Delhi District Court
Sunil Mittal And Other vs P.C.Chandan @Prabhu Chandan on 3 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
DISTRICT JUDGE-05, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ 6519/16
SUNIL MITTAL AND OTHER Vs. P.C.CHANDAN
@PRABHU CHANDAN
CNR No.DLST01-000176-2010
1. SUNIL MITTAL
S/o late Sh. G.R. Mittal
R/o F-683 Bhola Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003
2. ASHOK KR. CHAUDHARY
S/o Sh. Dharambir
R/o 1885, Jagram Mandir Marg,
Kotla Mubarkapur, New Delhi-110003
3. VEENU DEWAN
W/o Sh. Vinod Dewan
R/o H. 10/4, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
............ PLAINTIFFS
Vs.
1. P.C. CHANDAN
S/o Late Sh. C.D. Chandan
R/o C-72, Shivalik,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017
2. BHARAT SINGH KAIN
S/o late Sh. Rai Singh Kain
R/o L-493, Sector 23, Raj Nagar,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201017
3. RAMESH CHAND
S/o Late Sh. Fakir Chand
R/o D-16, Krishna Park,
Devli Road, Khanpur,
New Delhi- 110062
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 1 of 64
4. SMT. RAJWATI
W/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o D-16, Krishna Park,
Devli Road, Khanpur,
New Delhi-110062
5. RAJINDER PRASAD
S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal
R/o C-333, Arjun Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003
6. SMT. RAMA GUPTA
W/o Sh. P.C. Gupta
R/o C-333, Arjun Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003
7. AJAY GUPTA
S/o Sh. P.C. Gupta
R/o C-333, Arjun Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003
.......... DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 15.03.2010
Arguments concluded : 06.06.2024
Date of judgment : 03.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for declaration, possession, cancellation and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the plaint, are as follows:
1. That the present suit is pertaining to property no. C-333, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, new Delhi measuring 137 sq. yards carved out of Khasra No. 326 and 327, situated at the revenue estate of village Kotla Mubarakpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). That the suit property was initially owned by one Shri Rai Singh Kain and upon his demise the suit property devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. his wife late CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 2 of 64 Smt. Shanti Devi Kain(now deceased) and his son Sh. Bharat Singh Kain (defendant no.2).
2. That late Smt. Shanti Devi Kain and defendant no.2 together sold the property to one Smt. Rajwati (defendant no.4), wife of Shri Ramesh Chand then resident of T-1286/1, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi by entering into an agreement to sell dated 24.04.1979. Smt. Rajwati paid the entire sale consideration in this regard of Rs.48,000/-.
3. That both late Smt. Shanti Devi Kain and defendant no.2 besides issuing receipts and affidavits with respect to this sale, also executed registered Wills in favour of defendant no.4, Smt. Rajwati and also executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no.3 Shri Ramesh Chand, husband of Smt. Rajwati.
4. That late Smt. Shanti Devi and defendant no.2 after selling the suit property, requested the new owner (Defendant no.4) to give them limited tenancy right and accordingly, the said parties moved an application being M-328/1979 under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Rent Controller, seeking permission for limited tenancy under the ownership of defendant no.4, Smt. Rajwati. Vide orders dated 30.05.1979, Additional Rent Controller, allowed Smt. Shanti Devi and defendant no.2 have tenancy right for a period of one year in the suit property.
5. That Smt. Shanti Devi and her son defendant no.2 had been regularly paying the rent to the owner i.e. defendant no.4. Defendant o.2 in fact had even sworn an affidavit before learned Executive Magistrate on 05.08.1994 wherein specifically deposed that he and his mother had sold the suit property in favour of defendant no.4.
Similar affidavit was also sworn by late Smt. Shanti Devi (mother of defendant no.2).
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 3 of 646. That later on Smt. Rajwati, (Defendant no.4) also let out one part of the suit property consisting one one room, one kitchen, one store, bathroom and veranda on rent at the rate of ₹25/- per month to defendant no.7 (Smt. Rama Gupta) and another part of the suit property consisting of two rooms and part of veranda on rent to defendant no.6 (Rajinder Prasad) at the rent of ₹150/- per month. It is submitted that at no point of time the suit property or part thereof was ever given to Defendant no.5 (Sh. Rameshwar Dayal) in any capacity.
7. That defendant no.4 had filed petition for eviction and recovery of arrears for rent against defendant no.7, one of them being petition no. 349 of 1997 titled Smt. Rajwati Vs. Rama Gupta, and had appointed defendant no.6 as her attorney for representing her in the said court case. The defendant no.4 later on vide legal notice dated 16.01.1997 withdrew authority conferred as set out above upon defendant no.6 and therefore withdrew the said power of attorney given to defendant no.6. Defendant no.4 also issued legal notice dated 21.02.1997 calling upon defendant no.6, the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the part of the premises in his occupation in the suit property.
8. That defendant no.4 sold the suit property to defendant no.1 namely Sh. P.C. Chandan for a total sale consideration of ₹1,50,000/- by cheque and entered into an agreement to sell dated 28.01.1997. Defendant no.4 received the entire sale consideration and executed receipts. The registered Will and registered General Power of Attorney (by the defendant no.3, husband of defendant no.4) were also made in favor of Shri P.C. Chandan @ Prabhu Chandan.
9. That the defendant no.3 (husband of defendant no.4) being, attorney of the earlier owners, i.e. deceased Smt. Shanti Devi and defendant no.2, CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 4 of 64 executed a registered power of attorney in favour of defendant no.1 Sh. P.C. Chandan. The agreement to sell dated 28.01.1997 was executed by defendant no.3 as General Power of Attorney of earlier owners namely late Smt. Shanti Devi and defendant no.2 in favour of Sh. P.C. Chandan. Defendant no.4 also signed the said agreement. That at the time when defendant no.1 Sh. P.C. Chandan purchased the suit property and became owner thereof as set out above, defendant no.6 was in occupation of part of the suit property as set out above as tenant and another part was in occupation of defendant nos. 7 and 8.
10. That defendant no.6 had converted the portion under his occupation from residential to commercial illegally and unauthorisedly. That defendant no.1, Shri P.C. Chandan thereafter filed an eviction petition against Defendant no.6 seeking eviction of said defendant from the portion under his occupation in the suit property. Defendant no.6 filed reply to the Eviction Petition and alleged that 'the suit property was not owned by defendant no.1, Shri P.C. Chandan as Smt. Shanti Devi during her life time had sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 14.05.1998 in favour of defendant no.5, Shri Rameshwar Dayal', who is none else but father of defendant no.6, and therefore, pleaded that defendant no.1, Shri P.C. Chandan had no right in the suit property.
11. That the defendant no.1 Shri P.C. Chandan sold the suit property in favour of plaintiff no.3 namely Smt. Veenu Diwan vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2007 registered vide no.7545 Book No. I volume no.7407 pages 163 to 172.
The full consideration amount to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/- was paid by cheque. Accordingly, the plaintiff no.3 became the owner of the entire suit property and the plaintiff no.3 had obtained a symbolic possession.
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 5 of 6412. The plaintiff no.3 sold the 25% share of undivided property i.e. 35 sq. yards, as and where basis, of the suit property to plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 vide sale deed dt. 03.11.2009 for ₹3,00,000/-
13. That the story put forward by defendant no.6 in their reply in eviction petition is bundle of lies, willful misrepresentation of facts and an attempt to produce false evidence in the court of law on the face of it because once Smt. Shanti Devi and defendant no.2 had sold the suit property to defendant no.4, Smt. Rajwati they were left with no right, title or interest in the same and therefore Smt. Shanti Devi could not "sold" the suit property again to defendant no.5. Thus the alleged sale deed dated 14th May, 1998 is null and void and have no legal sanctity/effect.
14. That without prejudice to the aforesaid, the alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998 is also a bogus and void document from the fact that the late Smt. Shanti Devi had only 50% share in the suit property which she also sold to Smt. Rajwati, defendant no.4 on 24.4.1979, therefore there was no question of Smt. Shanti Devi selling the entire suit property to defendant no.5.
15. That the bogus nature of the alleged transaction of 14.05.1998 is further apparent from the fact that in 1979 the property which was sold for Rs.48,000/- was again alleged sold in 1998 for the same amount after almost 19 years. It is unbelievable that during this period of 19 years rate of the property had not been increased at all.
16. That the sale deed dated 14.05.1998 is also bogus and void on face of it because being a tenant of Smt. Rajwati (Defendant no 4) Rajinder Prasad (defendant no 6) is well aware of the fact that the owner of the suit property is none other then the defendant no.4 only. In that scenario the question of purchase of suit property by Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (Defendant no.5), the father of CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 6 of 64 defendant no.6, from Smt. Shanti Devi, the mother of defendant no.2 does not arise at all. More so in view of the fact that the defendant no. 2 and her mother Smt Shanti Devi themselves were the tenants of the Defendant no.4 at that time.
17. That defendant no.1 on knowing of the fraud being played, lodged a complaint with SHO of the Local Police Station and also a criminal case in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Hon'ble Court of MM, New Delhi has been pleased to direct the local police to register an FIR and investigate the matter. Consequently, an FIR No.157/2005 was registered at P.S. K.M. Pur and case is pending.
18. That the said Shri P.C. Chandan had also filed a suit (93/2005) for declaration and Injunction against the other defendants but the same was dismissed on 13.10.2008 by the trial court as by that time Mr. P.C. Chandan had already sold the suit property to plaintiff no 3.
19. That the Plaintiff no.3 being, a purchaser the suit property from Shri P.C. Chandan, has got independent right in the suit property and independent cause of action against the other defendants. The plaintiff No.3 is entitled to make claim in her own right as purchaser/successor in interest of defendant no.1. She has also filed a suit (1518/2009) praying for same relief but withdraw the same even prior to issuing of notice with the permission to file a fresh.
20. That the Plaintiffs no.1 & 2 have purchased 25% undivided share in the suit property thus they are also having independent right in the suit property and independent cause of action has accrued against the defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs are filling the present suit. It is also submitted that the claim for possession and injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs on the basis of title entails CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 7 of 64 recurring cause of action in their favour.
21. That no relief is being sought against defendant no.1 the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and defendants no. 7 and 8 as they have vacated the premises. These persons have been made party to the suit for complete and proper adjudication of the matter.
