Delhi District Court
Smt. Harjeet Kaur W/O Sh. Daljeet Singh vs Sh. Jeet Lal Sachdeva on 28 July, 2021
IN THE COURT OF M. P. SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DELHI
CS 349/2016
Smt. Harjeet Kaur w/o Sh. Daljeet Singh,
R/o 2/107, Ground Floor,
Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031 ................ Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Jeet Lal Sachdeva,
S/o Late Tola Ram Sachdeva,
R/o H. No. 2/107, Geeta Colony,
Delhi - 110031 ................ Defendant
Suit filed on - 16.10.2015
Judgment pronounced on - 28.07.2021
JUDGMENT
1. The instant matter (CS 349/2016) and CS no. 1122/2016 titled 'Jeet Lal Sachdeva v. Dolly & Ors.' are connected cases. Both these cases are being disposed of today, albeit vide separate judgments.
2. Plaintiff's case, in the instant case, as set out in the plaint, is as follows: On 02.09.2015 plaintiff purchased built up double storey property bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi (measuring 42 sq. yards) with roof rights and right of construction up to last storey from one Santosh Rani wife of R. L. Madan. Following documents were executed in plaintiff's favour: (a) registered Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Ex. PW1/1 : Ex. PW3/2), (b) registered General Power of Attorney (Ex.
Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date: 2021.07.28 12:39:12 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 1 of 28
PW1/2), (c) notarised Will (Ex. PW1/3), (d) notarised Affidavit (Ex. PW1/4), (e) notarised Receipt of Rs. 25,10,000/ (Ex. PW1/5), and (f) notarised Possession Letter (Ex. PW1/6). The vendor Ms. Santosh Rani handed over possession of ground floor of the aforesaid property to plaintiff. Defendant was in possession of the first floor and the vendor Ms. Santosh Rani sought some time to hand over its possession to the plaintiff. Plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate, but to no avail. He instead threatened to create third party interest. Plaintiff's legal notice dt. 30.09.2015 (Mark A) to the defendant was of no avail. On these averments, plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:
a) Decree of possession of first floor of property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi,
b) Damages/mesne profits of Rs. 15,000/ against the defendant with effect from 01.10.2015 till the date of vacation,
c) Permanent injunction decree to restrain the defendant from handing over the possession and creating third party interest in first floor of property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi,
d) Costs of the suit, and
e) Any other order which this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. Defendant, in his written statement filed on 28.04.2016, asserts that he is absolute owner of the property in terms of a registered Will dt. 27.05.2013 of his mother Ms. Chitro Bai. His version as to how the aforesaid property came to be vested in him is as follows: I) Initially, the aforesaid property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi belonged to one Mr. Niyamata Ram. MURARI Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:41:40 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 2 of 28 II) Vide a registered Will dt. 27.12.1963 Mr. Niyamata Ram bequeathed it to Mr. Tola Ram (defendant's father).
III) Mr. Tola Ram passed away in 1980 leaving behind eight legal heirs, namely, (i) Ms. Chitro Bai (wife), (ii) Harbans Lal (son), (iii) Jeet Lal/defendant (son), (iv) Jagdish (son), (v) Nand Kishore (son), (vi) Yogesh (son), (vii) Smt. Satya Wati (daughter), and (viii) Smt. Asha Rani (daughter).
IV) There was an oral family settlement whereby and whereunder Mr. Tola Ram's estate came to be divided amongst his legal heirs. Under the oral family settlement, property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi stood vested in Ms. Chitro Bai (wife), Harbans Lal (son) and Jeet Lal / defendant (son). Thereafter, Harbans Lal (son) relinquished his share in the aforesaid property in Jeet Lal's (defendant's) favour.
Pursuant thereto, Ms. Chitro Bai and Jeet Lal (defendant) were residing in the aforesaid property. Ms. Chitro Bai had executed a registered Will dt. 27.05.2013 in Jeet Lal's (defendant's) favour.
4. Beside the above, defendant avers that he has been residing in the aforesaid property since his birth; that plaintiff in collusion with her associates forcibly occupied the first floor portion. He terms plaintiff's documents to be forged and fabricated and alleges that she has concealed and suppressed true and material facts. He states that plaintiff's GPA sale documents, in the absence of a sale deed, confer no title on her and that the suit is undervalued for court fee and jurisdiction. He denies receipt of Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:41:52 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 3 of 28 plaintiff's legal notice. Denying other averments, he seeks dismissal of the suit.
5. Plaintiff in her replication, filed on 14.01.2016, reiterated her averments as set out in the plaint and refuted those of the defendant as set out in latter's written statement. In addition thereto, she avers and the documents on record reflect:
i) that Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) had sold the aforesaid property bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi on 28.09.2007 to her (plaintiff) vide a registered Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW2/1), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW2/2), Receipt of Rs. 8,00,000/ (Ex. PW2/3), Possession Letter (Ex. PW2/4), Indemnity Bond (Ex. PW2/5), Affidavit and Will.
ii) that she (plaintiff) then sold the aforesaid property bearing no.
