Delhi District Court
Kavita Singh vs Mrs Meenakshi Verm Alias Meena on 8 October, 2024
Suit No. 17666/16 Page 1 of 27
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR
DISTRICT JUDGE-03:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 17666/2016
CNR No. DLSW01-007922-2016
In the matter of :
Kavita Singh
W/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh
R/o H. No. 844, Sector 5,
Gurugram, Haryana
....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena
W/o Late Sh. Arun Kumar Verma
R/o 246-A, Nawada Bazar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-43
2. Ms. Twinkle Verma
D/o Late Sh. Arun Kumar Verma
R/o 246-A, Nawada Bazar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-43
.....Defendants
Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena
Suit No. 17666/16 Page 2 of 27
Date of institution of the suit : 19.10.2016
Final Arguments Heard on : 03.10.2024
Date of Judgment : 08.10.2024
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DAMAGES/MESNE PROFITS AND
PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT :
1. Present suit has been filed seeking (a) a decree of possession of the suit premises i.e. shop no. 354, area measuring 23 sq. yards, part of khasra no. 52, (hereinafter referred to as the " suit property") situated in old Lal Dora within mmpl limits of Najafgarh, New Delhi in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants; (b) a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction with respect to the suit property; (c) a decree of recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month w.e.f. 24.08.2016 till the actual possession is delivered and (d) costs of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the plaint are reproduced here as under:
(i) It is averred that Defendant no. 1 is a resident of 246-A, Nawada Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi-43 and that Defendant no. 2 is Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 3 of 27 the daughter of Defendant no. 1 and is staying with Defendant no. 1 on the aforesaid address. It is submitted that the Plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 16.08.2016 from the erstwhile owner namely Sh. Praveen Kumar for a total sale consideration of Rs.
20,00,000/- through a registered sale deed bearing registration no. 6477 in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 8804 on pages 24 to 31 at Sub-Registrar IX, New Delhi and that the possession of the suit property was delivered by said Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma to the Plaintiff vide possession letter dated 16.08.2016. It is further submitted that upon taking the possession of the property in question, the Plaintiff had installed her own lock upon the gate of the property as a mark of her ownership and possession of the same. It is also submitted that said Mr. Praveen Kumar Verma had also showed the Plaintiff previous chain of documents and also provided her a copy of the registered sale deed dated 13.10.1999 which was duly executed in his favour by one Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma vide registration no. 2123, book no. 1, Vol. No. 228, page no. 89-93 before Sub-Registrar IX, New Delhi.
(ii) It is alleged that after the registration of the sale deed, the Plaintiff had left for Uttarkashi for a pilgrimage and during the period Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 4 of 27 of pilgrimage i.e. on 24.08.2016, she had received a call whereby she was informed that few people had illegally broken the lock of the suit property and had created a ruckus inside the same and that the said people had also changed their lock and key of the property and had installed their own new lock in the property in question. It is further alleged that the Defendant no. 1 is the wife of late elder brother of Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma who had passed away on 20.08.2011 and that the Defendants no. 1 and 2 had been harassing Sh. Praveen and rest of his family members after the demise of his elder brother. It is further submitted that upon inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff and Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma that pursuant to a family settlement dated 18.10.2000, the father of Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma had divided all the properties in equal shares of his sons and the suit property, after the demise of elder brother of Sh. Praveen, came in favour of Defendant no. 1.
(iii) It is further alleged that after coming back to Delhi, the Plaintiff had met Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma and his father Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma and the previous owner of the property and upon inquiry, she came to know that no such family settlement ever took place as being Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 5 of 27 alleged by Defendant no. 1 in her legal notice dated 26.08.2016 addressed to Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma. Subsequently, Plaintiff has issued a legal notice dated 16.09.2016 upon the Defendants to which reply dated 20.09.2016 was also received. Aggrieved, Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, damages and permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendants.