22. That the cause of action accrued in favour of plaintiff no.3 and against defendants for the first time on 18.06.2007 when the plaintiff no.3 purchased the property from defendant no.1 Shri P.C. Chandan. The cause of action thereafter accrued on 1st week of July 2007 when the defendants no.5 and 6 denied the rights of the plaintiff no.3 by alleging that defendant no.5 had a sale deed allegedly executed in his favour. The cause of action accrued in favour of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and against defendants for the first time on 03.11.2009 when the plaintiffs no.1 & 2 have purchased the 25% undivided share in the property from the Plaintiff no.3. The cause of action thereafter accrued on or about 05.11.2009 when the defendant no.6 denied the rights of the plaintiffs by alleging that defendant no.5 had a sale deed allegedly executed in his favour. The cause of action is recurring is continuous and is recurring every moment. That most of the parties hereto are residing in New Delhi and the entire cause of action accrued in New Delhi, therefore this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
23. The total jurisdiction value of the suit is therefore Rs.11,48,330/- and total court fees to the tune of Rs.13,600/- has been paid.
24. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to:
a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants declaring that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 8 of 64 property bearing no. C-333, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi admeasuring 137 sq. yards carved out of khasra no.326 & 327.
b) A decree for possession against the defendants or such persons who are wrongfully retaining the possession of the suit property and seeking to dispossess the plaintiffs from their property.
c) A decree for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 14th May 1998 bearing no.3257 volume no.1453 purporting to be executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of defendant no.5 being null and void and fabricated document. The defendants No.5 or 6 or any other person who is having custody said sale deed of the property be directed to produce the same in the court and to be cancelled accordingly.
d) A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants who claim title to the suit property on the basis of false and fabricated documents and they be restrained from making any claim, ownership or title to the property contrary to the rights of the plaintiffs.
e) A preliminary decree for Restrainment of the defendants from selling of the suit property and also from creating any third party interest in the suit property or renovate or construct any further portion in the suit property or doing any commercial activities in the residential property during the pendency of trial Or in other words status qua to be maintained except doing of commercial activities in suit premises till the disposal of the suit, may also be passed;
f) Pass such other or further order as Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
3. Summons were sent to defendant, which was duly served. Defendant has entered appearance and has filed their Written Statements on record. The defence taken by the defendant no.1 in the WS are as under:
1. The defendant submits that as per the averments of the plaintiff under para 30 of CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 9 of 64 the plaint, no relief has been sought against the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 has been made a party to the suit merely complete and proper adjudication of the matter. That since no relief has been claimed or sought against the defendant no.1, hence detailed para-wise reply for and on behalf of defendant no.1 is not required.
2. It is admitted that initially the suit property i.e. Property No. C-33, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Munarakpur, New Delhi admeasuring 137 sq yards out of Khasra No. 326 and 327 situated in the revenue estate of Village Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi was owned by Shri Rai Singh Kain and after his death, his wife Mrs Shanti Devi and son Mr Bharat Singh Kain became joint owner of the said property.
3. That Smt Shanti Devi and Mr Bharat Singh Kain (defendant no.2) jointly sold and transferred the property to Smt Rajwati, defendant no.4 vide Agreement to sell dated 24.4.1979. That the defendant no.4 Smt Rajwati sold the suit property to the defendant no.1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- vide Agreement to Sell dated 28.1.1997.
4. That the defendant no.1 sold the said property in favour of the plaintiff no.3 namely Smt. Veenu Dewan, vide Regd Sale Deed dated 18.6.2007. That the said property was in occupation and possession of Mr Rajender Prasad, (defendant no.6) Mrs Rama Gupta, (defendant no.7) and her son Mr Ajay Gupta (defendant no.8) as tenants and therefore the plaintiff no.3 was handed over a symbolic possession of the suit property. It is further indicated that the plaintiff no.3 had purchased the suit property on 'as is where is basis'.
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 10 of 645. That prior to the sale of suit property the defendant no.1 had already disclosed to the plaintiff no.3 regarding the civil suit for declaration and criminal case filed vide FIR No.159/05, and sub-judice before the courts at Tis Hazari and Patiala House in respect of the property in question. It is further indicated that the advocates of the plaintiff no.3 had gone through all the relevant proceedings pending and documents filed in the court at Tis Hazari and Patiala House and after going through the entire records the same were purchased by the plaintiff no.3 from the answering defendant on "as is where is basis'.
6. It is prayed to this Court that since no relief has been claimed against the defendant no.1, hence the defendant no.1 has no objection, if the relief sought in the prayer is granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
Written Statement on behalf of defendant no.3 Sh. Ramesh Chand and defendant no.4 Smt. Rajwati
1. It is stated that the present suit is not maintainable against defendant no.3 and 4. They have been made party unnecessarily as they have noting to do with the property in question. On 24.04.1979, the property no. C- 333, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarkapur, New Delhi was purchased by defendant no. 4, wife of defendant no.3. Necessary documents were executed by the seller in favour of the defendant no.4. The power of attorney was executed in favour of the defendant no.3. On 28.01.1997, the defendant no.4 sold the above said property to the defendant no.1 P.C. Chandan.
Thereafter the defendants have no concern with the aforesaid property. The defendant no.1 P.C. Chandan had also executed an CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 11 of 64 affidavit at the time of buying the suit property from the defendants.
2. That the para 7 of the suit is admitted to the extent that the defendant no.4 had let out one part of the suit property consisting of two rooms, verandha to the defendant no.6 for residential purpose. It is submitted that defendant no.7 Smt. Rama Gupta was already residing in one part of the suit property consisting of one room, one kitchen, one store and bathroom and verandha at the time of purchasing the suit property by defendant. The para no.23 of the suit is wrong and denied. A false case was got registered by defendant no.1 P.C. Chandan vide FIR no.157/2005, P.S. K.M. Pur, U/s 406/420 etc. IPC and after investigation, cancellation report was filed by the police in court. All other averments of the plaint have been specifically stated do not belong to the defendants no.3 and 4. It is stated that they have no concern with the suit property as they had already sold the property to defendant no.1 P.C. Chandan, thereafter they do not aware about the status and the transaction between the plaintiffs and remaining defendants.
Written Statement on behalf of defendant no.6 (later on defendant no.6 was made defendant no.5 on the death of the original defendant no.5).
1. That the plaintiffs have filed the present suit thereby, inter alia, seeking the main relief i.e. a decree suit seeking the cancellation of a sale deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favor of deceased defendant No. 5. The suit is a nullity in law and should be dismissed outright. The plaintiffs were aware that defendant No.5 had already expired on 17.10.2003. The plaintiffs had inspected the file on 18-8-2009 and filed a CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 12 of 64 Vakalatnama and application under order 1 rule 10 CPC, which were dismissed. The recital of the alleged sale deed shows that the plaintiff knew about the expiration before giving the alleged part consideration.
2. The plaintiffs are seeking possession of the suit property, alleging that the answering defendant is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and is liable to be dismissed out rightly. The defendant's predecessor-in-interest, defendant No.1, had filed eviction petitions against the answering defendant but withdrew them due to defects. The defendant no.1 filed a false civil suit for possession, which was dismissed by Shri Daya Prakash, the then Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 13.10.2018 for "want of proof." The plaintiffs filed the present suit in collusion with defendants Nos.1, 3, and 4, as evidenced by the alleged sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and the nexus between the plaintiffs.
3. Plaintiff No.3 filed the present suit claiming title to the suit property from defendant No.1, who claimed that defendants Nos.3 and 4 had executed General Power of Attorney and agreement to sell in his favor. However, they did not admit to physical possession of any portion of the property, and legal title to the property cannot be passed on without physical possession.
Therefore, the suit on title is not maintainable.
4. The present suit is barred from being res- judicata due to the dismissal of a previous suit by Shri Daya Prakash, the then Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the application of plaintiff No.1, CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 13 of 64 had also dismissed under Order 1 rule 10 CPC.
5. Since the previous suit no.93/2005, filed by the plaintiffs, was dismissed by the then Additional District Judge, Shri Daya Prakash, on grounds of "want of proof" and non-appearance, the plaintiffs are barred from instituting the current suit for the same cause of action as the alleged successors-in- interest of defendant No.1, and for relief based on alleged sale deeds.
6. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of a sale deed executed on 14.5.1998, which was later dismissed as time-barred. The plaintiffs claimed they gave Rs.50,000/- in cash and Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque to defendant No.1 as part consideration for the property. The plaintiffs were aware of the defendant's suit No. 93/2005, which sought to declare the sale deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favor of Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal. The original alleged documents were found in the court.
7. The plaintiffs have argued that they have arbitrarily valued the suit property for pecuniary jurisdiction and court fee, undervaluing it to Rs.11,48,330/-. The actual market price of the property is much above Rs. One crore, making the court unable to entertain and decide the suit. The plaintiffs also calculated the cost of a portion of the property, which has an area of 28 sq. mtrs., as Rs.6,22,888/-, despite the transaction value in the sale deed being Rs. 6,50,000/-. The present market value of the property, which has an area of 137 sq. yards (=114.55 sq. mtrs.), is approximately Rs. 26,59,200/-, which is above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 14 of 648. The plaintiffs' plaint is rejected due to the lack of payment of the proper court fee, as per section 7(v)(e) of the Court Fees Act.
The plaintiffs argue that the current circle rate of the land is much lower than the actual market rates prescribed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The plaintiffs also claim that the cost of a portion of the suit property, which has an area of 28 sq. mtrs., is Rs.6,22,888/-, despite the transaction value in the sale deed being Rs.6,50,000/-. Therefore, the present market value of the suit property is Rs.26,59,200/-, which is much above Rupees one crore.
9. That the present suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties, especially that the defendant No. 5, known to the plaintiffs as having died long back, has been wrongly impleaded and the defendants Nos. 7 and 8, who had handed over the physical possession of the portion of the suit property in their occupation to the legal heirs of Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal on 20-5-2008 and who are not in possession of any portion of the suit property and against whom no relief has been sought by the plaintiffs are unnecessary parties.
