Delhi District Court
Ishraquddin vs Riyazuddin on 17 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010001522006
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
CS DJ No. 613294/2016
CNR No. DLCT01-000152-2006
Sh. Ishraquddin
S/o Late Sh. Wazir Ahmad
R/o H.No. 6901-6902, Gali Lalten Wali,
Beri Wala Bagh, Azad Market,
Delhi.
Also at:
H.No. 7831/1, Nai Basti,
Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. ........ Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Riyazuddin
S/o Late Sh. Wazir Ahmad
R/o H.No. 28-B, West Laxmi Market,
Gali No. 1. Khureji Khas,
Delhi.
2. Mst. Rafiqua Khatoon
W/o Sh. Riyazuddin
CS DJ No. 613294/16 1 of 69
Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
R/o H.No. 28-B, West Laxmi Market,
Gali No. 1. Khureji Khas,
Delhi.
3. Mst. Nafisa Begum
W/o Sh. Noor Ali
R/o H.No. 28-B, West Laxmi Market,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
(dead through her LRs)
4. Sh. Aquil Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Abdul Chaudhary.
5. Smt. Zarina Begum
W/o Sh. Aquil Chaudhary
6. Sh. Shoukeen Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Aquil Chaudhary
7. Sh. Mauseen Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Aquil Chaudhary
All R/o B-52, Street No. 16,
Mansingh Marg, Old Mustafabad,
Delhi-94 ........ Defendants
Date of Institution: 09.03.2006
Date of reserving the judgment: 25.07.2025
Date of Judgment: 17.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants with the following prayer;
CS DJ No. 613294/16 2 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(a) A declaratory decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1, declaring thereby that the General Power of Attorney dated 09.09.1997, and another General Power of Attorney alleged to have been prepared on 09.09.1997 and alleged to have been registered on 26.09.1998 are null and void.
(b) It may be declared that the defendant No. 1 was never the owner and landlord of the property measuring 200 sq. yards out of khasra No. 1, situated in revenue estate of Village Ziauddinpur, popularly known as Mustafabad, Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi.
(c) It may be declared that the defendant No. 1 had no right, title or interest to dispose of the property to anyone else and the alleged transaction between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is an illegal transfer.
(d) A decree of possession in respect of 200 sq. yards out of khasra No. 1, situated in revenue estate of Village Ziauddinpur, popularly known as Mustafabad, Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi in which the defendant No. 1 has been running the handloom business as an unauthorized occupant may be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing thereby the defendants to handover the same to the plaintiff as shown in site plan.
(e) A decree of damages may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing thereby the defendants to pay the damages for the unauthorized use and occupation of the property in question at the rate of Rs. 2000/- a day, or this Court would assess the CS DJ No. 613294/16 3 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 rate of damages, from the date of filing of the suit till the decretal amount is realized.
(f) A decree of permanent injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, part with possession, or from re-inducting any other person in the plot, and from imposing any charge or encumbrances in the property of the plaintiff i.e. in respect of 200 sq. yards out of khasra No. 1, situated in revenue estate of Village Ziauddinpur, popularly known as Mustafabad, Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, shown in site plan.
2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, in brief, are as under:-
(a) That the plaintiff had purchased a piece of land area measuring 500 sq. yards out of khasra No. 1 situated in revenue estate of Village Ziauddinpur, popularly known as Mastafabad, Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi on 11.06.1982 from Sh. Jagmal, Sh. Surjit, and Sh. Birma against the valuable consideration.
(b) That the plaintiff after getting the same purchased, the documents of 100 sq. yards were got prepared in the name of the defendant No. 1 (who is the real younger brother of the plaintiff) and another 100 sq. yards in the name of the wife of the plaintiff namely Mst. Nafisa Khatoon. The documents for the remaining piece of plot measuring 300 sq. yards were got prepared in the name of the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 4 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(c) It is pertinent to mention that the payment of the portion of 100 sq. yards in the name of defendant No. 1 was made by the plaintiff and another 100 sq. yards plot portion in the name of the wife of the plaintiff was also made by the plaintiff.
(d) That the plaintiff being the elder brother of the defendant No. 1 had the desire to accommodate his younger brother financially and for that reason the plaintiff after getting the plot purchased from his funds, had given the 100 square yards portion to the defendant no. 1 and moreso, the documents were directly prepared in the name of the defendant No. 1.
(e) In the year 1996, in order to meet financial exigencies, the defendant No. 1 disposed of his 100 sq. yards plot.
(f) After disposing of his plot, the defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff for taking the 100 sq. yards plot of the plaintiff on temporary basis for running a handloom business. Defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiff that he had applied for the industrial plot in Government scheme and when the same will be allotted to the defendant No. 1, he will hand over the possession of the plot of 100 sq. yards to the plaintiff.
(g) That the plaintiff, after getting the plot purchased in the year 1982, had already built two rooms in the western side of the plot (of 300 sq. yards). The whole plot was of three side open and was bounded as under:
NORTH: GALI 15' WEST: ROAD 20'
SOUTH: GALI 10' EAST: REMAINING PORTION
CS DJ No. 613294/16 5 of 69
Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(100 SQ. YARDS PLOT
OF NAFISA KHATOON)
(h) Considering the request of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff, as an elder brother, agreed to give 100 sq. yards to the defendant No. 1 out of 300 sq. yards on a temporary basis for some time. The plaintiff specifically directed the defendant No. 1 that he will run his business of handloom in the portion of 100 sq. yards where two rooms had already been built up by the plaintiff i.e. North West corner of the plot.
(i) That the defendant No. 1 told the plaintiff that a written document qua the said plot would be required in his favour for running the business (and for showing the same in Government offices) and for installation of electricity and water meter.
(j) That on 09.09.1997, the defendant No. 1 got a general power of attorney prepared in the Registrar Office. The plaintiff under the bonafide impression and trust of defendant No. 1 went to the Registrar office in order to execute the general power of attorney in respect of 100 sq. yards in which neither the ownership was to be transferred nor any title was to be transferred in favour of the defendant No. 1. No consideration amount was to be paid to the plaintiff.
(k) That the plaintiff does not know the English language. The plaintiff bonafidely and in trust of defendant No. 1 and his document writer, signed some papers under the impression that a general power of attorney is being given to the defendant No.1 for the purpose of CS DJ No. 613294/16 6 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 installation of the electricity connection and water connection and for other incidental official purposes.
(l) That a general power of attorney was registered and by virtue of said general power of attorney, the defendant No. 1 was given a 100 sq. yards portion of the North West corner of the plot out of 300 sq. yards in which two rooms already were existed on a temporary basis.
(m) That some time in 2003-04, the defendant No. 1 also started using the remaining vacant portion of 100 sq. yards in the South West direction where the plaintiff had already built a latrine and bathroom and staircases. On protest, the defendant No. 1 told the plaintiff as there was scarcity of space to run the business, the defendant No. 1 recently started using the vacant space. The plaintiff being elder brother and on assurance of the defendant No. 1, did not resist much, however, it was directed by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 that the total 200 sq. yards portion (out of 300 sq. yards) shall be returned back to the plaintiff whenever the industrial plot was allotted to the defendant No.
1. The defendant No. 1 firmly assured the plaintiff to handover the possession and to remove the temporary structure of the plot at the time of leaving the plot.
(n) As the sons of the plaintiff had become major, the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 1 to vacate the given portion of 100 sq. yards. The defendant no. 1 was also requested to vacate the adjacent portion of 100 sq. yards as well. When the defendant No. 1 did not vacate the plots, the plaintiff, sensing some foul play, cancelled the power of CS DJ No. 613294/16 7 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 attorney and Will dated 09.09.1997 through registered documents dated 31.05.2005.
(o) That the defendant No. 1 after coming to know about the cancellation of general power of attorney dated 09.09.1997, started attempting to dispose of the premises of the plaintiff to someone else. The plaintiff accordingly issued a legal notice dated 22.06.2005 to the defendant No. 1 asking him to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 was also asked to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per day for unauthorized use and occupation to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 was apprised that the GPA as well as the Will stand cancelled by virtue of cancellation deeds dated 31.05.2005, and the defendant No. 1 shall have no right, title or interest over the premises in question.
(p) That the defendant No. 1 issued a reply dated 21.07.2005 to the legal notice of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 disclosed in the reply that the defendant no. 1 had already sold the said property area measuring 200 sq. yards to Smt. Rafiqua Khatoon, wife of Sh. Riyazuddin (defendant No. 1) resident of 28-B, West Laxmi Nagar, Khureji Khas, Delhi- 110051 by way of GPA, Will, registered before Registrar-IV, on 07.04.1999 and also by way of agreement of sale, affidavit and receipt all dated 07.04.1999 in favour of said Smt. Raffiqua Begum.
(q) That the plaintiff got issued a rejoinder notice dated 11.08.2005 to the defendant No. 1.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 8 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(r) After going through the documents in favour of the defendant No. 2, the plaintiff sensed that the defendant No. 1 played a complete fraud on him at the time of execution of general power of attorney on 09.09.1997 whereunder a lot of undesired powers were written/ given to the defendant No. 1. Not only this, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 got prepared two general power of attorney in his favour in respect of 100 sq. yards each (instead of one), and got the same signed from the plaintiff on the pretext that they were copies of one general power of attorney.
(s) That the other general power of attorney allegedly registered on 26.09.1998 shows that the same was also prepared by the defendant No. 1 on 09.09.1997 itself when the previous general power of attorney was prepared, but in order to cheat the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 managed to get the same registered in the Registrar Office on 26.09.1998. The plaintiff is completely unaware about the alleged second general power of attorney prepared on 09.09.1997 and registered on 26.09.1998.
(t) That the documents alleged to have been executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 are liable to be cancelled as the defendant No. 1 was neither the owner nor had any right, title or interest over the property. Even otherwise the documents alleged to have been executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 are liable to be cancelled being forged and fabricated.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 9 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(u) That the plaintiff again got served legal notice dated 30.09.2005 on the defendant No. 1 and 2. No reply was given by the defendant No. 1 and 2.
(v) Hence, the present suit.
3. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues of this Suit, appearances were put on behalf of the defendants No. 1 and 2. Thereafter, separate written statements were filed on behalf of the defendants No. 1 and 2.
4. In his written statement, the defendant No. 1 inter alia pleaded as under:-
(a) That the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, 1908.
(b) That the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court.
(c) That the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees.
(d) That the plaintiff executed two general power of attorney in favour of the defendant No. 1 with all the rights to sell and transfer the said property to anyone, to enter into an agreement, to execute and sign sale deed, mortgage deed, present the same for registration before the concerned Sub-Registrar and also to receive the consideration amount and earnest money, and to handover the possession to the said purchaser and to do all acts in that connection.
(e) That the defendant No. 1 has already sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2 on 07.04.1999 by way of registered GPA and Will, and by way of notarized agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 10 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
Further, the defendant No. 1 has already transferred the possession of the suit property to the defendant No. 2.
(f) That the plaintiff has full knowledge about the two GPAs executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no. 1 and also having the knowledge about the sale of the said property in favour of the defendant No. 2.
(g) That the Plaintiff knew that the plaintiff ( sic. defendant No. 1) is a tenant of the Defendant No. 2 of 200 sq. yds, and running a society of the said plot, so no question arises to give back the said plot to the Plaintiff.
(h) With these pleadings, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In her written statement, the defendant No. 2 inter alia pleaded as under:-
(a) That the suit has not been filed, signed and verified in accordance with the High Court rules and has not been supported with detailed affidavit as per the provision of amendment of CPC.
(b) That the defendant No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff is the real brother of defendant No. 1. The answering defendant purchased the property measuring 200 sq. yards from defendant No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- and GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt, etc. were executed by the defendant No. 1 on 07.04.1999. Money for the purchase of above property was given by the father of the defendant No. 2.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 11 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(c) That the answering defendant sold the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- to Nafisa Begum wife of Sh. Noor Ali R/o H.No. 28-B, West Laxmi Market, Shastri Nagar, Delhi through irrevocable GPA and other relevant documents on 21.12.2005. Since the answering defendant had already sold the suit property to the said Nafisa Begum, the defendant no. 2 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and as such the answering defendant is not a necessary party to be impleaded in the present suit.
(d) Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Ms. Nafisa Begum has accordingly been impleaded as a party to suit as defendant No. 3 vide order dated 03.10.2006.
7. In her written statement, the defendant No. 3 inter alia pleaded as under:-
(a) That answering defendant purchased the property from the defendant No. 2 and the relevant document has been executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of the answering defendant and possession of the property in question has been delivered to the answering defendant by the defendant no. 2.
(b) That the answering defendant had already sold (further) the property to Aquil Chaudhary, Smt. Zarina Begum, Sh. Shoukeen Chaudhary and Sh. Mouseen Chaudhary, all residents of B-52, Street No. 15, Man Singh Nagar, Old Mustafabad, Delhi- 110094 on 17.03.2006.
The answering defendant as such has no right, title and interest in the property in question. The answering defendant is not a necessary party to the present case.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 12 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(c) Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. Accordingly, Sh. Aquil Chaudhary, Smt. Zarina Begum, Sh. Shoukeen Chaudhary and Sh. Mauseen Chaudhary were impleaded as a party to the suit as defendants No. 4 to 7.
9. In the joint written statement of the defendants No. 4 to 7, it is inter alia pleaded;
(a) That the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as the proper court fee has not been affixed.
(b) That the present suit is barred by limitation.
(c) That the defendants No. 4 to 7 are bonafide purchasers as they have purchased the property from Smt. Nafessa Begum W/o Sh. Noor Ali in March 2006 and since then they are in possession of the aforesaid property. As such, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the answering defendants.
(d) Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. Plaintiff thereupon filed the replication to the written statements of the defendants No. 1 to 7 (except defendant No. 3) wherein he denied the case of the defendants and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. predecessor of this court vide Order dated 05.03.2010:-
1. Whether the plaint is to be rejected for want of cause of action ? OPD
2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is guilty for concealment of facts ? OPD
4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendants No. 2 and 3 ? OPD CS DJ No. 613294/16 13 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
5. Whether the suit has been signed and verified in accordance with the law ? OPD
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for declaration as prayed ? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession qua the suit property ? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction as prayed ? OPP
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages ? OPP
11. Relief.
12. During the trial of this Suit, four witnesses viz; PW1 Sh. Ishraquddin (plaintiff), PW2 Sh. Anil Sharma, Section Officer (Accounts), BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Bhagirathi Grid, Karawal Nagar, Delhi, PW3 Sh.
Ishwar Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Jitender Singh, the then Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and PW4 Sh. Ramphool Meena, LDC, Office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi were examined in support of the case of the plaintiff.
13. Sh. Ishraquddin (plaintiff) has been examined by the plaintiff as PW1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith following documents:-
(i) Ex.PW1/1: General Power of Attorney, Agreement deed and receipt dated 11.06.1982 executed in favour of plaintiff CS DJ No. 613294/16 14 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(ii) Ex.PW1/2: Copy of General Power of Attorney dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 09.09.1997) executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1
(iii) Ex.PW1/3: Site plan of the suit property
(iv) Ex.PW1/4: Cancellation deed dated 31.05.2005 of GPA dated 09.09.1997
(v) Ex.PW1/5: Cancellation deed dated 31.05.2005 of Will dated 09.09.1997
(vi) Mark A: Copy of Legal Notice dated 22.06.2005
(vii) Ex.PW1/7: Reply dated 21.07.2005 of legal notice
(viii) Mark B: Copy of rejoinder notice dated 11.08.2005
(ix) Ex.PW1/9: Copy of General Power of Attorney dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 26.09.1998) allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1
(x) Ex.PW1/10: Legal Notice dated 30.09.2005
14. Sh. Anil Sharma, Section Officer (Accounts), BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Bhagirathi Grid, Karawal Nagar, Delhi has been examined as PW2. He has brought the following summoned documents;
(i) Ex.PW2/1: Copy of first application cum agreement filed by defendant No. 1
(ii) Ex.PW2/2 (Colly): Copy of Indemnity bond and dues affidavit
(iii) Ex.PW2/3 (Colly): Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell, Receipt, all dated 04.02.1997 alleged to be executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1
(iv) Ex.PW2/4: Copy of second application cum agreement filed by defendant No. 1 CS DJ No. 613294/16 15 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(v) Ex.PW2/5: Copy of test report
(vi) Ex.PW2/6: Copy of Indemnity bond and dues affidavit
(vii) Ex.PW2/7 (Colly): Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell, Receipt, all dated 04.02.1997 alleged to be executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1
15. Sh. Ishwar Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Jitender Singh, the then Ld. MM, Karkardooma Courts has been examined as PW3. He has brought the judicial file bearing CC No. 157/07 titled as Ishraquddin V/s Riyazuddin etc. U/s 406/420/468/471 IPC, PS Gokalpur.
16. Sh. Ramphool Meena, LDC, Office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi has been examined as PW4. He has brought the following summoned documents;
(i) Ex.PW4/1: Copy of GPA dated 09.09.1997 registered vide registration No. 23836 in Additional Book No IV, Volume No. 4493, Page No. 199-200
(ii) Ex.PW4/2: Copy of GPA presented on 09.09.1997 and registered on 26/1998 (month not legible on the back of document) vide registration No. 15054 in Additional Book No IV, Volume No. 4843, Page No. 10-11
(iii) Ex.PW4/3: Copy of cancellation of GPA dated 31.05.2005 registered vide registration No. 5366 in Book No IV, Volume No. 1833, Page No. 16-17
(iv) Ex.PW4/4: Copy of cancellation of Will dated 31.05.2005 registered vide registration No. 5385 in Book No IV, Volume No. 1833, Page No. 108- 1109.
17. All the witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of defendants. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. PE was thereafter closed CS DJ No. 613294/16 16 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 vide order dated 20.08.2014 and the Suit was posted for the defendant's evidence.
18. During the trial of this Suit, six witnesses viz; D1W1 Sh. Riyazuddin (defendant No. 1), D1W2 Sh. Dinesh Chand Makuria, Data Entry Operator, Sub-Registrar-I, Kasmere Gate, Delhi, DW3 Sh. Abdul Malik, DW4/1 Sh. Shokeen Chaudhary (defendant No. 6), DW4/3 Sh. Mohd. Qadir, and D4W4 Sh. Ayazuddin were examined in support of the case of the defendants.
19. Sh. Riyazuddin (defendant No. 1) has been examined by the defendant No. 1 as D1W1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.D1W1/A.
20. D1W1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. During Cross-
examination of D1W1 following documents were exhibited/ marked:-
(i) Ex.DW1/P1: Nikahnama of defendant No. 1(ii) Ex.DW1/P2: Marriage card of defendant No. 1
(iii) Ex.DW1/P3: No-objection given by defendant No. 1 to Registrar, co- operative societies
(iv) Ex.DW1/P4: A document given by defendant No. 1 to Registrar, co- operative societies
(v) Mark X (Colly): Copy of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit, all dated 07.04.1999 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2
(vi) Mark Y: Copy of GPA dated 21.12.2005 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3
(vii) Mark X1: Names of office bearer of New Tihar Handloom
(viii) Mark X2: Copy of electricity meter CS DJ No. 613294/16 17 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
21. Sh. Dinesh Chand Makuria, Data Entry Operator, Sub-Registrar-I, Kasmere Gate, Delhi has been examined as D1W2. He has exhibited a document i.e. Will dated 09.09.1997 having registration No. 21921 in Book No. 3 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 as Ex.D1W2/A.
