon when no document is brought on record by them to show that their predecessors Sh. Soran Singh and Sh. Ram Nath Sharma respectively used to sign in the same manner which are available on GPA. Even they had not specifically told that they used to work along with their predecessor or had seen them signing and writing several times.
-19-26) GPA in question is allegedly attested by Sh. K.L. Singal, Notary Public. DHW-6 Sh. Shubham Tiwari, court clerk from Notary Cell, Department of Legal Affairs brought summoned record pertaining to registration details of this Notary Public. He brought photocopy of the register of Notaries Ex. DHW6/1 only. This register points out simply that Sh. K.L. Singal advocate was appointed Notary Public by govt. On behalf of objector, objection was raised even at the time of exhibiting this photocopy (which was ordered to be dealt with at final stage) and I am of the view that the objection has to be sustained. This document Ex. DHW6/1 is not properly proved in absence of original and accordingly cannot be read in evidence. Non production of concerned Notary Register in which entries about attestation of various documents including the disputed GPA in question which was being maintained by Sh. K.L. Singhal on the pretext that it was in dilatated condition cannot be condoned. Even this witness at another stage of cross examination took different stand by saying that he did not check whether the same was deposited by Notary Public with the department or not and whether it is available with the Notary Cell or not. DHs thereafter never took any steps to ask this witness to come again and after checking office record brings the Notary Public register deposited by Sh. K.L. Singhal with the department. Thus, DHs have failed to establish that Sh. K.L. Singhal working as Notary Public on 19-5-1998 had attested the disputed GPA in question. Accordingly, it is held that DHs have failed to prove the genuineness and authenticity of this GPA Ex. DHW-1/A (Mark-A) whereas record shows especially difference of signatures of objector on it that it appears to be forged and fabricated document.
27) DHs also claimed that they had purchased the suit property in good faith after due inquiry about the title of the JD in respect of his half -20- share as well as his capacity to sell remaining share of objector through GPA dated 19-5-1998. However, DHW-1 admitted in his cross examination that he had not verified this GPA which was an unregistered document. Before purchasing the suit property, even no objection certificate was not taken from objector despite the fact that DHs knew that she was having half share in the property as per conveyance deed executed by DDA. DHW-1 allegedly had got conveyance deed verified from office of DDA as stated in his criminal complaint but he had not gone to office of Notary Public to check the genuineness and correctness of the GPA. On the other hand, DHW-1 at another stage contradicted himself in his cross examination and stated that he had not verified even the conveyance deed from the office of DDA. He even in para no. 6 of his affidavit of evidence dated 21-2-2014 filed at pre-remand stage had stated that he also verified DDA record and the GPA record from the concerned department. Thus, DHW-1 is blowing hot and cold at the same breadth which makes him unreliable person. The element of purchase of suit property in good faith after due inquiries and being bonafide purchaser is lacking in case of DHs.
28) DHW-2 Sh. Hari Kant Verma is decree holder no. 2 who filed his affidavit of evidence on the same lines as filed by DH-1. From his cross examination, it is revealed that all the talks regarding transactions, scrutiny of documents, documentary formalities etc. were done by DH-1. This witness also admitted in his cross examination that he had not got verified the GPA regarding his genuineness which was handed over by JD to DH-1 and kept blind faith upon DH-1 who had gone through all the documents. At one stage, this witness also admitted that photocopy of GPA was given to him also but showed ignorance whether DH-1 had demanded original GPA from JD or not -21- or whether it was registered or not. DHW-2 in his cross examination also stated that one of his brother Babloo had got verified the genuineness of this GPA but DHs have not examined him to show when, from where and by which method he had verified the same. DHW-2 admittedly had not met any of the witnesses of the GPA to verify the same but stated that DH-1 had verified it. On the other hand, DHW-1 never stated anywhere in her testimony that he had contacted any of the attesting witnesses of GPA or Notary Public who attested the same. DHW-2 even did not make any inquiry or verified the ownership of the property from office of DDA but stated that Babloo had done it. Non examination of said person Babloo is fatal to the case of DHs. Thus, there was no diligence on the part of the DHs that they acted in good faith. Non making of any inquiry even from objector about the correctness of this GPA creates doubt that the transaction was not entered bonafidely and DHs cannot be termed as bonafide purchasers.