10. The plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property, and therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the suit. The alleged documents executed between defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and Late Smt. Shanti Devi Kain, which were forged and certified copies, did not give any right and title to the defendants Nos.3 and 4. Smt. Shanti Devi Kain was only 1/6th owner of the suit property. Later, on 17-10-1980, defendant No. 4 transferred the property from Smt. Shanti Devi Kain to Smt. Geeta Rani, wife of Sh. Parveen Chand, by executing various documents, such as the Agreement of Sale, undertaking, Will, CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 15 of 64 Affidavit, and Deed of Assignment. The defendant No.3 also executed the GPA in favor of Sh. Pravin Chand and received the consideration amount from her. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
11. That the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in criminal conspiracy with the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 4 by fabricating and forging the documents and the same is liable to be dismissed outrightly. That the present suit is otherwise also not legally maintainable and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. That since the defendant No. 4, through whom the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs are claiming title to the suit property, was never in possession of the suit property and has not filed any suit for possession against the answering defendant within the time stipulated under law. Therefore, the present suit for possession is time-barred.
13. That the plaintiffs have not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and have concealed the material facts in the plaint. The plaintiffs have not disclosed in their plaint that there is a nexus between them, the defendant No.1 and the defendants Nos.3 and 4, which is otherwise evident from the fact that it is clearly stated in the recital of the alleged sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs that the outcome of the pending cases shall be binding on them without any responsibility of any kind whatsoever against the defendant No.1. It is submitted that no person in his senses shall buy a property with such an onerous clause if he enters into a property deal with clean hands. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 16 of 64On merits it is claimed in the WS that:
14. The plaintiffs are neither the owners nor the landlords nor have they any concern in any manner with the suit property and they have filed the present suit on forged and fabricated documents.
15. It is submitted that the suit property was sold by Smt. Shanti Devi Kain to Late Shri Rameshwar Dayal (defendant No.5) vide sale deed dated 14-5-1998. The same devolved upon his legal heirs upon the death of the defendant No. 5 on 17-10-2003. The answering defendant is one of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 5 and is a co-
owner of the property bearing No. C-333, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, and is in possession of the whole of the suit property with the consent of the other co-
owners.
16. The site plan is vague to the extent that it does not show as to which portion of the suit property, according to the plaintiffs themselves, is in occupation of the answering defendant as the alleged tenant and which is the other portion for which they are seeking possession and other reliefs on the basis of their alleged title.
4. Defendant no.1, 3 and 4 were proceeded against ex- parte vide Order dated 27.09.2011. Defendant no.5 was dropped from the array of parties vide Order dated 27.09.2011. Defendant no.2, 7 and 8 are ex-parte vide order dated 16.07.2018. In effect, defendant no.6 (later on re-numbered as defendant no.5) is the only contesting defendant.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide Order dated CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 17 of 64 16.03.2012. The issues no.1 to 5 amended vide order dated 05.11.2018 and issue no.3 again amended vide order dated 25.07.2022. The issues framed are as under:
1. Whether jurisdiction of this court is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD6
2. Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?
OPD6
3. Whether the suit is barred under Section 11 and 12 CPC r/w Order 9 Rule 8 and 9 of the CPC? OPD6
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD6
5.Whether the suit suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? If so, its effect? OPD6
6. Whether the title of the suit property was legally and validly acquired by the plaintiffs or their predecessors starting from Shanti Devi and Bharat Singh? OPP
7. Whether in view of the order of dismissal dated 13.10.2008 in CS No. 93/2005, present suit is maintainable? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration, as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of cancellation of Sale Deed dated CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 18 of 64 14.05.1998 executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of defendant no.5? OPP
11. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP
12. Relief.
6. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of site plan of suit property as Ex.PW1/A.
2. Copy of agreement to sell in favour of Defendant no.4 as Mark-A.
3. Late Smt. Shanti Devi Kain and defendant no.2 executed registered Wills and General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no.3 Sh. Ramesh Chand, husband of Smt. Rajwati, copies of which are as Mark-B.
4. Copies of orders dated 30.05.1979, Sh.
J.M. Malik, the then Additional Rent Controller, creating tenancy rights in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi and Defendant no.2 as Mark-C.
5. Copies of rent receipts showing defendant no.6 as a tenant of defendant no.4 as Mark-
D.
6. Chain documents relating to the suit property (original seen and returned) as Mark A to G respectively.
7. Original sale deed dated 18.06.2007 executed by Sh. P.C. Chandan in favour of Smt. Veenu Diwan as Ex.PW1/I.
8. The sale deed dated 03.11.2009 in favour of plaintiff no.1 and 2 as Ex.PW1/J.
7. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Ghanshyam, LDC, CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 19 of 64 Record Room (Sessions) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as PW-2. PW- 2 has brought the judicial file of Civil Suit no. 93/2005 dated 02.05.2005, titled as P.C. Chandan Vs. Bharat Singh Kain, decided on 13.10.2008, by the court of Sh. Daya Prakash, ADJ bearing Goswara No.204/D containing summoned documents which was seen and returned.
8. Plaintiff also examined Sh. Manoj Kumar Dahiya, JJA (Record Room) as PW-3. PW-3 brought the summoned record of Suit No.93/2005, titled as P.C. Chandan Vs. Bharat Singh Kain & Ors., decided 13.10.2008, by the Court of Sh. Daya Prakash, ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. PW-3 compared the true copies of the documents i.e. affidavit dated 05.08.2014 of Bharat Singh Kain; affidavit dated 05.08.1994 of Smt. Shanti Devi Kain; order dated 30.05.1979 passed by the court of Sh. J.M. Malik, the than 5th ARC, application presented on 29.05.1979 in the said court, Statement of Smt. Shanti Devi Kain dated 30.05.1979 recorded in the said court, statement of Smt. Rajwanti recorded on 30.05.1979 in the said court, rent receipts dated 01.05.79, 01.06.79, 01.07.79, 01.08.79, 01.09.79, 01.10.79 for 14.02.1984 to 14.02.1984, 14.02.1985 to 14.02.87, 14.02.87 to 14.02.89, 14.02.89 to 14.02.90 & 14.02.90 to 14,02.92; legal notice dated 16.01.1997 issued by Sh. M.K. Khan, Advocate to Sh. Rajender Prasad; AD card of the said legal notice (2 pages); 3 postal receipts of the same; another legal notice dated 21.02.1997 issued by Sh. M.K. Khan, Advocate to Sh. Rajender Prasad; 2 postal receipts and UPC; agreement to sell dated 18.01.1997; affidavit dated 28.01.1997; GPA dated 28.01.1997; possession letter dated 28.01.1997; another GPA dated 28.01.1997; Will dated 28.01.1997; and receipt dated 28.01.1997, with the original CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 20 of 64 record brought by him. The true copies of the documents already marked as Mark-B to Mark-F are exhibited as Ex.PW3/A (colly (3 documents) to Ex.PW3/E, respectively. Vide order dated 03.10.2019, PE was closed.
9. Thereafter, the defendant no.6 Rajendra Prasad was examined as D6W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.D6W1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Photocopy of death certificate of Raj Singh Kain as mark-X.
2. Photocopy of sale deed dated 14.05.1998 executed and registered in favour of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal as Ex.D6W1/P1.
3. Certified copy of four relinquishment deeds are as Ex.D6W1/3 to D6W1/6.
10. D6W1 was duly cross-examined.
11. Sh. Naveen Gandas, Record Lifter Department of Delhi Archives has been examined as D6W2. He has brought the summoned record pertaining to relinquishment deed registration no.5459, Book No.1, Volume 6450 registered at pages no. 131- 132 dated 26.06.1989 by Bharat Singh Kain in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi. Certified copy whereof is already Ex.D6W1/4. Another relinquishment deed registration no. 8384, book no.1, volume 6244 registered at pages 42-43 dated 15.11.1988 by Sunil Kumar and Smt. Geeta Rani in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi. Certified copy whereof is exhibited as Ex.D6W1/4A.
12. Sh. Sumit Rana, JJA Record Room, Civil, Tis Hazari Court examined as D6W3. The witness brought the summoned record pertaining the suit no. 589/2002 titled as "Prem Chand Gupta Vs. Rajinder Prasad & Ors', decided on 20.05.2018 by the Court of Sh. Gaurav Rao, the then Civil Judge, Tis Hazari CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 21 of 64 Courts, Delhi. Original application under Order 23 rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC dated 20.05.2008, statement of Ms. Rama Gupta, dated 20.05.2008 are on the file brought by witness. Certified copies are Ex.D6W3/1 (colly).
13. Sh. Naveen Gandas, Record Lifter, Department of Delhi Archives, also examined as D6W4. Witness brought the summoned record pertaining relinquishment deed bearing registration no. 8168, registered in additional book no.1, Volume No. 6542 on pages 81 to 82 on 16.10.1989. The certified copy of the relinquishment deed is Ex.D6W1/5.
14. Sh. Durga Prasad Dubey, UDC, SED-8, DDA, Pocket A-14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-19 has been examined as D6W5. The witness brought the original letter and all other connected documents pertaining to flat no. 105, MIG, DDA Flats, Pulpehladpur, New Delhi. The attested copies are Ex.D6W5/A (colly 14 pages).
15. My issue-wise findings are as follows:
Issue No.1 Whether jurisdiction of this court is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? OPD-6.
16. Section 50 of the DRC Act reads as follows:
"50. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters: (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, No civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil court or other CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 22 of 64 authority..."
17. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) has claimed that since the sale deeds dated 18.06.2007, as well as the, subsequent sale deed dated 03.11.2009 recognize the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) as a tenant in the suit property, the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6), the present suit is barred. He cannot be evicted except as provided under Section 14 of DRC Act. The onus to prove the said Issue was upon the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6).
18. As per the plaintiffs' the suit is for declaration, possession, cancellation of sale deed, injunction and other consequential reliefs.
19. In the written statement as well as in affidavit towards evidence dated 07.09.2015, the Defendant No.5 admits himself to be the attorney holder of Smt. Rajwati (Defendant No.4). He admits that he had pursued the eviction petitions against Defendant No.7 & 8 which stood withdrawn before the initiation of the present suit. On the other hand, in the same breath, the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) claims that his father had acquired the ownership of the suit property from Shanti Devi vide Sale Deed dated 14.05.1998. After his father's death, he acquired the title to the suit property and was the "defacto owner" of the suit property. He also simultaneously claims that he was a "co-owner" of the suit property and in possession of the entire suit property with the consent of all other legal heirs of Late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) never revealed nor placed on record details of any other legal heirs of Late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal. He CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 23 of 64 also affirms his third defence that he is a tenant of the Front part of the suit property, inducted as such by Rajwati (Defendant No.4) (para 6 of his Affidavit). He claims he is treating his father as the land-lord since 1980 while he was himself holding the POA of Defendant No.4 Rajwati to take care of the litigation contested against admitted tenants.
