Delhi District Court
Veena Rani vs Naseeb Singh on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Civ DJ 608563/2016
CNR Number: DLWT01-000026-2008
In the matter of:
Smt. Veena Rani (since deceased)
Through her LRs
1 (a) Shri Amrik Singh (husband)
S/o Shri Bhagat Singh
R/o Building Z4, Flat 119 England Cluster
International City Dubai
Also at
F-87, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi
1 (b) Shri Paramjit Singh (Son)
S/o Shri Amrik Singh's
R/o 16 Redwater Drive, Etobicoke
Ontario Canada, M9W 1Z6
1 (c) Shri Jaskarn Singh (son)
S/o Shri Amrik Singh's
R/o 16 Redwater Drive, Etobicoke
Ontario Canada, M9W 1Z6 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Naseeb Singh
S/o Shri Swaroop Singh
R/o E-76, Om Vihar Phase-V
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
2. Shri Manjeet Singh
S/o Shri Sardar Ravel Singh
R/o GD-6, G-Block,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064.
3. Shri Satinder Bir Singh
S/o Shri Sardar Singh Rakhi
R/o B-X-678, Khudd Mohalla,
Ludhiana, Punjab. ..... Defendants
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 1 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:10:55 +0530
Date of institution : 21.11.2008
Date of reserved for judgment : 21.01.2026
Date of judgment : 31.01.2026
Suit for cancellation of general power of attorney dated nil executed by
defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 3. Agreement to sell dated
22.04.2008 and sale deed dated 09.07.2008 by defendant no. 3 in favour
of defendant no. 1 and 2 in respect of property bearing plot no. 4
(admeasuring 250 sq. yards) out of Rect no. 89 Killa no. 16, 17, 24 and
25 Rect 90 Killa no. 4/1, 4/2, 5/1 and 5/2 and 6 situated at revenue estate
of village Hastsal Colony known as Dayal Sar Road, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi and with further prayer for grant of decree of declaration to the
effect that plaintiff being owner in possession of above registered
property on the strength of agreement to sell dated 31.01.1992, general
power of attorney, receipt, affidavit, will dated 31.01.1992 etc. and for
grant of permanent injunction.
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case
1. The plaintiff states that the subject property, being Plot No. 4 admeasuring 250 square yards situated at Village Hastsal, Delhi, was originally jointly owned by several persons who sold it in 1973 to Smt. Kulwant Kaur through a registered sale deed, making her the sole owner. Subsequently, Smt. Kulwant Kaur sold 50 square yards of the plot to Smt. Krishna Verma and the remaining 200 square yards to Shri Khajan Singh in 1981 through agreements to sell, registered receipts, and irrevocable General Powers of Attorney. Later, in 1982, Smt. Krishna Verma sold her 50 square yards share to Shri Khajan Singh, thereby making him the exclusive owner of the entire 250 square yards plot, in possession of which he raised boundary walls, constructed rooms, and obtained an Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 2 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:01 +0530 electricity connection.
2. It is the case of plaintiff that she is an NRI settled in the UAE since her marriage in 1986. She purchased the entire plot from Shri Khajan Singh in 1992 for a consideration of Rs. 1.25 lakhs through an agreement to sell, GPA, Will, affidavit, and registered receipt, which was the normal mode of transaction in Delhi at that time. The plaintiff was put into actual and physical possession of the property and carried out repairs and maintenance. Due to her absence from India, the vacant plot became vulnerable, and local persons started dumping garbage on it.
3. In May 2008, the plaintiff received information that a local property dealer (Defendant No. 1), in collusion with antisocial elements and others, attempted to demolish the boundary wall to forcibly grab the plot. The plaintiff and her husband immediately came to Delhi, stopped the illegal demolition with police intervention, and lodged complaints with police authorities and higher officials. Despite this, the defendants continued to threaten dispossession.
4. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. However, during its pendency, the defendants allegedly fabricated and forged documents, including an agreement to sell, GPA, possession letter, and sale deed dated 2008, by falsely projecting defendant No. 3 as the son of Smt. Kulwant Kaur and claiming ownership of the property. These documents were allegedly created after obtaining copies of the plaintiff's documents from the police. The defendants also relied upon a forged death certificate of Smt. Kulwant Kaur, which official records later revealed to be false.
5. Due to these new developments, the plaintiff withdrew the earlier Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 3 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:11:05 +0530 injunction suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The present suit has been filed seeking cancellation of the forged documents, declaration of the plaintiff's exclusive ownership and possession, and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the property. The plaintiff asserts that she has remained in lawful possession throughout, that the defendants' claims are based entirely on fabricated documents, and that the cause of action is continuing. The plaintiff further submits that the Court has territorial jurisdiction, the suit is within limitation, proper Court fees have been paid, and prays for cancellation of the impugned documents, declaration of title, permanent injunction, and initiation of proceedings for prosecution of the defendants for producing forged documents.
Written Statement of defendant no. 1, 2 and 3
6. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have denied all allegations made in the plaint except those specifically admitted and contend that the suit is false, vexatious, malicious, and liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. They asserted that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit property and is attempting to trespass upon it on the basis of forged and fabricated documents allegedly prepared in collusion with antisocial elements and local police officials. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has no locus standi, right, title, or interest in the property and that all documents relied upon by her are forged, unstamped, unregistered, and invalid under the Indian Registration Act, the Indian Stamp Act, and the Transfer of Property Act.
7. The defendants state that Smt. Kulwant Kaur was the original Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 4 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:11:09 +0530 owner of the property, having purchased it in 1973, and that she died on 15 December 1978. Therefore, any documents purportedly executed by or on her behalf in 1981 or thereafter are inherently void. They rely on an alleged death certificate to support this claim. According to them, after her death, her son, defendant No. 3, remained in possession and later lawfully sold the property to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through a registered sale deed executed in July 2008 after issuing public notices inviting objections. They maintain that they are the lawful owners in possession and that any construction undertaken by them was unlawfully obstructed by the plaintiff.
8. On merits, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 admitted only the original purchase of the property by Smt. Kulwant Kaur in 1973 and denied all subsequent transactions alleged by the plaintiff, including purported sales to Krishna Verma, Khazan Singh, and ultimately to the plaintiff. They contended that these transactions were based on blank signed papers or forged documents created after the death of Smt. Kulwant Kaur and were never lawfully executed or registered. They denied that the plaintiff carried out any construction or repairs and alleged that the property remained vacant for years under the supervision of local representatives on behalf of defendant No. 3 until its sale. They further stated that police inquiries have found the plaintiff's documents to be forged and that a criminal complaint has been lodged against her. They submitted that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was withdrawn due to their objections and that the present suit has been filed with mala fide intent to grab the property or extract money. They also contended that the suit is not Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 5 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:13 +0530 properly valued and that requisite Court fees have not been paid, and therefore pray for dismissal of the suit.
9. Defendant No. 3 has similarly denied all allegations except those specifically admitted and contended that the suit is false, malicious, and liable to be dismissed in limine for lack of cause of action. He asserts that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the property and has unnecessarily impleaded him to harass and humiliate him. He denied that any agreement to sell or power of attorney was executed by Late Smt. Kulwant Kaur in favour of Khazan Singh and alleged that Khazan Singh colluded with the plaintiff to forge documents after her death on 15 December 1978. Since the plaintiff claims title through documents allegedly executed in 1981, he contended that such documents are inherently forged and fabricated.
10. Defendant No. 3 further asserted that the plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the property and that all ownership documents relied upon by her contain forged signatures of Late Smt. Kulwant Kaur. He stated that genuine original documents bearing her authentic signatures have been placed on record to demonstrate forgery. He maintained that after Smt. Kulwant Kaur's death, her legal heirs remained in possession until the property was lawfully sold to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through a registered sale deed executed on 9 July 2008 at the Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, following public notices inviting objections. He denied the plaintiff's claims regarding possession, construction, threats, and police complaints, and contended that the property remained vacant and was looked after by a local RWA representative on behalf of the legal heirs.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 6 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:11:17 +0530
11. Defendant No. 3 also submitted that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was withdrawn due to objections, that the present suit discloses no cause of action, that it is not properly valued, and that requisite Court fees have not been paid. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the suit and rejection of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
Replications filed by the plaintiff to the Written Statements of Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3
12. In her replication to the written statements of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff has raised preliminary objections that their written statement is not legally valid as it lacked proper verification, is unsupported by a legally compliant affidavit, and was filed beyond the prescribed period without any application for condonation of delay. She contended that these defects are deliberate and intended to mislead the Court and avoid legal consequences. The replication has been filed without prejudice to her rights and contentions.
