Delhi District Court
Navneet Singh vs Sureshwati Ors on 29 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No.6364/2016
CNR No.DLST01-000108-2009
Tejbir Singh
S/o Late S. Kuldip Singh Gulati
R/o 36/62, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi. .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sureshwati
W/o late Sh. Harkishan
R/o 467, Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Suraj Bhan
S/o Sh. Bhartu Ram,
R/o A-125, Freedom Fighter Colony,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal,
S/o Sh. Narayan Bhatkal,
through special attorney
Sh. Ajay Vatan,
Sunil
Digitally signed
by Sunil
beniwal
S/o late Chhota Singh,
beniwal Date:
2026.05.29
14:27:09 +0530
Page 1 of 47
R/o H. No.304/1, Plus Farm,
Holy Chowk, Jat Mohalla,
Neb Sarai Extn, New Delhi 68.
4. Smt. Rachna Gupta
W/o Sh. Vivek Gupta,
R/o 180/NM, W-6A Lane,
Sainik Farms, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Tarang Gupta
W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta
Sainik Farms, New Delhi. .....Defendants
(2)CS DJ No.6362/2016
CNR No.DLST01-000106-2009
Navneet Singh
S/o S.R.P. Singh
R/o 10/72, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi. .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sureshwati
W/o late Sh. Harkishan
R/o 467, Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Suraj Bhan
S/o Sh. Bhartu Ram,
Digitally signed
R/o A-125, Freedom Fighter Colony,
by Sunil
Sunil beniwal
beniwal Date:
2026.05.29
14:27:10 +0530
Page 2 of 47
Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal,
S/o Sh. Narayan Bhatkal,
through special attorney
Sh. Ajay Vatan,
S/o late Chhota Singh,
R/o H. No.304/1, Plus Farm,
Holy Chowk, Jat Mohalla,
Neb Sarai Extn, New Delhi 68.
4. Smt. Rachna Gupta
W/o Sh. Vivek Gupta,
R/o 180/NM, W-6A Lane,
Sainik Farms, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Tarang Gupta
W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta
Sainik Farms, New Delhi. .....Defendants
(3)CS DJ No.6363/2016
CNR No.DLST01-000107-2009
Mohanbir Singh
S/o late S. Kuldip Singh Gulati
R/o 36/62, Neb Sarai,
New Delhi. .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sureshwati
Digitally signed
W/o late Sh. Harkishan
by Sunil
Sunil beniwal
beniwal Date:
2026.05.29
14:27:05 +0530
Page 3 of 47
R/o 467, Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Suraj Bhan
S/o Sh. Bhartu Ram,
R/o A-125, Freedom Fighter Colony,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal,
S/o Sh. Narayan Bhatkal,
through special attorney
Sh. Ajay Vatan,
S/o late Chhota Singh,
R/o H. No.304/1, Plus Farm,
Holy Chowk, Jat Mohalla,
Neb Sarai Extn, New Delhi 68.
4. Smt. Rachna Gupta
W/o Sh. Vivek Gupta,
R/o 180/NM, W-6A Lane,
Sainik Farms, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Tarang Gupta
W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta
Sainik Farms, New Delhi. .....Defendants
(4)CS DJ No.6365/2016
CNR No.DLST01-000190-2009
Smt. Nirmal Kaur
W/o S. Inder Singh Arora
R/o B2/19, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi. .....Plaintiff
Digitally signed
by Sunil
Sunil beniwal
beniwal Date:
2026.05.29
14:27:08 +0530
Page 4 of 47
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sureshwati
W/o late Sh. Harkishan
R/o 467, Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Suraj Bhan
S/o Sh. Bhartu Ram,
R/o A-125, Freedom Fighter Colony,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal,
S/o Sh. Narayan Bhatkal,
through special attorney
Sh. Ajay Vatan,
S/o late Chhota Singh,
R/o H. No.304/1, Plus Farm,
Holy Chowk, Jat Mohalla,
Neb Sarai Extn, New Delhi 68.
4. Smt. Rachna Gupta
W/o Sh. Vivek Gupta,
R/o 180/NM, W-6A Lane,
Sainik Farms, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Tarang Gupta
W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta
Sainik Farms, New Delhi. .....Defendants
(5)CS DJ No.6366/2016
CNR No.DLST01-000110-2009
Digitally signed
by Sunil
Sunil beniwal
beniwal Date:
2026.05.29
14:27:06 +0530
Page 5 of 47
Navneet Singh
S/o S.R.P. Singh
R/o 10/72, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi. .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sureshwati
W/o late Sh. Harkishan
R/o 467, Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Suraj Bhan
S/o Sh. Bhartu Ram,
R/o A-125, Freedom Fighter Colony,
Neb Sarai, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal,
S/o Sh. Narayan Bhatkal,
through special attorney
Sh. Ajay Vatan,
S/o late Chhota Singh,
R/o H. No.304/1, Plus Farm,
Holy Chowk, Jat Mohalla,
Neb Sarai Extn, New Delhi 68.
4. Smt. Rachna Gupta
W/o Sh. Vivek Gupta,
R/o 180/NM, W-6A Lane,
Sainik Farms, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Tarang Gupta
Digitally signed
W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta
by Sunil
Sunil beniwal
beniwal Date:
2026.05.29
14:27:06 +0530
Page 6 of 47
Sainik Farms, New Delhi. .....Defendants
Date of institution of suits : 05.06.2009
Date of conclusion of arguments : 24.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 25.05.2026
Suit for declaration, eviction/ejectment and possession and also
for mandatory and perpetual injunction.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of all the captioned five suits.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that late Sh. Hari Kishan was the owner/Bhumidar of the agricultural land 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa, Khasra No.304/1 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli, New Delhi, as per the record maintained by the revenue authorities.
3. Case bearing CS DJ No.6362/2016 has been filed by plaintiff Navneet Singh who stated that he purchased land admeasuring 461 sq yards bearing Khasra No.304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa from Hari Kishan.
4. Case bearing CS DJ No.6363/2016 has been filed by plaintiff Mohanbir Singh who stated that he purchased land admeasuring 250 sq yards bearing Khasra No.304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa from Hari Kishan.
5. Case bearing CS DJ No.6364/2016 has been filed by Digitally signed by Sunil Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:06 +0530 Page 7 of 47 plaintiff Tejbir Singh stating that he is the owner of land admeasuring 250 sq. yards bearing Khasra No. 304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa which has devolved upon the plaintiff Tejbir Singh by virtue of memorandum of family settlement, which was purchased by Jaspreet Singh from Hari Kishan.
