Delhi District Court
Hari Singh vs Munna Rawat on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH AKBAR SIDDIQUE,
DISTRICT JUDGE 04, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS DJ/1541/16 CNR no. DLNT010057442016
1. HARI SINGH
S/O SH. NAWAL SINGH
R/O GALI NO.4, RADHA VIHAR
MUKAND PUR PART-II,
DELHI-110042
...........Plaintiff
Versus
1. MUNNA RAWAT
S/O SH. SUDAMA RAWAT
R/O GALI NO.5, RADHAV VIHAR
MUKUND PUR, DELHI
2. BABLU
S/O SH. REWATI PRASAD
R/O KHASRA NO. 117/3
GALI NO.7, RADHA VIHAR
MUKUND PUR DELHI-42. ........Defendants
Date of Institution 09.05.2016
Date of Final Arguments 11.03.2026
Heard
Date of Pronouncement of 30.03.2026
Judgment
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking following reliefs: -
a) Pass a decree of possession in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, directing the Defendants to hand over possession of the suit property i.e. Built up house property measuring 25 sq. yards, out of plot of 50 sq. CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 1/47 yards, out of Khasra no.117/3, situated in Gali no.7, Radha Vihar, in the area of village Mukund Pur, Delhi
-42 more clearly shown in the site plan, to the Plaintiff.
b) Pass a decree of declaration in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant thereby declaring the sale transactions between the Defendant.2 and the documents i.e. GPA, Will, Agreement to sell, affidavit, possession letter, receipt all dated 04/06/2014 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favor of Defendant no.2 in respect of the suit property to be null and void.
c) Pass a decree for recovery of arrears of damages for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- for the period w.e.f. 13/04/2014 till filing of the suit @ Rs. 10,000/- per month.
d) Pass a decree of Damages/Mesne profit in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby directing the Defendants to pay damages/mesne profit for future use and occupation of the suit property for the period w.e.f. date of filing till actual recovery of possession of the suit property.
e) Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants and their associates, agents, servants or any other persons working on their behalf from creating third party interest in the suit property and also from making further construction in the suit property.
f) Award the cost of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 2/47 2.1. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that the present suit is being filed in respect of the built up house property measuring 25 sq. yards, out of plot of 50 sq. yards, out of Khasra No.117/3, Situated in Gali no.7, Radha Vihar, in the area of village Mukund Pur, Delhi -42 more clearly shown in the site plan, hereinafter referred to as the suit property. 2.2. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that the Plaintiff is the rightful absolute owner of the suit property and whereas the Defendants are the persons who have illegally, fraudulently and forcefully have possessed the suit property and presently the Defendant no.2 is in illegal possession of the suit property. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendants particularly Defendant no.1 has been working as Property dealer in the local area of Village Mukund Pur, Delhi and the Defendant no.2 is his associates.
2.3. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that the facts and circumstances of the present suit is that, on 29/01/2013, Plaintiff had purchased a plot measuring 50 sq. yards from one Sh. Mahender Singh, S/o Sh. Sher Singh, R/o House no. 24, Mukund Pur, Delhi in the for valuable consideration. The copy of the title documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and deed of will dated 29/01/2013 executed by Said Sh. Mahender Singh in favor of Plaintiff, the original of these documents are still with the Plaintiff. It is further pertinent to mention that said Sh. Mahender had purchased the said plot from one Sh. Subhash Chand S/o Sh. Chatur Singh for a valuable consideration by executing proper documents. The copy of the title documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter, Deed of Will dated 17/12/2012 executed by said Subhash Chand in CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 3/47 faovur of Sh. Mahender Singh. The original of these documents are still with the plaintiff. It is further pertinent to mention that the said Subhash Chand had purchased the plot from one Sh. Suresh Kumar by executed the proper documents. The copy of the title documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Receipt and Deed of Will dated 12/07/2009 executed by Suresh Kumar in favor of Said Subhash Chand. The original of these documents is still with the Plaintiff. It is further pertinent to mention that the said Suresh Kumar had purchased the said plot from one Sh. Vimal Kumar for valuable consideration. The title documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Possession Letter on dated 06/11/1998 executed by Vimal Kumar in favor of Suresh Kumar. The original of these documents is still with the Plaintiff. It is also pertinent to mention that said Vimal Kumar had purchased the land consisting the said plot from original Bhumidar /farmer namely Sh. Moji and Hari Singh of village Mukund Pur, Delhi. The original said GPA is with said Vimal Kumar and the Plaintiff is having only copy of the same. 2.4. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that from the facts and circumstances it is clear that the Plaintiff is the owner and was in possession of a plot of 50 sq. yards, which was purchased by him for valuable consideration. However, it is pertinent to mention that as the Plaintiff did not have sufficient funds to make appropriate construction over his plot of 50 sq. yards, so he decided to sell the 25 sq. yards out of plot of 50 sq. yards to one Sh. Bholu Sahu and used the sale proceed for construction of the suit property.
2.5. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that in the facts and circumstances as narrated herein above the Plaintiff sold half CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 4/47 portion of the said plot to one Sh. Bhola Sahu and the funds generated from the said sale proceed were spent by the Plaintiff on the construction of the remaining 25 sq. yards i.e. suit property as such the Plaintiff has made construction over the suit property and the suit property was constructed at the ground floor and a latrine and bathroom was constructed on the roof of up to first floor. It is also pertinent to mention that after construction of the suit property, the Plaintiff got installed electricity connection in the suit property in his name and accordingly the electricity connection and meter was installed in the suit property in the name of Plaintiff. 2.6. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that it is worth mentioning that the Defendant no.1 is working as property dealer since long in the locality. It is also pertinent to mention that the Plaintiff has purchased the above detailed plot of 50 sq. yards with the help of Defendant no.1 and as such the Plaintiff has been aware about all the facts and circumstances and also about previous chain of documents in respect of the above said plot of 50 sq. yards.
2.7. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that it is quite pertinent to mention that in the month of October 2013, sometime after making construction over the suit property the Plaintiff again fell into financial constraints and in these circumstances having no other option, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant no.1 and showed his intention to sell the suit property on good prices. It is also pertinent to mention that in the process the Plaintiff had also given the photocopy of the previous chain of the documents to the Defendant no.1 It is further pertinent to mention that after some time the Defendant no.1 approached the Plaintiff and showed his intention to buy CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 5/47 the suit property from the Plaintiff himself and as the Plaintiff was in need of money, he also agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff.
