Sandeep Kumar vs Desh Raj Page No.1 Of 42 on 6 June, 2018

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sandeep Kumar vs Desh Raj Page No.1 Of 42 on 6 June, 2018

                                 1

     IN THE COURT OF SH. FAHAD UDDIN: CIVIL JUDGE-04:
      CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURT: NEW DELHI


Case No.95790/16

IN THE MATTER OF
Sandeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o House no.1, Ambika Vihar,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110087                             ....Plaintif

                            Versus


1.       Sh. Desh Raj
         S/o Late Sh. Hans Raj

2.       Sh. Sandeep
         S/o Sh. Desh Raj

3.       Sh. Rajeshwar
         S/o Sh. Desh Raj

         All R/o:- B-70, Mansarovar Garden
         New Delhi.

4.       Smt. Shashi Prabha
         D/o Sh. Chetan Singh Verma
         R/o B-1/242, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.
                                             ...Defendants



Date of filing                         : 14.03.2007
Date of Institution                    : 14.03.2007
Date of pronouncing judgment           : 06.06.2018

SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION,
MESNE           PROFITS/DAMAGES,DECLARATION     AND         FOR
POSSESSION

CS No.95790/16
Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                        Page no.1 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                    2



JUDGMENT

Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction , mesne profit/ damages, declaration and for possession. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present case may be described as under :-

Plaintiff's case as per the amended plaint.

1. The plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff had purchased plot/ property bearing No. 37 ad-measuring 349.47 sq yds forming part of Khasra No. 27/19, Village Kakrola and now Abadi/ colony known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property") vide GPA Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will etc. all dated 21.06.2001 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from Sh. Ratan Chandra S/o Laxman Chandra R/o Binod Pur, Power House Road PO & District Katihar, Bihar. At the time of purchase of the above said property, the plaintiff was informed by the seller Sh.

Ratan Chandra that he had purchased the property from Sh. Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh of Village Kakrola, Delhi as per similar documents that of the plaintiff on 15.11.1983. The plaintiff was put into physical possession of the suit property on CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.2 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

the date of purchase itself and the delivery letter was also executed in this regard. At the time of purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff there was a boundary wall of about 3 ft height around the suit property and a room with a door was also existing as shown in the site plan attached by the Plaintiff. The plaintiff had also put his lock on the said room but there was no gate on the boundary wall.

2. On 07.01.2006, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No. 1 to 3 had trespassed in the suit property and had started raising illegal construction by raising height of the boundary wall and accordingly a complaint in this regard was filed with the Chowki Incharge, PS Dwarka, New Delhi by the plaintiff. The defendants No. 1 to 3 were summoned to the police station and both the parties produced their respective documents before the Chowki Incharge, Dwarka Police Station. At that time, the plaintiff came to know that the documents produced by defendant No. 1 to 3 i.e. agreement to sell etc. did not bear the signatures of the purchasers and the witnesses on the said agreement to sell and even the plot number on the said agreement to sell was mentioned as 31,32 and 33 and not as

37. For the time being, the Sub Inspector namely P.S. Rana had CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.3 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

assured the plaintiff and his family members that he would not allow the defendant No.1 to raise any construction on the suit property and accordingly, the plaintiff had put a security guard named Kallu to keep a watch on the suit property and to prevent any construction by defendant No. 1 to 3. However, the defendant NO. 1 to 3 with the collusion of SI P.S Rana managed to get installed a gate at the main entrance and also the height of the boundary wall was raised about 6 ft and even a hand pump was got installed. The defendant No. 1 to 3 also threatened the Chowkidar of the plaintiff and he was forced to flee from the suit property on 22.01.2006. On receiving the information about the said incident by Sh. Kallu on telephone, the plaintiff and his family members reached the spot and they found that despite the complaint and assurance given by Chowki Incharge, PS Dwarka, a gate was installed and other construction was carried out in the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff put a lock on the gate to prevent further construction on the suit property and again reported the matter to the local police. The defendant No.1 was therefore, called at the Police Chowki and at this time, he again showed the documents and surprisingly the said documents were now having the signature of Smt. Kamal Kanta and witness Sh. Bhupender Kumar Sahni. CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                            Page no.4 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                   5

Thus ,it became clear that the signatures of Smt. Kamal Kanta and Sh. Bhupender Kumar Sahni had been put after 07.1.2006 in collusion with SI PS Rana who assisted the defendant No.1 to 3 in the encroachment of the suit property belonging to the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff his father, mother and other relative were falsely arrested in a Kalandra under section 107/151 CrPC when they objected to the conduct of SI P.S. Rana. The plaintiffs mother also made complaints dated 27.01.2006 and 17.03.2006 to the concerned DCP but no action was taken against the defendants and the possession of the suit property was not restored to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 to 3. Later on defendant No. 1 to 3 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff, his father and mother titled as ' Desh Raj & others v. Meena Aggarwal and others'. Through, this civil suit the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 to 3 were claiming ownership of the suit property on the ground that Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal had sold the suit property to Smt. Shashi Bala and Smt. Kamal Kanta as per documents like GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will etc. all dated 16.06.1990. The defendant No. 1 to 3 had also filed another set of documents showing that Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal had purchased the suit property from Sh. Vijay Kumar as per documents like GPA, CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.5 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, receipt etc. all dated 11.7.1988. The documents filed by defendant NO. 1 to 3 in the said civil suit referred to the plot bearing No. 31,32,33 measuring 340 sq. yds situated in Khasra No. 27/23, Mohit Nagar, Village Kakrola, New Delhi. The defendant NO. 1 to 3 claimed to had succeeded to 50% share of Smt. Kamal Kanta being the wife of defendant No. 1 and mother of defendant No. 2 and 3 as per succession law and it was claimed that Smt. Kamal Kanta died on 01.06.2005.