6. Case bearing CS DJ No.6365/2016 has been filed by plaintiff Nirmal Kaur who stated that she purchased land admeasuring 250 sq yards bearing Khasra No.304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa from Hari Kishan.
7. Case bearing CS DJ No.6366/2016 has been filed by plaintiff Navneet Singh who stated that he purchased land admeasuring 250 sq yards bearing Khasra No.304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa from Hari Kishan.
8. That defendant no. 1 is widow of deceased Sh. Hari Kishan and has executed documents transferring the suit property in favour of defendant nos.2 & 3. That the defendant no. 2 has further transferred the property in favour of defendant nos. 4 & 5. The defendant nos. 4 & 5 are present owner of the suit property ad- measuring 850 square yards.
9. Further that deceased Hari Kishan received the entire consideration amount and executed General Power of Attorneies, Agreements to Sell, Wills, Affidavits, Possession letters, Receipts, Indemnity Bonds, Special Power of Attornies in favour of the Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal plaintiffs/purchasers. The General Power of Attornies and Wills beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:07 +0530 Page 8 of 47 were duly registered in the office of sub registrar on 26.06.1996. That deceased Sh. Harikrishan with the execution of the aforesaid documents handed over the possession of the property to the plaintiffs/purchasers. The deceased in an affidavit as executed affirmed that he has been left with no right title or interest upon the property. All the documents were executed and possession of the property was given in the presence of defendant no. 1 by her husband. That since the sanctioned development of the Sainik Farm was pending with the authorities as such the plaintiff alongwith his other relations who had purchased the entire Chunk of land admeasuring 1 bigha and 7 biswa made a boundary wall over the property and left it in as and where basis. The plaintiff due to her other pre-occupations were seldom visiting the premises.
10. Further that on 01.02.2007 one of the plaintiffs namely Mohanbir Singh who was holding ownership rights of land admeasuring 250 sq. yards visited the property and noticed some new construction activity in the property. That said Sh. Mohanbir Singh when made enquiries it was revealed that the property has been sold by the defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2 & 3. It further came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that deceased Sh. Hari Kishan after transferring the property in favour of the plaintiffs without any communication or notice, revocated GPAs and Wills as executed in favour of the plaintiffs. That since admittedly the Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal deceased Hari Kishan was left with no right power or authority in beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:12 +0530 Page 9 of 47 the land as such he had no right to cancel the documents as executed and duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar in favour of the plaintiffs. That said revocation, if any, made by deceased Sh. Hari Kishan is bad in the eyes of law and does not convey any title. That the malafide intension is reflected from this aspect also that the deceased had executed Agreements to Sell and received the consideration amount which was duly got encashed as such the deceased was left with no right to execute the alleged revocation deeds.
11. Plaintiffs further stated that the revocation deeds as executed by deceased Hari Kishan are sham documents and were merely executed with the intention to deprive the plaintiffs of their properties. That the plaintiffs as per the law and equity are owners of suit properties. That Sh. Hari Kishan had no right, title or interest in respect of suit property after execution of the aforesaid documents in favour of the plaintiffs. That the execution of revocation deeds is illegal, wrong, malafide and against the principal of law & equity.
12. It is further stated that on making further enquiries it was revealed to the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 after the death of her husband got executed relinquishment deeds from her sons in her favour and thereafter transferred the property in favour of defendant no. 2. The plaintiffs after coming to know about the Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal aforesaid facts lodged a complaint with the P. S. Mehrauli and FIR beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:09 +0530 Page 10 of 47 bearing no. 84/2008 was registered in the P.S. Mehrauli u/s 420/467/468/471 & 120B of IPC against the defendants no. 1 to 3. That it has further transpired that defendant no. 2 has further sold the property admeasuring 850 sq. yards in favour of defendants no. 4 & 5 by executing GPA and Agreement to Sell. That since the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and were in the possession of the property as such the defendant no. 2 has no right to transfer the property by executing GPA and Agreement to Sell in favour defendant no. 4 & 5. That it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendants in collusion with each other are in possession of the property and had created false documents in order to grab the suit property. That the defendants in collusion with each other are creating forged and fabricated documents showing the transfer of the property with the intention to grab the same.
13. It is further stated that plaintiffs had time and again approached the defendants to vacate the premises but the defendants have failed to do so on one pretext or the other. The defendants otherwise have no right title or interest in the premises and occupying the same without any title. That as all the efforts made by the plaintiffs failed to convince the defendants to return back the possession, the plaintiff was left with no other remedy except to send a legal notice dated 01.05.2009 through his counsel Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal seeking possession of the property. That the defendants by means beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:07 +0530 Page 11 of 47 of said notice were requested to hand over the possession of the property but the defendants have failed to hand over the same and gave no response to the notice.
14. It is further stated that the plaintiffs are the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the entire chunk of suit property and the defendants have no ownership lien/rights/interest/title/claim over the entire suit property and hence any document executed by the defendants after 1996 with respect to the suit property is liable to be declared as nullity in the eyes of law for the want of legal competency to execute any such document.
15. It is further stated by plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises and as such are entitled to the possession of the same. The defendants since are in the illegal possession of the premises as such till the period plaintiffs get the possession, the plaintiffs are entitled to the damages for use and occupation of the premises. That the plaintiffs are entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month since May 2009 which is the present rate of rent in the locality.
16. Plaintiffs have sought the relief of (a)decree declaring the revocation deeds as executed by Sh. Harikishan and subsequent relinquishment deeds as executed and registered on 19-03-2007 in favour of defendant no. 1, attorney and agreement to sell and other documents as executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal no. 2 & 3 and defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 4 & 5 in beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:11 +0530 Page 12 of 47 respect of respective suit lands bearing Khasra No. 304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi as null & void as null and void abnatio, (b)a decree of eviction/ejectment in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants from the respective suit lands bearing Khasra No. 304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi and ensure that the defendants may be evicted from the entire suit property, (c)a decree for the possession in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants of the respective suit land(s) bearing Khasra No. 304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, (d)mandatory injunction against the defendants to remove all their belongings from the suit property and also for restraining them from entering into the said suit land(s) bearing Khasra No. 304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, (e)a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants and any other persons/entities, claiming through the defendants, from interfering with the peaceful, sole, exclusive and absolute ownership and/or possession/occupation of the respective suit lands, (f)a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal and in favour of the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants and beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:09 +0530 Page 13 of 47 any other persons/entities, claiming through the defendants from creating any documents and/or from doing anything for transferring the respective suit lands, (g)decree awarding damages/mesne profit Rs.20,000/-w.e.f. 01.05.2009 till the date of actual handing over of the vacant physical possession of the suit premises by the defendants to the plaintiffs.
17. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. Defendants no.1 and 2 were proceeded exparte. Defendants no.4 and 5 settled the dispute with the plaintiff before Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 05.10.2024. Upon recording of statements of plaintiff as well as defendants no.4 and 5, vide order dated 15.01.2025, suit against defendants no.4 and 5 was disposed of as settled as withdrawn, as plaintiff had withdrawn case against defendants no.4 and 5.
18. Defendant no.3 in his written statement contended that plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. That site plan of suit property filed by plaintiff is improper, as the same does not demarcate the scientific nature of the property with its descriptions of the adjoining properties. That plaintiff has willfully suppressed material facts from the Court. That defendant is the absolute owner of suit property and he has been in the possession Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal of the same since the day of its purchase by him and has been beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:08 +0530 Page 14 of 47 retaining his possession uninterruptedly through his attorney holder Sh. Ajai Vatan.
19. Defendant no.3 further stated in written statement that the plaintiff has consumed unexplainable time in claiming his claim of ownership and possession in the suit property through this suit, as by his own version, he came to know about the possession of suit property by the defendant on 01.02.2007 and FIR was registered on 14.02.2008, and the notice, though wrongly addressed to Suresh Rattan, was sent on 01.05.2009, and thereafter plaintiff preferred the present suit, which shows lackluster approach and fraudulent intentions of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
20. It is further stated in written statement that in CS DJ No.6364/2016 suit has been filed by Sh. Tejbir Singh, whereas GPA and other documents have been attached by Sh. Tejbir Singh with the suit in the name of Jaspreet Singh, which is wholly illegal, frivolous and irrelevant, hence, suit deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
21. Defendant no.3 further stated that revenue records that the owner of the property in question late Sh. Har Kishan cancelled/revoked on 20.11.1996, GPAs and Wills executed by him in favour of plaintiffs, which was duly communicated to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had acknowledged the said fact, and Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal that is why for an unreasonable long period of over 11 years, the beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:10 +0530 Page 15 of 47 plaintiffs did not bother to watch and protect the interest of suit property. Defendant no.3 denied contrary version of the plaintiff and sought dismissal of the suit.
22. Though defendant no.1 proceeded exparte, however, written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 also. Defendant no.1 admitted that her husband late Har Krishan entered into alleged transaction with the plaintiff(s). Defendant no.1 further stated that plaintiff(s) failed to pay the balance payment and the said deal was cancelled. That Har Krishan returned the advanced money to Ms. Veena S Malik, being dealer, who accepted the money on their behalf with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff(s) and gave an acknowledgment of accepting the said amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from her husband Har Krishan on 14.03.1996 on a visiting card by putting signature over it, but inadvertently or by mistake, instead of writing 'paid by Harikrishan it was wrongly written as payable to Harikrishan" on the said visiting card. Defendant no.1 admitted revocation of GPAs and Wills executed in favour of plaintiff(s). Defendant no.1 also stated that out of four plaintiffs only two had entered into a deal for purchase of the said piece of land and the remaining two namely Mohanbir Singh and Tejbir Singh had no connection or role at all in this regard and they simply lodged false FIR and present suit against defendant no.1 who was not at all involved in Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal the said deal.
beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:06 +0530 Page 16 of 47
23. Defendant no.2 was also proceeded exparte, however, he also filed written statement. He stated that defendant no.1 executed all legal title documents of the entire suit property in his favour as per law. That defendant no.2 sold property admeasuring 850 sq yards in favour of defendants no.4 and 5. He denied contrary version of the plaintiffs and sought dismissal of the suits filed by the plaintiffs.
24. Defendants no.4 and 5 also filed their joint written statement. It is stated that plaintiffs had knowledge about Revocation Deeds executed by Har Krishan. That plaintiffss were never in the possession of suit property. That defendants no.4 and 5 purchased suit property admeasuring 850 sq yards from defendant no.1. They denied any right, title or interest of the plaintiff(s) in the suit property and sought dismissal of the suit.
25. Vide order dated 05.08.2010, following issues were settled:
(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration in respect of the suit premises? (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit premises?
(3)Relief.
Evidence led in case CS DJ No.6362/2016
26. PW1 Sh. Virender Goswami, Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India deposted that record in respect of bankers' cheque Digitally signed by Sunil Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:08 +0530 Page 17 of 47 no.027730 dated 15.05.1996 was destroyed by bank in Ocobter 2010 and filed copy of letter issued by Chief Manager as Ex.PW1/A.
27. PW2 Sh. Kulant Singh, Sr. Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank states that original banker's cheque no.755883 dated 07.05.1996 amounting Rs.1,30,000/- which was paid by their bank through SBI Mehrauli in the name of Har Kishan is Ex.PW2/A (OSR).
28. PW3 HC Ramesh Kumar from PS Mehrauli had brought summoned record in respect of FIR No.84/2008 and got exhibited copy of the same as E.PW3/A (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
29. PW4 Sh. Bikram Kumar Swain, Data Entry Operator, Sub Registrar Office-V, had brought original record in respect of GPA executed by Shri Har Krishan in favour of Navneet Singh. He deposed that the said GPA is registered in their office at Sl. No.7059, Book No.4, Volume No.682, pages 45 to 47 and is dated 15.05.1996. He got exhibited the same as Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that he had brought record of Will which was executed by Shri Har Krishan in favour of Navneet Singh. He was cross examined and discharged.
30. PW5 plaintiff Navneet Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW5/X and relied upon documents Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/17 as mentioned in detail in evidence affidavit Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal Ex.PW5/X. He was cross examined and discharged. beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:12 +0530 Page 18 of 47
31. D3W1/1 Sh. Ajay Vatan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon documents Ex.D3W1/1 to Ex.D3W1/18 as mentioned in detail in evidence affidavit. He was cross examined and discharged.
32. D3W2 Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that suit premises is at a walking distance of five minutes from his house. That during last about 20 years, he has not come across or seen or anybody told him that said land belongs to them. That the land was lying vacant without any boundary or wire fencing etc. He was cross examined and discharged.
