Delhi District Court
Anita Bhardwaj vs Ishwar Dayal Yadav on 26 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI M JAIN: DISTRICT JUDGE-05
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKACOURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ/398/18
CNR No. DLSW010089122018
IN THE MATTER OF :
ANITA BHARDWAJ
W/o SH. NARESH KUMAR BHARDWAJ,
R/o190, VILLAGE MULLAHERA,
P.O. MARUTI, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122015. ................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ISHWAR DAYAL YADAV,
LATE SH. KHEM CHAND YADAV,
R/O VILLAGE MULLAHERA,
P.O. MARUTI, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122015. .............DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 24.04.2018
Date of arguments : 30.10.2025
Date of judgment : 26.11.2025
Suit for declaration & permanent injunction
JUDGMENT
INDEX FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................3 ISSUES ................8 EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES ..............9 SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 1 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:06 +0530 SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ..............19 ISSUEWISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ..............22 CONCLUSION ..............30
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall adjudicate suit for declaration and permanent injunction qua the property i.e. the plot admeasuring 100 Sq. Yds. comprised in Khasra No.25/17 bearing Plot No.28A situated in the area of Village Salahpur, Bijwasan, colony known as Yawantika, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi-110061 (hereinafter referred as the "suit property ") filed by plaintiff Anita Bhardwaj against defendant Ishwar Dayal Yadav. with the following prayer:
" a) Pass a decree of Declaration thereby declaring the Cancellation Deed Of General Power Of Attorney Dt. 06/01/1998 executed by the defendant in respect of the suit property i.e. the plot admeasuring 100 Sq. Yds. comprised in Khasra No.25/17 bearing Plot No.28A situated in the area of Village Salahpur, Bijwasan, colony known as Yawantika, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi-110061, as null & void, inoperative, having no force of law and having no binding nature, in the interest of justice;
b) Pass a decree of Declaration thereby declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit property le the phot admeasuring 100 Sq.
Yds. comprised in Khasra No.25/17 bearing Plot No.28A situated in the area of Village Salahpur. Bijwasan, colony known as Yawantika, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi-110061 (more particularly shown in Red colour in the accompanying site plan), by virtue of General Power of Attorney and Receipt both dt. 2nd January, 1998, in the Interest of justice;
c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, his legal-heirs, successors, agents, attorneys, sympathizers, servants etc. from illegally & forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property or by any other way interfering in the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and his family members in the suit property i.e. the plot admeasuring 100 Sq. Yds. comprised in Khasra No.25/17 bearing Plot No.28A situated in the area of Village Salahpur, Bijwasan, colony known as Yawantika, Tehsil Mehrauli, SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 2 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:04 +0530 Delhi-110061 (more particularly shown in Red colour in the accompanying site plan), in the interest of justice;
d) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, his legal-heirs, successors, agents, attorneys, sympathizers, servants etc. from selling, mortgaging, letting out, creating charge, creating lien, disposing off, conveying and/or by any other way creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. the plot admeasuring 100 Sq. Yds. comprised in Khasra No.25/17 bearing Plot No.28A situated in the area of Village Salahpur, Bijwasan, colony known as Yawantika, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi-110061 (more particularly shown in Red colour in the accompanying site plan), in the interest of justice;
e) Pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Facts which are imperative for adjudication of the present matter are succinctly recapitulated: It is averred that, on 28.11.1988, the Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj (husband of plaintiff) and the defendant jointly purchased the land admeasuring 300 sq. yard out of Khasra No. 25/17, bearing plot no. 28, situated in the area of Village Sahlapur, Mehrauli, Delhi colony known as Yawantika, Delhi. It is further averred that, in the year 1995, the Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj and the defendant divided the said plot of 300 sq. yards in two equal shares and the plot which fell into the share of Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj was constructed by him, out of remaining plot of 150 sq. yards that fell into the share of the defendant, the defendant in first week of December 1997 offered to sell 50 sq. yards to Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj for a sale consideration of Rs. 60,000/- which Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj purchased on 15.12.1997 and paid Rs. 60,000/- and the defendant executed GPA and money receipt both dt. 15.12.1997 in respect of the said plot. It is further averred that, in the documents of sale-purchase, the plot under sale was SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 3 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:06 +0530 mentioned as plot no. 28A in order to differentiate it from the other plot which had already fell in the share of the plaintiff at the time of division of said joint plot of 300 sq. yards (jointly purchase by the plaintiff and defendant on 28.11.1988).