2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi on 16.05.2008 to Ms. Santosh Rani vide a registered Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW3/1 : Ex. PW3/3), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW1/7), Will (Ex. PW1/8), Affidavit (Ex. PW1/9), Possession Letter (Ex. PW1/10) and Receipt of Rs. 9,20,000/.
iii) that on 02.09.2015 she (plaintiff) bought back the aforesaid property bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi from Ms. Santosh Rani vide registered Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Ex. PW1/1 :
Ex. PW3/2), registered General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/2), notarised Will (Ex. PW1/3), notarised Affidavit (Ex. PW1/4), Digitally signed by MURARI MURARI PRASAD SINGH Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date: 2021.07.28 12:42:38 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 4 of 28 notarised Receipt of Rs. 25,10,000/ (Ex. PW1/5) and notarised Possession Letter (Ex. PW1/6).
6. Issues, framed on 24.10.2016, are as follows:
i) Whether the title documents relied upon by the plaintiff are false and fabricated as alleged by the defendant? OPD
ii) Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with the clean hands as alleged by the defendant? OPD
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for? OPP
iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 15,000/ per month or any other amount on account of damages/mesne profits w.e.f. 01.10.2015 onward in respect of the suit property bearing No. 2/107, First Floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 31? OPP
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction? OPP
7. In plaintiff's evidence, the following witnesses were examined:
i) PW1 Harjeet Kaur, the plaintiff herself. Her deposition is along the same lines as averred in the plaint.
ii) PW2 Daljeet Singh, plaintiff's husband. He deposed that he is a witness to the following documents executed on 28.09.2007 by Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) in plaintiff's favour: registered Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW2/1), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW2/2), Receipt of Rs. 8,00,000/ (Ex. PW2/3), Possession Letter (Ex. PW2/4) and Indemnity Bond (Ex. PW2/5).
iii) PW3 Ram Tirath, LDC from the office of SubRegistrarVIII,
Digitally signed
by MURARI
PRASAD
SINGH
MURARI Location: Court
No.7,
PRASAD Karkardooma
SINGH Courts, Delhi
Date:
2021.07.28
12:42:26
+0530
CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 5 of 28
Geeta Colony, Delhi. He proved registration of: (a) the Irrevocable GPA dt. 16.05.2008 (Ex. PW3/1 : Ex. PW3/3) executed by plaintiff Harjeet Kaur in favour of Ms. Santosh Rani; (b) Agreement to Sell and Purchase dt. 02.09.2015 (Ex. PW1/1 : Ex. PW3/2) executed by Ms. Santosh Rani in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour; (c) Irrevocable GPA dt. 28.09.2007 (Ex. PW2/1) executed by Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour; (d) Cancellation of Will dt. 26.10.2006 (Ex. PW3/4) executed by Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) thereby purporting to cancel a registered Will dt. 13.07.2000 which she had executed in favour of her sons Harbans Lal Sachdeva and Jeet Lal Sachdeva (defendant herein); and (e) Cancellation of GPA dt. 26.10.2006 (Ex. PW3/5) executed by Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) thereby purporting to the cancel a registered GPA dt. 13.07.2000 which she had executed in favour of her sons Harbans Lal Sachdeva and Jeet Lal Sachdeva (defendant herein).
iv) PW4 Shravan Mehta, Data Entry Operator from the office of SubRegistrarVIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He was called to the witness box to prove registration of the Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X). However, this witness deposed that record of the original relinquishment deed was not traceable in the office of SubRegistrar despite best efforts. He, however, Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:43:07 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 6 of 28 deposed that the said Relinquishment Deed had indeed been registered vide registration no. 2997 in Book no.1, Volume no. 337 on page no.1 to page no.3. He proved on record the peshi register (Ex.PW4/A) and the index register/book no.1 (Ex.PW4/B) showing entries in relation to registration of the said Relinquishment Deed. It is pertinent to mention here that this Relinquishment Deed was purportedly executed in favour of Ms. Chitro Bai by all her seven children, including the defendant herein.
8. In defendant's evidence, the following three witnesses were examined (their evidence being recorded in the other connected case bearing CS no. 1122/16 titled 'Jeet Lal Sachdeva v. Dolly & Ors.'):
i) PW1 Jeet Lal, the defendant - His evidence is along the same lines as averred in his pleadings.
ii) PW2 Shravan, Data Entry Operator from the office of Sub RegistrarVIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi. He proved the factum of registration of Will dt. 27.05.2013 (Ex. PW1/11) executed by Ms. Chitro Bai in defendant's favour.
iii) PW42 HC Amit Kumar from the office of DCP, East. He deposed that defendant's police complaint dt. 20.11.2015 (Ex.
Digitally signed by MURARI MURARI PRASAD SINGH Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date: 2021.07.28 12:43:18 +0530
1 The Will Ex. PW1/1 was exhibited in the other connected case bearing CS no. 1122/16 titled 'Jeet Lal Sachdeva v. Dolly & Ors.'.