20. The legal principle "once a tenant always a tenant unless evicted by an order or surrender of tenancy" cannot come to the rescue of the Defendant. The principle is used to protect the landlords from unscrupulous tenants so that they don't deny the title of the landlord after lapse of time. It cannot be used by a tenant who sets up a defence of ownership by adverse possession or otherwise as an alternate defence.
21. The present suit seeks neither fixation of rent, nor eviction of the Defendant or any of them in the capacity of tenants, nor any other relief which the Rent Controller is capable of granting, has been sought against the Defendants. In these circumstances the Bar of Section 50 DRC Act has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. The Plaintiffs, have rightly placed reliance on the decision in "Naeem Ahmed Vs. Yash Pal Malhotra (Deceased) through LR's & Anr." 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1189:
when the tenants deny the title of the landlord and the tenancy, the suit filed for recovery of possession is not on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and would lie only in the civil suit and not otherwise.
23. Reference may also be made to the decision in "S.Makhan Singh Vs. Amarjeet Bali" - 2008 (106) DRJ 705, CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 24 of 64 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
A perusal of Section 14, which gives protection to a tenant against eviction, clearly shows that this protection is available only to the person who is undisputedly a tenant and does not claim himself to be the owner of the premises. The moment a person refuses the title of the landlord and claims title in himself he ceases to be a tenant in the eyes of law and the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act is not available to him. Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable properties come to an end by forfeiture in case of lessee renouncing his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or claiming title in himself. Thus, once a lease stands forfeited by operation of law, the person in occupation of the premises cannot take benefit of the legal tenancy. This provision u/s 111(g) is based on public policy and the principle of estoppel. A person who takes premises on rent from landlord is estopped from challenging his title or right to let out the premises. If he does so he does at his own peril and law does not recognize such a person as legal tenant in the premises. A lease may come to an end by termination of lease by or by efflux of time. Where the rent is below Rs. 3,500/-, a landlord cannot recover possession from tenant whose term of lease comes to an end or whose tenancy is terminated by a notice because such a tenant is a protected tenant. The landlord can recover possession only if the case falls within the ambit of Section 14 of DRC Act. Where a tenant repudiates the title of the landlord and does not recognize him as landlord or as a owner of the premises, the protection from eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act is not available to him. Where the tenant does not recognize anyone as CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 25 of 64 landlord or owner and claims ownership in himself he cannot seek protection of Delhi Rent Control Act against the true landlord or owner. The Trial Court therefore rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to protection u/s 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act.
24. The issue No.1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6). Issue No.2 Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD-6.
25. The plaint is valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction by the Plaintiffs in para 35 of the plaint. It discloses the value of the suit property as Rs.11,00,000/- as purchased by the Plaintiff No.3. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) admits in para 5 of his evidence by way of affidavit as also in his cross examination dated 26.09.2016, that suit property has since long been in litigation and has thereby lost its value. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) has not produced any evidence of price of any other similar property and how the sale transactions were being valued and accepted by the Collectors of Stamp and the Office of the Sub-Registrar.
26. The prayer of cancellation of the sale deed dated 14.05.1998, the suit has been valued for Rs.48,000/- as the value ascribed in the said Sale Deed under challenge. Ad-valorem court fees has been paid. Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) in his written statement has pleaded that in the year 1980 his father along with Sh. Jayanti Prasad had entered into agreement to sell and a Deed of Assignment, and the value was fixed as Rs.49,000/-. The sale deed has been executed for Rs.48,000/- i.e., One thousand less than the value 18 years ago. The Plaintiff is CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 26 of 64 not a signatory to the said Sale Deed and therefore he need not value the relief of cancellation on the basis of the value declared therein.
27. As regards that prayer of declaration and injunction the fixed court fee has been paid. The Plaintiffs has chosen to use and invoke Section 17 (iii) of the Act while assessing the Court Fee. Since possession of the suit property has been sought, the assessment of court fees should be based on the prevailing market price at the time of filing the suit, i.e., as on 15.03.2010, under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, which pertains to declaratory and consequential relief, rather than Article 17(iii) of the said Act. The market value of the property at the time of filing the suit in 2010 ought to be considered for the valuation.
28. The Plaintiffs admit the transfer of 25% undivided share in the suit property via Sale Deed dated 03.11.2009, (Ex. PW-1/J). The said instrument was registered at circle rate of Rs. 6,50,000/-. Multiplying the said value by four (4), the total value of the suit property as on 03.11.2009 amounts to Rs. 26,00,000/-. When the suit was filed, the market value of the suit property ought to have been considered at a minimum of Rs. 26,00,000/- for the purpose of court fees for the relief of Declaration and consequential relief of possession. In the clear conspectus of law, relating to calculation of court fee it is clear that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Section 7 (iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act. The Plaintiffs are liable to pay additional court fee accordingly. The present Issue No.2 is allowed in part in favour of the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6).
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 27 of 64Issue no. 5 Whether the suit suffers from mis-joinder and non- joinder of parties? If so, its effect? OPD6.
29. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6). The Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) has claimed that the present suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties i.e., the other Legal Representatives/Heirs of Shri Rameshwar Dayal (earlier Defendant No.5 now dropped from the array of parties vide order dated 27.09.2011) and Shanti Devi. It is further claimed that unnecessary parties have been added as defendants and there is misjoinder of parties as well.
Misjoinder of parties:
30. As per the plaint, the Plaintiffs have purchased the suit property from the Defendant No.1. That the Defendant No.2 and his mother Smt. Shanti Devi (now deceased) had sold the suit property against consideration by executing necessary and relevant documents in favour of Rajwati i.e., the Defendant No.
4. A GPA was also executed in favour of the Defendant No.3 who is the husband of the Defendant no.4. Sh. Rameshwar Dayal was initially made Defendant No.5 in the present suit but he stands dropped from the array of parties vide order dated 27.09.2011. The present Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) is the son of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal and is the only contesting defendant in the present suit. Defendant No.6 and 7 were in possession of the suit property as tenant. Presence of all above persons was necessary for complete adjudication of claims. Therefore, this Court finds that the present suit cannot be said to be bad for mis- joinder of parties.
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 28 of 64Non joinder of parties:
31. Now coming to the issue of non-joinder of parties.
The Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) contends that the present suit is liable to be dismissed in view of the failure of the Plaintiffs to implead the necessary parties i.e., the other Legal Representatives/Heirs of Shri Rameshwar Dayal (earlier Defendant No.5 now dropped from the array of parties vide order dated 27.09.2011).
32. The Plaintiffs have contended that the present suit does not suffer from any non-joinder of parties since the entire estate of the deceased Sh. Rameshwar Dayal has been duly represented by the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) who claims himself to be the "defacto owner", admittedly in possession of the entire suit property, after the death of his father. His written statement may be referred to. He has never disclosed the particulars of the said other Legal Heirs as well. In these circumstances there is no need to implead any other legal heir of the deceased. The Plaintiffs placed reliance on the following judgments i.e. DDA v. Dewan Chand Anand, (2022) 10 SCC 428; Shivshankara and Another v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 358; Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram and Ors, 1971 (1) SCC 265; N. Jayaram Reddy & Anr. v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool, (1979) 3 SCC 578; and Brij Kishore Sharma and Anr. vs. Ram Singh & Sons and Others, (1996) 11 SCC 480 123.
33. It is borne from the record that Shanti Devi Kain and Defendant No.2 chose to accept limited tenancy rights under Section 21 of DRC Act under the Defendant No.4 before the CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 29 of 64 Rent Controller, who was pleased to allow the application No. M-328 / 1979, vide its order dated 30.05.1979 (Ex.PW1/D). The Defendant No.4, also issued Rent Receipts (Ex.PW1/E). The Defendant No.5 has failed to dispute the same. In these circumstances Shanti Devi remained a tenant in the suit property and could not have sold the suit property to any person, without disclosing the nature of her possession in the suit property as that of a tenant under Defendant No. 4. The obtainment of relinquishment deeds by her from her daughters, after having entered into agreement to sell, etc., and creating of limited tenancy in her favour is fraudulent. The alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998, executed by her in favour of Rameshwar Dayal, father of the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) is nothing but an extension of that fraud. Since the Plaintiffs never pleaded any right flowing through children of Shanti Devi, there was no need to implead them. Further, the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) failed to place on record any cogent evidence in regard to the objection raised by him with regard to the nonjoinder of parties i.e., the other Legal Representatives/Heirs of Shri Rameshwar Dayal. No evidence in support of his objection is placed on record. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) has not revealed the identity of the other legal heirs of his deceased father Sh. Rameshwar Dayal.
34. It is also a matter of record that the Plaintiffs filed an application dated 25.01.2011 before this Court seeking deletion of the name of his Sh. Rameshwar Dayal from the array of parties in view of his death and since he had been sued through his son i.e., Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) holding possession of suit property and as the entire estate of Sh.
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 30 of 64Rameshwar Dayal was duly represented by his son the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6). The said Application was disposed of as allowed vide Order dated 27.09.2011. The Ld. Counsel did not oppose the said application, thereby admitting the contents of the said application. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) claims that his father had acquired the ownership from Shanti Devi vide Sale Deed dated 14.05.1998 and after his father's death, he acquired the title to the suit property and claims himself to be the "defacto owner" of the suit property. At the same breath he admits that he was a "co-owner"
of the suit property and in possession of the entire suit property with the consent of all other legal heirs of Late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) does not reveal nor place on record details of all the other legal heirs of Late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal. Hence, it cannot be said that the entire estate of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal was not duly represented by his son the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) before this Court.
35. In N. Jayaram Reddy & Anr. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool, (1979) 3 SCC 578, it was held as follows:
This question may be examined first on principle. The basic principle underlying order 22, rules 3 and 4 which on account of the provision contained in order 22, rule 11 apply to appeals, is indisputably a facet of natural justice or a limb of audi altrem partem rule. It is a fundamental rule of natural justice that a man has a right to be heard- audi altrem partem-where a decision affecting him or his interest is to be recorded. It hurts one's sense of justice, fairness and CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 31 of 64 reason that a decision one way or the other is recorded affecting a party without giving that party an opportunity of being heard. This rule embraces the whole notion of fair procedure and the rule requiring a hearing is of almost universal validity. It has made a serious inroad in administrative decisions. It should enjoy a top place in a judicial proceeding.
