Delhi District Court
Ranvir Singh vs Ms Lankmark Infracon Pvt Ltd on 23 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MR. SATYABRATA PANDA, DJ-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No.55515/16
Date of Institution: 02.12.2015
Date of Arguments: 14.11.2024
Date of Judgment: 23.12.2024
Ranvir Singh
S/o Sh. Narpat Singh,
R/o V.P.O Rajokari,
New Delhi-110038.
......Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director/authorised Signatory,
Regd. Office at Lower Ground Floor,
C-4/5, Safdarjung Development Area,
New Delhi-110060. ...Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking cancellation of registered release deed dated 19.01.2007 and consequential relief of permanent injunction.
PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is summarised as follows:
2.1. The plaintiff is the owner of and in possession of one-tenth share in the following lands situated in the revenue estate of village Rajokari:
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 1 of 60 A) Khata No.365/349 (Total Land 27 Bigha 11 Biswa) Khasra No. Area (In Bigha-Biswa) 712/1 2-8 713/1/2 2-3 723/1 2-8 724/1 2-8 739 4-16 748 4-16 767 3-16 768 4-16 (Share of Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and Khasra Nos. is 2 Bigha 15 Biswa and 2 Biswansi) B) Khata No.366/350 min. (Total Land 17 Bigha 10 Biswa) Khasra No. Area (In Bigha-Biswa) 1095/8 0-18 1126 min. 0-6 1127 3-5 1130 min. 3-9 2084 4-16 2085 4-16 (Share of Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and Khasra Nos. is 1 Bigha and 15 Biswa) C) Khata No.367/350 min. (Total Land 4 Bigha 16 Biswa) Khasra No. Area (In Bigha-Biswa) 1666 4-16 CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 2 of 60 (Share of Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and Khasra No. is 9 Biswa and 12 Biswansi) D) Khata No.569/544 (Total Land 5 Bigha 18 Biswa) Khasra No. Area (In Bigha-Biswa) 1-2 712/2/2 713/2/2 2-8 723/2 2-8 (Share of Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and Khasra Nos is 11 Biswa and 16 Biswansi) 2.2. Thus, the total share of the Plaintiff in the aforesaid Khata and Khasra Nos. is 5 Bigha, 11 Biswa and 10 Biswansi. The aforesaid share of land of the plaintiff, i.e. the holding of the plaintiff, is in his cultivatory possession till date and at no point of time he has parted with the possession of the same.
2.3. The plaintiff received a notice for appearance before the Tehsildar, Vasant Vihar on 02.08.2013. When the plaintiff appeared before the Tehsildar, he was apprised by the revenue officials of the Tehsil office that the notice was pertaining to mutation of the plaintiff's share in the lands situated in Khata Nos. 365/349 and 569/544 admeasuring 3 Bighas, 6 Biswa and 18 Biswansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 3 of 60 plaintiff was surprised to hear this. The revenue officials further informed the plaintiff that the mutation proceedings had been initiated by the defendant on the basis of a release deed dated 19.01.2007. The plaintiff learnt that the defendant was claiming to have purchased the plaintiff's share in the lands situated in Khata Nos. 365/349 and 569/544 admeasuring 3 bigha, 6 biswa and 18 biswansi, i.e. the suit property, vide release deed dated 19.01.2007 purported to have been executed by the plaintiff.
2.4. The plaintiff had never sold the suit property to the defendant. The release deed dated 19.01.2007 was a fraud played upon the plaintiff by the defendant and its associates. One Ishwar Singh Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Raj Kumar, all residents of Village Rajokari along with the authorised representative/director of the defendant had approached the plaintiff in the month of December 2006 for collaboration in respect of the entire land of the plaintiff, i.e. the holding of the plaintiff, with the defendant company. They represented that the defendant company would be carving out farmhouses in the said lands and assured that, initially, an advance amount of Rs. 1.5 Crores will be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and a collaboration agreement regarding the same would be executed. The total CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 4 of 60 consideration for the agreement was agreed as Rs. 15 Crores and out of which the amount of Rs. 1.5 Crores was to be paid as an advance. They further represented that the remaining amount of Rs. 13.5 crores would be paid within 6 months from the date of execution of the agreement and if the defendant failed to pay the balance amount, then the agreement shall be deemed as cancelled and treated as null and void and non-est in the eyes of law. It was further agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that in case of non-payment of the balance consideration within the stipulated time period, the advance amount of Rs. 1.5 crores shall stand forfeited.
2.5. The defendant and its aforementioned associates also represented that they would be obtaining relevant permission/sanction from the appropriate government authorities for developing farm houses on the holding of the plaintiff and for the same, they would require appropriate authorisation from the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed for the same and under the garb of execution of the aforesaid collaboration agreement and relevant documents for appropriate authorisation for seeking permission for development of farm houses on the holding of the plaintiff, the defendant and the said Ishwar Singh Yadav, Rajesh Yadav and Raj Kumar obtained the CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 5 of 60 signatures of the plaintiff on the purported release deed on the pretext of execution of the collaboration agreement and other documents. The signatures of the plaintiff had been obtained by the defendant and its aforesaid associates on the impugned release deed fraudulently by concealing material facts from the plaintiff and without his consent. At no point of time, the plaintiff had agreed for execution of the impugned release deed. The alleged release deed had been executed without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and a fraud had been perpetrated on the plaintiff by the defendant in connivance with its associates as well as the officials of the sub- registrar's authorities.
2.6. After execution of the purported release deed which the plaintiff understood as a collaboration agreement and relevant documents for obtaining permission for development of farm houses, the defendant and its aforesaid associates did not comply with the agreement of collaboration and their assurance and representations. The defendant and its associates also did not obtain the relevant permission from the concerned government authorities for development of the farm houses on the holding of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never parted with the possession of the suit property and CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 6 of 60 the same is still in the cultivatory possession of the plaintiff.
2.7. The defendant is in league with the said Ishwar Singh Yadav, Rajesh Yadav and Raj Kumar. They all have hatched a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of the suit property. The plaintiff is an illiterate person and not able to read, write and understand English language. The plaintiff is a non-matriculate. This fact was well within the knowledge of the defendant and its associates and the defendant has in collusion with its aforesaid associates taken undue advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff and have got fraudulently executed the impugned release deed.
2.8. The defendant is illegally claiming the suit property which is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the same. If the defendant would have been bona fide, then there was no occasion for the defendant to claim mutation of the suit property after a gap of six and a half years from the date of execution of the impugned release deed. The defendant and its associates had connived with each other as well as the sub-registrar's authorities and had got fraudulently executed and registered the impugned release deed dated 19.01.2007.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 7 of 60 2.9. After learning about the aforesaid illegal acts of the defendant and its associates, the plaintiff immediately filed his objection and claim dated 02.09.2013 before the Tehsildar, Vasant Vihar requesting him to not transfer/mutate the suit property in favour of the defendant and further requested that the matter may be referred to the concerned revenue assistant/SDM for necessary adjudication as per law. Thereafter, the plaintiff again filed a reminder dated 01.01.2014 to the Tehsildar.
2.10. The suit property is situated within the revenue estate of village Rajokari, New Delhi and is situated near the prime location of National Highway-8 and within close proximity of the international airport at New Delhi. The suit property is in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in exclusive possession of his share of the holding as there was an oral family partition between the family members and other shareholders of the concerned Khata numbers.
2.11. When the director/authorised representative of the defendant was confronted with the said illegal acts, he threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences and boasted that the defendant had good links with the police and administrative authorities and could manage everything. On 18.10.2015 and 01.11.2015, the defendant CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 8 of 60 threatened the plaintiff that the defendant would create third party interest in the suit property and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff.
