Delhi District Court
Mahavir Prasad vs Tej Bahadur on 17 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ No. 1228/2018
CNR No. DLSW010200092018
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. MAHAVIR PRASAD
S/o SHRI MAKKHAN LAL
R/o R3A/73, MOHAN GARDEN
UTTAM NAGAR
NEW DELHI-110059 ........Plaintiff
Versus
1. TEJ BAHADUR
S/o SHRI RAM GOBIND ......Defendant No.1
2. MUKHIYA DEVI
W/o TEJ BAHADUR .......Defendant No.2
BOTH R/o R3A3/41, MOHAN GARDEN
UTTAM NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110059
Date of institution 06.12.2018
Date of reserving judgment 08.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment 17.05.2025
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of ₹3,42,000 along with interest. The factual matrix of the case is as under:
PLAINT 1 Defendant no.1, in need of financial assistance for the construction of his residential premises, approached the plaintiff in September 2015 and requested a loan of ₹3,00,000/-. In lieu of the said amount, defendant no.1 offered to mortgage his CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 1/13 immovable property bearing plot no. 41-B, measuring 33 sq. yds., forming part of Khasra no. 17/15, situated in village Razapur Khurd, Delhi, within the colony known as Mohan Garden, Block R3A3, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). 2 On 15.09.2015, the plaintiff advanced a sum of ₹3,00,000/- to defendant no.1. Simultaneously, defendant no.1 handed over the original chain documents pertaining to the suit property to the plaintiff as security.
3 The plaintiff regularly received monthly interest at the rate of 2% (i.e., ₹6,000/- per month) from defendant no.1 until 14.05.2018. Thereafter, defendant no.1 ceased to make further payments. On 16.07.2018, the plaintiff, along with certain members of the local community, approached defendant no.1, whereupon defendant no.1 agreed to repay the loan amount along with outstanding interest in monthly instalments of ₹10,000/-. An agreement to this effect was executed in the presence of seven witnesses. However, defendant no.1 failed to comply with the terms of said agreement.
4 On 21.08.2018, defendant no.1 issued life threats to the plaintiff, following which the plaintiff lodged a complaint with PS Ranhola, recorded vide DD No. 31B dated 22.08.2018. 5 The plaintiff, left with no other recourse, issued a legal notice dated 14.09.2018, which was returned undelivered. A second notice dated 11.10.2018 was sent and duly served upon defendant no.1, who also furnished a written reply. 6 The plaintiff later discovered that defendant no.1 had transferred his right, title and interest in the suit property to his wife (defendant no.2) through a chain of documents dated CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 2/13 27.01.2018. The plaintiff apprehends that the defendants may alienate, transfer, or create third-party interests in the suit property in order to defeat the plaintiff's lawful claim. 7 Accordingly, the present suit has been instituted seeking a declaration that the chain of documents dated 27.01.2018 is null and void; a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any third-party interest in the suit property until the outstanding loan amount is repaid and a decree for recovery of ₹3,42,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
WRITTEN STATEMENT 8 The defendants have filed a common written statement, wherein it is contended that the plaintiff is a property dealer. It is alleged that in the year 2012, defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff for the purpose of purchasing the suit property, and the plaintiff facilitated a sale transaction between defendant no.1 and one Manoj Kumar. The plaintiff is alleged to have committed a theft of the copies of documents executed between defendant no.1 and Manoj Kumar and is purportedly using them to unlawfully claim rights over the suit property. 9 It is averred that the 'Settlement Payment Agreement' relied upon by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated. 10 The defendants have denied availing any loan or having paid any interest to the plaintiff. It is further asserted that as per the plaintiff, the alleged loan was extended on 15.09.2015 and hence, the present suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
11 It is additionally stated that on 21.08.2018, the plaintiff, CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 3/13 along with his son and 25-30 armed individuals, unlawfully trespassed into the defendants' residence and misbehaved with them. The defendants claim to have lodged complaints with various authorities in this regard.
REPLICATION 12 In the replication, the plaintiff has denied the contents of the written statement and reiterated his case as set out in the plaint.
