Delhi District Court
Sandhya vs Kartar Singh And Ors on 31 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE - 02
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided By- Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, DHJS
CS DJ No.441/2020
CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kartar Singh
S/o Sh. Gopi Chand
R/o House no. 9518, Third Floor,
Gali Mil Wali, Tokri Walan, Behind Azad Market,
Library Road, Delhi-110006.
.... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Sandhya
W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o House No. 9529-30, Tokri Walan,
Azad Market, Delhi-110006
2. Sh. Vikas @ Vicky
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Raj
At: Tea Shop
Lodhi Rajput Dharamshala,
624, Shivaji Road, Pul Mithai, Azad Market,
Delhi-110006.
.... Defendant
Date Of Institution : 07.09.2020
Date Of Reserving The Order : 15.05.2025
Date Of Decision : 31.05.2025
Judgment Dated 31.05.2025
CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 1 of 20
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31
17:26:51 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. This court is adjudicating the main suit and the counterclaim by the present common judgment. The present suit was filed by Sh. Kartar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') against Smt. Sandhya and Sh. Vikas @ Vicky (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the area of 44.12 Sq. yards (as shown in red and green colour in the site plan) in the part of third floor of the property bearing no. 9518 situated at Mil Wali Gali Tokri Walan, behind Azad Market, Library Road, Delhi-110006 measuring 117 sq. yards (Approx), (hereinafter to be referred as 'suit property') whereas the defendants filed the counter claim seeking the same relief against the plaintiff for the one room on the third floor of the suit property admeasuring 14.56 Sq meters.
Facts pleaded in the plaint (In Brief)
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that in March 2016 he purchased the 44.12 sq. yards on the third floor of the suit from the defendant no. 2, who had claimed to be the sole and absolute owner of the entire third floor of which the suit property is a part, through a registered sale deed on 26.03.2016 for the consideration of ₹11,90,000/-, and in pursuance of the sale deed the vacant physical possession of one room kitchen, combined latrine-bathroom, passage and roof of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 2. Whereas one other room shown in red colour in the site plan was obtained by the plaintiff by Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 2 of 20 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31 17:26:57 +0530 making payment to one Sh. Kamal Kishore, and accordingly, the plaintiff acquired the possession of the entire suit property.
3. It has further been averred by the plaintiff that on 01.08.2020 came to the suit property and stated that the room as shown in red colour in the site plan had been purchased by defendant no. 1 from defendant no. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 05.09.2017 and asked the plaintiff to vacate the room within one month. It is the claim of the plaintiff that since he has bought the property from the owner of the property, hence, the subsequent sale deed doesn't have any sanctity in the eyes of the law and cannot be relied upon. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the declaration of the sale deed dated 05.09.2017 as null and void and to obtain a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Facts pleaded in the written statement filed by defendant no.1 (In Brief)
4. The defendant no. 1 refuted all the claims of the plaintiff and submitted that the defendant no.2 was not the only legal heir of Sh. Dharamraj and Smt. Jamna Devi, who were the previous owners of the suit property, but he had two other sisters as well, namely Smt. Renu Bala and Smt. Jyoti. It has also been contended that Smt Renu Bala relinquished her share in the said property in favour of defendant no. 2 vide relinquishment deed dated 13.04.2017, Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 3 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:27:04 Date: 2025.05.31 +0530 and Smt Jyoti orally relinquished her one-third undivided share of the abovesaid property in favour of defendant no. 2 after the alleged execution of the sale deed of the plaintiff; therefore, the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is of no value in the eyes of the law, and hence, the relief of the declaration of the sale deed of the plaintiff as null and void.
5. The defendant no. 1 also asserted that through a registered sale deed dated 05.09.2017, defendant no. 1 purchased one room, passage, WC and open roof, all measuring 14.56 sq. meters from defendant no. 2, and also purchased the roof/terrace rights measuring 21 sq. yards of the said third floor through a notarised agreement to sell and purchase dated 05.09.2017 and on the basis of the same defendant in her counter claim sought the declaration and injunction against the plaintiff.