13. On merits, the plaintiff categorically denied all allegations made by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and has asserted that the suit discloses a clear and continuing cause of action. She maintains that she has always been in lawful possession of the suit property and denied any attempt to trespass or collusion with antisocial elements or police officials. She refuted all allegations of forgery, fabrication, or impersonation concerning Smt. Kulwant Kaur and specifically disputed the alleged date of death relied upon by the defendants, asserting that the death certificate produced by them is forged and fabricated. According to the plaintiff, her title documents are genuine and lawfully executed, whereas the documents Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 7 of 53 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:11:21 +0530 relied upon by the defendants are fabricated in an attempt to grab the property.
14. The plaintiff reiterated the factual narrative set out in the plaint, asserting that the property was lawfully sold by Smt. Kulwant Kaur through valid intermediate transactions culminating in her ownership and possession. She denied that defendant No. 3 or defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were ever in lawful possession or that any valid sale was executed in their favour. She further denied that the property remained vacant or was looked after by any local representative on behalf of the defendants. All allegations regarding inconsistent pleadings, police enquiries, public notices, lawful construction by the defendants, improper valuation, non- payment of Court fees, absence of cause of action, and suppression of material facts have been specifically denied.
15. In her replication to the written statement of defendant No. 3, the plaintiff has similarly objected that the written statement is invalid due to improper verification, absence of a legally compliant affidavit, and delayed filing without condonation. She asserted that these defects are deliberate and that her replication is filed without prejudice to her rights.
16. The plaintiff denied all allegations made by defendant No. 3 and maintained that the suit discloses a valid and subsisting cause of action. She affirmed that Smt. Kulwant Kaur executed valid documents, including an agreement to sell and power of attorney, in favour of Shri Khazan Singh, and that she derived lawful title and possession through those transactions. She denied any suppression of facts, lack of locus standi, mala fide intent, or reliance on forged documents. She specifically Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 8 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:11:25
+0530
disputed the alleged death of Smt. Kulwant Kaur on 15.12.1978 and asserted that the records relied upon by the defendants are fabricated.
17. The plaintiff reiterated that her ownership documents are genuine and validly executed and denied that any signatures were obtained on blank papers or that any documents were forged. She refutes claims that the property remained vacant or that defendant No. 3 or any RWA representative was authorised to manage it. She further denied the validity of the alleged sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, calling them fabricated and sham documents. Allegations regarding police enquiries, public notices, collusion, improper valuation, and lack of jurisdiction were also denied. The plaintiff prayed that the objections and defences raised by the defendants be rejected and that the suit be decreed in her favour as prayed.
Issues :-
18. From the pleadings of the parties and material on record, following issues were framed :-
Issue no. 1 Whether the written statement and affidavit in support thereof as filed by the defendant can be looked into? OPP Issue no. 2 Whether the defendant no. 3 sold the subject property to defendant no. 1 and 2 being competent and capable and whether defendant no. 1 and 2 are lawful owners of the subject property? OP Parties Issue no. 3 Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD Issue no. 4 Whether late Smt. Kulwant Kaur was known to Shri Khazan Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 9 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:29 +0530 Singh and whether documents pertaining to the subject property as filed by the plaintiff on record are forged and fabricated documents? OPD Issue no. 5 Whether Smt. Kulwant Kaur died on 15.12.1978 as alleged? OPD Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff was ever and now in possession of the suit property? OP Parties Issue no. 7 Whether the suit property has been transferred in contravention of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act? OPD Issue no. 8 Whether the documents pertaining to the suit property as filed by the plaintiff are valid documents and whether the suit is maintainable in view of provisions of Indian Registration Act? OPD Issue no. 9 Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of Indian Stamp Act? OPD Issue no. 10 Relief.
Plaintiff Evidence:-
PW1/ Smt. Veena Rani
19. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1. On 16.02.2010, PW1 tender her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon Ex. PW1/1 sale deed dated 09.02.1973 executed by Chander Bal and Nand Kishore, Ramesh Chand and Beg Raj in favour of Smt. Kulwant Kaur, General Power of Attorney, Agreement to sell, registered receipt executed by Smt. Kulawant Kaur in favour of Smt. Krishna Verma Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4, General Power of Attorney dated 01.05.1981, Agreement to Sell dated 01.06.1981, registered receipt dated 01.06.1981 executed by Smt. Kulwant Kaur in favour of Shri Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 10 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:11:33 +0530 Khazan Singh Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/7, General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, affidavit and receipt executed by Smt. Krishna Verma in favour of Shri Khazan Singh Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/11, Will, irrevocable GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt executed by Shri Kazan Singh in favour Shri Veena Rani dated 31.01.1992 Ex. PW1/12 to Ex. PW1/16, complaint dated 14.05.2008 to DCP West by Smt. Veena Rani Ex. PW1/17, speed post receipt regarding the above complaint Ex. PW1/18 to Ex. PW1/26, suit for permanent injunction filed by Smt. Veena Rani before Ld. Civil Judge Ex. PW1/27, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim relief filed alongwith the suit for permanent injunction by Smt. Veena Rani Ex. PW1/28, defendant no. 3 executed General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, possession letter all dated 22.04.2008 claiming himself to be the alleged son of late Smt. Kulwant Kaur and thereafter defendant no. 3 executed sale deed dated 09.07.2008 in favour of defendant no. 1 Ex. PW1/29 to Ex.
PW1/32, the application under Order 23 CPC in the earlier suit of permanent injunction filed by Smt. Veena Rani Ex. PW1/33, her statement regarding withdrawal of the suit Ex. PW1/34 and order dated 18.10.2008 passed regarding withdrawal of suit on her statement Ex. PW1/35, visiting card of defendant no. 1 showing him as property dealer and carrying on business activities of property under the name and style of Chaudhary Properties Ex. PW1/36, certificate alongwith English translation to the effect that inquiries were made by Smt. Veena Rani regarding alleged death certificate of Smt. Kulwant Kaur from the office of Registrar of Birth and Death showing that there is no entry of death of Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 11 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:37 +0530 Smt. Kulwant Kaur as alleged Ex. PW1/37, details of connection at the suit property from the record of BSES in the name of Khazan Singh Ex. PW1/38, bills raised by BSES on Mr. Khazan Singh Ex. PW1/39, photographs showing business activities of property dealing being carried out by defendant no. 1 Ex. PW1/40 to Ex. PW1/42, photographs of front and rear portion of the status of suit property as on 18.11.2008 Ex. PW1/43 to Ex. PW1/46, bills dated 18.11.2008 from the photographer of M/s Photo Plaza Ex. PW1/47, notice issued by advocate of plaintiff dated 08.12.2008 as defendant started raising construction on boundary wall on the front side of the suit property Ex. PW1/48 and its speed post receipts Ex. PW1/49 to Ex. PW1/51, complaint lodged by plaintiff with PS Bindapur alongwith English Translation regarding unauthorized construction by defendant Ex. PW1/52, photographs taken on 04.12.2008 regarding construction raised by defendant on part of boundary wall of front side of the suit property Ex. PW1/53 to Ex. PW1/55, bill dated 04.12.2008 by photographer of M/s Neha Studio Ex. PW1/56, note dated 13.01.2009 by official of BSES not to install any meter at the suit property Ex. PW1/57, notice dated 14.01.2009 by plaintiff through her advocate to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd as well as Shri Arun Kumar not to install meter at the suit property being a disputed case Ex. PW1/58.
20. In her cross-examination, PW1 stated that she is a graduate, an Indian citizen, and had shifted to the UAE in 1987, though she visited Delhi occasionally and stayed at her residence in Vishnu Garden. She deposed that before purchasing the suit property, she visited it 5-6 days prior to purchase, examined the chain of title documents of the previous Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 12 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:43 +0530 owner, and got them verified from the Sub-Registrar, including registered cash receipts, and that she came to know about the sale through a local property dealer who later died.
