Delhi District Court
Mohinder Singh vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.1Of35 on 18 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR: ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE, (WEST)-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI.
C.S. No. 68/17/98
Civ. DJ No. 612638/16
Smt. Sarti Devi ( Deceased )
Wd/o Chhote Lal
1. Mohinder Singh
S/o Late Suraj Singh
R/o 316/338, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi- 110030
2. Virender Kumar
S/o late Suraj Singh
R/o F-59, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi- 110030
3. Naresh Kumar (since deceased)
Through his LRs
(i) Smt. Anju (wife)
(ii) Master Aniket (Minor son)
(iii) Master Kunal (Minor son)
R/o F-59, Lado Sarai, New Delhi- 110030
4. Smt. Sheela Devi
Wd/o late Ashok Kumar
5. Kaushal Kumar ( Minor)
through Smt. Sheela Devi,Natural Guardian
6. Bhim Singh
S/o late Lajje Ram
7. Maha Singh
S/o late Lajje Ram
8. Smt. Harnandi Devi
W/o late Suraj Singh
All R/o F-59, Lado Sarai, New Delhi- 110030.
...... Plaintiffs
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.1of35
(New No.612638/16)
Versus
1. Raj Singh
S/o Sh. Pyare Lal
R/o A-9/19, NDSE Part-1
New Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi.
Through its Chairman
3. Smt. Reena Gupta
W/o Sh. Kishan Gupta
R/o B-110, Derawal Nagar,
New Delhi
4. Jai Ram Dass Arora
S/o Late Tirath Dass Arora
R/o M-151, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi- 110018.
......Defendants
Date of institution of the case : 04.09.1998
Date reserved for judgment on : 25.11.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 18.12.2017
JUDGMENT
1 A suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction has been filed.
2. In brief the facts are that the plaintiff is the widow of late Chhote Lal and is suffering from schizophrenia for the last several years and was medically examined by the Medical Board of the institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, on 27.05.1998. The next friend of the plaintiff Shri Mahinder Singh filed a petition before the District Judge CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.2of35 (New No.612638/16) under Section 53 and 54 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 for appointment of Guardian of person and manager of property of the plaintiff vide petition no. 5 of 1998 which is pending before the District Judge, Delhi. In the aforesaid petition the Hon'ble District Judge, directed the plaintiff for medical examination by aforesaid Board and which was conducted and plaintiff was declared as a patient of Schizophrenia by the aforesaid Medical Board.
3 It is stated that plaintiff was the joint owner of the agricultural land situated in the Revenue Tehsil Mehrauli Village Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110030 measuring 24 bigha 14 biswas in total comprising of Khasra No. 393, 403, 418, 452 and 466. The aforesaid agricultural land was acquired by defendant no. 2, Delhi Development Authority for public purposes in the year 1979-80. The defendant no. 2/ DDA alloted alternative residential plots to number of persons whose agricultural lands were acquired by the defendant no.2 and also alloted an alternative residential plot to the plaintiff bearing Plot No. 95, measuring 333.6 sq. meters area in pocket-10, block 'B', Sector-13, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Dwarka, New Delhi vide its order/file No. F.27(3)/92/L.S.B. (R) 837/OT dated 30.10.1997.
4 It is stated that husband of the plaintiff died in his young age in Singapore in a war as he was in the Army. The two sons of the plaintiff also died in their early age and due to the aforesaid deaths of her husband and her sons in quick succession the mental condition of the plaintiff deteriorated since 1991 seriously and she almost became a CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.3of35 (New No.612638/16) person of unsound mind. It is stated that due to aforesaid mental ill health the plaintiff was unable to manage her person and property and since several years the plaintiff is being looked after and taken care by her next friend Shri Mahinder Singh.
5 It is stated that defendant no. 1 deceitfully, fraudulently with a view to cause loss and deprive the plaintiff of her property got manipulated and executed General Power of Attorney dated 03.02.1997 and the Will dated 03.02.1997 in his favour by misrepresenting the plaintiff through some other lady before the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, New Delhi and got the GPA and Will registered before the Sub-Registrar. In the aforesaid GPA the defendant no. 1 got the right, being attorney of the plaintiff to sell the aforesaid residential plot of the plaintiff and has got all other number of powers to exercise on behalf of the plaintiff for managing and disposing of the aforesaid plot of the plaintiff.
6 It is further stated that defendant no. 1 through the aforesaid Will also got bequeathed the residential plot of the plaintiff in his own name. Defendant no. 1 further in collusion with the officials of defendant no. 2/ DDA also manipulated the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 3rd February, 1997 between the President of India through DDA/ defendant no. 2 and the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is stated that defendant no. 1 with the official of defendant no. 2 misrepresented the plaintiff through some other lady and got the alleged Perpetual Lease Deed aforesaid executed with the sole malafide intention to grab CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.4of35 (New No.612638/16) her property fraudulently through sham and forged GPA, Will and Perpetual Leas Deed purported to be executed on 03.02.1997.
7 It is stated that plaintiff neither appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, New Delhi for the execution of the aforesaid three documents nor she put her thumb impression on the said documents nor she was not mentally fit to execute any documents aforesaid as the plaintiff was incapable of executing aforesaid three documents due to her mental illness of Schizophrenia. It is stated that all the above three documents are sham, manipulated, forged, fabricated and the same are void and illegal in the eyes of law. The plaintiff being the chronic mental patient was neither competent nor capable of executing any such document or making difference between wrong and right.
