Delhi District Court
Parmeshwari Devi vs Vam Realcon P. Ltd. Anr on 1 February, 2025
Suit No. 15451/16 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR, LD. DJ03, SOUTH-
WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suit No: 15451/2016
CNR No.: DLSW01-000456-2015
In the matter of:-
1. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi
Through her LRs
1A. Narender (Son)
S/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o H. No. 412, Village Silana,
Tehsil and District Sonepat
Haryana
1B. Jaidev Sharma (Son)
S/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o H. No. 412, Village Silana,
Tehsil and District Sonepat
Haryana
1C. Sahdev Sharma (Son)
S/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o H. No. 412, Village Silana,
Tehsil and District Sonepat
Haryana
1D. Sunil Sharma (Son)
S/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o H. No. 412, Village Silana,
Tehsil and District Sonepat
Haryana
1E. Rajiv Sharma (Son)
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors.
Suit No. 15451/16 2
S/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o H. No. 412, Village Silana,
Tehsil and District Sonepat
Haryana
1F. Krishna (Daughter)
D/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o H. No. 412, Village Silana,
Tehsil and District Sonepat
Haryana
1G. Darshana (Daughter)
D/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o H. No. 412, Village Silana,
Tehsil and District Sonepat
Haryana
1H. Santosh (Daughter)
D/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o H. No. 412, Village Silana,
Tehsil and District Sonepat
Haryana
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd.
Through its Director Sh. Vinay Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. S.C. Jain
Having its registered office at 5581, 1st floor,
Lahori Gate, Delhi
2. Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Tokas
S/o Late M.S. Tokas
R/o 459A, Village Munirka
New Delhi
3. Shri Mahavir Prasad
Through his LRs
Karan Yadav
S/o Mahavir Prasad
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors.
Suit No. 15451/16 3
R/o VPO Paprawat
New Delhi
3B. Kanta Yadav
D/o Mahavir Prasad
R/o RZP-305, P-3 Block
New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-43
4. Shri Dharamvir
S/o Late Jagat Singh
R/o Village Paprawat
Najafgarh, New Delhi-43
.....Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.12.2015
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS: 22.01.2025
DATE OF DECISION: 01.02.2025
DECISION: DISMISSED
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking (a) a decree of possession with respect to the suit property bearing plot no. 71, land area measuring 100 sq. yards, out of khasra no. 9/4, situated at Village Paprawat, Delhi state abadi known as Ganga Vihar, New Delhi; (b) a decree of declaration thereby declaring the sale deed dated 04.02.2011 executed in favour of Defendants no. 1 and 2 by Defendants no. 3 and 4 as null and void and not binding upon the interest of the Plaintiff to the extent of suit property; (c) a decree of permanent injunction with Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 4 respect to the aforesaid suit property and (d) costs of the suit. The Plaint
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the plaint are as follows:
(i) It is submitted that the Plaintiff is the owner of a plot bearing no.
71, land area measuring 100 sq. yards out of khasra no. 9/4, situated at Village Paprawat, Delhi state abadi known as Ganga Vihar, New Delhi and the same is bounded as under:
East : Plot no. 70 West : Portion of plot no. 71 South : Gali 8 feet North : 18 feet road
(ii) It is submitted that on 31.03.1989, the Plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Sh. Jagat Singh who was the sole and absolute owner and was in actual possession of the said land by virtue of sale documents i.e. GPA, Deed of Agreement, Affidavit and Receipt duly registered with the Registrar vide registration no. 20093, Volume No. 2271, Page 177 dated 20.04.1989. It is further submitted that Sh. Jagat Singh had received the full and final sale consideration of the suit property and handed over the physical possession on 31.03.1989 and thereafter, the Plaintiff had constructed one room and boundary walls over the suit property and remained in the possession of the same till her dispossession by the Defendants on 15.08.2015.
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 5
(iii) It is submitted that the Defendant no. 1 is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 5581, 1st floor, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazaar, Delhi-110006 represented through its Director Shri Vinay Kumar Jain S/o Sh. S.C. Jain. It is submitted that both Defendants no. 1 and 2 had jointly purchased the land area measuring 15 bighas 8 biswas from Defendants no. 3 and 4 wherein the suit property is a part of that land. It is also submitted that Sh. Jagat Singh had developed a colony under the name and style Ganga Vihar Colony over the agricultural land owned by the said Jagat Singh, area measuring 15 bighas 8 biswas, bearing mustil no. 9, killa no. 4 (4-15), 5 (4-16) situated in the revenue estate of Village Paprawat, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi and thereafter, he had offered the sale of the aforesaid two plots by public at large and accordingly, the Plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Jagat Singh.