ISSUES 13 Admission-denial of documents was conducted and vide order dated 24.03.2022, following issues were framed:
"i)Whether the suit is maintainable in the prsent form? ...OPD
ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration to declare GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, possession letter, deed of WILL, all executed on 27.01.2018 by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void? ...OPP
iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? ..OPP
iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for? ...OPP
v)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest. If yes, at what rate and for which period? ...OPP
vi)Relief, if any."
EVIDENCE 14 The plaintiff examined two witnesses in his support:
14.1 The plaintiff/PW1 tendered his affidavit Ex PW1/A in evidence which reiterates the facts mentioned in the plaint. He CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 4/13 relied on the following documents:
S. Document Marked as
No.
1. Copy of his aadhaar card Ex.PW1/1(OSR)
2. Copy of the title documents dated Ex.PW1/2(Colly.)
16.08.2012 (OSR)
3. Original hand written agreement dated Ex.PW1/3 16.07.2018 4 Photocopy of complaint dated 22.08.2018 Ex.PW1/4 5 Legal Notice along with postal receipts Ex.PW1/5 14.2 PW2 Girdhari Lal Bansal tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. He deposed that he was a neighbour of both parties. He stated that, at the request of the plaintiff, a meeting was convened at the residence of the defendants on 16.07.2018 regarding the loan of ₹3,00,000/- availed by defendant no.1 from the plaintiff. On the said date, a payment agreement was executed and signed between the parties. The witness identified the signatures of the parties to the agreement, including those of Manoj Kumar and Manish (sons of the defendants), as well as other attesting witnesses. He further deposed that the defendant undertook to repay ₹3,00,000/- along with interest by 01.12.2018, after which he would retrieve the original property documents from the plaintiff.
15 The defendants examined two witnesses in their defence:
15.1 DW1/defendant no.1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the written statement. He placed reliance upon his Aadhaar card Ex.
DW1/1 and a copy of complaints made by him, marked as Mark A. 15.2 DW2/Shri Manoj Kumar, son of the defendants tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/A. He CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 5/13 deposed that his father had purchased the suit property through the plaintiff, who was acting in the capacity of a property dealer. He further stated that on several occasions, the plaintiff, accompanied by his son and a group of 25 to 30 individuals, visited their residence and subjected him and his family to criminal intimidation. He alleged that a similar incident occurred on 21.08.2018, during which the plaintiff issued threats of dire consequences in the event the suit property was not transferred in his name. He categorically denied the authenticity of the settlement/payment agreement dated 16.07.2018, terming it as fake, forged, and fabricated. He asserted that neither he, nor his brother, nor defendant no.1 signed the said agreement. He also stated that defendant no.1 does not sign documents in the English language, and therefore, the agreement had been concocted by the plaintiff.
FINDINGS 16 I have heard Sh. Upender Singh, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Rakesh Rajmurti, Ld Counsel for the defendants. 17 Issue-wise findings are as under:
18 "i)Whether the suit is maintainable in the prsent form? ...OPD"
18.1 The onus of proof for this issue lay upon the defendants. However, the defendants have failed to provide any cogent explanation or legal basis as to why the suit is not maintainable in its present form. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
19 "ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration to declare GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, possession letter, deed of WILL, all executed on 27.01.2018 by CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 6/13 defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void? ...OPP"
and "iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? ..OPP"
19.1 The issues under consideration are interrelated in nature and, therefore, are being adjudicated upon collectively. 19.2 The plaintiff has asserted that the title documents pertaining to the suit property were handed over to him by defendant no.1 on 15.09.2015 as security against a loan, thereby creating a mortgage. It remains undisputed that the plaintiff is in possession of the original chain of title documents in the name of defendant no.1. However, the present suit is not one for foreclosure or enforcement of a mortgage. 19.3 Subsequently, defendant no.1 executed a chain of documents dated 27.01.2018 in favour of defendant no.2. As the plaintiff has instituted the present suit solely for the recovery of the loan amount and has not claimed ownership or proprietary rights over the suit property, he is not entitled to a declaration that the documents dated 27.01.2018 are null and void. 19.4 For the same reasons, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any third-party interest in respect of the suit property until the alleged loan amount is repaid. 19.5 Accordingly, both Issue (ii) and Issue (iii) are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
20 "iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for? ...OPP"
CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 7/1320.1 The plaintiff has deposed that he advanced a sum of ₹3,00,000/- to defendant no.1 on 15.09.2015. This assertion has been categorically denied by the defendants, who have also challenged the plaintiff's financial capacity to lend such an amount.
