Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Shri Shyam Sunder vs (1) Shri Shyam Kumar on 29 March, 2014

                                                                     ID. No. 02401C0608802010


      IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA : ADDL. DISTRICT 
            JUDGE (CENTRAL­07) : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI


                                   CIVIL SUIT NO. 265/2012


Shri Shyam Sunder,
S/o Sh. Ushnak Ram,
R/o C­4/322, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi.                                                                   ............. PLAINTIFF


                 VERSUS


(1)      Shri Shyam Kumar,
         S/o Shri Panna Lal


(2)      Shri Vijay Kumar,
         S/o Shri Panna Lal
         Both R/o E­60, Gali No.11,
         Bhagirathi Vihar - II, 
         Delhi.
(3)       Shri Devi Singh, 
          House No.B­57, Gali No.2, 
          Bhagirathi Vihar - II, 
          Delhi.
(4)      Shri Om Bir
           C/o No.B 57, Gali no.2, 
          Bhagirathi Vihar - II, 
          Delhi.                                                         ............ DEFENDANTS 




1/18                                                                Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.
 Date of Institution                                             : 06.09.2004
Date when the case reserved for order                           : 29.03.2014
Date of Order                                                   : 29.03.2014
 

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profit against the defendants.

2. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff through Kishan Lal came in contact of the defendants no.3 and 4. The defendant no.4 is a property dealer. The defendant no.3 suggested the plaintiff to come in the business of property dealing. As per understanding, the plaintiff had to pay the amount to purchase the property, the defendant no.3 would purchase and sale the property and profit would be shared amongst the plaintiff and the defendants no.3 and 4. On 19.11.1999, the defendants no.3 and 4 purchased the property no. E­60, Gali no.11, Bhagirathi Vihar - II, Delhi (the suit property) in the name of the plaintiff. They told that the sale consideration of the suit property was Rs.2,62,000/­ and asked the plaintiff to pay Rs. 1,62,000/­ and told that remaining amount of Rs.1 lac would be paid by defendant no.3. In the said transaction, the defendant no.4, as a mediator, was also a partner. The plaintiff paid Rs.1,62,000/­ to the defendant no.3 in the presence of Suraj Prakash, Sunil Bery and Kishal Lal. Thereafter, the defendant no.3 approached the plaintiff with a proposal to purchase the property no.B­57, Gali no.2, Bhagirathi Vihar Phase­II, Delhi for Rs. 3,50,000/­ and the defendant no.3 asked the plaintiff to pay Rs.2,16,000/­ and told that rest of the payment would be arranged by him. The plaintiff paid Rs.1,76,000/­ to the defendant no.3. Thereafter, the defendant no. 3 2/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

purchased the said property but he did not produce the documents of the same. After sometime, the plaintiff informed the defendant no.3 that he had a purchaser for the suit property for Rs.3,50,000/­. But in January 2000, the defendants no.3 and 4 approached the plaintiff and informed that they had a purchaser for the suit property who was ready to pay the sale consideration more than Rs.3,50,000/­ and asked the plaintiff to come to the house of the defendant no.4. On 10.01.2000, the plaintiff visited the house of the defendant no.4 where he along with the defendant no.3 and one more person was sitting and introduced that third person as purchaser of the suit property for Rs.3,25,000/­. The plaintiff refused to sale the suit property and tried to come out of the house. But they started beating him and shown him the knife and at that juncture, they forcibly got his signatures on some printed stamp papers and some typed paper. They also forcibly took the plaintiff to the office of Sub­Registrar, Seelam Pur for execution of the documents and threatened that if he would disclose the same, then they would kill his wife and children. Later, the defendants no.1 and 2 told that they had paid some money to the defendant no.3 and 4. When the plaintiff demanded the money from the defendant no.3, he asked him to come to his house in the evening. The plaintiff visited the house of defendant no.3 many times but of no use. Thereafter, the defendant no.3 called the plaintiff to take the payment at his house on 12.02.2000 at 6.00 p.m. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the plaintiff could not visit the house of the defendant no.3 and sent his wife and the daughter to his house, where wife and son of the defendant no.3 forced the plaintiff's wife to consume a cup of tea which affected her health. Consequently, an FIR no.72/2000, u/s 307/328/120­B/34 of IPC was registered against them. Thereafter, the plaintiff again visited the house of the defendant no.3 many times and demanded the amount but of 3/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

no use. Left with no option, vide registered cancellation deed dated 10.05.2000, the plaintiff cancelled the GPA dated 10.01.2000. Thereafter, he got issued a legal notice dated 27.09.2000. In reply, the defendants stated that the plaintiff executed the documents and received Rs.95,000/­ as sale consideration. On 04.11.2003, the plaintiff again got issued the legal notice upon the defendants but of no use. Left with no option, the plaintiff filed the present suit and prayed for a decree of possession of the suit property or in the alternative a decree of Rs.3,25,000/­ along with interest @ 18 % p.a. The plaintiff also prayed for decree of mesne profit @ Rs.1,000/­ p.m. He also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from disposing of the suit property without his consent.

3. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. In response thereto, the defendants no.1 and 2 filed their common written statement. It is stated that the plaintiff sold the suit property to them for Rs.95,000/­ which he received in cash and thereafter, executed the registered general power of attorney dated 10.01.2000, agreement to sale, Will and receipt all dated 10.01.2000. Simultaneously, the plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit property to them. They admitted the receipt of notice dated 27.09.2000 and stated that that time they came to know about cancellation of GPA. Consequently, they lodged a police complaint. He denied rest of the averments made in the plaint. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

4. On 02.03.2003, the defendant no.3 was proceeded ex­parte.

4/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

5. The defendant no.4 also filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

6. The plaintiff filed the replication to the respective written statements and re­iterated the averments made in the plaint.

7. On 29.03.2005, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court :

(1) Whether the signatures of the plaintiff were forcibly obtained on some printed stamp paper and on some typed paper and on some blank paper and he was taken to the office of Sub­Registrar, Seelam Pur for executing document as alleged in Para no.6 of the plaint ? OPP (2) Whether the suit property was purchased by defendant no.1 and 2 against valuable consideration on execution of documents as alleged in para no.6 of WS of defendant no.1 and 2 ? (OPD 1 & 2) (3) Whether suit is barred by limitation as alleged in preliminary objection no.4 of WS of defendant no.1? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession, as prayed for ? OPP (5) To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled as mesne profits from defendants ? OPP (6) Relief.
5/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.
8. The plaintiff examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar, LDC, Office of Sub Registrar IV, Seelampur Delhi as PW1. He proved the certified copy of the GPA dated 19.11.1999 Ex.PW1/A and its original Ex.PW1/DA.
9. The plaintiff also examined Sh. Kanwar Pal, Asstt. Grade­II, BSES as PW2.
10. The plaintiff examined himself as PW3 and his affidavit in evidence. He relied upon the documents Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/4. He also proved the documents Ex. PW3/D1 (colly) and Ex. PW3/D2.
11. The plaintiff also examined his wife Smt. Asha Arora as PW4 and her affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW4/A.
12. The plaintiff also examined his father in law namely Sh.

Krishan Lal as his attorney as PW5 and his affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW5/A.

13. The plaintiff also examined Sh. Kishan Lal Sachdeva, a friend of PW5 as PW6 and his affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW6/A.

14. The plaintiff also examined Sh. Munish Kumar, LDC, Office of Deputy Commissioner, Delhi as PW7 and he proved the order dated 18.01.2008 Ex.PW7/A. 6/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

15. The defendant no.1 examined himself as D1W1 and his affidavit in evidence is Ex.D1W1/A.

16. The defendant no.2 examined himself as D2W2 and his affidavit in evidence is Ex.D2W2/X.

17. The defendant no.2 also examined Sh. Vikram as D2W3 and his affidavit in evidence is Ex.D2W3/X.

18. The defendant no.4 examined himself as D4W1 and his affidavit in evidence is Ex.D4W1/X.

19. I have heard the ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

ISSUE No.3

20. Onus to prove the issue no. 3 was on the defendants. The defendants have failed to lead any evidence to prove the same. On 06.09.2004, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession on the basis of the documents dated 10.01.2000 which is within the period of 12 years from the date of the said documents. Hence, the suit is within period of limitation. Therefore, the issue no. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

7/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

ISSUE No. 1, 2 AND 4

21. Issues no. 1, 2 and 4 are taken up together as they involve common discussion.

22. Case of the plaintiff is that the defendants no. 3 and 4 forcibly got executed the title documents of the suit property i.e. the property no. E­60 from him in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2 by obtaining his signatures forcefully on certain blank papers and some printed stamp papers. They did not pay the sale consideration to him. Therefore, he cancelled the GPA dated 10.01.2000 executed in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2 vide cancellation deed dated 10.05.2000.

23. On the contrary, case of the defendants is that the defendants no. 1 and 2 purchased the suit property on payment of the entire sale consideration to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has voluntarily executed the titled documents in their favour.

24. In the present case, the dispute revolves around the property no. E­60, Gali no.11, Bhagirathi Vihar Phase­II, Delhi.