Proceedings of the case
3. Summons for settlement of issues and notice of application under Order XXXIX R 1 and 2 of CPC were issued to the Defendants on 19.10.2016 which were duly served. Thereafter, WS was filed on behalf of the Defendants along with counter claim which was separately registered and on the even date, application under Order XXXIX R 1 and 2 of CPC was also allowed and Defendants were restrained from transferring, alienating or parting with possession or creating any third party interest in the suit property. Thereafter, Replication to the WS and rejoinder to the application under Order XXVI R 5 of CPC were filed by the Plaintiff and WS to counter claim along with application for condonation of delay were also filed. Thereafter, reply was filed by the Defendants to the application of the Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 6 of 27 Plaintiff for condonation of delay in filing the WS to the counter claim and the suit was transferred vide order dated 27.11.2017. An application under Section 151 of CPC seeking directions to the BSES, Najafgarh for installation of electricity connection in the suit premises and another application under Order I R 10 of CPC for impleading BSES as a necessary party were filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. Thereafter, both the aforesaid applications were dismissed as withdrawn on 03.01.2019 and disposed off accordingly. Thereafter, application of the Plaintiff under Order VIII R 1 of CPC was allowed vide order dated 01.05.2019 and no admission-denial of documents was recorded on behalf of the parties and issues were framed subsequently.
4. In the WS of Defendants, it is alleged that the Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has also suppressed the material facts from the Court. It is further alleged that there is no cause of action against the Defendants and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the Defendants are the owners of the suit property and that Sh. Praveen Kumar has no right to sell the said shop. It is further submitted that the property in question belongs to Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 7 of 27 the Defendants through family partition deed / declaration deed which was executed by Dr. Shiv Kumar Verma, Praveen Kumar Verma, Vijay Kumar Verma and Arun Kumar Verma on 18.12.2000. It is submitted that the suit property was purchased by Sh. Shiv Kumar from Smt. Amar Devi on 22.02.1978 and thereafter, the same was given to Sh. Arun Kumar who is the husband of Defendant no. 1 through declaration deed / family settlement. It is also submitted that a Will dated 13.11.1998 was also executed by Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma wherein the suit property was in the favour of Sh. Arun Kumar i.e. the husband of the Defendant no. 1. It is also alleged that the suit is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order VII R 11 of CPC. It is submitted that the possession of the suit property always remained with the Defendants since 18.12.2000.
5. In the Replication, Plaintiff has denied the averments of the Defendants and reiterated the contents of the plaint. The Plaintiff has submitted in the Replication that Defendant no. 1 had also filed a suit in the past for permanent injunction against Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma and Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma which was dismissed at primary stage itself by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. It is Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 8 of 27 further submitted that the Plaintiff is suffering for no fault of hers and therefore, the suit should be decreed in her favour. It is alleged that the Will dated 13.11.1998 has never been drafted or signed by Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma and therefore, has no roots of its existence. It is submitted that Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma had already filed a police complaint against Defendant no. 1 for making a false document in his name. It is alleged that the Will dated 13.11.1998, Affidavit dated 13.11.1998 and deed of declaration dated 18.12.2000 are contradictory to each other and therefore, are fabricated documents. It is also alleged that the Defendants have never been in possession of the suit property.
6. Thereafter, on 06.03.2021, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
(a) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession of the suit premises i.e. shop no. 354, area measuring 23 sq. yards, part of khasra no. 52, situated in old lal dora within municipal limits of Najafgarh, New Delhi on the basis of registered sale deed dated 16.08.2016 in her favour and against the Defendant, as prayed for?
(OPP)
(b) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent and Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 9 of 27 mandatory injunction in her favour and against the Defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)
(c) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages in her favour and against the Defendant, as prayed for? (OPP)
(d) Whether Sh. Praveen Kumar has no right to sale the said shop as mentioned above because same belongs to Defendant through family partition deed / declaration deed executed by Dr. Shiv Kumar Verma, Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma, Sh. Vijay Kumar Verma and Sh.