8 It is stated that one Dilbagh Singh son of Shri Hira Lal informed the next friend Mahinder Singh in the first week of March, 1998 that the plaintiff has transferred her plot aforesaid to defendant no. 1. Mahinder Singh, next friend of the plaintiff, was shocked and surprised to know the said transfer and he immediately contacted the defendant no. 1 who told to him that the plaintiff has already executed Will and Power of Attorney in the name of defendant no. 1. Shri Mahinder Singh , told to defendant no. 1 that plaintiff never came for execution of the aforesaid GPA and Will dated 03.02.1997 in his name and that all the documents are forged, fabricated and manipulated one. Thereafter aforesaid next friend of plaintiff visited the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.5of35 (New No.612638/16) New Delhi and obtained the certified copies of the aforesaid three documents on 21.07.1998.
9 It is stated that next friend of plaintiff visited number of times to the house of defendant no. 1 and requested him to get the aforesaid documents cancelled, but instead of cancellation, he threatened him that he will transfer her said plot to some other person on the basis of Will and GPA. It is stated that in case defendant no. 1 succeeds in transferring further the residential plot of the plaintiff, the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss and injury.
10 It is stated that plaintiff is legally entitled to the physical possession of the plot through her next friend and further to get the aforesaid three documents declared null and void through the court as the same were never executed by the plaintiff. The next friend, being nearest relative of the plaintiff, is looking after the plaintiff and managing her affairs. The next friend Mahinder Singh has no adverse interest against the plaintiff and he is morally and ethically bound to look after her person and property.
11 It is stated that plaintiff has no other alternative efficacious remedy except the present suit. The plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss and injury in case the aforesaid forged, manipulated, sham and fabricated documents are not declared nulls and void by the Hon'ble court. 12 It is stated that legal notice under Section 53-B of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 was also served upon the defendant no. 2 on 16.03.1998 for the cancellation of the CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.6of35 (New No.612638/16) Perpetual Lease Deed dated 3.2.1997 and further for giving physical possession of the plot and execution of the fresh valid Perpetual Lease Deed in favour of Smt. Sarti Devi, but the defendant no. 2 has not taken any action despite the aforesaid legal notice.
13 It is stated that defendant no. 1 during the pendency of the suit transferred suit property/plot No. 5, Block -B, Pocket -10, Sector-13, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Pappan Kalan, New Delhi to defendant no. 3, Smt. Reena Gupta on 18.06.1998 by executing transfer documents like Will, GPA, Receipt, Agreement to sell etc. The sale of the suit property during the pendency of the suit is illegal under the Transfer of Property Act and not sustainable under the law. It is stated that action of defendant no. 1 and that of the officials of defendant no. 2 is unconstitutional, unlawful, unwarranted and bad in the eyes of law. The defendants cannot deprive the plaintiff to her legal rights in the said residential plots.
14 It is stated that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendants, firstly in the year 1979-80 when the agricultural land of the plaintiff was acquired by the defendant no. 2 and further when the defendant no. 2 allotted the alternative residential pot to the plaintiff on 20.01.1997. The cause of action further arose when the next friend of the plaintiff came to know of the fraudulent transfer and execution of the aforesaid documents in the first week of March, 1998 through one Dilbagh Singh. The cause of action further arose when the defendant no. 1 CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.7of35 (New No.612638/16) got fraudulently executed in his favour the Will and GPA dated 02.02.1997 by misrepresenting the plaintiff through some other lady and in collusion with officials of sub- Registrar, Janakpur, Delhi. Further cause of action arose when the defendant no. 1 in collusion with the officials of defendant no. 2 got manipulated and executed Perpetual Lease Deed dated 03.02.1997. The cause of action further arose when legal notice dated 16.03.1998 was served on the defendant no. 2 and no action was taken by the defendant no. 2. The cause of action further continues as the threat to grab and usurp the property of the plaintiff continues. Plaintiff through next friend seeks a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff declaring the General Power of Attorney, Will and Perpetual Lease dated 03.02.1997 purported to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants in respect of her residential plot No. 95, area measuring 333.60 sq. meters Pocket-10, Block-B, Sector-13, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Dwarka New Delhi as illegal, unlawful, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
15 Further pass a decree of possession as consequential relief in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing the defendants for handing over physical possession of the above mentioned plot after execution the valid Perpetual Lease through her next friend. Plaintiff further seek decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants restraining the defendant no. 1, his employees, associates, attorneys relations etc. from further transferring, alienating and parting with the possession of above said plot except to the plaintiff CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.8of35 (New No.612638/16) on the basis of sham, forged, manipulated, unlawful and fabricated GPA, Will dated 03.02.1997 and any other relief this court deem fit and proper.
16 Defendant no. 1 filed written statement and taking the preliminary objection that suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is based on false, frivolous and vexatious facts; the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and has concealed the relevant and material facts; the relief sought by the plaintiff does not exist as the answering defendant has already sold the suit property bearing no. 95, Block-B, Pocket-10, Sector-13, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Pappan kalan, New Delhi to Smt. Reena Gupta W/o Sh. Krishan Gupta, defendant no. 3 on 18.06.1998 vide sale documents like Will, GPA, SPA, Receipt, Agreement to Sell which are duly registered before Sub- Registrar, Janak Puri, Delhi.
17 It is stated that case is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as no cause of action has ever been arose in favour of the plaintiff or that plaintiff has no locus standi to file and institute the present case. It is stated that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and proper court fees has not been affixed on the plaint.
18 On merit all the contents of the plaint are denied. It is stated that in the year 1997 when the answering defendant had purchased the property in question from Smt. CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.9of35 (New No.612638/16) Sarti Devi, she was not suffering from any medical disease. It is stated that she had duly appeared before Sub-Registrar office, Janak Puri, New Delhi on 3.2.1997 and had executed relevant sale documents like GPA, Will etc, in his favour.
