Delhi District Court
Saraswati Devi - Sr. Citizen vs Rakesh Kumar on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV: DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
CNR No.DLSH010027592025
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025
In the matter of:-
Memo of Parties
Saraswati Devi
W/o Late Sh. Hari Shankar Gupta,
R/o 9/215, Saraswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 .......Plaintiff
Versus
Rakesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Hari Shankar Gupta,
R/o 9/215, Saraswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 .......Defendant
Date of Institution : 30.08.2016
Date of final argument : 12.09.2025
Date of judgment : 27.09.2025
Result : Decreed
SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF GIFT DEEDS DATED
21.11.2012 AND 04.12.2012
JUDGMENT Digitally
signed by
GAURAV
GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27
16:21:51
+0530
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 1 of 39
INTRODUCTION
1.Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the civil suit for cancellation of gift deeds dated 21.11.2012 and 04.12.2012, filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE IN NUTSHELL
2. The brief facts of the case, germane to the lis and as culled out from the plaint is that the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking cancellation of the gift deeds dated 21.11.2012 and 04.12.2012 (hereinafter referred to as "gift deeds in question") , in respect of property bearing Municipal Nos. 9/214 and 9/215, situated at Saraswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 110031 (hereinafter referred to as "suit properties"), allegedly obtained by the defendant through misrepresentation and fraud.
3. The plaintiff averred that she is the mother of the defendant. She is the absolute owner of the suit properties. In the year 2012, she expressed her desire to distribute the suit properties equally among her children to avoid future disputes. For that, in October, 2012, she discussed the matter with her sons namely the defendant and Sh. Dinesh Kumar (one of the sons of plaintiff), and her daughters namely Smt. Raj Kumari and Smt. Santosh Kumari wherein it was mutually agreed that the two sons would receive ownership of the suit properties, while the daughters would be compensated monetarily in lieu of their share.
4. She further averred that it was also mutually decided that two separate conveyance deeds would be executed in favour of both sons. However, Sh. Dinesh Kumar, expressed his inability to bear the stamp duty at that time. The defendant suggested Digitally signed by Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 2 of 39 GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27 16:21:58 +0530 preparing a family settlement deed and undertook to consult advocates for the same. It was further mutually agreed that both sons would maintain the plaintiff after the transfer of the suit properties.
5. She further averred that being illiterate lady and having complete faith in the defendant, authorized him to prepare the family settlement deed. Pursuant to that, on 21.11.2012, the defendant took her to the office of the Sub-Registrar under the pretext of executing the family settlement and got a document registered. Upon inquiry, the defendant informed her that the document recorded the agreed terms, including monetary compensation of Rs. 95,00,000/- each to the daughters.
6. She further averred that approximately one week later, the defendant again took the plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar's office, stating that the earlier document contained defects and required re-execution. She relying on the defendant's representations, complied with the instructions and executed another document on 04.12.2012.
7. She further averred in the month of August, 2013, the defendant commenced construction activities on the suit property, which led to disputes among the siblings. In an attempt to resolve the conflict, she convened a meeting of all her children. However, during the said meeting, the defendant deliberately withheld information regarding the execution of the gift deeds in question in his favour. She remained unaware of the true nature of the documents she had signed, believing them to be part of a family settlement deed as earlier discussed.
Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 3 of 392025.09.27 16:22:05 +0530
8. She further averred that subsequently, Sh. Dinesh Kumar instituted a civil suit for declaration, cancellation, partition, and permanent injunction before the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, involving all legal heirs of Late Sh. Hari Shankar Gupta (Husband of the plaintiff). In the said proceedings, the defendant filed a written statement purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff, which was allegedly prepared after fraudulently obtaining her signatures. She being illiterate and having placed complete trust in the defendant, had signed the documents without understanding its contents or implications.
9. She further averred that upon confrontation by Sh. Dinesh Kumar regarding the contents of the written statement and the existence of the gift deeds in question, she was shocked to learn that the defendant had, without her knowledge or consent, managed to get registered gift deeds in question in his favour for both the suit properties. The execution of the said gift deeds in question was not voluntary and was procured by the defendant through deceit, misrepresentation, and abuse of fiduciary relationship. She had no intention to gift the suit properties and had acted solely on the representations made by the defendant, believing them to be in furtherance of a family settlement.
10. At the end, by virtue of the present suit, plaintiff has prayed for the following relief: -
1. Pass a decree of cancelation of gift deeds in question in respect of suit properties and adjudge the same as void, more specifically shown in the attached site plan.
2. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 4 of 39 GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27 16:22:10 +0530 restraining the defendants, his agents, servants, attorney, associates etc., from selling, transferring, alienating, creating a third-party interest over the suit properties, more specifically shown in the attached site plan.
3. Any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, in the interest of justice.
11. Hence, the present suit is being filed for adjudication before this Court.
SERVICE OF SUMMON TO DEFENDANT
12. Service of summon was duly served upon defendant, resultantly, in order to contest the present suit, defendant filed the written statement.
DEFENCE IN ABBREVIATED
13. While filing the written statement, defendant tried to pulverize the present suit and specifically asserted that the plaintiff has concocted a false and frivolous story with the sole intention of grabbing the suit property and misleading the Court.
14. He further asserted that the plaintiff is under the undue influence and control of her younger son and daughter, and has filed the present suit at their behest.
15. He further asserted that the present suit is barred by limitation, as the gift deeds in question were executed on 21.11.2012 and 04.12.2012, whereas the suit has been filed after a lapse of approximately three and a half years i.e. on 30.08.2016.
Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 5 of 39 16:22:28 +0530 The delay in filing the suit is deliberate and unexplained.
16. He further asserted that the plaintiff had voluntarily and knowingly executed gift deeds in question in his favour in respect of suit properties. Pursuant to the said execution of gift deeds in question, he becomes the absolute owner of the suit properties.
17. He further asserted that the plaintiff had been residing with the defendant since the beginning, and the defendant had always taken care of her and provided maintenance. He and the plaintiff maintained a joint bank account in United Bank of India for over two decades, which is indicative of the trust and cordial relationship between them.
18. He further asserted that in July 2016, the plaintiff had a dispute with the defendant's wife, following which she left the defendant's residence and began residing with her younger son.
Since then, the plaintiff has been acting under the influence and instructions of her younger son namely Sh. Dinesh Kumar, and has initiated the present litigation with mala fide intent.
19. He further asserted that the plaintiff, at the instance of Sh. Dinesh Kumar, raised a quarrel and made a false complaint to the police by dialling 100 number against the defendant and his son. The gift deeds in question were executed by the plaintiff with full knowledge and free will, and that the Sub-Registrar had duly verified her consent at the time of registration, to which she responded affirmatively.
20. He further asserted that both the plaintiff and Sh. Dinesh Kumar were aware of the execution of the gift deeds in question, as the defendant had clearly stated the same in a joint written Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 6 of 39 16:22:37 +0530 statement filed in October, 2013 in a related suit. The plaintiff was present during those proceedings and did not raise any objection at that time. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs, asserting that the plaintiff's claims are baseless, barred by limitation, and motivated by extraneous considerations.
REPLICATION FILED BY PLAINTIFF
21. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein she denied the allegations and assertions made therein and reiterated the contents of her plaint as correct and true.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
22. After completion of pleadings, following notional issues were framed by the Ld. SCJ/RC(East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 29.03.2017: -
1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation having been filed 3 and ½ year of execution of gift deed? OPP (It is pertinent to mention herein that the onus of proving the issue regarding limitation was initially placed upon the defendant. However, vide order dated 11.12.2024, passed by the Ld. Predecessor, an application under Order XVI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), was allowed, thereby shifting the onus on the plaintiff. The said order was made subject to payment of costs amounting to Rs. 2,000/-. As per record, the said order was never challenged by the plaintiff before any higher forum and thus, attained finality.) Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 7 of 39 2025.09.27 16:22:45 +0530
2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction and non-payment of court fees as the value of the two-suit property is more than 1 Crore? OPD
3) Whether the two gift deeds dated 21.11.2012 and 04.12.2012 pertaining to property no. 9/215 and 9/214, Sarswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031, are executed fraudulently by the defendant on the pretext family settlement from the illiterate plaintiff to give shares to the remaining all the children of the plaintiff? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancellation of gift deed dated 21.11.2012 and 04.12.2012 pertaining to property no. 9/215 and 9/214, Saraswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 and be declared as void as per site plan? OPP
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendant and his agents from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the two-suit property mentioned under issues no.1 above? OPP
6) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
23. After framing of the issues as above, matter was listed for plaintiff's evidence. In order to prove the case, plaintiff stepped into the witness box and examined herself as PW-1, who tendered her affidavit as Ex.PW1/1 in which she reiterated the contents of the plaint, which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. She has also relied upon documents which are as follows: -
S.No Document(s) Exhibit(s)
1. Copy of Will deed dated 14.05.2004 Mark PW1/A
Digitally
signed by
GAURAV
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 8 of 39 16:22:54
+0530
2. Copy of agreement dated 19.11.1973 Mark PW1/B During the cross-examination of PW-1, she was referred to the following document by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, which was put to the said witness for the purpose of eliciting material admissions: -
S.No Document(s) Exhibit(s) 1. Copy of release deed Mark PW1/X1
24. PW-1 was partially cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. However, vide order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the right of the defendant to further cross- examine PW-1 was closed, as the counsel for the defendant failed to appear despite repeated calls on specified date. The said order was duly challenged by the defendant before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM(M) 810/2022 and CM Appl. 35668/2022. Upon hearing the matter and after recording detailed reasons, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to dismiss the said petition. As per the record, the dismissal of the said petition has not further assailed by the defendant before any higher forum, and the order dated 18.05.2022, thus, attained finality.
25. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 18.05.2022.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
26. In order to demolish the case, as set up by the plaintiff, the Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 9 of 39 2025.09.27 16:23:02 +0530 defendant stepped into the witness box and examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which has been exhibited as Ex. DW1/1, wherein he reiterated the contents of his written statement, which are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. All the exhibited document mention in the evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/1 are de-exhibited.
During the cross-examination of DW-1, he was referred to the following document by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, which was put to the said witness for the purpose of eliciting material admissions: -
S.No Document(s) Exhibit(s) 1. Printout of Screenshot of E-Courts Ex.DW1/PA
27. The defendant also examined Sh. Puneet Solanki as DW-
2, a witness to the gift deeds in question. He also tendered his evidence affidavit Ex. DW2/1 wherein he deposed that he accompanied the plaintiff, defendant, and Sh. Raj Kumar to the office of the Sub-Registrar on both occasions for execution of the gift deeds in question. He deposed that the Sub-Registrar explained the contents of the gift deeds in question to the plaintiff in Hindi, clarified that the property would be transferred to the defendant upon execution, and obtained confirmation from the plaintiff regarding her understanding and willingness to execute the same. He further deposed that the plaintiff did not express any intention to execute a document other than the gift deeds in question.