21. The witness consistently stated that she never met Smt. Kulwant Kaur, Krishna Verma, or their family members, and that she has no personal knowledge of the execution of documents by Kulwant Kaur in favour of Krishna Verma or Khajan Singh, except what is reflected from the documents received as chain documents. She admitted that several documents in the chain were undated or inconsistently dated, that she could not identify signatures of previous owners or witnesses, and that she was not personally present at the time when those earlier documents were executed.
22. She denied all suggestions that the documents in question were forged or fabricated, or that Smt. Kulwant Kaur had died prior to the execution of the documents. She maintained that the documents were genuine and denied allegations of collusion with Khajan Singh or fabrication of ownership documents. She further stated that she did not know whether the documents were registered or properly stamped and lacked personal knowledge regarding consideration paid in earlier transactions.
23. PW1 deposed that she purchased the suit property through Khajan Singh, arranged the consideration in India through her father and relatives, made payment by demand draft, and took physical possession of the suit property. She claimed that at the time of purchase, the property was undivided, had two rooms, and that she later repaired boundary walls Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 13 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:47 +0530 after one room collapsed. She admitted that she has no documentary proof of construction or repairs.
24. She stated that she was present at the time of execution of documents in her favour along with her uncle, though she could not recall the exact place of execution, witnesses, or notary details due to lapse of time. She admitted that some documents did not bear her signature and that she could produce proof showing her presence in India at the time of purchase.
25. PW1 denied allegations that she never received possession, trespassed upon the suit property, or filed false complaints. She asserted that she was informed by a third person that the boundary wall was being demolished, after which she visited the property and contacted the police.
She denied knowledge of defendants prior to the dispute and refuted claims that defendants lawfully purchased the property from defendant No.3.
26. She admitted that defendant No.3 is the son of Kulwant Kaur but asserted that he is not the sole legal heir and that there are several other legal heirs, as reflected in a voter list filed later in the proceedings. She denied that the voter list or death certificate relied upon by her are fabricated and denied all allegations of false deposition.
27. PW1 maintained that she lawfully purchased the suit property, received possession, and has been the rightful owner, while consistently stating that her knowledge of earlier transactions is limited solely to the documents forming the chain of title.
PW2/Shri Amrik Singh/ Husband of plaintiff Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 14 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:51 +0530
28. On 23.09.2014, PW2 tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon all the documents which were exhibited through PW1.
29. During cross examination, PW2 stated that he is a 10th class pass and has limited knowledge of English. His affidavit was drafted by his Counsel in India and sent to him in the UAE, where it was read over to him by someone who knew English and also by his lawyer before he signed it at the Indian Embassy in the UAE. He has been continuously residing in the UAE since 1976 and is an Indian citizen holding an Indian passport. He frequently visits India but cannot state the exact duration of his stay each year.
30. He originally belonged to Jalandhar, Punjab, and had not purchased any property prior to the suit property, except one property in Delhi in 1994. He did not personally meet Kulwant Kaur at any time and came to know about the previous owners only through the chain of documents handed over to his wife. He was not present at the time of execution of documents Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/4 and had no personal knowledge of their execution. He could not identify the signatures of Krishna Verma and admitted that some documents did not bear her signatures. However, he denied that the documents were forged, fabricated, or ante-dated.
31. He stated that the documents were given by his wife's maternal uncle (mausa), Kartar Singh, who resided at Shyam Nagar, Delhi, though he could not tell the complete address. He denied the suggestion that Kulwant Kaur had died before execution of the documents and denied that Krishna Verma was fictitious. He also denied that Khajan Singh and Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 15 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:11:55 +0530 Krishna Verma never became owners of the suit property.
32. PW2 admitted that he was not present during the execution of deeds between Kulwant Kaur, Krishna Verma, and Khajan Singh and had no personal knowledge of those transactions. He stated that the suit property measuring 250 square yards was purchased as a single undivided plot. He acknowledged that the plots of 50 sq. yards and 200 sq. yards bore the same plot number but denied any forgery.
33. He stated that he met Khajan Singh 5-6 days before execution of documents Ex. PW-1/12 to Ex. PW-1/16 but did not know his address. The transaction was arranged through a property dealer in the presence of his wife's mausa. The consideration amount was paid by bank draft prepared against cash, which was arranged partly by his wife's parents and partly from her savings. He admitted that his wife did not have a bank account at that time.
34. He explained that they used to bring cash Dirhams from Dubai and exchanged them in India, sometimes through private exchange centers, and denied that bringing cash from Dubai was illegal. He stated that the documents were executed at the Authority Building, Janakpuri, and denied that there was no Sub-Registrar office there at the relevant time. He admitted that neither he nor his wife produced Indian identity documents other than passports and that they were sitting outside while the mausa went inside the office.
35. He stated that after purchasing the property, they kept it under lock and key and visited it periodically. There was an electricity connection in the name of Khajan Singh, which was later disconnected due to non-
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 16 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:59 +0530
payment. He denied that possession was never handed over to them. In May 2008, his wife received information that someone was attempting to break the boundary wall, after which police complaints were made, though no FIR was registered.
36. He denied that defendants had validly purchased the property or that defendant no. 3, as legal heir of Kulwant Kaur, was entitled to it. He denied that their documents were forged or that voter lists and certificates filed by his wife were fabricated. He stated that police and their Counsel informed them that defendants' documents were forged.
37. He admitted that he could read English and relied on others to read documents to him. He stated that they relied entirely on the advice of his wife's mausa and did not conduct independent legal verification of the documents or consult an advocate. He admitted that the agreement to sell was not registered and that sale deeds were not executed on legal advice. He denied all suggestions that he was deposing falsely, concealing facts, or that neither he nor his wife were ever in possession of the suit property. He maintained that all documents filed by them are genuine and that his wife is the lawful owner of the suit property.
PW3/ HC Anoop Singh
38. PW3 stated that the complaint dated 14.05.2008 allegedly made by Veena Rani is not available because it has been destroyed. The official document evidencing the destruction of the said record has been exhibited as Ex. PW-3/1.
PW4/ Shri Ravinder Kumar, LDC from office of Sub Registrar-II, Basai Darapur, Delhi.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 17 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:12:03 +0530
39. PW4 proved the original records relating to two registered receipts dated 01.06.1981 showing payment of consideration by Khajan Singh and Krishna Verma to Kulwant Kaur, bearing registration numbers 7825 and 7824 respectively, recorded in Additional Book No. IV, Volume 706. He further produced the original record of the Will dated 31.01.1992 executed by Khajan Singh bearing registration number 5054. The certified copies of these documents were already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/4, and Ex. PW-1/12.
40. PW-5, Shri Satnarayan Sharma, Assistant Personal Officer, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., proved the official record relating to an electricity connection bearing K. No. 2650W5180015 and CRN No. 2650043867, which stands in the name of Khajan Singh and pertains to the suit property. He also produced the electricity bill dated 18.08.2015 in the name of Khajan Singh, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-5/1.
41. PW5 stated that the electricity connection at the suit property was originally installed in the name of Krishna Verma on 01.04.1983, was transferred to the name of Khajan Singh on 01.04.1985, and was permanently disconnected on 30.04.2004. During cross-examination, he produced document Ex. PW-5/D1 showing electricity consumption details. As per record, the premises was found locked from 25.04.1998, and no electricity consumption was recorded from that date up to 09.06.2003. PW5 further stated that no records are available after 22.10.2016.
PW5/Shri Rajesh Kwatra
42. The witness stated that he runs a photo studio named "Photo Plaza"
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 18 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:12:07 +0530 at A-15, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, and that the suit property is situated about ten steps away from his shop. He stated that the plaintiff approached him to take photographs, and accordingly he took photographs Ex. PW-1/43, Ex. PW-1/44, Ex. PW-1/45, and Ex. PW-1/46 on 18.11.2008 using a digital camera, due to which no negatives are available.
43. During cross-examination, the witness stated that he could identify the location of the photographs based on a partially visible board in photograph Ex. PW-1/45 showing one and a half alphabet, which he identified as part of the name "Adarsh Public School," as the property is very close to his shop and he visited the area daily. He stated that he could identify the lady in the photographs as the same person who had engaged him to take the photographs, though he could not explain the basis of such identification and admitted that he did not ask her name at the time.