19 It is denied that defendant no. 1 fraudulently, with a view to cause the loss and deprive the plaintiff from her property and got manipulated and executed GPA, Will and SPA dated 3.2.1997 and on the basis of these documents got bequeathed the residential plot of the plaintiff in his own name. It is further denied that answering defendant manipulated the perpetual Lease Deed dated 3.2.1997 in connivance with the officials of defendant no. 2 or that defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 misrepresented the plaintiff through some other lady and got the alleged perpetual lease deed executed with the sole malafide intention to grab her property. It is denied that the plaintiff is legally entitled to the physical possession of the plot through her next friend who has no adverse interest against the plaintiff. However, it is submitted that after execution of relevant sale documents by the plaintiff in favour of answering defendant, she has no right, title or interest in the suit property. Defendant no. 1 further denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint and seeks dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff with heavy exemplary costs.
20 Petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 and denied all the objections raised in the written statement and reiterated CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.10of35 (New No.612638/16) the contents of the petition.
21 Defendant no. 2, Delhi Development Authority, also filed written statement and taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has made bald and unsubstantiated allegations against it, which are wholly incorrect. It is stated that plot in question was duly allotted to the plaintiff and subsequently the possession was handed over to the plaintiff and a perpetual lease deed was entered into between the plaintiff and DDA.
22 It is stated that till date, the said plot continues in the name of the plaintiff. There has been no application for change of ownership of the said plot on the basis of purportedly forged will and the GPA. So, all allegations of fraudulent transfer of the said plot in collusion with the officials of the DDA are wholly misconceived and incorrect.
23 It is stated that the present suit, in as much as it relates to DDA, is an abuse of the process of the court is liable to be dismissed.
24 On merit also contents of most of the the paras are denied for want of knowledge. It is stated that land in question was acquired by the Delhi Administration and not by this defendant/DDA. It is stated that a letter dated 10.01.1992 was issued by Sh. G.K. Marwah, Joint Secretary, L & B, Delhi Administration to the DDA stating that ½ share of land of the plaintiff was acquired vide Award No. 36/80-81 dated 1906-80 situated in Lado Sarai Delhi and therefore, he CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.11of35 (New No.612638/16) should be allotted to a plot measuring 400 sq. Yds.
25 In reply to Para 3 of the plaint it is stated that a draw for allotment of plots was held and the plot no. 95, Block B, Sector-13, Dwarka was allotted to the plaintiff in her name by the DDA vide letter No. F-27(3)92/LSB ®, 738 dated 16.01.1997. Thereafter the possession was handed over to the plaintiff on 24.01.1997. Subsequently, the perpetual lease deed dated 3.2.1997 was executed between the DDA and the plaintiff. The said lease deed duly bore the thumb impression of the plaintiff. All allegations of collusion between the defendant no. 1 and this defendant are completely misconceived and vehemently denied. It is stated that plaintiff is till very much registered as the owner of the said plot in the records of the DDA. Defendant no. 2 also seeks dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.
26 Plaintiff also filed replication to the written statement of defendant no. 2/DDA and denied all the objections and reiterated the averment mentioned in the plaint.
27 The defendant no.1, the subsequent purchaser of the suit property was impleaded as party vide order dated 08.03.2011. Defendant no. 4 also filed written statement and taken preliminary issues that present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed under order 7 rule 11 of CPC as no cause of action has ever arose to file the present case against the defendant.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.12of35 (New No.612638/16) 28 It is stated that plaintiff has no locus standi to file and institute the present suit and plaintiff has filed the present suit with some ulterior motives and just to harass the defendants. The present suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff had sold the property under reference, to defendant no. 1 vide Sale documents dated 18.06.1998 like Agreement to sell and purchase, GPA, Will, Receipt etc. executed by her in favour of defendant no. 1, who subsequently sold the property to defendant no. 3 after getting the aforesaid property converted from the lease hold rights into free hold, sold the same to the answering defendant vide registered sale deed dated 13.02.2004 duly registered before the Sub-Registrar concerned vide documents No. 2641 Addl. Book No. 1 volume no. 11380 & pages 131-136 and since then the answering defendant is in continuing peaceful possession of the aforesaid property and as such the plaintiff or her legal heirs have no right, title or interest in the suit property.
29 It is stated that suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as the present case is gross misuse and abuse of process of law; plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and has concealed the material and relevant facts; suit has been filed on the false, fictitious, frivolous and vaxious facts; the suit has not been properly valued. On merit all the contents of the plaintiff has been denied and defendant no. 4 seeks dismissal of the present suit. 30 Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant no. 4 and denied all the objections taken by him and reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.13of35 (New No.612638/16) 31 It is pertinent to mention here that defendant no. 3 Smt. Reena Gupta proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.08.2006 and defendant no. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.10.2004.
32 On the basis of pleading of the parties, initially issues were framed vide order dated 28.09.2006. However, on impleading defendant no.4 Sh, Jai Ram Dass Arora, the issues were amended as per pleadings of the parties on addition of defendant no.4. The issues were reframed vide order dated 19.08.2013 by my ld. Predecessor, which are as follows:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Declaration as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Possession & Permanent Injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Relief.
33 LRs of plaintiff in support of their case examined Dr. T. B. Singh who appeared in witness box as PW-2 and deposed that the medical Certificate Ex. PW2/1 in respect of Smt. Sarti Devi bearing CRF no. 97-11/9201 was issued by the Medical Board comprising of Dr. R.K. Chadda, Chairman Medical Board, Dr. R.A. Singh, member Medical Board and himself. The medical examination of Smt. Sarti Devi was conducted by the institute of human Behaviour and allied Sciences, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi on the order of the court of the then ld. District & Sessions Judge, Sh. K.P. Verma CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.14of35 (New No.612638/16) vide his order of year 1997. Medical Certificate is Ex. PW-2/1 bears the signatures of Dr. R.A Singh at point A, signature of Dr. R.K. Chhadda at point B and his signatures at point C. Smt. Sarti Devi was a chronic patient of Schizophrenia and had been suffering from the said illness at lease 18 years prior to the year 1998 when she was examined by the Medical Board.