22. Sh. Abdul Malik has been examined as DW3, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW3/A alongwith following documents:-
(i) Ex.DW3/1: Will registered on 09.09.1997 vide Registration No. 21922 in Book No. 3 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1
(ii) Ex.DW3/2: Will registered on 09.09.1997 vide Registration No. 21921 in Book No. 3 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1
23. Sh. Shokeen Chaudhary has been examined as DW4/1, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/1/A alongwith following documents:-
(i) Ex.D4W4/2: Agreement to sell dated 17.03.2006 (notorised)
(ii) Ex.D4W4/2: Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 17.03.2006 (registered)
(iii) Ex.D4W4/3: Will dated 17.03.2006 (notorised)
(iv) Ex.DW4/3/4: Receipt dated 17.03.2006 (notorised)
(v) Ex.D4W4/5: Possession Letter dated 17.03.2006 (notorised)
(vi) Ex.DW4/1/D (Colly): GPA, Agreement to sell and Receipt dated 15.06.1982
24. Sh. Mohd. Qadir has been examined as DW4/3, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/3/A.
25. Sh. Ayazuddin has been examined as D4W4, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW4/4/A. CS DJ No. 613294/16 18 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
26. All the witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. No other witness was examined on behalf of the defendants. DE was closed vide order dated 01.11.2018 and the Suit was adjourned for final arguments.
27. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of plaintiff and defendants.
It may be noted that during pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 3 expired on 20.01.2019 and her LRs were brought on record vide order dated 23.02.2019.
28. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on following judgments:-
(i) Harbans Singh V/s Shanti Devi; 1977 RLR 487 (when a GPA can be revoked)
(ii) Shankar Goswami V/s Sarita Goswami; 2015 Law Suit (Del) 4019 (a person having better title is entitled for possession)
(iii) Ramesh Chand V/s Suresh Chand & Anr.; RFA No. 358, date of decision 09.04.2012 (a person having better title is entitled for possession)
29. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendants No. 4 to 7 has relied on following judgments:-
(i) Prem Singh & Ors. V/s Birbal & Ors.; AIR 2006 SC 3608 (on the aspect of limitation)
(ii) M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. and Anr. V/s M/s Agarwal Steel; 2010 (1) SCC 83 (unless there is proof of force and fraud, there is a presumption that a person signed a document after reading and understanding it) CS DJ No. 613294/16 19 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(iii) Jamila Begum (D) through LRs V/s Shami Mohd; AIR 2019 SC 72 (a registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed)
(iv) Bellachi V/s Pakeeran; AIR 2009 SC 3293 (there must be specific pleadings in the plaint about the particulars of undue influence, fraud etc.)
(v) Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale V/s Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale & Ors (SC);
SLP (Civil) Nos. 5595-5596, date of decision 23.03.2009 (a registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed)
(vi) Rattan Singh V/s Nirmal Gill; AIR 2001 SC 899 (burden of proof that signature has been obtained by fraud is on the party alleging such fraud)
(vii) Gangamoyi Debi V/s Troiluckhya Nath Chowdhary; (1906) 8 BOMLR 375 (a registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed)
(viii) Ningawwa V/s Byrappa & Others; [1968] 2 SCR 797 (there is a clear distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. With reference to the former, it has been held that the transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely voidable)
(ix) V. Ravikumar V/s S. Kumar; SLP (Civil) No. 9472 of 2023, date of decision 03.03.2025 (cancellation of GPA does not affect the prior conveyances made on the strength of GPA)
(x) Amar Nath V/s Gian Chand; Civil Appeal No. 5797 of 2009, date of decision 28.01.2022 (merely writing 'cancelled' on registered power of attorney wouldn't make it null and void) CS DJ No. 613294/16 20 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
30. My issue wise findings on the issues settled vide Order dated 05.03.2010 are as under:-
ISSUES NO. 7, 8 AND 97. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for declaration as prayed ? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession qua the suit property ? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for permanent injunction as prayed ? OPP
31. Let us first attempt to understand the plaintiff's case in a chronological sequence for better understanding:-
(a) The plaintiff, by way of present suit, amongst other reliefs, is praying for a decree of possession in respect of 200 sq. yards out of khasra No. 1, situated in revenue estate of Village Ziauddinpur, popularly known as Mustafabad, Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi (suit property).
(b) The suit property (200 sq. yards) is a part of property (300 sq. yards) purchased by the plaintiff from Sh. Jagmal, Sh. Surjit, and Sh. Birma through General Power of Attorney, Agreement deed and receipt dated 11.06.1982; Ex.PW1/1 (Colly). The defendant No. 1 admits this fact.
(c) After getting the plot purchased in the year 1982, the plaintiff had already built two rooms in the western side of the plot (of 300 sq. yards).
(d) The defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiff for taking the 100 sq. yards of plot of the plaintiff on a temporary basis for running a CS DJ No. 613294/16 21 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 handloom business. The plaintiff agreed to hand over the 100 sq. yards where two rooms had already been built up by the plaintiff i.e. North West corner of the plot to the defendant No. 1 for the said purpose. On the asking of defendant No. 1, a General Power of Attorney was prepared on 09.09.1997 (which was also registered in the Registrar office on 09.09.1997); Ex.PW1/2.
(e) In 2003-04, the defendant No. 1 also started using the remaining vacant portion of 100 sq. yards in the South West direction where the plaintiff had already built a latrine and bathroom and staircases on the pretext of scarcity of space to run the business. The plaintiff, though objected, did not resist much.
(f) As the sons of the plaintiff had attained majority, the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 1 to hand over the possession of 200 sq. yards given to him. When the defendant No. 1 did not vacate the plots, the plaintiff cancelled the General Power of Attorney and Will dated 09.09.1997 through two registered documents dated 31.05.2005 respectively; Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5.
(g) The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 22.06.2005; Mark A to the defendant No. 1. Service of this legal notice on the defendant No. 1 is an admitted fact.
(h) The defendant No. 1 issued a reply dated 21.07.2005; Ex.PW1/7 to the legal notice of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 disclosed in the reply that the defendant no. 1 had already sold the said property area measuring 200 sq. yards to his wife Smt. Rafiqua Khatoon (defendant CS DJ No. 613294/16 22 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 No. 2) by way of GPA and Will, registered before Registrar-IV, on 07.04.1999, and also by way of agreement of sale, affidavit and receipt all dated 07.04.1999 (notarized) in favour of said Raffiqua Begum; Mark X (Colly).
(i) The plaintiff got issued a rejoinder notice dated 11.08.2005; Mark Y to the defendant No. 1 for supplying the copy of relevant documents to show his right/ title or interest in 200 sq. yards of property of plaintiff (instead of 100 sq. yards) and to show his right to execute further documents in favour of anyone (say, the defendant No. 2).
(j) At this juncture, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant No. 1 committed a complete fraud upon him on 09.09.1997 (at the time of execution of GPA in favour of defendant No. 1 qua 100 sq. yards);
(i) by inserting several unauthorised and undesired powers in the said GPA dated 09.09.1997, and
(ii) by deceitfully preparing two separate GPAs under the pretext that they were merely duplicate copies of one.
(k) The other GPA allegedly registered on 26.09.1998 shows that the same was also prepared on 09.09.1997 itself when the previous GPA was prepared (but in order to cheat the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 managed to get the same registered in the Registrar Office on 26.09.1998). A copy of another GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 26.09.1998) is exhibited as Ex.PW1/9.
(l) With these pleadings the plaintiff inter alia praying for (i) declaring both the GPAs as null and void; (ii) declaring that the defendant No. 1 CS DJ No. 613294/16 23 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 was not the owner of the property who could dispose the suit property to any one; (iii) declaring transfer of property by defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 as illegal; (iv) decree of possession of suit property; (v) decree of damages; and (vi) decree of permanent injunction
32. Case of the defendant No. 1, on the other hand, is as under;
(a) The plaintiff executed two GPAs in favour of the defendant No. 1 with all the rights to sell and transfer the said property to anyone, to enter into an agreement, to execute and sign sale deed, mortgage deed, present the same for registration before the concerned Sub-Registrar and also to receive the consideration amount and earnest money, and to handover the possession to the said purchaser and to do all acts in that connection.
(b) The defendant No. 1 has already sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2 on 07.04.1999 and has already transferred the possession of the suit property to the defendant No. 2.
(c) The Plaintiff knew that the defendant No. 1 is a tenant of the Defendant No. 2 of 200 sq. yds, and running a society of the said plot.
33. So, as per the plaintiff, the plaintiff executed only one GPA on 09.09.1997 in favour of defendant No. 1 qua 100 sq. yards of his plot. However, he, subsequently (when he received reply from the defendant No. 1 to his legal notice), learnt that the defendant No. 1 dishonestly got prepared two GPAs on 09.09.1997 from him qua two separate 100 sq. yards plots. The first CS DJ No. 613294/16 24 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 GPA was registered on the same day i.e. on 09.09.1997 whereas the second GPA was registered on 26.09.1998.
34. Plaintiff's case is that since to his knowledge there was only one GPA, he cancelled the same through a registered document dated 31.05.2005. Plaintiff's further case is the fact that the other alleged GPA dated 09.09.1997 was fraudulently registered on 26.09.1998 came to his knowledge only when he received reply dated 21.07.2005 from the defendant No. 1. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that had there been intention of the plaintiff to give 200 sq. yards plot to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff would have executed the GPA regarding 200 sq. yards (and there was no reason to execute two separate GPAs in favour of the defendant No. 1). Now, by way of present suit (instituted on 09.03.2006), the plaintiff is asking for declaring both the GPAs in favour of defendant No. 1 as null and void.
35. Firstly, I would try to find out for what purposes/ under what circumstances GPAs were executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1.
36. At the outset, it may be noted that there are two sets of documents viz. GPA and Will on the record supposedly executed by plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1 (regarding two separate plots of 100 sq. yards).
(i) GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 09.09.1997) [Ex.PW1/2/ Ex.PW4/1] (ia) Will dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 09.09.1997 having registration No. 21921) [Ex.DW3/2]
(ii) GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 26.09.1998) [Ex.PW4/2] CS DJ No. 613294/16 25 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 (iia) Will dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 09.09.1997 having registration No. 21922) [Ex.DW3/1]
37. Plaintiff cancelled the first set of documents GPA and Will [at Sr. No. (i) and (ia)] vide registered documents/ cancellation deeds dated 31.05.2005, Ex.PW1/4 and PW1/5.
38. As already noted, the plaintiff's case is that he was having no knowledge about the other GPA dated 09.09.1997 registered on 26.09.1998. The plaintiff is alleging that the second GPA was registered on 26.09.1998 fraudulently by the defendant No. 1.