2.12. On 02.08.2013, after receiving the notice from the Tehsildar, Vasant Vihar, the plaintiff had learnt about the mutation proceedings initiated on the basis of impugned release deed dated 19.01.2007. The plaintiff made enquiries from the sub- registrar's office and then came to know about the impugned registered release deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff also obtained relevant extracts of revenue records of the suit property as well as remaining holding from the concerned Halqa Patwari on 02.08.2013. The complete chain of fraud perpetrated by the defendant came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only on 02.09.2013 when his objection and claim in the mutation proceedings were drafted by his counsel and same was filed on 06.09.2013.
2.13. The impugned release deed is not a valid document and is a false, sham, fabricated and forged document and is also liable to be cancelled under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The impugned release deed was in violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and as such, not enforceable.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 9 of 60
3. On this basis, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs in the suit:
"a. Pass a decree of cancellation to the effect that the impugned release deed purportedly got executed and registered on 19.01.2007 bearing registration no. 421, in Additional Book No.I, volume no. 3393 on pages 50 to 79 dated 19.01.2007, by plaintiff in respect of the Suit property i.e. one tenth share of plaintiff in khata No. 365/349 khasra nos. 712/1 (2-
8), 713/1/2 (2-3), 723/1 (2-8), 724/1 (2-8), 739 (4-
16), 748 (4-16), 767 (3-16), 768 (4-16) and Khata no. 569/544, Khasra nos. 712/2/2 (1-2), 713/2/2 (2-
8), 723/2 (2-8) i.e. Total admeasuring 03 bigha 06 biswa and 18 biswani, in favour of defendant is null and void, non-est having no effect in the eyes of law.
b. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant and its agents, representatives, assignees, associates etc. from creating any third party interest in the suit property and further restrain them from creating any hindrance in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit property, in any manner.
c. Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the above noted case."
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 10 of 60 WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. The defendant has filed written statement seeking dismissal of the suit. The case of the defendant as pleaded in the written statement is as follows:
4.1. The suit is barred by limitation, particularly under Article 56 of Schedule-I of the Limitation Act which provides for 3 years for filing of a suit to declare the forgery of an instrument issued or registered. The suit is filed after about 9 years of the execution of the release deed dated 19.01.2007 which was registered and, hence, the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff was aware of the registration of the release deed dated 19.01.2007, but the plaintiff claims to be unaware about the contents of the release deed, but that cannot have the effect of extension of limitation period as a registered release deed is a public document and is a notice to all under Explanation I to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, in the present case, the plaintiff would be deemed to have knowledge of the registered release deed dated 19.01.2007 from the date of the registration itself not only since the plaintiff knew as a fact that the deed was registered on that date but also for the reason of the plaintiff's wilful abstention from an enquiry and search which he ought to have made, since the registered release deed was a public document open to inspection by anyone CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 11 of 60 under the Registration Act. In the present case, the limitation would start to run from the date of the registration of the instrument itself.
4.2. The plaintiff could not file the suit based on the claim of violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. It is only the authorities under the Act which could take action, if required.
Moreover, the plea of violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act did not arise in the present case since as on the date of execution of the release deed dated 19.01.2007, the defendant was holding 3/5th share in the land in question and the plaintiff was holding 1/10th share. Therefore, a release of a share by a co-bhumidhar in favour of another co-bhumidhar did not have the effect of granting any new tenure rights but was merely an adjustment of the rights amongst the existing bhumidhars.
4.3. The suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the suit is premised on a plea of fraud and the plea of fraud cannot be imputed to a juristic entity such as the defendant. The persons who have allegedly committed fraud have not been impleaded as parties to the suit.
4.4. The suit is without cause of action as the release deed dated 19.01.2007 was duly registered and CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 12 of 60 execution thereof duly admitted by the plaintiff before the sub-registrar.
4.5. The suit is barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 as the plaintiff is indirectly seeking declaration of his bhumidari rights in the garb of declaration and injunction.
4.6. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands as he has based his claim on a false assertion that he was unaware of the contents of the release deed dated 19.01.2007, whereas he was at all times aware about the nature, intention and purpose of the said deed. The plaintiff could have easily obtained certified copy of the release deed if he did not have a copy.
4.7. The plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property as he had transferred the suit property in favour of the defendant by way of the registered release deed dated 19.01.2007. The plaintiff was not in actual physical possession of the land in question as the possession thereof was delivered to the defendant on 19.01.2007 itself. The plaintiff was neither the bhumidhar nor cultivator in possession of the suit property.
4.8. The release deed dated 19.01.2007 was wilfully executed by the plaintiff after understanding the contents, intent and purpose of the same. The CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 13 of 60 plaintiff had executed the said deed to transfer the subject lands in favour of the defendant against agreed consideration of Rs. 1.5 crores. It is denied that the defendant or its agents/officials had offered any collaboration with the plaintiff as alleged. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant offered to pay sum of Rs. 15 Crores which was a huge sum considering the fact that lands were being sold and purchased in Rajokari in the year 2007 at much lower prices. If there was any fraud played as alleged, the alleged fraudsters would have got the plaintiff to execute sale deed for the entire land and not just portion of the land.
4.9. Although the plaintiff admits that the deed is executed and registered but his continued silence for 8 years goes to show that he had no grievance whatsoever against the defendant.
4.10. The defendant was not having any association with the persons namely Sh. Ishwar Singh Yadav, Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Sh. Rajkumar, and rather the said persons were of the same village as that of the plaintiff and rather it is assumed by the defendant that the plaintiff and the said persons may be in league with each other.
4.11. The plaintiff is an educated person who had read the release deed dated 19.01.2007 before CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 14 of 60 appending his signatures thereto. The defendant has no means of knowing the educational qualification of the plaintiff. The defendant did not take any undue advantage of the plaintiff. The release deed was not got executed by fraud.
4.12. The revenue records do not have the effect of creating or extinguishing the title of a party. The defendant is the owner and shall be entitled to be treated as owner/bhumidar even if the mutation was not yet sanctioned in his favour.
4.13. The defendant was the owner of the suit land and was entitled to apply for mutation even after a gap of 6 and a half years as there was no bar in law against such mutation.
4.14. The plaintiff has filed the suit to mala fide extract more money out of the defendant.
4.15. The location of the suit land is such that it has no access/rasta and was located near ravines.
4.16. It is denied that any threats were issued to the plaintiff as alleged.
4.17. On this basis, the defendant has sought dismissal of the suit.
ISSUES CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 15 of 60
5. Vide order dated 30.11.2019, the following issues were framed in the suit:
(1) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-
joinder of parties? OPD (2) Whether the suit is barred by article 56 of Schedule 1 of the limitation act? OPD (3) Whether the release deed sought to be declared as null and void is invalid under Section 33 of Delhi Land Reforms Act and is not enforceable? OPP (4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of as prayed in Para (a) of the Prayer Clause? OPP (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction as prayed in Para (b) of the prayer clause? OPP
(f) Relief.