2 Defendant examined no witness as PW3 in his evidence.
CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 7 of 28PW4/A3) against Harjeet Kaur and Daljeet Singh regarding land grabbing was received and the same was then sent to ACP, Gandhi Nagar for necessary action.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. Issuewise findings are as follows:
11. Issue no.1 - The issue is whether the title documents being relied upon by the plaintiff are false and fabricated. Burden to prove this issue is on the defendant. The defendant in his written statement takes the stand that the title documents being relied upon by the plaintiff are false and fabricated. However, he does not specify as to how and in what manner those title documents are false and fabricated. In a lis, if one alleges fabrication of documents, then details of such fabrication ought to be given. One cannot just allege, in the air, fabrication of documents without showing as to how any of the documents may be fabricated. Such an averment of the defendant is an entirely bland one sans the requisite specifics. The defendant neither led any evidence to show that any of the title documents being relied upon by plaintiff are false and fabricated. Defendant has miserably failed to prove that any of the title documents of the plaintiff are false and fabricated. This issue is thus answered against the defendant and in plaintiff's favour.
12. Issue no.3 - The issue is whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Digitally signed by MURARI MURARI PRASAD SINGH Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date: 2021.07.28 12:43:30 +0530 3 The police complaint Ex. PW4/A was exhibited in the other connected case bearing CS no. 1122/16 titled 'Jeet Lal Sachdeva v. Dolly & Ors.'.
CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 8 of 28possession. Burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. Both the sides assert their title over the property in question. Going by the case set up by the respective sides, there are two chains of documents floating for the very same property. One chain of the documents /devolution of the property, as claimed by the defendant, starting from late Tola Ram Sachdeva (defendant's father) ends up at the defendant; whereas the other chain starting from late Tola Ram Sachdeva (defendant's father), as set up by the plaintiff, ends up at the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, devolution of the property in question, i.e. property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 31, starting from late Tola Ram Sachdeva (defendant's father), in both the chains, is represented in a tabular form as under, with the plaintiff's chain being on the left side and that of the defendant on the right side.
Late Tola Ram Sachdeva In 19801981 late Tola Ram Sachdeva died intestate. His wife Ms. Chitro Bai and his seven children, including the defendant herein, succeeded him. Chitro Bai Chitro Bai, Harbans Lal (son) and Jeet On 07.07.2000 all the seven children of Lal / defendant (son) Ms. Chitro Bai executed a registered As per the defendant, there was oral Relinquishment Deed Mark X in her family settlement whereunder late Tola favour. Ram Sachdeva's estate was divided amongst his legal heirs. Under the oral family settlement, the property in question bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi stood vested in Chitro Bai (wife), Harbans Lal (son) and Jeet Lal / defendant (son).
Note : The date of oral family settlement and its other details are not set out. It is not specified as to what came to the share of the other heirs of late Tola Ram Sachdeva.
Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD MURARI SINGH Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date: 2021.07.28 12:43:57 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 9 of 28 Plaintiff Harjeet Kaur Chitro Bai and Jeet Lal / defendant On 28.09.2007 Ms. Chitro Bai (son) (defendant's mother) vide a registered Harbans Lal (son) relinquished his share Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW2/1), in the property in question in Jeet Lal Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW2/2), Receipt Sachdeva's (defendant's) favour. of Rs. 8,00,000/ (Ex. PW2/3), Pursuant thereto, Ms. Chitro Bai and Jeet Possession Letter (Ex. PW2/4), Lal (defendant) were residing in the Indemnity Bond (Ex. PW2/5), Affidavit aforesaid property. and Will transferred the property in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour. Note: There is no document evidencing relinquishment by Harbans Lal in favour
of his brother, i.e. the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva.
Ms. Santosh Rani Jeet Lal Sachdeva / defendant On 16.05.2008 plaintiff Harjeet Kaur On 27.05.2013 Chitro Bai executed a vide registered Irrevocable GPA (Ex. registered Will in favour of her son Jeet PW3/1 : Ex. PW3/3), Agreement to Sell Lal Sachdeva (defendant). (Ex. PW1/7), Will (Ex. PW1/8), Affidavit (Ex. PW1/9), Possession Letter (Ex.
PW1/10) and Receipt of Rs. 9,20,000/ transferred the property in favour of Santosh Rani.
Plaintiff Harjeet Kaur On 02.09.2015 Santosh Rani vide registered Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Ex. PW1/1 : Ex. PW3/2), registered General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/2), notarised Will (Ex. PW1/3), notarised Affidavit (Ex. PW1/4), notarised Receipt of Rs. 25,10,000/ (Ex.
PW1/5), and notarised Possession Letter (Ex. PW1/6) transferred the property in favour of plaintiff Harjeet Kaur.
13. Parties to the lis do not dispute that the property in question vested in late Tola Ram Sachdeva. In fact, the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva in his crossexamination says, "It is correct that originally the entire property bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, belonged to my late father Sh. Tola Ram, Digitally signed by MURARI MURARI PRASAD SINGH Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date: 2021.07.28 12:47:51 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 10 of 28 who died in the year 1981." It is also not disputed that after the demise of Tola Ram Sachdeva, his wife Chitro Bai and his seven children, including the defendant herein, succeeded to his estate.