Arun Kumar Verma on 18.12.2000? (OPD)
(e) Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for by the parties. Thereafter, matter was proceeded for PE.
7. On 16.11.2021, Plaintiff Mrs. Kavita Singh was examined as PW-1. She tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(a) Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) i.e. registered sale deed dated 13.10.1999 duly executed in favour of Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma;
(b) Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) i.e. registered sale deed dated 16.08.2016;
(c) Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) i.e. possession letter of the suit property Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 10 of 27 dated 16.08.2016;
(d) Mark A i.e. copy of the police complaint on behalf of Mrs. Kavita dated 28.08.2016;
(e) Mark B i.e. copy of declaration deed dated 18.12.2000;
(f) Mark C i.e. copy of judgment dated 20.12.2016;
(g) Mark D i.e. copy of the electricity bill dated October 2016 in the name of Shiv Kumar Verma;
(h) Mark E i.e. copy of the legal notice against the Defendants dated 26.08.2016;
(i) Mark F i.e. copy of the legal notice dated 16.09.2016;
(j) Mark G i.e. reply of the legal notice dated 20.09.2016;
(k) Ex. PW1/4 i.e. tracking report of legal notice dated 16.09.2016 and
(l) Mark H i.e. copy of police complaint dated 19.05.2017.
8. On the even date, PW-2 Sh. Shiv Kumar was also examined-in- chief and he had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW2/A and relied upon the document i.e. Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) i.e. registered sale deed dated 13.10.1999 duly executed in favour of Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 and upon the Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 11 of 27 documents already marked as Mark B, Mark C and Mark H.
9. Thereafter, on 01.09.2022, PW-1 and PW-2 were cross examined at length and discharged. During cross-examination of PW- 1, it was deposed that she had met Praveen Kumar Verma at the time when she had come to the Court for executing the sale of the suit property. Relevant extract of the cross-examination of PW-1 is extracted herein:
"The sale consideration of the suit property was Rs.20 lakhs. The sale consideration was paid through a Demand Draft. I purchased the suit property through registered sale deed which was registered through the office of Sub-Registrar. I cannot tell about the contents of the document, declaration deed dated 18.12.2000 which has been alleged to be forged and fabricated as per para 11 of my affidavit. I cannot tell whether any application has been made by me for electricity / water connection at the suit property......... I do not know if there is any electricity or water connection at the suit property........... " PW-1 was discharged thereafter.
10. During the cross-examination of PW-2, it was admitted that PW-2 had not executed any document in favour of his deceased son Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 12 of 27 Arun Kumar. He deposed that he had not sold the property in question to anyone and voluntarily stated that he had given the suit property to his son Praveen Kumar and he had sold it. He further deposed that he had given his son Arun Kumar a house to live and a plot measuring 200 sq. yards which he had sold later. He further deposed that the suit property was given to Praveen Kumar in the year 1999. The witness further deposed that he had not executed the declaration deed Mark B dated 18.12.2000 and sale deed Ex. PW1/1. The witness was discharged thereafter.
11. No other witness was examined on behalf of the Plaintiff and PE was closed vide separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff dated 01.09.2022. Matter was thereafter, proceeded for Defendant evidence. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the Defendant for filing and taking additional documents on record which was dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2023.
12. On 28.03.2024, DW-1 / Defendant no. 1 had tendered her evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/1, however, it was observed by the Court that the documents that have been mentioned as exhibits in the affidavit are not allowed as application in this regard Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 13 of 27 was already dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2023.