44. He stated that he had issued a bill for the photographs, though he did not remember the amount charged. When shown the bill dated 18.11.2008, he admitted that Ex. PW-1/47 was issued by him in the name of Smt. Veena Rani. He admitted that photographs Ex. PW-1/40, Ex. PW-1/41, and Ex. PW-1/42 were not taken by him. He denied the suggestion that he had been tutored to depose falsely.
45. In further cross-examination by Counsel for defendants nos. 1 and 3, the witness admitted that he had not placed any document on record to show that he was running a photography shop, except for the bill Ex. PW-1/47.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 19 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:12:11 +0530
PW6/Shri Pradeep Kumar, Clerk from District Election Office, Ludhiana(Mini Secretariat), Punjab.
46. PW6 produced the official records of the voter lists of the Ludhiana Assembly Constituency for the years 1993 and 1998. He stated that in the voter list of the year 1993, the names of Randhir Singh and Rajender Kaur appeared at serial numbers 662 and 663 on page 5 of the voter list register, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-6/1 with the relevant entries marked at point A. He further stated that in the voter list of the year 1998, the names of Amarpal and Bhupender Kaur appeared at serial numbers 394 and 395 on page 9 of the voter list register, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-6/2 with the relevant entries marked at point B.
47. During cross-examination by Counsel for defendants nos. 1 and 3, PW6 admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the voter lists of the Ludhiana Assembly Constituency and also had no personal knowledge about the present case.
48. PW7/ Sh. Sarwan Singh, Health Worker, Department of Health, Municipal Corporation of Haryana, Ludhiana produced the original register containing entry no. 18415, on the basis of which a non-traceable certificate was issued. He stated that the photocopy of the relevant entry from point A to A was exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A (OSR). He further stated that the certificate bearing no. 18415, Ex. PW-7/B, had been issued by the Registrar of his office, and he identified the Registrar's signature appearing at point A.
49. During cross-examination, PW7 admitted that in entry no. 18415, the name of the applicant is not Kulwant Kaur but Pushkaran, as written Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 20 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:12:15 +0530 in Punjabi. He further explained that entry no. 18415 pertains to an application for issuance of a No Objection Certificate, which is issued when no entry exists in the Birth and Death Register and a fresh entry is required to be made.
50. PW7 specifically stated that entry no. 18415 relates to Pushkar Singh and does not pertain to the death of Kulwant Kaur. He further stated that he was not concerned with document Mark A and therefore could not comment upon it.
Defendant Evidence:-
D1W1/ Shri Nasib Singh
51. In order to prove their case, the defendant no. 1 Shri Nasib Singh examined himself as D1W1. On 10.07.2024, D1W1 tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D1W1/A and relied upon registered sale deed dated 09.07.2008 executed by defendant no. 3 Shri Satinder Bir Singh in favour of defendant no. 1 Ex. DW1/1, general power of attorney, agreement to sell, possession letter and receipt all dated 22.04.2008 executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 Ex. DW1/2 to Ex. DW1/5, sale deed dated 09.02.1973 executed by Chander Bal and Nand Kishore, Ramesh Chand and Beg Raj in favour of Smt. Kulwant Kaur already Ex. PW1/1, death certificate of Kulwant Kaur dated 15.12.1978 Ex. DW1/7 leaving behind defendant no. 3 and her husband who died in the year 1991, copy of paper cutting of the public notice in newspaper dated 11.05.2008 got published by defendant no. 1 at the advise of defendant no. 2 inviting objections as the suit property was lying vacant for many years Ex. DW1/8, copy of police complaint dated Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 21 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:12:19 +0530 27.08.2008 against the plaintiff Ex. DW1/9, the status report filed by the police regarding the complaint by the plaintiff in the Hon'ble High Court Ex.DW1/11A and Ex.DW1/11B and the CFSL report Ex.DW1/12 (inadvertently mentioned as Ex. DW3/2 in the affidavit of defendant no.
1)
52. During cross examination, D1W1 stated that he is a property dealer by profession and has been engaged in this business for the last 24-25 years. He is 57 years old, 10th class pass, and has been residing in Om Vihar for the last 25-26 years. He stated that he cannot understand English well and did not fully understand the contents of his affidavit on his own, which he signed in his lawyer's chamber on the advice of his advocate. He does not remember the exact date of signing or who was present at that time.
53. He stated that he was not acquainted with Kulwant Kaur and never met her, but he knew her son Satender Bir Singh, whom he first met in the year 2008 through Manjeet Singh, defendant no. 2, and also through Attar Singh, the president of the RWA. He stated that Satender Bir Singh told him that he was the only legal heir of Kulwant Kaur and showed him a death certificate indicating that she had died in 1978, which he believed.
He denied having any knowledge that Satender Bir Singh had any siblings and denied any conspiracy to falsely project him as the sole legal heir.
54. D1W1 stated that before entering into the transaction, he visited the suit property twice and found only boundary walls at the site with no construction. He admitted that statements in his affidavit regarding Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 22 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:12:23 +0530 construction, possession, and ownership of the suit property were not based on his personal knowledge but were conveyed to him by Satender Bir Singh and Attar Singh. He further admitted that he never verified the title documents, chain documents, electricity connection, or water connection before purchasing the property.
55. He admitted that the agreement to sell dated 22.04.2008 was executed only in his favour by defendant no. 3 and not in favour of defendant no. 2. He explained that the sale deed dated 09.07.2008 was executed in favour of both himself and defendant no. 2 because he was short of funds and therefore made Manjeet Singh his partner, though no fresh documentation was executed to amend the agreement to sell. He admitted that certain documents, including the possession letter and receipts, did not bear the signatures of any witnesses and denied allegations that these documents were forged or fabricated.
56. D1W1 admitted that he does not remember the source of cash payment of Rs. 20 lakhs allegedly paid to defendant no. 3 and could not state whether the said amount was declared in his income tax returns, though he undertook to produce the return for the year 2008. He admitted that there was a discrepancy between the consideration amount mentioned in the receipt and the sale deed and attributed the difference to circle rate valuation.
57. He stated that he did not remember in whose name the electricity connection at the suit property existed either before or after the sale and admitted that he never applied for an electricity connection due to the pending litigation. He also admitted that he did not take steps to verify the Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 23 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:12:29 +0530 registered receipts relied upon by the plaintiff and never made any complaint to the registrar or sub-registrar regarding those documents.
58. He denied allegations that Kulwant Kaur had sold the suit property to Khazan Singh and Krishna Verma or that Khazan Singh subsequently transferred the property to the plaintiff. He denied that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit property and denied that he, along with defendants nos. 2 and 3 and Attar Singh, conspired to usurp the suit property by creating forged documents. He further denied that the death certificate of Kulwant Kaur was fabricated or that police reports were prepared under any influence or collusion.
59. D1W1 admitted that he never filed any civil suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff's documents were forged or invalid. He also admitted that he did not possess the original chain documents of the suit property and stated that defendant no. 3 had lodged an NCR regarding their loss, though he did not remember the details. He ultimately denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
D2W1/Shri Manjit Singh
60. In order to prove their case, the defendant no. 2 examined himself as D2W1. On 31.03.2023, the D2W1 tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D2W1/A and relied upon the copy of the death certificate of late Mrs. Kulawant Kaur Mark D2W1, copy of sale deed executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1, agreement to sell, power of attorney and receipt Mark D2W2, copy of public notice as published in Hindi and English newspaper on 11.05.2008 inviting objections as the suit property was lying vacant Mark D2W3, copy of complaint to the Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 24 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:12:34 +0530 police against the plaintiff Mark D2W4.
61. During cross examination, D2W1 stated that he can read and understand English to some extent and is well conversant with the contents of his affidavit. He stated that he has known defendant no. 1 since 2007-2008 and that late Ms. Kulwant Kaur was his cousin bua, whom he had known since birth. He deposed that, to his knowledge, Kulwant Kaur had only one son, Satender Bir Singh, and that she resided in Ludhiana, Punjab. He stated that he visited her house only once at the time of Satender Bir Singh's marriage and that Kulwant Kaur passed away in Ludhiana. He denied the suggestion that the death certificate produced is false or fabricated.