3. The defendant No. 1 to 3 are claiming joint ownership to the extent of 50% in the suit property alongwith defendant No.4 on the basis of the documents as mentioned above. The plaintiff reiterated that defendant No. 1 to 3 have illegally trespassed in the suit property in active collusion with SI PS Rana and other police officials of PS Dwarka, New Delhi and they have raised illegal construction by raising the height of the boundary wall from 3ft to 6 ft, installation of a gate, hand pump and an electricity meter in the suit property. One property dealer Surender of the area was also involved in this conspiracy. Thus, the plaintiff submitted that possession of defendant no.1 to 3 over the suit property is totally illegal and CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.6 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

the defendants are in illegal use and occupation of the suit property and they are bound to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff after removing their unauthorized construction on the suit property . The Plaintiff submitted that the GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt will etc. all dated 16.06.1990 executed by Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal in faovour of Smt. Kamal Kanta and Smt. Shashi Prabha are forged and fabricated and they did not confer any rights, title or interest on Smt. Kamal Kanta and Smt Shashi Prabha and as such the said documents are null and void. Similarly the GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt etc. all dated 11.07.1988 executed by Sh. Vijay Kumar in favour of Bal Bahadur Pal are forged and fabricated document and they did not confer any right title or interest on Sh. Vijay Kumar to sell the suit property to Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal and are also null and void document. The defendant No. 1 to 3 being in illegal use and occupation of the suit property are bound to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff @ Rs. 500/- per day from the date of filling of the suit till the possession of the suit property is restored to the plaintiff.

4. The Plaintiff submitted that the defendants also CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.7 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

threatened the plaintiff to raise further construction in the suit property and also to sell, transfer or part with possession of the suit property and to create third party interest in the suit property to defeat the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. A specific threat was given to the plaintiff by defendant NO.1 to 3 in this regard on 04.03.2007. Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in these circumstance for permanent & mandatory injunction, mesne profits/damages, declaration as well as for possession against the defendants. In the prayer clause of the Plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for award of the following reliefs.

a) a decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants their legal heirs, agents, associates etc. thereby restraining them from selling, transferring, parting with possession, creating any third party interest and also from raising any construction in the suit property i.e. plot bearing No. 37, forming part of Khasra No. 27/19, Village Kakrola, now known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, Delhi as shown in the site plan attached by the Plaintiff.

b) a decree of mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants their legal heirs, agents, associates etc. thereby directing them to remove the unauthorized construction carried out by them after 07.01.2006 which includes the boundary wall above the height of 3 ft., gate at the main entrance, hand pump or any construction raised by CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.8 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

them inside the suit property.

c) a decree of declaration be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their legal heirs, agents, associates etc. thereby declaring that the documents like GPA, agreement to sell, receipt affidavit, Will etc. all dated 16.06.1990 allegedly executed by Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal in favour of defendant No 4 and Smt. Kamal Kanta and the documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to sell, Receipt, Affidavit, Will etc. all dated 11.07.1988 allegedly executed by Sh. Vijay Kumar in favour of Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal are forged and fabricated documents and that the said documents do not create any right, title or interest in favour of the defendants.

d) a decree of mense profits/ damages be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants their legal heirs, agents, associates etc. thereby directing them to pay mesne profit/ damages @ Rs. 500/- per day or at any other rate as deem fit by this court to the plaintiff from the date of filling of the suit till the handing over the vacant peaceful possession of the suit property alongwith interest @ 12% per annum to the Plaintiff.

e) a decree of possession be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants their legal heirs, agents , associates etc. thereby directing them to hand over the vacant, peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Defendant's case as per the written statement.

5. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant NO. 1 and 2 to the suit of the plaintiff. In the written statement, the defendants submitted as under:-

CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                                                Page no.9 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                    10

a)       The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff

has twisted and concealed the true facts from the court in order to grab the land of the defendants. The plaintiff has wrongly stated the description of the suit property as property NO 37 in Khasra NO. 27/19, Village Kakrola, now known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The correct description of the suit property is property No. 31,32 and 33 Khasra No. 27/23 Village Kakrola, now known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi as shown in the lay out plan attached by the defendant. The defendant submitted that originally Khasra No. 27/23 was jointly owned by Sukbir Singh, Bhagat Ram, Tej Ram, all sons of Sh. Chander and Balbir Singh. On 22.10.1986, the aforesaid owner had appointed Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Harkesh as their GPA for consideration in respect of plots bearing No. 28,29,30,31,32,33 in Khasra No. 27/23 vide GPA agreement affidavit etc, all dated 22.10.1986. By virtue of the said documents, the aforesaid original owner had empowered Sh. Vijay Kumar to sell and transfer the aforesaid plot to any buyer. Further, on 11.07.1988, Sh. Vijay Kumar had authorized and appointed Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul S/o Sh. Hari Ram as his GPA for consideration in respect of plots NO. 31,32 and 33 comprising part of Khasra No. 27/23 vide GPA agreement to Sell, affidavit receipt etc. for Rs. 28,000/- all dated 11.07.1988 and by virtue of these documents, the original owner had empowered Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul to sell and transfer the aforesaid plot to any buyer. On 16.06.1990 in exercise of his powers, Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul authorized and appointed Smt. Shashi Prabha D/o Sh. Chetan Singh Verma and Smt. Kamal Kanta D/o Sh. Bihari lal W/o Sh. Desh Raj as his GPA for consideration in respect of plots CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.10 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

No. 31,32, 33 comprising part of Khasra No. 27/23 vide GPA, agreement ,affidavit, receipt etc. all dated 11.07.1988 and by virtue of the said documents, Smt. Shashi Prabha and Smt. Kamal Kanta jointly became owner of plot No. 31, 32, 33 ad-measuring 340 Sq, yds comprising Khasra NO. 27/23, Village Kakrola, , Najafgarh, New Delhi and Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul had handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the aforesaid plots to Smt. Shashi Prabha and Kamal Kanta.