13. During cross-examination of DW-1, it was deposed that the suit property was in possession of Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma in the year 2000 and that Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma had not sold the property to anyone. The witness denied the suggestion that Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma had sold the property to Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma on 13.10.1999 and that Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma had further sold the property to the Plaintiff on 16.08.2016. It was further deposed that the rent of the adjoining shops is around Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. She further admitted that she had given her shop on rent but she did not know the name of the tenant. She deposed that she receives Rs. 12,000/- per month as rent from the said shop. She further deposed that she had not filed any suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 13.10.1999 executed by Sh. Shiv Kumar Verma in favour of Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma and that she also did not file any suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.08.2016 executed by Sh. Praveen Kumar Verma in favour of the Plaintiff. She was thereafter, discharged on the even date.
14. As no list of witnesses was filed and no other DW was present, therefore, DE was closed on 28.03.2024 and matter was proceeded for Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 14 of 27 final arguments. Thereafter, an application for summoning of additional witnesses was filed on behalf of the Defendants which was later dismissed as withdrawn on 03.09.2024 and matter was proceeded for final arguments.
Contentions of parties
15. I have heard the final arguments and perused the record. Written arguments were filed by the parties. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is the owner of the property by way of registered sale deed and that suit property belonged to Shiv Kumar Verma who sold it to his son Praveen Kumar Verma and thereafter, the said Praveen Kumar Verma sold it to the present plaintiff and that all these transactions were affected by way of registered sale deed. It was submitted that the alleged family settlement dated 18.12.2000 relied upon by the Defendant remained unproved and that the same was unregistered and therefore could not affect the rights in an immovable property in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
16. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Defendants has submitted that the very foundation of the case of the plaintiff was shaky inasmuch as the witness PW-2 who was Shiv Kumar Verma, himself had refused to Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 15 of 27 recognize his signatures on the sale deed Ex PW 1/1 and therefore, it was proved that no effective transfer was made of the property by him in favour of his son Praveen Kumar Verma, rather the suit property had devolved upon the deceased husband Arun Kumar Verma of the defendant who was son of Shiv Kumar Verma and that the father of Arun Kumar and Praveen Kumar had effected partition by way of the declaration deed dated 18.12.2000 and therefore the shop which is the suit property had fallen in share of Arun Kumar Verma who was enjoying the property till his death as his solely owned property and that the same has devolved upon the defendants being his wife and daughter.
Findings
17. Heard the parties and perused the record. The facts of the present matter lie within a narrow compass.
18. The following observations and inferences can be drawn in the present matter from a perusal of the evidence adduced and the pleadings of the parties:-
(a) The sole defence of the defendants can be narrowed down to the following : they claim that the suit property which is admitted by them Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 16 of 27 to have been owned initially by Shiv Kumar Verma, the father of her deceased husband/father, was partitioned by him by way of a written declaration/partition deed in the year 2000, and the said property had fallen in share of Arun Kumar Verma and that therefore, Shiv Kumar Verma had no title left to pass on to Praveen Kumar Verma, who subsequently, could not have passed the title onto the present plaintiff.
(b) The relevant pleadings of the written statement may be referred to here - "It is submitted that Mr Praveen Kumar has no right to sale the said suit property because the property....belongs to the defendants through family partition deed/Declaration deed which was executed by Dr Shiv Kumar Verma, Praveen Kumar Verma, Vijay Kumar Verma and Arun Kumar Verma on dated 18.12.2000. That the above said suit property was purchased by Shri Shiv Kumar from Smt Amar Devi dated 22/2/1978. After that the said suit property was given to the Shri Arun Kumar i.e. the husband of defendant no 1 through declaration deed/family settlement. That one will dated 13/11/1998 was also executed by Shri Shiv Kumar Verma in which the suit property goes to Shri Arun Kumar i.e. the husband of the defendant no 1. That regarding this one affidavit was also executed by Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 17 of 27 Shri Praveen Kumar in which the possession of the suit property was given to Shri Arun Kumar i.e. the husband of defendant no 1 and it was stated that he shall be the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. It is further submitted that the possession of the suit property ...remains always with the defendants since 18.12.2000."