6. Both the parties have led their respective evidence, both oral and documentary.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
7. In support of its case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. PW1/A in which he has deposed along the lines of the plaintiff. He was cross examined by the defendant. He has relied on the following documents:
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 16 of 60
i) Notice issued by Tehsildar (Vasant Vihar) for appearance on 02.08.2013 is Ex. PW-1/1.
ii) Certified copy of impugned release deed dated 19.01.2007 is Ex. PW-1/2.
iii) Copy of objections and claim dated 02.09.2013 filed by plaintiff before the Tehsildar (Vasant Vihar) is Ex. PW-1/3.
iv) Copy of reminder dated 01.01.2014 to objections and claim dated 02.09.2013 filed by plaintiff before the Tehsildar (Vasant Vihar) is Ex. PW-1/4.
v) Original notice dated 06.06.2015 issued by SDM/REVENUE ASSISTANT (Vasant Vihar) for appearance of deponent on 07.06.2015 is Ex. PW-1/5.
vi) Certified copies of relevant extract of the Khatonis of the suit property and entire holding of plaintiff along with their true copies are Ex. PW-1/6 (colly).
vii) Certified copies of relevant extract of the Khasra Girdawaris of the suit property and entire holding of plaintiff along with their true copies are Ex. PW-1/7 (colly).
viii) Certified Copies of relevant extract of the Field Book of suit property and entire holding of plaintiff along with its true typed copy is Ex. PW-1/8.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 17 of 60
ix) Certified copies of Aks Shazra of the suit property and entire holding of the plaintiff is Ex.PW-1/9.
8. The plaintiff has also examined as PW-2, an official from the office of Sub-Registrar IX, Kapashera, New Delhi to prove the registration of the impugned release deed Ex. PW1/2.
9. The plaintiff also summoned PW-3, Sh. Ravindra Kumar, Halqua Patwari to produce the original records of Khatavni and Khasra Jirdawairis of the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2014-15, and original record of Aksh Shazra. He produced the Ex. PW1/6 (colly), Ex. PW1/7(colly) and Ex. PW1/9.
10. The plaintiff also summoned PW-4, an official from the office of SDM to produce the record of the mutation proceedings.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
11. In support of its case, the defendant has examined as DW-1 Sh. Jitendra Kumar Jain who is the authorised representative of the defendant. He has tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW1/A and he has deposed along the lines on the written statement. He was cross examined by the plaintiff.
12. The defendant has also examined as DW-2 Sh. Rajkumar who is the attesting witness to the release deed. He has CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 18 of 60 tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex. DW2/A. He was cross-examined by the plaintiff.
13. The learned counsels for both the parties have made their respective submissions.
PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSIONS
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the pleadings and evidence in support of the plaintiff, and has made the following submissions:
14.1. The plaintiff has been able to prove his pleaded case through the evidence led and would be entitled to decree. The plaintiff was approached by the defendant in the month of December 2006 in order to collaborate with it to carve out farm houses on the suit property of the plaintiff and the entire deal was fixed for Rs. 15 Crore. The suit property which belongs to the plaintiff and is still in his exclusive possession is located on a very prime location near NH-8 (Rajokari village) and in the close vicinity of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, hence, this motivated the defendant to hatch a conspiracy to grab the said land parcel by any means. Therefore, the defendant approached the plaintiff along with three other persons namely Ishwar Singh Yadav, Rajesh Yadav and Raj Kumar and explained their idea of carving out farm houses on the said land and requested the plaintiff to enter into a CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 19 of 60 collaboration agreement with the defendant. The plaintiff agreed to it when he was convinced that everything will be done in a legal manner and only after taking all the relevant sanctions and approvals from the relevant authorities. The defendant further convinced the plaintiff that they will reduce their oral agreements/understanding in writing in form of a registered collaboration agreement and for this an advance sum of Rs. 1.5 Crore was paid to the plaintiff and the full and final remaining amount of Rs. 13.5 Crore was agreed to be paid within a time frame of six months from the date of execution of the collaboration agreement. The defendants being well aware that the plaintiff cannot speak or understand English, purposefully decided to draft the agreement in English and the plaintiff signed the impugned release deed misunderstanding it as a collaboration agreement as well as other necessary documents/authorization to seek approval and sanction from the competent authorities for carving out farm houses. After the execution of the said agreement, the plaintiff patiently waited for the work to begin. However, no such work ever started at any point of time and the plaintiff also did not receive any sort of information and remained clueless regarding the same only until 02.08.2013 when he received the notice of mutation from the office of the Tehsildar.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 20 of 60 14.2. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined four witnesses including himself. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and through his testimony it is proved beyond an iota of doubt that the plaintiff was the victim of the fraud played upon him by the defendant. Through his evidence it can be concluded that the alleged document signed by the plaintiff was in fact signed by him believing it to be collaboration agreement and other necessary documents to obtain sanction and permissions from the competent authorities for carving out farm houses and not as a release deed. The plaintiff being unable to read and understand English was made to sign a document which was in English. He was not even explained the contents of it by any of the parties present at the time of signing the said document. This fact was even verified by the DW-1 (authorised representative of the defendant company) wherein he has agreed of not explaining the contents of the said document to the plaintiff in Hindi at the time of signing of the impugned release deed. As soon as the plaintiff received the notice of mutation from the tehsildar's office on 02.08.2013, he swiftly acted and filed his objections dated 02.09.2013 against the same in the office of tehsildar without any delay on 06.09.2013 and again filed the reminder of his objections on 01.01.2014. He even produced all the relevant revenue records pertaining to the said khata nos.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 21 of 60 and those records clearly show the plaintiff as the exclusive owner and in possession of the land comprising in said khata and Khasra nos. Had the plaintiff plotted the entire situation against the defendant, as alleged by the defendant, he would have done it much earlier i.e. right after the execution of the impugned release deed and would not have waited for it for such a long period of time. This goes on to show the honesty of the plaintiff and his genuineness. On the contrary, the defendant has clearly failed to explain the delay of six and a half years in initiating the mutation proceedings. This itself creates a doubt with respect to the conduct and intention of the defendant. The entire cross examination of the plaintiff majorly revolved around proving two points by the defendant i.e. firstly, the plaintiff knew and understands English and, secondly, the plaintiff was well aware about the execution of the said impugned release deed. However, the defendant miserably failed in proving both points. As far as the fact of the plaintiff knowing English is concerned, even the DW-1 has admitted the fact that at the time of signing of the impugned release deed he was unaware of the educational background of the plaintiff and did not even know whether the plaintiff could understand English or not. With respect to the second point of the plaintiff being aware of the execution and CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 22 of 60 registration of the said impugned release deed, it is submitted that the plaintiff has denied signing the impugned release deed document after becoming well aware about the contents of such document.
14.3. The signatures on the document are not disputed rather it is the nature, contents and character of the document that is disputed. Signing of a document by both the parties requires a prior meeting of mind with respect to the contents and nature of the document. Meeting of minds is a sine qua non. The doctrine of non est factum means that a person who is induced by the false statement of another, and who has signed a written contract that is fundamentally different in character from the one which he envisaged then such a person is competent to say that it is not his document. Even otherwise the impugned release deed is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mind of the signer did not accompany the signatures. In the present case, the plaintiff was deliberately misled and kept in a delusion not merely with respect to the legal effect of the instrument, but also as to the actual contents, nature and character of the instrument during the signing of the impugned release deed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harmesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Maya Bai AIR 2006 P&H 1. It is submitted that a document executed by an element CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 23 of 60 of fraud, where the mind of the party to such document does not accompany with its content, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud. Furthermore, the testimony of the plaintiff is not impeached by the defendant from his cross examination. Reliance is also placed upon the following case-laws: Smt. Gangabai Vs. Smt. Chhabubai AIR 1982 SC 20, Smt. Dularia Devi Vs. Janardan Singh AIR 1990 SC 1173, Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal (2000) 1 SCC 434, Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar 1968 Law Suit 9 SC, and State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Harapriya Bisooi AIR 2009 SC 2991. The said judgments clearly enunciate that fraud vitiates everything. The aforesaid judgments also held that oral evidence is admissible against such registered document fraudulently got executed and the bar under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act would not apply in such situation. The said sections are not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 24 of 60 agreement, but that some other document altogether, not recorded in the document was entered into between the parties. The case of the plaintiff factually is identical and is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments.