2.8. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that the total sale consideration of the suit property was agreed to be a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/-(Thirteen lacs) between the Plaintiff and Defendant no.1 It is also pertinent to mention that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lacs) was given by the Defendant no.1 as earnest money/Bayana and to make the final payment and execution of the documents. It is further submitted that on the same day at the request of the Defendant no.1 other sale documents were also got prepared by Defendant no.1. It is pertinent to mention that the consideration amount was written as Rs. 5,50,000/- i.e. much less than that of the agreed consideration amount on those documents. It is also pertinent to mention that on asking the Defendant no.1 said that he does not want to show much amount in the sale documents. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 started making request to make the payment later on and insisted on giving the documents which were got signed to the Defendant no.1, but the plaintiff clearly refused to do same saying that he will not hand over the signed documents before full and final payment of the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 ultimately had issued a postdated cheque bearing no.214205 dated
-15/05/2014 drawn on Punjab National Bank for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as a security, saying that the Defendant no.1 will make the payment as soon as he is able to manage the same and in any case on or before the date mentioned on the cheque. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant no.1 also assured CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 6/47 the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is free to present the said cheque for encashment as per date written on the cheque. He also assured that he will maintain sufficient funds available in his account, so that the cheque under reference might be cleared. It is also pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 also assured that if he is able to make arrangement of cash, he will pay the remaining consideration amount in cash and in that circumstances the Plaintiff will have to return the cheque under reference.
2.9. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that in these circumstances as discussed above, it was agreed that the registered documents will be executed at the time of payment of full and final remaining consideration amount and it was agreed that the original documents which were got signed by the Defendant no.1 will also be handed to the Defendant no.1 at the time of full and final payment of consideration amount. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 requested to give photocopies of those documents saying that he had issued postdated cheque.
2.10. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that believing the request of the Defendant no.1 the Plaintiff had agreed to give photocopies of the said documents to the Defendant no.1 and originals were kept by the Plaintiff himself. It is also pertinent to mention that on the said copies of the documents, the Plaintiff, as a precaution has also written that the documents are not valid. In these circumstances the Defendant no.1 was able to manage to get the photocopy of the documents which were brought, got prepared by the defendant no.1 and signed by the Plaintiff. Original of these documents are still in the possession of the plaintiff. Thereafter the Plaintiff had made a CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 7/47 number of requests to the Defendant no.1 to make the payment but the Defendant no.1 kept on avoiding the issue on one or the pretext.
2.11. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that on 13/04/2014 when the Plaintiff had gone on pilgrimage to Balaji in the state of Rajasthan, the Defendant no.1 and 2 had forcibly entered in to the suit property and occupied the same. On coming to know about the said fact the Plaintiff has made a proper police complaint which was recorded as DD No.48B with the police station of Bhalswa Diary and again on 22/04/2014 with D.D.No.29A with Bhalswa Dairy and thereafter many complaints has been made in this regard. It is pertinent to mention that on the complaints of the Plaintiff, the Defendant were called at police station, but they were not able to produce the original documents pertaining to the suit property as the same are in possession of the Plaintiff. It is also pertinent to mention that having no alternative, the Plaintiff had also filed a complaint case u/s 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Sh. Sunil Kumar, M.M. Rohini Delhi and wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the police station to registered an appropriate FIR accordingly an FIR bearing no. 476/2014 u/s 420/506/ IPC has been registered with police station of Bhalswa Diary against the Defendants as such the Defendants have fraudulently and illegally occupied the suit property by dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit property without paying consideration amount. 2.12. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that it is also pertinent to mention that the cheque bearing no.214205 issued by the Defendant no.1 for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- towards the payment of remaining sale consideration have also dishonored CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 8/47 by the bankers of Defendant no.1. In these circumstances the Defendant no.1 had made a payment of only Rs. 1,00,000/- as earnest money/bayana and thereafter nothing has been paid by the Defendant no. 1 towards the agreed amount of sale of the suit property. It is also pertinent to mention that with ulterior motives in order to grab the suit property, the Defendant had got prepared certain documents which were also got signed by the Defendant no.1 and copies of which was taken by the Defendant no.1 are illegally and void, having no force of law as the consideration amount of the suit property has not been paid by the defendant no.1 till date. In these circumstances the Plaintiff is still absolute owner of the suit property. That the cheque given by the Defendant no.1 has also been dishonored and the Plaintiff has filed a criminal case pending in the Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2.13. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that during the investigation of the complaints the Defendants have claimed that Defendant no.1 is the absolute owner of the suit property and it has also been claimed by Defendant that the Defendant no.1 has sold the suit property to Defendant no.2 by executing sale documents i.e. GPA, Will, Agreement to sell, affidavit, possession letter, receipt all dated 04/06/2014 allegedly executed by Defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.2 are illegal. The Defendant no.1 who is himself do not have any right, title or interest in the suit property does not have right to sell the suit property to the Defendant no.2 or anybody else, in these circumstances the alleged sale transactions between the Defendant no.1 and Defendant no.2 are illegal fraudulent and does not have any force of law, in these circumstances the sale transaction between the Defendant no.1 & 2 including the CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 9/47 above details documents executed by Defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.2 in respect of the suit property are liable to be declared to be null and void.
2.14. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that the Defendant no.1 has made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and Bayana and has never paid the remaining amount of Sale consideration, in these circumstances, the Plaintiff is still owner of the suit property. It is also pertinent to mention that the Defendants have forcefully dispossess the Plaintiff and have occupied the suit property and as such the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the Defendants and the Defendants are liable to hand over possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. 2.15. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that the Defendants have forcefully occupied the suit property on 13/04/2014 and since then the Defendant No 2 in collusion with Defendant no 1 is using the suit property for his residence, it is pertinent to mention that the residential accommodation such that of the suit property may fetch a rent of more than Rs.10,000/- per month easily and as such the Plaintiff is suffering losses @ Rs.10,000/- per month because of the illegal occupation of the suit property by the Defendants and as such the Plaintiff is entitled to claim arrears of the damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. April 2014 till April 2016 i.e. to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/-. The Plaintiff is also entitled to claim future damages w.e.f. from filing of the suit till realization of the actual possession of the suit property @ Rs. 10,000/- per month 2.16. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that it is pertinent to mention that both the Defendants are in collusion in order to CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 10/47 grab the property of the Plaintiff created by the Plaintiff by his hard-earned money. It is further mentioned here that the Defendant no.2 in collusion with Defendant no.1 has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Plaintiff which is pending in the court of Ms. Shefali Sharma, CJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2.17. It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that the Defendants are in-collusion and are planning to further sell the suit property to any other person as it has come to knowledge of the Plaintiff some persons visiting the suit property. It has also come to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that the Defendant are also trying to make construction over the suit property.