29) As per averments of the DH-1, the cash payment of Rs. 9,80,000/- and cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards sale consideration of the suit property was given to JD but no receipt of cash payment was taken from JD. It clearly shows that objector had not received anything from DHs. DHW-1 also admittedly as per his cross examination had not checked whether electricity and water connection in the suit property were in the name of the objector nor they applied for transfer of the same in their names after purchase of the property.
30) During her cross examination dated 3-1-2014 at page 2, objector specifically stated that in lieu of taking property no. C-3/16, Yamuna Vihar, JD had relinquished his share in the suit property in her favour through relinquishment deed Ex. OW-1/2 on 10-9-2004. Suggestions -22- were given to her on behalf of DHs in that cross examination that she had surrender her rights in the suit property after execution of GPA but lateron on execution of release deed Ex. OW1/2, she again got half share in the suit property. Again, suggestions were given that she is only having half share in the suit property and falsely claiming to be the owner of entire property. Even at the end of cross examination, last suggestion was again given in this regard by DHs to show that she was having only ½ share in the suit property after execution of release deed. DHs thus by putting such suggestions to objector were infact admitting the correctness and genuineness of the release deed Ex. OW-1/2 and also indirectly admitting that alleged GPA dated 19-5- 1998 Ex. DHW-1/A (Mark-A) had lost its importance. The putting of such suggestions to objector in her cross examination itself had demolished the own case of DHs.
31) If evidence of DH-1 (i.e. para no. 8 of his affidavit dated 21-2-2014) is read and considered, then it leads to the inference that JD had become sole owner of the entire suit property and GPA infact was executed by objector not only to give power to JD to deal with the suit property qua her half share but infact it was executed to sell that half share in favour of JD. Further, if the cross examination of DHs is taken into consideration, then according to them, objector through her GPA dated 19-5-1998 Ex. DHW-1/A (Mark-A) had sold her half share in the suit property in favour of JD. DHs are saying that this GPA is not simply giving authority to JD to do certain acts on her behalf but actually it was a transfer of her half share in the property. If page 4 of sale deed and para no. 5 of criminal complaint case lodged by DHs are read and considered, then it shows that JD had claimed that his wife (i.e. objector) had given her half share in the suit property in his favour. This GPA was not registered nor appropriate stamp duty was -23- paid on it. Counsel for the objector cited decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand Civil Appeal no. 6377/2012 decided on 1-9-2025, M.S. Ananthamurthy vs. J. Manjula 2025 INSC 273 and Sanjay Sharma vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. SLP (C) no. 330/2017 decided on 10-12-2024 and argued that sale of immovable property can take place only through proper registered sale deed after paying sale consideration as per Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act and sale through GPA/agreement to sell/Will etc. is not legal and valid. Counsel also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Bidyut Sarkar vs. Kanchilal Pal Civil Appeal no. 10509- 10510/2013 decided on 28-8-2024 to show that GPA transferring immovable property without paying stamp duty and without registration is inadmissible in evidence.
32) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 (decided on 11-10-2011) held that sale transaction through GPA/sale agreement/Will does not convey any title nor creates any interest in the immoveable property which can be legally and lawfully transferred only by a registered deed of conveyance. Such transaction can continue to be treated as existing agreement to sale and parties can get registered deed of conveyance executed to complete their title. Such GPA etc. transactions cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that valid sale agreement and genuine power of attorney already executed prior to the date of judgment are not affected. Here in this case, DHs even cannot get any benefit of protection of their possession u/s 53A of Transfer of Property Act because they were not in actual physical possession of the suit property and got the same only through court during execution of decree. Further, it is held -24- above that this GPA though executed prior to the date of above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is not valid and legal and infact is a fake document, then also DHs cannot take any protection of saving clause of this judgment because only genuine sale transactions done through unregistered and unstamped GPA executed prior to the date of decision of Suraj Lamps case are protected and not invalid sale done through GPA, which otherwise is not found proved and apparently is fake document. Objector was under no obligation to institute a separate suit for revocation or cancellation of GPA which was created without her knowledge and is found to be false document. The above facts and circumstances also indicate that apparently there was a collusion between DHs and JD to deprive the objector of her property.