14.4. PW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar proved the registration of the impugned release deed.
14.5. PW-3 Sh. Ravinder Kumar was the Halqa Patwari from the Office of the concerned Tehsildar and was called upon to prove the ownership and possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. From the relevant Revenue records placed on record and confirmed by the PW-3, it clearly stands proved that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and it is still in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is cultivating the same even till date. At any given point of time, the plaintiff has not parted away with possession of the suit property. Nothing substantial could be derived from the cross-examination of the said witness. It is submitted that no evidence has been raised by the defendant to disprove the public records of the Khasra Girdawari as well Khatauni, i.e. Exhb. PW-1/6(Colly) (15 pages), which are presumed to be true unless proved contrary. The said Khasra Girdawaris and Khatauni are admittedly the Annual Registers maintained by the revenue department. CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 25 of 60 The said records are pertaining to the period even after the execution of the impugned Release Deed.
14.6. PW-4 Sh. Anuj Rathi was called upon to prove the initiation of the mutation proceedings before the Tehsildar which were further transferred to the Court of the SDM/Revenue Assistant and the outcome of the said mutation proceedings. From the testimony of the said PW-4 it clearly stands proved that the plaintiff, as soon as he learnt about the initiation of the said mutation proceedings by the defendant, aptly filed his objections before the Tehsildar and thereafter diligently kept pursuing the same and even filed a reminder to the said objections. The said proceedings were sine-die adjourned by the concerned SDM/Revenue Assistant, in view of the present suit.
14.7. The defendant initially filed its list of witnesses stating to examine four witnesses but, subsequently, the defendant dropped two crucial witnesses, namely Sh. Ashok Kumar (the authorised representative of the defendant) and Sh. Rajesh Yadav (witness to the release deed) for the reasons best known to itself. An adverse inference would be drawn against the defendant for not examining these witnesses.
14.8. In order to prove its case, the defendant examined two witnesses namely Sh. Jitendra Kumar Jain CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 26 of 60 DW-1 and Sh. Raj Kumar DW-2. With respect to DW-1, it is submitted that DW-1, as is evident from his evidence led by way of an affidavit, is merely a puppet witness having no clue of whatsoever nature regarding the present case and the impugned release deed which is challenged in the present case. DW-1 has clearly stated in his evidence that after the execution of the impugned release deed, the defendant was put in possession of the suit land. But he was unable to tell about the location of the suit land. He does not even know if the suit land was measured or not. He does not even know if both Khata Nos. 569/544 and 365/349 were adjoining each other or not. DW-1 has no idea about the dimensions of the suit property from all sides. He further states that he is not even aware if the defendant company is cultivator of the suit property or not. He further admits that he is not aware about the structures, tube-wells and crops of the suit property. He is also not aware about the mode of irrigation in the suit land. He does not even know the details of contractors who allegedly cultivated the suit land on behalf of the defendant, so, how could the defendant claim that it is in possession of the suit property. He does not even know the adjoining Khasra Nos. of the suit land. He does not even know about the remaining land of the plaintiff which he owned. Hence, it is categorically proved that defendant Company never entered into CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 27 of 60 the possession of the suit property. On the contrary, the plaintiff is still in possession of the suit land and is cultivating the same. Even PW-4 (Halqa Patwari) has verified the fact that the plaintiff is still possessing and cultivating the said suit property and is Bhumidar of the suit property.
14.9. Further, it is submitted that the court cannot fully rely on the testimony of DW-1 without any corroborating evidence. His credibility remains clouded and therefore his version cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the DW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he does not play any active role in the day-to-day functions of the company. He further states that he is not aware of the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant. This again proves that he is merely a puppet witness. DW-1 has never met the plaintiff prior to the signing of the impugned release deed, was not a part of the negotiations that took place between the plaintiff and the defendant company, he does not even know the name or identity of the person who took part in the negotiations on behalf of the defendant and never met the plaintiff at any point of time before or after the execution the said release deed. What more could be said to prove the fact that the said DW-1 is nothing more than a puppet witness who has no credibility. He further admits that he was not aware that whether the plaintiff can CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 28 of 60 read and understand English or not. He also admits of not explaining the contents of the said document to the plaintiff in Hindi. DW-1 was also given suggestion to the effect that he has given evasive answers to specific questions in order to conceal true facts. Since the DW-1 has admitted of knowing the fact that the suit property has not been partitioned between the plaintiff and other co- sharers, hence the question of handing over the possession of the land i.e. the undivided share to the defendant does not arise at all.
14.10. As far as the testimony of DW-2 i.e. Sh. Raj Kumar is concerned, he was a witness to the impugned release deed. DW-2 has himself admitted that he is an alien to English language but still he became a witness to a document which was in English. The DW-2 has categorically admitted that he was not aware about the contents of the said document before he signed it and nobody explained to him the contents of the same in Hindi before and even after signing it. He has admitted that he along with Ishwar Singh Yadav finalized the deal between the plaintiff and the defendant but he cannot tell the name of the person who represented the defendant company in the entire negotiations. Even the defendant, during the entire course of proceedings has nowhere mentioned as to who on behalf of the defendant company negotiated and finalized the CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 29 of 60 deal. Neither such person was called up as a witness on behalf of the defendant. DW-2 claims to have played an active role in the entire negotiations but it is surprising to learn that he has never visited the suit property at any point of time. He even admits of not knowing the fact whether the defendant company is cultivating the said land or not. He also admitted that he is not aware about the contents of the impugned Release Deed Ex. PW-1/2 and neither the same were translated to him before he signed the same. Therefore, the attesting witness, who is claiming to have played active role in finalizing the deal, to the impugned release deed also did not know about its execution, then how can the plaintiff know about the same. Thus, it is proved that the impugned release deed is a sham, bogus and fabricated document. It is submitted that DW-2 has admitted that Plaintiff was not carrying any documents (except Voter I Card and Aadhar Card) with him when he visited the office of Pramod Kumar on the date of execution of the impugned release deed. He deposes that the impugned release deed was drafted in the office of one Pramod Kumar. Interestingly, the impugned release deed is a 30-32 pages document which is typed and contains all the details of the suit land with their khata/Khasra Nos. with respective areas, and various others covenants, therefore all these facts cannot be incorporated without there being CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 30 of 60 any document available for the same. This proves that the impugned release deed was not prepared on 19.01.2007 and the same was already prepared and fraudulently got signed by the defendant in connivance with Ishwar Singh Yadav and his associates. The suggestion to this effect was also given to the DW-2. DW-2 further goes on to say that Ishwar Singh Yadav was the one who was in touch with the defendant during the entire negotiations. This goes on to show that Ishwar Singh Yadav could have been a deciding witness of the present case but his name was not added in the list of defence witnesses for the reasons best known to the defendant. Furthermore, DW-2 has admitted that the family members of the plaintiff (Chacha/tau) are the co-sharers in the subject property along with the plaintiff and therefore the question of handing over of the possession of the un-partitioned property does not arise at all.