14. It is from this point onwards that the parties differ. Plaintiff Harjeet Kaur invokes a registered Relinquishment Deed (Mark X) dt. 07.07.2000 whereby and whereunder all the seven children of Ms. Chitro Bai had relinquished their share in the property in question in her favour. On the other hand, the defendant avers that there was an oral family settlement whereunder late Tola Ram Sachdeva's estate was orally divided amongst his legal heirs and the property in question bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi came to the share of Chitro Bai (wife), Harbans Lal (son) and Jeet Lal / defendant (son). As regards the Relinquishment Deed (Mark X) dt. 07.07.2000, defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva in his written statement avers, "Even the forgery and manipulation of the plaintiff is further evident from the record as plaintiff is allegedly that relinquished deed dated 7/7/2000 was executed in favour of Chitro Bai as reflected in the documents whereas no such relinquishment deed either been put on record or supplied to the defendant, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed." And then in his crossexamination, he (defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva), on the question of execution of the Relinquishment Deed (Mark X) dt. 07.07.2000 feigns loss of memory by stating, "I do not remember if all the LRs of late Sh. Tola Ram had executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 07.07.2000 in favour of Smt. Chitro Devi qua the property in question." Thus, it is clear that the defendant did not 'specifically deny' execution of Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:48:05 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 11 of 28 the Relinquishment Deed (Mark X) dt. 07.07.2000; he only feigned loss of memory. The moot question before us is as to which of the two modes of devolution of the property in question is more probable and credible on preponderance of probabilities.
15. But before we get into that question, it needs to be examined as to whether the Relinquishment Deed (Mark X) dt. 07.07.2000, that forms an important link in plaintiff's chain, can at all be looked into in evidence.
This is for the reason that the original of this document did not see the light of the day. The original Relinquishment Deed (Mark X) dt. 07.07.2000 must have been in power and possession of the defendant and/or their siblings. The defendant, however, did not produce the same. It bears repetition to state that defendant Jeet Lal Schdeva in his crossexamination deposed that he did not 'remember' about execution of the Relinquishment Deed (Mark X) dt. 07.07.2000. PW4 Shravan Mehta, an official from the office of SubRegistrarVIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi was called to the witness box with the record of the Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X). However, he deposed that record of the original Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) was not traceable in the office of SubRegistrar despite best efforts. Nonetheless, he went on to depose that the Relinquishment Deed had indeed been registered vide registration no. 2997 in Book no.1, Volume no. 337 on page no.1 to page no.3. To substantiate this, he placed on record copy of the peshi register (Ex.PW4/A) and the index register/book no.1 (Ex.PW4/B), which do reflect entries relating to registration of the Relinquishment Deed. In the copy of the peshi register Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:48:15 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 12 of 28 (Ex.PW4/A) at entry no. 76 on date 07.07.2000 the following particulars are mentioned.
76 Harbans Lal4 - St. Chitro Bai RL/D
16. Copy of the index register/book no.1 (Ex.PW4/B) on date 07.07.2000 has the following particulars at entry no. 2997.2997 13 337 76
17. The deposition of PW4 Shravan Mehta (official from the office of SubRegistrarVIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi) coupled with the particulars of the relevant record of the office registers of 07.07.2000 from the office of SubRegistrar unmistakably show that the Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) had indeed been registered in the office of Sub RegistrarVIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi vide registration no. 2997 in Book no.1, Volume no. 337 on page no.1 to page no.3. Particulars/ endorsements at the rear page of the photocopy of the Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) exactly match with those deposed to by PW4 Shravan Mehta (official from SubRegistrar's office).
18. Now that it is proved that the Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) had indeed been registered with the SubRegistrar, the moot question is whether the same can be used in evidence. It cannot be used as primary evidence for its original did not see the light of the day. However, Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:48:31 +0530 4 Harbans Lal is a sibling of the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva and son of Ms. Chitro Bai.CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 13 of 28
it is this court's view that the registered Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) being a photocopy of the original, can surely be used as secondary evidence under sections 63/65 Evidence Act. It may be noted that the defendant did not produce this document and it was neither traceable in SubRegistrar's office - (see clauses (a) and (c) of section 65 of Evidence Act).
19. The defendant contended that the Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) cannot be used in evidence as no attesting witness had been examined. This argument lacks merit. Under the proviso to section 68 of Evidence Act the necessity of calling an attesting witness is done away with in the case of a registered document (other than a Will) unless its execution is 'specifically denied'. But, as already pointed out hereinabove, there is no 'specific denial' by the defendant of the execution of the registered Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X). Given this, I really see no necessity of the calling the attesting witness(es) to the witness box in proof of execution of the registered Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X).