During the cross-examination of DW-2, he was referred to the Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 10 of 39 GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27 16:23:11 +0530 following documents by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, which were put to the said witness for the purpose of eliciting material admissions: -
S.No Document(s) Exhibit(s) 1. Copy of Gift Deed dated 04.12.2012 Ex.DW2/DA 2. Copy of Gift Deed dated 21.11.2012 Ex.DW2/DB
28. The defendant also examined Sh. Javed Alam Khan, then Sub-Registrar-VIII (Geeta Colony), as DW-3. He identified his signatures at points X1 and X1A on the gift deed Ex. DW2/DA, and at points X2 and X2/A on the gift deed Ex. DW2/DB, both executed by Mrs. Saraswati (plaintiff herein) in favour of her son Sh. Rakesh Kumar (defendant herein). He confirmed that the documents were executed after due verification of the identities of the parties, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
29. DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 were duly cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. No other witness was examined on behalf of defendant. Thereafter, on the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, defendant's evidence was closed vide dated 03.04.2025.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
30. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the gift deeds in question were not executed voluntarily, but were procured by the defendant through deceit, misrepresentation, and abuse of fiduciary relationship. She emphasized that the plaintiff, an illiterate woman and mother of the defendant, had reposed Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 11 of 39 GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27 16:23:19 +0530 complete trust in him, and was led to believe that the documents she was signing pertained to a family settlement intended to distribute the suit properties equitably among her sons.
31. Drawing attention to the pleadings, she contended that in October, 2012, the plaintiff had expressed her desire to divide the suit properties between her two sons namely the defendant and Sh. Dinesh Kumar, while compensating her daughters monetarily. It was mutually agreed that two separate conveyance deeds would be executed, but due to Sh. Dinesh Kumar's inability to bear stamp duty, the defendant proposed a family settlement and undertook to consult legal professionals for its execution.
32. She further contended that the plaintiff, relying entirely on the representations of the defendant, accompanied him to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 21.11.2012 and again on 04.12.2012, under the belief that she was executing documents formalizing the agreed family settlement. The plaintiff was never informed that the documents were gift deeds transferring absolute ownership of both properties solely to the defendant herein.
33. She further contended that the plaintiff remained unaware of the true nature of the documents until August-October, 2013, when a dispute arose between her children, and her son Sh. Dinesh Kumar confronted her with the contents of a written statement filed in related suit. It was only then that she discovered that the defendant had registered gift deeds in question in his favour, and had even filed a written statement in that suit on her behalf without her knowledge or consent.
Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 12 of 39 2025.09.27 16:23:25 +0530
34. Referring to the evidence, she pointed out that PW-1 (plaintiff herself) had consistently maintained in her affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and oral testimony that she had no intention to gift the suit properties to the defendant as claimed, and that the execution of the gift deeds in question was based on misrepresentation.
35. She further contended that the testimony of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unshaken, as the defendant's right to further cross-examine her was closed due to repeated non-appearance. Though, the said dismissal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but the said dismissal was also upheld. It is matter of record that the said dismissal has not been further assailed by the defendant in higher forum, thus, attained finality.
36. She further contended that the defendant's conduct was riddled with suspicious circumstances. Notably, both suit properties were gifted exclusively to him, despite the plaintiff's stated intention to divide it between her sons. Furthermore, the defendant failed to explain why the plaintiff would execute two separate gift deeds in his favour within a span of two weeks, without any consideration.
37. She further contended that DW-2 (attesting witness) and DW-3 (Sub-Registrar) merely confirmed procedural compliance at the time of registration, but did not rebut the plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation. She pointed out that DW-3 confirmed the registration process but did not testify to any extraordinary Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 13 of 39 16:23:42 +0530 diligence in ensuring informed consent, especially considering the plaintiff's illiteracy.
38. On the issue of limitation, she contended that the suit was filed on 30.08.2016, and the cause of action arose only upon discovery of the fraud in October, 2013. She pointed out that as per Section 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for cancellation of an instrument on grounds of fraud begins from the date of knowledge of such fraud. The plaintiff's pleadings and evidence clearly establish that she acquired such knowledge only after the written statement was filed in related suit. The screenshot certificate Ex. DW1/PA corroborates the timeline, and the defendant himself admitted during cross-examination that the written statement in the said suit, was filed in October, 2013. On these grounds, at the end, she prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be pleased to allow and pass a decree of cancellation of gift deeds in question as well as decree of permanent injunction in respect of suit properties, in the interest of justice.
39. In support of her contentions, she also relied upon authoritative precedents including Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148", "Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccharam (1974) 1 SCC 242", "Karam Kapahi Vs. Lal Chand Pbulic Chaitable Trust (2010) 4 SCC 753", "Ramesh B Desai Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta (2006) 5 SCC 638" and "Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673".
Digitally signed by GAURAV Date:GAURAV 2025.09.27 16:23:49 +0530 Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 14 of 39 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
40. Conversely, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff failed to specify the exact date on which the alleged misrepresentation or fraud came to her knowledge.
41. He further contended that the plaintiff was aware of the gift deeds in question since its execution in the year 2012, and that the suit was filed at the behest of her other children.
42. He further contended that the plaintiff had been residing with the defendant for over two decades, and they maintained a joint bank account, which reflected mutual trust and cordial relations. He pointed out the testimony of DW-3, who had duly verified the plaintiff's consent, and DW-2, who had confirmed that the contents of the gift deeds in question were explained to the plaintiff in Hindi, and that she had expressed willingness to execute the same.