14.11. DW-2 has further admitted that the total land area owned by the plaintiff is less than 7.5 acres and therefore the said transfer/selling of the land by way of the impugned release deed is null and void as it is in clear violation of the statutory provision of Section 33 of the DLR Act, 1954 which clearly says that a Bhumidar having less than 8 standard acres of land has to dispose/sell/transfer of his entire holdings in case he wants to sell the same.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 31 of 60 Admittedly, the plaintiff was having area less than 8 standard acres in the revenue estate of Village Rajokari i.e. 5 Bigha 11 Biswa and 10 Biswansi. Admittedly, the plaintiff is also recorded Bhumidar of his share of land in Khata Nos. 366/359 min. and 367/350 min. which is the land left with the plaintiff in both said Khatas after the execution of the impugned release deed for land measuring 3 Bigha 6 Biswa 18 Biswansi. Such a bhumidar who is already having less than 8 standard acre area/holding is not allowed to possess remaining part of land after selling of some part of his holdings. The intent of the legislature behind the said section of the DLR Act is to avoid uneconomical holding of agricultural land and hence the said impugned release deed is a clear violation of the said statutory provision and is therefore liable to be set aside. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Sh. Ram Niwas Dagar V/S Sh. Krishan Kumar & Anr. 2013 SCC Online Del 5148 and decision dated 22.02.2000 in M.S. Yadav vs. Jagmal RFA (OS) No. 49/1999 has upheld the above-stated statutory provision of the DLR Act and held that the alleged transaction is unenforceable and void by virtue of Section 33 of the said Act.
14.12. The defence raised by the defendant that the suit was barred by limitation was without merit. In the CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 32 of 60 present case, the limitation starts to run from the time when the Plaintiff became aware of the fraud committed upon him. The plaintiff became aware of the fraud only on 02.09.2013 when the complete chain of fraud was revealed to him and he filed objections on 06.09.2013 before the concerned Tehsildar and contested the mutation proceedings before the SDM/revenue Assistant, and thereafter he filed the present suit on 01.12.2015 i.e. within 3 years from the date of knowledge of the impugned release deed and hence the question of the suit becoming barred by limitation does not arises at all. The cause of action to sue accrued to a person only when fraud comes to his knowledge and as per Article 59 of the limitation act, the period of limitation starts when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled first become known to him. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the decision dated 11.09.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sri Bhagwan Vs M/s. VBM Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, RFA (OS) 62/2015.
DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has referred to the pleadings and evidence in support of the defendant, and has made the following submissions:
15.1. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the release deed as a forged or fabricated CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 33 of 60 document. Apart from himself, the plaintiff did not produce any witness to buttress his own self-
serving statement. On the other hand, the defendant proved the due execution of the release deed Ex. PW-1/2 by the plaintiff by examining the DW-1 who was the authorised representative of the defendant company as well as DW-2 Raj Kumar who was the attesting witness to the release deed. The plaintiff cross-examined the defendant's witnesses at length but their testimony remained unshaken. Further, the evidence of PW-1 was full of inconsistencies as he could not explain as to why he appended his signatures on the release deed in English language although he claimed himself to be an illiterate person who was unable to read, write and understand English. The plaintiff further admitted that he was not illiterate but was educated upto 8th standard. The plaintiff admitted that he had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar after execution of the deed and appeared before the Sub- Registrar. The plaintiff admitted that he had applied for issuance of a certified copy of the said document from office of Sub-Registrar but he did not remember the date on which he obtained certified copy. The plaintiff also admitted that within 3 years of registration of the release deed Ex. PW-1/2 he had not initiated any legal proceedings. The plaintiff also admitted that he did not send any notice or letter to defendant from CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 34 of 60 2007 to 2015. The plaintiff had claimed that the value of his approx. 3 Bighas land was Rs. 15 Crore but upon being questioned about the value of the land in cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen or heard of any transaction of land in his village where land may have been sold at the rate of Rs. 20 Crores per acre. The plaintiff admitted that the land was a joint holding which had not been partitioned. He also admitted that he had not lodged any police complaint in regard to the transaction against Ishwar Singh Yadav and Raj Kumar. All this clearly shows that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the release deed Ex. PW1/2 was executed by perpetrating any kind of fraud upon him. Therefore, the Issues No. 4 and 5 were not proved by the plaintiff.
15.2. It is settled law that when in respect of a transaction, a written document is executed, any kind of oral evidence, contrary to the documents, is not admissible. The allegations of fraud if made by a party, must be specific giving role of each person and all those involved in the fraud must be made a party. Bare allegations of fraud or claiming that the plaintiff signed the documents without reading the contents thereof is not a ground for cancellation of the document. A person who is entering into a transaction of his land for Crores of rupees and is receiving money, cannot be called a poor or illiterate CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 35 of 60 villager. Nowadays, in Delhi, villagers are not simpletons or fools enough to not take help of educated persons in understanding the documents being executed by them. The version of the plaintiff was a cock and bull story and has been invented to file the suit. Reliance is placed on the decision dated 05.05.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jai Bhagwan V. Rajesh LQ/DelHC/2008/1209; 2008 Indlaw Del 419.
15.3. Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act creating a bar to the sale of land in parts did not arise in the facts of the present case as there was no sale of land to a new person and it did not result in creation of a new tenure by the execution of the release deed Ex. PW-1/2. The release deed only had the effect of enhancement of the share of defendant and effacement of share of plaintiff. The release deed did not result in alienation of property but only amounted to adjustment of shares of co-owners. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shailesh Harilal v. District Collector of Stamps 2005 (2) Mh.L.J.
738. The plea of violation of Section 33 of the DLR Act did not arise in the facts and circumstances of the present case because as on the date of execution of the Release deed dated 19.1.2007, the defendant was holding 3/5th share in the land in question and plaintiff was holding 1/10th share. Therefore, a CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 36 of 60 release of share by a co-bhumidhar in favour of another co-bhumidhar did not have the effect of creation of new tenure rights or bhumidhars, but was merely an adjustment of the rights amongst the existing bhumidhars. In any case, the plaintiff could not raise a grievance about violation of Section 33 of DLR Act and only the authorities under the Act could take action, if required. In this regard, reliance is placed on Vidya Dhari Khanna v. Sandeep Khanna 46 (1992) DLT 682.
15.4. The suit was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the same was premised on the plea of fraud and the plea of fraud could not be imputed to a juristic person like the defendant company. Moreover, the persons who had allegedly committed the fraud were not impleaded as parties to the suit. The present suit was based on the plea of alleged fraud having been perpetuated by Sh. Ishwar Singh Radav and Sh. Raj Kumar in connivance with the authorised representative of the defendant, however, the said persons were not impleaded as defendants in the suit, therefore, the plea of fraud could not be adjudicated in the absence of the necessary parties.
15.5. The suit was barred by limitation. It is admitted by the plaintiff that the suit is filed after about 9 years of the execution and registration of the release deed dated 19.1.2007. The relevant article of Schedule-I CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 37 of 60 of the Limitation Act would be Article 56 providing for limitation period of 3 years in respect of suit for declaration in respect of forgery of an instrument issued or registered from the date when the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff. Under Article 56, the limitation period in respect of a registered document starts running from the date of registration of the document. From a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff was aware about the registration of the release deed on 19.1.2007 itself. Though the plaintiff claims to be unaware about the contents of the registered deed, but that cannot have the effect of extension of limitation period as a registered deed is a public document and is a notice to all under Explanation-I to Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, in the present case, the plaintiff would be deemed to have knowledge of the registered release deed dated 19.1.2007 from the date of registration itself as admittedly not only he knew it as a fact that the deed was registered on that day but also for the reason that, but for his wilful abstention from an enquiry and search which he ought to have made, he would have learnt about the contents of the said registered release deed dated 19.1.2007 as it was a public document open to inspection by anyone being a document registered in Book I under the Registration Act.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 38 of 60 15.6. Moreover, the Article 56 of Schedule I of Limitation Act deals with two situations, i.e. firstly where a forged instrument is issued in which the limitation would start to run from the date when the issue of the forged instrument becomes known to the plaintiff. The second situation dealt with by the Article 56 pertains to the forged instrument which is registered. In the situation as exists in the present suit as set up by the plaintiff, the limitation would start to run from the date of registration of the instrument itself as it was not the intention of the legislature to enable a litigant who remains wilfully ignorant or deliberately abstains from making appropriate enquiry to stretch the limitation period to eternity by claiming that he never knew about the contents of the registered deed.