34 LRs of plaintiff further examined Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Medical Record Officer as PW-3 from Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences. G.T. Road, Shadara, Delhi who proved the original medical record maintained by the hospital and medical conducted by Medical Board of Doctors in respect of Smt. Sarti Devi bearing Medical examination report no. CRF No. 97-11/8201 dated 27.05.1998 duly signed by Dr. R.K. Chadda, Chairman, Dr. R.A. Singh and Dr. T.B. Singh.
35 It is pertinent to mention here that PW-3 was recalled as per order dated 08.06.2017 and cross-examined on behalf of defendant no. 4 and deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e case history in respect of Smt. Sarti Devi bearing medical examination report No. CRF No. 97-11/8201 dated 27.05.1998 and copy of the same is Ex. PW-3/1. He has no personal knowledge of the case. He cannot tell the meaning of word 'proxy' mentioned in the medical record produced by him. The deceased Smt. Sarti Devi was registered in IHBAS on 28.11.1997 vide CRF No. 97- 11-8201.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.15of35 (New No.612638/16) 36 The L.Rs of plaintiff Sh. Mohinder Singh examined as PW-1 and tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW- 1/A. He rely upon the copy of General Power of Attorney dated 03.02.1997 as Ex. PW-1/2 ( OSR), Will dated 03.02.1997 Ex. PW-1/3, Perpetual lease Deed as Ex. PW-1/4, legal notice dated 16.03.98 as Ex. PW-1/5. The document mentioned in his affidavit as Ex. PW-1/1 was de-exhibited being not placed on record).
37 In the cross-examination he deposed that he had studied up to 10 th standard. He is employed in Delhi Jal Board, Pump Operator, Electrical since 1983. Ms Sarti Devi was his grandmother. Ms Sarti Devi was the wife of the brother of his real grand father. The husband of Ms Sarti Devi was expired in Second World War at Singapur. The family of his grandfather Chote Lal and his grandfather were living together. Ms Sarti Devi died at their house.
38 He further deposed that his father Sh. Suraj Singh was having two more brothers, namely, Sh. Bhim Singh and Maha Singh. His father Sh. Suraj Singh expired in the year 1985 and Sh. Maha Singh expired in the year 2015 and Sh. Bhim Singh is alive. Late Sh. Maha Singh had having four children ( three sons and one daughter) After his death he was survived by two sons as one of his son was pre- deceased before him and one daughter, namely, Rani. The family of Late Sh. Maha Singh was residing in the adjacent house bearing house no. F-59. He is residing in the above mentioned address since birth. All other legal heirs of the plaintiff as stated in the case are also residing in the same CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.16of35 (New No.612638/16) house.
39 Late Smt. Sarti Devi (deceased plaintiff) was ill from 1989-90. She was under treatment at Shahdara Mental hospital. He does not remember the name of Doctor however medical record already filed on judicial record. After perusal of the file he has shown Ex. PW-2/1. He has not filed on record any document pertaining to year 1989-90. He voluntarily deposed that a petitioner under Mental Health was filed before Sh. K.P. Verma, the then Ld. District Judge where all such documents filed). A report was submitted by Medical Board as per orders of the Ld. District Judge, Sh. K.P. Verma, the report is Ex. PW-2/1. He does not know the final order of the said application filed before the then District Judge. He denied that application/petition filed before the then District Judge was dismissed. He voluntarily deposed that after the death of Sarti Devi the case before the then District Judge Sh. K.P. Verma was dismissed.
40 In further cross-examination he deposed that whosoever available in the house used to accompanied with Sarti Devi to the hospital. I did not record his visits counting to the hospital with her. He does not remember the names of doctors who treated her in the year 1989-90. He denied that late Smt. Sarti Devi was not suffering from any illness as alleged in the present case or that she was of sound mind. He denied that she was never taken to the hospital for any treatment as she was of sound mind. He denied that she was not suffering from any illness that is why I do not filed any documents on record to that effect.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.17of35 (New No.612638/16) 41 He further deposed that he does not know the meaning of Relinquishment Deed. He has no knowledge any Relinquishment Deed dated 21.10.2008. He denied the suggest that he alongwith Sh. Varinder Singh, Smt. Sheela Devi, Sh. Kaushal Kumar, Sh. Bhim Singh, Sh. Maha Singh and Smt. Harnandi Devi had executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar on 21.10.2008 in respect of the suit property before the Sub-Registrar II, Janakpuri, New Delhi. He denied that he is intentionally denying the execution of aforesaid Relinquishment Deed. He denied that as per the said Relinquishment he alongwith other six persons have relinquished his all rights in the said property in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar.
42 In further cross-examination he deposed that came to know in March 1998 from one Dilbagh Singh that the plot in the name of deceased Sarti Devi has been sold to one Raj Singh. He alongwith my brother Virender Singh inquired from the Sub-Registrar office Janak Puri, there they came to know that as per record of Sub-Registrar the suit property was purchased by Sh. Raj Singh vide sale deed dated 03.02.1997. He has not filed any document to show that he had inquired and carried inspection at the office of Sub- Registrar. He denied the suggestion that he has not filed any document as he had never visited the Sub-Registrar office. He deposed that he never visited DDA office in this regard. He had lodged complaint with the Police Station. He has filed on record the copy of the same. However no such complaint is available on record. He denied the suggestion that no complaint was lodged with the police that is why not CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.18of35 (New No.612638/16) filed on record. He deposed that he had served a notice to Raj Singh and filed the record on file. However same is not available on record 43 He denied the suggestion that the document Ex. PW1/4 was validly executed and registered by DDA in favour of late Smt. Sarti Devi. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3 and receipt were executed by late Smt. Sarti Devi in favour of defendant no. 1 Sh. Raj Singh after receiving the valuable consideration. He denied the suggestion that Sarti Devi herself appeared before the Sub- Registrar office at the time of execution of the aforesaid documents. He denied the suggestion that Smt. Sarti Devi was mentally fit and in sound mind to execute the aforesaid documents or that the aforesaid documents were executed by Smt. Sarti Devi and not forged and fabricated documents.