62. He denied that he never purchased the suit property from defendant no. 3 and denied any collusion with defendants nos. 1 and 3 to grab the suit property from the plaintiff. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of Kulwant Kaur having purchased the suit property in 1973 and stated that he came to know of this only through documents and his familial relationship. He denied that defendant no. 3 was never in possession of the suit property and denied that the plaintiff had purchased the property from Khajan Singh or remained in possession thereafter.
63. D2W1 denied any attempt to trespass upon the suit property along with defendant no. 1 and asserted that the property was already in their possession and that construction work was being carried out there. He denied that Kulwant Kaur had sold the property in parts to Krishna Verma and Khajan Singh or that Khajan Singh later became the sole owner. He stated that he does not know in whose name the electricity connection Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 25 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:12:38 +0530 stood in 2008 and denied knowledge of the relationship between Kulwant Kaur and Khajan Singh, though he admitted stating in his affidavit that Khajan Singh was known to her.
64. He denied that Khajan Singh constructed boundary walls or rooms at the suit property and denied that the plaintiff carried out any repairs after the alleged purchase. He stated that he paid the entire consideration amount in cash prior to 01.05.2008 but could not remember the exact amount paid for his share. He stated that a public notice regarding the property was published in Delhi and denied that defendant no. 3 never executed a sale deed in his favour and in favour of defendant no. 1.
65. He further stated that he has not filed any complaint in Court against the plaintiff for alleged fabrication of documents but claimed that a police complaint was filed, an investigation was conducted, and a report was submitted in Court holding the plaintiff's documents to be false. He denied the suggestion that no such complaint or police finding exists and denied that he is deposing falsely.
66. D2W2, Shri Devender Kumar, Junior Assistant from the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Basai Darapur, Delhi, proved the certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.07.2008 executed by Shri Satender Vir Singh in favour of defendant no.1 bearing registration no. 17403, Book No. 1, Volume No. 16256, pages 25 to 34 Ex. D2W2/1. In cross-examination, he stated that he could say whether verification of ownership or legal heirs of the property is required before registration of a sale deed. D2W3/Shri K.P. Giri, PR Exective Rastriya Sahara Noida, UP
67. D2W3 proved the certified copy of page no. 4 of the Rashtriya Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 26 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:13:05 +0530 Sahara newspaper dated 11.05.2008, marked at point "X", which was exhibited as Ex. D2W3/1. He stated that he did not bring any separate authority letter to depose before the Court and appeared pursuant to the Court summons addressed to him for producing the certified copy of the relevant document. He admitted that the advertisement marked at point "X" is a classified advertisement and that no factual verification of the contents of advertisements is carried out by the newspaper before publication. He further stated that he himself certified Ex. D2W3/1. D2W4/ Head Constable Vishal Yadav, 1659 DW, PS Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
68. D2W4 stated that the summoned record had already been destroyed in terms of office order no. 14561-646/HAR/DWD dated 25.07.2022, duly signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dwarka District, New Delhi, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ex. D2W4/1 wherein the summoned record is mentioned at serial no. 21 at point "Y". He also stated that he could not say after how many years old records are destroyed in his office.
D2W5/Sh. Akash Garg, Clerk, Birth and Death, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, Punjab.
69. D2W5 proved the entry of the death of Kulwant Kaur in the register of the Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana, Punjab Ex. D2W5/1. He further stated that the register does not contain information about the document on the basis of which the entry was made, but the name and address of the person who informed about the death is mentioned in column no. 17, although he is unable to read the name or address of the Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 27 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:13:09 +0530 informant as the handwriting is unclear; however, he can read, write, and speak Punjabi. He added that nowadays, proof of death such as a cremation slip, ID proof of the deceased, or hospital record is provided by the informant at the time of registration, but he cannot say what practice was adopted at the time of Kulwant Kaur's death and whether verification was done. When asked, he stated that he could tell the relationship of the informant, as only the signature is present, and he could read the signatory's name. He denied the suggestion that the entry no. 26 in the death register is not authentic or conclusive proof of the date of death of Kulwant Kaur, but he also could say whether the entry was done after verification of death, as he was not present at that time and recently had joined the office.
Final arguments
70. I have heard Shri Manmohan Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Shri Sandeep Jain, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2 and perused the record. Both parties filed written synopsis of their arguments.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following case laws Asha M. Jain v. The Canara Bank and Ors 2002 (61) DRJ 101 (DB), Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director v. State of Haryana and another (2012) 1 SCC 656, Ashok Atree v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr RFA No. 116/2019 decided on 08.02.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Rama Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and anr. Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997 decided on 15.12.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in support of his arguments Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 28 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:13:13 +0530 Written synopsis of plaintiff
71. The plaintiff's case is that the disputed property was lawfully acquired through a continuous and valid chain of transactions beginning with the original owners, who sold the property to Smt. Kulwant Kaur in 1973, followed by her sale of portions to Smt. Krishna Verma and Sh. Khazan Singh in 1981, culminating in Khazan Singh becoming the sole owner after purchasing Krishna Verma's share in 1982 and remaining in physical possession as evidenced by an electricity connection. The plaintiff, an NRI, purchased the entire property from Khazan Singh in 1992 through GPA, Will, and registered receipts, took possession, and remained undisputedly in control until 2008, when the defendants allegedly trespassed and threatened her, prompting litigation. The defendants contest the plaintiff's title by alleging that Smt. Kulwant Kaur had died in 1978 and that all documents relied upon by the plaintiff are forged, improperly stamped, and fabricated in collusion with Khazan Singh, while claiming that Defendant No. 3 was the sole legal heir who validly sold the property to Defendants No. 1 and 2 in 2008. The court framed issues relating to the validity of pleadings, competency of Defendant No. 3 to transfer title, valuation and maintainability of the suit, genuineness of the plaintiff's documents, the true date of death of Smt. Kulwant Kaur, possession of the property, and alleged violations of the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, and Stamp Act. The plaintiff relied on extensive documentary and oral evidence, including registered receipts, electricity records, complaints to authorities, voter lists, and official witnesses, to establish lawful ownership and possession and to Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 29 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:13:17 +0530 discredit the defendants' claim of sole heirship and alleged death of Smt. Kulwant Kaur in 1978. The evidence, including admissions by defendants' witnesses, inconsistencies in their testimony, voter list records showing multiple heirs, and the suspicious timing of the defendants' 2008 documents after the filing of the first suit, supports the plaintiff's case that her title and possession are genuine and that the defendants' documents were fabricated to defeat her lawful rights. Written synopsis of defendants
72. The case concerns a property originally purchased by Kulwant Kaur through a registered sale deed dated 09 February 1973. The plaintiff, Veena Rani, claims ownership on the basis of unregistered documents executed in 1992 by Khazan Singh, who himself allegedly relied on unregistered documents said to have been executed by Kulwant Kaur and Krishna Verma in 1981-1982. The plaintiff failed to explain why no registered sale deed was executed in her favour, failed to prove her presence in India at the time of execution of the documents, and did not produce any documentary proof to establish the actual date of death of Kulwant Kaur, while her attempt to introduce a plea of adverse possession was dismissed by the High Court in January 2013.
73. The defendants assert lawful ownership on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in their favour by Defendant No. 3, the legal heir of Kulwant Kaur, who is shown by official records to have died on 15 December 1978, well before the alleged transactions relied upon by the plaintiff. The defendants' case is supported by a death certificate, a police status report submitted to the High Court, and the opinion of the Central Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 30 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:13:21 +0530 Forensic Science Laboratory, which concluded that the signatures of Kulwant Kaur on the plaintiff's documents were forged and that the documents were fabricated.