15.7. The limitation to challenge a registered deed starts from the date of registration. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on Smt. Dilboo v. Smt. Dhanraji (2000) 7 SCC 702.
15.8. On this basis, it is submitted that the suit be dismissed.
16. Both parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
ISSUE-WISE DISCUSSION & FINDINGS CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 39 of 60
17. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and I have perused the record including the pleadings, evidence (both oral and documentary) and the written submissions.
18. My issue-wise findings are as follows.
Issue No.4- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed in Para(a) of the Prayer Clause? OPP Issue No.5- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction as prayed in Para(b) of the prayer clause? OPP
19. The aforesaid issues are taken up together for discussion first.
20. The plaintiff has sought cancellation of the release deed dated 19.01.2007 which is a registered document. The plaintiff does not dispute his signatures on the release deed or that he had signed the document. It is also undisputed that the release deed was a registered document which was got registered at the office of the concerned registrar. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that the said document was got signed from the plaintiff through fraud by fraudulently misrepresenting to the plaintiff that the document was a collaboration agreement.
21. As per the contents of the registered release deed Ex.PW-1/2, the plaintiff had released his 1/10th undivided share in the concerned lands which comprised the suit CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 40 of 60 property for total consideration of Rs. 1.5 Crores in favour of the defendant who was already co-owner of 3/5th share.
22. I have carefully considered the pleadings and the evidence, and there are grave doubts as to the version of the plaintiff, and, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has been unable to prove his case that the release deed was got signed from him by fraud.
23. First and foremost, the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint in respect of the alleged collaboration agreement are rather vague. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the defendant had represented to him that a collaboration agreement would be executed between the parties for development of farm houses on the holdings of the plaintiff for which a total consideration of Rs. 15 Crores would be paid to the plaintiff out of which Rs. 1.5 Crores would be the advance. However, apart from the aforesaid conditions, the plaintiff is completely silent on the details of the alleged collaboration agreement. The plaintiff has failed to mention as to what were the particulars of the collaboration agreement. Generally, in the case of a collaboration agreement, there is collaboration between a builder and the owner of the property, and the builder constructs the property and also gets a share in the property which is constructed. The plaintiff is completely silent as to what was the share which would have gone to the defendant in the collaboration agreement or as to what was the consideration or benefit which the defendant was to receive under the collaboration agreement. In case the CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 41 of 60 parties had agreed to execute a collaboration agreement, even the defendant would have received a certain share in the constructed farm houses or some other form of benefit of some nature. However, the plaintiff is silent as to what was the consideration or benefit which the defendant was to receive under the alleged collaboration agreement. The plaint is silent as to what was the arrangement between the parties in respect of the collaboration agreement and as to how the defendant was to generate revenue or benefit from the collaboration agreement. The plaintiff is also completely silent in the plaint as to how many farm houses were to be constructed under the collaboration agreement. The plaint is also silent as to what was the time period agreed between the parties for construction of the farm houses. These are certain basic terms of any collaboration agreement and the plaintiff has failed to mention any of the basic terms of the alleged collaboration agreement between the parties except for only stating that he was to receive sum of Rs. 15 Crores under the collaboration agreement out of which Rs. 1.5 Crores was to be paid as advance. Thus, the allegation that there was a collaboration agreement is completely vague, without any mention of the exact nature of the alleged transaction between the parties. Just as the plaint is completely vague as to the nature of the alleged collaboration agreement, similarly, even the affidavit filed by the plaintiff by way of his examination in chief is only a reiteration of what has been stated in the plaint and, as such, the deposition of the plaintiff is also completely vague as to the nature of the CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 42 of 60 alleged collaboration agreement. The adverse inference which is drawn from the failure of the plaintiff to give any details and particulars of the terms of the collaboration agreement is that most likely there was no such agreement or understanding between the parties for execution of any collaboration agreement for building farm houses as alleged by the plaintiff.
24. There is another aspect of the matter which makes it highly unlikely that there could have been a collaboration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for construction of farm houses as alleged by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff in paragraph 1 of the plaint that out of the total lands as mentioned in the said paragraph, he had one-tenth share which amounted to 5 Bigha 11 Biswa and 10 Biswansi. Although the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that there had been an oral family partition between the family members and that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of his share in view of the oral family partition, however, the plaintiff has not given any details of the alleged oral family partition. The plaintiff has also not mentioned as to what particular portion of the land came to his share under the alleged oral family partition. The plaintiff has not given any measurements of the specific portion of the land which came to his share by way of the alleged oral family partition. The plaintiff has not even filed any site plan showing that any particular portion of the land had come to his share by way of the alleged oral family partition. Furthermore, in the evidence, it seems CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 43 of 60 that the plaintiff has abandoned his stand that there was any alleged partition. The plaintiff has deposed during his cross examination that the land in question was a joint holding which was not partitioned. During the cross examination of DW-1, the plaintiff had also given the suggestion to the said witness that the land had not been partitioned, which was agreed to by the witness. Similarly, during the cross examination of DW-2, the plaintiff had given the suggestion to the said witness that the Chacha/Tau of the plaintiff were co-sharers along with the plaintiff in the subject property, which was agreed to by the witness. Thus, in the evidence, the stand of the plaintiff is very clear that the lands had not been partitioned. When the position is that the lands were not partitioned and the plaintiff had undivided share in the lands, then, it is highly unlikely that there could have been negotiations for a collaboration agreement for developing farm houses only between the plaintiff and the defendant without involving the other co-sharers in the lands.
25. Since the lands were co-owned by various persons including the plaintiff, in case the defendant really wanted to develop farm houses on the lands and wished to collaborate with the owners of the lands for this purpose, in such case, the defendant would have negotiated with all the co-sharers of the lands and not specifically only with the plaintiff. However, as per the case of the plaintiff, the alleged collaboration agreement for developing farm houses was only between the plaintiff and the defendant.
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 44 of 60 The plaintiff does not mention that any other co-sharers were involved in the alleged collaboration agreement for developing farm houses. Ordinarily, if a property is co- owned by various persons, the developer would negotiate with all the co-owners and any collaboration agreement for the development of the property would be with all the co- owners. It is highly unlikely that when a co-owner has only an undivided share with no specific physically demarcated share, then the developer would enter into a collaboration agreement only with such co-owner and would not deal with the other co-owners. Thus, the version of the plaintiff of there being a collaboration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant under which the defendant was to make payment of Rs. 15 Crores and out of which, an amount of Rs. 1.5 Crores was already paid appears to be improbable.
26. Further, the version of the plaintiff that he was made to sign the release deed fraudulently as he could not understand English language does not also inspire confidence. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is an illiterate person and is not able to read, write or understand English language and that he was a non-matriculate, and that the defendant and its associates took undue advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff and got fraudulently executed their impugned release date. It is pertinent that the plaintiff has not disputed his signatures on the release date. A perusal of the impugned release deed Ex.PW-1/2 shows that the plaintiff has signed as "Ranbir" using the CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 45 of 60 Roman alphabets used in the English language. During the cross examination of DW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar, a suggestion was made to the witness by the plaintiff that the plaintiff had studied only up to 8th standard. The suggestion was however, denied by the witness DW-2 and the witness answered that the plaintiff had studied up to the tenth standard but that he did not know whether the plaintiff had passed the 10 standard or not. Be that as it may, this much is clear that as per the own case of the plaintiff he had studied at least up to the eighth standard. The witness DW-2 has deposed that the plaintiff used to study in the same school as the witness. He has further deposed that he had seen the plaintiff reading English during school days.