(iv) It is alleged that Defendants no. 3 and 4 had got mutated the said land in their favour despite the fact that their father had sold the suit property to the Plaintiff and that they had further sold the same to Defendants no. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the Plaintiff had filed a complaint to P.S. Chhawla regarding the demolition of room and boundary wall of the suit property by Defendants no. 3 and 4 but no action was taken by the police. It is further averred that thereafter, the Plaintiff had filed a Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 6 civil suit on 05.10.2011 for permanent and mandatory injunction bearing no. 731/2011 titled as "Parmeshwari Devi Sharma Vs. Mahabir Prasad" before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi against Defendants no. 3 and 4 and son of Defendant no. 3 namely Shri Karan Singh. It is further alleged that on 02.12.2013, the Defendants no. 3 and 4 had given a statement before the Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts that they had sold the suit property and other lands vide sale deed dated 04.02.2011 to Defendants no. 1 and 2. It is averred that because of the sale of the land and the suit property, the Hon'ble Court had ceased the pecuniary jurisdiction and withdrew the said suit with liberty to file the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and thereafter, a civil suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and cancellation of sale deed dated 04.02.2011 bearing no. 499/15 was filed by the Plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, however, the same was also withdrawn by the Plaintiff due to technicalities regarding misjoinder of parties and cause of action. It is alleged that Defendants no. 1 and 2 had threatened the Plaintiff of dire consequences. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is not the party to the sale deed, hence, the sale deed executed by Defendants no. 3 and 4 in favour of the Defendants no. 1 and 2 is not binding upon the right and interest of the Plaintiff is null and void and not effective towards the interest of the Plaintiff. Consequently, present Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 7 suit was filed by the Plaintiff for declaration, possession and permanent injunction.
Proceedings of the Case
3. A perusal of the Court file reveals that the suit was instituted on 16.12.2015 and summons for settlement of issues and notice of application under Order XXXIX R 1 and 2 of CPC were issued to the Defendants which were duly served. Thereafter, WS was filed on behalf of the Defendants and in the joint WS of Defendants no. 1 and 2, it is alleged that the suit is barred by limitation as the deed dated 04.02.2011 is sought to be cancelled after three years of its registration. It is further alleged that the present suit is liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII R 11 of CPC. It is further alleged that the suit fails to disclose any cause of action against Defendants no. 1 and 2 as the Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and the documents produced by the Plaintiff are not title documents and cannot be relied upon for any purpose. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff's documents cannot be read into and acted upon or read in evidence in view of bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and provisions of Registration Act. It is alleged that the present suit is based on unregistered documents as merely having a contract of sale, does not create any interest in or charge on such property. It is further alleged that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 8 jurisdiction and adequate court fee is not paid and therefore, the present plaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the WS filed by Defendants no. 3 and 4, it is alleged that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that no cause of action arises against the Defendants no. 3 and 4 and it is submitted that a civil suit was already filed against Defendants no. 3 and 4 by the Plaintiff which was dismissed in default. It is further alleged that the suit of the Plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the present suit is barred by limitation and also barred by Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act and Order XXIII of CPC. It is also alleged that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed under Order II R 2 of CPC. It is submitted that the documents produced by the Plaintiff are completely forged and fabricated. It is further submitted that the father of the answering Defendant had never sold any land to the Plaintiff but sold out to Defendant no. 1 against the valuable consideration and still, it is an agricultural land. It is submitted that the Defendant no. 3 had never signed any type of documents of sale in any manner as an attesting witness as alleged.
5. No Replication was filed by the Plaintiff and on the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 13.07.2016:-
(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession against Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 9
the Defendant? (OPP)
(ii) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration against the Defendants declaring the sale deed dated 04.12.2011 as null and void? (OPP)
(iii) Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
(iv) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation as the sale deed dated 04.02.2011 is sought to be cancelled after three years of its registration? (OPD)
(v) Whether suit of the Plaintiff is barred by Section 185/84 of Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 as the suit land is agricultural land? (OPD)
(vi) Whether the Plaintiff's documents cannot be read in evidence in view of bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and provisions of Registration Act? (OPD)
(vii) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)
(viii) Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for by the parties and matter was fixed for Plaintiff's evidence.