3. CASE OF DEFENDANT NO 1 AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT 3.1. It is averred by the Defendant no 1 in the Written Statement that the present suit as framed and filed is a gross abuse and misuse of process of law and legal machinery, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3.2. It is averred by the Defendant no 1 in the Written Statement that there is no cause of action in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant no.1 for filing the present suit, hence the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs. 3.3. It is averred by the Defendant no 1 in the Written Statement that the Plaintiff have not come to this Hon'ble court with clean hands and have concealed the true and correct material facts from this Hon'ble court, hence the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3.4. It is averred by the Defendant no 1 in the Written Statement that the suit of the Plaintiff is based on false, allegations, CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 11/47 frivolous and concocted hence the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 3.5. It is averred by the Defendant no 1 in the Written Statement that Plaintiff have no locus standi to file the present suit as the Plaintiff has already sold out the suit property to the Defendant no.1 after receiving his full and final sale consideration amount, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 3.6. It is averred by the Defendant no 1 in the Written Statement that Defendant no.1, Puranmasi and Shish Pal were doing the business of property dealing in partnership. It is submitted that the alleged cheque is transferred to the Plaintiff by Puranmasi as there is some dispute between the Defendant no.1 and Puranmasi and the plaintiff in collusion with Puranmasi file the present suit by misusing the cheque of the Defendant no.1 to extort money from the defendant no.1. It is submitted that the Defendant no.1 purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- and the Defendant no.1 has paid full and final sale consideration amount and executed the title deed i.e. G.P.A., Agreement Sell, Affidavit, Receipt etc. etc. in favor of the Defendant no.1. It is submitted that the Plaintiff told to the Defendant no.1 that his previous title deed/sale-purchase documents are kept in mortgage with some other person as he has taken a loan on the said property and after executing the title deed/sale-purchase documents in favour of the Defendant no.1, the Plaintiff gave the photocopy of the title deed to the Defendant no.1 with the assurance that he will pay/return the loan amount and will give the original title deed and its back- chain to the defendant to no.1 very soon. It is submitted that thereafter the Plaintiff did not give original title deed and its back-chain to the Defendant no.1 on one pretext or the another, CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 12/47 however the Plaintiff handed over and delivered the physical possession of the suit property to the Defendant no.1 and now the Plaintiff in collusion with one Puranmasi filed the present suit with malafide intention and ulterior motive to harass, humiliate and extort the money from the Defendant no.1 and by misusing the cheque which was never given to the Plaintiff by the Defendant no.1 and the plaintiff now has become dishonest, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable costs and it should be dismissed with heavy.
3.7. The Defendant no 1 denied that the plaintiff is the rightful, absolute suit owner property. It is submitted that the plaintiff has already sold out the suit property to the Defendant no.1 after receiving the full and final sale consideration amount of Rs.5,50,000/-and executed the necessary title deed in favour of the Defendant no.1.
3.8. The Defendant no 1 denied the Plaintiff purchased the above said plot of 50 sq. yds. with the help of Defendant no.1 as such the Plaintiff amd defendant no.1 has been aware about all the facts and circumstances and also about previous chain in respect of the above said plot as alleged. The Defendant no 1 further denied that in the process the Plaintiff had also given the photocopy of the previous chain of the documents to the Defendant no 1.
3.9. That Defendant no 1 denied that the total sale consideration of the suit property was agreed to be a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. It is further denied that the consideration amount was written as Rs.5,50,000/- i.e. much less than that of agreed consideration amount on those documents as alleged. It is further denied that CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 13/47 Defendant no 1 does not want to show much amount in the sale documents as alleged.
3.10. The Defendant no 1 denied that the Defendant no.1 and 2 had forcibly entered into the suit property and occupied the same. It is submitted that the alleged F.I.R. is based on wrong, false and incorrect allegations. It is wrong and denied that the Defendants have fraudulently and illegally occupied the suit property by dispossessing the planintiff from the suit property without paying the consideration amount as alleged. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has already sold out the suit property to the Defendant no.1 after receiving the full and final sale consideration amount of Rs.5,50,000/-and executed the necessary title deed in favour of the Defendant no.1. 3.11. The Defendant no 1 denied that he had made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money and thereafter nothing has been paid by defendant no.1 towards sale consideration of suit property.
4. CASE OF DEFENDANT NO 2 AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT 4.1It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that through some brokers of the area in which suit property is situated, the defendant no.2 came to know in month of April, 2014 that the Defendant No 1 is selling his property i.e. suit property. The answering Defendant entered in negotiations with the Defendant No 1 as the answering defendant was wanted to buy a property for his residence purpose. During the negotiations, the answering defendant came to know that the plaintiff & Defendant No 1 both are having their interest in the CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 14/47 property and they are also doing their business of property dealing jointly. Resultantly, the answering defendant fixed a meeting and the answering defendant met with the plaintiff in presence of Defendant No 1 and other persons of the locality. The plaintiff assured to the answering defendant that the Defendant No 1 is owner in possession of the suit property and same was sold by him to the Defendant No 1.
4.2It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that the deal was finalized on 04.05.2014 between answering defendant & Defendant no 1 in presence of plaintiff and the defendant-1 agreed to sell out the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 7, 00,000/-. On the same day, the answering defendant paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash to the Defendant No 1, whereas, he handed over a cheque bearing cheque no 050002 dated 04.05.2014 drawn on Canara Bank, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi in the name of Defendant No-1, (In Totality Rs. 2,00,000/-) as earnest money to the Defendant no 1. On that day the Defendant No 1, executed an Agreement to sell/ Bayana Agreement as well as receipt in favor of answering defendant. It was further agreed between the parties that the answering defendant shall pay the remaining amount of Rs. 5, 00,000/- to the Defendant no 1 on or before 04.07.2014 and at the time of payment Defendant no 1, shall be handed over actual physical possession of the suit property to answering defendant as well as he shall be executed the relevant title documents in favor of the answering defendant.
4.3It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that after 2 or 3 days, the answering defendant came to know that Plaintiff and Defendant No 1 have no reputation as property CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 15/47 dealer and they used to cheat the innocent buyers. Thus, the answering Defendant started to pressurized the Defendant No-1 to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property and same was handed over to the answering defendant by Defendant No-1 on 08.05.2014. 4.4It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that meanwhile, some dispute arose between the Plaintiff & Defendant No-l on the reasons/ issues best known to them. However, on 28.05.2014 the Plaintiff issued a written receipt in presence of two witnesses with the intention that he has no dispute in respect of the suit property with Defendant No-1 and he has already been sold out the suit property to Defendant No-1.