27. As already mentioned, the plaintiff does not dispute his signatures on the release deed. The signatures of the plaintiff on the release deed are in the Roman alphabets used in English language and the signature is as "Ranbir". This fact itself goes to show that the plaintiff was not altogether unfamiliar with the English language. A person who is able to sign using the Roman alphabets used in English language would ordinarily be able to at least read and understand some basic and simple English words even if such person may not be able to understand or speak complex words and sentences in English. In the present case, since the plaintiff is signing using Roman alphabets of the English language, in all probability the plaintiff would also be able to read and understand at least some basic and simple English words. The plaintiff has himself CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 46 of 60 stated in the plaint that the defendant had represented to him for execution of a "collaboration agreement" for developing "farm houses". This means that the plaintiff very well understands the meaning of the words "collaboration", "collaboration agreement" and "farm houses" in English language. Generally, a collaboration agreement is titled as a "Collaboration Agreement" or "Collaboration Deed" or "Agreement of Collaboration" or "Deed of Collaboration", and not as a "Release Deed". Further, a collaboration agreement for developing farm houses would certainly mention the words "collaboration" and "farm houses". However, a perusal of the release deed Ex.PW-1/2 shows that the words "collaboration" and "farm houses" are nowhere occurring in the document. Furthermore, the release deed Ex.PW-1/2 does not even mention anywhere the figure of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores), either in numeric or alphabetic form.
28. In case if the parties had actually agreed to execute only a collaboration agreement as alleged by the plaintiff, then the plaintiff would have at least made out from the document that the document was not titled as a "collaboration agreement" and that there were also no words "collaboration" or "farm houses" which were occurring in the entire document, crucially, that the document also nowhere mentioned the total consideration of Rs. 15 Crores, either in numbers or in alphabets, and in such case, the plaintiff would then have certainly raised CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 47 of 60 some doubt or suspicion with respect to the document. It is highly unlikely that in case there was actually a collaboration agreement to be executed, then the document of the release deed would not have aroused the suspicion of the plaintiff. This also makes it most likely that there was never any collaboration agreement between the parties as alleged by the plaintiff.
29. Another factor which very strongly goes against the plaintiff's version is that the release deed Ex.PW-1/2 is a registered document. Although, the registration of a document by itself would not be a proof of the valid execution of the document, however, it is definitely a factor which is to be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the document was validly executed. The plaintiff has not disputed that the document was registered at the office of the concerned sub-registrar. Although the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that a fraud had been perpetrated on the plaintiff by the defendant in connivance with its associates as well as officials of the sub-registrar authorities, there are no details given as to how the registration of the document was got done through fraud or as to what fraud was perpetrated by the officials of the sub- registrar's office. The plaintiff has not stated in the plaint that he did not visit the office of the sub- registrar. Thus, it is the own admitted position of the plaintiff that he had visited the office of the sub-registrar for the purposes of registration. The photograph of the plaintiff which was taken at the sub-registrar's office has CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 48 of 60 also been printed on a back side page of the release deed. Thus, the plaintiff very much went to the sub-registrar's office for the purposes of registration of the document.
30. As already mentioned, the plaintiff has studied at least up to the eighth standard and is not a thorough illiterate as has been sought to be claimed by him. The plaintiff is also signing using the Roman alphabets used in the English language, and as such would at least have some familiarity with the English language. The plaintiff has also not disputed having received sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores from the defendant. This sum is not a small sum and is quite substantial. It is also clear that the plaintiff had been negotiating with the defendant in respect of his land/property. All this only goes to show that the plaintiff is a man of understanding of the world and he would be aware of the seriousness of going to the registrar's office for the registration of a document in relation to his lands. It is not believable that the plaintiff would have gone to the registrar's office and would have carried on with the process of registration of the release deed without having an understanding as to what was the document that he was signing and getting registered.
31. Also, since the release deed is a registered document, it would be presumed that the registration was conducted by the authorities as per the due process. The onus to show that the registration was fraudulent was heavily on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has been unable to prove any fraud in the registration of the document. CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 49 of 60
32. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that in the month of December 2006 he was approached by Sh. Ishwar Singh, Sh. Rajesh Yadav and Sh. Raj Kumar, all residents of his village, along with the authorised representative/director of the defendant company for collaboration in respect of the holdings of the plaintiff with the defendant company. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the aforesaid persons had any special or close relationship with the plaintiff so that he would have blindly gone by whatever they had stated and would have blindly signed on any documents in relation to his lands and would have also got the same registered blindly. Even in case the parties had agreed for execution of a collaboration agreement as alleged by the plaintiff, even then, there is no reason why the plaintiff would blindly sign the document merely at the asking of the other side. Even if such a person is unable to read or understand English language, such a person would at least get the document read by some person whom he trusts so that he is sure as to what he was signing. The version of the plaintiff in the present case that he simply signed the document thinking that it was a collaboration agreement without even understanding as to what was written in the document is not believable and appears to be nothing but a cock and bull story.
33. There is another aspect which also makes the plaintiff's version to be improbable. Even if the plaintiff had signed the document without understanding and did not even understand the document at the time of registration, there CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 50 of 60 is absolutely no explanation as to why the plaintiff would not retain a copy of the document with himself. After all, as per the plaintiff's version, he had signed the document on the belief that it was a collaboration agreement for total consideration of Rs. 15 Crores. This was a huge amount and, ordinarily, no person would execute a document in relation to his immovable property for such a large consideration and still not keep a copy of the document with himself. Even assuming that the plaintiff did not understand the document when it was executed and registered, there is no reason why the plaintiff would not retain a copy of the document, especially when it is admitted by the plaintiff that he had received sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores and it is also the case of the plaintiff that he was forfeiting the sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores. This amount of Rs. 1.5 Crores is a substantial amount and in case the plaintiff was going to forfeit such a huge amount, the plaintiff would have kept a copy with himself which he would have got read and translated by somebody and in such case he would have found immediately that the document was not a collaboration agreement but a release deed. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff did not keep a copy for himself, there is no explanation as to why the plaintiff did not immediately apply for a certified copy from the registrar's office, especially when the plaintiff was going to forfeit a huge sum of Rs. 1.5 Crores under the document. It is unbelievable that the plaintiff would be forfeiting a huge amount of Rs. 1.5 Crore under a document being a collaboration agreement and still the plaintiff would not CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 51 of 60 have a copy of the document with himself. Hence, the plaintiff's version is inconsistent with the ordinary human behaviour and conduct and appears to be nothing but a fabricated story.
34. The plaintiff has put forward a story that he is an illiterate farmer and villager who had been defrauded by having been made to sign a document without being explained as to the contents of the document. The plaintiff's case is devoid of any material particulars of the alleged fraud and the circumstances of the case are such which do not support the plaintiff's version. Merely by claiming to be an illiterate farmer and villager, a party cannot seek cancellation of a registered document of transfer of immovable property, otherwise there would be no end to false litigation. Merely because a person is a villager or has not completed matriculation in education does not ipso facto mean that he would not understand the working of the world and monetary transactions relating to immovable property. It is the plaintiff's own case that he was negotiating with the defendant for the transaction in relation to his immovable property for valuable consideration. It is implausible that such a person as the plaintiff dealing with his immovable property for valuable consideration would blindly sign on documents in relation to his immovable property and even get the same registered also without understanding the contents thereof. In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jai CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 52 of 60 Bhagwan V. Rajesh LQ/DelHC/2008/1209; 2008 Indlaw Del 419, which was a suit for cancellation of registered sale deeds. In the said case also, the plaintiff had claimed that he was an illiterate villager and had signed the sale deeds without the contents of the same being explained to him. In these facts, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:
"8) It is settled law that when in respect of a transaction, written document is executed, any kind of oral evidence, contrary to the documents, is not admissible. The allegations of fraud if made by a party, must specify giving role of each person and all those involved in the fraud must be made a party.