44 In further cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he and other plaintiff have malafide intention and want to usurp the suit property, therefore they have filed a false case on behalf of deceased plaintiff Smt. Sarti Devi. He denied the suggestion that he and other L.Rs of plaintiff have no right in the suit property as Smt. Sarti Devi had already sold the suit property to defendant no. 1 Sh. Raj Singh after receiving a valuable consideration from defendant no. 1. He denied the suggestion that he has not stayed with Smt. Sarti Devi or taken care of her. He denied the suggestion that defendant no. 1, 3 & 4 are the bonafide purchaser of the suit property. I does not know the present value of the suit property. He cannot tell even the CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.19of35 (New No.612638/16) approximate value of the suit property. He voluntarily that however on the day of filing of the suit the value of the suit property was approximately Rs. 7,25,000/-.
45 He denied the suggestion that he never visited to Sh. Raj Singh, defendant no. 1. He has carefully gone through the contents of the plaint. His counsel has incorporated all the facts which were told to him. He denied the suggestion that medical report Ex. PW-2/1 is false. He denied the suggestion that he has filed suit and affidavit and he is deposing falsely.
46 In cross-examination conducted on behalf of defendant/DDA he admitted the suggestion that suit property was allotted by the government in lieu of acquisition of land of Sh. Chote Lal. He further admitted that Smt. Sarti Devi was the wife of Sh. Chote Lal. Sarti Devi was having two sons but both expired while they were minor. The letter of allotment was received in January 1997. He further admitted that in January, 1997 late Smt. Sarti Devi was suffering from mental disease Schizophrenia. He did not make the payment for the allotment of the plot in question. He does not know whether Raj Singh had made the payment or not. They had given legal notice to DDA on 16.03.98 same is Ex. PW-1/5. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-1/5 is false as plot in question was already sold. He had seen the suit property two months back it is lying vacant. He denied the suggestion that there are two rooms constructed at the suit property or that he is deposing falsely.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.20of35 (New No.612638/16) 47 Plaintiff further examined Sh. Vivek Yadav, LDC from the office of Sub-Registrar, II, Basaidara Pur, Delhi as PW-4 who proved the summoned record i.e Copy of GPA registered vide registration no. 4452 in Addl. Book No. 4, Vol. 4233 on page 82 to 84 on dated 3.2.1997. He further deposed that he has seen the copy of GPA place on record and compared the same with the record brought by him and found to be correct. The copy of GPA is already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2. Photocopy of GPA brought by him is Ex. PW-4/1.
48 He has also proved the copy of Will registered vide registration no. 7118 in Addl. Book No. 3, Vol. 3931 on page 134 on dated 3.2.1997. He deposed that he has seen the copy of Will place on record and compared the same with the record brought by him and found to be correct. The copy of Will is already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3. Photocopy of Will brought by him is Ex. PW-4/2.
49 Plaintiff further examined Shri B.S. Punia from Land Sales Branch as PW-5. He proved the record of file bearing no. F27(03)93 in respect of plot No. 95, Pocket B-10, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi and Lease Deed dated 3.2.1997 executed in favour of Smt. Sarti Devi already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4. The copy of the lease deed brought by me today is Ex. PW-5/1.
50 It is pertinent to mention here that another affidavit of Sh. Virender Singh, one of the L.Rs of plaintiff also filed on record he he has not been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Vide separate statement of Sh. Devender Kadiyan, counsel for L.Rs of plaintiff, evidence on behalf of plaintiff CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.21of35 (New No.612638/16) was closed on 08.06.2017.
51 Defendant no. 4 Sh. Jai Ram Dass in support of his case appeared in witness box as DW-1 and tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. He rely upon the document agreement to sell and purchase and receipt dated 03.02.1997 & 5.02.1997 as Ex. DW-1/1 & 2 respectively. He also rely upon the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to sell & Purchase, Receipt etc dated 18.06.1998 as Ex. DW-1/3 to Ex. DW-1/5 respectively. The Conveyance Deed dated 03.07.2000 is Ex. DW-1/6, and registered Sale Deed dated 13.02.2004 as Ex. DW-1/7. He also rely upon the certified copy of Relinquishment Deed dated 21.10.2008 as Ex. DW- 1/8.
52 In the cross-examination he deposed that he was not present in person at the time to execution of agreement to sell, GPA, receipt on 3.2.1997 and 5.2.1997 at the office of sub-Registrar. I did not accompany Raj Singh to the sub- Registrar office on said dates. I does not know Raj Singh. He does not know Sarti Devi. He denied the suggestion that on 3.2.97 deceased Sarti Devi was suffering from Schizophrenia and was not able to even get up from the bed due to the critical condition from 1991 or that she was under treatment in Vivekanand and Lady Harding College. He denied the suggestion that before 3.2.1997 Raj Singh came to the house of Sarti Devi and took two photographs and copy of Ration Card. He denied the suggestion Raj Singh got executed GPA and receipt in the name of Smt. Reena Gupta on 18.06.1998 is illegal and Conveyance Deed dated CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.22of35 (New No.612638/16) 3.7.2000 in the name of Reena Gupta Ex. DW-1/6 is illegal. He denied the suggestion that the sale deed executed by Smt. Reena Gupta in favour of Sh. Jai Ram Dass dated 13.2.2004 is illegal as she was not the owner of plot in question. He denied the suggestion that certificate of Board Ex. PW-2/1 is correct or that Relinquishment Deed Ex. DW-1/8 is illegal. He denied the suggestion that Raj Singh took some other lady instead of Sarti Devi and got executed Sale documents in his favour. He denied the suggestion that contents of my affidavit are wrong and false and he is deposing falsely.