39. PW1 deposed in cross-examination conducted on behalf of defendants No. 4 to 7 to the effect [T]he documents were executed with the understanding that defendant No. 1 might require the same for showing to various government authorities in connection with his handloom work to be started in the premises.
40. Here, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of cross-examination of PW1 conducted on behalf of defendants No. 2 and 3;
"It is correct that I had gone to Sub-Registrar Office and my signatures were taken on certain papers but I do not know what was written on the papers regarding the particular matter.
Q. Jab aapne un kagzon ko sub-registrar office main sign kiya tha aapne Mr. Azmal Khan, Advocate ko engage kiya tha?
Ans. I had not engaged the services of Mr. Azmal Khan, Advocate. In-fact he was engaged by the counter party.
xxxxx
CS DJ No. 613294/16 26 of 69
Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
...It is correct that Mr. Azmal Khan, Advocate has represented in litigations involving me which are pending in various Courts...
Mr. Azmal Khan, Advocate told me to sign on certain places saying ki woh koi kaam dhanda karna chahta hai aur bar-bar no objection likhwana parega and asked me to sign.
Reply to Court question, the documents were in English. No body asked me whether I understand the contents of the documents. I do not know what were those documents. I remember ki maine 09.09.1997 ko sign kar diye the. Mr. Azmal Khan, Advocate ne yeh keh kar sign karwaye the ki bar bar no objection chahiye hoga aur aap pareshan honge to maine sign kar diye.
Q. I put it to you that how many papers were signed by you on 09.09.1997 ?
Ans. I do not remember how many pages I had signed since it is an old matter of 1997.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have signed six papers including writing mentioned on the stamp papers and non-stamp papers which were purchased by me and what was the valuation of the same. I went to the office of Sub-Registrar on 09.09.1997. From my side, I was the only member and from the side of other party, Abdul Malik, Riyazuddin and Advocate Mr. Ajmal Khan were present. The documents were signed by me in the Sub-Registrar Office. It was signed by Abdul Malik also in my present. Baaki logon ka nahin pata ki unhone kahan-kahan sign kiye the. All the writings either on stamp papers or otherwise which are dated 09.09.1997 were signed by me as a man of compassion and I also put some thumb impression in the Office of Sub-Registrar..."
CS DJ No. 613294/16 27 of 69
Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
xxxxx
...Thereafter, in response to the legal notice given to them asking them to vacate the property they replied in the year 2007. Again said, on 21.07.2005 when the reply was received from the defendants to my counsel Mr. Javed Khan, we came to know that they had created another document of the same date alleging the signatures and thumb marks...
41. From reading of cross-examination of PW1, following things emerge;
(a) He handed over the premises/ suit property to the defendant No. 1 for handloom work to be started by the defendant No. 1.
(b) On the request of Mr. Azmal Khan, he executed the documents for convenience of the defendant No. 1, say, for showing the various government authorities and to avoid giving no-objections from time to time.
(c) At the time of execution of documents, he was the only one from his side whereas from the side of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 1 himself, Advocate Mr. Azmal Khan and one Sh. Abdul Malik were present.
(d) He did not know what was written in the documents.
(e) He failed to recollect as to how many pages he signed on 09.09.1997.
(f) On receiving a reply to his legal notice from the defendant No. 1, it came to his knowledge that the defendant No. 1 got executed two sets of documents.
42. Now, I am reproducing certain paras of evidence affidavit of DW1 (filed on 20.10.2014), Ex.D1W1/A tendered in examination-in-chief;
CS DJ No. 613294/16 28 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
"2. That the deponent had already sold out the suit property to the defendant No. 2 on 07.04.1999 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of registered General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit and receipt...
3. That the plaintiff filed the documents regarding the ownership of the said piece of land. It is clearly mentioned that the piece of land is 300 Sq. Yds. and not 500 Sq. Yds. The plaintiff got prepared two General Power of Attorneys in the name of deponent which were prepared by his counsel Shri Ajmal Khan Advocate on 09.09.1997 with all the rights to sell and transfer the said property to anyone or to enter into any agreement to execute and sign sale deed, mortgage deed or present the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar and also to receive the consideration amount and earnest money or to handover the possession to the said purchaser or to do all acts in that connection.
4. That the said plot was purchased by the plaintiff and the deponent being the brother of the plaintiff was working with the plaintiff. The plaintiff only gave the pocket expenses to the deponent and get the full services of the deponent and the deponent is/was loyal towards the plaintiff being a younger brother of the plaintiff.
5.xxxxx
6.xxxxx
7. That the plaintiff knew that defendant is a tenant of defendant No. 2 of 200 Sq. Yards. and running a society in the said plot..."
43. From reading of examination-in-chief of DW1, following things emerge;
(a) Admittedly, the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 29 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(b) Plaintiff executed two GPAs in favour of defendant No. 1 given thereunder power to sell/ transfer to others.
(c) Defendant No. 1 is absolutely silent about giving any money/ consideration to the plaintiff for execution of said two GPAs. It appears that the defendant No. 1 wants to suggest that the plaintiff executed these two GPAs in consideration of his past work done for the plaintiff.
(d) Defendant No. 1 sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2 on 07.04.1999 through GPA etc.
(e) Defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property as a tenant of defendant No. 2 and running a society in the said plot. It is relevant to note that the evidence affidavit was filed on 20.10.2014.
44. Sh. Abdul Malik is one of the witnesses of documents executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. He was examined on behalf of defendants as DW3. Relevant cross-examination of DW3 is being reproduced herein below;
"It is correct that House No. 28-B, Gali No. 1, West Laxmi Market, Khureji Khas, Delhi-110051 belongs to Riyazuddin. It is also correct that I am residing with him. I used to work with him in 1997 and worked with him for about 5-7 years thereafter...Today, I have come with Mr. Riyazuddin.
...No monetary transaction took place in my presence on the day the documents were prepared..."
45. From reading of cross-examination of DW3, following things emerge;
(a) He is residing with the defendant No. 1. At the relevant time, he used to work with the defendant No. 1.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 30 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(b) No payment was made by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff in his presence.
46. From evidence presented through witness testimonies referred hereinabove (PW1, DW1 and DW3), we can derive following things;
(a) Plaintiff handed over the suit property (200 sq. yards) to the defendant No. 1 for handloom work to be started by the defendant No. 1.
(b) As per the plaintiff, he executed the documents (one set of GPA & Will qua 100 sq. yards) for convenience of the defendant No. 1, say, for showing the various government authorities and to avoid giving no-objections from time to time.
(c) On receiving a reply to his legal notice from the defendant No. 1, it came to his knowledge that the defendant No. 1 got executed two sets of documents.
(d) As per the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff executed two sets of GPAs and Wills for 100 sq. yards each.
(e) Defendant No. 1 however did not provide any reason as to for what purpose, the plaintiff handed over him 200 sq. yards plot.
(f) It is not the case of anyone that any consideration was given to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 for handing over of suit property to the defendant No. 1 (or at time of the execution of documents).
(g) In any case, the defendant No. 1 did not lead any evidence to show that he paid any money to the plaintiff.
(h) DW3 deposed that no payment was made to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 in his presence.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 31 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(i) DW3, who is an attesting witness, used to work for the defendant No. 1 at relevant time. He stays with the defendant No. 1.
(j) It is no one's case that any agreement to sale was also executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1 qua the suit property.
(k) The original documents from which the plaintiff is deriving his right, title or interest in the suit property (Ex.PW1/1) always remained with the plaintiff.
47. As already noted, the plaintiff cancelled the one set of GPA (Ex.PW4/1) and Will (Ex.DW3/2) through two registered documents dated 31.05.2005 (Ex.PW1/4 and PW1/5). Non-cancellation of other set of GPA (Ex.PW4/2) and Will (Ex.DW3/1) by the plaintiff prima facie indicates absence of knowledge thereof; had the plaintiff been aware of their existence, nothing prevented him from taking steps to have the same cancelled (as well).
48. This Court finds merit in the version put forward by the plaintiff that had there been intention on the part of the plaintiff to give 200 sq. yards plot to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff would have executed the GPA regarding 200 sq. yards (and there was no reason to execute two separate GPAs in favour of the defendant No. 1). The registration of the other GPA after around one year on 26.09.1998 further makes its execution suspicious.
49. To my mind, the omission on the part of plaintiff to cancel the other set of GPA and Will- when viewed in the context of the defendant No. 1's complete silence regarding the purpose for which such documents were executed in his favour, and that too, without any consideration (and in presence of a witness who used to reside and work with/ for the defendant CS DJ No. 613294/16 32 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 No. 1)- lends credence to the inference that these documents were procured without the knowledge of the plaintiff.
50. However, contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 by playing fraud upon him got inserted several unauthorized and undesired powers in the first GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered as well on 09.09.1997), in the considered view of this Court, is liable to be rejected and is rejected as the plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption of valid execution attached with a registered document.
51. This court now proposes to examine the case of the defendant No. 1 that he had sold the suit property to his wife (defendant No. 2) by executing GPA and Will, registered before Registrar-IV, on 07.04.1999, and also by way of agreement of sale, affidavit and receipt all dated 07.04.1999 (notarized) in her favour.
52. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. V/s J. Manjula Etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448 expounded the relationship between the Executant and Holder of General Power of Attorney, as under;
"27. A power of attorney derives its basic principles from Chapter X of the Contract Act which provides for "Agency" along with Sections 1A and 2 respectively of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. Agency is a fiduciary relationship between two persons, where one explicitly or implicitly agrees that the other will act on their behalf to influence their legal relations with third parties, and the other similarly agrees to act in this capacity or does so based on an agreement. The relationship between the executant of a general power of attorney and the holder of the power is one of principal and agent. A principal is bound by the acts done by an agent or the contracts made by CS DJ No. 613294/16 33 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 him on behalf of the principal. Likewise, power of attorney in the nature of contract of agency authorizes the holder to do acts specified by the executant, or represent the executant in dealings with third persons.