25. Before proceeding further, it is mentioned that the plaintiff in his evidence tried to build up a case as if he filed the suit for property no. B­57, Gali no.2, Bhagirathi Vihar Phase­II, Delhi also. Perusal of the plaint reveals that no relief of whatever nature has been prayed by the plaintiff 8/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

against the defendants in respect of property no. B­57. As such, the statements of PW­3 and PW­6 to that effect are not only beyond pleading but also are irrelevant to dispose of the present suit.

26. Regarding the property no. E­60 i.e. the suit property, the defendants no. 1 and 2 in preliminary objection no.7 of their WS mentioned the detail of the chain documents. In corresponding para in reply in the replication, the plaintiff has shown his ignorance about the said documents. However, the plaintiff in his evidence proved the GPA dated 27.06.1997 Ex.PW 3/D2 executed in favour of Samay Singh and GPA dated 19.11.1999 Ex. PW 3/ 4 (Ex. PW 1/A) executed by Samay Singh in his favour.

27. It is evident from the record that Gulam Mohd. and Nanhey Khan executed the following documents in favour of Samay Singh with respect of 100 sq.yards of property:

(i) registered GPA dated 27.06.1997 Ex.PW 3/D2 (Ex.D1W1/5),
(ii) agreement to sale dated 27.06.1997 (Ex.D1W1/6), and
(iii) receipt dated 27.06.1997 (Ex.D1W1/7).

28. Subsequently, Samay Singh executed the following documents in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 50 sq. yards out of 100 sq. yards of the property:

(i) registered GPA dated 19.11.1999 (Ex.D1W1/9),
(ii) agreement to sale dated 19.11.1999 (Ex.D1W1/10), and
(iii) receipt dated 19.11.1999 (Ex.D1W1/11).
9/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.
29. Subsequently, the plaintiff executed the following documents in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2:
(i) registered GPA dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/1),
(ii) agreement to sale dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/2),
(iii) Will dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/3), and
(iv) receipt dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/4). These documents are also proved by the plaintiff as Ex. PW3/D1 (colly).

30. Now the question arises what is the identity and description of the property subject of the abovementioned documents. The set of documents executed in favour of Samay Singh and the documents executed by Samay Singh in favour of the plaintiff reveal that no property number is mentioned therein. In the said documents, the description of the property is mentioned which reveals that at the western side of the property, there was a 20 ft. wide road and so far as, other three sides are concerned, it was simply mentioned other's properties, however, the details of the other properties were not mentioned. As such, from both the angles, the exact location of the subject property and its specific number cannot be ascertained. Not the least, in the GPA dated 19.11.1999 Ex.PW 1/DA (D1W1/9) fluid has been put on the property number. The same position existed in agreement to sell Ex.D1W1/10 and receipt Ex.D1W1/11 also. Therefore, on the basis of the said documents, it cannot be ascertained which property was purchased by the plaintiff except that it was situated in Khasra No.19 Block E, Gali no.11.

10/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

31. Now it is to be ascertained what is identity and description of the property subject of the documents executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2. No property number is mentioned in GPA Ex.D1W1/1. Even the space meant for mentioning the property number is left blank. So far as remaining three documents i.e. Ex. D1W1/2, Ex. D1W1/ 3 and Ex. D1W1/4 are concerned, the property number mentioned is E­59. In the deed of cancellation dated 10.05.2000 Ex. PW 3/1, the property number is not mentioned. The said documents were proved by the plaintiffs also in his evidence as PW 3/D1 (collectively).

32. Regarding identity of the suit property, the plaintiff has not proved the site plan filed by him. PW­3, in his cross examination, deposed that he cannot tell the location and surrounding of the suit property. DW1 in his examination in chief deposed that he purchased the suit property from the plaintiff vide the abovementioned documents. However, in his cross examination, he changed the stand and pleaded that he purchased property no. E­59 from the plaintiff and in property E­60, one Sh. Prabhu Dayal has been residing. He specifically deposed that no transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 took place regarding the suit property. He deposed that when he filed the affidavit, the number of the suit property was E­60 and in the year 2003 it got changed to E­59. In WS filed on 02.03.2005, it was not the case of the defendants no.1 and 2. Even in the affidavit filed on 21.07.2006, it was not the case of those defendants. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that on the one hand, the plaintiff failed to prove that he was the owner of the suit property i.e. E­60 and has transferred the same to the defendants no. 1 and 2 vide the subject documents while on the other hand, the defendants no. 1 and 2 failed to prove 11/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

that they purchased the suit property vide the subject documents. Rather, the defendants no. 1 and 2 kept on changing their stand regarding the identity and description of the suit property. As such, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants no. 1 and 2. Hence, it can be held that the suit property was not the subject of the aforementioned documents. As such, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he sold the suit property and delivered the possession of the same to the defendants no.1 and 2. Therefore, there is no occasion to seek the relief of possession of the suit property against the defendants no.1 and 2. Consequently, the suit is liable to be dismissed out rightly. However, I propose to decide the issues on merit also.