53 Defendant further examined Sh. Lokesh Kumar, official from the office of Sub-Registrar, Basai Darapur, New Delhi as DW-2 who proved the General Power of Attorney dated 18.06.1998 executed by Sh. Raj Singh in favour of Smt. Reena Gupta which was registered in their office as document no. 35726, Vol. No. 5434, Book No. IV, pages 54 to
56. He was shown the original GPA on record already exhibited as Ex. DW-1/3 and compared the same with the record brought by him and found correct. The copy of GPA brought by him is Ex. DW-2/1.
54 He also proved the copy of Conveyance Deed dated 03.07.2000 executed by DDA in favour of Smt. Reena Gupta which was registered in their office as document no. 6701, Vol. No. 9614, Book No. I, pages 132 to 134 dated 06.07.2000. He was shown the original Conveyance Deed on record already exhibited as Ex. DW-1/6 and he compared the same with the record brought by him and found correct.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.23of35 (New No.612638/16) The copy of Conveyance Deed brought by him is Ex. DW-2/2.
55 He also brought the record of Sale Deed dated 13.02.2004 executed by Smt. Reena Gupta in favour of Sh. J. R. D. Arora which was registered in our office as document no. 2641, Vol. No. 11380, Book No. I, pages 131 to 136. He was shown the original Sale Deed on record already exhibited as Ex. DW-1/7 and compared the same with the record brought by him and found correct. The copy of Sale Deed brought by him is Ex. DW-2/3.
56 He has also brought the record of Relinquishment Deed dated 21.10.2008 which was registered in their office as document no. 25868, Vol. No. 16532, Book No. I, pages 125 to 129 dated 25.11.2008. He was shown the certified copy of Relinquishment Deed on record already exhibited as Ex. DW-1/8 and compared the same with the record brought by him and found correct. The copy of Relinquishment Deed brought by him placed on record is Ex. DW-2/4.
57 He further deposed that he is working as Sub- Registrar since October 2014. Whenever any document is presented before Sub-Registrar for the registration, the Sub- Registrar physically check both the parties with their I-D proofs and thereafter the Sub-Registrar asked for the admission of the document presented before the Sub- Registrar for registration. And when they admitted the same is registered with the department.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.24of35 (New No.612638/16) 58 In the cross-examination he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the record summoned.
59 DW3 Dr. R.K. Chadda, Head of Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS deposed that he has seen the document already exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 i.e medical certificate issued on 27.05.1998 in respect of Smt. Sarti Devi vide CRF No. 97- 11-8201 and the same bears his signature at point B. Earlier he was working with IHBAS, Shahdara, Delhi from 1995 to 2004. As per record shown already Ex. PW-3/1 ( Colly), the deceased Smt. Sarti Devi first time approached for treatment in IHBAS on 28.11.1997. Mrs Sarti Devi was examined by the Medical Board at IHBAS on 27.05.1998 and he was a Chairperson of the Medical Board. The Board opined that the Mrs. Sarti Devi had features suggestive of Dementia and was unable to take care of herself and manage her estate. Her earlier diagnosis as recorded on the case records and as also mentioned in the Medical Certificate was Schizophrenia. A patent suffering from Dementia has a memory loss but not in Schizophrenia. Dementia is a progress illness in which memory lose is keeping on increasing over the period and the memory loss is irreversible. Schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness which usually starts in the early part of life like at the age of 20 or 30s. The word "proxy" wherever mentioned in the treatment sheet means that the patient was not physically present. The initial opinion was formed on the basis of examination of the patient and the history and old medical records available at that time. Schizophrenia is an illness in which there is disturbance in thinking, perception and behaviour. The illness often tends to be CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.25of35 (New No.612638/16) chronic specially when it is not treated. His opinion in the report is correct. Ld. Counsel submits that witness may be declared hostile on this point only on the medical report and opportunity may be given to cross-examine him. Request allowed to cross-examine the witness on the limited point of opinion of the medical board on Ex. PW-2/1.
60. DW3 Dr. R.K.Chadda in his cross-examination done by Shri R.K. Singla, counsel for the defendant denied the suggestion that Sarti Devi was not suffering from any such disease prior to 28.11.1997. He denied the suggestion that his report is based only upon whatever the family members of the deceased Smt. Sarti Devi told to the medical board. He did not remember whether any previous medical record prior to 28.11.1997 was shown or not. He denied the suggestion that he has issued a wrong certificate Ex. PW-2/1 at the instance of the family members of Smt. Sarti Devi. He admitted that after the issuance of the medical certificate Ex. PW-2/1 on 27.05.1998, the patient Smt. Sarti Devi never physically came for follow up in the hospital, as per record.
61. DW3 Dr. R.K.Chadda in his cross-examination done by Sh. Devender Kadiyan, counsel for the plaintiff deposed that a mental illness which is present continuously for more than two years is considered chronic. Smt. Sarti Devi on the day of his examination was not in condition to understand her welfare. He did not remember whether she was in position to put her thumb impression voluntarily when produced for examination. He did not check up Smt. Sarti Devi in the year 1997.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.26of35 (New No.612638/16)
62. DW4 Sh. B.S. Punia, Assistant Section Officer, LAB (Residential), DDA deposed that he has brought the summoned record in original i.e. file No. F27(03)/92/LAB (Residential) in respect of Plot No. 95, Block-A, Sector-13, Pocket B-10, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Dwarka, Delhi. The copy of the recommendation letter dated 10.01.1992 issued by the L&B Department; allotment letter dated 16.01.1997 in the name of Smt. Sarti Devi; the copy of handing over the possession letter dated 20.01.1997; the copy of the possession letter dated 24.01.1997. The copy of the aforesaid are seen and compared with the record brought by him and the same are Ex.DW./1 to 4 respectively. As per record brought by him, the possession of the plot in question was handed over to Smt. Sarti Devi on 24.01.1997. As per record brought by him, there is no document with regard to alleged illness of Smt. Sarti Devi available.