33) DHW-3 Sh. Nand Kishor Chaurasiya reader from the court of Sh. Pankaj Rai, JMFC brought file of complaint case instituted against JD and objector and proved various order sheets, copy of complaint etc. As per this record, both JD and objector have been summoned for offences of cheating etc. However, it is a law that on same facts and circumstances, both civil and criminal proceedings can be maintained which are to be decided separately on the basis of its own evidence but mere summoning of objector itself is not a ground to reject her objections as in the criminal proceedings, still trial has to take place where in the present proceedings, the evidence has already been led and now final order has to be given on merits. The findings of this court whether are binding upon the criminal court or not is to be seen by the concerned court dealing with this criminal complaint.
34) In her evidence, objector relied upon certain complaints given to police from February to August 2013 but no such complaint was proved or exhibited during her testimony. Thus, the same now cannot -25- be relied upon or to read in favour of objector. However, non proving of these complaints does not make the objector as untrustworthy witness. Certain contradictions in the statements of DHs also have come on record. DH-1 in his cross examination denied the fact that JD was doing business of property dealing and he was doing work of property dealing with him. Even he stated that he had no idea about business or profession of JD. However, this fact is inconsistent with his stand taken in his criminal complaint Ex. DHW-2/A wherein he specifically alleged in para no. 3 that JD was a property dealer in his locality. Even in his own affidavit filed at pre-remand stage, he described the profession of JD as of property dealer. In his criminal complaint Ex. DHW-2/A, DH-1 stated that he got the possession of the suit property from JD through bailiff of the court but this fact is not correct as it was taken from objector and when bailiff visited the suit property, JD was not there. However, these minor contradictions in the statements of DHs can be ignored.
35) Record points out that objector was having no knowledge of the decree passed against the JD qua the suit property as she was not made party to the suit and even JD was living separately from her since year 2006. Thus, the arguments of the counsel for DHs that why the objector did not raise any submission at the time of execution of warrants of possession that she was the actual owner, she never gave any GPA to the JD or it bears her forged signatures etc. is baseless. On the other hand objector had filed her objections in the court within 3 days of her dispossession from the suit property.
36) Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 19-7-2018 pointed out towards prima facie certain facts and circumstances, improbabilities, act and conduct of both parties in concealing few things etc. and thereafter -26- framed specific issues to be decided after evidence. Those prima facie observations of High Court were on the basis of some submissions made by parties in this court itself and on basis of some fresh material brought during hearing of appeal which was not on record earlier. Such observations and circumstances were to be decided on basis of evidence that is why the matter was remanded back by Hon'ble High Court. On the basis of fresh evidence, the points and probabilities raised in appeal by Hon'ble High Court are now finally clarified and decided. Now relying upon some prima facie observations of Hon'ble High Court by DHs during arguments do not help them as the same have been dealt with on the basis of fresh evidence brought on record in compliance with the directions of Hon'ble High Court. Burden to prove those additional issues were put by Hon'ble High Court on the DHs and it was not for the objector to rebut the same firstly in which they failed.