43. On the procedural aspect, he emphasized that the onus of proving limitation was shifted to the plaintiff vide order dated 11.12.2024, passed under Order XVI Rule 3 CPC by the Ld. Predecessor, and that the plaintiff failed to lead any additional evidence thereafter.
44. He further contended that the plaintiff is not in the possession of the one of the suit properties i.e. 9/214 and the same is in the exclusive in the possession of the defendant. Moreover, the testimony of DW-1 is remained unrebutted on this aspect. The Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 15 of 39 16:23:58 +0530 plaintiff has not sought recovery of possession and thus, the suit is liable to be failed on this count as well. On these grounds, at the end, it is prayed that the present suit may kindly be pleased to dismiss with heavy costs. In support of his submissions, he also relied upon authoritative precedents including Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "K S Nanji Vs. Jatashankar Dossa 1961 SCC Online SC 299", "Uma Devi Vs. Anand Kumar, SLP (C) No. 2137/2025", "UOI Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148, Harish Mansukhani Vs. Ashok Jain 2009 (109) DRJ 126 (DB) (SN)", "State of Maharasthra Vs. Sadiq & Co. (1993) MH.L.J 1476", "Ishwar Dass Jain Vs. Sohan Lal 2000 1 SCC 434", "Rattan Singh Vs. Nirmal Gill (2021) 15 SCC 300", "Chaturbhuj Pande Vs. Collector Raigarh 1968 (Supp) SCC 417" and "Mt. Sukhraji Bhuj Vs. Calcutta State Transport Corporation 1964 SCC Online Cal 79".
45. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of the parties.
46. I have heard the final argument at length as advanced by Ms. Vibha Walia, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Nipun Arora, Ld. Counsel for defendant and carefully perused the entire material available on record including the written arguments.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD
47. Before proceeding further, it is important to point out the needle towards the fact that suits such as the present one, are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability.
48. It is relevant herein that, before appreciation of evidence and deciding the issues, the position of law as settled is that the Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 16 of 39 2025.09.27 16:24:19 +0530 onus of proof in civil trial is the obligation on the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claims on preponderance of probability against the defendant. As per the principles of Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it.
49. Whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved', is one and the same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
50. There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. Burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who denies that fact to be true.
51. The provision of law u/s 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 reads as under: -
"119 (1)- Court may presume existence of certain facts. - The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regards being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relations to the facts of the particular case."
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 17 of 39 16:24:30 +0530 MY ISSUE(S) WISE FINDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
ISSUE NO. 1: -
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation having been filed 3 and ½ year of execution of gift deed? OPP And ISSUE NO.3: -
Whether the two gift deeds dated 21.11.2012 and 04.12.2012 pertaining to property nos. 9/215 and 9/214, Sarswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031, are executed fraudulently by the defendant on the pretext family settlement from the illiterate plaintiff to give shares to the remaining all the children of the plaintiff? OPP And ISSUE NO.4: -
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancellation of gift deed dated 21.11.2012 and 04.12.2012 pertaining to property nos. 9/215 and 9/214, Saraswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-
110031 and be declared as void as per site plan? OPP And ISSUE NO.5: -
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendant and his agents from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in the two suit property mentioned under issues no.1 above? OPP
52. At the very outset, it is imperative to note that Issue Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 are inextricably interwoven and must be adjudicated conjointly, as the determination of one bear a direct and consequential impact upon the others. Issue No. 1 pertains to the bar of limitation, which strikes at the very maintainability of the suit. Issue No. 3 concerns the alleged fraudulent execution of the gift deeds in question, purportedly obtained by the defendant Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 18 of 39 2025.09.27 16:24:39 +0530 under the pretext of a family settlement from the plaintiff, who is stated to be illiterate and vulnerable to misrepresentation. Issue No. 4 seeks the substantive relief of cancellation and declaration of voidness of the said gift deeds in question, while Issue No. 5 pertains to the consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit properties. The plaintiff's entitlement to the reliefs sought under Issue Nos. 4 and 5 is contingent upon the establishment of fraud as alleged under Issue No. 3, which in turn is subject to the suit being instituted within the prescribed period of limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
53. Accordingly, the question of limitation cannot be decided in isolation but must be examined in the context of the plaintiff's assertions regarding the timing and circumstances under which the alleged fraud came to light. If the Court finds that the plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden of proving that the gift deeds in question were vitiated by fraud and that the suit was filed within the permissible period from the date of knowledge thereof, then the reliefs sought under Issue Nos. 4 and 5 would logically follow. Conversely, if the suit is found to be barred by limitation, the plaintiff's claim would fail at the threshold, rendering the other issues academic. In view of this legal interdependence, it is both expedient and judicious to consider and decide Issue Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 together.
54. Before proceedings further, it is imperative to mention herein that in civil cases, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff, who must independently establish his case through reliable and Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 19 of 39 2025.09.27 16:24:48 +0530 credible evidence. Unlike criminal proceedings, where the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt," civil cases are determined on the principle of "preponderance of probabilities." This means the plaintiff must demonstrate that his version of events is more likely to be true than not, tipping the balance of probabilities in their favor. It is essential for the plaintiff to produce convincing evidence that meets this threshold, as the Court relies on this evaluation to adjudicate the matter.
55. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides as under:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 "31. When cancellation may be ordered: (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order is to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in this books the fact of its cancellation."
The portion of Sections 16 to 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under:
16. 'Undue influence' defined: (1) A contract is said to be induced by 'undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 20 of 39 16:24:56 +0530 position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another
(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or
(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress. or
(c) Where a person who is a position to dominate the will of another enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall be upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.