74. All documents relied upon by the plaintiff and her predecessor are unregistered, incomplete, and legally deficient, whereas the defendants hold a valid registered sale deed, and the plaintiff's reliance on an electricity connection as proof of ownership is irrelevant given the delayed transfer of the meter and lack of title documents. The plaintiff also failed to substantiate her claim regarding the existence of other legal heirs of Kulwant Kaur by producing any such witnesses. Consequently, the evidence establishes that the plaintiff's claim is based on forged and fabricated documents and lacks legal validity, while the defendants' ownership stands proved through registered instruments and official records, rendering the plaintiff's suit frivolous and liable to be dismissed. Court observation and findings
75. The central controversy is whether the plaintiff acquired any valid title/possessory right to Plot No. 4 (250 sq. yds., Village Hastsal) through a chain of 1981-1992 "GPA/Agreement/Will/receipt" transactions from late Smt. Kulwant Kaur via Krishna Verma and Khazan Singh, or whether title remained with Kulwant Kaur's heir (defendant no. 3), who then validly sold to defendants no. 1 and 2 under a 2008 registered sale deed. My issues wise findings are as under :
Issue no. 7 Whether the suit property has been transferred in contravention of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act? OPD
76. The burden to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 31 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:13:25 +0530 plaintiffs claim ownership on the basis of a chain of transactions comprising Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, Will and receipt allegedly executed in the year 1992, flowing from earlier similar transactions of the year 1981.
77. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that transfer of ownership in immovable property of value exceeding one hundred rupees can be effected only by a registered instrument of sale. An agreement to sell, by statutory definition itself, does not of itself create any interest in or charge upon the property.
78. The legal position now stands conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, wherein it was authoritatively held that so-called GPA sales or SA/GPA/Will transactions do not convey title nor amount to transfer of ownership. The Court clarified that such documents may at best create contractual or limited agency rights enforceable inter se between parties but cannot substitute a registered conveyance.
The said principle has been reiterated in Shiv Kumar v. Union of India, (2019) 19 SCC 229, and subsequent decisions holding that ownership in immovable property passes only through a registered sale deed.
79. In the present case, admittedly no registered sale deed exists in favour of the plaintiffs. The entire claim of ownership rests upon unregistered contractual documents; and the executants of earlier transactions were not proved in accordance with law.
80. Therefore, even if the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 32 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:13:30 +0530 assumed to have been executed, they cannot operate as a transfer of ownership within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, the alleged transfer relied upon by the plaintiffs is legally insufficient to convey title. Issue No.7 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 8 Whether the documents pertaining to the suit property as filed by the plaintiff are valid documents and whether the suit is maintainable in view of provisions of Indian Registration Act? OPD
81. The defendants have contended that the documents forming the plaintiffs' chain are inadmissible for want of compulsory registration.
Section 17 of the Registration Act mandates compulsory registration of instruments purporting to create, declare, assign or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property. Section 49 further provides that an unregistered document required to be registered cannot affect immovable property nor be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property.
82. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has consistently followed the ratio of Suraj Lamp and held that unregistered customary property documents cannot confer ownership or be relied upon to claim declaration of title. In the present case, the plaintiffs seek declaration of ownership solely on the strength of unregistered GPA/Agreement documents. Such documents cannot be treated as conveyances of title nor relied upon to establish proprietary rights.
83. However, it is clarified that unregistered agreements may still be looked into for limited collateral purposes, such as nature of possession or Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 33 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:13:34 +0530 contractual relationship, but not for proving transfer of ownership. Accordingly, the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are legally insufficient to establish title under the Registration Act. Issue No.8 is decided in favour of the defendants.
Issue no. 9 Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of Indian Stamp Act? OPD
84. The defendants have further challenged admissibility of the plaintiffs' documents on the ground of insufficient stamping.
Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act provide that an instrument chargeable with duty cannot be admitted in evidence unless duly stamped. The prohibition is statutory and operates irrespective of consent of parties.
85. A perusal of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs shows that several instruments affecting immovable property are either inadequately stamped or unstamped. The plaintiffs did not take steps during trial for impounding or payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty.
86. Consequently, such documents cannot be relied upon for proving transfer of proprietary rights.
Nevertheless, it is clarified that the finding under this issue is confined only to admissibility and evidentiary value of documents and does not amount to a declaration validating the defendants' title. Issue No.9 is decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 5 Whether Smt. Kulwant Kaur died on 15.12.1978 as alleged? OPD
87. The burden to prove this issue was upon the defendants, who Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 34 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:13:38 +0530 asserted that the original owner, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, had expired on 15.12.1978 and therefore could not have executed any document thereafter, particularly the documents dated 1981 relied upon by the plaintiffs.
88. The determination of this issue assumes considerable importance because the validity of the plaintiffs' entire chain of title depends upon the continued existence of Kulwant Kaur beyond the year 1978. Evidence Produced by the Defendants
89. The defendants relied primarily upon the certified extract of the death register maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, exhibited as Ex.DW1/7 and proved through DW5, an official witness summoned from the concerned authority.
90. The said record shows entry regarding death of one Kulwant Kaur on 15.12.1978. The witness produced the record from official custody and deposed regarding the mode of maintenance of such registers.
91. Under Sections 35 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, entries made in public or official records by a public servant in discharge of official duty carry a presumption of correctness unless successfully rebutted.
92. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Anuradha, (2004) 10 SCC 131, has held that entries in statutory registers maintained by public authorities constitute relevant and reliable evidence unless strong contrary material is produced.
Challenge Raised by the Plaintiffs
93. The plaintiffs attempted to dispute the death by producing a "non- traceable certificate" Ex.PW1/37. However, PW7, the concerned official Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 35 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:13:42 +0530 witness, admitted during cross-examination that the certificate did not relate specifically to the same Kulwant Kaur. It merely indicated non- availability of certain records. No verification linking the certificate to the present person was undertaken.
A non-traceability certificate cannot displace a positive entry in an official death register.
94. The plaintiffs also relied upon oral testimony alleging that Kulwant Kaur was seen visiting Delhi after 1978. However, such statements were admittedly based on hearsay and no independent witness from the locality or family was examined to corroborate the claim. Absence of Contrary Scientific or Documentary Evidence
95. Importantly, no alternative death record was produced; no voter list, ration card, bank record, or governmental document showing Kulwant Kaur alive after 1978 was filed. No handwriting or forensic evidence was produced to show execution of documents by her after the alleged date of death.
Where documentary public record exists, oral assertions cannot prevail.
96. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has consistently held that official municipal records enjoy evidentiary weight unless rebutted by cogent proof and not by mere denial.
Effect on Plaintiffs' Case
97. Once the death entry dated 15.12.1978 is accepted, the alleged documents of the year 1981 forming the foundation of the plaintiffs' claim become inherently doubtful and legally incapable of execution by Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 36 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:13:46
+0530
the deceased person. This circumstance materially supports the findings recorded under Issue No. 4 regarding invalidity of the plaintiffs' documents.
98. Upon cumulative appreciation of evidence, the Court finds the defendants have proved the death entry through official record and competent witness. The statutory presumption attached to public documents remains unrebutted. The plaintiffs have failed to produce reliable evidence showing survival of Kulwant Kaur beyond 1978. Accordingly, this Court holds that Smt. Kulwant Kaur expired on 15.12.1978. Issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 4 Whether late Smt. Kulwant Kaur was known to Shri Khazan Singh and whether documents pertaining to the subject property as filed by the plaintiff on record are forged and fabricated documents? OPD
99. The burden to prove this issue was placed upon the defendants. The plaintiffs have asserted that Late Smt. Kulwant Kaur, the recorded purchaser under registered sale deed dated 09.02.1973, transferred portions of the suit property in the year 1981 in favour of Smt. Krishna Verma and Shri Khajan Singh through Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and allied documents, from whom the plaintiffs allegedly derived title in the year 1992.
100. The defendants have denied the existence of any such transaction and have alleged that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are forged and brought into existence after the death of Kulwant Kaur. Effect of Finding on Issue No.5 (Death of Kulwant Kaur) Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 37 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:13:50 +0530
101. While deciding Issue No.5, this Court has already held, on the basis of official municipal records admissible under Sections 35 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, that Smt. Kulwant Kaur expired on 15.12.1978. The inevitable legal consequence of this finding is that any document purportedly executed by her thereafter becomes inherently doubtful and requires strict and cogent proof.
102. The alleged transfer documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are stated to have been executed in the year 1981, i.e., nearly three years after her death. This circumstance by itself casts a serious cloud upon their authenticity.
Failure to Prove Due Execution
103. It is settled law that when execution of a document is specifically denied, the burden lies heavily upon the party relying upon such document to prove its execution in accordance with law.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353, held that where allegations of fabrication arise, strict proof of execution is mandatory and suspicious circumstances must be satisfactorily explained.