33. In the present suit, the plaintiff pleaded two grievances (i) the defendants no.3 and 4 forcibly got executed the registered GPA dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/1), agreement to sale dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/2), Will dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/3), and receipt dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/4) from the plaintiff in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2; and

(ii) the defendants had not paid the sale consideration to him.

34. Now the question arises, whether the plaintiff executed the registered GPA dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/1), agreement to sale dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/2), Will dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/3), and receipt dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/4) forcibly in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2 that too without receipt of the sale consideration.

35. Case of the plaintiff is that on 19.11.1999, the defendants no. 3 and 4 purchased the suit property in his name for sale consideration of Rs.

12/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

2,62,000/­ and the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,62,000/­ to the defendant no.3. On 10.01.2000, the defendant no.3 called him at the residence of the defendant no.4 regarding the sale transaction of the suit property and once he reached there, the defendant no.4 along with other person, a customer was present there. He was informed that the suit property was to be sold for Rs. 3,25,000/­. Once he refused to sale the same at that consideration and tried to come out from the house, he was beaten up by all the said persons. They showed him the knife and obtained his signatures on blank papers and certain printed stamp papers. He was forced to visit and appear in the office of Sub Registrar, Seelampur, Delhi. He was threatened to the extent that if he would disclose the same to anybody, they would kill his wife and children. That day, they also told him that some gundas were also sitting in his house. Under the said threat, he executed the said documents. Thereafter, he visited the house of the defendant no.3 many times to receive the sale consideration but of no use. The defendant no.3 called him at his residence on 12.02.2000 at 6.00 p.m. to pay the sale consideration. Due to certain unavoidable circumstances, he could not visit and asked his wife to go over there. Then his wife along with daughter visited the house and that time, wife and son of defendant no.3 forced the plaintiff's wife to consume a cup of tea having some poison therein and once his wife came back to the house, she felt unconscious. In his examination in chief, PW­3 deposed on the same lines.

36. In his cross examination, PW­3 admitted that he purchased the suit property from Sh. Samay Singh who had given all the documents related to the suit property to him. He admitted that he handed over the documents PW3/D­1 (Colly) and PW3/D­2 (Colly), to the defendants no.1 and 2. He 13/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

deposed that he can read and write English language. He admitted having sold the suit property to the defendants no.1 and 2 and also admitted his signatures on the documents Ex. PW3/D1 (colly). He also admitted that the documents Ex.PW3/D­1 (colly) were signed at the Office of Sub Registrar. He deposed that his wife was not present along with him in the office of Sub Registrar. He admitted that he did not make any compliant to any authority that his signatures were obtained forcibly. He showed his ignorance whether he mentioned the fact of forcible signatures in his notice dated 27.09.2000 Ex.PW3/2. He deposed that he did not know the sale consideration for which he sold the suit property to the defendants no.1 and 2. He admitted that he executed the documents regarding the suit property after taking full and final amount. He deposed that he served the notice five months after the execution of the GPA dated 10.01.2000. The plaintiff proved the legal notice dated 27.09.2000 Ex.PW3/2 and dated 04.11.2003 Ex.PW3/3 and deposed that the defendants did not pay the sale consideration of the suit property to the plaintiff, therefore, he had cancelled the GPA Ex. D1W1/1executed in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2 vide cancellation deed dated 10.05.2000 Ex. PW 3/1 and called upon them to deliver back the possession of the suit property. Admittedly, the plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar, a government official, to execute the documents. If there had been any threat as alleged, then, he could have very easily informed the same to the said official but nothing was done. In view thereof, it can be held the plaintiff executed the documents Ex. PW3/D1 (colly) voluntarily after receipt of the entire sale consideration.

37. PW4 deposed the fact regarding the meeting held and the incident taken place in the house at the time of the said meeting on 14/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

10.01.2000 and that the plaintiff signed certain blank paper forcibly and also his appearance before the Sub Registrar under threat. It is the own case of the plaintiff that she was not present that time. She also admitted that she was not present on 10.01.2000 at the time of negotiation. As such, the deposition of PW4 to that effect is hearsay.