The first limb of this rule audi altrem partem is that a person must be given an opportunity of being heard before a decision one way or the other affecting him is recorded. As a corollary to this rule it is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure that where a party to the proceeding dies pending the proceeding and the cause of action survives, the legal representatives of the deceased party should be brought on record which only means that such legal representatives must be afforded an opportunity of being heard before any liability is fastened upon them. It may be that the legal representatives in a given situation may be personally liable or the estate of the deceased in their hands would be liable and in either case a decision one way or the other, adverse or favourable to them, cannot be recorded unless they are given an opportunity of being heard. Order 22, rules 3 and 4 codify these procedural safeguards translating into statutory requirement one of the principles of natural justice.
If this is the discernible principle underlying order 22, rules 3 and 4 it has been demonstrably established by interpretation put on these two rules. Original view was that all legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or defendant must be substituted on the pain of the action abating. With utmost diligence from a multitude some one may escape notice and the consequent hardship in CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 32 of 64 abatement of action led this Court to assert the principle that where some legal representatives are brought on record permitting an inference that the estate is adequately represented, the action would not abate though it would be the duty of the other side to bring those legal representatives on record who are overlooked or missed even at a later date. When the aforementioned two provisions speak of legal representatives it only means that if after diligent and bona fide enquiry the party liable to bring the legal representatives on record ascertains who are the legal representatives of a deceased party and brings them on record within the time limited by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal on the ground that some other legal representatives have not been brought on record, because the impleaded legal representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and the decision would bind not only those impleaded but the entire estate including the interest of those not brought on record. This view has been consistently adopted by this Court in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari; N. K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N. C. Mohammad Ismail & Ors.; and Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad Singh & Ors. The principle deducible from these decisions is that not only the interest of the deceased was adequately taken care of by those who were on record but they had the opportunity to put forth their case within permissible limits. Neither the case of the deceased nor of his successors in-interest has gone by default. In other words, the principle is that if the deceased had as a party a right to put forth his case, those likely to be affected by the decision on death of the deceased had the same opportunity to put forth their case and even if from a large number having identical CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 33 of 64 interest some are not brought on record those who are brought on record would adequately take care of their interest and the cause in the absence of some such would not abate. In legal parlance this procedure affords an opportunity of being heard in all its ramification before a decision on the pending list is taken.
36. In view of the aforesaid, and since, the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) has failed to lead any evidence in regard to the existence of any other legal heirs of his deceased father Sh. Rameshwar Dayal, this court finds that the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) failed to discharge his obligations in this regard. Issue is decided against him.
Issue No.3 i.e. Whether the suit is barred under Section 11 &12 r/w Order IX Rule 8 and 9 of the CPC? OPD-6 and Issue No.7 i.e. Whether in view of the order of dismissal dated 13.10.2008 in CS. NO. 93/2005, present suit is maintainable? OPP are interrelated and are being decided together.
37. Before proceeding to deal with the present issues, it is important to examine Section 11 of the Code:
11. Res Judicata- No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation I.
-- The expression former suit shall denote a CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 34 of 64 suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II.--For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court. Explanation III.--
The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other. Explanation IV.-- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation V.--Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI. --Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. [Explanation VII. --The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII. -- An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.]
12. Bar to further suit- Where a plaintiff is CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 35 of 64 precluded by rules from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action, he shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any Court to which this Code applies."
38. As per the plaint, the cause of action arose for the first time on 18.06.2007 when the Plaintiff No.3 purchased the suit property from the Defendant No.1 and further when the Defendant 5 (earlier Defendant No.6) denied the rights of the Plaintiffs as holder of title and claiming himself to be the exclusive owner after the death of his father, Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (Now deceased). As per the plaint, the cause of action further arose on 03.11.2009 when the Plaintiffs No. 1&2 purchased 25% of the suit property. Since, the Defendant No.5(earlier Defendant No.6) failed to vacate the property, the present suit was filed on 15.03.2010.
39. As per the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6), the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs' i.e., Defendant No.1 had previously filed a suit CS No.93 of 2005 seeking similar relief of declaration and injunction. It is further contended by the Defendant No.5(earlier Defendant No.6) that the said suit No. CS 93 of 2005 was dismissed vide Order dated 13.10.2008 (PW-1/K). Accordingly, the present suit is barred under Section 12 r/w Order IX Rule 9 of the Code.
40. The said order of dismissal dated 13.10.2008 is central to these issues. The operative portion of the said order dated 13.10.2008 is reproduced herein:
"Attorney of applicant filed an application u/o 1 rule 10 R/w 151 CPC for impleading and substitution in place of the plaintiff. It is stated in the application that the applicant CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 36 of 64 has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff Sh. P. C. Chandan on 18.06.2007 through the Sale Deed and since the applicant is the owner and in possession of the suit property, he be substituted in place of Sh. P. C. Chandan. I feel that the application deserves to be dismissed as the applicant alleged to acquire the interest on 18.06.2007 while the application is filed today. The limitation period for filing of the application is 30 days. No reason has been assigned by the applicant as to why application has not been filed in time. Hence, the application deserves to be dismissed by limitation. By purchasing the suit property, a separate cause of action which cannot be mixed with the present suit. Hence the impleadment of applicant is not necessary in the present suit. Accordingly, the application of the applicant u/o 1 Rule 10 R/w 151 CPC is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff was issued court notice. Despite court notice, plaintiff has not appeared. The matter was earlier fixed for P.E. Plaintiff failed to lead P.E. Accordingly P.E. was closed. Plaintiff also failed to argue. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby dismissed for want of proof. File be consigned to record room."
41. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff that, firstly, the Limitation Act prescribes no period of limitation for moving an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Therefore, the said Ld. Judge wrongly decided the issue of limitation in moving the said application.
42. Secondly, he submits that the appropriate provision under which the application was to be dealt with was Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC, as it deals with devolution/transfer of interest. Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC being relevant is reproduced for ease of CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 37 of 64 reference:
10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit.
(1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1).
43. It is next urged that the said order seems to be passed not on the merits of the case, but on count of non appearance and non prosecution of the case by the plaintiff.
44. I have gone through the material and the legal provisions. From the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2008, it is clear that the Ld. Judge in the previous suit, held that since the Plaintiff No.3 herein had purchased the suit property, a separate cause of action has arisen in their favour and Plaintiff No.3 herein i.e., the Applicant could not adjudicate her rights in the said suit. Further, it is a matter of record that admittedly both the contesting parties herein, the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) did not assail the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2008 and the same has attained finality. The only interpretation of the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2008, in the opinion of this Court, is that the Ld. Judge in the previous suit, held that since the Plaintiff No.3 herein had purchased the suit property, a separate cause of action has arisen in her favour, CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 38 of 64 which could not have been mixed with the said suit and therefore was not allowed to become a party in the said suit.
45. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Devkinandan Lal Vs. Jogendra Prasad & Ors, AIR 1980 PATNA 71, held as follows:
In this application the only point that was raised by Mr. K. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that in view of the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. the petitioner being an assignee of the interest of the original plaintiff, ought to have been permitted to continue the suit instituted by Narsingh Lal since there was no period of limitation for an application under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. There is no doubt that if it is a case which can be said to be covered by the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 there will be no question of limitation nor would it require going into any evidence with regard to the sufficiency of the cause shown.
46. Taking the present case where such substitution was denied, the effect has to be considered. In Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University & Ors, AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2552, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Order 22 and in particular Rule 10 thereof inthe following words:
In order to appreciate the points involved, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Order 22 of the Code, Rules 3 and 4 whereof prescribe procedure in case of devolution of interest on the death of a party to a suit. Under these Rules, if a party dies and right to sue survives, the Court on an application made in that behalf is required to substitute legal representatives of the CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 39 of 64 deceased party for proceeding with a suit but if such an application is not filed within the time prescribed by law, the suit shall abate so far as the deceased party is concerned. Rule 7 deals with the case of creation of an interest in a husband on marriage and Rule 8 deals with the case of assignment on the insolvency of a plaintiff. Rule 10 provides for cases of assignment, creation and devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit other than those referred to in the foregoing Rules and is based on the principle that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of suit is devolved upon another during its pendency but such a suit may be continued with the leave of the Court by or against the person upon whom such interest has devolved. But, if no such a step is taken, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom the interest has devolved will be bound by and can have the benefit of the decree, as the case may be, unless it is shown in a properly constituted proceeding that the original party being no longer interested in the proceeding did not vigorously prosecute or colluded with the adversary resulting in decision adverse to the party upon whom interest had devolved.
(emphasis supplied)
47. In the present case, clearly the application, although, made under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, from its ingredients, was in effect an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC. Whether or not the same was barred by the limitation, the case is clearly covered by the exception carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh (Supra).
48. It is a matter of record and so reflected in the order CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 40 of 64 dated 13.10.2008 that the plaintiff in case no.93/2005 was not diligently pursuing the matter and had lost all interest in the same. He was neither appearing, nor led any evidence. It could also have been on account of collusion with the other parties and for such collusion, no affirmative evidence can ever be led, but is only a matter of inference. Therefore, the findings or the alleged final order dated 13.10.2008 cannot operate as res judicata on this count itself. Needless to say that the legal maxim i.e. actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case considering the contents of the order passed by the said court while disposing off the application of the plaintiffs herein and the suit itself vide order dated 13.10.2008.
49. Although the views expressed in the order dated 13.10.2008 do not seem to be in consonance with settled principles of law, this court does not wish to comment on the same. It is suffice to note at this stage that the basic ingredients of Section 11 are not meted out. There was no appreciation of pleadings, documents, evidence and no adjudication of any of the issues framed in the said suit. Thus, the legal embargo under Section 11 as well as Section 12 of the Code is not attracted in the present suit.