104. In the present case, the plaintiffs admittedly had no personal knowledge of execution of the 1981 documents. No attesting witness to the alleged agreements or GPA was examined. The signatures of Kulwant Kaur were not proved through any reliable comparison or admitted specimen. The plaintiffs were unable to identify handwriting or execution before any authority.
105. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 is largely hearsay, based upon Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 38 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:13:55 +0530 information allegedly received from relatives, and therefore carries limited evidentiary value.
Absence of Proof of Relationship or Transaction
106. The plaintiffs also failed to establish any independent relationship or dealing between Kulwant Kaur and Khajan Singh which could probabilise the alleged transaction. No neighbour, broker, witness to payment, or independent person connected with the transaction was produced.
107. Civil Courts decide matters on preponderance of probabilities, and the absence of foundational evidence regarding the transaction substantially weakens the plaintiffs' case.
Effect of Expert and Circumstantial Evidence
108. The defence has pointed out material inconsistencies in dates, incomplete particulars and suspicious features appearing in the documents. Even independent of expert opinion, the surrounding circumstances, particularly execution after the proved death of the executant, create grave suspicion.
109. Where documents appear to originate from a person already deceased, Courts are justified in drawing an adverse inference regarding genuineness unless convincingly explained.
110. In view of the proved death of Kulwant Kaur in 1978, absence of proof of execution, non-examination of attesting witnesses, and failure to establish any genuine transaction with Khajan Singh, the Court holds that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the genuineness of the documents forming the foundation of their claim. Accordingly, the documents relied Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 39 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:14:00 +0530 upon by the plaintiffs cannot be treated as proved or reliable for establishing title. Issue No.4 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff was ever and now in possession of the suit property? OP Parties
112. The burden of proving this issue was placed upon both parties, as the plaintiffs asserted continuous possession since the alleged purchase in 1992, whereas the defendants denied such possession and claimed that the property remained vacant prior to their lawful purchase in the year 2008.
113. Possession, in a civil suit relating to immovable property, must be established through cogent and reliable evidence demonstrating actual physical control, enjoyment, or continuous exercise of dominion over the property. Mere assertion of possession unsupported by objective evidence cannot be accepted.
Evidence Led by the Plaintiffs
114. The plaintiffs pleaded that after execution of documents in their favour in 1992, they came into possession of the suit property and retained control thereafter. However, during evidence, serious deficiencies emerged.
115. The plaintiffs failed to produce any electricity bills, water bills, house tax records, municipal assessment, or any governmental record showing their occupation or user of the property at any time after 1992.
PW5, an official witness, stated that the electricity connection stood in the name of Khajan Singh and remained disconnected since 2004. No Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 40 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:14:03 +0530 application for restoration or transfer was ever made by the plaintiffs.
116. The plaintiff (PW1) admitted during cross-examination that she was residing abroad and used to visit India only occasionally. No documentary proof of maintenance, construction activity, tenancy, or supervision of the property was produced.
117. The Local Commissioner's report (Ex.PW5/1) recorded that the property was lying vacant and locked, and neighbouring witnesses did not confirm continuous occupation of the plaintiffs.
These circumstances materially weaken the plea of settled possession.
Legal Position Regarding Proof of Possession
118. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, held that possession must be effective, continuous, and exclusive, and cannot be inferred from sporadic visits or unsubstantiated claims.
119. Similarly, in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, it was held that where possession is disputed, the plaintiff must establish actual possession through clear evidence; otherwise relief of declaration or injunction cannot follow.
Applying these principles, occasional visits by an NRI claimant or symbolic assertion of ownership cannot amount to legal possession. Evidence of the Defendants
120. The defendants relied upon their registered Sale Deed dated 09.07.2008 and subsequent acts asserting control over the property. While registration by itself does not conclusively establish possession, it Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 41 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:14:07 +0530 constitutes a relevant circumstance when coupled with absence of proof from the opposite side.
121. The evidence on record indicates that prior to the defendants' purchase, the property was lying vacant rather than being under active possession of the plaintiffs.
Effect of Earlier Findings
122. This Court has already held under Issues No. 4 and 5 that Kulwant Kaur died on 15.12.1978; and the documents forming the plaintiffs' chain are forged and void.
123. Once the foundational documents themselves stand disbelieved, the plaintiffs' claim of possession allegedly flowing from those documents becomes inherently doubtful unless independently proved, which has not been done.
Appreciation of Evidence
124. On cumulative appreciation, the Court finds no reliable documentary evidence proving plaintiffs' possession at any time after 1992. There is long absence and lack of control by plaintiffs and property remaining locked/vacant. There is no proof of continuous, peaceful, or settled possession. Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden.
125. Accordingly, the Court holds that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were ever in settled possession of the suit property; and the plaintiffs are also not in possession of the suit property at present. Issue No. 6 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 42 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:14:11 +0530 Issue no. 1 Whether the written statement and affidavit in support thereof as filed by the defendant can be looked into? OPP
126. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have objected to the written statement of the defendants on the ground that the same does not contain a proper verification clause as mandated under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and therefore the written statement cannot be looked into by the Court.
It is necessary at the outset to examine the legal requirement regarding verification of pleadings.
127. Order VI Rule 15 CPC mandates that every pleading shall be verified by the party specifying which statements are based on personal knowledge and which are based on information and belief. Verification is intended to fix responsibility upon the party making pleadings and to ensure authenticity of averments placed before the Court.
128. In the present case, a perusal of the written statement shows that although it bears signatures of the defendants, it does not contain a proper verification clause in the manner prescribed under Order VI Rule 15 CPC. The affidavit accompanying the written statement also does not cure this defect in substance.
129. The question therefore arises whether such defect renders the written statement non-est in law.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480, held that procedural provisions relating to pleadings are directory in nature and are meant to advance justice rather than defeat adjudication on merits. It was observed that unless serious prejudice is caused, procedural irregularities should not result in striking Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 43 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:14:16 +0530 off the defence.
130. Similarly, in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, the Supreme Court clarified that defects relating to verification or affidavit are curable irregularities and courts should ordinarily permit rectification.
131. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has consistently held that absence or defect in verification does not automatically render pleadings void, particularly where parties have proceeded to trial and evidence has been recorded without objection at the appropriate stage.
132. However, it is equally settled that pleadings lacking verification lose evidentiary sanctity and cannot be treated as statements affirmed on oath. In such circumstances, the pleadings may remain on record but their probative value stands diluted.
133. In the present case the defendants participated throughout the trial; evidence was led by both parties; plaintiffs cross-examined defence witnesses at length; no application seeking opportunity to cure verification defect was moved by defendants despite objection even upto the stage of final arguments and only as a second thought on clarifications being asked for by the Court, that the defendant no.1 and 2, at the stage of judgment moved an application for taking on record the verification clause in their written statement. The Court allowed the same in view of the caselaw Scindia Protteries and Services Ltd. v. Sri Chand 1996 Legal Eagle (DEL) 467, being a procedural defect. However, no amended written statement was brought on record by the defendant no. 1 and 2. The defendant no.3 did not move application to get cured the defects in Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 44 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:14:20 +0530 his written statement regarding the verification clause.
Thus, while the written statement cannot be discarded altogether at this advanced stage of trial, the absence of verification materially affects the evidentiary weight to be attached to the pleadings.
134. Accordingly, this Court holds that: written statement of defendant no.1 and 2 is taken on record. However, the written statement of defendant no.3 cannot be treated as a duly verified pleading in strict compliance with Order VI Rule 15 CPC. Still, in the interest of substantive justice, it shall remain on record and may be looked into only to the extent supported by independent evidence led by the defendants. Issue No.1 is therefore decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the written statement of defendant no.3 suffers from a material procedural defect, though it is not liable to be struck off entirely. Issue no. 2 Whether the defendant no. 3 sold the subject property to defendant no. 1 and 2 being competent and capable and whether defendant no. 1 and 2 are lawful owners of the subject property? OP Parties
135. The onus to establish this issue was upon both parties, as competing claims of title have been raised.
The defendants assert that defendant No.3, being the son and legal heir of Late Smt. Kulwant Kaur, validly transferred the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2008 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, dispute both the competency of defendant No.3 and the validity of the conveyance.