20. Now to the question that was posed earlier in paragraph no.14 hereinabove, and which is which of the two modes of devolution of the property in question is more probable on preponderance of probabilities? It is the view of this court that the one propounded by the plaintiff is more probable and credible. This is for the following reasons. There is a registered relinquishment deed in plaintiff's scheme of things as against the Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:49:47 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 14 of 28 claim of oral family settlement propounded by the defendant. Thus, we are faced with a duly registered document as against a claim of oral family settlement. It is significant to note that the date of oral family settlement and its other details are not set out. It is neither specified as to what came to the share of the other heirs of late Tola Ram Sachdeva in the oral family settlement. And to top it all, there is no credible proof on record of the oral family settlement, except for defendant's self serving ipse dixit. No witness to such an oral family settlement came to the witness box. There are no circumstances pointed out to corroborate the claim of oral family settlement amongst late Tola Ram Sachdeva's legal heirs. Further, as already stated hereinabove, there is no 'specific denial' by the defendant of execution of the registered Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X). For these multiple reasons, this court does not accept defendant's claim about oral family settlement. As a corollary, defendant's claim that under the oral family settlement, the property in question bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi had stood vested in his mother Chitro Bai, brother Harbans Lal and himself (defendant) is sans any basis. Execution of the registered Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) in favour of Ms. Chitro Bai by all her seven children, including the defendant herein, stands proved. As per written text of this Relinquishment Deed, all the seven children, including the defendant, of late Tola Ram Sachdeva 'with their free will and consent without any pressure or compulsion from others and in their sound disposing mind relinquished their 7/8 share' in 'built property bearing no. 2/107, (Block No.2, Qr. No.107) measuring area 100 Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:49:57 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 15 of 28 sq. yards along with its whole of structures according to the site & with the rights of upper construction upto the last storey, situated in the abadi Geeta Colony, Jheel Khuranja, Delhi110031'. Therefore, the position that emerges is that the property in question vested in Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) with the execution of the Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X).
21. Now, on 28.09.2007 Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) vide a registered Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW2/1), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW2/2), Receipt of Rs. 8,00,000/ (Ex. PW2/3), Possession Letter (Ex. PW2/4), Indemnity Bond (Ex. PW2/5), Affidavit and Will transferred the property in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour. These documents stand proved. Plaintiff Harjeet Kaur (PW1) in her evidence deposed about execution of these documents in her favor by Ms. Chitro Bai. PW2 Daljeet Singh is a witness to few of these documents (Ex. PW2/1, Ex. PW2/2, Ex. PW2/3, Ex. PW2/4 and Ex. PW2/5.) In his testimony, he deposed about execution of these documents in his presence. In addition, I find that name of PW2 Daljeet Singh also appears as a witness in the Will executed by Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) in favour of plaintiff Harjeet Kaur. It is to be noted that one of these documents, namely the Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW2/1), is duly registered. PW3 Ram Tirath, an official from the office of Sub RegistrarVIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi, gave evidence about the due registration of this Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW2/1). It is this court's view that transfer of the property in question by Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) in favour of plaintiff Harjeet Kaur for a consideration of Rs.Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH
MURARI Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:50:07 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 16 of 28 8,00,000/ stands proved. It may be mentioned here that vide these documents Ms. Chitro Bai had transferred property bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031 (measuring 42 sq. yards) to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur.
22. It was defendant's contention that GPA sale transaction dt. 28.09.2007 between Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) and plaintiff Harjeet Kaur is not sanctioned by law, for under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act sale of an immovable property of value Rs. 100 or more can take place only and only through a registered sale deed. This contention of the defendant is essentially based on ratio decidendi of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC). This court is conscious of the Apex Court verdict in Suraj Lamps (supra). However, subsequent thereto, Delhi High Court in Shri Ramesh Chand v. Shri Suresh Chand & Anr., 188 (2012) DLT 538 has held that where power of attorney sale documents are coupled with consideration, then stricto sensu complete ownership is not conferred, but the said documents do create rights to the extent provided under section 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and ownership on account of devolution in terms of the Will after demise of the testator. Delhi High Court in this regard relied on an observation in Suraj Lamps (supra) to the effect that power of attorney is revocable or terminable at any time, unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. It may also be pointed out that under section 202 of Indian Contract Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:50:18 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 17 of 28 Act, 1872 if a power of attorney is given for a consideration, then it cannot be terminated in the absence of an express contract to the prejudice of such interest. In the inter se transaction between Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) and plaintiff Harjeet Kaur, the Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW2/1) is irrevocable. It is coupled with a consideration of Rs. 8 lacs. It is a registered instrument. It is accompanied by Agreement to Sell /Affidavit /Will /Receipt/ Possession Letter etcetera. And therefore, the plaintiff Harjeet Kaur though may not have become the 'owner' of the property in question in the classical sense as would an 'owner' be under a duly registered sale deed, but surely she would have acquired rights under section 202 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 which are not terminable or revocable. In any event, her rights and entitlements visàvis the property in question, postexecution of irrevocable GPA sale documents backed by consideration in her favour, were certainly put on a much better footing than that of Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) or for that matter, the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva himself. There is one more reason it. In Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad, (2015) 5 SCC 588 it has been held that Suraj Lamp has prospective application. Consequently, Suraj Lamp is inapplicable to the subject 2007 transaction between Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) and plaintiff Harjeet Kaur. Further, there apparently is no malafide in this transaction between Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) and plaintiff Harjeet Kaur. And no such malafide was pointed out to this court. The transaction appears to be a genuine one, backed by a valuable consideration. Lastly, at no point of time after execution of the irrevocable GPA sale documents did Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:50:27 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 18 of 28 Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) or any of her children complain to any authority that she had been made to execute those documents against her consent or that she was forcibly/ against consent made to appear before the SubRegistrar. For these multiple reasons, defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva's argument based on Suraj Lamp / section 54 of Transfer of Property Act thereby seeking to impugn the 2007 transaction between his mother and the plaintiff is turned down.