Facts pleaded in replication to the written statement of defendant no. 1
6. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint and denied the fact that there were two sisters of defendant no. 2 having an equal share in the property on the day of the execution of the sale deed of the plaintiff and further averred that defendant no. 2 was already an absolute owner of the said property prior to the execution of the sale deed dated 26.03.2016 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that all the documents filed by the defendant no. 1 are forged and fabricated and thus liable to be declared null and void.
Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 4 of 20 SANDEEP Digitally by SANDEEP signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.05.31 SHARMA 17:27:10 +0530 Issues
7. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 21.01.2021 had framed the following issues in the main suit:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration for declaring the sale deed dt. 05.09.2017 made by defendant no. 2 in favour of the defendant no. 1; as null and void? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
3. Relief.
Issues in counter claim of defendant no. 2.
4. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to declaration for declaring the sale deed dt. 26.03.2016 made by defendant no. 2/non-counter claimant Sh. Vikas in favour of plaintiff/non- counter claimant no. 1 Sh. Kartar Singh; as null and void? Onus of proof on counter claimant.
5. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? Onus of proof on counter claimant.
6. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? Onus of proof on counter claimant.
7. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
8. Plaintiffs examined himself as PW1 and tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A in which he has relied upon the following documents:-
Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 5 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.31 17:27:18 +0530 S.No. Exhibit/ Mark No. Description of Documents
1. Ex. PW1/1 Site Plan
2. Ex. PW1/2 Certified copy of sale deed dated 26.03.2016.
3. Ex. PW1/3 (colly) Copies of MOU alongwith receipt, affidavit and possession letter, all dt. 21.07.2020.
4. Ex. PW1/4 Copy of electricity Bill dated 18.08.2020
5. Ex. PW1/5 Copy of water bull dt. 30.09.2020
6. Ex. PW1/6 Copy of House Tax Receipt for the period 2017-2018.
7. Ex. PW1/7 (colly) Four photographs along with CD & Newspaper.
8. Mark A Copy of sale deed dt. 03.01.2003.
9. Mark B Copy of sale deed dt. 05.09.2017
9. Thereafter, PW2 Sh. Parveen Kumar Rana, UDC, Office at Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006 was examined as a summoned witness to prove the registered sale deed of the plaintiff. Certified copy of the same was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/2. Thereafter, vide statement of plaintiff, PE was closed on 12.11.2021.
Defendant's Evidence
10. Defendants examined Sh. Suresh Kumar as D1W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. D1W1/A and relied upon the following documents:
S.No. Exhibit/ Mark No. Description of Documents
1. Ex. DW1/1, also Ex. Original General power of attorney PW1/1 in counter dated 20.03.2021 claim Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 6 of 20 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31 17:27:25 +0530
2. Ex. DW1/2, De- Agreement dated 15.01.2018 exhibited and marked as Mark A being photocopy.
3. Ex. DW1/3 (OSR) Photocopy of sale deed dated 05.09.2017
4. Ex. DW1/4 (OSR) Photocopy of agreement to sale dated 05.09.2017
5. Ex. DW1/5 (OSR) Photocopy of agreement to sale dated 27.06.2015
6. Ex. DW1/6 (OSR) Photocopy of agreement to sale dated 01.09.2015
7. Ex. DW1/7 is de- Copy of agreement to sale dated exhibited as already 15.01.2018. marked as Mark A
8. Ex. DW1/8 is de- photocopy of agreement to sale exhibited and dated 31.10.2017 marked as Mark B being photocopy
9. Ex. DW1/9 is de- Copy of sale deed dated 21.03.2016 exhibited as already exhibited as PW1/2
10. Ex. DW1/10 Site Plan
11. Thereafter, Sh. Mahender, S/o Sh. Mitthan Lal, Junior Assistant (Record Keeper), ID No. 37, Office of Sub-
Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi was examined as DW-2 as a summoned witness to prove the relinquishment deed registered vide registration no. 2583, book no. I, Volume no. 6568 at page no. 187 to 194 on dated 13.04.2017. Certified copy of aforesaid relinquishment deed was exhibited as Ex. DW-2/1 (OSR). Further, Smt. Jyoti was examined as DW3 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. DW-3/A. She relied upon the photocopy of PAN Card i.e. Ex. DW3/1 (OSR) and 4 marriage photographs i.e. Ex.
Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 7 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.31 17:27:43 +0530 DW3/2 (colly). Thereafter, DE was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1.
It is pertinent to mention here that defendant no. 2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.01.2021.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties
12. This court has heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record carefully. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was prior in time and valid in law; hence, the sale deed of the defendant no. 1 doesn't hold any substance. Further, it has also been argued that the defendant no. 1 has failed to prove the facts of the existence and right in the suit property of the two sisters of the defendant no. 2. Also, a legal objection has been taken regarding the non-payment of the appropriate court fees by the defendant in the counterclaim. Per-contra the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 has argued in sync with the contents of the pleadings and asserted that the sale deed of the plaintiff is bad in law, as the defendant no.2 alone could not have executed the same.
Issue-wise findings
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration for declaring the sale deed dt. 05.09.2017 made by defendant no. 2 in favour of the defendant no. 1; as null and void? OPP
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 8 of 20 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31 17:27:52 +0530 To prove this issue plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and deposed in sync with the contents of the pleadings. During the examination PW1 relied upon the sale deed Ex PW1/2 (OSR) in which it has been mentioned that the defendant no.2 is the sole and absolute owner of the entire third floor along with roof rights of the suit property.
14. Furthermore, PW1 has relied on Ex.PW1/3 (Colly), which includes a possession letter, affidavit, receipt, etc., to demonstrate that he took possession of one other room from Sh. Kamal Kishore. Furthermore, in order to establish that he had an electrical connection at the suit property in his name, PW1 additionally relied upon the electricity bill Ex.PW1/4 and similarly, to prove the plaintiff's ownership of the suit property, the water connection bill Ex. PW1/5, the receipt of house tax for the relevant time Ex. PW1/6. Moreover, to prove the factum of the possession plaintiff also relied upon photographs which were Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
15. The entire dispute centres on whether or not defendant no. 2 was the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and had the capacity to alienate the suit property in himself, as defendant no. 1 contends that defendant no. 2 could not have independently sold the property to the plaintiff on the date of the signing of the sale deed, Ex.PW1/2, due to the presence of two more sisters who possess an equal stake in the suit property.
16. Perusal of the Ex PW1/2 reveals that it is mentioned that the defendant no. 2, i.e., Sh. Vikas, is the absolute Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 9 of 20 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31 17:27:59 +0530 owner of the property of which the suit property is part. During cross-examination it is replied by PW1 that he bought the property from the defendant no. 2, and he doesn't know that the defendant no. 2 has two sisters and they also have the 1/3 share in the suit property, and accordingly PW1 denied the suggestion regarding the same. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW1 dated 12.11.2021 is reproduced here asunder, in verbatim "It is true that I have purchased the suit property from Sh. Vikas @ Vicky only. I did not know as to whether Sh. Vikas @ Vicky having two sisters.
It is wrong to suggest that I did know that Sh. Vikas having two sisters."
17. The PW1 categorically denied the existence of two sisters of the defendant no.2 and hence, the onus to prove the same shifted upon the defendant no. 1. Moreover, it is the defendant no.1 who brought the fact of the two sisters of the defendant no. 1 on record; therefore, he is under an obligation to prove the same. Further, the plaintiff proved the execution of the sale deed dated 26.03.2016 (Ex. PW1/2) by the examination of PW2.