50. It is a settled position of law that in order to attract the bar of resjudicata, lis must be disposed of on merits by a speaking order. Plea of Resjudicata is not available where there is no contest on an issue between the parties and there was no conscious adjudication of any or all the issues therein. The decisions in Suraj Rattan Thirani Vs Azamabad Tea, (1964) 6 SCR 192; A-One Granites Vs State of UP, (2001) 3 SCC 537 CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 41 of 64 Page 36 of 61; Karlose Vs Stella Lasar & Ors, (2023) SCC Online Ker 8216; Sharadamma Vs. Mohammed Pyrejan and Ors, AIR 2015 SC 3747; Jaskirat Datwani v. Vidyawati, (2002) 5 SCC 647; Sukhdip v. Arjan Singh, (1961) SCC OnLine Punj 275; and Esha Ekta vs. MC Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 537 86; relied upon by the defendant have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
51. Be that as it may, the Ld. Judge recognized independent right of the Plaintiffs herein (applicant therein) and observed that they have separate cause of action and hence may seek relief in a different proceedings. Admittedly, this observation was never challenged by the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) and hence, it has attained finality.
52. The Plaintiffs have relied on the following judgments in order to substantiate their submission of refuting the objection of applicability of Section 11 CPC. Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1; Escorts Farm Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, UP, (2004)4 SCC 281; Sheodan Singh Vs. Daryao Kunwar, (1996) 3 SCR 300; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jagdish Saran Agarwal, (2009) 1 SCC 689; Nagabhushanammal (D) by Lrs. Vs, Chandikeswaralingam, (2016) 4SCC 434; Shivshankar Prasad Shah vs. Baikunth Nath Singh, AIR 1969 SC 971; Daryao And Others Vs. State of U.P. And Others, AIR 1961 SC 1457; R.M.Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram V. Sri Kayarohanasamy, (2022 SCC Online SC 888); Madhukar D. Shende vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, (2002) 2 SCC 85; Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors, (2021) 9 SCC 99; Kunhayammed & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2587; and Prem Kishore and Others CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 42 of 64 Vs. Brahm Prakash and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 356.
53. In Escorts Farms Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Divison, Nainital, UP, (2004) 4 SCC 281, it was held as follows:
Plea of res judicata is also not available where there is no contest on an issue between the parties and there is no conscious adjudication of an issue.
54. In Sheodan Singh Vs. Daryao Kunwar, (1966) 3 SCR 300, it was held as follows:
(i)The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit;
(ii)The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between, parties under whom they or any of them claim;
(iii)The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit; (iv)The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised; and (v)The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit.
55. In Shivshankar Prasad Shah Vs. Baikunth Nath Singh, AIR 1969 SC 971, it was held as follows:
Before a plea can be held to be barred by the principles of res judicata, it must be shown that the plea in question had not only been pleaded but it had been heard and finally decided by the court. A dismissal of a suit for default of the plaintiff, we think, would not operate as res judicata against a plaintiff in a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. If it was otherwise there was no need for the legislature to enact rule 9, Order 9, Civil Procedure Code which in specific term say CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 43 of 64 that where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. ...
From this decision it is clear that the Judicial Committee opined that before a plea can be held to be barred by res judicata that plea must have been heard and determined by the court.
56. In view of the above discussion, and since the basic ingredients of Section 11 & 12 of the CPC are not meted out, the applicability of Order IX Rule 8 & 9 CPC has no applicability. Further, Rule 9 of Order IX follows the Rule 8 and hence same is not applicable in the present suit. Furthermore, the suit No.1518/2009 filed by the Plaintiff No. 3 was withdrawn by filing an application under Order 23 Rule 1&3 of CPC with permission and liberty to file a fresh suit due to some technical defects to which the Court has granted permission and liberty. Hence, the suit is maintainable and present issue is liable to be decided in favour of the Plaintiffs. In view of the aforesaid, the Issue No.3 and issue no.7 are decided in favour of the Plaintiffs as the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6).
Issue No.4 Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD-6.
57. As per the plaint, the cause of action for filing the suit arose first time on 18.06.2007 when the plaintiff no.3 purchased the suit property from the Defendant no.1 and further, when the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) denied the rights of the plaintiffs alleging that his father had a sale deed in his favour. Further, the cause of action arose on 03.11.2009 when CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 44 of 64 the plaintiffs no. 1&2 had purchased 25% of the suit property from the plaintiff No.3. The suit filed on 15.03.2010 is within limitation.
58. It is noted that pursuant to the purchase of the suit property by the Plaintiff No.3 on 18.06.2007, the cause of action to file the present suit arose for the first time. The Court of Sh. Daya Prakash, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Dehi in Suit No.93/2005 while rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC preferred by the Plaintiff No.3 noted in the order dated 13.10.2008 that "By purchasing the suit property, a separate cause of action arose which cannot be mixed with the present suit". Consequently, the application of the plaintiff to be made a party to the suit was dismissed.
59. It is contended by the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) that once Limitation begins to run, no subsequent inability or disability will stop it and any successors- in interest will be bound by the same u/s 2(i) r/w S. 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is contended by the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) that the purported purchase of the suit property by Plaintiff No. 3 in 2007 and subsequent sale of portions of it to Plaintiff Nos 1-2 in 2009 does not and cannot give rise to any "fresh" limitation or cause of action. Similarly, neither can the Order of the Court dated 13.10.2008 in CS No. 93 of 2005 "restart" limitation.
60. It is further contended by the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) that under the Limitation Act, 1963, as per S. 2(i), the term 'plaintiff' included any person from or through whom a plaintiff derives his right to sue. Since the Plaintiffs in the instant Suit derive their right to sue from CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 45 of 64 Defendant No. 1, not only can they not claim a fresh period of limitation, the instant Suit is time barred due to it being time barred against Defendant No. 1. Furthermore, it is contended by the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) that limitation period cannot be extended by any court on any equitable grounds. The limited circumstances within which limitation period may be excluded or otherwise modified are specified in the Limitation Act, and the same cannot be deviated from. Computation of limitation period has to be construed strictly, and mere inconvenience cannot be a ground to arrest the passing of time.
61. The Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6), in support of his objection has relied on the following judgments:
Lahore Enamelling and Stamping Co. vs. AK Bhalla, 1958 SCC OnLine Punj 9 paras 35-25; Annada Mohon Roy v. Kina Das, AIR 1924 Cal 394 para 69; Omkar Singh vs. Om Prakash, 2016 SCC OnLine All 3811 paras 22, 26-28; Ram Sumran vs. Sarjoo Pershad, 1928 SCC OnLine Oudh CC 112 para 9 Page 40 of 61; Basawaraj v. Spl. Land Acquisition, (2013) 14 SCC 81 paras 12- 14; Janardhanam Prasad v Ramdas, (2007) 15 SCC 174 para 14; Dahiben v Arvindbhai, (2020) 7 SCC 366 paras 26-27, 29; Metropoli Overseas Limited v HS Deekshit, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15913 paras 7.4-7.5, 16.1-16.9; Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 638 para 26; J. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai, (2022) 12 SCC 128 paras 15-17; Ripu Daman Haryal vs. Geeta Chopra, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2656 para 43; Durga Projects and Infrastructure vs. S. Rajagopala Reddy, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3090 paras 8-9; Joseph Lobo v. Vincent Francis Condillace; Consolidated Engineering CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 46 of 64 Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, (2008) 7 SCC 159 paras 21-22; and Bakhtawar Singh vs. Sada Kaur, (1996) 11 SCC 167 paras 8-9 99.
62. In response to the said submissions of the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6), the Plaintiffs contends that since the present suit is filed seeking the relief of Declaration, Possession, Cancellation and other reliefs, the period of limitation starts from the date the cause of action to file the present composite suit in its entirety could be filed before the court of law.
63. It is submitted by the Plaintiffs that the cause of action in favour of the Plaintiffs to file the present suit arose for the first time on 18.06.2007 when the plaintiff no.3 purchased the suit property from the Defendant no.1 vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.2007 (Ex.PW1/I) and further, when the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) denied the rights of the plaintiffs alleging that his father had a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1998 in his favour. When the Ld. Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the said former suit No.93/2005, vide Order dated 13.10.2008 recognized the independent right of the Plaintiff No.3 herein (applicant therein) thereby observing that separate cause of action arose in favour of the Plaintiff No.3.
64. Further, the cause of action arose on 03.11.2009 when the plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 purchased 25% of the suit property from the plaintiff No.3 vide registered sale deed dated 03.11.2009 (Ex.PW1/J). Accordingly, the present suit filed on 15.03.2010 is well within the period of limitation.
65. It is further contended by the Plaintiffs that the limitation period to file a suit does not start from the date of CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 47 of 64 registration of the alleged sale deed, but when the Plaintiff gains knowledge of the alleged sale deed. In the present suit, the date on which the plaintiff No.3 gained knowledge of the alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998 was on the date her purchase of the suit property i.e., execution of the sale deed dated 18.06.2007 (Ex.PW1/I). Hence, the present suit being filed on 15.03.2010 cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Admittedly, CS No. 93 of 2005 was filed within three years of the knowledge of the alleged sale deed dated 13.05.1998 to the Defendant No.1 i.e., the predecessor in interest of the Plaintiffs herein when during the eviction proceedings on 12.11.2002, the Defendant No.5 (initially Defendant No.6) disclosed the same. That since the suit bearing CS No. 93 of 2005 was dismissed vide Order dated 13.10.2008 whereby it was made clear that Defendant no.1 had already sold the suit property to the Plaintiff no.1 in the year 2007 thus giving rise to cause of action in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs herein thereafter filed suit no.1518/2009 which was withdrawn by filing an application under Order 23 Rules 1&3 of CPC with permission and liberty to file a fresh suit due to some technical defects to which the Court has granted permission and liberty. Thereafter, the present suit was filed on 15.03.2010 and is state to be well within limitation.