23. We now come to the next transaction in plaintiff's chain, which is the one between plaintiff and Ms. Santosh Rani. The property in question having been transferred in her name on 28.09.2007, plaintiff Harjeet Kaur then on 16.05.2008 vide registered Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW3/1 : Ex.
PW3/3), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW1/7), Will (Ex. PW1/8), Affidavit (Ex. PW1/9), Possession Letter (Ex. PW1/10) and Receipt of Rs. 9,20,000/ transferred the same in favour of Ms. Santosh Rani wife of R. L. Madan. Plaintiff Harjeet Kaur (PW1) in her evidence deposed about execution of these documents by her in favor of Ms. Santosh Rani. One of these documents, namely the Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW3/1 : Ex. PW3/3), is duly registered. PW3 Ram Tirath, an official from the office of SubRegistrar VIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi, gave evidence about due registration of this Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW3/1 : Ex. PW3/3). That apart, it is not shown to this court that either the vendor (plaintiff Harjeet Kaur) or the vendee (Ms. Santosh Rani) ever challenged or made any complaint against execution of these documents. It is this court's view, on preponderance of probabilities, that plaintiff Harjeet Kaur had transferred the property in question to Ms. Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:50:36 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 19 of 28 Santosh Rani for a valuable consideration. As per the written text of these documents, what was transferred was property no.2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031 measuring 42 sq. yards. For the very same reasons as set out hereinabove in paragraph no.22, defendant's contention premised on Suraj Lamp / section 54 of Transfer of Property Act is turned down.
24. We now come to the last transaction in plaintiff's chain, which is the one between Ms. Santosh Rani wife of R. L. Madan and herself (plaintiff Harjeet Kaur). On 02.09.2015 Ms. Santosh Rani vide registered Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Ex. PW1/1 : Ex. PW3/2), registered General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/2), notarised Will (Ex. PW1/3), notarised Affidavit (Ex. PW1/4), notarised Receipt of Rs. 25,10,000/ (Ex. PW1/5), and notarised Possession Letter (Ex. PW1/6) transferred the property in question in favour of plaintiff Harjeet Kaur. Plaintiff Harjeet Kaur (PW1) in her evidence deposed about execution of these documents in her favor by Ms. Santosh Rani. PW2 Daljeet Singh is a witness to all these documents, except the notarised Affidavit (Ex. PW1/4). It is to be noted that two of these documents, namely, the Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Ex. PW1/1 : Ex. PW3/2) and the General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/2), are duly registered. That apart, it is not shown to this court that either the vendor (Ms. Santosh Rani) or the vendee (plaintiff Harjeet Kaur) had ever challenged or made any complaint against execution of these documents. It is this court's view, on preponderance of probabilities, that Ms. Santosh Rani had transferred the property in question to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur for a valuable consideration. As per the written text of these documents, what Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:50:46 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 20 of 28 was transferred was property no.2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031 measuring 42 sq. yards. For the very same reasons as set out hereinabove in paragraph no.22 except the one based on the ratio decidendi of Maya Devi (supra) defendant's contention premised on Suraj Lamp / section 54 of Transfer of Property Act is turned down.