18. Furthermore, the possession of the plaintiff is also admitted by defendant no. 1, as during the cross- examination, D1W1 replied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as a tenant, though no document to prove the fact of tenancy has been filed by defendant no.1, therefore, the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property is duly established. Even otherwise, the same has been proved by the plaintiff by way of Ex.PW1/4 Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 10 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31 17:28:06 +0530 to Ex.PW1/6, which are respectively the electricity bill, water connection bill and the house tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff at the address of the suit property. The defendant no.1 neither asked any question nor disputed the authenticity of the same; hence, these documents have duly been proved for the purpose of showing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property.
19. To discharge the onus and to prove the case, husband of the defendant no.1 stepped into the witness box as D1W1. The GPA Ex.DW1/1 does not mention any reason as to why the defendant did not offer to examine herself as a witness in the present suit. There was no justifiable explanation, let alone a simple one, given by the defendant as to why she did not appear before the court as a witness. At this stage it is appropriate to mention the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 'Vidyadhar vs Manik Rao and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 573, (para- 17), and also in 'Mohinder Kaur vs Sant Paul Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1276'it has been observed that, "where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct."
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. Be that as it may, the D1W1 relied upon the sale deed Ex.DW1/3(OSR) dated 05.09.2017 in respect of his ownership of property ad-measuring 14.56 sq. meter on third floor as a part of suit property. Defendant No. 1 has challenged the right of the plaintiff in the suit with the Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 11 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:28:15 Date: 2025.05.31 +0530 defence that Sh. Dharam Raj and Ms. Jamna Devi also left behind two daughters besides son Sh. Vikas, i.e., defendant no.2. It is also the defence of defendant no. 1 that out of these two sisters, one sister, namely Ms Renu Bala, relinquished her share by way of a Registered Relinquishment Deed, and the other sister, Ms Jyoti, by way of oral relinquishment of her share in favour of Sh. Vikas, i.e., defendant no.2.
21. The claim of defendant no.1 is ex facie liable to be defeated for the reasons that defendant no. 1 has failed to prove the fact of two sisters of defendant no. 2 . Defendant No. 1 hasn't brought anything on record, be it documentary evidence or oral testimony, by which it may be established that Defendant No. 2 has two sisters. Apart from bald averments of the defendant no. 1, there is nothing on record which may give some strength to the claim of the defendant. Even during the final arguments when it was asked, then no explanation was given as to why no witness or evidence was brought on record to prove that defendant 2 also had two sisters.
22. Further, defendant no.1 has examined the alleged sister of the defendant no.2 as DW3 to prove the fact that Sh. Vikas has two sisters. Though DW3 could not file any credible or cogent documentary evidence on record to prove that she is the sister of the defendant no.2. DW3 only filed photographs, Ex DW3/2 (colly) to establish that Sh, Vikas and his father, along with DW3, can be seen, but it is beyond anyone's ken to fathom how a relationship may be Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 12 of 20 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31 17:28:24 +0530 established by a random photograph where nothing substantial may be observed except a few faces. DW3 has also failed to explain when, where and by whom the Ex DW3/2 (colly) was clicked. There is nothing in Ex DW3/2 (colly) which may prove that DW3 is the sister of the defendant no. 2; therefore, no credence may be given to it.
23. DW3 also relied upon a PAN Card Ex. DW3/1 (OSR) to establish that her father was Sh. Dharam Raj. Suspicion develops over the testimony of DW3, who claimed to be 27 years old on 04.09.2023 during her deposition, despite her PAN Card indicating a date of birth of 01.01.1980, suggesting she is around 43 years old at the time of her court evidence. The fact of the difference in age of 16 years is a significant fact and cannot be neglected, giving reasons to doubt the testimony of the witness and the authenticity of the same.
24. Moreover, no witness from the concerned authority was examined by the defendant no.1 to establish that the PAN Card is correct, as it is imperative upon the defendant no.1 to prove it by calling a witness from the concerned authority since the plaintiff has raised the question of its authenticity and genuineness.