17. 'Fraud' defined: 'Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
18. 'Misrepresentation' defined: "Misrepresentation" means and includes:
(1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 21 of 39 16:25:03 +0530 (2) any breach of duty which, without any intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
(3) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement."
56. Now, reverting to the case at hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant got the gift deeds in questions executed in his favour from plaintiff on the pretext of executing the family settlement. As per Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, the agreement is a voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. As per exception to the said Section, if such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of Section 17, the contract nevertheless is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.
57. In the instant case, the plaintiff's illiteracy is not merely asserted in plaint or testimony but is affirmatively established on record. DW-2 (the attesting witness to the gift deeds in question), admitted during his cross-examination that the plaintiff is not literate and can only sign in Hindi. This corroborates the plaintiff's own testimony and confirms her inability to comprehend complex legal documents without assistance. In such circumstances, where an illiterate individual executes a legal instrument under the guidance of a close relative, in this case, her Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 22 of 39 2025.09.27 16:25:13 +0530 son (defendant herein), the law demands heightened scrutiny. The fiduciary nature of the relationship imposes a heavier burden on the defendant to prove that the execution of the gift deeds in question was voluntary, informed, and free from undue influence. The mere fact that the Sub-Registrar followed procedural formalities does not suffice to establish informed consent, particularly when the plaintiff believed she was executing a family settlement.
58. A close examination of the evidence on record reveals a series of contradictions and omissions that cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of the gift deeds in question. During cross- examination of DW-1/defendant, who made a striking claim that it was the plaintiff who took him to the Sub-Registrar's office for execution of the gift deeds in question. This claim is not supported by any contemporaneous record and stands in stark contrast to the plaintiff's testimony and the broader context of the case. Given that DW-1 also admitted the gift deeds in question were in English language and that he himself has only limited understanding of the language, therefore, it is implausible that the plaintiff, who DW-2 confirmed is illiterate and can only sign in Hindi, would have independently initiated and understood the legal implications of such a transaction.
59. Furthermore, DW-1 was unable to clearly identify the nature of the document in English language during his cross- examination, referring to it only as "Uphar." This lack of clarity from the beneficiary of the transaction raises serious questions about whether the plaintiff was ever properly informed of what she was signing. DW-2, the attesting witness admitted to having Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 23 of 39 2025.09.27 16:25:22 +0530 close family ties with the defendant and was contacted only days before testifying. His testimony, while affirming procedural steps, lacked independence and credibility. DW-3, the Sub-Registrar, confirmed that he does not translate entire documents and only asks whether the first party is gifting or selling to the second. This admission underscores the administrative nature of his role and the absence of any substantive inquiry into the plaintiff's comprehension or intent.
60. Most critically, the transaction resulted in both suit properties being gifted solely to the defendant, with no explanation or documentation showing any benefit conferred upon the plaintiff's other children. There is no evidence on record either documentary or testimonial that the plaintiff intended to disinherit her other son or her daughters. The defendant has not produced any material to suggest that the plaintiff had a reason to exclude them, nor has he explained why a mother (plaintiff herein) would choose to alienate all her children except one (defendant herein). This selective and unilateral transfer of valuable immovable assets, without any corresponding benefit to the others, is not only legally suspect but also socially and emotionally incongruent with the conduct expected of a parent seeking to maintain familial harmony.
61. Taken together, these facts, DW-1's implausible claim of being taken to the Sub-Registrar office by the plaintiff, his inability to articulate the nature of the documents, DW-2's compromised neutrality, DW-3's limited procedural role, and the complete exclusion of the other children, create a strong Digitally presumption that the gift deeds in question were not executed with signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 24 of 39 16:25:29 +0530 informed consent. The defendant has failed to rebut this presumption or offer any plausible justification for the transaction. The cumulative effect of these circumstances points toward a transaction that was orchestrated by the defendant, exploiting the plaintiff's illiteracy, trust, and lack of legal awareness.
62. Beyond the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the gift deeds in question, the defendant's conduct during and after the transaction reveals a pattern of procedural opacity and unilateral control over the plaintiff's legal affairs. A particularly telling instance is his admission during his cross- examination as DW-1 that he filed a written statement in related suit in October, 2013 purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff. This was a legal pleading in a suit involving multiple heirs, yet the defendant failed to produce any authority, such as a power of attorney to justify representing the plaintiff. The plaintiff, an illiterate woman, was not shown to have participated in the drafting or review of that statement. This act of filing pleadings in her name, without her knowledge or consent, is not a mere procedural lapse, it is a serious breach of fiduciary responsibility and a strong indicator of the defendant's intent to control the legal narrative surrounding the disputed properties.
63. The cumulative circumstances surrounding the execution of the gift deeds in question both in terms of timing and substance, also raise serious doubts about the legitimacy of the transaction. The plaintiff's stated intention, as reflected in her testimony and not contradicted by any credible evidence, was to distribute her properties among her children to avoid future Digitally disputes. This intent is consistent with natural familial conduct signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 25 of 39 16:25:35 +0530 and is not inherently improbable. Yet, what transpired was a complete deviation from that intent as both suit properties were transferred solely to the defendant, with no explanation, documentation, or even oral testimony suggesting why the remaining children were excluded.
64. The defendant has offered no plausible justification for this unilateral benefit. He did not produce any communication from the plaintiff expressing a desire to favour him exclusively. Nor did he present any evidence of strained relations between the plaintiff and her other children that might explain such a decision. On the contrary, DW-1 during his cross examination admitted that the plaintiff continued to reside in one of the suit properties along with other family members, including the wife and children of her deceased son. This fact undermines any suggestion of estrangement or disinheritance and instead points to ongoing familial ties.