4.5 It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that lastly, on 04.06.2014 the answering Defendant paid the remaining balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Defendant No-1 and the Defendant No-1 executed GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Will, Possession Letter, and Receipt all dated 04.06.2014 in favor of answering defendant. After purchasing the suit property, the answering Defendant got changed the electricity connection holder name in his name in July, 2014 from CA No. 60017699186 to CA No.-60018260236. The answering defendant also got installed the new water connection in the suit property in his name vide KNO 8002832768 installed in June, 2014. Since 08.05.2014, the answering defendant is paying the all electricity and water bills from his own pocket.
4.6It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that in between, on 29.06.2014, the Plaintiff along with his associates visited the suit property and started abusing to answering CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 16/47 Defendant and also tried to manhandle the answering defendant. The Plaintiff tried to forcefully dispossess the answering Defendant from suit property and when he still failed due to resistance of answering Defendant & his family, he left the suit property after threatening the answering Defendant that he will disposes the answering Defendant from suit property. The answering Defendant sent written complaint to senior police officials by post on 30.06.2014, when the duty officer of the P.S.-Bhalswa Dairy refused to even receive the complaint on the pretext that the matter is of civil nature. 4.7It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that due to grave apprehension of being dispossessed from the suit property, the answering defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff bearing CS/185/2014 titled as "Bablu Vs. Hari Singh" which is pending in the court of Ms. Shefali Sharma, Civil Judge, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
4.8It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of possession on the basis of the un-registered documents which are must be registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Due the effect of the Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the unregistered documents cannot be admitted in evidence. The title documents of the plaintiff are liable to be impounded under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
4.9 It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Hon'ble Court and he has not come with the clean hands before this Hon'ble court. The Plaintiff has suppressed material facts in his plaint from the Hon'ble court and thereby tried to mislead CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 17/47 the court. As such, the plaint of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Surprisingly, the Plaintiff has not been filed the even copies of the title documents executed by him in favor of the Defendant No-1 as well as the documents executed by Defendant No-1 in favor of answering defendant. Whereas, the Plaintiff has sought the declaration of the document executed by Defendant No-1 in favor of answering Defendant as null & void.
4.10 It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that the present suit is not maintainable in present form as the Plaintiff has not sought the relief of the cancellation of document executed by him in favor of the Defendant No-1. Because all the allegations of the Plaintiff are based on the said title documents and about which the Plaintiff purports to have no force in the eyes of law.
4.11 It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that in view of the receipt dated 28.05.2014, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of possession at this stage because as alleged by him that the sale of the suit property by Defendant No-1 in favor of the answering Defendant is null and void but by way of the receipt dated 28.05.2014, the plaintiff has assured that he has sold the suit property to Defendant No-1 and he has no intention to file any legal proceeding in respect of the suit property.
4.12 It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant as stated above, the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property was handed over to the answering Defendant on 08.05.2014 by Defendant No-1 in presence of the Plaintiff, thus the forceful dispossession of the Plaintiff from the suit property by answering Defendant on 13.04.2014, as alleged by CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 18/47 plaintiff, is not sustainable. The above fact is also proved by the complaint dated 13.04.2014 as filed by the Plaintiff with his suit because in the complaint only name of the Defendant-1 is shown and not of the answering Defendant. 4.13 It is averred by Defendant no 2 in his written statement that the Plaintiff cannot seek the relief of permanent injunction as he is neither still owner of the suit property, nor he is in possession of the suit property. The answering Defendant is owner in possession of the suit property. The answering Defendant is a bonafide purchaser and the Plaintiff as well as Defendant No-1 in active connivance with each other tried to cheat the answering Defendant and for the purpose they are trying to create pressure upon the answering defendant by filing this false suit.
4.14 Vide order dated 20.12.2018 the Defendant no 1 was proceeded Ex-Parte and none appeared for the Defendant no 2 to lead evidence in the present case.
5. REPLICATION TO WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.2.
The Plaintiff filed the replication to the written statement of Defendant no. 2, denying the averments and claims of the Defendant no 2.
6. ISSUES IN THE PRESENT LIS 6.1. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated 09.11.2016, following issues have been settled for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of suit property as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of any damages? If so, at what rate and for what period?CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 19/47
OPP
4. If issue no.3 is decided in favor of plaintiff, then whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
5. whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
6. Whether the suit is without cause of action? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material lacts? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-1
9. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD-2
10. Relief.
7. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE 7.1. In order to discharge the onus of proof and establish case, the plaintiff entered into the witness box and examined himself as PW1. PW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. Relied upon the following documents in support of his case:
a) Ex.PW1/1: Site Plan.
b) Ex.PW1/2(colly.): GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter and Deed of will dated 29.01.2013.
c) Ex.PW1/3(colly.): GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter and Deed of will dated 17.12.2012.
d) Ex.PW1/4(colly.): GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter and Deed of will dated CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 20/47 12.07.2009.
e) Ex.PW1/5(colly.) (OSR): GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter and Deed of will dated 16.11.1998.
f) Ex.PW1/6(de-exhibited and now Mark B) (colly.): GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter and Deed of will dated 02.07.1998.
g) Ex.PW1/7(de-exhibited and now Mark c)(colly.):
Document of electricity connection in suit property.
h) Mark A: Copy of the cheque bearing no. 214205 of PNB, Mukundpur, Delhi dated 15.05.2014.
7.2. Plaintiff was not cross-examined as defendants have already been Ex-Parte and defendants did not lead any evidence. 7.3. Vide order dated 07.11.2025, PE stands closed.
8. FINAL ARGUMENTS 8.1. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Defendants in the present case are Ex-Parte and both deliberately chose not to lead any evidence in the present case. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel the evidence presented by the Plaintiff goes unrebutted in the event of Defendants being Ex-Parte and the averments in the Written Statement cannot be considered as no evidence has been led by the Defendants.
8.2. It is further contended by the Ld. Counsel that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he has placed on record the original title documents in the form of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Possession Receipt, Affidavit of 2013. All the original title documents are in the possession of the Plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 21/478.3. The Ld. Counsel further argues that the possession of the suit property is with the Defendant no 2. The Plaintiff sold the suit property to the Defendant no 1 for a consideration of ₹13,00,000/- and ₹1,00,000/- was paid by the Defendant no 1 as earnest money. It is further submitted that the Defendant no 1 further sold the suit property to Defendant no 2 by executing General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Possession Receipt, Affidavit of 2014.