37) In view of the above, it is held that GPA dated 19-5-1998 Ex. DHW-1/A (Mark-A) is invalid and unenforceable document. Infact it is a forged document and does not bear the genuine signatures of objector. Otherwise also, DHs have failed to prove the same on record and to discharge the burden put upon them by the Hon'ble High Court while framing fresh issues and remanding back the matter vide order dated 19-7-2018. Sale deed Ex. DHW-3/A dated 19-5-1998 executed by JD in favour of DHs in pursuance of this GPA has no value. No amount was received by the objector from DHs towards the alleged sale consideration as referred in this sale deed. JD after execution of release deed Ex. OW1/2 on 10-9-2004 had lost all rights in the suit property and objector had become exclusive owner of the same. The act and conduct of the DHs referred above also shows that they cannot be treated as bonafide purchaser of the suit property and accordingly -27- have not got any right, title or interest. The very possibility exists that DHs and JD mixed up to grab the suit property belonging to objector and to throw away her from the same and in pursuance of the same, even JD gave undertakings in court and thereafter stopped appearing. The suit filed by DHs against JD was a collusive suit in which objector intentionally was not made a party. Infact, they committed fraud upon the court and caused wrongful loss to the objector. Thus, decree for recovery of possession dated 4-6-2013 is a nullity and cannot be enforced. There was no collusion between objector and JD to commit fraud upon DHs as alleged by them. Thus, all the three issues no. 1, and issues no. I and II framed under orders of Hon'ble High Court are decided in favour of objector and against the DHs. The objection application of the objector deserves to be allowed on these accounts.
Issue No. 2 framed on 20-9-2013
38) As held above, JD was not competent to sell the suit property to DHs and GPA in question was not genuine as well as giving of his statement in court was in connivance with them, so the decree obtained by concealing material facts and documents and by playing fraud upon the court legally does not bind the objector. Court has power to pass an order of status quo ante. Otherwise also, if in the execution proceedings a wrong has been done through the process of the court, then it becomes duty of the court also to undo the same. JD was not having any concern with the suit property and it was not legally sold by him to the DHs as well as the fact that the objector has been dispossessed from the suit property through execution of the court, so the objector is required to be put back to the dispossessed portion of the suit property. However, time of 30 days is granted to the DHs to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the objector -28- after removing their goods and articles as well as locks put on the said property if any. In case, there is any tenant or occupant in it, then DHs have to remove them also from the possession of the suit property. In between DHs can take a chance to obtain stay order from Hon'ble High Court. In case the DHs did not comply with the said direction or could not get any protection from the Hon'ble High Court, then the possession shall be handed over to the objector with the help of police force directly without any notice to the DHs or any other occupant of the property. Though as per DHs the suit property is at present lying vacant but still if any occupant or tenant found existing in the property will be thrown away with force in order to give vacant possession to objector. This issue is decided in favour of the objector and against the DHs.
Issue no. 4 framed on 25-10-2013
39) In respect of the suit property, the conveyance deed Ex. OW1/1 was executed jointly in the name of JD and the objector on 13-10-1997 by DDA. DHW-2 Sh. Omkar Singh, an official of DDA deposed in his statement that DDA had not received any intimation or letter either from objector or JD to the effect that JD had released his share in favour of objector vide release deed dated 10-9-2004 which is Ex. OW1/2. This witness has also stated that there was no requirement for any party to intimate DDA regarding execution of the relinquishment deed in respect of the property because after execution of conveyance deed Ex. OWl /1, objector and JD had become its exclusive owner with power to grant, convey, self, release, transfer the same etc. The DDA had forgone all its rights in this property except four rights mentioned on page no. 3 of the conveyance deed. There was no requirement of obtaining any prior permission to sell the property to anyone further or -29- to deal with it in any manner from the DDA once the conveyance deed is executed and property become free hold. There is no condition in the conveyance deed that release or transfer etc. of the property is to be communicated to the DDA. Keeping in view the term of the conveyance deed Ex. OW1/1 as well as the statement of DHW-2, it is held that there was no requirement on the part of either JD or the objector to inform the DDA that one of the part owner/vendor of the conveyance deed had relinquished his share in favour of another. Once the DDA has executed a conveyance deed, then there was no requirement for it to execute further conveyance deed, if any change takes place subsequently among owners. The plea taken by the counsel for the DHs that after the execution of release deed by the JD in favour of the objector, a fresh conveyance deed was required to be executed cannot be accepted being unknown to the rules and guidelines of the DDA. Thus, the objector had become the exclusive owner of the property after relinquishment of the share by the JD qua the suit property. Accordingly, issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the objector and against the DHs.