65. A particularly suspicious circumstance in the present case is the execution of two separate gift deeds in question dated 21.11.2012 and 04.12.2012, each transferring one of the suit properties to the defendant. It is a matter of legal and procedural common knowledge that multiple immovable properties can be conveyed through a single gift deed, provided they are clearly described and the donor's intent is unambiguous. The defendant has offered no explanation, either in pleadings or testimony, as to why the plaintiff, an illiterate woman would execute two distinct instruments within a span of less than two weeks, both exclusively in his favour. This bifurcation of the transaction is not merely a Digitally technical anomaly; it is a substantive red flag. signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 26 of 39 16:25:42 +0530
66. The timing and structure of the transaction suggest a deliberate strategy to avoid scrutiny and compartmentalize the transfer of ownership. By splitting the conveyance into two events, the defendant may have sought to create procedural insulation making each deed appear routine and minimizing the likelihood of objections or inquiries. This approach is especially concerning given the plaintiff's illiteracy, her reliance on the defendant, and the absence of any legal counsel or independent verification at the time of execution.
67. Furthermore, the defendant has not produced any evidence to show that the plaintiff was aware of the legal consequences of executing two separate deeds. There is no record of her seeking advice, expressing intent to gift both suit properties, or understanding the implications of transferring absolute ownership.
The fact that both gift deeds in question were registered in quick succession, without any intervening documentation or clarification, reinforces the inference that the plaintiff was not acting with full knowledge or free will. In this context, the execution of two gift deeds in question when one would have sufficed, is not a benign procedural choice. It is a calculated act that, when viewed alongside the exclusion of other children, the lack of legal safeguards, and the defendant's dominant role, points to a transaction tainted by misrepresentation and undue influence.
68. The aforesaid suspicious circumstances are to be dispelled by the defendant only. The law as to fiduciary relationship is laid down as under: -
GAURAV Digitally signed by Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 27 of 39 Date: 2025.09.27 16:25:49 +0530 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Sri Marcel Martins vs M. Printer & Ors" on 27th April, 2012 in Civil Appeal No.6645 of 2003 has held as under.:
(16) The term "Fiduciary" has been explained by Corpus Juris Secundum as under:
"A general definition of the word which is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all cases cannot well be given. The term is derived from the civil, or Roman Law. It connotes the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the party trusted, rather than his credit or ability, and has been held to apply to all persons who occupy a position of peculiar confidence toward others, and to include those informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies on another, as well as technical fiduciary relations.
The word 'fiduciary', as a noun, means one who holds a thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee with respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and condor which it requires; a person having the duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. Also more specifically, in a statute, a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust or estate."
(17.) Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (Vol. 16-A p.41) defines "Fiducial Relation" as under:
"There is a technical distinction between a 'fiducial relation' which is more correctly applicable to legal relationships between parties, such as guardian and ward, administrator and heirs, and other similar relationships, and 'confidential relation' which includes the legal relationships, and also every other relationship wherein confidence is rightly reposed and is exercised.
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 16:25:55 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 28 of 39 +0530 Generally, the term 'fiduciary' applies to any person who occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards another. It refers to integrity and fidelity. It contemplates fair dealing and good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction. The term includes those informal relations which exist whenever one-party trusts and relies upon another, as well as technical fiduciary relations."
(18.) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edn. Page 640) defines "fiduciary relationship" thus:
"Fiduciary relationship- A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships- such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-principal, and attorney- client - require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one of four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognised as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer."
XXXX
69. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul & Anr. v. Pratima Maity & Ors., (2004) 9 SCC 468. The Hon'ble Court held as follows: -
"12. As has been pointed out by the High Court, the first appellate court totally ignored the relevant materials and recorded a completely erroneous finding that there was no material regarding age of the executant when the document in question itself indicated the age. The court was dealing with a case where an old, ailing illiterate person was stated to be the executant and no witness was examined to prove the execution of the deed or putting of the thumb Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 29 of 39 16:26:03 +0530 impression. It has been rightly noticed by the High Court that the courts below have wrongly placed the onus to prove execution of the deed by Dasu Charan Kul on the plaintiffs. There was challenge by the plaintiffs to the validity of the deed. The onus to prove the validity of the deed of settlement was on Defendant 1. When fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation. But when a person is in a fiduciary relationship with another and the latter is in a position of active confidence the burden of proving the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is upon the person in the dominating position, and he has to prove that there was fair play in the transaction and that the apparent is the real, in other words, that the transaction is genuine and bona fide. In such a case the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is thrown upon the dominant party, that is to say, the party who is in a position of active confidence. A person standing in a fiduciary relation to another has a duty to protect the interest given to his care and the court watches with jealousy all transactions between such persons so that the protector may not use his influence or the confidence to his advantage. When the party complaining shows such relation, the law presumes everything against the transaction and the onus is cast upon the person holding the position of confidence or trust to show that the transaction is perfectly fair and reasonable, that no advantage has been taken of his position. This principle has been ingrained in Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). The rule here laid down is in accordance with a principle long acknowledged and administered in the Courts of Equity in England and America. This principle is that he who bargains in a matter of advantage with a person who places confidence in him is bound to show that a proper and reasonable use has been made of that confidence. The transaction is not necessarily void ipso facto nor is it necessary for those who impeach it to establish that there has been fraud or imposition, but the burden of establishing its perfect fairness, adequacy and equity is cast upon the person in whom the confidence has been reposed. The rule applies equally to all persons Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date: Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 30 of 39 2025.09.27 16:26:11 +0530 standing in confidential relations with each other. Agents, trustees, executors, administrators, auctioneers, and others have been held to fall within the rule. The section requires that the party on whom the burden of proof is laid should have been in a position of active confidence. Where fraud is alleged, the rule has been clearly established in England that in the case of a stranger equity will not set aside a voluntary deed or donation, however improvident it may be, if it be free from the imputation of fraud, surprise, undue influence and spontaneously executed or made by the donor with his eyes open. Where an active, confidential or fiduciary relation exists between the parties, there the burden of proof is on the donee or those claiming through him. It has further been laid down that where a person gains a great advantage over another by a voluntary instrument, the burden of proof is thrown upon the person receiving the benefit and he is under the necessity of showing that the transaction is fair and honest.