33. D3W3 Ms. Sonia Jain, UDC, office of Sub Registrar-VIII had brought the register containing Will bearing registration no.564 in Book No.3, Volume no.504 dated 20.03.2007 and exhibited copy of the same as Ex.D3W3/1 (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
34. DW4/1 Ms. Rachna Gupta tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/1. She relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/A1 to Ex.DW4/1A5 (colly) and Ex.DW4/1/A6 (OSR) i.e. GPA & Will dated 18.12.2007, agreement to sell, affidavit, two receipts, possession letter all dated 28.01.2008. She further deposed that she relied upon documents executed between Sureshwati and Surajbhan Ex.DW4/1/B1 to Ex.DW4/1/B8 (OSR).She also relied upon relinquishment deed dated 19.03.2007 Ex.DW4/1/C (OSR).
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal She also relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/D (colly) to beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:10 +0530 Page 19 of 47 Ex.DW4/1/G (colly). She was cross examined and discharged.
35. DW4/2 Sh. Bharat Sanwaria from office of sub registrar-V had brought record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17330 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/A (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17329 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/B (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17328 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/C (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15740 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/D (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15742, book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/E (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15741 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/F, record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15745 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/G (OSR) and record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17331 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/H (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
36. On 25.05.2017, Sh. Ajay Vatan, SPA holder of defendant no.3 got recorded his statement that he adopts the evidence led by PW4/2 on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5.
37. DW4/3 Ms. Nikita Goel, Manager Corporation Bank, Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi had brought original record of pay order Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal no.37029 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.45,000/- drawn on saving bank beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:07 +0530 Page 20 of 47 account bearing no.049400101004835 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan. She further deposed that the same has been paid on 22.12.2007 and pay order no.037028 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.2,45,000/- drawn from savings bank account no.049400101004838 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan and the same has been paid on 22.12.2007. That photocopy of above pay orders no.37029 and 37028 is Ex.DW4/3/A and Ex.DW4/3/B respectively (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
38. DW4/4 Sh. Sanjay Kundu, Branch Head, J&K Bank, Sector 16, Faridabad brought original record of pay order no.004731 dated 12.03.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn from savings bank account bearing no.SB-0450040100001332 of Smt. Rachna Gupta in favour of Mr. Surajbhan, the same has been paid on 16.03.2007, and certified copy of pay orders are Ex.DW4/4/A(OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
39. DW4/6 Ms. Sarita Gautam, Head Clerk, Sub Registrar-VII, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi brought original record of Will dated 20.03.2007 bearing registration no.564, book no.3, volume no.504 on page 72-73 in the office of Sub Registrar-VII in favour of Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal and exhibited same as Ex.DW4/6/A(OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
Evidence led in case CS DJ No.6363/2016 Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal
40. PW1 Virender Goswami, Assistant Manager, Union Bank o beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:06 +0530 Page 21 of 47 India, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi appeared and deposed that record in respect of banker's cheque No.027728 dated 15.05.1996 amounting Rs.49,000/- was destroyed by the bank in October 2010 and filed on record letter issued by Chief Manager in this regard as Ex.PW1/A.
41. PW2 HC Ramesh Kumar from PS Mehrauli had brought summoned record in respect of FIR No.84/2008 and got exhibited copy of the same as E.PW2/A (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
42. PW3 plaintiff Mohanbir Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A and relied upon documents Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/17 as mentioned in detail in evidence affidavit Ex.PW3/A. He was cross examined and discharged.
43. D3W1/1 Sh. Ajay Vatan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon documents Ex.D3W1/1 to Ex.D3W1/18 as mentioned in detail in evidence affidavit. He was cross examined and discharged.
44. D3W2 Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that suit premises is at a walking distance of five minutes from his house. That during last about 20 years, he has not come across or seen or anybody told him that said land belongs to them. That the land was lying vacant without any boundary or wire fencing etc. He was cross examined and discharged.
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal
45. D3W3 Ms. Sonia Jain, UDC, office of Sub Registrar-VIII beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:12 +0530 Page 22 of 47 had brought the register containing Will bearing registration no.564 in Book No.3, Volume no.504 dated 20.03.2007 and exhibited copy of the same as Ex.D3W3/1 (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
46. DW4/1 Ms. Rachna Gupta tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/1. She relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/A1 to Ex.DW4/1A5 (colly) and Ex.DW4/1/A6 (OSR) i.e. GPA & Will dated 18.12.2007, agreement to sell, affidavit, two receipts, possession letter all dated 28.01.2008. She further deposed that she relied upon documents executed between Sureshwati and Surajbhan Ex.DW4/1/B1 to Ex.DW4/1/B8 (OSR).She also relied upon relinquishment deed dated 19.03.2007 Ex.DW4/1/C (OSR). She also relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/D (colly) to Ex.DW4/1/G (colly). She was cross examined and discharged.
47. DW4/2 Sh. Bharat Sanwaria from office of sub registrar-V had brought record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17330 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/A (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17329 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/B (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17328 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/C (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15740 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/D (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15742, book no.4 as beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:10 +0530 Page 23 of 47 Ex.DW4/2/E (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15741 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/F, record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15745 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/G (OSR) and record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17331 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/H (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
48. On 25.05.2017, Sh. Ajay Vatan, SPA holder of defendant no.3 got recorded his statement that he adopts the evidence led by PW4/2 on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5.
49. DW4/3 Ms. Nikita Goel, Manager Corporation Bank, Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi had brought original record of pay order no.37029 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.45,000/- drawn on saving bank account bearing no.049400101004835 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan.
She further deposed that the same has been paid on 22.12.2007 and pay order no.037028 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.2,45,000/- drawn from savings bank account no.049400101004838 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan and the same has been paid on 22.12.2007. That photocopy of above pay orders no.37029 and 37028 is Ex.DW4/3/A and Ex.DW4/3/B respectively (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
50. DW4/4 Sh. Sanjay Kundu, Branch Head, J&K Bank, Sector 16, Faridabad brought original record of pay order no.004731 Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal dated 12.03.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn from savings bank beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:08 +0530 Page 24 of 47 account bearing no.SB-0450040100001332 of Smt. Rachna Gupta in favour of Mr. Surajbhan, the same has been paid on 16.03.2007, and certified copy of pay orders are Ex.DW4/4/A(OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
51. DW4/6 Ms. Sarita Gautam, Head Clerk, Sub Registrar-VII, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi brought original record of Will dated 20.03.2007 bearing registration no.564, book no.3, volume no.504 on page 72-73 in the office of Sub Registrar-VII in favour of Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal and exhibited same as Ex.DW4/6/A(OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
Evidence led in case CS DJ No.6364/2016
52. PW1 HC Ramesh Kumar from PS Mehrauli had brought summoned record in respect of FIR No.84/2008 and got exhibited copy of the same as E.PW1/A (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
53. PW2 Sh. Bikram Kumar Swain, Data Entry Operator, Sub Registrar Office-V, had brought original record in respect of GPA executed by Shri Har Krishan in favour of Jaspreet Singh. He deposed that the said GPA is registered in their office at Sl. No.9500, Book No.4, Volume No.721, pages 29 to 31 and is dated 26.06.1996. He got exhibited the same as Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that he had brought record of Will which was executed by Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal Shri Har Krishan in favour of Jaspreet Singh. The Will is registered beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:05 +0530 Page 25 of 47 at Sl. No.8629, Vol. No.579, Book No.3, pages 38 to 39 and dated 26.06.1996 and copy of Will is Ex.PW2/B. He was cross examined and discharged.