3. It is further averred that, since 15.12.1997 the Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj is in possession of said 50 sq. yard plot purchased from the defendant and by virtue of GPA, Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj is entitled to sell, mortgage, gift etc. and the said GPA is irrevocable. It is further averred that out of remaining plot of 100 sq yards out of the total plot of 150 sq. yards that fell in the share of the defendant in the end of December 1997, the defendant offered to sell the plaintiff the entire remaining plot admeasuring 100 sq yards for a sale consideration of Rs. 3 lacs which she agreed to purchase from him. It is further averred that, thereafter on 02.01.1998, the plaintiff paid Rs. 3 lacs in respect of remaining plot measuring 100 sq. yards and the defendant executed GPA and money receipt both dated 02.01.1998 in her favour thereby giving right to deal with the property in any manner she likes including right to sell the same. It is further averred that, in the documents of sale-purchase the plot under sale was mentioned as plot no. 28A in order to differentiate it from the other plot which had already fell in the share of the plaintiff at the time of division of said joint plot of 300 sq. yards (jointly purchased by the plaintiff and defendant on 28.11.1988). It is further averred that, since 02.01.1998 Smt. Anita Bhardwaj/plaintiff is in possession of the said plot. It is further averred that, the plaintiff is in possession of all the original documents of the suit property.
4. It is further averred that, in January 1998, Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj got constructed boundary wall and installed a gate in the plot SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 4 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:07 +0530 measuring 150 sq. yards purchased by him and his wife/plaintiff herein from the defendant. It is further averred that, on 14.12.2003, Sh. Ram Karan tried to dispossess the plaintiff and his wife from the said plot purchased by them from the defendant claiming that he had purchased the said plot from Sh. Bhim Singh who had purchased the same from the defendant and then the plaintiff informed that she and her husband are the owners and in physical possession of the suit property as the defendant has already sold them the said plot. It is further averred that, on 14.12.2003 after Sh. Ram Karan left the suit property, husband of the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked that why he executed the documents in favour of Sh. Bhim Singh upon which the defendant felt sorry and requested the plaintiff not to initiate any action against him. It is further averred that, on 19.12.2003 the defendant also informed that he has cancelled the documents in favour of Bhim Singh in respect of suit property and property of Plaintiff/Smt. Anita Bhardwaj.
5. It is further averred that, in January 2004, the defendant approached the plaintiff and his husband and handed over legal notice dated 07.01.2004 sent by Sh. Bhim Singh to the defendant through his advocate. In the said notice, Bhim Singh had required the defendant to refund Rs. 4 lacs as the defendant had already sold the said plot to the plaintiff and her husband. It is further averred that, defendant felt sorry and assured that he shall not repeat such mistake. It is further averred that on 16.06.2004, the plaintiff and her husband were doing some repair work in the suit property and one Smt. Santosh alongwith one another woman stopped them and they also called some other people and a quarrel took place and the police was called upon but no action was taken by the police and thereafter a complaint case was filed. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that Sh. Bhim Singh and Ram SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 5 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:03 +0530 Karan had filed a complaint case titled as "Ramkaran & Anr vs. Ishwar Dayal & Ors", PS Kapashera.
6. It is further averred that, on 06.11.2017, the defendant reached the suit property and started digging the suit property and when the tenants of the plaintiff restrained him from doing so, he claimed that he had talked to husband of the plaintiff and he has been authorized by the husband of the plaintiff to do so. It is further averred that, the police was informed and they called the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant in the police station. It is further averred that, on 08.11.2017, husband of the plaintiff produced the documents to the police for inspection and the defendant admitted the execution of documents in favour of the plaintiff and her husband but claimed that he had revoked those documents vide cancellation deed. It is further averred that, when defendant inquired about the pre or post notice of said cancellation deed to the plaintiff or her husband or return of sale consideration amount, the defendant kept mum. It is further averred that, on 19.09.2013, the defendant was discharged in the case FIR No. 15/2005 which was filed on the complaint of Ram Karan and Bhim Singh. It is further averred that, on 19.11.2017 again the defendant threatened the husband of the plaintiff not to visit the suit property or he would kill his family members. It is further averred that, on 24.03.2018, when the husband of the plaintiff and her son were cleaning the drain/Nali, the defendant reached the suit property and started quarreling with them. It is further averred that, on 27.03.2018 the defendant and his accomplish threatened the tenant of the plaintiff of dire consequences. It is further averred that, the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property but the acts of the defendant created a cloud on the title of the plaintiff and his wife and the documents i.e. GPA and the money receipt dated 15.12.1997 executed by defendant in favour of the SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 6 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:03 +0530 plaintiff in respect of the suit property being for consideration were irrevocable and were admitted by the defendant and therefore the defendant has no right to revoke the same. It is further averred that the revocation of documents by the defendant vide cancellation Deed of General Power of Attorney dated 06.01.1998 bearing Notary Stamp dt. 23.02.1998 is illegal and arbitrary as the defendant had not sent pre-notice of revocation of those documents to the plaintiff nor had he returned / repaid the sale consideration amount in respect of sale-purchase of suit property by the plaintiff from the defendant. The said Cancellation Deed dt. 06/01/1998 is false document created to defraud and cheat the plaintiff, his husbabd and other persons and that the notary stamp affixed on the said cancellation deed is false, forged and fabricated stamp. The market value of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction is assessed @Rs. 40,00,000/-.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT
7. The summons of the suit were issued to the defendant and after appearance before the court through his counsel, WS has been filed on behalf of the defendant stating therein that the plaintiff has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands and the plaintiff suppressed real facts and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as plaintiff fails to disclose any cause of action against defendant and also for the reason that the plaintiff has not affixed requisite court fee upon the plaint. It is further stated that, as per the Section 3 of Limitation Act, the suit is barred by limitation as the plaintiff was in the knowledge from the time of revocation of the documents and again in year 2003 when the FIR No. 15/2004 was lodged by Sh. Ramkaran in PS Kapashera and the plaintiff was the accused in the said FIR, hence the plaint is liable to be dismissed.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 7 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:03 +0530
8. It is further stated that, the plaintiff is not the owner and never been in possession nor occupant of the suit land. It is further stated that, the defendant is in actual possession of said plot since beginning and the said plot was given to the vegetable vendors from last 7-8 years. It is further stated that, GPA and receipt was executed by the defendant in good faith as plaintiff was his good friend and due to non-payment, the said GPA was cancelled by the defendant in the presence of plaintiff and his wife and they were well aware from the date of cancellation hence, no separate notice or intimation was required. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff and her husband never make the payment hence, the GPA was cancelled and the same were informed to the plaintiff as well as her husband.