Issue no. 3 framed on 20-9-2013
40) In respect of dispute whether the objector is entitled to any compensation due to her wrongful dispossession from the suit property, it is hereby held that Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 19-7-2018 in para no. 37 gave directions that in case objections are again decided in favour of objector, then mesne profits shall be paid by the JD. In view of this, objector is not entitled to any mesne profits because JD has already expired and she is one of the legal heirs of JD. Due to clear directions of the Hon'ble High Court, DHs cannot -30- become liable for any compensation to the objector against her wrongful dispossession through court bailiff in pursuance of court decree. However, objector is entitled to be compensated with litigation costs in view of the findings given on issue no. 1 and fresh issues no. I and II framed under orders of Hon'ble High Court. Objector is being dragged in court for last more than 12 years, so in my opinion, she being senior citizen is entitled to Rs. 50,000/ - in lumpsum as litigation costs recoverable from both the DHs jointly or severally.
Summery and final conclusion
41) In view of the above, summery of above findings is as under;
(a) That suit property i.e. ground floor of house no. C-2/127, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi was once owned by JD and objector through registered conveyance deed Ex. OW1/1 dated 13-10- 1997 executed by DDA and both were having equal undivided half share in the suit property. No partition of this suit property ever taken place between them at any time even verbally or in writing or through any court.
(b) That neither JD nor objector were required to inform DDA about any change of ownership of the suit property or execution of any relinquishment of share by co-owner after execution of conveyance deed and after becoming suit property freehold.
(c) That JD and objector started living separately since year 2006 due to matrimonial disputes. Objector even on 11-8-2011 through public notice in newspaper Ex. OW1/3 had disowned JD and broken all her relations with him.
-31-(d) That JD executed one registered release deed Ex. OW1/2 dated 10-9-2004 in favour of objector and relinquished his own half undivided share in the suit property in her favour. Thus, objector become full owner of the suit property on that day.
(e) That JD executed sale deed Ex. DHW-3/A of entire suit property in favour of DHs on 25-3-2013 and while executing the same he relied upon one alleged GPA dated 19-5-1998 Ex. DHW-1/A (Mark-A) which is not proved and is found to be a fake document with fake signatures of objector. Even no sale of half share of objector in the suit property through this GPA could have been transferred to DHs as JD had already transferred his that half share to objector by executing registered release deed Ex PW1/2.
(f) That even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the GPA dated 19-5-1998 is a genuine document and objector at one time transferred/sold her half share in the suit property to JD through the same as alleged by DHs but still putting some suggestions to objector in her cross examination on behalf of DHs indicates that JD lateron transferred back that undivided half share to the objector which he allegedly got through said GPA by executing release deed Ex OW1/2 dated 10-9-2004. Thus, JD had left nothing with him or any share in the suit property after 10-9-2004 nor he could sell any part of the suit property to DHs.
(g) Even DHs have not acted diligently or in good faith while allegedly purchasing the suit property and have not taken necessary steps of verification of the documents especially GPA from the concerned office of Notary Public or by -32- making inquiry about it from objector herself. The objector was also not asked to sign on sale deed as a witness nor obtained any confirmation from her about the GPA despite the fact that DHs were allegedly purchasing the suit property belonging to her. Thus, DHs and JD both in connivance with each other kept the objector in dark. Even no part of sale transaction admittedly had gone to objector. DHs cannot be treated as bonafide purchaser of the suit property in any manner nor they have got any right or title in the suit property.
(h) The sale deed date 25-3-2013 of suit property allegedly executed by JD in favour of DHs is not binding upon objector whose entire property was sold on basis of fake GPA without her knowledge and without even paying anything to her. The sale deed dated 25-3-2013 is a sham document allegedly executed by JD in favour of DHs.