54. PW3 Sh. Tejbir Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A. He relied upon documents Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/17 as referred to in his evidence affidavit. He was cross examined and discharged.
55. D3W1/1 Sh. Ajay Vatan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon documents Ex.D3W1/1 to Ex.D3W1/18. He was cross examined and discharged.
56. D3W2 Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that suit premises is at a walking distance of five minutes from his house. That during last about 20 years, he has not come across or seen or anybody told him that said land belongs to them. That the land was lying vacant without any boundary or wire fencing etc. He was cross examined and discharged.
57. D3W3 Ms. Sonia Jain, UDC, office of Sub Registrar-VIII had brought the register containing Will bearing registration no.564 in Book No.3, Volume no.504 dated 20.03.2007 and exhibited copy of the same as Ex.D3W3/1 (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
58. DW4/1 Ms. Rachna Gupta tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/1. She relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/A1 to Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal Ex.DW4/1A5 (colly) and Ex.DW4/1/A6 (OSR) i.e. GPA & Will beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:05 +0530 Page 26 of 47 dated 18.12.2007, agreement to sell, affidavit, two receipts, possession letter all dated 28.01.2008. She further deposed that she relied upon documents executed between Sureshwati and Surajbhan Ex.DW4/1/B1 to Ex.DW4/1/B8 (OSR).She also relied upon relinquishment deed dated 19.03.2007 Ex.DW4/1/C (OSR). She also relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/D (colly) to Ex.DW4/1/G (colly). She was cross examined and discharged.
59. DW4/2 Sh. Bharat Sanwaria from office of sub registrar-V had brought record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17330 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/A (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17329 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/B (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17328 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/C (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15740 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/D (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15742, book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/E (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15741 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/F, record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15745 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/G (OSR) and record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17331 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/H (OSR). He was Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal cross examined and discharged.
beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:11 +0530 Page 27 of 47
60. On 25.05.2017, Sh. Ajay Vatan, SPA holder of defendant no.3 got recorded his statement that he adopts the evidence led by PW4/2 on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5.
61. DW4/3 Ms. Nikita Goel, Manager Corporation Bank, Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi had brought original record of pay order no.37029 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.45,000/- drawn on saving bank account bearing no.049400101004835 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan.
She further deposed that the same has been paid on 22.12.2007 and pay order no.037028 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.2,45,000/- drawn from savings bank account no.049400101004838 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan and the same has been paid on 22.12.2007. That photocopy of above pay orders no.37029 and 37028 is Ex.DW4/3/A and Ex.DW4/3/B respectively (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
62. DW4/4 Sh. Sanjay Kundu, Branch Head, J&K Bank, Sector 16, Faridabad brought original record of pay order no.004731 dated 12.03.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn from savings bank account bearing no.SB-0450040100001332 of Smt. Rachna Gupta in favour of Mr. Surajbhan, the same has been paid on 16.03.2007, and certified copy of pay orders are Ex.DW4/4/A(OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
63. DW4/6 Ms. Sarita Gautam, Head Clerk, Sub Registrar-VII, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi brought original record of Will Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal dated 20.03.2007 bearing registration no.564, book no.3, volume beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:09 +0530 Page 28 of 47 no.504 on page 72-73 in the office of Sub Registrar-VII in favour of Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal and exhibited same as Ex.DW4/6/A(OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
Evidence led in case CS DJ No.6365/2016
64. PW1 HC Ramesh Kumar from PS Mehrauli had brought summoned record in respect of FIR No.84/2008 and got exhibited copy of the same as E.PW1/A (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
65. PW2 Sh. Bikram Kumar Swain, Data Entry Operator, Sub Registrar Office-V, had brought original record in respect of GPA executed by Shri Har Krishan in favour of Smt. Nirmal Kaur. He deposed that the said GPA is registered in their office at Sl. No.3040, Book No.4, Volume No.613, pages 191 to 193 and is dated 01.03.1996. He got exhibited the same as Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that he had brought record of Will which was executed by Shri Har Krishan in favour of Smt. Nirmal Kaur. He also brought record of Will executed by Hari Kishan in favour of Smt. Nirmal Kaur, registered at Sl. No.2807, Vol. No.579, Book No.3, Pages 10 & 11 and dated 01.03.1996 and exhibited same as Ex.PW2/B. He was cross examined and discharged.
66. PW3 plaintiff Navneet Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A and relied upon documents Ex.PW3/1 to Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal Ex.PW3/17 as mentioned in detail in evidence affidavit beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:11 +0530 Page 29 of 47 Ex.PW3/A. He was cross examined and discharged.
67. D3W1/1 Sh. Ajay Vatan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon documents Ex.D3W1/1 to Ex.D3W1/18 as mentioned in detail in evidence affidavit. He was cross examined and discharged.
68. D3W2 Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that suit premises is at a walking distance of five minutes from his house. That during last about 20 years, he has not come across or seen or anybody told him that said land belongs to them. That the land was lying vacant without any boundary or wire fencing etc. He was cross examined and discharged.
69. D3W3 Ms. Sonia Jain, UDC, office of Sub Registrar-VIII had brought the register containing Will bearing registration no.564 in Book No.3, Volume no.504 dated 20.03.2007 and exhibited copy of the same as Ex.D3W3/1 (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
70. DW4/1 Ms. Rachna Gupta tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/1. She relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/A1 to Ex.DW4/1A5 (colly) and Ex.DW4/1/A6 (OSR) i.e. GPA & Will dated 18.12.2007, agreement to sell, affidavit, two receipts, possession letter all dated 28.01.2008. She further deposed that she relied upon documents executed between Sureshwati and Surajbhan Ex.DW4/1/B1 to Ex.DW4/1/B8 (OSR).She also relied Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal upon relinquishment deed dated 19.03.2007 Ex.DW4/1/C (OSR). beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:07 +0530 Page 30 of 47 She also relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/D (colly) to Ex.DW4/1/G (colly). She was cross examined and discharged.