13. In judging the validity of transactions between persons standing in a confidential relation to each other, it is very material to see whether the person conferring a benefit on the other had competent and independent advice. The age or capacity of the person conferring the benefit and the nature of the benefit are of very great importance in such cases. It is always obligatory for the donee/beneficiary under a document to prove due execution of the document in accordance with law, even dehors the reasonableness or otherwise of the transaction, to avail of the benefit or claim rights under the document irrespective of the fact whether such party is the defendant or plaintiff before the court.
14. It is now well established that a Court of Equity, when a person obtains any benefit from another imposes upon the grantee the burden, if he wishes to maintain the contract or gift, of proving that in fact he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining it. The proposition is very clearly stated in Ashburner's Principles of Equity, 2nd Edn., p. 229, thus:
"When the relation between the donor and donee at or shortly before the execution of the gift has been Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 31 of 39 2025.09.27 16:26:20 +0530 such as to raise a presumption that the donee had influence over the donor, the court sets aside the gift unless the donee can prove that the gift was the result of a free exercise of the donor's will."
xxxxx
17. The logic is equally applicable to an old, illiterate, ailing person who is unable to comprehend the nature of the document or the contents thereof. It should be established that there was not mere physical act of the executant involved, but the mental act. Observations of this Court, though in the context of a Pardahnashin lady in Kharbuja Kuer v. Jang Bahadur Rai [AIR 1963 SC 1203] are logically applicable to the case of old, invalid, infirm (physically and mentally) and illiterate persons."
70. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Harcharan Singh Hazooria Vs. Kulwant Singh Hazooria and Ors. CS(OS)2244/2008, Decided on 29.10.2021". The Hon'ble High Court held as follows: -
"46. The legal position that follows is that when a fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally the burden is on them to prove such fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. However, when a person is in a fiduciary relationship with another and the later is in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is upon the person in the dominating position. Such a person has to prove that there was fair play in the transaction. Such a person standing in a fiduciary relationship has a duty to protect the interest of the person given to his care. The courts watch judiciously all transactions between such persons so that the protector may not use his influence or confidence to his advantage. For persons standing in a confidential relation to each other, it is important to see that the person conferring the benefit on the other had competent and independent advice. Further his age or capacity would also have to be seen. It is obligatory for the donee/beneficiary to prove due execution of the documents in accordance with law." Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 32 of 39 16:26:32 +0530
71. The defendant's dominant role in the execution of the gift deeds in question, reinforces the breach of fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiff. As her son and trusted confidant, the defendant occupied a position of influence and control, particularly in light of the plaintiff's illiteracy and lack of legal understanding. The fiduciary relationship demanded transparency, fairness, and accountability in all dealings concerning the plaintiff's property.
Instead, the defendant exercised unilateral control, orchestrated the execution of two separate gift deeds in question under suspicious circumstances, excluded other heirs without justification, and failed to produce evidence of informed consent. His conduct reflects a pattern of concealment and manipulation, incompatible with the obligations inherent in a fiduciary relationship, and strengthens the inference that the transaction was tainted by undue influence and misrepresentation.
72. As far as another contention of the defendant in concerned that the plaintiff is not in possession of one of the suit properties i.e. 9/214, and that he holds exclusive possession thereof. To prove the same, he simply relied on his own testimony as DW-1, which he claims remained unrebutted. However, mere non- rebuttal does not absolve the burden of proof, particularly when the contention itself lacks independent corroboration. In his evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/1, he stated that the said suit property comprises three shops given on license basis to Sh. Amit Kumar, Sh. Shane Alam, and Sh. Vipin Tiwari. Despite this claim, no documentary evidence such as license agreements, rent receipts, or affidavits, has been filed or placed on record to substantiate the Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 33 of 39 2025.09.27 16:26:41 +0530 arrangement. More significantly, none of the named individuals were called to depose in support of his version or confirm their occupancy. The defendant's failure to do so, despite having the opportunity, renders his claim speculative and self-serving. This evidentiary gap, when viewed alongside the broader context of procedural irregularities and exclusion of other heirs, casts serious doubt on the credibility of his narrative and the legitimacy of the transaction.
73. The defendant's another contention that the suit is barred by limitation due to the plaintiff's failure to plead the exact date of knowledge of fraud is misplaced and does not withstand scrutiny in light of the pleadings and evidence on record. The plaintiff has consistently maintained that she became aware of the fraudulent nature of the gift deeds in question only in October 2013, when her son Sh. Dinesh Kumar confronted her with the contents of a written statement filed in related suit. Furthermore, the defendant himself admitted during his cross-examination as DW-1 that the said written statement was filed in October, 2013. As per Section 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for seeking cancellation of an instrument on grounds of fraud begins from the date of knowledge of such fraud. The plaintiff's pleadings and evidence clearly establish this date, and the absence of a specific calendar date does not invalidate the claim, especially when the month and year are consistently stated and supported by documentary and oral evidence.