9. It is further submitted that, the Plaintiff herself admitted that the documents which were executed in her favour by the defendant were revoked/cancelled at that time hence the suit is bar by limitation. It is further submitted that, the suit of the plaintiff is without cause of action as the plaintiff was well aware about the revocation of the documents from the date of revocation and the copy of the same was given to the plaintiff as well as her husband at the time of revocation and also complete documents were given during the trial of case FIR No. 15/2004. Defendant has denied all the contents of the plaint in his parawise reply.
10. Plaintiff has not filed replication to the written statement of defendant.
ISSUES
11. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dt. 09.09.2019. SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 8 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:07 +0530
i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
iv) Relief.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
12. To prove his case, Plaintiff/Anita Bhardwaj W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar examined herself as PW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex. PW1/A and also relied upon the following documents:
Sl. No. Particulars of Documents Exhibits/Mark
1. Copy of GPA, Receipt, Agreement to sell & Ex. PW1/1 (Colly) Affidavit, all dated 28.11.1988. (OSR)
2. Original GPA & receipt, dated 02.01.1998 Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff
3. Original site plan 02.01.1998 Ex. PW1/3
4. Photocopy of Khatoni situated in area of Mark A Village Sahlapur, Mehrauli, for the year 1986-87
5. Photocopy of Cancellation Deed Mark-B
6. Photocopy of legal notice dated 07.01.2004 Mark-C
7. Photocopy of orders dated 04.09.2017 Mark-D
8. Photocopy of statement of Sh. Ishwar Dayal Mark E (colly.) dt. 11.04.2004 in complaint case titled as 'Ram Karan & Anr. vs. Ishwar Dayal & Anr.', SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 9 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:05 +0530
13. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant at which is reproduced here-in-below:
"My qualification is BA. B.ed and I have been giving tuitions since 1992. I have not filed any income tax return till date. I can read and write English and Hindi language. The property which was purchased by my husband and the defendant was told by my in laws after my marriage. I have seen the original paper of the suit property. Those papers were prepared in my presence. I do not know where the property papers of the property which was purchased by my husband and defendant, were prepared. I had seen the original papers of the said property. The same were shown by my husband.
I know the defendant as he is from the same village. I do not know the education qualification of the defendant. My husband and the defendant never did any business jointly. I had signed some documents, however, I did not read my affidavit of evidence. I was also not read over the contents of said affidavit. I can not tell whether my evidence by way of affidavit is correct or not. I had signed the said affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, however, I am not aware of its contents. I do not remember, how many affidavit I signed. Ex. PW-1/DX1 also bears my signatures. Court Observation: On query, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the said affidavit in original was sent to counsel for defendant by mistake and copy thereof was filed in the court, however, Ld. Counsel did not return the same. In reply, Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that despite intimation, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff did not collect the same. I did not entered into any agreement to sell with the defendant as I did not sell any property. I had entered into agreement to purchase with defendant. I do not remember if the same has been placed on record. It is wrong to suggest that I did not enter into any agreement to purchase with defendant and therefore the same was not placed on record. I came to know about the cancellation of GPA by defendant in the year 2017. Karan Singh did not show any document to me, when he came to take the possession of the suit property. I was at my home at that time. I did not ask for any paper from Karan Singh as the property is mine. I do not know whether I had made a complaint against Ram Karan. The GPA executed by the defendant in my favour was prepared at Tis Hazari Courts. It is correct that I had gone to SHILPI some officer to click my photograph. I had visited Registrar M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 10 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:06 +0530 office at the time of execution of GPA. It is wrong to suggest that I did not visit the Registrar office or that I have no registered documents in my favour.
My husband was working with IDPL when my husband and defendant purchased the suit property. The defendant never did work with IDPL. The defendant might have been worked with Maruti at that time. Perhaps, my husband's salary was Rs. 4500/- at that time. I have signed three to four papers which includes, GPA, receipt and one another, which I do not know. The suit property is bearing no.28A.