Evidence led by the Parties
6. On 10.01.2017, PW-1 / Plaintiff had tendered her evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon the documents Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 10 i.e. site plan as Ex. PW1/A; GPA dated 31.03.1989 as Ex. PW1/B (colly) (running into two pages); Agreement to sell dated 31.03.1989 as Ex. PW1/C; Affidavit dated 31.03.1989 as Ex. PW1/D (colly) (running into two pages); Receipt dated 20.04.1989 as Ex. PW1/E (colly) (running into two pages); Bayana receipt as Ex. PW1/F; Photocopy of sale deed dated 04.02.2011 as Mark G (running into nine pages); Copy of police complaint dated 17.10.2015 as Mark H (colly) (running into four pages); Copy of Khatoni as Mark I; Copy of Hon'ble High Court Order as Mark J and copy of election ID Card as Mark K.
7. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Defendants no. 3 and 4, PW-1 / Plaintiff deposed that she had given the advance / bayana on her first visit to the Court and balance consideration amount was given the second time. Relevant portion of the cross-examination of Plaintiff is extracted herein:
" ..........I used to reside in the suit property, it was got constructed immediately after it was purchased. There was no electricity, water connection obtained at the suit property. I have not placed on record any document with respect to the construction material used for the construction of the suit property. I have never made any application to the govt. office regarding the applicability / payment of house tax qua the suit property. I also never made govt. office regarding mutation of the suit property in my name. Prior to filing of the present case, I filed Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 11 civil suit against the defendant and also filed a criminal complaint against him. I along with my family remained in occupation of the suit property four years back. Presently, I am not in possession of the suit property........."
8. The Plaintiff was discharged on behalf of Defendants no. 3 and 4 on the even date. During her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Defendants no. 1 and 2, Plaintiff deposed that she came to know six years ago that the Defendant no. 3 had sold the suit property to Defendants no. 1 and 2. She further deposed that she had purchased the suit property from Sh. Jagat Singh in the year 1989 by paying full consideration to Sh. Jagat Singh and that she had paid the earnest money on 29.03.1989 at the time of agreement. She further deposed that she had not applied for electricity or water connection in the suit property and that she had also not applied for mutation of the suit property in the revenue record. She deposed that she could not produce any document to show that any abadi exist in khasra no. 9/4 of Village Paprawat.
9. In the meanwhile, an application under Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was filed on behalf of Defendants no. 1 and 2 which was dismissed and disposed off vide order dated 29.05.2017. No other witness was examined on behalf of the Plaintiff and therefore, PE was closed vide separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff recorded Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 12 on 17.07.2018 and matter was proceeded for DE.
10. On 14.05.2019, DW-1 Sh. Vinay Kumar Jain had tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(a) Board Resolution dated 03.02.2011 as Ex. DW1/1;
(b) Certified copies of plaint of CS (OS) no. 499/2015 and order dated 06.08.2015 as Ex. DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4 and
(c) Copy of khasra girdawari of land for fasli year 2010-11 as Mark A.
11. The witness has also relied upon the copy of sale deed dated 04.02.2011 which was already marked as Mark G but the original of the same was produced and the same was exhibited as Ex. DW1/2 (OSR). During cross-examination, DW-1 deposed that he had purchased the land in question from Defendants no. 3 and 4 on 04.02.2011 and that the said land is part of the suit property. The witness was thereafter, shown Ex. DW1/2 and he had admitted the signatures of Defendant no. 3 at point A. He was discharged on the even date.
12. Thereafter, an application under Order XXII R 4 of CPC was filed for impleading the LRs of late Mahavir Singh which was allowed vide order dated 11.11.2021. However, LRs of Defendant no. 3 and Defendant no. 4 have not appeared and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.09.2022. Thereafter, an application under Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 13 Order XXII R 3 of CPC was filed for impleading the LRs of Plaintiff which was allowed vide order dated 03.10.2023 and the same was disposed off.
13. Thereafter, on 10.07.2024, DW-2 Sh. Ashish Soni, Patwari was examined as a summoned witness and the record brought by him was exhibited as Ex. DW2/A (colly) (OSR) and Ex. DW2/B (colly) (OSR). He was discharged on the even date. No other witness was examined on behalf of Defendants no. 1 and 2 and DE was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel on 10.07.2024 and matter was proceeded for final arguments.
Contentions of the Parties
14. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property having purchased it way back in the year 1989 and that the defendants in conspiracy with each other have dispossessed the plaintiff forcibly on 15.10.2015 and that the said documents of sale in the year 1989 were registered and sale was made for good consideration. Hence the present suit should be decreed.