25. Furthermore, in the absence of any other document by which the identity of the DW3 may be established as a sister of the defendant no. 2, no reliance may be placed on her evidence. It is beyond comprehension that in the era of technology she doesn't have any other document to prove Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 13 of 20 Digitally signed by SANDEEP SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31 17:28:30 +0530 her identity as the daughter of Sh. Dharma Raj, as she could have filed an Aadhar Card, Election Card, Driving Licence, School Certificates, Municipal Certificates or bank passbook, etc. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence in this regard, it cannot be accepted as an old adage provides that "What has been asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence."
26. It is very interesting that even if the plaintiff is unable to prove his claim in this case, the defendant no. 1 will not get anything. The entire claim of defendant no. 1 rests on the fact that Vikas's two sisters had relinquished their respective shares in his favour. One sister, namely Ms Renu Bala, by way of a registered relinquishment deed Ex PW1/2 in the counterclaim, and the other sister, Ms Jyoti, by way of an oral relinquishment deed. The entire defence of the defendant ends on the fact that oral relinquishment of the share in immovable property by one of the sisters in favour of defendant no.2, though it is not a valid mode of relinquishing the share in anyone's favour, may only be done through a registered relinquishment deed.
27. It is noteworthy to mention that the Relinquishment Deed purports to create as well as extinguish an interest in an immovable property, and the immovable property is undoubtedly of the value of more than Rs. 100/-. Therefore, as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 ("the Act" hereafter), the Relinquishment Deed had to be compulsorily registered.
Judgment Dated 31.05.2025
CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 14 of 20
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.31
17:28:37 +0530
28. Therefore, the unregistered or oral relinquishment deed does not bestow any title in the immovable property upon the defendant no. 2. Even if this court assumes that he had two sisters, then by oral relinquishment deed, his alleged sister could not have given her 1/3 share to defendant no.2 and therefore, the same could not be sold to defendant no. 1 by defendant no.2 solely. Thus, the contention of defendant no. 1 being the absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 05.09.2017 (Ex DW1/3) falls flat on its face.
29. Even if the documents Ex.DW1/4, Ex.DW1/5 and Ex.DW1/6 filed by the defendant no.1 to prove its case reveal that it is mentioned in these documents that the defendant no.2 is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and neither the fact of his having two sisters nor the fact of relinquishment of shares by both the sisters in his favour has any mention on any of the documents relied upon by the defendant no.1 Ex. DW1/4 to Ex. DW1/6. Furthermore, nothing about the fact of having sisters or relinquishment of their shares in favour of defendant no.2 was mentioned in Ex. DW1/3, the sale deed dated 05.09.2017.
30. The defendant/ counter claimant has asserted that she had purchased the roof rights of the third floor of the suit property measuring 21 square yards by agreement to sale dated 05.09.2017 Ex DW1/5. However, it is completely established in law that a person may transfer his right in any immovable property only through a registered document. If Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 15 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA 17:28:43 Date: 2025.05.31 +0530 this is not done then the transaction will have no validity and no right can be transferred in the immovable property. Reliance may be placed at the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as 'Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Director vs State of Haryana & Anr, AIR 2012 SC 206' in which it has been held that sale of an immovable property can be done only be way of registered sale deed and no right, title or interest can be created in an immovable property by virtue of such GPA sales.
"Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property."
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. Similarly, on the point of unregistered GPA, agreement to sell etc. recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same principle in the case titled as 'Shakeel Ahmed vs Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 INSC 1016'(para-10 and 11) as under that "10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 16 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.31 17:28:50 +0530 performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court: (i). Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Others (ii). Balram Singh Vs. Kelo Devi (iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr.
32. To establish her case, the defendant/counter claimant has claimed herself to be the owner of the roof rights of the third floor of the suit property on the basis of an unregistered/notarised chain of documents, which have no sanctity in the eyes of the law, and thus, create no right, title or interest in his favour. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, is clear and unambiguous to this effect. By virtue of such an unregistered and notarised chain of documents, by no stretch of the imagination can a declaration as to the ownership of the defendant/counter claimant be given.