At this stage, witness is confronted with Ex. PW-1/3, wherein at point A, plot number is mention as 29. It is wrong to suggest that I do not know the correct number of my suit property. It is wrong to suggest that I obtained the signature of defendant on the GPA and receipt to obtain the electricity and water connection in my name. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant had never sold his portion to me and my husband at any point of time. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant is still the owner of his portion of plot. It is wrong to suggest that 1 am deposing falsely."
(emphasis is mine)
14. Perusal of record reveals that, vide order dt. 28.07.2023, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff requested that he wishes to adopt the evidence by way of affidavit of PW Naresh Kumar (husband of plaintiff herein) which was filed in the suit bearing no. CS DJ ADJ 397/2018 and defendant also submitted that, he wishes to adopt the cross-examination of the said witness as conducted in the said suit. Accordingly, it was ordered that the testimony of PW Naresh Kumar as led in suit bearing no. CS DJ ADJ 397/2018, shall be read in the present case as well. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff filed the certified copy of the complete examination and cross-examination of PW Naresh Kumar as conducted in suit bearing no. CS DJ ADJ 397/2018 in the present suit which was taken on record. For clarification, examination and cross- SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 11 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:07 +0530 examination of PW1 as conducted in suit bearing no. CS DJ ADJ 397/2018 is reproduced here-in-below:
"Plaintiff/Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh. PS Sharma examined himself as PW1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence which is Ex. PW1/A and also relied upon the following documents:
Sl. Particulars of Documents Exhibits/Mark
No.
1. Copy of GPA, Receipt, Agreement Ex. PW1/1
to sell & Affidavit, all dated (Colly) (OSR)
28.11.1988.
2. Original GPA & Money receipt, Ex. PW1/2
dated 02.01.1998 (Colly)
3. Original Site plan Ex. PW1/3
4. Certified copy of the statement of Ex. PW1/4
Sh. Ishwar Dayal dated
11.04.2004 in complaint case titled
as 'Ram Karan & Anr. vs. Ishwar
Dayal & Anr'.
5. Photocopy of Khatoni situated in Mark-A
area of Village Sahlapur,
Mehrauli, for the year 1986-87
6. Photocopy of Cancellation Deed Mark-B
7. Photocopy of legal notice dated Mark-C
07.01.2004
8. Photocopy of orders dated Mark-D
04.09.2017
XXXXX of PW1 Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh. P S Sharma "My name is Naresh Kumar. I live in Village Molahera. I am 58 years old. The suit plot was purchased by me and Ishwar SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 12 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:05 +0530 Dayal on 28.11.1988. It is correct that I have stated in my affidavit in evidence at para 2 that the suit plot was purchased by me, my wife and Ishwar Dayal. The suit plot was purchased in equal measure of 150 sq. yds by me and Ishwar Dayal. Vol. The mention of my wife in para 2 seems to be a typing error. It is correct that partition of the plot was effected in 1995. Again said, it was done in the years 1994-95. I do not remember the exact date of the said partition. I received the South portion bearing no. 28 which was adjoining the plot of another person bearing no.27. Ishwar Dayal received the North portion bearing no. 28A adjoining the plot of a third person bearing no. 29. I raised construction of six rooms on the ground floor of the plot no. 28 measuring 150 sq yds in 1994 and subsequently raised four rooms on the first floor of the said plot in the year 1995. Bills pertaining to the said construction have not been filed before the court. I purchased 50 sq. yds from Ishwar Dayal i.e. 50 sq yds from his portion in plot no. 28 A on 15.12.1997 in my name. My wife purchased 100 sq. yds from Ishwar Dayal i.e. 100 sq yds from his portion in plot no. 28 A on 02.01.1998. It is wrong to suggest that neither I nor my wife purchased the above stated portions from Ishwar Dayal.
XXXXX At the time of purchasing of the suit plot, the original documents of the said plot were with the defendant and thereafter, the said documents alongwith the chain of documents were handed over to me on 03.01.1998. I have constructed my share in two trenches i.e. firstly, the ground floor was constructed in the year 1994 and remaining construction was carried out in 1995. I might have the bills of the said construction.
I studied upto 12th standard. I do not know the qualification of the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that I and the defendant had worked together as property dealers and the documentation work of the deals were done by me being qualified/educated and not by the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that I used to obtain the signatures of the defendant on blank papers in order to execute the documents/further documentation work. It is wrong to suggest that I have misused the documents obtained from the defendant. The documents pertaining to the suit property were executed by SHILPI the defendant in my favour at Sub-Registrar office, M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 13 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:05 +0530 Kapashera. We have not got the said documents registered with the Sub-Registrar as the said documents were notarized. However, I do not remember the name of the Notary Public. Those documents were witnessed by one Mr. Ram Bhawan Yadav and Mr. Rajender Kumar Sharma. The stamp papers were purchased by the defendant from Sub-Registrar Office, Kapashera but I paid the amount of said stamp papers. At that time, I also accompanied the defendant. The documents were typed at Sub-Registrar office, Kapashera itself. I do not remember the exact amount paid to the typist but in totality I have paid Rs. 120/-. I do not remember as to who has signed in the register of the Stamp vendor. At the time of purchasing the suit property, I was working as Operator, Gr-III, in IDPL Plant at Gurugram on a monthly salary of Rs. 4,500/-. I was not the income tax assessee at that time.