8.4. It is further contended by the Ld. Counsel that the defendant no 1 in order to discharge his liability towards the making the payment of Sale Consideration of remaining ₹12,00,000/- tendered Cheque of ₹12,00,000/- to the Plaintiff which were dishonored on account of insufficient funds. The Plaintiff filed complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the Defendant no 1.
8.5. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on 13.04.2014, while the Plaintiff was on religious pilgrimage to Balaji, Defendant no 1 and 2 finding the suit property vacant and locked, break entered the suit property without any intimation behind his back. To this the Plaintiff filed Police complaint and Complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC. Consequently, Ld. Court directed the registration of FIR against the Defendants.
9. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION 9.1. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made. Further I have also carefully gone through the entire record.
9.2. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 22/47 can be said to be established if it is proved by preponderance of probabilities. The belief regarding the existence of a fact thus can be founded on a balance of probabilities. In the process of appreciation of evidence, the 'slight' evidence may 'tilt the balance' in Civil cases on applying the principle of 'preponderance.' Therefore, it is said that the evidence is to be weighed. In Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Sec. 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities, the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies."
9.3. In light of the aforesaid, my issue wise finding is as under: -
ISSUE No 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of suit property as prayed for? OPP ISSUE No 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP ISSUE No 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 23/47 recovery of any damages? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP ISSUE No 4: If issue no.3 is decided in favor of plaintiff, then whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP ISSUE No 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 9.4. The onus to prove these issues is upon the Plaintiff. All these issues are interconnected and may be decided by the common findings; thus, this Court is taking the issues together for adjudication. In the present case, it is correct, the defendant No 1 is Ex-Parte and Defendant No 2 abandoned the proceedings, thus no evidence was led from the side of the Defendants, but in order to succeed it is the Plaintiff who has to prove its case on the basis of cogent evidences.
9.5. The relevant paragraphs with respect to the averment made in the plaint are as follows:
It is the case of the Plaintiff that on 29/01/2013, Plaintiff had purchased a plot measuring 50 sq. yards from one Sh. Mahender Singh, S/o Sh. Sher Singh, R/o House no. 24, Mukund Pur, Delhi for valuable consideration on the basis of the title documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter and deed of will dated 29/01/2013 executed by Said Sh. Mahender Singh in favor of Plaintiff. Further, it averred by the Plaintiff that Plaintiff is the rightful absolute owner of the suit property and whereas the Defendants are the persons who have illegally, fraudulently and forcefully have possessed the suit property and presently the Defendant no.2 is in illegal possession of the suit property.
The Plaintiff further avers that "Plaintiff is the owner and was in possession of a plot of 50 sq. yards, which was purchased by him for valuable consideration". The Plaintiff further avers that the Plaintiff sold 25 sq. yards out of plot of 50 sq. yards to one Sh. Bholu Sahu and CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 24/47 used the sale proceed for construction of the suit property.
In the month of October 2013, sometime after making construction over the suit property the Plaintiff again fell into financial constraints and in these circumstances having no other option, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant no.1 and showed his intention to sell the suit property on good prices. Thereafter, after some time the Defendant no.1 approached the Plaintiff and showed his intention to buy the suit property from the Plaintiff himself and as the Plaintiff was in need of money, he also agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff. It is averred by Plaintiff in the plaint that the total sale consideration of the suit property was agreed to be a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/-(Thirteen lacs) between the Plaintiff and Defendant no.1 It is also pertinent to mention that a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/-(One Lacs) was given by the Defendant no.1 as earnest money/Bayana and to make the final payment and execution of the documents. It is further submitted that on the same day at the request of the Defendant no.1 other sale documents were also got prepared by Defendant no.1. It is pertinent to mention that the consideration amount was written as Rs. 5,50,000/- i.e. much less than that of the agreed consideration amount on those documents. It is also pertinent to mention that on asking the Defendant no.1 said that he does not want to show much amount in the sale documents. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 started making request to make the payment later on and insisted on giving the documents which were got signed to the Defendant no.1, but the plaintiff clearly refused to do same saying that he will not hand over the signed documents before full and final payment of the remaining sale consideration of Rs.
12,00,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 ultimately had issued a postdated cheque bearing no.214205 dated
-15/05/2014 drawn on Punjab National Bank for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as a security, CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 25/47 saying that the Defendant no.1 will make the payment as soon as he is able to manage the same and in any case on or before the date mentioned on the cheque. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant no.1 also assured the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is free to present the said cheque for encashment as per date written on the cheque. He also assured that he will maintain sufficient funds available in his account, so that the cheque under reference might be cleared. It is also pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 also assured that if he is able to make arrangement of cash, he will pay the remaining consideration amount in cash and in that circumstances the Plaintiff will have to return the cheque under reference. Plaintiff in the plaint that on 13/04/2014 when the Plaintiff had gone on pilgrimage to Balaji in the state of Rajasthan, the Defendant no.1 and 2 had forcibly entered in to the suit property and occupied the same. On coming to know about the said fact the Plaintiff has made a proper police complaint which was recorded as DD No.48B with the police station of Bhalswa Diary and again on 22/04/2014 with D.D.No.29A with Bhalswa Dairy and thereafter many complaints has been made in this regard. It is pertinent to mention that on the complaints of the Plaintiff, the Defendant were called at police station, but they were not able to produce the original documents pertaining to the suit property as the same are in possession of the Plaintiff. It is also pertinent to mention that having no alternative, the Plaintiff had also filed a complaint case u/s 200 Cr.P.C. along with an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Sh. Sunil Kumar, M.M. Rohini Delhi and wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the police station to registered an appropriate FIR accordingly an FIR bearing no. 476/2014 u/s 420/506/ IPC has been registered with police station of Bhalswa Diary against the Defendants as such the Defendants have fraudulently and illegally occupied the suit property by dispossessing the Plaintiff from the CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 26/47 suit property without paying consideration amount.
9.6. The averment clearly shows that the Plaintiff and Defendant no 1 were negotiating to purchase the suit property and in consonance of proposal the Defendant no 1 paid ₹1,00,000/- as earnest money and prepared the relevant documents. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking possession of suit property on the basis of title and in support of his contentions the Plaintiff exhibited complete chain of title documents which are exhibited as ExPW1/2(Colly), ExPW1/3(Colly), ExPW1/4(Colly) & ExPW1/5(Colly)(OSR). The Plaintiff is tried to bring his case within the purview of prior possession by showing that the Defendants took over the possession of the suit property, behind his back, when the Plaintiff was at pilgrimage at Balaji.