28. In the case of Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy, (1979) 2 SCC 601, this Court held that the relation between the donor of the power and the donee of the power is one of the principal and agent having its genesis in a contract. It further observed that the term "agency" refers to the relationship in which one person has the authority or ability to establish legal relations between a principal and third parties. This relationship arises when a person, known as the agent, has the authority to act on behalf of another, called the principal, and agrees to do so. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:--
"10. The first contention of the appellant is that it was impermissible in law for three persons to jointly grant a power of attorney in favour of Defendant 34. Barring the ipse dixit of the learned counsel nothing was shown to us to make such a joint power impermissible in law. The relation between the donor of the power and the donee of the power is one of the principal and agent and the expression "agency" is used to connote the relation which exists where one person has an authority or capacity to create legal relations between a person occupying the position of principal and third parties. The relation of agency arises whenever one person called the agent has authority to act on behalf of another called the principal and consents so to act. The relationship has its genesis in a contract. If agency is the outcome of a contract between the principal and the agent, in order to show that three principals jointly constituting an CS DJ No. 613294/16 34 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 agent by a deed called "Power of Attorney" was impermissible, provisions of Contract Act or the general law of contract should have been shown as having been violated by such a contract. Nothing of the kind was pointed out to us. On the contrary, in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. I, 4th Edn., para 726, the following proposition has been stated:
"Co-principals may jointly appoint an agent to act for them and in such case become jointly liable to him and may jointly issue him."
We are in agreement with this view and, therefore, three principals could jointly appoint an agent."
(Emphasis supplied)
29. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77, while dealing with the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 22A of the Registration Act, it was held that a deed of power of attorney is a document of convenience empowering the agent to act for the principal or manage the affairs of the principal. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Power of attorney
13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, CS DJ No. 613294/16 35 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience.
14. Besides the Contract Act, the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 deals with the subject. Section 1-A of the Powers-of-Attorney Act defines power of attorney to include any instruments empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it. Section 2 of the said Act reads, thus:
"2. Execution under power of attorney.--The donee of a power of attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any instrument or thing in and with his own name and signature, and his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every instrument and thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual in law as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name, and with the signature and seal, of the donor thereof. This section applies to powers of attorney created by instruments executed either before or after this Act comes into force."
Execution of a deed of power of attorney, therefore, is valid in law and subject to the provisions of the Act is not compulsorily registerable."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. From the above exposition of law, it is settled that power of attorney is a creation of an agency by which the grantor/donor/executant authorizes the CS DJ No. 613294/16 36 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 grantee/donee/holder/attorney to do the acts specified on his behalf, which will be binding on the executant as if the acts were done by him." (Underlined by me)
53. In the present suit, the plaintiff, executant of the POAs, holds the position of a principal. Whereas, the defendant No. 1, holder of the POAs, is an agent. The plaintiff by executing the POAs (Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2) in favour of the defendant No. 1 entered into a principal-agent relationship with each other.
54. As already noted, the defendant No. 1 in his evidence affidavit deposed to the effect that the deponent had already sold out the suit property to the defendant No. 2 on 07.04.1999 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of registered General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit and receipt.
55. Here, it is required to be recalled that the defendant No. 2 in her written statement had pleaded that she further sold the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant No. 3 (Nafisa Begum) through irrevocable GPA and other relevant documents on 21.12.2005. Further, as per written statement of the defendant No. 3, she had also sold the property to the defendant No. 4 to 7 (Aquil Chaudhary, Smt. zarina Begum, Sh. Shoukeen Chaudhary and Sh. Mouseen Chaudhary) on 17.03.2006.
56. Plaintiff's case is that the transactions entered into between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2; defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3; and defendant No. 3 and defendants No. 4 to 7 are nothing but a sham, fraudulent and bogus, based on fabricated documents.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 37 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
57. I would examine the case of the defendant No. 1 in two situations viz. (i) as if the defendant No. 1 sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2 as a GPA holder, and (ii) as if the defendant No. 1 sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2 as a title holder (or as he himself having any right, title or interest in the subject-matter of the agency).
58. Plain reading of Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2 shows that these documents authorise the defendant No. 1 to sell and transfer the said property in any manner to any one, to enter into an agreement, to execute and sign sale deed, mortgage deed, to present the same for registration before the S.R. concerned, to admit its execution thereof, to receive the consideration amount and earnest money, to handover the possession to said purchaser and to mutate the same.
59. Case of the defendant No. 1 is that defendant No. 1 had sold the suit property area measuring 200 sq. yards to his wife Smt. Rafiqua Khatoon (defendant No. 2) by way of GPA and Will, registered before Registrar-IV, on 07.04.1999, and also by way of agreement of sale, affidavit and receipt all dated 07.04.1999 (notorised); Mark X (Colly).
60. Before coming to testimony of DW1 on this aspect, first have a look at testimony of PW2. Plaintiff examined Sh. Anil Sharma, Section Officer (Accounts), BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., Bhagirathi Grid, Karawal Nagar, Delhi as PW2. He has brought the summoned record pertaining to the electricity meter installed at suit property. He deposed that initially an electricity connection was installed in the name of defendant No. 1 for domestic purpose. The electricity connection was changed in the year 2002 CS DJ No. 613294/16 38 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 for commercial purposes. He has brought the copy of application-cum- agreement form submitted by defendant No. 1 on both occasions (Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/4). He has also brought the copy of documents (GPA, Agreement to sell and receipt) submitted by the defendant No. 1 on both occasions for installation of the electricity meter [Ex.PW2/3 (Colly) and Ex.PW2/6 (Colly)]. Ex.PW2/3 and Ex.PW2/6 are the same documents. Strangely, documents Ex.PW2/3 and Ex.PW2/6 are alleged to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 on 04.02.1997 (different from documents subject matter in this suit).
61. Relevant cross-examination of DW1 on this aspect is being reproduced herein below;
"...Earlier when the power of attorney was executed on 09.09.1997 in my favour by my brother there was no electricity in the portion of the plot of 200 sq. yards aur Bade Bhai Saab Ne Meharbani Mujhe Le Gaye Kisi Ke Paas Aur Batti Lagva Di Apne Kharche Pe Mere Sign Se. I do not remember which of two set of power of attorney were used by me in support of the application for installation of electricity. Vol. Bhai Saab Le Gaye The. Inhone Kaha Sign Kar Do Mene Kar Diya, Bijli Lag Gai, Kharcha Bhai Saab Ne Diya. At the time of installation of electricity at the instance of my brother I signed at his instance at certain papers but neither of the two attorneys executed by my elder brother were used for this purpose...The application for installation of electricity was regarding one plot of 100 sq. yards. Again said I do not remember whether it was for one plot of 100 sq. yards or two plots of 100 sq. yards...I have not applied for CS DJ No. 613294/16 39 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 installation of any electricity connection in another portion of the 100 sq. yards plot for which my brother has executed attorney in my favour... ...It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in this regard. It is wrong to suggest that I forged the documents Ex.PW2/6 and gave the same to the Electricity department. The signatures at point A on the document Ex.PW2/6 are mine. It is wrong to suggest that the signature at point B on Ex.PW2/6 have been forged by me...
It is wrong to suggest that my brother did not take me to the Electricity Department and he was not with me at the time of applying to the Electricity Department..."
62. If we read the examination-in-chief of PW2 in the light of cross-examination of DW1, following things emerge;
(a) At least till 2002, it was the defendant No. 1 who was managing the suit property. It was defendant No. 1 who applied for installation of an electricity meter.
(b) Only for one plot of 100 sq. yards, application for electricity connection was moved by the defendant No. 1.
(c) For the purpose of installation of the electricity meter, both the GPAs in question were not used.
(d) Some other documents (GPA, Agreement to sell and receipt) alleged to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 were used.
(e) Defendant No. 1 conveniently stated that the plaintiff accompanied him and the plaintiff submitted those documents.
63. Further cross-examination of DW1 (relevent) is being reproduced herein below;
CS DJ No. 613294/16 40 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
"...It is correct that defendant no. 2 is my wife. I have not placed on record any document like lease deed etc to show that I have been tenant under the land lordship of defendant no.2. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to the effect that I have been tenant in the property in question under defendant no. 2. I have not been in possession in suit property since 2005. I cannot specify the exact date of month since when I am not in possession of suit property. It is to suggest that I have been in possession in the suit property up till 2014 as owner. It is correct that name of my sister-in-law is Nafisa, who is defendant no. 3 in the present suit. It is correct that the document marked as Mark-X, whereby attorney was given to my wife, address mentioned on that document of mine and of my wife is same. It is correct that even in the document Mark Y whereby my wife gave attorney in favour of her sister Nafisa, address as mentioned in that document of mine and my wife is the same. It is correct that I stood witness to that document Mark Y and it bears my signatures at point B....It is correct that since the time of my marriage me and my wife are living together. It is correct that my wife is not carrying on any business or working. Again said in fact my wife is working in one society. My wife is member of society by name "New Tihar Handloon". I have not placed on record any documents to show that my wife is member of such society. It is correct that name of my wife is not find mention in the document Mark-X1 which is pertaining to the same society. The document Mark-XI in which name of office bearers are mention pertains to same society in which my wife is member...
xxxxx
CS DJ No. 613294/16 41 of 69
Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
It is wrong to suggest that my father in law had no source of income to give any money to my wife regarding alleged purchase of property in question. My wife had given me the payment of sale consideration by way of cash and not by cheque. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely on this aspect...
...It is wrong to suggest that I never had any documents of title or authority in my favour for selling the property in question to defendant no.
2. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that I have fabricated the documents of sale in favour of my wife..."
64. From reading of cross-examination of DW1, following things emerge;
(a) Defendant No. 1 filed his evidence affidavit Ex.D1W1/A on 20.10.2014. He stated therein that he is tenant of the defendant No. 2 and running his society. Meaning thereby he remained in the possession of the suit property till 2014.
(b) He did not file any document showing he is the tenant of defendant No. 2. On the contrary, it has come on record that he applied in the year 2002 in his name for electricity connection.
(c) Photocopy of documents whereby property was sold by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2 were marked as Mark X (while put in cross-examination of DW1). Documents were not proved as per law.
(d) Defendant No. 2 made the payment to the defendant No. 1 in cash after taking the same from her father. Defendant No. 2 did not enter into the witness box to prove this fact.