On 14.12.2003, I came to know that the defendant had sold the suit property. However, I do not know the name of the purchaser.
Ques: I put to you that the person namely Mr. Ram Karan showed you any document executed in his favour by the defendant qua the suit property ?
Ans: He has not showed any document to me.
On 14.12.2003, at about 9.00 am, the said Ram Karan came from the back side and tried to trespass into the suit property. This fact was told to me by my tenant. I have made a police complaint against Ram Karan in this regard. I have not filed any suit before any court of law against the said Ram Karan and defendant or against any other person in this regard. It is wrong to suggest that no such suit was filed as I have not purchased the suit property from the defendant. At the time of execution of documents in my favour by the defendant qua the suit property, my wife was not present with me. In 2017, I came to know about the cancellation of documents by the defendant earlier executed by him in my favour in respect of the suit property. None had showed me the said cancellation documents. In 2017, the defendant himself came to the suit property and told me about the cancellation of the documents by the court. (Voltr). He came with a box of 10x20 cm.
Presently, the suit property is vacant but I have constructed foundation. It is a vacant plot and no vegetable vendors are SHILPI there in the said plot.
M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 14 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:07 +0530 I know the defendant since my childhood. It is wrong to suggest that I have given the said plot to the vegetable vendors and collecting the money/rent from them. It is also wrong to suggest that still the plot is in my possession. It is wrong to suggest that I never executed the documents in favour of the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that I was discharged from the criminal case because I stated that I have nothing to do as the suit property belongs to me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(emphasis is mine)
15. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed and matter was fixed for DE.
16. In his defence, defendant has examined two witnesses. DW-1 Sh. Ishwar Dayal Yadav S/o Late Sh. Khem Chand Yadav has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. DW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff at length and discharged. Same is reproduced here-in- below:
XXXXXX of DW-1 Sh. Ishwar Dayal Yadav, S/o Late Sh. Khem Chand Yadav "I am matric pass. I had been servicing in Maruti Udyog as a helper upto 2000. The number of the suit property is plot no. 28, Khasra no. 25/17, Salhapur, Bijwasan, Delhi admeasuring 300 sq. yards. The suit property was jointly purchased by me and Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj, however, I do not know the date of purchase. I have executed GPA and Receipt in favour of the plaintiff in respect of my share in the said property (vol. The said GPA was executed for obtaining the electricity connection and no payment was received by me from the plaintiff and said GPA was also not registered). The signatures appearing on GPA and Receipt both dt. 15.12.1997 (Ex.PW1/2) were appended by me. The same are appearing at Mark A and B on said documents. I do not remember if I have filed any court case challenging the said GPA and receipt (vol. I have SHILPI cancelled the said GPA and receipt). I have cancelled those M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 15 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:04 +0530 documents by executing separate notary document which was not registered. The said document does not require the signatures of the plaintiff. I myself know that there is no requirement of such signatures of the plaintiff. I have the knowledge of the documents. I am not a document writer. I am working in Maruti Udyog Ltd. My duty in the Maruti Udyog Ltd. was preparation of documents of all kind like the orders of the company etc. I had not sent any notice to the plaintiff prior to the cacellation of the above said GPA and receipt executed by me in favour of the plaintiff. After the execution of the cancellation of documents, I had informed the plaintiff about the cancellation of documents (vol. I had also provided the copy of the documents of cancellation to plaintiff within 2- 3 days).
Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj used to work in IDPL, however, I do not know the period upto which he had worked with said company.
After the execution of the documents of cancellation of the documents executed in favour of the plaintiff, I had sold the suit property to Sh. Bhim Singh around the year 2000. It was sold in the same manner by executing GPA and money receipt. Besides those documents, a Will was also executed in favour of said Sh. Bhim Singh. In the same manner as I had cancelled the documents of the plaintiff, I had cancelled the documents executed in favour of Sh. Bhim Singh.
It is correct that Sh. Bhim Singh had also executed the documents in favour of one Sh. Ram Karan w.r.t. the suit property. The said Sh. Bhim Singh and Ram Karan had got registered an FIR against me. Again said, the FIR was got registered by Sh. Ram Karan and his family against me and not by Sh. Bhim Singh. I had not given any statement to the IO of said case. (vol. I had only given statement before the court). I had secured anticipatory bail and was not arrested in said case. I was produced before the court by the police in the said FIR. I do not remember if the police has ever taken any statement from me in said FIR. The defence raised by me in said FIR case in the court was that though I had executed the documents in favour of the plaintiff but, since the same were without any consideration and unregistered and I had already cancelled the same, by executing documents in favour of Bhim Singh, I had not committed any offence. Sh. Naresh Kumar SHILPI Bhardwaj was discharged by the Hon'ble Court. (vol. The said M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 16 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:05 +0530 discharge was before me). It is wrong to suggest that the trial court had convicted and punished me in said FIR. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that I was not convicted and punished by trial court in said FIR. It is correct that I had preferred an appeal in the said case.