9.7. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that a suit for possession may be filed on the basis of the title or the prior possession. In this regard, I have the profit of referring to the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in 'Chander Dutt Sharma vs Prem Chand, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9903, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:
20. As far as the contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, of the recital in the Agreement to Sell executed by respondents No.4&5 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, of respondents No.4&5 having put the appellant/plaintiff in possession of the property alone constituting a proof of delivery of possession, is concerned, no merit is found therein also for the following reasons:
(A) A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property can be filed either under Section 5 or under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
(B) A suit under Section 5, can be filed, either
(i) on the basis of prior possession and not on CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 27/47 title, when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed, under Article 64 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, within twelve years from the date of dispossession; or, (ii) based on title, under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, within twelve year from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
(C) A suit under Section 6, can be filed if any person is dispossessed from immovable property without his consent, otherwise than in due process of law, but within six months of the date of dispossession.
(D) The suit is admittedly not under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and is under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act.
(E) A mere possession of immovable property, even if accompanied with GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc., does not constitute title to the immovable property. Reference, if any required in this regard can be made to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656 setting aside the dicta of the Division Bench of this Court in Asha M Jain Vs. Canara Bank (2001) 94 DLT 841.
(F) The appellant/plaintiff, claiming only GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc. from respondents No.4&5 in his favour, thus had / has no title to the property.
(G) An agreement purchaser, has no right, title, interest in immovable property and has only a right to seek specific performance of such agreement. Reference if any required can be made to (i) Jiwan Dass Rawal Vs. Narain Dass AIR 1981 Del 291; (ii) Deewan Arora Vs. Tara Devi Sen (2009) 163 DLT 520; (iii) Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh (2010) 167 DLT 806; and, (iv) Samarjeet Chakravarty Vs. Tej Properties Private Limited 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3809.
(I) Though the appellant/plaintiff, under Section 5, had a choice to sue either on the CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 28/47 basis of prior possession or on the basis of title but the appellant/plaintiff, in spite of having no title to the property, filed the suit by drafting the plaint not on the basis of prior possession but on the basis of title. The appellant/plaintiff, throughout the plaint has described himself as purchaser of the property from respondents No.4&5. Owing thereto only, issue also framed in the suit was qua ownership of appellant/plaintiff and not qua possession of the appellant/plaintiff. Rather, the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff today also, upon it being put to him as to why the appellant/plaintiff did not sue for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell, states that there was/is no need to sue for specific performance since the appellant/plaintiff was already owner in possession of the immovable property.
(M) The appellant/plaintiff was thus required to prove prior possession by some independent evidence.
9.8. The plaintiff has filed the case and seek the possession on the basis of his title. Prior to adjudicate the claims of the plaintiff, this Court finds it necessary to consider whether, the documents upon which he has based his claim and even if these documents are determined as valid and legal, plaintiff can be deemed the owner of the suit property solely based on these documents. It is admitted that all these documents are unregistered, and moreover, none of them fulfil the criteria of a sale deed.
9.9. This Court is relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as 'Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana and Anr, 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1360' wherein it has been established that the transfer of immovable property can only be legally done through a registered deed of conveyance. Documents such as Power of Attorney (PoA), Agreement to Sell, or Will, whether used alone or in combination, do not CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 29/47 inherently confer ownership rights. These types of transactions cannot replace the necessity of the execution and the registration of the sale deeds. In nutshell, the ownership of property cannot be transferred by just executing a General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell and Will and only a duly stamped and registered sale deed conveys valid title. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining each of the aforementioned documents individually, discussed their respective nature and legal function in detail. The relevant paras i.e. para 16 to 24 of 'Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra)' are reproduced as under: -
16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam [(1977) 3 SCC 247] observed: (SCC pp. 254-55, paras 32-33 & 37)"32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [AIR 1967 SC 744 : (1967) 1 SCR 293] The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act,1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein.33. In India, the word 'transfer' is defined with reference to the word 'convey'. ...
The word 'conveys' in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership.37. ... that only on execution of conveyance, ownership passes from one party to another...."
17. In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 30/47 Bapuji Dhotra [(2004) 8 SCC 614] this Court held:(SCC p. 619, para 10) "10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitles the transferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed into service against a third party."
18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly CS DJ No. 131/2020CNR No. DLCT01-001647-2020 Vandana Vs. Bhupender Kumar & Anr. Page No.21 of 39stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter.
Scope of power of attorney
20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grant or authorises the grantee to do the acts specified CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 31/47 therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee.
21. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [(2005) 12 SCC 77] this Court held: (SCC pp. 90 &101, paras 13 & 52) "13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience.
52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee." An attorney-holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor.
CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 32/47Scope of Will
22. A will is the testament of the testator. It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death. It is not a transfer inter vivos. The two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the lifetime of the testator. It is said that so longas the testator is alive, a will is not worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it. If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked. (See Sections 69 and 70 of the Succession Act, 1925.) Registration of a will does not make it any more effective.
Conclusion
23. Therefore, an SA/GPA/will transaction does not convey any title nor creates any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank [(2001) 94 DLT 841] , that the "concept of power-of-attorney sales has been recognised as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/will are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/will transactions are some kind of a recognised or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognise or accept SA/GPA/will transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 33/47 neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales.
9.10. As per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment, clearly signifies that the documents presented by the plaintiff, including the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, and Payment Receipt, which are ExPW1/2(Colly), ExPW1/3(Colly), ExPW1/4(Colly) & ExPW1/5(Colly)(OSR), do not satisfy the legal criteria for a registered conveyance deed as required by the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'TP Act') and the Registration Act. Consequently, these documents do not convey ownership rights in the absence of a properly registered sale deed.
9.11. Consequently, none of the documents filed and relied upon by the plaintiff qualify as a "Sale Deed" under the law and do not, on their own, grant any ownership rights to the plaintiff in the suit property. Since, in the present case, it is an admitted position that no registered sale deed is executed between the parties and the documents exhibit as ExPW1/2(Colly), ExPW1/3(Colly), ExPW1/4(Colly) & ExPW1/5(Colly)(OSR) cannot be in any manner be considered.