(e) Defendant No. 2 sold the property to the defendant No. 3 through GPA dated 21.12.2005. Copy of GPA dated 21.12.2005 was marked CS DJ No. 613294/16 42 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 as Mark Y (while put in cross-examination of DW1). Mark Y is not proved as per law.
(f) Defendant No. 3 is sister of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 has stood as a witness in the documents executed between the defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 3.
(g) Even the defendant No. 3 did not enter the witness box.
65. In the continuation, I would now examine the case put forward on behalf of defendants No. 4 to 7. Their case is that they purchased the suit property from the defendant No. 3 through Agreement to sell (D4W4/2), Irrevocable Power of Attorney (D4W4/2), Will (D4W4/3), Receipt (DW4/3/4) and possession Letter (D4W4/5) (all dated 17.03.2006).
66. On behalf of defendants No. 4 to 7, defendant No. 6 got himself examined as DW4/1. Both the attesting witnesses to the documents are examined as DW4/3 and D4W4.
67. Relevant cross-examination of DW4/1 is being reproduced herein below;
"...I have not placed on record any document to show that I have been in possession in the suit property since March 2006. It is correct that electricity connection is installed in the suit property. I do not know the name of subscriber of that electricity connection. As per my knowledge, Sh. Ishraquddin (plaintiff) has never been the owner of the suit property. Smt. Nafisa has handed over the chain of the titled documents of the suit property...The documents at page No. 42 to 45 are filed by me on 14.12.2012 alongwith the list of documents and the same is Ex.DW4/1/D (Colly) (running into 04 pages).
CS DJ No. 613294/16 43 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
The documents Ex.DW4/1/D was handed over to me by Smt. Nafisa Begum with respect to the suit property. It is correct that there are cuttings done on the said exhibit at the place where the name of the executant has been mentioned and also at the place in whose favour it was executed on all the documents I.e. GPA, Agreement of sell and reciept dated 15.06.1982.
vol. The said cuttings has been done by the typewriter and the names of the executant and in whose favour it was executed are retyped and initial signature of the executant are appearing. It is wrong to suggest that the said cuttings and interpolation have been made by me. It is correct that there is no document executed by Smt. Rupi W/o Sh. Daulat Ram is there in the chain of documents which I have filed..."
68. DW4/1 is saying that defendants No. 4 to 7 purchased the suit property from Smt. Nafisa Begum (defendant No. 3). Smt. Nafisa Begum while executing the documents handed over title documents Ex.DW4/1/D (Colly) to defendants No. 4 to 7. A bare perusal of documents Ex.DW4/1/D show that the same was executed by Mahinder Singh in favour of Smt. Rupi W/o Sh. Daulat Ram. DW4/1 has deposed that there is no document executed by Smt. Rupi W/o Sh. Daulat Ram in the chain documents. Further, DW4/1 deposed that to his knowledge Sh. Ishraquddin (plaintiff) has never been owner of the suit property. DW4/1 has failed to file a single document on record showing that the defendants No. 4 to 7 are in possession of the suit property.
69. One of the attesting witnesses namely Sh. Mohd. Qadir, examined as DW4/3 admitted in cross-examination that Sh. Riyazuddin (defendant No. 1) was also present during execution of documents on 17.03.2006. The other CS DJ No. 613294/16 44 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 attesting witness namely Sh. Ayazuddin examined as D4W4 deposed that Sh. Riyazuddin was not present on the day of execution of documents. D4W4 disclosed in his cross-examination that he was also an attesting witness of the documents executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 3. As already noted Sh. Riyazuddin (defendant No. 1) was also an attesting witness to the documents executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1.
70. Discussion made herein above under paras 58 to 69 supra can be summarised as under;
(a) Documents [GPA and Will, registered before Registrar-IV, on 07.04.1999, and also by way of agreement of sale, affidavit and receipt all dated 07.04.1999 (notorised)] (Mark X) whereby the property was sold by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2 were not proved on record.
(b) Defendant No. 2 did not enter the witness box either to prove the documents or to prove the fact that she had given any consideration to the defendant No. 1.
(c) Testimony of PW2 shows that it was the defendant No. 1 who remained in possession of the suit property.
(d) Defendant No. 1 in his evidence affidavit filed on 20.10.2014 admitted that he is in possession of the suit property as tenant of defendant No. 2. No document has been filed by the defendant No. 1 to prove that he was tenant of defendant No. 2.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 45 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(e) Documents [GPA dated 21.12.2005 (registered), agreement of sale dated 21.12.2005 (notorised), Will dated 21.1.2005 (notorised), and receipt dated 21.12.2005 (notorised)] whereby the property was sold by the defendant No. 2 to the defendant No. 3 were not proved on record.
(f) Defendant No. 3 did not enter into the witness box to prove the factum of the transaction.
(g) Defendant No. 3 is sister of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 has stood as a witness in the documents executed between the defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 3.
(h) Defendant No. 4 to 7 purchased the suit property from the defendant No. 3 through Agreement to sell dated (notorised) , Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated (registered), Will dated (notorised), Receipt dated (notorised) and possession Letter dated (notorised) (all dated 17.03.2006).
(i) Defendant No. 6 examined as DW4/1 deposed that to his knowledge Sh. Ishraquddin (plaintiff) has never been owner of the suit property. He further deposed that the defendant No. 3 while executing the documents handed over title documents Ex.DW4/1/D (Colly) to defendants No. 4 to 7. A bare perusal of documents Ex.DW4/1/D show that the same was executed by Mahinder Singh in favour of Smt. Rupi W/o Sh. Daulat Ram.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 46 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(j) Defendants No. 4 to 7 failed to file a single document on record showing that the defendants No. 4 to 7 are in possession of the suit property.
(k) One of the attesting witnesses to the documents executed between defendant No. 3 to defendants No. 4 to 7 deposed that the defendant No. 1 was present at the time of execution of documents.
(l) The other attesting witness deposed that he was also an attesting witness of the documents executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 3.
71. It is manifest that the defendant No. 1 has been instrumental in effectuating all the transactions viz. between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, between the defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 3, and between the defendant No. 3 to defendant No. 4 to 7. There is no material on record to indicate that property ever changed hands. There is also no material on record to show that the transactions were supported by any consideration. Above all, the conduct of defendant Nos. 2 to 7 cannot be considered as bonafide as they never demanded from the defendant No. 1 the original property documents in favour of the plaintiff.
72. And, besides the fact that the documents have not been proved in accordance with law, it is apparent that the documents 'agreement to sell' in all the transactions are an unregistered document. The plaintiff did not execute any agreement to sell (either registered or unregistered) in favour of the defendant No. 1. The documents 'agreement to sell' in all the other transactions (between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, CS DJ No. 613294/16 47 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 3, and between the defendant No. 3 and the defendant No. 4 to 7) are 'unregistered'.
73. In the considered view of this court, there is no real transfer of property and they were not intended to take place at all. In fact both the transferor (defendant No. 1) and the subsequent transferees (defendants No. 2 to 7) are the one and the same person, and notwithstanding the apparent mask of transfer documents (GPA/ Agreement to sell/ Will etc.), the initial transferor (defendant No. 1) retains possession and full dominion over the property. Transactions appear to be colourable, collusive and fictitious with no intention to convey any title.
74. Privy Council in Meer Usd-Oollah, Also Called Shah Chaman V/s Mussumat Beeby Imaman, Widow of Shah Khadim Hoossain; 1836 SCC OnLine PC 2 : (1836-37) 1 Moo IA 19, held as under;
"We should, therefore, feel little difficulty in deciding on which side the truth lay, if we had nothing else to guide our judgment than the comparison of these conflicting acts and declarations, parol and written, on one side and on the other; but we are not thus confined. There are some other facts which are established beyond all possibility of doubt, and there is no better criterion of the truth, no safer rule for investigating cases of conflicting evidence, where perjury and fraud must exist on the one side or the other, than to consider what facts are beyond dispute, and to examine which of the two cases best accords with those facts, according to the ordinary course of human affairs and the usual habits of life."
(Underlined by me) CS DJ No. 613294/16 48 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
75. Further, in any case, documents executed between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2; between the defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 3; and between the defendant No. 3 and defendants No. 4 to 7 can not be held as documents transferring ownership right or title. It is a settled law that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a conveyance. It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does not confer ownership right or title.
76. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in G. Ram V/s Delhi Development Authority;
2002 SCC OnLine Del 405, held as under;
"14. An agreement of sale is not a document of transfer nor by reason of execution of a power of attorney, the right, title or interest of an immovable property can be transferred. Such a transfer can only be effected by executing a registered document as provided for under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act."
77. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 has held that the General Power of Attorney Sale, or Sale Agreements/Will do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be considered valid modes of transfer of immovable property.
78. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. LRs V/s Suresh Chand and Another; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1879, held/observed as under,
18. A power of attorney is a creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, CS DJ No. 613294/16 49 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him. It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. A General Power of Attorney does not ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer of an immovable property even where some clauses are introduced in it, holding it to be irrevocable or authorizing the attorney holder to effect sale of the immovable property on behalf of the grantor. It would not ipso facto change the character of the document transforming it into a conveyance deed. ( Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Property Law, Third Edition, 2017 (Lexis Nexis), p. 66) (Underlined by me)
79. From above discussion this court concludes that the suit property has not been sold/ transferred to the defendant No. 2 by the defendant No. 1 while acting as a General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff. This Court further holds that the suit property has not been further sold/ transferred by the defendant No. 2 to the defendant No. 3, or by the defendant No. 3 to the defendant No. 4 to 7. In other words, this court holds that there is no conveyance made qua the suit property on the strength of the power conferred on the defendant No. 1 by way of two GPAs Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2.
80. Let us now see whether the defendant No. 1, by virtue of being a holder of the General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff, had any right, title or interest in the subject-matter of the agency.
81. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. S. Ananthamurthy supra explains the meaning of 'interest' in Power of Attorney as follows;
CS DJ No. 613294/16 50 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
"33. Section 201 of the Indan Contract Act, 1872 prescribes various ways of revocation of authority given by the principal to his agent. A principal can terminate the contract of agency unless such revocation is precluded by Section 202 of the Contract Act. Section 202 of the Contract Act, as an exception to the general rule under Section 201, prescribes that where an agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of such interest unless there is an express stipulation to the contrary.
34. Illustration (a) to Section 202 of the Contract Act states that A (principal) has given authority to B (agent) to sell A's land, and to pay himself i.e., the agent, from the proceeds the debt which is due to him from A. Illustration (b) states that A (principal) has consigned 1,000 bales of cotton to B (agent), who has given an advance on the bales of cotton. Now, A wishes B to sell the cotton and recover his advance from the sale proceeds. In both the cases, A can neither revoke the authority nor agency will be terminated by his insanity or death. It is important to take a note that in both the cases, the agent has an interest vested in the subject matter of the agency. The factum of interest or security of the agent, in both cases, does not imply that the agent's right to remuneration constitutes an interest in the subject matter of the agency; rather, it extends beyond the mere advancement of remuneration or commission. Where POA is coupled with an interest, it metamorphosizes to an irrevocable agency unless expressly stated otherwise. There an agent's right to remuneration is not an interest in the subject-matter of the agency.
35. Therefore, the essentials of Section 202 of the Contract Act are, first, there shall be a relationship in the capacity of 'principal and agent' between CS DJ No. 613294/16 51 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 the parties and secondly, there shall be agent's interest in the subject-matter of the agency. If both the conditions are fulfilled the agency becomes irrevocable and cannot be terminated unilaterally at the behest of the principal. As the first condition is satisfied in the present case, we shall now proceed to examine whether from the reading of the GPA, the holder of POA had an interest in the subject matter of the agency, namely, the Suit Property.
36. We may quote an extract from Bowstead on Agency, 14th Edition, page 423 it stated as under:--
"(i) Where the authority of an agent is given by deed or for valuable consideration, for the purpose of effectuating any security, or of protecting or securing any interest of the agent, it is irrevocable during the subsistence of such security or interest. But it is not irrevocable merely because the agent has an interest in the exercise of it or has a special property in, or lien for advances upon, the subject matter of it, the authority not being given expressly for the purpose of securing such interest or advances;
(ii) Where a power of attorney, whenever created is expressed to be irrevocable and is given to secure a proprietary interest of the donee of the power, or the performance of an obligation owed to the donee, then, so long as the donee has that interest, or the obligation remains undischarged, the power is irrevocable;
(iii) Authority expressed by this article to be irrevocable is not determined by the death, insanity or bankruptcy of the principal, nor ......where the principal is an incorporated company, but its winding CS DJ No. 613294/16 52 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 up or dissolution, and cannot be revoked by the principal without the consent of the agent."
37. As far back as 1931, in Dalchand v. Seth Hazarimal, reported in 1931 SCC OnLine MP 57, the defendant-agent claimed that he had an interest in the cloth supplied to him by the plaintiff-principal for sale because according to the agent he was entitled to keep for himself any amount obtained by him as per the assigned rates. The court held that the agent had no interest in the property being sold or in the proceeds of sale until sale is complete. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:--
"5. For the plaintiff, Vishnucharya v. Ramchandra [[1881] 5 Bom.
253.], has been cited, in which it has been held that an agent for the collection of rents cannot be regarded as having an interest in the property merely because he is authorized to take his salary out of the rents. It is objected on behalf of the defendants that this decision runs directly contrary to Illus. (a), S. 202. But I find that a similar view has been taken in Lakhmiohand v. Chotooram [[1900] 24 Bom. 403.], in which the facts more closely resemble those of the present case and it was held that the interest which an agent has in effecting a sale and the prospect of remuneration to arise therefrom is not such an interest as would prevent the termination of the agency.
6. I am in respectful agreement with the decisions in these two Bombay cases. They and the case before me are clearly distinguishable from the case stated in Illus. (a), Section 202 of the Contract Act. In the illustration, the principal was under a liability to the agent quite apart from the contract of agency, and the authority CS DJ No. 613294/16 53 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 given to him to sell the principal's land was by way of security for the discharge of that liability. In the present case, the agent had no interest in the property to be sold or in the sale proceeds thereof until a sale had been actually effected, and revocation of the agency, before sale had been effected, deprived him of nothing that had accrued to him."
(Emphasis supplied)
38. In the case of Palani Vannan v. Krishnaswami Konar, 1945 SCC OnLine Mad 119, the decree-holder had executed a POA authorizing the holder to execute the decree. Later, the executant revoked the POA through a notice. The question before the court was whether the notice revoking the authority was valid in law or not. The court held that the POA was not coupled with interest as the object of the POA was not securing any interest of the agent. It held that the primary object of the POA was to recover the fruits of the decree on behalf of the principal despite the fact that the agent's remuneration was fixed to be drawn from the proceeds of the decree. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
"It is only necessary to refer to one further decision, Frith v. Frith [[1906] A.C. 254.], in which the Judicial Committee discuss the general position relating to these matters. Their Lordships point out that in what is known as Carmichael's case [[1896] 2 Ch. 643.]:
"The donor of the power, for valuable consideration, conferred upon the donee, authority to do a particular thing in which the latter had an interest, namely, to apply for the shares of the Company which the donee was promoting for the purpose of CS DJ No. 613294/16 54 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 purchasing his own property from him, and the donor sought to revoke that authority before the benefit was reaped."
The effect of all these cases appears to be stated accurately in Bowstead on the Law of Agency, Eighth Edition, page 456. It is stated (Article 138):
"Where the authority of an agent is given for the purpose of effectuating any security, or of protecting or securing any interest of the agent, it is irrevocable during the subsistence of such security or interest."
--xxx--
My view of this document is as follows. I think its primary object was to recover on behalf of the principal the fruits of his decree. It contained incidentally a provision for the employment of the agent, Vedavyasachar, in order to realize that decree. It provides that his remuneration is to be one-half of the proceeds. It contains an indemnity clause against any out-of-pocket expenses which he is entitled also to recover from the amount of the decree. But the object of the power-of-attorney is not for the purpose of protecting or securing any interest of the agent. I think that part of the agreement is purely incidental. There is, however, another feature of this document which seems to me to be conclusive against the appellants. The last words, "I shall not for any reason whatever, cancel without your permission this authority which I have given to you, without paying the amount expended by you and without giving the aforesaid relief for your trouble", CS DJ No. 613294/16 55 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 seem to me to make express provision for the revocation of the above power. It can be done in two ways, (a) by consent, for that is what I understand "your permission" to mean, and (b) if that permission is withheld, on payment by the principal of all out- ofpocket expenses and also remuneration for his services. With regard to remuneration, the wording is vague, "without giving the aforesaid relief for your trouble".
(Emphasis supplied)
39. To the same effect is the decision of High Court of Delhi in Shri Harbans Singh v. Smt. Shanti Devi, 1977 SCC OnLine Del 102. The High Court while dealing with the question of whether the powers of attorney executed by the appellant were cancelled validly, laid down the conditions of irrevocability of a contract of agency as, (i) authority to agent given for valuable consideration; (ii) such valuable consideration was given for the purpose of effectuating a security or protecting or securing the interest of the agent; (iii) agency not being irrevocable merely because the agent has some interest in carrying it out or holds a special right, such as a lien or advance, over its subject matter. Thus, the agency has to be specifically meant to secure the agent's benefit or interest. It further observed that the interest of the agent can be inferred from the language of the document or from the course of business between the principal and agent. The observations are reproduced hereinbelow:--
"All the conditions of irrevocability are satisfied in the present case. The authority to the agent was given for valuable consideration which proceeded from the respondent. It was given for the purpose of effectuating a security or protecting or securing the interest of the CS DJ No. 613294/16 56 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 agent. For, the only purpose of the agency was to ensure and secure the performance of the contract by the appellant in favour of the respondent for whom Shri Gulati was acting as the husband and the nominee and, therefore, a representative or an agent. Where the performance of the agency is not to secure the interest or the benefit of the agent then the agency is not irrevocable merely because the agent has an interest in the exercise of it or has a special property in or lien for advances upon the subject-matter of it."
(Emphasis supplied)
82. Returning to the facts of the present case. For convenience, I am reproducing the relevant contents of GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 09.09.1997) (Ex.PW4/1) [the other GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 26.09.1998) (Ex.PW4/2)] is also having the same contents.
"GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY Know all men by these presents that I, Ishraquddin son of Sh. Wazir Ahmed R/o 7831, Bara Hindi Rao, Delhi-6, do hereby constitute, nominate and appoint Shri Riazuddin s/o Sh. Wazir Ahmed R/o 28-8, Laxmi Nagar Market(west) Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, as my true and lawful General attorney to do the following acts on my behalf and for myself in respect of my part of property measuring area 100 så.yds. khasra No.1, two rooms, situated in area of Vill. Ziauddinpur, now known as Mustafabad Illaqa shahdra, Delhi, bounded;-
xxxxx And whereas the said attorney is empowered to do the following acts in the following manners:-
CS DJ No. 613294/16 57 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
To deposit and pay the necessary dues & taxes regarding the above said property to the concerned authorities.
To let the said property on rent to nay one, to realise all the rents and to issue receipts in discharge thereof.
To appear and act on my behalf in offices of DDA, MCD, DESU and other concerned offices & deptts, in respect of the said property, to make affidavit or statement, to reply to any letter or notices issued by the concerned authorities and to do all acts in that connection To execute, sign and present all sorts of suits, plaints, complaints appeals, reviews, revisions, statement, agreements, forms, affidavits & applications etc. in proper court of law and offices, to proceed in all the proceedings, to deposit and withdraw money and document and to do all acts, deeds & things which are necessary for the same.
To sell and transfer the said property in any manner to any one, to enter into an agreement, to execute & sign sale deed, mortgage deed, to present the same for registration before the S.R. concerned, to admit its execution thereof, to receive the consideration amount and earnest money, to hand over the possession to the said purchaser and to mutate the same. To appoint any vakil, advocate, attorney, arbitrator & to conduct all sorts of cases regarding the said property and to obtain NOC etc. To receive the compensation from the concerned authorities, in case the said property is acquired by the Govt./Semi Govt. And generally to do all acts, deeds & things which are not specifically mentioned in this GPA as my said attorney deems fit. All acts done by my said attorney shall be binding on me as I have done it the same personally. Hence this GPA to executed at Delhi on this..."