b) On 01.06.2005, Smt Kamal Kanta had expired and she was survived by defendant No.1 ( her husband) and defendant No.2 and 3 (her sons). Since the day of purchase of the aforesaid property, the defendant No.1 and 2 and defendant NO. 4 remained as exclusive owner in possession of plot NO. 31, 32 and 33. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff and his mother and father are the members of group of land grabbers/ land mafia whose work is to illegally grab the land of others and thereafter they used to sell the lands to innocent buyers by forging a false documents of grabbed lands. In the year 2005, the property of the defendants came to the notice of the land mafia and the defendants started receiving threatening call very often from unknown persons. In order to avoid any mis- happening, the defendants employed care taker/ chowkidar namely Kalu S/o Vir Pal and in order to facilitate his work, one CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.11 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

room was constructed in the aforesaid plots by the defendants. The defendants also employed security guard from high command security service to protect their aforesaid property. The defendants submitted that in the last week of November 2005, the defendants started the work to install the hand pump on their property and after two days of employing the labour for the aforesaid work, defendant No. 1 received a threatening call from telephone number 25264637. The labourers also told the defendants that the lady had come with a man and they extended threats in case the work in the aforesaid property is not stopped. Later on, the lady and the man were identified as father and mother of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 immediately reported the matter to the police vide complaint dated 01.12.2005 regarding the illegal acts of the plaintiff and his parents. Complaints were also lodged by the defendants and their chowkidar on 12.01.2006 and 13.01.2007. On 22.01.2006, the neighbourers had given a call to the defendants whereby they informed the defendants that the plaintiff alongwith his parents and some goons had come to the suit property and they were trying to dispossess the chowkidar from the defendant's property. The defendants immediately reached at the spot and immediately called the police. When the plaintiff and his CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.12 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

associates saw the police they tried to run away. However, the police arrested the plaintiff and his parents. The defendant was also arrested alongwith the plaintiff and a Kalandra under section 160/151 CrPC was registered. But, the executive magistrate admitted the claim of the defendant and sent the plaintiff and his associates to judicial custody.

6. After this incident, the defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Plaintiff and his parents before the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and the Ld. Civil Judge admitted the claim of the defendant and passed a status quo order in favour of the defendants vide order dated 31.03.2006. The defendants submitted that till the date of filling of the suit, the suit property remained in the exclusive possession of the defendants and thus the suit of the plaintiff is bad in law and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from this court. The plaintiff is an active member of land mafia and is indulged in illegal activity of land grabbing. The falsity of the claim of the plaintiff is apparent from the fact that plot NO. 37, comprising part of Khasra NO. 27/23 is a built up property and Smt. Suman Gupta W/o Sh. Ashok Gupta is the owner and is in possession of the said property No. 37. Though the plaintiff claims himself as CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.13 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

owner of the property no. 37 comprising part of Khasra NO. 27/19, wherein the original owner has been shown as Balbir Singh and Sukbir Singh of land falling in Khasra NO. 27/19 whereas the truth is that as per the revenue record, the land falling in Khasra No. 27/19 belongs to Sh. Mahender Singh and Rajender Singh both sons of Sh. Sabha Chand. Thus Sh. Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh have no concern with the land falling in Khasra NO. 27/19 and all the documents filed by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents created by the plaintiff and other persons in order to grab the land of the defendants. The falsity of the plaintiff's claim is apparent from the fact that Mohit Nagar colony, Kakrola Village was carved out in Khasra No. 27/23, 27/24, 28/04 and 28/6/1 and no khasra number i.e. 27/19 as alleged by the plaintiff exists in the Mohit Nagar Colony, Kakrola Village. In the site plan filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has shown property NO. 38 on the North of suit property (i.e. property NO. 31,32 and 33) whereas the correct situation of the said property is that it is situated on the South of the suit property ( i.e. property NO. 31,32 and 33 ) as shown in blue colour in the site plan attached by the defendant.

7. The defendant denied that the plaintiff purchased plot i.e. CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.14 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

property bearing No. 37 ad-measuring 349.47 sq yds forming part of Khasra No. 27/19, Village Kakrola, known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi as per GPA, agreement to sell, Affidavit, Will etc. all dated 21.06.2001 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from Sh. Ratan Chander S/o Sh. Laxman Chandra. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff has forged the documents and on the basis of forged documents, the plaintiff is trying to grab the property of the defendants. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff has not filed the complete or correct site plan of the suit property. The defendant denied that on 07.01.2006, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 to 3 had trespassed in the suit property and had started raising illegal constriction by raising height of the boundary wall. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff had lodged false and frivolous complaint to this effect. The defendant submitted that in the suit pending before the court of Sh. Shailender Malik, the defendants stated the true facts and the court after hearing the submissions of the parties admitted the case of the defendants and passed a status quo order in favour of the defendants. The defendants denied that the possession of the defendant NO. 1 to 3 of the suit property is illegal and or that the defendants are in illegal use and occupation of the suit property as alleged by CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.15 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

the plaintiff. The defendants denied that the GPA, agreement to Sell, Will etc. all dated 16.06.1990 executed by Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal in favour of Smt. Kamal Kanta and Smt. Shashi Prabha are forged and fabricated document and they did not confer any right/ title or interest on Smt. Kamal Kanta and Smt. Shashi Prabha as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants further denied that the GPA agreement to sell, receipt etc. all dated 11.07.1988 executed by Sh. Vijay Kumar in favour of Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal are forged and fabricated documents and they did not confer any right/ title or interest on Sh. Vijay Kumar to sell the suit property to Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants submitted that all the documents executed in respect of property NO. 31, 32 and 33 comprising part of Khasra NO. 27/3 Mohit Nagar, Village Kakrola, Najafgarh Delhi are legal and enforceable documents and they confer valid title in respect of the aforesaid property in favour of the defendants. The defendant submitted that on the contrary, the documents filed by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents and they do not confer any right/title or interest upon the plaintiff. The defendant denied that a threat was extended to the plaintiff by defendant NO.1 on 04.03.2007 as alleged by the plaintiff. Rest of the case of the plaintiff has also CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.16 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

been denied by the defendants. Thus, in these circumstances, the defendant No. 1 and 2 submitted that the suit of the Plaintiff is gross abuse of process of law and the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff with heavy costs.