15. Per contra, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for Defendant that the suit is barred by limitation as the suit is filed for declaration of the sale deed as void more than 3 years after the plaintiff came to know about the sale deed in favour of defendant 1 & 2 duly executed by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 14 defendants 3 & 4. It has also been submitted that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, as the land in question is agricultural land. It has been further submitted that the land was purchased by the defendant no 1 and 2 as bona fide purchasers from the persons whose names was reflecting in the revenue records as the actual Bhumidhars of the property and having authority to sell the property and therefore, the transfer in their favour is protected. Findings
16. I would decide the issues together as they are all interconnected. The following observations arise from the evidence adduced by the parties:
(a) The first point to be addressed, on basis of which this suit hinges upon, is whether there was any valid transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by Jagat Singh. The plaintiff has relied upon an unregistered GPA, Agreement to Sell and Affidavit dated 31.03.1989 and a registered receipt of even date for submitting that she has title over the suit property.
It is well settled that the unregistered GPA and agreement to sell cannot have the effect of transferring any rights in the immovable property. In Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain:
MANU/SC/1257/2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that:-
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 15
"10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the Respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 16
Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj v. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Ors. MANU/SC/0685/2018 : 2018:INSC:578 : (2018) 7 SCC 639
(ii). Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi MANU/SC/1241/2022 :
2022:INSC:10111
(iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chand Mitra and Anr. MANU/SC/1051/2023 :
2023:INSC:8542
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the Respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the Appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as 10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 17
respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the Respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
13. The argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would be prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of compulsory registration and effect on non-registration emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 18
in the two enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the same view."
In Balraj vs. Nathuram Sharma and Ors. MANU/DE/7377/2023, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has traversed the entire law in this respect of the effect of unregistered GPA sales and observed that:-
"37. This Court deems it fit to discuss the scope of admissibility of the documents which are both unregistered and unstamped, in the Court of law. As per the statutes governing the registration of the documents, as discussed above, there is a compulsory registration in cases where there is a transfer of any title in the immovable property and if the said document is not registered, then there is no valid transfer of interest in the said immovable property. Moreover, as per the statute governing the stamping of the documents, it is mandatory that the party to pay the requisite stamp duty on the instruments the parties are executing and non-stamping of the said instruments make it inadmissible as evidence before the Court of law.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the aspect of unstamped and unregistered document not admissible as evidence before the Court of the in the judgment titled as K.B. Saha & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd., Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 19
MANU/SC/7679/2008 : (2008) 8 SCC 564 and observed as follows:
"27. Section 49 clearly provides that a document purporting to be a lease and required to be registered under Section 107 will not be admissible in evidence if the same is not registered. Proviso to this section, however, as noted hereinabove, provides that an unregistered lease deed may be looked into as evidence of collateral facts. Mr Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the tenancy in question was exclusively granted for the benefit of the named officer and his family and unless the landlord gave his consent, no other person could use it and such condition in the lease agreement is admissible for ascertaining the purpose of allotting the suit premises which according to the appellant is a collateral fact.
29. As we have already noted that under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document can also be admitted into evidence for a collateral fact/collateral purpose, let us now look at the meaning of "collateral purpose" and then ascertain whether Clause 9 of the lease agreement can be looked into for such collateral purpose.
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 20
30. In Haran Chandra Chakravarti v. Kaliprasanna Sarkar [AIR 1932 Cal 83(2)] it was held that the terms of a compulsorily registrable instrument are nothing less than a transaction affecting the property comprised in it. It was also held that to use such an instrument for the purpose of proving such a term would not be using it for a collateral purpose and that the question as to who is the tenant and on what terms he has been created a tenant are not collateral facts but they are important terms of the contract of tenancy, which cannot be proved by admission of an unregistered lease deed into evidence.
31. The High Court in the impugned judgment relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ratan Lal v. Hari Shanker [MANU/UP/0198/1980 : AIR 1980 All 180] to hold that since the appellant wanted to extinguish the right of the respondent with the help of the unregistered tenancy, the same was not a collateral purpose. In Ratan Lal case [MANU/UP/0198/1980 : AIR 1980 All 180] while discussing the meaning of the term "collateral purpose", the High Court had observed as follows : (AIR pp. 180-81, para
4) "4. The second contention was that the partition deed, even Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 21
if it was not registered could certainly be looked into for a collateral purpose. ... but the collateral purpose has a limited scope and meaning. It cannot be used for the purpose of saying that the deed created or declared or assigned or limited or extinguished a right to immovable property. ... term 'collateral purpose' would not permit the party to establish any of these acts from the deed."