71. DW4/2 Sh. Bharat Sanwaria from office of sub registrar-V had brought record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17330 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/A (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17329 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/B (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17328 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/C (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15740 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/D (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15742, book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/E (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15741 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/F, record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15745 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/G (OSR) and record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17331 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/H (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
72. On 25.05.2017, Sh. Ajay Vatan, SPA holder of defendant no.3 got recorded his statement that he adopts the evidence led by PW4/2 on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5.
73. DW4/3 Ms. Nikita Goel, Manager Corporation Bank, Hauz Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal Khas Branch, New Delhi had brought original record of pay order beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:11 +0530 Page 31 of 47 no.37029 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.45,000/- drawn on saving bank account bearing no.049400101004835 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan. She further deposed that the same has been paid on 22.12.2007 and pay order no.037028 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.2,45,000/- drawn from savings bank account no.049400101004838 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan and the same has been paid on 22.12.2007. That photocopy of above pay orders no.37029 and 37028 is Ex.DW4/3/A and Ex.DW4/3/B respectively (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
74. DW4/4 Sh. Sanjay Kundu, Branch Head, J&K Bank, Sector 16, Faridabad brought original record of pay order no.004731 dated 12.03.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn from savings bank account bearing no.SB-0450040100001332 of Smt. Rachna Gupta in favour of Mr. Surajbhan, the same has been paid on 16.03.2007, and certified copy of pay orders are Ex.DW4/4/A(OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
75. DW4/6 Ms. Sarita Gautam, Head Clerk, Sub Registrar-VII, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi brought original record of Will dated 20.03.2007 bearing registration no.564, book no.3, volume no.504 on page 72-73 in the office of Sub Registrar-VII in favour of Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal and exhibited same as Ex.DW4/6/A(OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal Evidence led in case CS DJ No.6366/2016 beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:07 +0530 Page 32 of 47
76. PW1 Kulwant Singh, Sr. Manager, Punjab & Sindh Bank, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi appeared and brought original banker's cheque No.756824 dated 29.02.1996 amounting Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid in the name of Har Kishan as Ex.PW1/A(OSR).
77. PW2 HC Ramesh Kumar from PS Mehrauli had brought summoned record in respect of FIR No.84/2008 and got exhibited copy of the same as E.PW2/A (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
78. PW3 Sh. Bikram Kumar Swain, Data Entry Operator, Sub Registrar Office-V, had brought original record in respect of GPA executed by Shri Har Krishan in favour of Navneet Singh. He deposed that the said GPA is registered in their office at Sl. No.3041, Book No.4, Volume No.613, pages 194 to 196 and is dated 01.03.1996. He got exhibited the same as Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that he had brought record of Will which was executed by Shri Har Krishan in favour of Navneet Singh. The Will is registered at Sl. No.2808, Vol. No.579, Book No.3, pages 12 to 13 and dated 01.03.1996 and copy of Will is Ex.PW3/B. He was cross examined and discharged.
79. PW3 plaintiff Navneet Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW5/X and relied upon documents Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/17 as mentioned in detail in evidence affidavit Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal Ex.PW3/A. He was cross examined and discharged. beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:05 +0530 Page 33 of 47
80. D3W1/1 Sh. Ajay Vatan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He relied upon documents Ex.D3W1/1 to Ex.D3W1/18 as mentioned in detail in evidence affidavit. He was cross examined and discharged.
81. D3W2 Sh. Praveen Kumar deposed that suit premises is at a walking distance of five minutes from his house. That during last about 20 years, he has not come across or seen or anybody told him that said land belongs to them. That the land was lying vacant without any boundary or wire fencing etc. He was cross examined and discharged.
82. D3W3 Ms. Sonia Jain, UDC, office of Sub Registrar-VIII had brought the register containing Will bearing registration no.564 in Book No.3, Volume no.504 dated 20.03.2007 and exhibited copy of the same as Ex.D3W3/1 (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
83. DW4/1 Ms. Rachna Gupta tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/1. She relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/A1 to Ex.DW4/1A5 (colly) and Ex.DW4/1/A6 (OSR) i.e. GPA & Will dated 18.12.2007, agreement to sell, affidavit, two receipts, possession letter all dated 28.01.2008. She further deposed that she relied upon documents executed between Sureshwati and Surajbhan Ex.DW4/1/B1 to Ex.DW4/1/B8 (OSR).She also relied upon relinquishment deed dated 19.03.2007 Ex.DW4/1/C (OSR).
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal She also relied upon documents Ex.DW4/1/D (colly) to beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:10 +0530 Page 34 of 47 Ex.DW4/1/G (colly). She was cross examined and discharged.
84. DW4/2 Sh. Bharat Sanwaria from office of sub registrar-V had brought record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17330 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/A (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17329 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/B (OSR), record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17328 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/C (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15740 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/D (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15742, book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/E (OSR), record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15741 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/F, record of revocation of Will dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.15745 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/G (OSR) and record of revocation of GPA dated 20.11.1996 bearing registration no.17331 book no.4 as Ex.DW4/2/H (OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
85. On 25.05.2017, Sh. Ajay Vatan, SPA holder of defendant no.3 got recorded his statement that he adopts the evidence led by PW4/2 on behalf of defendants no.4 and 5.
86. DW4/3 Ms. Nikita Goel, Manager Corporation Bank, Hauz Khas Branch, New Delhi had brought original record of pay order Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal no.37029 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.45,000/- drawn on saving bank beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:12 +0530 Page 35 of 47 account bearing no.049400101004835 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan. She further deposed that the same has been paid on 22.12.2007 and pay order no.037028 dated 15.12.2007 for Rs.2,45,000/- drawn from savings bank account no.049400101004838 in favour of Mr. Surajbhan and the same has been paid on 22.12.2007. That photocopy of above pay orders no.37029 and 37028 is Ex.DW4/3/A and Ex.DW4/3/B respectively (OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
87. DW4/4 Sh. Sanjay Kundu, Branch Head, J&K Bank, Sector 16, Faridabad brought original record of pay order no.004731 dated 12.03.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- drawn from savings bank account bearing no.SB-0450040100001332 of Smt. Rachna Gupta in favour of Mr. Surajbhan, the same has been paid on 16.03.2007, and certified copy of pay orders are Ex.DW4/4/A(OSR). He was cross examined and discharged.