(c) I find that the declaration deed/partition deed which was marked as Mark B and the photocopy of which, ironically, was produced by the plaintiff but not the defendant, cannot affect the right and title in the suit property and has no value in the eyes of law because (i) it has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The original deed was never produced before this Court by the defendants. The onus to prove the said document was firmly upon the defendants but paradoxically even the photocopy of the same has been placed on record by the plaintiff and not the defendant. No reason has been given nor any evidence produced to show that the Court should take the photocopy as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. In fact, no reference was ever made to the said aspect of the matter during the entire course of trial by the defendants. (ii) the said document Mark B dated Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 18 of 27 18.12.2000 is unregistered. Even assuming that the defendant had produced and proved the original and even assuming that the Court could rely upon the contents of the said document, the said document would be hit by the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. In Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama , (2018) 15 SCC 130 : (2019) 1 SCC (Civ) 116 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 269 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to revisit the principles as to when a family settlement would require registration, in the following words : "11. Pertaining to family settlement, a memorandum of family settlement and its necessity of registration, the law has been settled by this Court. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of this Court in Kale v. Director of Consolidation [Kale v.
Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119] . The propositions with regard to family settlement, its registration were laid down by this Court in paras 10 and 11: (SCC pp. 126-27) "10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions:
(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 19 of 27 family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family; (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence;
(3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary;
(4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable;
(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 20 of 27 the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement.
Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same;
(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.
11. The principles indicated above have been clearly enunciated and adroitly adumbrated in a long course of decisions of this Court as also those of the Privy Council and other High Courts, which we shall discuss presently."
(d) A perusal of Mark B as also the pleadings in the written statement would show that the said document, even if taken at face value, was an executory document inasmuch as it ostensibly seeks to change the state of affairs and create fresh rights and vest the title Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 21 of 27 where it did not so vest before. The recitals of the said document relate that "whereas after the demise of the first party the above mentioned properties are likely to go and devolve to the second party to the extent under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act .......whereas the first party during his lifetime has decided to divide the said properties and their share of the said properties amongst their sons..io order to save the second party from ruinous litigation after the demise of the first party and for the sake of peace and preservation of the honour and dignity of the family, the parties have themselves settled and adjusted their dispute and differences with respect of the above said properties in the manner mentioned below.....". Therefore, the said document cannot be said to be a mere memorandum of a family settlement but rather, purports to bring about a new state of affairs which did not exist before. Therefore, this document was compulsorily registrable and cannot be looked into due to the bar contained in Section 49 of the Registration Act,1908, even if it had been proved in accordance with the law of evidence.
(e) The plaintiff asserts her rights on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 13/10/1999 Ex PW 1/1 executed between Praveen Kumar Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 22 of 27 Verma and Shiv Kumar Verma, and the registered sale deed dated 16/08/2016 executed by Praveen Kumar Verma and the plaintiff. Firstly, there is a presumption of validity that operates qua registered documents, and especially as in this case, the defendants have no registered deeds in their favor, the plaintiff would have the better and absolute title as against the defendants. The defendants have conspicuously, never sought any declaration qua the aforesaid sale deeds even during the pendency of the present suit. It has been proved that the defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction qua the very same suit property which is subject matter of the present suit against Praveen Kumar Verma and Shiv Kumar Verma which suit being numbered as CS No 427400/16 was dismissed by the Ld SCJ, Dwarka Courts on 20/12/2016. The facts of the registered sale deed in favour of Praveen Kumar Verma and the subsequent sale deed in favour of the present plaintiff therefore have been well known to the defendants at the very least since the date of the judgment and order dated 20/12/2016. However, the defendants never saw fit to challenge the same and prove to the court that the said sale deeds should be declared void.
Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 23 of 27
(f) Much capital has been sought to be made out of the testimony of PW-2 Shiv Kumar Verma by the defendants. The said cross- examination is extracted herein for convenience:- " I do not know what are the contents in my affidavit as I have not read it till now. Against said, I have read it once but I do not remember what is written in the affidavit. It is correct that I have not executed any document in favour of my deceased son Arun Kumar. I have not sold this property to anyone. (Vol. I gave the suit property to my son Praveen Kumar and he sold it.) I have distributed my property amongst my sons as I am old. I gave my son Arun Kumar a house to live and a plot measuring 200 sq yards which he sold. The Suit property was given by me to my son namely Praveen Kumar. It was his wish whether he further keeps it or sells it. The suit property was given to Praveen Kumar in 1999. I do not remember when the suit property was sold by my son..........At this stage, declaration deed Mark B dated 18.12.2000 is shown to the witness. I have not executed this declaration deed. At this stage Ex PW 1/1 (sale deed) is shown to the witness. I have not executed this sale deed and signatures are not mine. " Firstly, it has to be kept in mind that the said witness is aged and infact, stated that he Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 24 of 27 did not even remember the contents of his own affidavit. Therefore, very little reliance can be placed upon his testimony. Moreover, in such cases where the aged witness remembers some details but cannot tell the specifics due to lapse of time and forgetfulness, the testimony should not be read in isolation but rather has to be seen as a whole. PW-2 has deposed that the he gave the property to Praveen Kumar Verma, i.e. his son, in 1999. This corroborates the factum of the registered sale deed. No doubt that he denies his signatures on the sale deed, but it has to be remembered that the said document is a registered document executed as far back as in 1999, and the witness was aged more than 80 years at the time of his testimony. Therefore his testimony has to be taken with a grain of salt and rather the primacy has to be given to the registered document.
(g) The defendants claim that their predecessor-in-interest i.e. Arun Kumar Verma had taken possession of the shop after the declaration deed of 18.12.2000 i.e. in the year 2000 approximately, though no specific date has been averred. The Defendants have failed to produce a single document to show the possession of Arun Kumar Verma in the suit property up till the time of his death in the year 2011 and that of Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 25 of 27 the defendants thereafter before the date when the plaintiff avers that they took forcible possession in the year 2016. Not a single document has been filed and proved in accordance with the law to show such possession.
(h) I find that the testimony of the plaintiff, in the main, has the ring of truth. No contradiction has been pointed out concerning the testimony of the plaintiff qua the manner in which she gained and then lost possession of the suit property to the defendants. Once there is a registered sale deed which has not been pronounced to be void by a court of law, the same has to be given effect to.
(i) The plaintiff however, did not produce any evidence to show that the suit property or any similarly situated property could fetch the rent of Rs 50,000. Rather it has been admitted by the defendant no 1 who was examined as DW-1 that the said property could fetch Rs 15000 to 20000. She admits to receiving rent of Rs 12000 from the said shop. I find that, the plaintiff would be entitled to pendente lite mesne profits up till the date on which she receives the peaceful and vacant possession from the defendants @ 15,000 per month from date of filing of suit till date of handing over the possession. Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 26 of 27 All the issues are therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and in the aforesaid terms. Relief
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, suit of the Plaintiff is decreed for the following reliefs: -
(a) a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against both the defendants decreeing that the defendants hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property i.e. shop no. 354, area measuring 23 sq. yards, part of khasra no. 52 situated in Old lal dora within municipal limits of Najafgarh, New Delhi, to the plaintiff immediately;
(b) a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from dealing with or creating any interest in the suit property in any manner or form whatsoever;
(c) a decree of mesne profits/damages @ 15,000 per month from date of filing of suit till date of handing over the possession.
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly only after the plaintiff deposits the deficient court fees on the award of mesne profits as calculated pendente lite on the basis of the above. Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena Suit No. 17666/16 Page 27 of 27
(d) Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff to be paid by the defendants.
21. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
DIVYANG
DIVYANG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2024.10.08
15:58:12
+0530
Announced in the open court (Sh. Divyang Thakur)
On 08.10.2024 DJ-03/South West
Dwarka / New Delhi
Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs. Mrs. Meenakshi Verma @ Meena