25. Defendant urged that identity of Ms. Santosh Rani wife of R. L. Madan is unknown. The fact that the defendant is unaware of Ms. Santosh Rani's identity is of no relevance. In the set of GPA sale documents executed on 16.05.2008, by plaintiff Harjeet Kaur in Ms. Santosh Rani's favor, the Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW3/1 : Ex. PW3/3) is duly registered. In the set of the GPA sale documents executed on 02.09.2015 by Ms. Santosh Rani in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour the Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Ex. PW1/1 : Ex. PW3/2) and the General Power of Attorney (Ex. PW1/2) are duly registered. The point therefore is that registration of these documents could not have been got done by and in favour of a person who did not actually exist. Being registered documents, they are presumed to be genuine. Under section 114, Evidence Act all judicial and official acts are presumed to be performed regularly. Section 34, Registration Act, inter alia, contemplates the registering authority to be satisfied with the identity of the executant and whether or not the executant had in fact executed the document before he can order for registration of the document presented for registration. Furthermore, the SubRegistrar had made the necessary endorsements on these registered documents in compliance with section 58, Registration Act. In the registered documents dt. 02.09.2015 the Sub Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:50:56 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 21 of 28 Registrar endorses, inter alia, that the presenter's name is Ms. Santosh Rani and that the contents of the documents had been explained to her who had understood and admitted them to be correct. It also records that Ms. Santosh Rani admits receipt of the consideration. There is also a photograph taken of Ms. Santosh Rani on the rear page of the registered documents dt. 02.09.2015. Similarly, in the registered document dt. 15.05.2008 the SubRegistrar made an endorsement that Ms. Santosh Rani is one of the executant and presenter of the document. On its rear page her photograph was taken. These statutory endorsements on these registered documents cannot be set at naught on the mere plea of the defendant that he is unaware of the identity of Ms. Santosh Rani wife of R. L. Madan. There is yet another reason to discard this argument. Arguendo, Ms. Santosh Rani was a nonexistent person, yet this will not suffice to take the defendant out of the woods. This is because it will, at the most, make the GPA sale documents dt. 16.05.2008 (executed by plaintiff Harjeet Kaur in favour of Ms. Santosh Rani) and the GPA sale documents dt. 02.09.2015 (executed by Ms. Santosh Rani in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour) otiose. This will have no impact on the GPA sale documents dt. 28.09.2007 executed by Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour. In such an event, plaintiff would surely be entitled to recover possession on the strength of the GPA sale documents dt. 28.09.2007 alone, that was executed by his mother Chitro Bai in her (plaintiff's) favour.
26. Defendant also contended that his mother Ms. Chitro Bai had never parted with possession of the property and that he (defendant) has been in Digitally signed by MURARI MURARI PRASAD SINGH Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date: 2021.07.28 12:51:07 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 22 of 28 its possession since 1968. In Karan Madaan & Ors. v. Nageshwar Pandey, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1277, a suit for recovery of possession was filed on the basis of a registered sale deed despite the fact that the sale deed recorded that the possession had already been given. The defence was that the intention was not to execute a sale deed and the actual transaction was one of loan and for this reason the possession was not given to the plaintiff.
However, it was held that the fact that possession was not actually given will not suffice to hold that the sale deed was not actually intended to be executed and acted upon. I find that the appeal preferred against Karan Madaan (supra) already stands dismissed in Nageshwar Pandey v. Karan Madaan & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 816. There is no law that where ownership of an immovable property is being transferred, its possession must simultaneously be handed over. There is neither any law that if possession is not handed over simultaneously with change of ownership of the immovable property, then such change of ownership is of no legal effect.
27. It was next the defendant's argument that Ms. Santosh Rani never took possession of the property in question from him. For exactly the same reasons as in the preceding paragraph, this argument is of no merit.
28. It was also urged by the defendant that had Ms. Chitro Bai executed any document of transfer, she would definitely have told her family members about it. This argument, in the face of the clear recitals in the registered document(s), is sans any merit. It bears repetition to state that at Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:51:16 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 23 of 28 no point of time after execution of the irrevocable GPA sale documents in plaintiff's favour on 28.09.2007, did Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) or any of her children complain to any authority that she had been made to execute those documents against her consent or that she was forcibly/ against consent made to appear before the SubRegistrar. Further, whether or not an executant tells his family members about execution of a registered instrument by him is, sans anything more, of no relevance. That apart, this appears to be a selfserving ipse dixit of the defendant only to suit his own convenience. He never came clean on the execution of the registered Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) by him and his siblings in favour of their mother Ms. Chitro Bai.
29. In support of his contention that the property in question belongs to him, the defendant invoked the Will dt. 27.05.2013 (Ex. PW1/1) that was purportedly executed by his mother in his favour. However, execution of this testament shall not vest the property in question in defendant's favour. This is for the very simple reason, as already pointed out hereinabove, that Ms. Chitro Bai (defendant's mother) had way back on 28.09.2007 transferred the property in question vide a registered Irrevocable GPA (Ex. PW2/1), Agreement to Sell (Ex. PW2/2), Receipt of Rs. 8,00,000/ (Ex. PW2/3), Possession Letter (Ex. PW2/4), Indemnity Bond (Ex. PW2/5), Affidavit and Will in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour. Ms. Chitro Bai thus was left with no right, title or interest in the property in question and consequently execution of Will (Ex. PW1/1) by her on 27.05.2013 in respect thereof is absolutely of no consequence. She could not have Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location:
PRASAD Court No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:51:26 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 24 of 28 executed a Will on 27.05.2013 in respect of the property that did not in fact belong to her.
30. To conclude the discussion on this issue, it is held that the entire property in question bearing no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi31 measuring 42 sq. yards belongs to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur. Consequently, the defendant has no right, title or interest in this property or any portion thereof. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the first floor of this property. This issue is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff Harjeet Kaur and against the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva.
31. Issue no.5 - The issue is whether plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction decree. Burden to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks to permanently injunct the defendant from handing over possession to any other person and creating third party interest in the first floor portion of property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi. The outcome of issue no.3 a fortiori entails that plaintiff is entitled to such a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant. Accordingly, permanent injunction relief is hereby issued in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour and defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva is restrained from handing over possession to any third person and creating third party interest in first floor of property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi. This issue is answered in plaintiff Harjeet Kaur's favour and against the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva.