88. DW4/6 Ms. Sarita Gautam, Head Clerk, Sub Registrar-VII, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi brought original record of Will dated 20.03.2007 bearing registration no.564, book no.3, volume no.504 on page 72-73 in the office of Sub Registrar-VII in favour of Sh. Nachiket Bhatkal and exhibited same as Ex.DW4/6/A(OSR). She was cross examined and discharged.
89. I have heard Ld counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal
90. The plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming to be beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:12 +0530 Page 36 of 47
91. First of all, I shall deal with CS DJ No.6364/2016 regarding authority of plaintiff Tejbir Singh to file present suit.
92. Plaintiff Tejbir Singh has filed the present suit claiming to be owner of the suit land admeasuring 250 sq yards bearing Khasra No.304/1, carved out of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, which is stated to have devolved upon the plaintiff by virtue of memorandum of family settlement. It is further stated in the plaint by plaintiff Tejbir Singh that his brother had purchased the suit land for the plaintiff from late Har Krishan. Plaintiff Tejbir Singh did not disclose date of execution of memorandum of family settlement or any other details of the same in the plaint like what were terms and conditions of memorandum of family settlement, names of members of family amongst whom family settlement took place or any witness to said memorandum of family settlement.
93. In his evidence affidavit Ex.PW3/A plaintiff Tejbir Singh stated that suit land was devolved upon him by virtue of oral family settlement, which is totally contradictory to his version in the plaint, wherein he stated that he got suit land via memorandum of family settlement. Again in the evidence affidavit Ex.PW3/A also plaintiff Tejbir Singh failed to disclose date, month or year of alleged oral family settlement and other details of the same to Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal substantiate his version of having acquired suit land through beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:12 +0530 Page 37 of 47 family settlement.
94. On one hand plaintiff Tejbir Singh stated in his plaint and evidence affidavit that he got suit land through family settlement, whereas on the other hand during cross examination PW1/plaintiff Tejbir Singh stated that deal was completed on his behalf by his brother. Plaintiff failed to explain as to if suit land was purchased by his brother for plaintiff, then how he can claim that it came into share of plaintiff after family settlement.
95. Plaintiff has not examined any independent witness or even his brother Jaspreet Singh or any other family member in support of his version of family settlement through which he claimed that suit property has been devolved upon him. There is no oral evidence through independent witnesses or in the form any document to show that plaintiff through any family settlement became owner of suit land.
96. The different stories by the plaintiff regarding getting suit land through family settlement or his brother purchased the same for him, are doubtful and do not inspire confidence at all.
97. It is more interesting fact that the plaintiff has not filed on record any document or examined any witness, even Jaspreet Singh to establish that he is brother of said Jaspreet Singh, which further creates doubt on the suit filed by the plaintiff Tejbir Singh as to whether it is genuine litigation or a collusive suit has been Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal filed by plaintiff and defendants to grab property in dispute or beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:08 +0530 Page 38 of 47 plaintiff filed suit just to extort money from the defendants? It is more surprising that Jaspreet Singh in whose favour alleged GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell etc were executed and who allegedly was involved in the deal with late Harikishan has not been examined by plaintiff or made party. Further, plaintiff Tejbir Singh has failed to prove any direct privity of contract of him with deceased Hari Krishan or any other defendants in respect of documents in question sought to be declared null and void.
98. Plaintiff Tejbir Singh has failed to establish that any family settlement either oral or written has taken place by which suit land measuring 250 sq yards devolved upon him.
99. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiff Tejbir Singh has failed to establish that he has any right, title or interest in the suit land or that he has any authority and competence in law to file the present suit CS DJ No.6364/2016.
100. Now I shall adjudicate upon issues which are involved in all the fives cases.
101. It is contended by Ld counsel for the defendant no.3 that site plan filed by the plaintiff(s) does not demarcate the scientific nature of the property with its descriptions of the adjoining properties shown through East, West, North and South directions with meets and bounds in width and length even in Agreement to Sale. It is further contended that if nature and identity of the land Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal in question is not absolutely clear through the attached site plan, beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:11 +0530 Page 39 of 47 the suit filed by the plaintiffs without any site plan of their respective piece of land is liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 3 CPC.
102. Perusal of testimony of plaintiff(s) shows that they also failed to disclose the exact location of their respective shares in the entire chunk of suit land, as it is stated that the entire chunk of land was purchased jointly and individually property was neither demarcated nor partitioned.
103. Plaintiffs did not bother to examine any witness from revenue record or any govt authority to prove that Harikishan is/was Bhumidar/owner of land in dispute and competent to execute title documents in respect of suit land. Photocopy of Khasra Girdawari was filed and exhibited but original of the same not filed nor any witness from Revenue department was called with original record. Plaintiffs filed site plan which is in respect of Khasra No.304/1, but same does not give specific dimension and other details of different portions of plaintiffs in land in question.
104. If the description of suit land remains elusive, confusing, or the plaintiffs fail to prove the exact location and extent of the suit property, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non compliance of Order VII rule 3 CPC.
105. In the present case, plaintiffs have sought to declare revocation deeds executed by Sh. Harikishan and other related documents as null and void, as prayed for in the plaint and have Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal also sought possession of suit land. Plaintiffs have failed to beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:09 +0530 Page 40 of 47 explain as to if respective suit lands are not identifiable by plaintiffs themselves, then how decree for eviction/ejection of defendants from respective suit lands, decree for possession in favour of respective plaintiffs, decree of mandatory and perpetual injunction against defendants can be passed and executed.
106. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that suits of the plaintiffs are liable to be rejected for non compliance of order VII rule 3 of the CPC.
107. Now issue to be adjudicated upon before this Court is as to whether Revocation Deeds in dispute in the present case, whereby Har Krishan revocated/cancelled GPAs and Wills which were executed by him in favour plaintiffs/purchasers is liable to be declared as null and void, as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
108. To adjudicate above issue, this Court first of all has to adjudicate as to whether agent i.e. purchasers/plaintiffs through General Power of Attornies coupled with Agreements to Sell have any right, title or interest in the subject matter i.e. land in dispute herein, of the agency, after the death of principal Hari Krishan.
109. Main line of arguments of plaintiffs is that each plaintiff's GPA was executed for valuable consideration paid through identified banking instruments and was accompanied by actual delivery of possession. That late Har Krishan affirmed in his own registered affidavit that he was left with no right, title or interest.
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal That an agency coupled with interest within the meaning of section beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:13 +0530 Page 41 of 47 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which provides that an agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of the agent's interest. That a unilateral revocation of such an agency, executed without the knowledge or consent of any of the five plaintiffs, is void ab initio in respect of each and every one of them.
110. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr vs. J. Manjula etc, Civil Appeal Nos.3266- 3267 of 2025 observed that essentials of Section 202 of the Contract Act are, first, there shall be a relationship in the capacity of 'principle and agent' between the parties, and secondly, there shall be agent's interest in the subject matter of the agency, and if both the conditions are fulfilled, the agency becomes irrevocable and cannot be terminated unilaterally at the behest of the principal; if first condition is satisfied, court shall proceed to examine whether from the reading of the GPA, the holder of GPA had an interest in the subject matter of the agency, namely, the suit property; that interest of the agent can be inferred from the language of the document or from the course of business between the principal and agent.
111. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr vs. J. Manjula etc (supra) in respect of nature of power of attorney and interest of agent in GPA has further observed:
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal "41.It is now appropriate to analyze the nature of the beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:10 +0530 Page 42 of 47 GPA, specifically whether it is general or special. While construing a document, a reader should not go by the title to the document or the nomenclature of the document. In such a case, the court is endowed with a duty to see the contents of the document and intention of the parties which can be gathered from the terms of the document and/or from circumstances under which the document was entered into. The intention of the parties can be ascertained from the language used by the parties. A document has to be seen as a whole.
42.The import of the word "general" in a POA refers to the power granted concerning the subject matter.
The test to determine the nature of POA is the subject matter for which it has been executed. The nomenclature of the POA does not determine its nature. Even a POA termed as a 'general power of attorney' may confer powers that are special in relation to the subject matter. Likewise, a 'special power of attorney' may confer powers that are general in nature concerning the subject matter. The essence lies in the power and not in the subject- matter xxxxxx
44.A three-Judge Bench of this Court settled the rules of interpretation applicable to power of attorney in Timblo Irmaos Ltd., Margo v. Jorge Anibal Matos Sequeira, reported in (1977) 3 SCC
474. It was held that words used in a POA must be interpreted in the context of the whole; the purpose of the powers conferred must then be examined through the circumstances in which it was executed; and finally, necessary powers must be implied.
Digitally signedxxxxx by Sunil Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:07 +0530 Page 43 of 47
45.Further, a mere use of the word 'irrevocable' in a POA does not make the POA irrevocable. If the POA is not coupled with interest, no extraneous expression can make it irrevocable. At the same time, even if there is no expression to the effect that the POA is irrevocable but the reading of the document indicates that it is a POA coupled with interest, it would be irrevocable. The principles of construction of a POA termed as 'irrevocable' was explained in Manubhai Prabhudas Patel v. Jayantilal Vadilal Shah, reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Guj 7028.
xxxxx
46.Applying the above exposition of law in the facts of the present case, it is evident from the tenor of POA that is not irrevocable as it was not executed to effectuate security or to secure interest of the agent.
The holder of POA could not be said to have an interest in the subject-matter of the agency and mere use of the word 'irrevocable' in a POA would not make the POA irrevocable. The High Court was right in holding that the holder did not have any interest in the POA. When the High Court observes that the power of attorney does not explicitly state the reason for its execution, it implies that its nature is general rather than special.
47.It is a settled law that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a conveyance. It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does not confer ownership right or title. In Suraj Lamp (supra) this Court had reiterated that an agreement to sell does not meet the requirements of Sections 54 Digitally signed and 55 of the TPA to effectuate a 'transfer'.
by SunilSunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:09 +0530 Page 44 of 47
48.From the independent reading of the POA and the agreement to sell, the submissions of the appellants fail on two grounds, first, the POA is general in nature and does not secure agent's right in the subject-matter of the agency, and secondly, an agreement to sell simpliciter does not confer ownership in the immovable property so as to transfer a better title to anyone else. iii. Combined Reading of the General Power of Attorney and the Agreement to Sell.
Xxxxxx
55.The High Court rightly held that even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the holder, this alone cannot be a factor to reach the conclusion that she had an interest in the POA. Thus, even though the GPA and the agreement to sell were contemporaneous documents executed by the original owner in favour of the same beneficiary, this cannot be the sole factor to conclude that she had an interest in the subject-matter. Even if such an argument were to persuade this Court, the document must have been registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In the absence of such registration, it would not be open for the holder of the POA to content that she had a valid right, title and interest in the immovable property to execute the registered sale deed in favour of appellant no. 2."
112. This Court has gone through the contents of the General Power of Attornies herein executed by late Har Krishan in favour of plaintiffs, and from the contents and tenor of said General Digitally signed by Sunil Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:06 +0530 Page 45 of 47 Power of Attornies it is evident that the same are not irrevocable, as the same do not mention anything about the execution or purpose of executing the Agreements to Sell or vice versa, and further that the same were not executed to effectuate security or to secure interest of the agents, and that the nature of the same is general rather than special.
113. Now insofar as combined reading of the General Power of Attornies and Agreement to Sell is concerned, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Ananthamurthy (supra) that if interest had been transferred by way of a written document, it had to be compulsorily registered as per Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, as law recognizes two modes of transfer by sale, first through registered instrument, and second by delivery of property if its value is less than Rs.100/-.
114. In view of combined reading of registered Power of Attornies in favour of plaintiffs with unregistered Agreements to Sell, and the ratio of law laid down in the case of M.S. Ananthamurthy (supra) and Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 it is held that case of the plaintiffs would not cover by Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, and that Power of Attornies executed in favour of plaintiffs by late Hari Kishan did not create any right or interest in respect of suit land in favour of holders of Power of Attornies i.e. plaintiff.
Sunil Digitally signed by Sunil beniwal Late Hari Kishan was very well within his right to cancel General beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:08 +0530 Page 46 of 47 Power of Attornies and Wills executed in favour of plaintiffs through registered impugned Revocation Deeds.
115. Furthermore, it is also observed that plaintiffs during lifetime or even after death of Hari Krishan failed to take steps to register Agreement to Sell.
116. It is also relevant to observe herein that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession in respect of suit property.
117. Accordingly, issues are decided adverse to the plaintiffs.
118. In view of above discussion, it is held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their entitlement for the reliefs sought in the plaint and all the five suits herein are liable to be dismissed.
Relief.
119. In view of above discussion and findings, all the five suits are dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record. Announced in the open Court on 29.05.2026.
(Each page of judgment digitally signed).
(Sunil Beniwal) District Judge-06(South), Saket Courts, New Delhi Digitally signed by Sunil Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2026.05.29 14:27:11 +0530 Page 47 of 47