8. Defendant no. 3 adopted the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 and 2 vide order dated 05.03.2008. Written statement was also filed on behalf of defendant NO. 4 wherein defendant No.4 submitted that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest of any kind in respect of the suit property which is owned by the defendants. The defendants are the owners and in possession of the suit property which they have legally and validly purchased from its erstwhile owner by way of GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, Will etc. all dated 16.06.1990. The property in question was purchased jointly by Smt. Shashi Prabha and Smt. Kamal Kanta, the predecessor in interest of defendant No.1 to 3. At the time of sell of the suit property, the previous owners also handed over the vacant and peaceful possession to the defendant and since then the defendants are in the possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 4 also submitted that the falsity of the claim of the plaintiff is apparent from the fact that plot No.37 comprising part of Khasra CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.17 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

No. 27/23 is a built up property and Smt. Suman Gupta W/o Sh. Ashok Gupta is the owner and in possession of the said property. The plaintiff claims himself as owner of property No. 37 comprising part of Khasra No. 27/19 wherein ownership/ title emanates from Sh.Balbir Singh and Sh. Sukhbir Singh falling in Khasra No. 27/19 whereas the truth is that as per the revenue records, the land which falls in Khasra No. 27/19 belongs to Sh. Mahender Singh and Sh. Rajender Singh, both sons of Sh. Sabha Singh. Thus, it is clear that Balbir Singh and Sukbhr Singh had no right, title or interest in the land falling in Khasra No. 27/19 and all the documents filed by plaintiff are forged and fabricated document created by the plaintiff and other persons in order to grab the land of the defendants. The defendant NO. 4 submitted that falsity of the claim of the plaintiff is also apparent from the fact that Mohit Nagar Colony, Kakrola Village has been carved out in Khasra No. 27/23,27/24, 28/04 and 28/6/1 and no khasra No. 27/19 as alleged by the plaintiff exists in Mohit Nagar Colony, Kakrola Village. Rest of the case of the plaintiff was also denied by the defendant No. 4. The defendant NO. 4 submitted that the suit property i.e. property No. 31, 32 and 33 comprising part of Khasra No. 27/23, Mohit Nagar Village Kakrola Najagarh, Delhi are owned and possessed jointly by the CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.18 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

defendants. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim mesne profit from the defendants. The plaintiff is active member of land mafia and he is indulged in the illegal practice of forging the documents and thereby grabbing the land of others. Thus in these circumstance, defendant No. 4 has also prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff with heavy costs. Replication to the suit of the plaintiff.

9. Replication was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 and 2 wherein the plaintiff reiterated his case and denied the case of the defendants. The plaintiff denied that that Khasra NO. of the suit property is 27/23 and not 27/19. The plaintiff submitted that the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff by the seller who told the plaintiff that the suit property was situated in Khasra No.27/19, Village Kakrola, Delhi. If there is an error of khasra number, the defendants cannot take advantage of the same by trespassing in the suit property and take forcible possession of the same in collusion with the police. The plaintiff reiterated that plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 21.06.2001 and at that time a boundary wall of about 3 ft height and a room with a door was existing on which the plaintiff had put his lock at the time of taking possession of the CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.19 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

suit property from the seller. The chowkidar Kalu was employed by the plaintiff and he was the one who had intimated the plaintiff on telephone regarding the trespass by defendant No.1 on 22.01.2006 and the said Kalu was forced to flee from the suit property. The plaintiff submitted that there was no hand pump in the suit property upto 22.01.2006 and defendants had installed a hand pump in the suit property after trespassing the same. The plaintiff again reiterated that the seller had sold the suit property to the plaintiff and the possession of the same was handed over to the plaintiff and it was told to the plaintiff that the suit property falls in Khasra NO. 23/19 and its number is 37. The plaintiff submitted that he is not concerned with the khasra number as the possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 37 was purchased by the plaintiff for valuable consideration and the plaintiff was put in peaceful possession of the same. The defendants have no right or authority to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property without due process of law. Replication was also filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant NO.4. The contents of the same are not being repeated herein for the sake brevity. It is suffice to say that the plaintiff reiterated his case and denied the case of defendant No.4 as set out in the written statement. CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                             Page no.20 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                           21



Issues :-

10. Vide order dated 11.01.2010, the following issues had been framed for adjudication by the court from the pleadings of the parties..

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the plot/ property bearing NO. 37 admeasuring 349.47 sq. Yds forming part of Khasra No. 27/19, Village Kakrola, Najargarh, New Delhi. OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for? OPP.

6. Relief.

Plaintiff's evidence.

11. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got examined only one witness. PW-1 Sh. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar (Plaintiff himself) who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A and he relied upon the following documents:-

a. Photocopy of GPA dated 21.06.2001 ex. PW1/1 (OSR) b. Photocopy of agreement to sell dated 21.06.2001 Ex.. PW1/2 (OSR).

CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                                         Page no.21 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                   22

c.       Photocopy of affidavit dated 21.06.2001 Ex.. PW1/3 (OSR)
d.         Photocopy of Will dated         21.06.2001 Ex.. PW1/4
         (OSR)
e.       Original receipt dated 21.06.2001 Ex. PW1/5.
f.       Photocopy of delivery letter dated 21.06.2001 Ex.. PW1/6
         (OSR)
g.       Original site plan Ex.PW1/7.
h.       Photocopy of GPA dated 15.11.1983 as Ex. PW1/8 (OSR)
i.       Photocopy of agreement         to sell dated 15.11.1983 Ex.
PW1/9 (OSR)
j.       Photocopy of affidavit dated 15.11.1983 Ex.. PW1/10
(OSR)
k.       Photocopy of Will dated 15.11.1983 Ex. PW1/11 (OSR)
l.       Original receipt dated 15.11.1983 Ex. PW1/12
m.       Original possession letter dated 15.11.1983 Ex. PW1/13.
n.       Received copy of complaint dated 07.01.2006 Ex. PW1/15
o.       Received copy of complaint dated 27.01.2006 Ex. PW1/16
p.       Received copy of complaint dated 17.03.2006 Ex. PW1/17

There was no document like Ex. PW1/14. After conclusion of cross examination of PW-1 on 02.11.2015, on separate statement of the Plaintiff, PE was closed.