Bare allegation that plaintiff had not received the full consideration or that the plaintiff signed the documents without rending the contents thereof is, not a ground for cancellation of the sale deed. If the plaintiff choses not to read the documents, he does so at its own peril. To say that the plaintiff is a poor villager is also absolutely wrong. A person who is selling his land for lacs of rupees and is receiving lacs of rupees in cash, cannot be a poor villager. Nowadays, in Delhi, villagers are not simpletons or fools enough to not take help of educated persons in understanding the documents being executed by them. In this case, the plaintiff had given his driving licence number to the Sub registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed and put his thump impression and signatures on the documents in CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 53 of 60 presence of the Sub Registrar and got himself photographed on computer maintained at the Sub Registrar's office for each sale deed. It cannot be believed that plaintiff would have executed two sale deeds Instead of one ignorantly or without receiving full consideration, only on an oral assurance that he would receive major part of consideration later on. All this is a cock and bull story and seems to have been invented to file the suit."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
35. The aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble High Court in Jai Bhagwan (supra) would squarely apply in the facts of the present case also.
36. Furthermore, it is the case of the plaintiff that the total consideration which the plaintiff was to receive under the alleged collaboration agreement was Rs. 15 Crores. This amount is not a small amount and is rather substantial. It is again not believable that the plaintiff would have gone ahead to sign such a collaboration agreement for a consideration of Rs. 15 Crores without even understanding the document that he was signing. This was a matter of some seriousness and it is unlikely that if it were actually the case that a collaboration agreement was agreed to be executed, then the plaintiff would have blindly signed the document without understanding the contents thereof. It is also pertinent that the document which was signed by the plaintiff i.e. the release date Ex.PW-1/2 does not mention CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 54 of 60 anywhere the value of Rs. 15 Crores, either in numbers or in alphabets. If the parties were actually getting into a deal of the collaboration agreement for total consideration of Rs. 15 Crores, the plaintiff would have at least questioned as to why this value of Rs. 15 Crores was not mentioned on the document.
37. Furthermore, apart from his own testimony, the plaintiff has not examined any other witness to corroborate the allegation of negotiation for a collaboration agreement to develop farm houses. As already mentioned, it is the own case of the plaintiff that the lands were not partitioned and that his relatives/uncles were co-owners. In case there had actually been any negotiations about a collaboration agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff would have at least shared the nature of the negotiations with his other relatives who were the co- sharers. However, the plaintiff has not given the evidence of any other witness who could corroborate the plaintiff's allegation of there being negotiations for a collaboration agreement. This also makes it highly unlikely that there was any negotiation for any alleged collaboration agreement.
38. Further, plaintiff has also been unable to show that the consideration of Rs. 1.5 Crores in respect of the suit property total admeasuring 3 Bighas, 6 Biswa and 18 Biswansi in 2007 was so unconscionable that such a transaction could not have happened. Although the plaintiff has deposed during his cross-examination that the CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 55 of 60 value of the suit property admeasuring approx. 3 Bighas 6 Biswa was Rs. 15 Crores approx. in 2007, however, there is no corroborating evidence in this regard which has been led by the plaintiff.
39. Both the defendant's witnesses have denied the suggestion that there was any transaction of any collaboration agreement for total sale consideration of Rs. 15 Crores as alleged by the plaintiff. Both witnesses have deposed that the transaction was only for transfer of the suit property for consideration of Rs. 1.5 Crores. Both defendant's witnesses have also deposed that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed the release deed Ex.PW-1/2 for consideration of Rs. 1.5 Crores and that the plaintiff was aware as to the nature of the document that he was executing. On a conspectus of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the testimony of the defendant's witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 is more believable than the testimony of the defendant. In all likelihood, the plaintiff was well aware of the nature of the document that he had signed, executed and got registered.
40. In the face of the aforesaid circumstances which make the plaintiff's version to be highly improbable, the mere fact that the plaintiff did not apply for mutation immediately after execution and registration of the release date but did so only after delay or the fact that the records of the Halqa Patwari show that the plaintiff was in cultivation would not tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff, and, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff has been unable to CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 56 of 60 show that the registered lease deed was got signed and executed from him by way of fraud is alleged.
41. The case-laws relied upon by the plaintiff with respect to cancellation and/or declaration of a document as null and void on account of fraud are clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the present case the plaintiff has been unable to show that the release deed was got executed by fraud or that the plaintiff did not understand the nature of the document that he was signing and executing.
42. In the result, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief of cancellation of the of the registered release deed dated 19.01.2007 as prayed in prayer clause (a) of the plaint. The Issue No.4 is answered accordingly against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
43. As a corollary, the plaintiff would also not be entitled to any relief of permanent injunction as prayed in prayer clause (b) of the plaint. The Issue No.5 is answered accordingly against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.2- Whether the suit is barred by Article 56 of schedule 1 of the Limitation Act? OPD
44. The argument of the plaintiff that the suit was within limitation is premised on the plaintiff's claim that he was unaware as to the nature of the document that he was CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 57 of 60 signing and that the release deed was got signed from him through fraud which he only subsequently discovered only after receiving the notice of mutation from the Tehsildar's office on 02.08.2013. However, in view of my finding that the plaintiff was always aware of the nature of the document which he was signing and executing, the period of limitation would run from the date of execution of the document itself, and, as such, the suit would clearly be barred by limitation.
45. The Issue No.2 on limitation is hence answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue No.1- Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD
46. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for cancellation of the release deed which was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant only. Hence, it was only the defendant which was a necessary party to the suit. The suit cannot be said to be bad for non-joinder of a necessary party.
47. The Issue No.2 is hence answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue No.3- Whether the release deed sought to be declared as null and void is invalid under Section 33 of Delhi Land Reforms Act and is not enforceable? OPP
48. In so far as the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ram Niwas v. Krishan Kumar (supra) and M.S. CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 58 of 60 Yadav v. Jagmal (supra) which have been cited by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are concerned, both these decisions were in respect of suits for specific performance of agreements to sell which were filed by the purchasers against the sellers. In these facts, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the suits of the purchasers on the preliminary issue that the specific performance of the agreements could not be directed since the agreements were unenforceable and void being in violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. In the present case, it is the seller who has filed the suit for cancellation of the registered release deed and the suit has been found to be barred by limitation and as such liable to be dismissed. Hence, the decisions in Ram Niwas v. Krishan Kumar (supra) and M.S. Yadav v. Jagmal (supra) are distinguishable and would not assist the case of the plaintiff in the present suit for cancellation of the registered release deed which is barred by limitation.
49. Since the present suit is barred by limitation, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the relief of cancellation of the registered release deed dated 19.01.2007 on any grounds including on the ground of violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
50. The Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
51. It is clarified that the question as to whether the plaintiff herein could, in an action brought by the defendant herein, take the objection or defence of the registered release deed CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 59 of 60 dated 19.01.2007 being a nullity and non-est due to alleged violation of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 does not really arise in the present suit, and the same is left open.
DECISION
52. In the result, the suit is dismissed.
53. Costs are awarded to the defendant against the plaintiff.
Pleader's fee is computed as Rs. 45,000/-.
54. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
55. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Satyabrata
Satyabrata Panda
Panda Date:
2024.12.23
17:58:00
+0530
(SATYABRATA PANDA)
District Judge-04
Judge Code- DL01057
PHC/New Delhi/23.12.2024
CS No.55515/16 Ranvir SinghVs. M/s Landmark Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Page No. 60 of 60