It is wrong to suggest that the tenants of the plaintiff are residing in the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff had time and again been trying to raise boundary wall in the suit property. It is correct that the plaintiff had been trying to 'ched-chad' the suit property in different manner and I had been lodging complaints before the police against him. I have not brought any such complaint today (vol. I always made oral complaints on 100 number). It is wrong to suggest that the possession of the suit property has always been with the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff has been using the suit property since the date of execution of the documents by me in his favour. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely that I have lodged police complaints against the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that I am not having any right, title or interest in the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that I have received the sale consideration amount of the suit property from the plaintiff and had conferred all my rights, title and interests in the suit property in favour of plaintiff by virtue of the documents i.e. GPA and receipt in respect of the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that I have stealthy and fraudulently cancelled the said GPA and receipt executed by me in favour of plantiff w.r.t. the suit property for my unjust enrichment and for causing wrongful losses to the plaintiff. It is wrong to suggest that the cancellation deed is not binding on the plaintiff.
I do not have the originals of the cancellation deed of documents executed by me in favour of the plaintiff (vol. I had handed over the said documents to Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj). It is wrong to suggest that I had handed over the said cancellation deed to Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj. No documents regarding handing over of said cancellation deed to Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj was got executed by me. It is wrong to suggest that I am in possession, power and control of said cancellation deed of document in favour of the plaintiff and willfully and dishonestly not filing the same in this case. SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 17 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:06 +0530 I am in possession, power and control of the cancellation deed of documents executed by me in favour of Sh. Bhim Singh. I had not brought the said cancellation deed. I do not remember if I had informed Sh. Bhim Singh that earlier I had executed the documents w.r.t. the suit property in favour of plaintiff and had got the same cancelled. I had shown the copy of the said cancellation deed of documents executed in favour of plaintiff to said Sh. Bhim Singh. I am still in possession of the copy of the said cancellation deed of documents executed in favour of plaintiff. I do not remember if I had submitted the copy of the said cancellation deeds in the FIR case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. "
(emphasis is mine)
17. DW2 Sh. Pratap Singh S/o Late Sh. Shish Ram has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A. DW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and discharged. Same is reproduced here-in-below:
XXXXXX of DW2 Sh. Partap Singh, S/o Late Sh. Shish Ram "I am 10th Pass. I can read, write and understand English language little bit. I have gone through the content of Ex. DW2/A. The defendant Sh. Ishwar Dayal is my maternal uncle/mama. I have not received any notice in the present case. The signatures appearing at Point A and B in my affidavit Ex. DW2/A have been appended by me. Sh. Naresh Kumar has executed the said affidavit many years ago. I have not signed any oath register while signing Ex DW2/A. Sh. Ishwar Dayal had not executed any document in respect of the suit property in favour of the Smt. Anita Bhardwaj W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Ishwar Dayal had not executed any document in respect of suit property in favour of Sh. Anita Bhardwaj.
I do not know if Ishwar Dayal had executed any document in respect of suit property in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Ishwar Dayal had not executed any document in respect of suit property in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj. I admit my signature on documents GPA dated 02.01.1998 executed by Sh. Ishwar Dayal SHILPI in favour of Smt. Anita Bhardwaj which is exhibit as DW2/P1 M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 18 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:06 +0530 wherein my signatures appears at point B. and DW2/P2 wherein my signatures appears at point C. Vol. Those signatures were appended many years ago. Only one document was got executed by Sh. Ishwar Dayal in favour of Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj and Anita Bhardwaj. Vol. The said document was for electricity and watter connection only. I have not read over the contents of said document. I had signed the said document on the asking of Sh. Naresh Kumar. My maternal uncle/mama Sh. Ishwar Dayal had asked me to be witness in said document. It is correct that except the said document no other document was executed between Sh. Ishwar Dayal and Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj and Anita Bhardwaj.
I do not know as to when Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj and Smt. Anita Bhardwaj had possessed the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(emphasis is mine)
18. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter was proceeded further for final arguments.
19. Arguments heard. Record perused.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
20. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that, defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and it is the plaintiff who is the owner and in actual and physical possession of the suit property. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff is in possession of complete chain of documents of the suit property. He further submitted that the cause of action to file the suit arose in favour of plaintiff in the year 2017 when the defendant claimed that he had revoked the GPA in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property vide cancellation deed of GPA dated 06.01.1998. He further argued that the statement of the defendant was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in the case FIR No. 15/2005 and in the said statement the defendant has admitted the plaintiff to SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 19 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:04 +0530 be the owner of the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff had no occasion to seek the cancellation of the document when the defendant was acknowledging the plaintiff as an owner of the suit property. It is further submitted that, the cancellation deed dt. 06.01.1998 is false document created to defraud and cheat the plaintiff, his wife and other persons.