136. At the outset, it must be noted that while deciding Issue No.1, this Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 45 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:14:24 +0530 Court has already held that the written statement filed by the defendant no.3 suffers from absence of proper verification and therefore cannot be relied upon as a duly affirmed pleading. Consequently, the defendants must independently establish their title through legally admissible evidence and not merely through pleadings. Competency of Defendant No.3
137. The defendants rely upon the plea that Smt. Kulwant Kaur died on 15.12.1978 and succession devolved upon her legal heirs including defendant No.3. The death of Kulwant Kaur has already been held proved under Issue No.5 on the basis of municipal records admissible under Sections 35 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, mere assertion of heirship does not automatically establish exclusive ownership.
138. The defendants have not produced: any succession certificate, legal heir certificate issued by competent authority, family tree proved through independent witnesses, or documentary evidence excluding existence of other heirs.
It is settled law that succession to property must be affirmatively proved. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has repeatedly held that a person claiming title through inheritance must establish the chain of succession through cogent evidence and cannot rely merely upon self-serving assertions.
139. Therefore, although defendant No.3 may prima facie claim to be one of the heirs, exclusive authority to transfer the entire property has not been conclusively established. It is pertinent to mention here that Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 46 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:14:28 +0530 defendant no.3 neither stepped up in the witness box to testify that he is the only legal heir of deceased Kulwant Kaur nor appeared to depose that he had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 as sole heir of Kulwant Kaur.
Effect of Registered Sale Deed dated 09.07.2008 The defendants rely heavily upon the registered sale deed executed in their favour.
140. There is no dispute that a registered conveyance carries strong evidentiary value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam, 1977 AIR 774, held that ownership in immovable property passes only through a registered conveyance.
141. However, registration by itself does not cure defects in title of the vendor. A transferee can acquire only such title as the transferor possessed. This principle, commonly expressed as nemo dat quod non habet, has been consistently recognised by Courts.
142. Since defendant No.3's exclusive ownership has not been conclusively proved, the registered sale deed cannot automatically confer absolute ownership upon defendants No.1 and 2. Comparative Strength of Title
143. At the same time, the plaintiffs' claim has already failed because:
their title is based solely on GPA/Agreement to Sell transactions, and such documents do not convey ownership in view of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 and Shiv Kumar v. Union of India, (2019) 19 SCC 229.
144. Thus, the defendants' title is not proved to the level required for Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 47 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:14:32 +0530 declaration of ownership. Moreover, no counter-claim has been filed by the defendants claiming themselves to be owners of the suit property.
145. Accordingly, this Court holds that defendant No.3 has not conclusively proved exclusive ownership so as to establish absolute competency to transfer the entire property. Consequently, defendants No.1 and 2 cannot be declared absolute owners on the basis of evidence led in the present suit. Issue No.2 is therefore decided partly against the defendants, holding that they are not entitled to a declaration of ownership, though the plaintiffs have failed to dislodge their registered conveyance.
Issue no. 3 Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
146. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The defendants have contended that the suit has been improperly valued and that this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings. It is argued that the market value of the property is substantially higher than the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs.
147. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have valued the suit for the purposes of declaration, cancellation of documents and consequential injunction at Rs.33,65,500/- and have affixed Court fee of Rs. 35,342/- in accordance with the Court Fees Act.
148. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the settled legal principles governing valuation of suits seeking declaration and cancellation of documents relating to immovable property.
149. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 48 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:14:37
+0530
Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, has clearly held that where a plaintiff seeks cancellation of a sale deed to which he is not an executant, Court fee is payable on the value as stated by the plaintiff under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, subject to the control of the Court if valuation appears arbitrary or illusory.
150. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has repeatedly held that in suits for declaration coupled with consequential relief, valuation made by the plaintiff ordinarily governs jurisdiction unless the defendant produces cogent material showing deliberate undervaluation.
151. In the present case the defendants have not produced any circle rate notification, valuation report, or independent documentary material to demonstrate that the suit property exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. No expert evidence regarding prevailing market value has been led. The valuation adopted by the plaintiffs broadly corresponds with the consideration reflected in the impugned registered sale deed of the year 2008.
Mere assertion that the property is more valuable cannot displace the valuation disclosed in the plaint.
152. It is also settled that an objection relating to valuation must be supported by evidence and cannot succeed on conjectures. In absence of reliable material showing deliberate undervaluation, the Court has no reason to reject the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs.
153. Accordingly, the Court holds that the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and the Court possesses the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit. Issue No.3 is Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 49 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:14:42 +0530 decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No.10 Relief
154. In view of the findings returned on the preceding issues, the entitlement of the parties to the reliefs claimed is required to be determined.
The plaintiffs have sought cancellation of Agreement to Sell dated 22.04.2008, GPA, Sale Deed dated 09.07.2008 and Possession Letter, declaration of ownership and possession in respect of Plot No. 4 measuring 250 sq. yds., situated at Village Hastsal, Delhi and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the alleged rights of the plaintiffs. However, the cumulative findings of this Court may be briefly recapitulated:
156 Under Issue No.1, the written statement, though defective (of defendant no. 3) for want of proper verification, was treated as curable and the defendants were permitted to contest the matter on merits in the interest of substantial justice, no prejudice having been caused to the plaintiffs.
157. Under Issue No.5, it stands proved through reliable public records that Smt. Kulwant Kaur expired on 15.12.1978. Consequentially, under Issue No.4, the documents allegedly executed in the year 1981 in her name were found inherently suspicious and legally untenable, execution having not been proved in accordance with law.
158. Under Issues No.7, 8 and 9, this Court has held that the plaintiffs' claim is founded upon unregistered GPA/Agreement to Sell transactions which, in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 50 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:14:46 +0530 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, do not convey ownership and are inadmissible for proving title.
159. While deciding Issue No. 2, the Court has already held that although the defendants rely upon a registered Sale Deed dated 09.07.2008, they have not conclusively established complete ownership in the strict legal sense owing to absence of comprehensive proof regarding succession and heirship of the original owner Kulwant Kaur.
Consequently, the defendants cannot be declared absolute owners merely on the strength of the evidence led in the present proceedings. However, the determination of ownership is distinct from determination of possession.
160. Under Issue No. 6, the Court has found, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, that the plaintiffs have failed to prove either past or present possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs produced no municipal, utility, taxation, or independent evidence demonstrating continuous physical control over the property. The Local Commissioner's report and official testimony rather indicate that the property remained vacant.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, has clarified that where neither clear title nor possession is proved, a plaintiff cannot succeed merely by pointing out defects in the defendant's case. The plaintiff must stand on the strength of his own title and possession. Similarly, it is a settled principle that failure of the defendant to conclusively prove ownership does not automatically result in a decree in favour of the plaintiff unless the plaintiff Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 51 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:14:53 +0530 independently establishes a better legal right.
Therefore, even though the defendants are not granted a positive declaration of ownership, the plaintiffs equally fail to establish any enforceable right warranting declaration, cancellation, or injunction. The defendants' registered sale deed, though insufficient in the present suit to conclusively declare absolute ownership, nevertheless, at minimum rebuts the plaintiffs' assertion of lawful entitlement on basis of void and unproved documents. It is a settled principle of civil law that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the perceived weakness of the defence.
161. Thus, the legal position emerging is that in the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to prove valid transfer of ownership, lawful possession, or any legally enforceable right requiring protection by the Court. Defendants cannot be declared absolute owners in this suit. However, once the foundational title itself is not proved, the prayer for cancellation of defendants' documents cannot be granted, as cancellation presupposes existence of a superior legal right in favour of the plaintiffs. Relief of declaration cannot be granted. Civil Courts do not grant declarations in vacuum. The absence of proof on both sides results in dismissal of the claim of the party carrying the burden.
161. Similarly, permanent injunction being consequential in nature cannot survive independently. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 , has categorically held that declaration and injunction cannot be granted unless the plaintiff establishes a clear legal title. Permanent injunction cannot follow in Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 52 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:14:57 +0530 absence of possession or title. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. Final Order The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room. SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR DAGAR Date:
2026.01.31 17:15:02 +0530 Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar) on 31st Day of January 2026 District Judge-08, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 53 pages.) Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 53 of 53