63. DW4 Sh. B.S. Punia in his cross-examination by Sh. P. S. Mehar and Sh.Devender Kadyan, Counsel for plaintiffs deposed that as per conveyance deed dated 03.07.2000, the plot in question is in the name of Smt. Reena Gupta wife of Sh. Sri Kishan Gupta. There is GPA and agreement to sell executed by Sarti Devi in favour of Sh. Raj Singh available on record. As per record, under the policy of freehold, the purchaser can apply for the conversion of the leasehold right into freehold in his / her favour. There is no separate permission from the competent authority. As per record brought by him, there is no notice dated 16.03.1998 on behalf of Smt. Sarti Devi available on record.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.27of35 (New No.612638/16)
64. Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for defendant no. 2/ DDA submitted that defendant no. 2/DDA does not wish to lead any evidence in this case.
65. The opportunity given to LRs of plaintiff to file written arguments on 25.11.2017 till 01.12.2017. However, the ld. counsel for LRs of plaintiff deliberately and intentionally filed the written arguments at 2.00 PM on 18.12.2017. I have gone through the written arguments as well as citations submitted on behalf of plaintiff.
66. I have heard Sh. H. R. Aggarwal, ld. counsel for defendant no.2/DDA and Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singla. ld. Counsel for defendant no.4. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of defendant no.2 and defendant no.4. My findings on issues are as under:
ISSUE NOS. 1 & 267. Issue nos. 1 and 2 are taken up together as they are inter connected. The burden to prove is on the LRs of plaintiff. The LRs plaintiff has set up the case for cancellation of General Power of Attorney dated 03.02.1997; Will dated 03.02.1997 with regard to suit property Plot No. 95 measuring 333.60 sq. meters Pocket-19, Block-B, Sector- 13, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Dwarka, New Delhi; and Perpetual Lease Deed dated 03.02.1997 and seeking vacant possession of the suit property. The LRs of plaintiff is further seeking that the said General Power of Attorney, Will and Perpetual Lease Deed be declared null and void. The LRs of CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.28of35 (New No.612638/16) plaintiff set up a case for seeking possession and permanent injunction. The LRs of plaintiff have set up the case that deceased Sarti Devi was allotted the suit property in view of acquisition of agricultural land for public purpose in the year 1979-80. The suit property was allotted by the defendant no.2/DDA as an alternative residential plot. The fundamental plea of the LRs of plaintiff is that deceased Sarti Devi was suffering from Schizophrenia and unsound mind on the day of alleged execution of the above said General Power of Attorney, Will and Perpetual Lease Deed.
68. The LRs of plaintiff examined PW1 Sh. Mohinder Singh, the next friend and one of the LR of deceased Sarti Devi. His testimony is discussed hereinabove in detail. According to his testimony, deceased Sarti Devi was ill from 1989-90 and under treatment at Shahdara Mental Hospital. He admitted that he has not filed any document pertaining to the year 1989-90. As per PW1, a petition was filed before the then Ld. District Judge Sh. K. P. verma under Mental Health Act. This testimony further establish that the said petition was not decided by the then Ld. District Judge. It was dismissed according to PW1 due to the death of Sarti Devi. Therefore, it is established on record that there is no judicial judgment on the mental health of deceased Sarti Devi as alleged by the LRs of plaintiff.
69. The plaintiff further examined PW3 Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma, who brought the medical record of IHBAS Ex. PW3/1. In the cross-examination, PW3 produced the report CRF No. 97-11-8201 dated 27.05.1998 Ex. PW3/1 running CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.29of35 (New No.612638/16) into 19 pages. As per the record brought by him, deceased Sarti Devi was registered with IHBAS on 28.11.1997 and no prior record was available.
70. DW3 Dr. R. K. Chadda, Chairman of Medical Board also admitted that for the first time, Sarti Devi had approached on 28.11.1997 and he was Chairperson of Medical Board.
71. I have perused the medical report running into 19 pages Ex. PW3/1. According to this report, patient was suffering from symptoms since 1998. It is contrary to the case of LRs of plaintiff that deceased Sarti Devi was suffering from 1979-80. The entire report does not mention specifically and categorically the personal presence of Sarti Devi on the day of examination. No document bears her signatures or thumb impressions. On all subsequent dates, in a routine manner, the word mention "proxy". It means since May, 1998 till December, 1999, deceased Sarti Devi never appeared before the doctors for treatment. Thereafter also till April 2003, proxy appeared on behalf of deceased Sarti Devi for treatment. DW3 explained in his examination the word "proxy" means that patient was not physically present. Therefore, it is highly unbelievable that when patient never appeared before the doctors how they concluded the diagnosis of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention that the registration of deceased Sarti Devi is in November, 1997 and the present suit filed on 04.09.1998. There is no medical record brought on record about the alleged illness and unsound mind of deceased Sarti Devi CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.30of35 (New No.612638/16) pertaining to the period 1979-80 and subsequently. The first record is after filing of the present suit. The testimony of DW3 is not inspiring confidence because none of his associate doctors examined deceased Sarti Devi for about more than five years of treatment. Therefore, in my considered opinion, LRs of plaintiff failed to establish that deceased Sarti Devi was suffering from Schizophrenia to such an extent that she is of unsound mind on the day of execution of said General Power of Attorney, Will and Perpetual Lease Deed all dated 03.02.1997. The LRs of plaintiff further set up a case that one Dilbagh Singh, s/o. Sh. Hira Lal informed to Sh. Mohinder Singh, the next friend in the first week of March, 1998 about the execution of said General Power of Attorney, Will and Perpetual Lease Deed by deceased Sarti Devi. It is pertinent to mention here that LRs of plaintiff made no effort to examine this vital witness Dilbagh Singh to corroborate these facts. In the absence of oral and documentary evidence, this plea of the LRs of plaintiff is bald plea not proved on record.