21. Per contra, Ld. counsel for defendant has vehemently argued that the present suit is without cause of action and barred by limitation. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff has concealed the material fact that an FIR was registered against him in the year 2004 and that time he had come to the knowledge that the GPA executed in his favour by the defendant has been cancelled in the year 1998 itself. He further submitted that, the plaintiff could have sought the declaration regarding cancellation of cancellation deed of the GPA within three years from the date of knowledge which he gained in the year 2004 and hence the suit is barred by limitation which has been filed in the year 2018. It is further submitted that, the documents executed by the defendant was cancelled in the presence of plaintiff and the copy of same was given to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that, the consideration amount was not paid by the plaintiff and the receipt was signed on good faith as the plaintiff was the good friend of the defendant. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff is not the owner and has never been in possession of the suit property.
22. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that, the suit is well within limitation and Ld. Predecessor of this court vide his detailed order has also dismissed the application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC moved on behalf of defendant in this regard, so there is no need for raising the same issue again in arguments. It is further submitted that, the documents executed by the SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 20 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:05 +0530 defendant in favour of plaintiff i.e. General Power of Attorney and money receipt both dt. 15.12.1997 being for consideration were irrevocable and were admitted by defendant and plaintiff to be irrevocable therefore, defendant had no right to revoke the same. Lastly, it is submitted that, in the light of above discussion, plaintiff has proved that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property and it is the plaintiff who is the owner in actual and physical possession of the suit property hence, in the interest of justice, reliefs as sought by plaintiff in the present suit may be granted in his favour.
23. Perusal of the record reveals that, defendant has moved an application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the plea that same is barred by limitation. This plea is primarily based on the ground that in an FIR No. 15/2005 which was filed by Bhim Singh, the plaintiff had come to know that the GPA dated 02.01.1998 was cancelled by the defendant vide cancellation deed of GPA dated 06.01.1998 and therefore the plaintiff was aware since the year 2004 that the GPA executed in his favour by the defendant in respect of the suit property had been cancelled vide cancellation deed dated 06.01.1998. However, Ld. Predecessor of this court has dismissed the application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC in both matters vide order dt. 06.06.2019 with the following observation:
"11. The aforesaid averments made in the plaint do not prima facie show that the suit is barred by limitation because as per the plaintiff the defendant had claimed for the first time on 08.11.2017 that he had revoked the GPA vide cancellation deed dated 06.1.1998. Ld counsel for plaintiff has drawn my attention to the statement of the defendant recorded by the police on 11.09.2004 in case FIR No. 15/2005 and in the said statement, the defendant had admitted that he had sold the plot in question to the plaintiff. Therefore, prima facie, I find substance in the argument of counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has admitted the SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 21 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:06 +0530 plaintiff to be owner of the suit property in the year 2004, then there was no occasion for the plaintiff to seek the declaration of the cancellation deed dated 06.01.1998. Furthermore, the question of limitation is a disputed question of fact and it will require evidence as to whether the plaintiff was in the knowledge of the cancellation deed dated 06.01.1998 in the year 2004 and cause of action had accrued to seek the decree of declaration that cancellation deed dated 06.01.1998 is null and void and in this regard necessary issue shall be framed which will be decided after trial. At this stage, in my considered opinion, it does not appear that the plaint warrants outright rejection on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Hence, the application is dismissed."
ISSUEWISE ANALYSIS & FINDING:
Issue No. (i): Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
24. Onus of this issue is upon defendant, although the defendant heavily relied on the events of 2003-2004 and FIR No. 15/2005 but, no material placed on record to show that, he had informed plaintiff about cancellation of said GPA. The plaintiff therefore had no reason to believe that the defendant was treating the GPA as cancelled.
25. The defendant first asserted the cancellation against the plaintiff only in November 2017. Thus, the cause of action for challenging the cancellation deed arose in November 2017. The suit filed on 24.04.2018 is within the period of three years prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act1.
26. Hence, issue No. (i) is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. Three years. When the 1 facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded SHILPI first become known to him.
M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 22 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:03 +0530 Issue Nos. (ii) & (iii) - Substantive reliefs
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
27. Both issues are interlinked hence taken simultaneously.
28. In present suit, plaintiff is seeking twin declarations i.e.
a). Declaration thereby declaring the Cancellation Deed Of General Power Of Attorney Dt. 06/01/1998 executed by the defendant in respect of the suit property i.e. the plot admeasuring 100 Sq. Yds. comprised in Khasra No.25/17 bearing Plot No.28A situated in the area of Village Salahpur, Bijwasan, colony known as Yawantika, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi-110061, as null & void, inoperative, having no force of law and having no binding nature, in the interest of justice;
b) Declaration thereby declaring the plaintiff as owner of the suit property le the phot admeasuring 100 Sq. Yds. comprised in Khasra No.25/17 bearing Plot No.28A situated in the area of Village Salahpur. Bijwasan, colony known as Yawantika, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi-110061 (more particularly shown in Red colour in the accompanying site plan), by virtue of General Power of Attorney and Receipt both dt. 02 nd Jan 1998, in the interest of justice.