66. It is a matter of record that the Plaintiff No. 3 purchased the suit property on 18.06.2007 from the Defendant No.1 during the pendency of Civil Suit bearing CS No. 93 of 2005 before the then Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. When the Defendant No.1 purchased the suit property from the Defendant No. 3 & 4 in 1997, the Defendant No.5 (initially Defendant No.6) as well as Defendant No.6 & 7 were tenants of CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 48 of 64 certain parts of the suit property. Defendant No.1, after purchasing the suit property, and in order to get the property free from such tenancy, filed an eviction petition against the Defendant No.5 (initially Defendant No.6) on 12.08.2002. In response to the said eviction petition, the Defendant No.5 (initially Defendant No.6) filed his reply dated 12.11.2002, disclosing that the Defendant No.1 is not the owner, rather Smt. Shanti Devi during her life time had sold the suit property vide Sale Deed dated 14.05.1998 in favour of the Sh. Rameshwar Dayal. Accordingly, the Defendant No.1 withdrew the Eviction proceedings initiated by him against the Defendant No.5 (initially Defendant No.6), and on 29.04.2005 instituted a Civil Suit bearing CS No. 93 of 2005 before the then Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi praying inter alia for the declaration of his title to the suit property and cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998. The said suit came to be dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2008 which has created complexity in the present matter. I have already dealt with the said order dated 13.10.2008 in detail while deciding the issue no.3 and issue no.7. The aspect of limitation cannot be decided in isolation and without referring to the said order and surrounding facts.
67. It has been extensively argued by both the parties before this Court that whether the period of limitation for instituting a composite suit seeking the reliefs of declaration, possession and cancellation is three years in terms of Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or twelve years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
68. It is a matter of record that the present suit is filed seeking the reliefs of declaration, possession, cancellation and CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 49 of 64 other reliefs. The Prayers sought in the present suit are as follows: "(a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants declaring that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit property bearing no. C-333, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi admeasuring 137 sq. yards carved out of Khasra No. 326 & 327. (b) A decree of possession against the defendants or such persons who are wrongfully retaining the possession of the suit property and seeking to dispossess the plaintiffs from their property. (c) A decree of cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 14th May 1998 bearing no. 3257 volume No. 1453 purporting to be executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of Defendant No.5 being null and void and fabricated document. The Defendant No.5 or 6 or any other person who is having custody said sale deed of the property be directed to produce the same in the court and to be cancelled accordingly. (d) A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants who claim title to the suit property on the basis of false and fabricated documents and they be restrained from making any claim, ownership or title to the property contrary to the rights of the plaintiffs."
69. The main prayers made in the present suit clearly indicate that it is a suit not only for declaration but the plaintiffs also prayed for possession of the suit property. The prayers in the present suit are culled out in the order of declaration, possession, cancellation and permanent injunction. Therefore, in view of the facts of the present suit, this Court indeed reaffirms the position of law settled by the three judges' bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as laid down in the case of Sopanrao and Anr. Vs. Syed Mehmood and Ors, (2019) 7 SCC CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 50 of 64
76. The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years. Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of main relief is of possession and, therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 65 deals with a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title and the limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the property becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
70. In view of the aforesaid, the arguments raised by the Defendant No.5 (earlier Defendant No.6) does not hold good. The law laid by the three judges' bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sopanrao and Anr. Vs. Syed Mehmood and Ors, (2019) 7 SCC 76 holds the field. It is a matter of record that the present suit was filed on 15.03.2010, within limitation when the Plaintiff No. 3 purchased the suit property on 18.06.2007 from the Defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that the claim of possession of the suit property to the present plaintiffs could only be made from the date of purchase of property by the Plaintiff No. 3 i.e., on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 18.06.2007.
71. That it is a settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhotanben & Anr. vs. Kirtibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & Ors, (2018) 6 SCC 422 that the limitation period to file a suit does not start from the date of registration of the alleged sale deed, but when the Plaintiff gains knowledge of the alleged sale deed. In the present suit, the date CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 51 of 64 on which the plaintiff No.3 gained knowledge of the alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998 was on the date her purchase of the suit property i.e., execution of the sale deed dated 18.06.2007 (Ex.PW1/I).
72. Even otherwise, the suit no. 93/2005 of the plaintiff's predecessor (defendant no.1 herein) was already pending on the said date. The application of the plaintiffs to be impleaded was dismissed and the suit itself dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2008, rightly or wrongly concluding the application to be barred by limitation and that an independent cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiffs who could maintain an independent suit based on the fresh cause of action. The suit was clearly dismissed because of non prosecution by the defendant no.1 herein and not on the merits as nothing was discussed by the Ld. Judge. It is clear that the sale deed dated 14.05.1998 was obtained fraudulently and the said aspect has been discussed in detail under issue no.6. The entire transaction has to be considered in the background of what the tenants were up to.
73. The Plaintiffs have paid sale consideration and got their Sale Deeds registered as per law and the chain of documents are clear, transparent and unambiguous. However, the sale deed dated 14.05.1998 in favour of Late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal is shrouded in mystery. While at some instances it is pleaded by Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) that Rameshwar Dayal along with one Jayanti Prasad purchased the property in the year 1980 from Shanti Devi, however, it is claimed by Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) that Shanti Devi got POA executed from the Defendant no.4/Rajwati in favour of the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6). It is also not CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 52 of 64 explained as when Shanti Devi had limited tenancy in the suit property, how and in what manner Shanti Devi shifted her status from limited tenant to that of an exclusive owner. Further the sale/purchase taking place between Smt. Geeta Rani, alleged daughter of Smt. Shanti Devi and the Defendant No. 4 Rajwati in respect of the entire ownership right of the suit property is pleaded, while no explanation is accorded as to what was the need for Smt. Geeta Rani to relinquish her rights to the extent of her share in favour of her mother, once she had allegedly purchased the entire suit property from Rajwati (Defendant No.4). It is quite ironical that Smt. Geeta Rani first purchases the exclusive and entire ownership right in the subject property but she subsequently relinquishes her alleged 1/6th share in favour of her mother Shanti Devi. These apparent anomalies are neither legally explained nor evidence has been produced to give a clarity a to title and possession. Even the purchase made by Sh. Rameshwar Dayal is not clear. While it is pleaded that Rameshwar Dayal jointly purchased the property in 1980 with one Mr. Jayanti Prasad, however, when the sale deed is executed in 1998 suddenly Jayanti Prasad vanishes and Rameshwar Dayal becomes the exclusive owner of the entire suit property by way of paying consideration of Rs. 48,000 to Shanti Devi who herself was granted limited tenancy in the suit property, by virtue of the order of the Rent Controller in the year 1979 for a period of five years. Smt. Shanti devi could not have, sold the suit property, again, in the capacity of the owner, about twenty years later. In addition to that, the suspicion to the legal sanctity of the title documents dated 24.04.1979 of the Defendant No. 4 Rajwati as raised by the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6), does CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 53 of 64 not hold good as the predecessor in interest of the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) Shanti Devi along with the Defendant No. 2 were granted limited tenancy under the exclusive ownership of the Defendant No. 4 Rajwati before the Rent Controller, a judicial forum.
74. The relinquishment deeds, all the other aforesaid documents in the chain of title to the defendant no.5 show that the tenant Shanti Devi and the defendant no.5 and his predecessor in interest were colluding and planned to create chain of documents to fraudulently deceive and defeat the rights of the plaintiffs' predecessor in interest.
75. Further, the alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998, executed by Shanti Devi after consolidating her rights in the suit property, conveniently fails to whisper of such consolidation of rights by way of all the relinquishment deeds executed by the children of Smt. Shanti Devi in her favour. What was the need for such relinquishment by the children of Shanti Devi, after Shanti Devi and her son had taken money from the plaintiffs predecessor in interest Rajwati representing to be the sole legal heirs. The relinquishments were not informed to Rajwati and seem to be the first step towards the fraud which was going to be played on Rajwati and her successors. Smt. Shanti Devi was trying to create fresh document of title in her favour, intending to misuse the fact that she was in possession as a tenant. The relinquishment by the children of Shanti Devi runs counter to the claim of Rajwati entering into agreement to sell with Geeta as far back as 17.10.1980.
76. It is also important to note that Shanti Devi enters into transaction with the father (earlier defendant no.5, namely, CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 54 of 64 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal) of another tenant (earlier defendant no.6, namely, Rajender Prasad). There was no change of hands required. The possession continued as it is, but multiple documents were being created by the tenants Shanti Devi and the father and son (defendant no.5 and 6). No way this fraud could have been discovered by Rajwati and her successors until the eviction suit.
77. Section 17 of Limitation Act excludes the period, in a suit based upon fraud of the defendant, until the discovery of the fraud. Execution of a sale deed between third parties is notice only to a subsequent purchaser when he intends to purchase the said property. The actual owner may not be aware of the fraudulent execution of the sale deed by a person claiming to be the owner unless a claim is raised for no one is expected to go inquiring, if any, fraudulent third party sale of his property has taken place. The purpose of registration of sale deed is to protect subsequent purchasers against fraud.
78. In the present case the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff could not have discovered the sale deed of the defendants till he sued for eviction and thereafter, he was pursuing his litigation till the plaintiffs herein purchased the property and then the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff (defendant no.1 herein) committed fraud by not appearing and not pursuing the said litigation being CS no. 93/2005 in the court.
79. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the present case involves multiple frauds. Firstly, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff was initially the victim of fraud and that period needs to be excluded.
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 55 of 6480. Secondly, the said predecessor (defendant no.1) committed a fraud on the plaintiff by not pursuing the case and therefore, the said period is liable to be excluded.
81. It is settled law that fraud has been recognized as an exception to a purchaser of interest, during the pendency of a lis, being bound by the decision. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh (Supra) on this aspect have already been quoted hereinabove, but are being reiterated for ease of reference:
Rule 10 provides for cases of assignment, creation and devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit other than those referred to in the foregoing Rules and is based on the principle that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of suit is devolved upon another during its pendency but such a suit may be continued with the leave of the Court by or against the person upon whom such interest has devolved. But, if no such a step is taken, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom the interest has devolved will be bound by and can have the benefit of the decree, as the case may be, unless it is shown in a properly constituted proceeding that the original party being no longer interested in the proceeding did not vigorously prosecute or colluded with the adversary resulting in decision adverse to the party upon whom interest had devolved. (emphasis supplied)
82. The conduct of the plaintiffs predecessor in interest in not prosecuting the civil suit no. 93/2005 itself shows collusion between him and defendant no.5 to defeat the rights of CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 56 of 64 the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would have become aware of the second fraud only when they moved the application for impleadment which came to be dismissed by order dated 13.10.2008. Therefore, the entire period till 13.10.2008, up till when the plaintiffs predecessor in interest was litigating, has to be excluded in the present case.
83. Needless to say that the judicial order dated 13.10.2008 gave a finding on fact between the parties that a fresh cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff which finding of fact, rightly or wrongly binds the parties, as none of them challenged the same.