(i) DHs intentionally did not join the objector in the suit for possession and mesne profits bearing no. 75/2013 filed by them despite the fact that they knew that JD had only ½ share in the undivided suit property at one time which he had already relinquished in favour of objector on 10-9-2004 and had no left with no right or title in the suit property and objector had already become the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property at the time of sale deed dated 25-3-2013.
(j) DHs even did not file the copy of GPA dated 19-5-1998 on record of the suit despite having in possession of the same and concealed the material fact and document from the court. Decree obtained by DHs by playing fraud upon the court and by concealment of material facts and documents cannot be given any force.
-33-(k) The reliance placed upon fake and fabricated GPA dated 19- 5-1998 by DHs and ignoring the subsequent release deed dated 10-9-2004 in support of their claim is baseless and without any force and submission made by DHs that GPA will prevail over release deed in this regard cannot be accepted.
(l)That objector had no knowledge of any alleged sale transaction dated 25-3-2013 taken place between DHs and JD in respect of her property. She came to know about the decree of the court only when bailiff had reached at the suit property and dispossessed her on 4-9-2013.
(m) The manner in which suit CS no. 75/2013 was filed, JD was served in that suit and admitting the claim of DHs on first date of hearing and then vanished etc. clearly indicates that there was connivance between DHs and JD to throw away objector from her property. JD was served at the address of the suit property in the suit but lateron he was never found even at any other address during the proceedings of the execution and even during appeal in Hon'ble High Court.
(n) That JD has already expired. DHs are required to return back the vacant possession of the suit property to the objector within 30 days failing which objector can approach this court for getting possession through police force and all occupants will be thrown away from the suit property in order to give possession to her and no prior notice will be issued to the DHs. However, no damages/mesne profits are claimable by objector from DHs in view of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 19-7-2018. But certainly, she is entitled to costs of Rs. 50,000/- from both the DHs as assessed above while -34- accepting her objections. DHs have now 30 days to either comply with the above directions or to obtain stay order from Hon'ble High Court.
Whether DHs violated the directions of Hon'ble High Court
42) Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 19-7-2018 had restrained the DHs from transferring or parting with possession of the suit property. During pendency of the execution, objector made a complaint that DHs have violated the said order of Hon'ble High Court and transferred the suit property to Sh. Yashpal Mittal. DH no. 1 filed his affidavit Ex. DH1/X dated 25-9-2025 mentioning therein that he had handed over the suit property to Sh. Yashpal Mittal, tenant as per oral tenancy after he got its possession through bailiff of the court. He denied that possession of the property was given to tenant Sh. Yashpal Mittal after 19-7-2018, the date when Hon'ble High Court passed restraint order against DHs. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that tenant thereafter applied for electricity connection which was sanctioned and he is using the same. Lateron, he gave statement in the court on 10- 10-2025 mentioning therein that Sh. Yashpal Mittal who had come in possession of the suit property in year 2013 had vacated the same in 2018. According to this statement, the electricity connection taken by Sh. Yashpal Mittal was not got disconnected.
43) This court vide order dated 10-10-2025 ordered that question whether tenant Sh. Yashpal Mittal was inducted prior to or after passing of the restraint order by Hon'ble High Court dated 19-7-2018 will be decided at final stage. However, no evidence from either side has come on record to solve this -35- controversy. According to DHs, now the suit property is not occupied by any third person. No doubt, statements given by DHs in court and their affidavits filed are inconsistent to some extent but I am of the opinion that there is no necessity to deal with this issue now because the court can believe DHs that suit property is not occupied by anyone at present and Sh. Yashpal Mittal had already vacated it.Otherwise also, DHs have been directed to handover vacant possession of the suit property to objector within 30 days failing which, possession can be recovered by forcibly evicting any occupant or third person.
44) In view of the above, objections are hereby disposed off and allowed. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedASHWANI by ASHWANI KUMAR SARPAL KUMAR Date:
SARPAL 2026.01.05 16:33:57 +0530 Dt- 5-1-2026. (Ashwani Kumar Sarpal) Principal District & Sessions Judge North East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.