Defendant's evidence.

12. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff , three witnesses were got examined on behalf of the defendants. DW-1 was Sh. Manoj Parsad, UDC, Revenue Department (HQ) Govt of NCT of Delhi who was a summoned witness and brought the CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.22 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

summoned record i.e. the RTI Application of the defendant and its reply. RTI application of defendant was exhibited as Ex. DW1/1 and its reply given by the department was Ex. DW1/2 (colly).

DW-2 was Sh. Bijender Singh, Patwari, Office of Dwarka Tehsil, Najafgarh, Delhi who was also a summoned witness. He brought the summoned record i.e. Khatoni register of Village Kakrola, Najafgarh,. Delhi which includes the Khatoni of Khasra NO. 27/19 and 27/23 of village Kakrola, Najafgarh,District South West, Delhi for the year 2003 to 2004. Copy of Khatoni of Khasra No. 27/19, village Kakrola, Najafgarh, is Ex. DW2/1 and copy of Khatoni of Khasra No. 27/23, Village Kakrola, Najafgarh was Ex. DW2/2.

DW-3 was Shri Desh Raj (defendant no.1 herein) who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW3/A and he relied upon the documents Ex. DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/32 (OSR), the details of which are not being given herein for the sake of brevity. It may be noted that Ex. DW3/24 was de-exhibited as not on record and the same document was already exhibited as Ex. DW3/1 and Ex. DW3/2. Photocopy of GPA of Plot No. 37 of Khasra NO. 23/3, 27/23 were marked as mark A. Ex. DW3/3, Ex. DW3/4 and Ex. DW3/5 were de-exhibited and marked as mark B,C and D. Exhibit DW3/19 and Ex. DW3/21 (objected to mode of proof). Ex. DW3/25 (objected to mode of proof). After conclusion of cross examination of DW-3, on separate statement of the defendant, DE was closed on 19.04.2016. On 28.02.2017, the defendant also brought on record Ex. DW-3/33.

CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                           Page no.23 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                 24



Objections:

As mentioned above, the plaintiffs side has objected to the mode of proof in respect of documents Ex. DW-3/19 and Ex. DW-3/21 as well as Ex. DW-3/25. Ex, DW-3/19 is the copy of complaint dated 01.02.05 made by Sh. Desh Raj to the SHO, Dwarka, Sector 23 and the same bears his signatures.. Ex. DW- 3/21 is the copy of complaint dated 13.01.2006 made by Sh. Desh Raj to the SHO , Dwarka. Ex. DW-3/25 are the photographs of the property relied upon by DW-3. With regard to DW-3/19 and DW-3/21, i.e. the copy of complaint dated 01.02.05 and 13.01.2006, it may be said that as DW-3 had made these complaints to the SHO, and the same were signed by him, DW-3 can rely upon these documents and prove the same as per section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. So far as photographs i.e. DW-3/25 are concerned , it has been noted in Halsbury that photographs properly verified on oath by person able to speak to their accuracy are generally admissible in evidence to prove the identity of persons or the configuration of land as it existed at a particular point of time. In the present case DW-3 in his examination in chief has relied upon DW-3/25 . He has been cross examined by the Plaintiff regarding these photographs. He CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.24 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

stated in his cross examination that it is correct that he had filed certain photographs of the suit property as DW-3/25. He stated that it is correct that the suit property in the said photographs is encircled at Point A. and he also answered others questions asked in respect of the said photographs. Thus, in view of the said situation, this court is of the opinion that the objections raised by the Plaintiff side regarding mode of proof of these documents are not tenable and are liable to dismissed. Findings on Issues:

13. I have heard the submissions of both the parties and have also perused the case record in detail. On the basis of the submissions of the parties as well as the evidence/ material available on record, the issue wise findings of this court are as under :-

Issue no.1:-

Whether the plaintif is owner of the plot/ property bearing no. 37 admeasuring 349.47 sq. Yds forming part of Khasra No. 27/19, Village Kakrola, Najargarh, New Delhi ?OPP.

Issue no.2:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction? OPP.

CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                               Page no.25 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                 26

Issue no.3:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction? OPP. Issue no. 4:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP.

And Issue no.5:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for? OPP.

14. For the sake of convenience issue no.1 to 5 are being taken up together as they are inter-connected and the onus to prove these issue is on the Plaintiff. In brief, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff purchased plot/property bearing no. 37, admeasuring 349.47 sq yds. forming part of khasra no. 27/19, village kakrola , now abadi/colony known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) as per General power of attorney, Agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, will, delivery letter all dated 21.06.2001 for a sum of Rs 70,000/- from Sh. Ratan Chandra S/o Sh. Laxman Chandra who was a resident of District Katihar, Bihar. The said Sh. Rattan Chandra had purchased the said property from Sh. Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh of village Kakrola Delhi by virtue of the similar documents as that of the Plaintiff on 15.11.1983. CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                               Page no.26 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                 27

The Plaintiff was put into physical possession of the suit property on the day of purchase itself and delivery letter was also executed in this regard. At the time of purchase of the suit property there was a boundary wall of about 3 feet height around the suit property and a room with a door. On 07.01.2006 the Plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 to 3 had trespassed in the suit property and had started raising illegal construction by raising height of the boundary wall and for this reason a complaint was filed by the Plaintiff with the local Police Station Dwarka. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the defendants illegally trespassed in the suit property in collusion with the local Police , the possession of the defendants in the suit property is illegal and they are bound to hand over the vacant , peaceful possession of the suit property after removing their unauthorized construction as existing on the date of filing of the present suit to the Plaintiff. As per the case of the Plaintiff the documents executed by Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal in favour of Smt. Kamal Kanta and Smt. Shashi Prabha all dated 16.06.1990 are forged and fabricated documents and they did not confer any right title or interest on Smt. Kamal Kanta and Smt. Shashi Prabha. Further the documents executed by Sh. Vijay Kumar in favour of Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal all dated 11.07.1988 are forged CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.27 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

and fabricated documents and they did not confer any right, title or interest on Sh. Vijay Kumar to sell the suit property to Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal. Thus, in these circumstances the Plaintiff has prayed for award of the reliefs of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, declaration , mesne profits/damages as well as possession against the defendants in terms of the prayer clauses of the Plaint.

15. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants , that the Plaintiff has given wrong description of the suit property. The Plaintiff wrongly described the suit property as property no. 37, in khasra no. 27/19, village kakrola, now known as Mohit Nagar Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi. However, the true description of the suit property is property no. 31, 32 and 33 khasra no. 27/23, village kakrola, now known as Mohit Nagar, Village kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Originally khasra no.27/23 was jointly owned by Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Bhagat Ram, Tej Ram all sons of Sh. Chander and Balbir Singh. On 22.10.1986, the said owners had appointed Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Harkesh as there GPA for consideration in respect of plots bearing no. 28,29,30,31,32,33 in khasra no. 27/23. On 11.07.1988 in exercise of powers vested in Sh. Vijay Kumar the said Sh. Vijay CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.28 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

Kumar had authorized and appointed Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal S/o Sh. Hari Ram as his GPA for consideration in respect of plots no. 31, 32, 33 comprising part of khasra no. 27/23 vide documents GPA, Affidavit receipt etc. all dated 11.07.1988. Thereafter on 16.06.1990, in exercise of the powers vested in Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal , the said Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal had authorized and appointed Smt. Shashi Prabha D/o Sh. Chetan Singh and Smt. Kamal Kanta w/o Sh. Desh Raj as his GPA for consideration in respect of plots no. 31, 32, 33 comprising part of khasra no. 27/23 vide documents GPA, Affidavit receipt etc. and in this manner the said Smt. Shashi Prabha and Smt. Kamal Kanta became owners of plot no. 31, 32, 33 measuring 340. Sq yds comprising part of khasra no. 27/23, Mohit Nagar, Village kakrola, Njafgarh, New Delhi and Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul also handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the aforesaid plots to Smt. Shashi Prabha and Smt. Kamal Kanta. Since the day of purchase of the said property, all the defendants remained as exclusive owner and in possession of the above mentioned plot no. 31, 32 , 33. The Plaintiff and his family members are the members of group of land grabbers and on 22.01.2006, the plaintiff tried to dispossess the defendants chowkidar from the defendants property. It is the case of the defendants that plot no. 37 CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.29 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

comprising part of khasra no. 27/23 is the built up property and Mrs. Suman Gupta w/o Sh. Ashok Gupta is owner and in possession of the aforesaid property no. 37. Though the Plaintiff claims himself as owner of property no. 37 comprising part of khasra no. 27/19 wherein ownership/title emanates from Sh. Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh, however, as per the revenue records the land falling in khasra no. 27/19 belongs to Sh. Mahender Singh and Rajender Singh both sons of Sh. Sabha Chand. As per the defendants Sh. Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh has no concern with the land falling in khasra no. 27/19 and all the documents filed by the Plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents created by the Plaintiff in order to grab the lands of the defendants.

16. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the Plaintiff as well as the defendants have claimed ownership rights over the suit property by virtue of different set of documents and have denied each others title over the suit property. However, as the onus to prove the issues no. 1 to 5 is on the Plaintiff, for this reason the Plaintiff is bound to prove that he validly purchased the suit property and is the owner of the same i.e. plot/property bearing no. 37, admeasuring 349.47 CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.30 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

sq yds. forming part of khasra no. 27/19, village kakrola , now abadi/colony known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) as per General power of attorney, Agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, will, delivery letter all dated 21.06.2001 for a sum of Rs 70,000/- from Sh. Ratan Chandra S/o Sh. Laxman Chandra who was a resident of District Katihar, Bihar. The Plaintiff is also bound to prove that the description of the suit property is true and correct being plot/property bearing no. 37, admeasuring 349.47 sq yds. forming part of khasra no. 27/19, village kakrola , now abadi/colony known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) as alleged by the Plaintiff in the Plaint.

17. In order to prove his case the Plaintiff has brought on record photocopy of GPA dated 21.06.2001 which is Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) executed by Sh. Ratan Chandra S/o Sh. Laxman Chandra in respect of property bearing plot no. 37, land measuring 349.47 sq yds part of khasra no. 27/19 situated at East of Village Kakrola, Delhi. Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) is the photocopy of Agreement to sell dated 21.06.2001 executed between Sh. Ratan Chandra S/o Sh. Laxman Chandra and the Plaintiff in respect of the said CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.31 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

property. Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) is the photocopy of affidavit of Sh. Ratan Chandra S/o Sh. Laxman Chandra in respect of the sale of the said property in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) is the photocopy of will of Sh. Ratan Chandra S/o Sh. Laxman Chandra in respect of the said property in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex. PW-1/5 is the original receipt executed by Sh. Ratan Chandra dated 21.06.2001 for the said property for receiving a sum of Rs 70,000/- from the Plaintiff as consideration. PW-1/6 (OSR) is the photocopy of delivery letter executed by Sh. Ratan Chandra for handing over the possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. Ex. PW-1/7 is the original site plan of the suit property wherein the suit property has been shown in red colour portion. Further more PW-1/8 (OSR) is the photocopy of GPA dated 15.11.1983 executed by Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Sukhbir Singh in favour of Sh. Rattan Chandra in respect of the suit property. Photocopy of Agreement to sell dated 15.11.1983 (OSR) in respect of the suit property executed between said Sh. Balbir Singh , Sukhbir Singh and Sh. Rattan Chandra in respect of the suit property is Ex. PW-1/9. Ex. PW-1/10 (OSR) is the photocopy of affidavit dated 15.11.1983 executed by Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Sukhbir Singh in respect of the sale of suit property to Sh. Ratan Chandra. Ex. PW-1/11 (OSR) is the CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.32 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

photocopy of will dated 15.11.1983 executed by Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Sukhbir Singh in respect of the suit property in favour of Sh. Ratan Chandra. Original receipt dated 15.11.1983 executed by Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Sukhbir Singh in favour of Sh. Ratan Chandra is Ex. PW-1/12.Original possession letter dated 15.11.1983 executed by Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Sukhbir Singh in favour of Sh. Ratan Chandra for delivering the possession of the suit property is Ex. PW-1/13.