38. To show the malafide of the defendants, the plaintiff mentioned about the incident dated 12.02.2000 and pleaded that the defendant no.3 called him at his residence on 12.02.2000 at 6.00 p.m. regarding the sale consideration. Due to certain unavoidable circumstances, he could not visit and asked his wife to go over there. His wife along with daughter visited the house and wife and son of defendant no.3 forced her to consume a cup of tea having some poison therein and once his wife came back to the house, she felt unconscious.

39. It is the case of the plaintiff is that on 10.01.2000, he visited the house of the defendant no.4 where he along with defendant no.3 and one more person beaten him and showd him knife and also threatened to kill his wife and the daughter. Wife of the plaintiff as PW4 deposed in her statement that the plaintiff was pressurized by the defendants no.3 and 4 and one more person to execute the said documents. As such, it can be held that she was well aware about the alleged act of the defendants no.3 and 4. Surprisingly, instead to lodge the complaint against the act of those persons, the plaintiff visited more than once at the house of the defendant no.3 for the sale consideration as alleged. Not the least, once he could not visit the house of the defendant no.3 on 12.01.2000 at 6.00 p.m., he sent his wife and his daughter to the house of the defendant no.3 that too in the late hours of 15/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

winter. It is quite strange a person who had been threatened to kill his wife and the children and was beaten up also, he not only visited himself to the house of the defendant no.3 but also sent his wife and the daughter to collect the money from the house of the defendant no.3. The plaintiff has failed to assign any reason why he took such a great risk.

40. Regarding the incident dated 12.02.2000 PW­4 deposed that she along with her daughter visited the house of the defendant no.3 at 6.00 p.m. where his wife had persuaded them to consume tea but the daughter refused and threw the same in the drain but she consumed the tea and became uneasy and started vomiting. On 13.02.2000, she was taken to hospital and MLC revealed that she was administered some poison in the tea. Consequently, she lodged an FIR and her husband being upset with the incident and decided to revoke the GPA. The legal notice sent by the plaintiff is completely silent about the incident dated 12.02.2000. The reason assigned by the plaintiff for revocation of GPA in that notice was that he had not received the complete sale consideration. While in her deposition, PW4 deposed that the plaintiff revoked the GPA because of the incident dated 12.02.2000. As such, there exists contradiction in the stand of the plaintiff.

41. Regarding the threat and incident dated 12.02.2000, PW­5 deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the same. Therefore, the version of the plaintiff regarding the incident dated 12.02.2000 does not inspire confidence of this court. Therefore, the version of the plaintiff regarding the incident dated 12.02.2000 does not inspire the confidence of this court.

16/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

42. In view of the foregoing discussions and on the basis of the evidence led by the respective parties, it can be held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the title documents were executed for the suit property for Rs.2,62,000/­ in his favour and he paid Rs. 1,62,000/­ out of the same as the sale consideration in the documents Ex.D1W1/10 and Ex.D1W1/11 is mentioned Rs. 90,000/­ only. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that he sold the property no. E­60 to the defendants no.1 and 2 for Rs. 3,25,000/­ as in the documents Ex.D1W1/2 to Ex.D1W1/4, the sale consideration is mentioned Rs. 95,000/­ only that too for property no. E­59. So far as the registered GPA dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/1), agreement to sale dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/2), Will dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/3), and receipt dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/4) are concerned, the same were voluntarily executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2 after receipt of entire sale consideration but not for the suit property. As discussed above, the plaintiff executed the GPA dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/1) in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2 for consideration, hence, the same is irrevocable in nature. Further, in the deed of cancellation of GPA dated 10.05.2000 Ex. PW3/1, no property number is mentioned. Therefore, the deed of cancellation of GPA dated 10.05.2000 Ex. PW3/1 is of no consequence. So far as the agreement to sale dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/2), Will dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/3), and receipt dated 10.01.2000 (Ex.D1W1/4) are concerned, the plaintiff neither revoked the same nor sought any declaration against them. As such, the mere relief of possession without seeking declaration against the abovementioned documents is not maintainable in law. Therefore, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property.

17/18 Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.

Therefore, the issues no. 1,2 and 4 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE NO.5

43. Onus to prove issue no.5 was on the plaintiff. In view of the findings given while deciding issue no.1, 2 and 4 which were not repeated herein for the sake of brevity, the plaintiff is held not entitled for the relief of mesne profit as prayed for. Therefore, the issue no.5 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE NO.6 (RELIEF)

44. In view of the foregoing discussions, the plaintiff is held not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Therefore, the suit is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, Today i.e. on 29th Day of March, 2014. 

                                                                            (PANKAJ GUPTA) 
                                                                   ADJ(CENTRAL­07)/DELHI 
                                                                                   29.03.2014




18/18                                                                Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.
 19/18                                                                Shyam Sunder vs. Shyam Kumar & Ors.