29. Since, plaintiff is relying upon notarized GPA and receipt as title documents, it is imperative to discuss law on transfer of the suit property by way of GPA.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 23 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:07 +0530
30. In Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2012 SCC 656) Hon'ble supreme Court of India specifically hold that, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank2 , that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized 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 recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
31. Thus, judgment in Suraj Lamp (supra) reaffirms an important legal position i.e. It "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised and said transfer can be made only a registered instrument 3 and indispensability of registering a sale deed during transfer. In fact in Shakeel Ahmed vs Syed Akhlaq Hussain4, Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that:
'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 2 94 (2001) DLT 841.3
Section 54, Transfer of Property Act.
SHILPI 4 MANU/SC/1257/2023 M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 24 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:03 +0530 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.
XXXXXXXX
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.'
32. In Shakeel (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically hold that, the ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments.
33. Now, important question is whether GPA dt. 15.12.1997 was coupled with interest or not? If affirmative, whether it can be cancelled unilaterally?
34. At this juncture, it is imperative to reproduced GPA dt. 02.01.1998 and receipt executed between the parties:
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 25 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:04 +0530 GPA SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 26 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:04 +0530 'RECEIPT' SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 27 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:04 +0530
35. Thus, exact operative portion of receipt reads: "Received Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) from Naresh Kumar in full and final settlement of 100 sq. yards plot No. 28A..." It does not contain the words "sale", "transfer", "in lieu of the plot", "bayana", "agreement to sell", or any synonym. Further, It is on plain paper, not even on stamp paper. No witness examined.
36. Upon careful examination of both following conclusion can be drawn:
(i) The receipt uses only the word "full and final settlement". It does not contain the words "sale", "transfer", "full and final payment for the plot", or any expression that can be construed as consideration for transfer of immovable property.
(ii) The receipt doesn't refer GPA as part and parcel, and the GPA does not mention any consideration. The two documents are legally independent and cannot be read together to create an irrevocable power coupled with interest.
(iii) Consequently, Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 18725 has no application. The GPA remained an ordinary revocable power of attorney. The defendant was legally entitled to revoke it unilaterally.
The cancellation deed dated 06.01.1998 can't be declared as invalid.
(iv) No title or ownership ever passed to the plaintiff in 1997. No declaration of ownership can be granted as doing so would be directly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp.
5202. Termination of agency, where agent has an interest in subject-matter.--
Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of SHILPI such interest.
M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 28 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:05 +0530
37. No doubt, certain discrepancies also noticed in cross examination of DW1 but, it is settled that, mere weak defence does not entitle plaintiff to claim any relief as plaintiff has to stand on his own leg. Any admission qua sale and receipt of consideration in 2004 can only helps only on limitation, not on title or possession. Civil proceedings are circumvented by its pleading, limitation and relief claimed. The plaintiff himself admits in cross-examination that the plot is vacant even today. Even otherwise, no possession letter, electricity bill, water connection, house-tax receipt, rent agreement, photograph, independent witness, municipal record or any other document has been filed to prove possession at any point of time. Mere police complaints and quarrels do not constitute proof of settled, continuous and exclusive possession. Thus, in considered opinion of this court, plaintiff could not prove Possession even on balance of probabilities.
38. Accordingly, even the limited relief of permanent injunction is not available because possession is not proved. In any case, part- performance under Section 53A TPA6 requires a written contract/ agreement to sell, which is wholly absent here.
39. Issues (ii) and (iii) are decided against the plaintiff.
653A. Part performance.-- Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has. in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that 2***, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no SHILPI notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof. M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 29 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:07 +0530 Relief (CONCLUSION)
40. The plaintiff's entire case is founded on documents that, under the law, create no right, title or interest in immovable property. Once this Court holds that the GPA + receipt did not create any right, title or interest in the suit property in view of the law laid down in Suraj Lamp, there remains no basis to declare the subsequent cancellation deed as null and void or to grant injunction. A mere declaration in the GPA that it is "irrevocable" does not make it so when no interest is created or transferred by the document itself in a manner recognised by law. Doing so would amount to indirectly recognizing the GPA as a document of title, which is impermissible.
41. In the light of above discussion, present suit stands dismissed.
42. Parties shall bear their own cost.
43. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
44. File be consigned to Records after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 26.11.2025 (SHILPI M JAIN) District Judge-05, South West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: CS DJ ADJ No. 398/2018 Anita Bhardwaj vs. Ishwar Dayal Yadav No. 30 of 30 2025.11.26 17:10:03 +0530