74. The limitation period for seeking cancellation of an instrument on grounds of fraud begins from the date when the plaintiff first had knowledge of such fraud. The suit was instituted Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 34 of 39 2025.09.27 16:26:48 +0530 on 30.08.2016, which is well within the three-year period from October, 2013.
75. The defendant also relied on the procedural order dated 11.12.2024 passed under Order XVI Rule 3 CPC, contended that the onus to prove limitation had shifted to the plaintiff and that she failed to lead additional evidence thereafter. However, this argument overlooks the fact that the plaintiff's testimony as PW-1 remained unchallenged and unshaken and was not fully cross- examined due to the defendant's own default. Her version of events, supported by documentary evidence and admissions made by DW-1, was sufficient to discharge the burden of proof under the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
76. The plaintiff's timeline of discovery is credible, supported by material on record, and legally sufficient to bring the suit within the prescribed period. The defendant has failed to rebut this timeline or offer any alternative date of discovery that could shift the limitation bar. Accordingly, the suit is held to be within time.
77. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, evidence adduced, and arguments advanced by both parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden of proof under the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The evidence on record, including the cross-examinations of DW-1, DW-2, and DW-3, reveals that the execution of the gift deeds in question was not preceded by informed consent, and was vitiated by misrepresentation and abuse of fiduciary relationship. The plaintiff, being illiterate and dependent on the defendant, was not made aware of the legal Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 35 of 39 16:26:53 +0530 consequences of the documents she signed. The defendant has failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence or offer any plausible justification for the exclusion of the other children.
78. The execution of two separate gift deeds in question, when both suit properties could have been conveyed through a single instrument, further reinforces the suspicion surrounding the transaction. The absence of legal advice, independent witnesses, and any documentation reflecting the plaintiff's intent to favour the defendant exclusively, supports the conclusion that the gift deeds in question were obtained through manipulation. The suit is also found to be within limitation, having been filed within three years from the date of discovery of the alleged fraud, as per the Section 59 of Limitation Act, 1963. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues are answered in affirmative in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
79. With due respect, the judgments relied upon by the defendant is based on facts and circumstances that are materially different from those in the present case. It does not apply to the factual matrix here. Each case must be decided on its own merits, and the precedent cited does not advance the defendant's position in the context of the present dispute.
ISSUE NO. 2:-
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction and non-payment of court fees as the value of the two suit property is more than 1 Crore? OPD
80. It is evident from the record that when issues were framed vide order dated 29.03.2017 by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge/RC Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 GAURAV Date:
Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 36 of 39 2025.09.27 16:27:01 +0530 (East) Karkardooma Court, Delhi, the suit was pending before a court with limited pecuniary jurisdiction. Subsequently, vide order dated 02.05.2023, the plaintiff was directed to value the suit properties and pay the requisite court fees. In compliance of the same, the plaintiff valued the suit properties at Rs. 42,25,200/- and Rs. 43,75,000/- respectively, which cumulatively around Rs. 86, 00,200/- and thus, went beyond the jurisdictional threshold of the then-seized court.
81. Consequently, the parties were directed to appear before the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts Delhi, for appropriate orders. The matter was then transferred to the Ld. ADJ (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the case was transferred to the Court of the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Ultimately, the matter came to be assigned to this Court.
82. It is further noted that the plaintiff has duly paid the ad- valorem court fee of Rs. 91,552/-, as per the valuation of the suit properties. No deficiency in court fee has been pointed out by the registry or defendant post-transfer.
83. This Court presently has pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 2 Crores, and the suit valuation falls well within this limit. Therefore, no further determination on jurisdiction or court fee is required. Accordingly, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 2025.09.27 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 37 of 39 16:27:11 +0530 ISSUE NO.6: -
Relief
84. In view of the findings under above issues nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the suit is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with the following reliefs:
1) A decree of declaration is passed declaring that the gift deeds dated 21.11.2012 Ex.DW2/DB and 04.12.2012 Ex.DW2/DA, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of suit properties bearing Municipal Nos. 9/214 and 9/215, situated at Saraswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031; are null and void, and not binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, the said gift deeds in question stands cancelled.
2) A copy of judgment, decree as well as gift deeds i.e. Ex.DW2/DA and Ex.DW2/DB be sent to the Office of Sub-Registrar concerned, for making necessary endorsement in the records for cancellation thereof, as per rules.
3) Plaintiff is also held entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant, his agents, servants, attorney, associates etc., from selling, transferring, alienating, creating a third-party interest over the suit properties bearing Municipal Nos. 9/214 and 9/215, situated at Saraswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
4) Costs of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.
85. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
86. Application, if any, pending on record is also disposed of Digitally signed by GAURAV Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 38 of 39 GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27 16:27:17 +0530 accordingly.
87. File be consigned to record room as per rules.
(Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and Digitally
pronounced in open court on 27.09.2025). signed by
GAURAV
GAURAV Date:
2025.09.27
16:27:23
+0530
(GAURAV)
DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
Certified that this judgment contains 39 pages and each page bears Digitally signed my signature by GAURAV GAURAV Date: 2025.09.27 16:27:29 +0530 (GAURAV) DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI Old CS No. 9757/2016-New CS No. 337/2025 Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar Page No. 39 of 39