20.2 The alleged transaction lacks any independent witness, and the amount is stated to have been paid in cash. 20.3 During cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he arranged a portion of the loan amount from his brother, indicating that he himself lacked the financial capacity to lend the said sum. However, the plaintiff's brother was not examined as a witness to corroborate this claim or establish that he provided funds to the plaintiff.
20.4 In an attempt to bring the claim within limitation, the plaintiff testified that he received monthly interest payments of ₹6,000/- from defendant no.1 until 14.05.2018. However, there is no documentary evidence--such as receipts or acknowledgments
--to support this assertion. In cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that the interest was paid either in cash or in kind, including LPG cylinders of equivalent value. Given that the cost of non-subsidised LPG cylinders during the period 2015-2018 ranged from ₹600 to ₹800, the claim that ₹6,000/- worth of interest was paid in the form of LPG cylinders appears highly improbable.
20.5 Learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the original title documents of the suit property were handed over to the plaintiff by defendant no.1 as security for repayment, and that the defendants have taken inconsistent stands regarding the same. It is argued that while in the written statement the defendants CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 8/13 alleged that the documents were stolen, DW1 in his testimony admitted that the plaintiff retained the original documents after brokering the deal and never returned them. Further, it is submitted that DW2 acknowledged that the title documents had been handed over to defendant no.1 post-sale. Ld. Counsel argues that there exists no plausible explanation for how the plaintiff came into possession of the original documents other than the voluntary act of defendant no.1 in handing them over as security. 20.6 At first glance, the testimony of DW1 appears contradictory. However, upon a closer reading of his cross- examination, the explanation offered appears plausible. DW1, an uneducated individual, explained that after the plaintiff brokered the property transaction, he (the plaintiff) retained the original documents and handed over only photocopies. DW1 likened this to a "theft" of the documents and further stated that he realised the documents were in the plaintiff's possession only when the plaintiff later claimed so in the year 2018. This explanation also justifies why DW1 never demanded the originals from the plaintiff.
20.7 As for DW2, it is apparent from his testimony that he had no specific knowledge regarding the original documents. He did not mention them in his examination-in-chief and even during his cross-examination, he expressed that he did not know where the originals were, adding that his father (defendant no.1) knew about the same.
20.8 In view of the above, the plaintiff's possession of the original title documents is capable of more than one plausible explanation and, therefore, does not conclusively establish the existence of the loan transaction.CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 9/13
20.9 The plaintiff has also relied upon a document dated 16.07.2018 (Ex. PW1/3), purportedly executed by defendant no.1 in the presence of neighbours, wherein he acknowledged the loan and agreed to repay it in monthly instalments of ₹10,000/-. This document has been denied by the defendants.
20.10 Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that defendant no.1 is not educated and signs in Hindi, whereas the document Ex. PW1/3 bears signatures in English. 20.11 In response, learned counsel for the plaintiff referred to copy of his office identity card (Ex. DW1/PX1) admitted by defendant no.1, which allegedly bears his English signature. 20.12 I have considered the rival contentions. It is settled law that when the execution of an unregistered document produced by the plaintiff is denied by the defendant, the burden to prove the authenticity of the documents lies upon the plaintiff. The defendant cannot be required to establish that the documents were forged and the primary burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, Reliance is placed on the judgment in Thiruvengadam Pillai vs. Navaneethammal & Anr, (2008) 4 SCC 530 and Robinson vs. Ramachandran, 2014-3-LW 644.