32. In Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Behari Lal Kohli [MANU/SC/0327/1989 : (1989) 4 SCC 39 : AIR 1989 SC 1806] this Court observed that if a document is inadmissible for non-registration, all its terms are inadmissible including the one dealing with landlord's permission to his tenant to sub-let. It was also held in that decision that if a decree purporting to create a lease is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of the terms of the lease can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause in the lease is not using it as a collateral purpose. Again this Court in Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla [MANU/SC/0185/1991 : (1991) 1 SCC 422 : AIR 1991 SC 744] reiterated the above and observed in para 10 as under :
(SCC p. 429, para 10) Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 22
"10. ... the lease deed, Ext. P-1 dated 19-5-1978 executed both by the appellant and the respondent i.e. the landlady and the tenant, Rai Chand Jain, though unregistered can be considered for collateral purposes and as such the findings of the appellate authority to the effect that the said deed cannot be used for collateral purposes, namely, to show that the purpose was to lease out the demised premises for residential purposes of the tenant only is not at all legally correct. It is well settled that unregistered lease executed by both the parties can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the instant case the purpose of the lease is evident from the deed itself which is as follows: 'The lessor hereby demises House No. 382, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, to the lessee for residential purposes only'. This clearly evinces that the property in question was let out to the tenant for his residence only."
33. In Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh v. Ratiram [MANU/SC/0562/1969 : (1969) 1 UJ 86 (SC)] the following has been laid down:
"A document required by law to be registered, if unregistered, is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction affecting immovable property, but it may be admitted as Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 23
evidence of collateral facts, or for any collateral purpose, that is for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property. As stated by Mulla in his Indian Registration Act, 7th Edn., at p. 189:
'The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad, Madras, Patna, Lahore, Assam, Nagpur, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Orissa, Rangoon and Jammu & Kashmir; the former Chief Court of Oudh; the Judicial Commissioner's Court of Peshawar, Ajmer and Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court have held that a document which requires registration under Section 17 and which is not admissible for want of registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds under it.' "
34 [Ed. : Para 34 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./76/2008 dated 15-9-2008.] . From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that:
1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 24
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.
39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further delved into the principle discussed in the foregoing paragraphs in the judgment of Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, MANU/SC/1141/2015 : (2015) 16 SCC 787, and held as follows:
"15. It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 25
document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question. A thorough reading of both Exts. B-21 and B-22 makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registrable document and if the same is not registered, it becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, Exts. B-21 and B-22 are the documents which squarely fall within the ambit of Section 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act and hence are compulsorily registrable documents and the same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of partition between the parties. We are of the considered opinion that Exts. B-21 and B-22 are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition."
In view of the categorical findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a fore cited judgments, I find Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 26 that the plaintiff cannot, in effect, claim that there was any valid transfer of title in her favor in the year 1989. That being the case, I find that she can neither claim title, nor the right of possession on basis of having the better title as against either defendant no 1 and 2 who are the subsequent purchasers for value vide the registered sale deed from defendants no 3 & 4. The mere registration of a receipt showing the receipt of certain amount of money, without any reference to the transaction in question cannot lead the Court to find in favour of the plaintiff.
(b) The plaintiff has also not been able to corroborate her claim of long and settled possession with any extrinsic physical evidence, and merely the oral evidence would not be sufficient in this regard. It is claimed during the cross examination that the plaintiff started residing immediately in the suit property without any water and electricity connection which claim sounds specious at best. No efforts were ever made, as admitted by the Plaintiff to pay any house tax or effect any mutation in the suit property though it is claimed that the plaintiff was in possession for 25 odd years. This sounds highly suspicious and improbable. There is also no strong evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was every forcibly dispossessed by any of the defendants. The police complaint in this regard has remained unproved. No evidence Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 27 has been led to prove the specific events of the day on which such forcible dispossession took place and the plaint in this regard is vague in nature.
(c) In so far the the point of limitation is concerned, since the plaintiff has also claimed possession on basis of her better title (even though her claim cannot be sustained in view of the observations made above), the limitation period will be as under Article 64/65 of the Limitation Act's schedule and the suit would be within limitation.
(d) It is settled law, that it is only the civil court which can decide the right of possession on the basis of the better title and therefore, the objection under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, can also not be sustained, as raised by the defendants.
(e) The issues of court fees and jurisdiction/valuation, have also not been pressed by the defendants at the time of the final arguments and no evidence or pleadings has been referred to in this regard.
Issues 1, 2,3 and 6 are decided against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants. Issues 4, 5 and 7 are decided against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff.
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors. Suit No. 15451/16 28 Relief
17. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff has to be dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
18. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
DIVYANG
DIVYANG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.02.01
13:19:29
+0530
Announced in the open court (Sh. Divyang Thakur)
On 01.02.2025 DJ-03/South West
Dwarka / New Delhi
Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Vs. M/s Vam Realcon Pvt Ltd and Ors.