84. In view thereof, the present issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit being filed on 15.03.2010 cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
ISSUE NO.6 Whether the title of the suit properly was legally and validly acquired by the Plaintiffs or their predecessors starting from Shanti Devi and Bharat Singh? OPP.
85. As per the plaint, Rajwati (Defendant No.4) had purchased the suit property from Smt. Shanti Devi and Bharat Singh Kain (Defendant No.2) and they got executed all necessary sale documents including agreement to sell dated 24.04.1979, General Power of Attorney in favour of the Defendant No.3 (husband of the Defendant No.4). Thereafter, Defendant No.4 executed the customary documents in favour of Defendant No.1.
86. Admittedly, Smt. Shanti Devi Kain and Defendant No.2 after executing necessary sale papers in favour of the Defendant No.4 chose to continue their occupation by seeking CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 57 of 64 limited tenancy rights under Section 21 of DRC Act with the permission and consent of the Defendant No.4 before the judicial forum. The Rent Controller was pleased to allow the said application i.e., No. M-328 / 1979 and vide its order dated 30.05.1979 (Ex.PW1/D), as a consequence, the Defendant No.4, in due fairness issued Rent Receipts (Ex.PW1/E). As soon as the permission for limited tenancy was granted by the Rent Controller, it became an admission on the part of Shanti Devi Kain and Defendant No.2 that they acknowledged and accepted their tenancy in the suit property as well as the ownership and title of Smt. Rajwati (Defendant No.4) for the entire suit property on the basis of all the documents executed by them in favour of Rajwati (Defendant No.4).
87. It is a settled principle of law being "once a tenant, always a tenant", Shanti Devi remained a tenant in the suit property and could not have sold the suit property to any person later in time, hence, the alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998, executed by her in favour of Rameshwar Dayal, father of the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) is nothing but forged, fabricated and deserves to be declared null-void and having no legal subsistence.
88. The Defendant No.3 & 4 has admitted in their written statement that the Defendant No.4 had purchased the suit property from Smt. Shanti Devi way back in the year 1979 for a sale consideration of Rs.48,000/- and a GPA was also executed in favour of her husband the Defendant No.3. Thus, the subsequent sale by Smt. Shanti Devi is void, illegal and is liable to be set aside. This fact is further bolstered from the fact that, Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) claims his father and Sh.
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 58 of 64Jayanti Prasad jointly purchased the property from Smt. Shanti Devi, Defendant No.2 and Sh. Sunil Kumar for a sale consideration of Rs. 49,000/-, then no justifiable reasoning is given as to why the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) is separately appointed as POA of Defendant No.4 and granted power to pursue the court cases pending. Rather than his father or Sh. Jayanti Prasad given the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) the POA a power of attorney is given by Defendant No.4 is unexplained and in fact left unsubstantiated. Only a vague statement is made that Shanti Devi asked Rajwati to appoint Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) as POA even though it is alleged that Shanti Devi was the owner.
89. Further, Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) in his written statement in reply to para 3&4 has categorically admitted that Smt. Shanti Devi had executed "some" documents in favour of the Defendant no.3&4 which is specific and gives strength to the case of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) in his written statement as well as the evidence remains completely silent on the aspect of creation of limited tenancy under Section 21 of DRC Act in favour of the Defendant No.4. The Rent Controller allow the application i.e., No. M-328 / 1979 vide its order dated 30.05.1979 (Ex.PW1/D). On the other hand, the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No.
6) contends that the first registered document in the present matter, the sale deed dated 14.05.1998 is in the name of his late father Sh. Rameshwar Dayal and therefore, the issue needs to be decided in his favour.
90. As per the version of Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6), the Defendant No.2, his mother Smt. Shanti CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 59 of 64 Devi and Sh. Sunil Kumar sold the suit property to the late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (father of the Defendant No. 5) and one Sh. Jayanti Prasad on 12.11.1980 for a sale consideration of Rs.49,000/- by executing an Agreement to Sell, Deed of Assignment along with a receipt dated 12.11.1980. Allegedly possession of the suit property was handed over to late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (father of the Defendant No. 5) and one Sh. Jayanti Prasad, wherein the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6), claims to staying under the tenancy of his late father since 1980 till the death of his father in 2003. Later, in order to "formalise", the said transaction, the said suit property was again sold by Smt. Shanti Devi in 1998 by way of sale deed dated 14.05.1998 executed individually by Smt. Shanti Devi, individually in favour of late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (father of the Defendant No. 5) for the sale consideration of Rs.48,000/-. It is noted that the said sale after 18 years is suspicious and doubtful.
91. It is an unfathomable version of the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) that Shanti Devi along with her son Defendant No.2 and another son Sh. Sunil Kumar on 12.11.1980, on another pretext, executed another Agreement to Sell, Deed of Assignment along with a receipt dated 12.11.1980 in favour of Rameshwar Dayal and one Jayanti Prasad for a consideration of Rs.49,000/-. It is to be noted that, if all three of the alleged transactions are compared, the value of the suit property went from Rs. 48,000 to Rs. 49,000 then back to Rs. 48,000 while 18 years passed in between and also Jayanti Prasad (alleged another co-owner of the suit property) is cleverly forgotten and further Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) is given POA by CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 60 of 64 Defendant No.4 while it is contended that Shanti Devi was the sole owner. This strange sequence of transfer of title upon Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) is not above suspicion who has been in possession of the suit property since the year 1980 till date, first inducted as a tenant of Defendant No.4, then of late Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (father of the Defendant No. 5) and now as an owner of the suit property.
92. Further, the alleged sale deed dated 14.05.1998, executed by Shanti Devi after consolidating her rights in the suit property, conveniently fails to whisper of such consolidation of rights by way of all the relinquishment deeds executed by the children of Smt. Shanti Devi in her favour. What was the need for such relinquishment by the children of Shanti Devi, after Shanti Devi and her son had taken money from the plaintiffs predecessor in interest Rajwati representing to be the sole legal heirs. The relinquishments were not informed to Rajwati and seem to be the first step towards the fraud which was going to be played on Rajwati and her successors. Smt. Shanti Devi was trying to create fresh document of title in her favour, intending to misuse the fact that she was in possession as a tenant. The relinquishment by the children of Shanti Devi runs counter to the claim of Rajwati entering into agreement to sell with Geeta as far back as 17.10.1980.
93. It is also important to note that Shanti Devi enters into transaction with the father (earlier defendant no.5, namely, Sh. Rameshwar Dayal) of another tenant (earlier defendant no.6, namely, Rajender Prasad). There was no change of hands required. The possession continued as it is, but multiple documents were being created by the tenants Shanti Devi and the CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 61 of 64 father and son (defendant no.5 and 6). No way this fraud could have been discovered by Rajwati and her successors until the eviction suit.
94. Also, the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No.
6) has failed to call any of the children of Smt. Shanti Devi to substantiate the genuineness of consolidating of Shanti Devi's rights in the suit property. It is noted that even if it is presumed that the children of Shanti Devi relinquished their respective rights in favour of their mother Smt. Shanti Devi could not have executed the sale deed of the entire suit property in 1998 when she renounced her ownership in the suit property and claimed tenancy in the suit property way back in the year 1979. Further, sale in the year 1998 by way of the alleged sale deed could not be complete in any manner as Smt. Shanti Devi being a tenant in the suit property could not have delivered possession of the suit property to any person later in time. All these ups and downs in the story propounded by Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) does not inspire confidence.
95. It is also noted that Smt. Rajwati (Defendant No.4) transferred the entire right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Sh. P. C. Chandan (Defendant No. 1) for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by way of a proper banking channel. And later Sh. P. C. Chandan (Defendant No. 1) vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.06.2007 sold the entire suit property in favour of the Plaintiff No.3 (Veenu Dewan) for a consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-. However, the aspect of consideration in the alleged sale in favour of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal (father of the Defendant No. 5) is unexplained wherein the agreement to sell dated 12.11.1980 was for Rs.49,000/- however, CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 62 of 64 18 years down the line, the said agreement to sell dated 12.11.1980 was formalized by way of sale deed dated 14.05.1998 for the sale consideration of Rs.48,000/-, admittedly in cash. However, it is noted that Smt. Shanti Devi and her Son/Defendant no.2 had sold the suit property to the Defendant no.4 in the year 1979 for the exact sum of Rs.48,000/-. Hence, the pleadings and the evidence in this regard has no legitimate legal base. It does not even have merit.
96. Thus, the title in favour of the Plaintiffs is logically explained and are legal, valid and subsisting However, the title in favour of the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) is suspicious, doubtful and unexplained. In view of the above, the Issue No. 6 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) as the Plaintiffs have been able to discharge their onus and the Defendant has only created more ambiguity than clarity as to the chain of event as well as chain of documents, having better title than the contesting defendant i.e., Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6).
Issue No.8 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for in the plaint? OPP ; Issue no.9 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for in the plaint? OPP; Issue No.10 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of cancellation of the sale deed dated 14.05.1998 executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of Defendant No.5? OPP; and Issue No. 11 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP.
97. In view of the findings on issue no.6, the plaintiff CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 63 of 64 has become entitled to reliefs claimed and issue no. 8 to 11 are decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants. Plaintiffs are entitled to reliefs prayed.
98. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit property bearing no. C-333, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi admeasuring 137 sq. yards carved out of Khasra No. 326 & 327.
99. The Plaintiffs are granted right to the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property and the Defendant No. 5 (initially Defendant No. 6) and his heirs and agents and claiming through him are directed to handover the vacant possession within a period of 30 days from the passing of the Decree.
100. Plaintiffs are also entitled to decree of cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 14.05.1998. The Office of the concerned sub-registrar is directed to cancel the Sale Deed dated 14.05.1998 being registered as Document No. 3757 Book No. I Volume No. 1453 at and appropriate entries to that effect shall be made.
101. Plaintiffs are further entitled to decree of Permanent Injunction. The Defendants are therefore restrained from making any claim, ownership or title to the property contrary to the rights of the plaintiffs.
102. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
103. File be consigned to Record Room.
Harjyot Digitally signed by
Harjyot Singh
Pronounced in the open court Singh Bhalla
on 03.08.2024 Bhalla
Date: 2024.08.03
18:01:11 +0530
HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
DJ-05, SOUTH SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI/03.08.2024
CS DJ No. 6519/2016 Page 64 of 64