20.13 When a defendant admits his signatures on a document but alleges that they were obtained by fraud, the burden to prove such fraud lies upon the defendant. However, in cases where the defendant denies his signatures and alleges forgery or fabrication, he is not required to provide further specifics to support his contention. Instead, the plaintiff--who has approached the court
--bears the burden of disproving allegations of fraud or forgery. Reliance is placed on Sheikh Yusuf vs. Haji Mohammad, 2015(2) Mh.L.J 209.CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 10/13
20.14 Therefore, I concur with the arguments advanced by Ld Counsel for the defendants that the fundamental principle of evidence law is that the burden of proof in a suit lies upon the party who would fail if no evidence were produced on either side. He has rightly placed reliance on the case of Smriti Debbarma (dead) Through LRs vs Prabha Ranjan Debbarma & Ors, (2023) 1 SCR 355. The burden of establishing entitlement to relief lies upon the plaintiff, in accordance with Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. The defendants are not required to prove their defence before the plaintiff had first established the due execution of the documents in question. The next consideration, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has successfully discharged this burden.
20.15 A perusal of the pleadings and evidence recorded in this suit indicates that defendant no.1 ordinarily signs in Hindi. Even the identity card (Ex. DW1/PX1), introduced by the plaintiff, bears a self-attestation in Hindi which matches the signatures on the pleadings and testimony.
20.16 Defendant no.1 has denied the English signature marked at point 'A' on Ex. DW1/PX1. The signature on the disputed agreement (Ex. PW1/3) is also in English, but even this does not resemble the English signature on the identity card. This discrepancy remains unexplained.
20.17 It was argued by the plaintiff's counsel that the defendants have not denied taking a loan, but only disputed the authenticity of the document dated 16.07.2018. However, this argument is without merit as the written statement, as well as the affidavit Ex. DW1/A (particularly para 7), explicitly deny the loan transaction.CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 11/13
20.18 Similarly, it was also submitted that during the cross- examination of PW1, only the defendant's signature on the agreement was challenged, and not those of his sons. This, however, is not borne out by the record. Both DW1 and DW2 have clearly denied the signatures of DW1, DW2, and Manish Kumar on the agreement Ex. PW1/3. Absence of suggestion will not make the case any better for the plaintiff. 20.19 Further, the signatures of DW2 and Manish Kumar on Ex. PW1/3 do not match those in their respective affidavits (both sons of the defendants had filed affidavits in evidence but later only one was examined), which are signed in Hindi, nor with DW2's English signature made in court. This undermines the plaintiff's claim regarding the genuineness of the document. 20.20 Ex. PW1/3, a handwritten undertaking purportedly executed by defendant no.1, appears to be written in two different handwritings. The plaintiff has offered no explanation in this regard, nor is there any assertion that the document was authored in the defendant's own handwriting.
20.21 The plaintiff has produced PW2 as a witness to the execution of Ex. PW1/3. However, the credibility of PW2 is doubtful. The plaintiff alleges that the document was executed in a meeting held at the defendants' residence to demand repayment of the loan. In such circumstances, the persons accompanying the plaintiff, including PW2, must have been informed of the loan beforehand. Yet PW2 deposed that he was not aware of the loan until Ex. PW1/3 was executed. He also could not state when the loan was given. It is implausible that PW2 would witness and attest a document for a transaction about which he had no prior knowledge.CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 12/13
20.22 Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out that the defendants lodged their complaints only after receipt of the legal notice from the plaintiff. Moreover, although the complaints contain serious allegations, no substantive action was pursued by the defendants thereafter, thereby suggesting the falsity of such allegations.
20.23 While this contention may cast doubt upon the credibility of the defendants' complaints, it does not, in itself, prove the existence of the loan transaction or the repayment terms as alleged by the plaintiff.
20.24 Resultantly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
21 "v)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest. If yes, at what rate and for which period? ...OPP"
21.1 In view of the findings on issue no. iv), this issue does not survive and is accordingly answered.
22 "vi)Relief, if any."
22.1 The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties left to bear their own costs.
23 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 24 File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA GUSAIN
GUSAIN SOLANKI
Date: 2025.05.17
SOLANKI 17:55:06 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Richa Gusain Solanki)
on 17th May, 2025 District Judge-02,
South-West District
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
CS DJ ADJ No.1228/18 Mahavir Prasad v. Tej Bahadur & Anr. Page 13/13