9.12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'M.S. CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 34/47 Ananthamurthy & Anr. vs J. Manjula & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448', wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon some previous judgments and held that, 'Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad (2018) 7 SCC 646 , also the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in, titled as 'Channegowda vs N.S. Vishwanath2023 SCC OnLine Kar 153 , that document such as a Power of Attorney, even when coupled with an Agreement to Sell, do not confer any title or interest in immovable property and even assuming for the sake of argument that such document were to create any interest, that interest, being in the nature of a right in immovable property, would nonetheless require compulsory registration under the Registration Act and further in the absence of such registration, these documents would be inadmissible and could not be relied upon to establish or enforce any right in the immovable property. The relevant paras (51 to 56) are reproduced for as under, that:
"51. Section 17(1)(b) prescribes that any document which purports or intends to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property is compulsorily registerable. Whereas, Section 49 prescribes that the documents which are required to be registered under Section 17 will not affect any immovable property unless it has been registered.
52. The aforesaid has been emphatically laid down by this Court in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad, reported in (2018) 7 SCC
646. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
"20. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has the CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 35/47 effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and Section 49 of the Registration Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals with the documents that are required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Since, the deed of exchange has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property, namely, RCC building, it requires registration under Section 17. Since the deed of exchange has not been registered, it cannot be taken into account to the extent of the transfer of an immovable property."
53. Even from the combined reading of the POA and the agreement to sell, the submission of the appellants fails as combined reading of the two documents would mean that by executing the POA along with agreement to sell, the holder had an interest in the immovable property. If interest had been transferred by way of a written document, it had to be compulsorily registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. The law recognizes two modes of transfer by sale, first, through a registered instrument, and second, by delivery of property if its value is less than Rs. 100/-.
54. This principle was recently elaborated by the High Court of Karnataka in Channegowda v. N.S. Vishwanath, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 153. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:--
"14. An attempt is made on behalf of the plaintiffs to contend that the second plaintiff has sold the property as a General Power of Attorney Holder and not as a title holder. It is argued that the Power of attorney is not compulsorily registrable. The submission is noted with care. Suffice it to note that a deed of power of attorney is not one of the instruments specified under Section 17 of the Registration Act compulsorily registrable. However, if a power has been created empowering the attorney to sell the property i.e., if a document CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 36/47 that gives a right to the attorney holder to sell the immovable property, then it would be a document creating an interest in immovable property, which would require compulsory registration. In the present case, the General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favor of the second plaintiff is coupled with interest i.e., power of alienation is conferred but it is not registered. The Apex Court in the SURAJLAMP's case has held that the General Power of Attorney Sale, or Sale Agreements/Will do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be considered valid modes of transfer of immovable property. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the declaration of facts/statement of facts (affidavit) and General Power of Attorney do not convey title. They are inadmissible in evidence."
55. The High Court rightly held that even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the holder, this alone cannot be a factor to reach the conclusion that she had an interest in the POA. Thus, even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the same beneficiary, this cannot be the sole factor to conclude that she had an interest in the subject- matter. Even if such an argument were to persuade this Court, the document must have been registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In the absence of such registration, it would not be open for the holder of the POA to content that she had a valid right, title and interest in the immovable property to execute the registered sale deed in favour of appellant no. 2.
56. The practice of transferring an immovable property vide a GPA and agreement to sell has been discouraged by the following observations of this Court in Suraj Lamp (supra). The relevant observations are reproduced CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 37/47 hereinbelow: --
"24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/will transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-Aof the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. Alease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales."
9.13. Thus, it is vividly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the execution of a Power of Attorney, even if it is executed along with an Agreement to Sell, doesn't create any right, title, or interest in immovable property. Furthermore, even if it assumes that documents exhibit as ExPW1/2(Colly), ExPW1/3(Colly), ExPW1/4(Colly) & ExPW1/5(Colly)(OSR), individually or collectively purport to create an interest in the immovable property, then the same in the absence of the mandatory registration as provided in Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, would make it inadmissible in law and it will not affect the property it deals with. Therefore, any claim of title or enforceable right based on such unregistered documents cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 38/479.14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526 has held as follows:
10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same proposition.
12.The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 39/47 9.15. The facts of the present matter can also be examined in the light of the judgment recently passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, title as 'Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Suresh Chand andAnr, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1879', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, set aside the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which has affirmed the Ld. Trial Court's judgment by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for the relief of possession, mandatory injunction, and declaration despite there being no registered sale deed executed validating conveyance in the plaintiff's favour.
9.16. Further, one important aspect which need to be mentioned herein is that on perusal of ExPW1/2(Colly) which is the Power of Attorney dated 29.01.2013. The said Power of Attorney dated 29.01.2013 is executed in favor of the Plaintiff (Hari Singh), but surprisingly, the said document does not bear the signature of the Plaintiff and further, the executor of the Power of Attorney dated 29.01.201, Sh. Mahender Singh, was not examined in the present case to prove the said document. Similarly, the Agreement to Sell dated 29.01.2013 only bears signature of the Plaintiff on the last page of the document, which cast doubt on the authenticity of the document itself and bare perusal of the document signifies that the thumb impression of the First Party i.e. Mahender Singh is affixed with black ink whereas the thumb impression of the Plaintiff and witnesses is affixed with blue ink. Thus, this gives an impression that the signature and thumb impression of the Plaintiff and witnesees has been affixed later on, thereby casting serious doubt on the document and its execution. Similar situation is with respect to the Possession letter dated 29.01.2013 wherein ink used are different. It is improbable that CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 40/47 at the time of execution of document different ink pad are used for affixation of the thumb impression. Thus, in view of examination of title documents, I am of the view that authenticity of title documents relied on by the Plaintiff are under serious doubt which were not dispelled by the Plaintiff by leading cogent evidence.
9.17. Thus, the claim of plaintiff of seeking possession on the basis of title is not sustainable as based on the documents legally not tenable. Thus, further it has to be examined that whether plaintiff can claim possession on the basis of previous possession.
9.18. It is the case of the defendant no 1 that the suit property was purchased by the defendant no1 from the Plaintiff and the defendant no 1 was already in possession of the suit property. Thus, the Plaintiff concocted a story of forcible possession of suit property being taken over by the Defendants. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Plaintiff have admitted in the plaint the execution of the sale documents between Plaintiff and Defendant no 1. The relevant pleading is reproduced for reference as follows:
Thereafter, after some time the Defendant no.1 approached the Plaintiff and showed his intention to buy the suit property from the Plaintiff himself and as the Plaintiff was in need of money, he also agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff.