32. Issue no.4 - This issue concerns the mesne profits/damages to be awarded to plaintiff. Plaintiff claims mesne profits of Rs. 15,000/ per Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:51:36 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 25 of 28 month with effect from 01.10.2015 qua first floor of the property in question, i.e. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi. Plaintiff led no evidence on the aspect of mesne profits. There is no evidence on record to show as to how much market rent a similarly situated floor would fetch. In the absence of evidence, courts can very well do some honest guesswork in quantifying the mesne profits (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devansh Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6687). The floor herein is residential. The property in question measures 42 sq. yards. It is not ground floor, rather first floor. As per the last GPA sale transaction dt. 02.09.2015 the entire property (comprising of ground and first floor) was transferred for a consideration of Rs. 25,10,000/ to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur by Ms. Santosh Rani. Given this, this court is of the view that damages/mesne profits of Rs. 6,000/ per month for a year with effect from 01.10.2015 would suffice. And there can be periodic enhancement of 10% in mesne profits/damages after every one year. Thus, for the period from 01.10.2015 to 30.09.2016 defendant shall pay to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur mesne profits of Rs. 6,000 per month. For the period from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017 defendant shall pay to plaintiff mesne profits of Rs. 6,600/ per month (increase of 10% over Rs. 6,000/). For the period from 01.10.2017 to 30.09.2018 defendant shall pay to plaintiff mesne profits of Rs. 7,260/ per month (increase of 10% over Rs. 6,600/). For the period from 01.10.2018 to 30.09.2019 defendant shall pay to plaintiff mesne profits of Rs. 7,986/ per month (increase of 10% over Rs. 7,260/). And so on and so forth till the defendant finally hands over possession of the first floor of the property in question to Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location:
PRASAD Court No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:51:46 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 26 of 28 plaintiff Harjeet Kaur. This issue accordingly stands answered in favour of plaintiff Harjeet Kaur and against the defendant.
33. Issue no.2 - The issue is whether plaintiff did not approach the court with the clean hands. Burden to prove this issue is on the defendant. There is nothing on record to suggest that plaintiff Harjeet Kaur did not approach the court with clean hands. Defendant led no evidence to show that she knocked the doors of this court with unclean hands. On the contrary, it is the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva who did not make a clean breast of the true state of affairs visàvis the property in question inasmuch as he was not candid enough about execution of the registered Relinquishment Deed dt. 07.07.2000 (Mark X) by him and his siblings in favour of their mother Ms. Chitro Bai. This issue is accordingly answered against the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva and in favour of plaintiff Harjeet Kaur.
34. Relief - Following reliefs are hereby granted: (A) Plaintiff Harjeet Kaur is entitled to recover possession of the first floor of property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031 (as shown in site plan Ex. PW1/11) from the defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva. (B) Defendant Jeet Lal Sachdeva is permanently injuncted from handing over possession of first floor of property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi to any person other than plaintiff Harjeet Kaur and also from creating any third party interest therein. (C) Damages/mesne profits of Rs. 6,000/ per month for a year with effect from 01.10.2015 is awarded to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur payable by the defendant. There shall be periodic enhancement of 10% in the mesne profits/damages Digitally signed by MURARI PRASAD SINGH MURARI Location: Court No.7, PRASAD Karkardooma SINGH Courts, Delhi Date:
2021.07.28 12:51:54 +0530 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 27 of 28 after every one year. Thus, for the period from 01.10.2015 to 30.09.2016 defendant shall pay to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur mesne profits of Rs. 6,000 per month. For the period from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017 defendant shall pay to plaintiff mesne profits of Rs. 6,600/ per month (increase of 10% over Rs. 6,000/). For the period from 01.10.2017 to 30.09.2018 defendant shall pay to plaintiff mesne profits of Rs. 7,260/ per month (increase of 10% over Rs. 6,600/). For the period from 01.10.2018 to 30.09.2019 defendant shall pay to plaintiff mesne profits of Rs. 7,986/ per month (increase of 10% over Rs. 7,260/). And so on and so forth till the defendant finally hands over possession of the first floor of property no. 2/107, Geeta Colony, Delhi to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur, (D) Costs of the suit is awarded to plaintiff Harjeet Kaur.
35. Decree sheet be drawn up. File be consigned to record room.Digitally signed by
MURARI MURARI SINGH PRASAD Announced through video conference PRASAD Location: Court No.7, Karkardooma on 28th July, 2021 Courts, Delhi SINGH Date: 2021.07.28 12:52:05 +0530 (M. P. Singh) Presently ASJ (Electricity), South West, Dwarka Courts Delhi Earlier ADJ03, East District, Karkardooma Courts Delhi/28.07.2021 CS 349/2016 Harjeet Kaur v. Jeet Lal Sachdeva Page 28 of 28