72. The certified copies of said General Power of Attorney, Will and Perpetual Lease Deed were obtained from Sub Registrar's Office on 21.07.1998 and present suit was filed on 04.09.1998. This plea is also contrary to the fact that when LRs of plaintiff especially the next friend Mohinder Singh was not in the complete knowledge of all the documents then how the legal notice sent to the DDA u/s. 53B DDA Act on 16.03.1998 for cancellation of lease deed because he had only oral information from Dilbagh Singh in the first week of March, 1998. He got the said General Power CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.31of35 (New No.612638/16) of Attorney, Will and Perpetual Lease Deed on 21.07.1998. It is pertinent to mention here that DW4 Sh. B. S. Punia, Assistant Section Officer appeared from DDA department with complete record. During the cross-examination by ld. Counsel for LRs of plaintiff, he categorically deposed that no notice dated 16.03.1998 available on record alleged to be served on behalf of deceased Sarti Devi. The LRs of plaintiff proved Ex. PW1/5, the legal notice to DDA. However, no postal receipt or acknowledgment card qua service of said legal notice proved on record. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff also failed to prove the notice dated 16.03.1998 alleged to served upon the DDA.
73. The LR of plaintiff himself proved the record from Sub Registrar's office by calling PW4 Sh.Vivek Yadav, who proved the registration of said General Power of Attorney Ex. PW1/2 (PW-4/1) and registered Will Ex. PW1/3 (PW-4/2). Similarly, PW5 Sh. B. S. Punia proved the Perpetual Lease Deed from the office of DDA as Ex. PW1/4 (PW-5/2).
74. I have gone through the said General Power of Attorney, Will, Perpetual Lease Deed and other documents proved by witnesses PW4 Sh. Vivek Yadav and PW5 Sh. B. D. Punia. As per documents brought on record, the suit property was allotted to deceased Sarti Devi on 16.01.1997 vide Ex. DW4/2 and offer of possessed was given vide letter dated 20.01.1997 Ex. DW4/3 and consequently possession of the suit property was delivered at site as per Ex. DW4/4. Ex. DW4/1 bears the photograph of the deceased Sarti Devi and Ex. DW4/4 bears the thumb impression of deceased Sarti CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.32of35 (New No.612638/16) Devi whereby the possession was handed over by DDA to her. Subsequently the lease deed was also executed in favour of deceased Sarti Devi on 03.02.1997 and it also mention the deposit of consideration of Rs. 7,20,243/-. The LRs of plaintiff miserably failed to prove that DDA officials and defendant no.1 colluded and got prepared all the documents.
75. The LRs of plaintiff they themselves admitted that the suit property had exchanged hand from Raj Singh to Reena Gupta and ultimately to defendant no.4 Jai Ram Dass Arora. It is pertinent to mention here that during the cross- examination of PW1, specific question was put to him by ld. Counsel for defendant no.4 about the execution of relinquishment deed dated 21.10.2008 in respect of the suit property which was duly registered but PW1 denied these facts. However, DW2 Sh. Lokesh Kumar, official from Sub Registrar's office brought the record of Smt. Reena Gupta, which was duly registered on 21.10.2008 and proved as Ex. DW1/8, the relinquishment deed. Therefore, the denial of LR of plaintiff Sh. Mohinder Singh establish his falsehood and wrong statement in the Court. The relinquishment deed clearly mention about relinquishment of rights by Mohinder Singh, Virender Kumar, Sheela Devi, Kaushal Kumar, Bhim Singh, Maha Singh and Smt. Harnandi Devi in favour of one Naresh Kumar with regard to the suit property. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the testimony of PW1 Mohinder Singh also does not inspire confidence.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.33of35 (New No.612638/16)
76. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.4 filed on record a certified copy of another civil suit filed by LR Mohinder Singh with regard to another property of deceased Sarti Devi bearing Suit No. 46/97 titled Sarti Devi & Anr. vs. Gurnam Arora & Ors. decided by Sh. Dheeraj Mor, Ld. Civil Judge dated 13.07.2010. The said suit was dismissed with regard to a similar kind of documents i.e. General Power of Attorney dated 25.11.1991 and sale deed dated 27.06.1994 on the ground of unsound mind and mental disease of deceased Sarti Devi. In this judgment, it is established that in 1991, deceased Sarti Devi was not suffering from unsound mind or mental disease Schizophrenia. This further corroborates the fact that LRs of plaintiff did not put forward true and correct facts about the mental status and capacity of deceased Sarti Devi.
77. On the basis of above observation and discussion, the LRs of plaintiff failed to prove and establish that deceased Sarti Devi was of unsound mind on the day of execution of said Will, General Power of Attorney and lease deed dated 03.02.1997. Therefore, these documents are established to be legally executed by deceased Sarti Devi. Therefore, cannot be cancelled. Consequently, LRs of plaintiff are not entitled to possession, permanent injunction and all other reliefs. Accordingly, issue no. 1 and 2 are decided against the LRs of plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.34of35 (New No.612638/16) Relief
78. In view of above observation and discussion, instant suit is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today the 18th December, 2017.
(Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 18.12.2017 CS No. 68/17/98 Sarti Devi & Ors. Vs Raj Singh & Ors. Page No.35of35 (New No.612638/16)