33. Since, In the present case the alleged roof rights were purchased through unregistered agreement to sell Ex. DW1/5 upon which the defendant/ counter claimant is relied upon is merely a notarised document, no title can be vested by virtue of documents executed by Sh. Vikas i.e. defendant no.2 in favour of Ms. Sandhya, i.e defendant no.1/ counter claimant.
34. Keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff has duly proved his sale deed Ex.PW1/2. Plaintiff also proved his Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 17 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.31 17:28:56 +0530 possession of the suit property by virtue of Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6. The defendant has failed to prove that there were two sisters of the defendant no.2 and they also had a share in the suit property; therefore, the sale deed Ex.DW1/3 dated 05.09.2017 executed in favour of the defendant no. 1 by the defendant 2 does not hold any validity in the eyes of the law for the reason it has been executed after the execution of the Ex.PW1/2, and since Ex.PW1/2 was executed prior in time, hence, it will supersede all the other documents executed after it.
35. On the basis of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved issue no. 1 in his favour, and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to have a declaration that the sale deed dated 05.09.2017 Ex.DW1/3 is liable to be declared as null and void. Also, no credence may be given to Ex DW1/5 since it is an unregistered document and clearly stands in violation of the mandate of Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, issue no. 1 goes in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.2
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
36. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. On the basis of the discussion and findings as given in issue no. 1, where the sale deed of the defendant has been declared as null and void, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 18 of 20 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.31 17:29:03 +0530 to restrain/injunct the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property. Hence, this court is also deciding this issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.4,5 and 6
4. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to declaration for declaring the sale deed dt. 26.03.2016 made by defendant no. 2/non-counter claimant Sh. Vikas in favour of plaintiff/non- counter claimant no. 1 Sh. Kartar Singh; as null and void? Onus of proof on counter claimant. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? Onus of proof on counter claimant.
5. Whether the counter claimant is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? Onus of proof on counter claimant.
6. The onus to prove this issue was upon the counter claimant/ defendant no.1
37. The onus to prove these issues was upon the counter claimant/defendant no. 1. All these issues are interconnected and hence, will be adjudicated together. Since this court has already held in issue no. 1 that the sale deed Ex.PW1/2, which was executed in the favour of the plaintiff by the defendant no.2 was valid and the sale deed of the defendant 1 Ex.DW1/3 dated 05.09.2017 is null and void, then nothing remains for adjudication in these issues. When defendant no. 1 has no right in the suit property because the basis of his right, the sale deed Ex.DW1/3, was already held null and void, then defendant no. 1 could not claim any right in the suit property against the rightful owner, i.e., the plaintiff.
Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 19 of 20 SANDEEP Digitally by SANDEEP signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.05.31 SHARMA 17:29:11 +0530 Moreover, the defendant/counter claimant also failed to establish by leading cogent evidence that Sh. Vikas has two sisters, and therefore, solely he could not have sold the property to the plaintiff.
38. Accordingly, this court has reached a conclusion that the defendant no. 1 has no right to the suit property, and the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant no. 2 Ex.PW1/2 is just and valid; hence, this court is deciding all the issues no. 4, 5 and 6 against the defendant/counter claimant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief
39. On the basis of the extensive discussion this court is deciding that the sale deed dated 26.03.2016 Ex.PW1/2 are valid and hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and accordingly, the sale deed dated 05.09.2017 Ex.DW1/3 is hereby declared as null and void. Plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. In conclusion, this court is decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and dismissing the counter claim.
40. No order as to costs.
41. Decree sheets be prepared accordingly.
42. File be consigned to record room after due compliances. SANDEEP KUMAR Digitally signed by SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.05.31 SHARMA 17:29:18 +0530 Announced in the open court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma) on May 31st , 2025 District Judge-02/Central/THC Judgment Dated 31.05.2025 CS DJ No. 441/2020 CNR NO. DLCT01-005437-2020 Kartar Singh VS. Sandhya & Anr. Page No. 20 of 20