18. On the other hand the documents brought on record by the defendants i.e. Ex. DW-2/1 which is Khatoni for khasra no. 27/19 2003-2004, village kakrola shows that the land in the said khasra no. 27/19 belonged to Sh. Mahender Singh and Sh. Rajender Singh both sons of Sh. Sabha Chand who were the recorded khatedars of the said land since 1995-96. DW-2/2 which is khatoni for khasra no. 27/23, village kakrola shows that the land in the said khasra no. 27/23 was jointly owned by Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Bhagat Ram, Tej Ram all sons of Sh. Chander and Balbir Singh sinc 1954-55. DW-2 Manoj Prsad, UDC, Revenue Department confirmed in his examination in chief that DW-2/1 and DW-2/2 are true and correct copy of khatauni of aforesaid khasras. DW-3/6 is the photocopy of GPA dated 11.7.1988 CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.33 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

executed by Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Harkesh in favour of Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul in respect of plot no. 31, 32 and 33 area measuring 340 sq yds. comprising of khasra no. 27/23, Mohit Nagar, Village Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Ex. DW-3/7 is the agreement to sell dated 11.07.1988 executed by Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Harkesh in favour of Sh. Bal Bahadur Pal in respect of plot no. 31, 32 and 33 area measuring 340 sq yds. comprising of khasra no. 27/23, Mohit Nagar, Village Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Ex. DW-3/8 is the affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Harkesh in favour of Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul in respect of the said plot. Ex. DW-3/9 is the receipt executed by Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Harkesh executed in favour of Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul in respect of the said plot.

19. Similarly Ex. DW-3/10, Ex. DW-3/11, Ex. DW-3/12, Ex. DW- 3/13, Ex. DW-1/14 are the GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt and will executed by Sh. Bal Bahadur Paul in favour of Smt. Shashi Prabha and Smt. Kamal Kanta in respect of plot of land bearing plot no. 31, 32 and 33 area measuring 340 sq yds. out of khasra no. 27/23 situated in village kakrola , Najafgarh, New Delhi abadi known as Mohit Nagar, Delhi. Ex. PW-1/17 is the certified copy of the property tax receipt dated 06.12.2005 which is in the name of Smt. Kamal Kanta in respect of plot no. CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                             Page no.34 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                35

31, 32, 33 , Mohit Nagar, Kakrola , New Delhi. DW-3/15 is the certified copy of death report of Smt. Kamal Kanta W/o Sh. Desh Raj and the same shows Smt. Kamal Kanta died on 01/06/2005. Ex. DW3/32 (OSR) is the registered relinquishment deed dated 03.07.2008 executed by Sh. Rajesh Nadrajog and Sh. Sandeep Nadrajog both sons of Sh. Desh Raj in favour of Sh. Desh Raj and thereby the aforesaid sons of Sh. Desh raj relinquished their share in ½ undivided share of plot no. 31, 32, 33 area measuring 340 sq yds out of khasra no. 27/23 situated in village kakrola , colony known as Mohit Nagar , New Delhi, in favour of Sh. Desh Raj. Moreover, Ex. DW-3/26,(OSR) Ex. DW-3/27, (OSR) Ex. DW-3/28,(OSR) Ex. DW-3/29(OSR), Ex. DW-3/30 (OSR)and Ex. DW-3/31 (OSR) are agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and will all dated 10.07.2008 executed by Smt. Shashi Prabha and Sh. Desh Raj in favour of Sh. Yogesh Kumar and Sh.Rampat for sale of plot no. 31, 32, 33 area measuring 340 sq yds out of khasra no. 27/23 situated in village kakrola , colony known as Mohit Nagar , New Delhi. Further Ex. DW-3/25 are the photographs of the suit property and in the said photographs on the gate installed the description of the suit property has been given as plot no. 31, 32 and 33 Mohit Nagar. The said photographs show that plot no. 37 , Mohit CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.35 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

Nagar, Kakrola belongs to Smt. Savitri Devi and plot no. 38 is an adjacent plot.

20. At this stage , it may be noted that on the back side of the original documents (placed on record) executed by Sh. Ratan Chandra in favour of the Plaintiff like GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, the name of the Stamp Paper vendor is mentioned as 'S.L.Sharma Licence no.110, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi' . Through his RTI query to the ADM, Revenue Department, Delhi, (Ex. DW-1/1) , the defendant had asked the information about the details of the party to whom judicial stamp papers were sold on 21.06.01 through stamp paper vendor 'S.L.Sharma Licence no.110, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi'. Ex. DW-1/2 is the reply to the said RTI query by the defendant wherein to the answer of the said question it is mentioned that no stamp vending licence no. 110 had been issued in the name of Sh. S.L. Sharma , Stamp Vendor. DW-1/1 UDC Revenue Department has confirmed DW- 1/1 as RTI query made by the defendant and DW-1/2 as reply which is true and correct as per official record. Thus, DW-1/1 and DW-1/2 raises serious doubts on the authenticity of the documents executed by Sh. Ratan Chandra in favour of the Plaintiff on 21.06.2001.

CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                                 Page no.36 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                37

21. Moreover, PW-1 in his cross examination dated 11.02.2014 stated initially that his father had inspected the suit property and seen the documents with respect to the suit property. PW-1 again stated that he cannot say whether his father had seen the title documents which vested the ownership of khasra no. 27/19, Village kakrola, Delhi in Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh. He stated that he has not filed any document which proves that Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Sukhbir Singh were owners of khasra no. 27/19 , Village Kakrola, Delhi. PW-1 stated that in document Ex. PW-1/1 Photocopy of GPA dated 21.06.2001, there were two witnesses first witness was Sh. Narain and the second witness was Sh. Tayal. He further stated that he did not remember who witnessed the documents Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/4, Ex. PW- 1/5 and Ex. PW-1/6. It may be noted that a perusal of these documents show that they were witnessed by Sh. Laljeet and Sh. Ramavtar. He stated that he did not remember from where the stamp papers and revenue stamps were purchased for executing the documents Ex. PW-1/1/ to Ex. PW-1/4. He stated in his cross examination dated 11.02.2014 that when PW-1 purchased the suit property his age was 19 years. However, in the cross examination on 02.11.2015 he admitted that it is CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.37 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

correct that in Ex. PW-1/16 , it was mentioned by his mother that the suit property was purchased in the name of PW-1 by his mother. He stated that Kalu was his Chaukidar, however, he mentioned that he did not remember how he got employed kalu as his chaukidar. He further stated that in his cross examination on the said date that he did not remember , if the defendants had extended threat to him on 04.03.2007. In his further cross examination PW-1 can only be seen avoiding giving answers by merely denying the facts confronted to him and showing his ignorance about the concerned facts. Thus, these facts show that the testimony of PW-1 is not accurate , trustworthy and reliable since at many times he is giving contrary answers.

22. On the other hand, DW-3 stated in his cross that there is no Khasra no.27/19 in Mohit Nagar. He denied that the suit property falls in khasra no. 27/19. In his cross examination a specific question was put to DW-3 that the previous owner of the land falling in khasra no. 27/19 were Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh. He denied this suggestion and stated that that the actual owners of land falling in khasra no. 27/19 are Mahinder Singh and Rajinder Singh. The khatoni Ex. DW-2/1 also shows that land falling in khasra no.27/19 belonged to Sh. CS No.95790/16

Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                            Page no.38 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.
                                39

Mahender Singh and Rajender Singh since 1995-1996. He denied the suggestion that defendant showed wrong khasra no. of the suit property by showing the suit property falls in khasra no. 27/23. He stated that the numbers of the plots were given as per the layout plan at the time of carving out the colony by the colonizers namely Sh. Balbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh, Bhagat Ram & Tej Ram. Ex. DW-2/2 also shows that land in khasra no. 27/23 also belonged to Balbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh, Bhagat Ram and Tej Ram since 1954-55. Ex. DW-2/1 and Ex. DW-2/2 have been confirmed as true and correct by DW-2, Patwari, office of Dwarka Tehsil, Najafgarh, New Delhi. further , the photographs (Ex. DW-3/25) relied upon by the defendants reveal that plot no. 37 belongs to Smt. Savitri Devi and plot no. 38 is an adjacent plot. Thus for these reasons the testimony of DW-3 seems to be reliable , trustworthy and corroborated by DW-1 and DW-2 and other documentary evidences.

23. Therefore , in the facts and circumstances of the present case there is no reason not to rely upon Ex. DW-2/1 and Ex. DW- 2/2. Ex. DW-3/17 also shows that plot no. 31 , 32, 33 , Mohit Nagar Kakrola , New Delhi has been assessed for the purpose of property tax in the name of Smt. Kamal Kanta. Hence, it would CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.39 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

not be wrong to say that the documents of the defendants show the chain of the title documents relating to the property in question being complete and continuous. For these reasons , in the considered opinion of this court, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that he validly purchased the suit property and is owner of the same i.e. plot/property bearing no. 37, admeasuring 349.47 sq yds. forming part of khasra no. 27/19, village kakrola, now abadi/colony known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) as per General power of attorney, Agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, will, delivery letter all dated 21.06.2001. The Plaintiff has not been able to prove that Sh. Balbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh had any right over the aforesaid property which they could have transferred in favour of Sh. Rattan Chandra S/o Sh. Laxman Chandra , the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also failed to prove that the description of the suit property is true and correct being plot/property bearing no. 37, admeasuring 349.47 sq yds. forming part of khasra no. 27/19, village kakrola , now abadi/colony known as Mohit Nagar, Kakrola, Najafgarh, New Delhi as alleged by the Plaintiff in the Plaint. On the other hand the evidence adduced by the defendants clearly show that Khasra no. 27/19, village kakrola CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.40 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

belonged to Sh. Mahender Singh and Sh. Rajender Singh as per khatoni (DW-2/1) since 1995-96. Further that khasra no. 27/23 , village kakrola belonged to Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Bhagat Ram and Tej Ram all sons of Sh. Chander and Balbir Singh Since 1954-55. The defendants have been able to prove that the description of property in question is plot no. 31, 32, 33, Mohit Nagar, Village Kakrola as shown in Ex. DW-3/17 and that plot no. 37 belongs to Smt. Savitri Devi as shown in Ex. DW-3/25.The Plaintiff has failed to prove that the documents executed in favour of the defendants are forged and fabricated documents as alleged in the Plaint. However, Ex. DW-1/1 and Ex. DW-1/2 raise serious doubts about the genuineness and authenticity of the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff. Hence, for these reasons, all the issues no.1 to 5 are decided against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is held not entitled to the reliefs claimed for in the prayer clause of the Plaint.

Relief.

24. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his case and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief from this court. Consequently, the suit of the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed for the reasons mentioned CS No.95790/16 Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj Page no.41 of 42 Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

above. No order as to costs.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court on this 06th day of June 2018.

This judgment consists of 42 signed pages.      FAHAD
                                                           Digitally signed
                                                           by FAHAD
                                                           UDDIN
                                                  UDDIN    Date: 2018.06.08
                                                           14:40:33 +0530


                                                 (Fahad Uddin)
                                      CJ-04, Central, THC/Delhi
                                                    06.06.2018




CS No.95790/16
Sandeep Kumar Vs Desh Raj                              Page no.42 of 42
Judgment dt. 06.06.2018.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Sandeep Kumar vs Desh Raj Page No.1 Of 42 on 6 June, 2018