It is averred by Plaintiff in the plaint that the total sale consideration of the suit property was agreed to be a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/-(Thirteen lacs) between the Plaintiff and Defendant no.1 It is also pertinent to mention that a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/-(One Lacs) was given by the Defendant no.1 as earnest money/Bayana and to make the final payment and execution of the documents. It is further submitted that on the CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 41/47 same day at the request of the Defendant no.1 other sale documents were also got prepared by Defendant no.1. It is pertinent to mention that the consideration amount was written as Rs. 5,50,000/- i.e. much less than that of the agreed consideration amount on those documents. It is also pertinent to mention that on asking the Defendant no.1 said that he does not want to show much amount in the sale documents. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 started making request to make the payment later on and insisted on giving the documents which were got signed to the Defendant no.1, but the plaintiff clearly refused to do same saying that he will not hand over the signed documents before full and final payment of the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- It is pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 ultimately had issued a postdated cheque bearing no.214205 dated -15/05/2014 drawn on Punjab National Bank for a sum of Rs.
12,00,000/- as a security, saying that the Defendant no.1 will make the payment as soon as he is able to manage the same and in any case on or before the date mentioned on the cheque. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant no.1 also assured the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is free to present the said cheque for encashment as per date written on the cheque. He also assured that he will maintain sufficient funds available in his account, so that the cheque under reference might be cleared. It is also pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 also assured that if he is able to make arrangement of cash, he will pay the remaining consideration amount in cash and in that circumstances the Plaintiff will have to return the cheque under reference.
It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that in these circumstances as discussed above, it was agreed that the registered documents will be executed at the time of payment of full and final remaining consideration amount and it was agreed that the original documents which were got signed by the Defendant no.1 will also CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 42/47 be handed to the Defendant no.1 at the time of full and final payment of consideration amount. It is pertinent to mention that the Defendant no.1 requested to give photocopies of those documents saying that he had issued postdated cheque.
It is averred by the Plaintiff in the plaint that believing the request of the Defendant no.1 the Plaintiff had agreed to give photocopies of the said documents to the Defendant no.1 and originals were kept by the Plaintiff himself. It is also pertinent to mention that on the said copies of the documents, the Plaintiff, as a precaution has also written that the documents are not valid. In these circumstances the Defendant no.1 was able to manage to get the photocopy of the documents which were brought, got prepared by the defendant no.1 and signed by the Plaintiff. Original of these documents are still in the possession of the plaintiff. Thereafter the Plaintiff had made a number of requests to the Defendant no.1 to make the payment but the Defendant no.1 kept on avoiding the issue on one or the pretext.
9.19. In the present case, the defendants are Ex-Parte and no evidence has been led by the Defendants but the written statement has been filed by both the defendants. The Plaintiff in the aforesaid paragraphs have categorically admitted that the documents filed by the Defendant no 1 along with the written statement and there is no requirement of proving those documents and this court can also take into consideration the said documents despite the Defendants not leading any evidence.
9.20. It is pertinent to refer to Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, Facts admitted need not be proved.
No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 43/47 under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
9.21. Thus, the facts admitted by any party need not be proved. On bare perusal of the documents filed by the Defendant no 1 clearly shows that the documents are "Crossed with X"
showing that the document shall not be used for any other purpose. Further, the perusal of Possession letter dated 07.10.2013 clearly shows that the possession of the suit property was handed over to the Defendant no 1 by the Plaintiff. On comparing the signature of the Plaintiff on the possession letter dated 07.10.2013, with the signature on plaint, the signature of the Plaintiff appears to be signed by the same person.
9.22. The aforesaid Possession letter destroys the claim of the Plaintiff that the possession of the suit property was forcibly taken by the defendants on 13.04.2014 when the Plaintiff was on pilgrimage to Balaji. The Plaintiff has failed to prove the title documents and there are serious doubt on the documents executed in his favor. Further, the Plaintiff was not able to bring cogent evidence either oral or documentary to prove his title on the suit property. The possession of the suit property is with the Defendant no 2 and Plaintiff failed miserably in bring any material to support his claim with respect to previous possession.
9.23. The title documents presented by the Plaintiff are unregistered.
The Plaintiff was not able to prove the execution of said title documents. Thus, in that circumstances the Plaintiff seeking Declaration of Sale transaction between Defendant no 1 & 2 as CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 44/47 null and void, does not hold water as the Plaintiff is not able to establish through cogent documents his title over the suit property and in the absence of cogent materials other documents pertaining to sale transactions between Defendants cannot be declared as null and void.
9.24. The Plaintiff has sought permanent injunction on the basis of unregistered document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram Singh vs Kelo Devi, Civil Appeal No.6733 of 2022, decided on 23.09.2022, Having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get the relief by clever drafting.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both, the learned first appellate Court and the High Court have committed a grave error in passing a decree for permanent CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 45/47 injunction in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant and dismissing the counter-claim filed by the original defendant. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction and allowing the counter- claim of the defendant.
9.25. Keeping in view the above discussion, where the Plaintiff failed to establish his title over the suit property by bringing the valid registered title document and further, the Plaintiff also failed to establish his prior possession on the suit property, then in that facts and circumstances the Plaintiff cannot be given benefit of lapses committed by Defendant by not adducing any evidence in the present case. Thus, in view of above deliberations and examination the issue no 1 to 5 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants. 9.26. Issue NO 6, 7,8 & 9
6.Whether the suit is without cause of action? OPD
7.Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material lacts? OPD
8.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-1
9.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD-2 9.27. The Issues no 6 to 9 are taken up together and the onus to bring on record sufficient material and evidence is on the Defendants. The onus to prove this issue was upon the CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 46/47 defendants, as the objection regarding lack of cause of action was raised by them in the written statement, though nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same. The cause of action is a bundle of facts on the basis of which a right accrues in favour of one party to sue another party and to claim the relief in respect of the infringement of his rights by another party from a Court of law. Cause of action' thus refers to a set of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining a favourable judgment from a court of law. In the present case, the plaintiff has duly disclosed the cause of action in para 14 of the suit. The Defendants only made statement that the Plaint does not have any cause of action but did not lead any evidence to show that the plaint is devoid of any cause of action.
9.28. Thus, the defendant being Ex-Parte did not lead any evidence to rebut the claim of the Plaintiff, then accordingly the Issues no 6 to 9 are decided against the Defendants and in favor of the Plaintiff.
10. RELIEF.
10.1. On the basis of above discussion the suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed.
10.2. No Order as to cost.
10.3. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
10.4. File be consigned to record room as per rules after necessary compliances. Digitally signed by AKBAR AKBAR SIDDIQUE SIDDIQUE Date:
2026.03.30 15:59:02 +0530 Announced in open (Akbar Siddique) Court on 30.03.2026 DJ-04, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi/30.03.2026 CS DJ No. 1541/16 HARI SINGH Vs MUNNA RAWAT & ANR Page NO. 47/47