CS DJ No. 613294/16 58 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
83. Applying the above exposition of law in the facts of the present case, it is evident from the tenor of POA that it is not irrevocable as it was not executed to effectuate security or to secure interest of the agent. Pertinently, the word 'irrovacable' has not been used at all in the POA. As already noted, no consideration whatsoever was given by the defendant No. 1 (agent) to the plaintiff (principal). Also, the original document from which the plaintiff is deriving his right, title or interest in the suit property always remained with the plaintiff and never handed over to the defendant No. 1.
84. This court accordingly concludes that the defendant No. 1 was having no interest in the subject matter of agency, and the provisions of Section 202 of the Contract Act had no applicability to the facts of the present case. The Plaintiff can always terminate/ revoke/ cancel the GPA executed in favour of the defendant No. 1.
85. So far as First GPA [GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 09.09.1997) (Ex.PW4/1)] is concerned, the plaintiff has cancelled the same by a registered document dated 31.05.2005 [Copy of cancellation of GPA dated 31.05.2005 registered vide registration No. 5366 in Book No IV, Volume No. 1833, Page No. 16-17, Ex.PW4/3] and by serving a legal notice dated 22.06.2005 to the defendant No. 1 intimating about cancellation. So far as Second GPA [the other GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 26.09.1998) (Ex.PW4/2)] is concerned, the plaintiff revoked/ cancelled the same by his conduct by issuing a rejoinder notice dated 11.08.2005, and, in any case, by filing the present suit on 09.03.2006.
86. From the above discussion this court concludes as under;
CS DJ No. 613294/16 59 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
(a) The suit property has not been sold/ transferred to the defendant No. 2 by the defendant No. 1 while acting as a General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff. The suit property has not been further sold/ transferred by the defendant No. 2 to the defendant No. 3, or by the defendant No. 3 to the defendant No. 4 to 7. Transactions appear to be colourable, collusive and fictitious with no intention to convey any title. Transactions as such are declared as void and non est.
(b) In other words, there is no conveyances made qua the suit property on the strength of the power conferred on the defendant No. 1 by way of two GPAs Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2.
(c) The defendant No. 1 was having no interest in the subject matter of agency, and the provisions of Section 202 of the Contract Act had no applicability to the facts of the present case.
(d) It is held that both the revocable General Power of Attorney dated 09.09.1997 (one registered on 09.09.1997 and the other registered on 26.09.1998) have been duly cancelled/ revoked by the plaintiff.
(e) Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property. The defendants No. 1 to 7 are liable to handover the same to the plaintiff as shown in site plan Ex.PW1/3.
(f) The defendants as such cannot sell, alienate, or part with possession of the suit property.
87. Hence, Issues No. 7, 8 and 9 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 1CS DJ No. 613294/16 60 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
1. Whether the plaint is to be rejected for want of cause of action ? OPD
88. Onus to prove issue No. 1 was on the defendants.
89. Defendants have taken a preliminary objection that the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action. To say that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action is different than to come to the conclusion that there is no cause of action. For the first situation, we have to look only the plaint and nothing else. In the second situation, only after the parties have produced oral and documentary evidence, the court, after consideration of all materials, comes to the conclusion as to whether there is any cause of action or not (against the defendant/s). As already noted, the present suit pertains to cancellation of two GPAs executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1, declaration of successive transactions entered into between the defendants as null and void, recovery of possession of the suit property, permanent injunction and damages. Discussions made hereinabove while deciding issues No. 7 to 10 would show that there were several contentious issues/ facts between the plaintiff and the defendants, which were required to be proved by the plaintiff in order to support his right to judgment of the court. This court is of the considered view that there was a cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit against the defendants.
90. Hence, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees ? OPD CS DJ No. 613294/16 61 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
91. Onus to prove issue No. 2 was on the defendants.
92. The plaintiff in the suit is basically praying for recovery of possession of the suit property (handed over to the defendant No. 1 in pursuance to revocable GPAs) after seeking declaration of successive transactions entered into between the defendants as null and void.
93. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh V/s Randhir Singh & Ors; 2010 (12) SCC 112, held where the non executant seeking declaration of nullity of the Deed is not in possession of the subject property and he seeks not just a declaration of nullity of the Deed but also the consequential relief of possession, then he has to pay ad valorem Court Fees as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court further noted that Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.
94. I am reproducing the para 51 of the plaint of the suit;
51. That the value of the suit for the court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.5.50 lakhs for the purpose of relief of possession. The value of the suit for the relief of cancellation of documents alleged to had executed between defendant No. 1 and 2 is Rs. 1,50,000/-, the value of the suit for be the purpose of recovery of damages would be assessed at the time when the Hon'ble Court will grant the damages after due assessment. The plaintiff CS DJ No. 613294/16 62 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 undertakes to pay the ad valorem court fees at that time. The value of the suit for the purpose of declaration of cancellation of General Power of Attorneys, and the WILL dated 9.9.1997 and 26.9.1997 is Rs.200/- The value of the suit for the relief of permanent injunction is Rs. 130/- upon which the ad valorem court fees has been affixed.
95. The defendants have failed to prove as to how the valuation done by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fees is not proper.
96. Hence, issue No. 2 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 33. Whether the plaintiff is guilty for concealment of facts ? OPD
97. Onus to prove issue No. 3 was on the defendants.
98. Defendants have not led any evidence to show that the plaintiff is guilty of concealment of any facts (which led to dismissal of the suit).
99. Hence, issue No. 3 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 44. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendants No. 2 and 3 ? OPD
100. Onus to prove issue No. 4 was on the defendants.
101. Once it is a case of the defendant No. 1 that he sold the suit property to the defendant No. 2, and the case of the defendants No. 4 to 7 that they purchased the suit property from the defendant No. 3, it can not be said that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the defendant No. 2 and 3.
102. Hence, issue No. 4 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 63 of 69
Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025
ISSUE NO. 5
5. Whether the suit has been signed and verified in accordance with the law? OPD
103. Onus to prove issue No. 5 was on the defendants.
104. The defendants have failed to show as to how the suit of the plaintiff has not been signed and verified in accordance with law.
105. Hence, issue No. 5 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 66. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD
106. Onus to prove the issue No. 6 was on the defendants.
107. As already noted, the plaintiff in the suit is praying for recovery of possession of the suit property (on account of cancellation/ revocation of the GPAs whereunder the suit property was handed over to the defendant No. 1) after seeking declaration of successive transactions entered into between the defendants as null and void.
108. The plaintiff cancelled the First GPA (revocable) [GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 09.09.1997) by a registered document dated 31.05.2005 (and by serving a legal notice dated 22.06.2005 to the defendant No. 1 intimating about cancellation)]. So far as Second GPA (revocable) [the GPA dated 09.09.1997 (registered on 26.09.1998)] is concerned, the plaintiff revoked/ cancelled the same by issuing a rejoinder notice dated 11.08.2005 (which was served on the counsel of the defendant No. 1), soon after the plaintiff CS DJ No. 613294/16 64 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 became aware about the second GPA through reply dated 21.07.2005 of the defendant No. 1, and, at any rate, by filing the present suit on 09.03.2006.
109. According to Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for recession of a contract has to be filed within three years when the facts entitle the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.
110. In order to seek recovery of possession of the suit property, the plaintiff is praying to declare the transaction between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 as null and void. Documents [GPA and Will, (registered), and agreement of sale, affidavit and receipt (notorised)] whereby the property was sold by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2 are of dated 07.04.1999. Plaintiff's case is that he became aware of this transaction when he received a reply dated 21.07.2005 from the defendant No. 1 to his legal notice dated 22.06.2005.
111. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit to obtain declaration can be filed within three years when the right to sue first accrues. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thankamma George V/s Lilly Thomas; Civil Appeal No. 6495 of 2023 decided on 09.07.2024 has observed that the phrase "when the right to sue first accrues" in case of setting aside a document has two limbs:
the date of execution and the date of knowledge. Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that there is no difficulty in applying the period of limitation expiring three years from the date of execution, provided the plaintiff had knowledge of the execution of the document. If the plaintiff had no knowledge about the CS DJ No. 613294/16 65 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 execution of a document, the limitation period will start from the date when the plaintiff became aware about the document.
112. The defendants have failed to bring on record anything which shows that the plaintiff was aware about documents dated 07.04.1999 any date prior to receiving of reply dated 21.07.2005 of the defendant No. 1.
113. This court accordingly holds that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by limitation.
114. Hence, issue No. 6 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 1010. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages ? OPP
115. Onus to prove issue No. 10 was on the plaintiff.
116. Plaintiff is claiming damages at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per day from the defendants for the unauthorised use and occupation of the suit property from the date of filing of the suit till the decretal amount is realised. The plaintiff however has not led any evidence to prove his entitlement for damages at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per day from the defendants.
117. Since the issue is of imposition of a huge monetary liability it was necessary for the plaintiff to lead evidence which this Court would believe and the Court's judicial conscience is satisfied for passing of a money decree for a specific amount. Plaintiff therefore had to lead evidence with respect to the rate of rent in the area with respect to per square feet/ yards or any other unit area method. Plaintiff had also to lead documentary evidence to show the rate of rent of comparable premises in the same area or adjoining areas. The CS DJ No. 613294/16 66 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 plaintiff has failed to prove any of the above aspects. Plaintiff who has deposed as PW1, has only given a self-serving assertion in para 42 of his affidavits that the defendant No. 1 is required to pay Rs. 2,000/- a day damages to the plaintiff for unauthorised use and occupation of property. In the considered opinion of this Court such type of flimsy evidence cannot be a believable proof with respect to an important issue of rate of damages/ mesne profits in the facts of this case even if there is no cross-examination on the sketchy and limited evidence. In law, even if a defendant is ex parte, the plaintiff has to lead such evidence which will amount to discharge of onus of proof. Self-serving averments without basis with respect to area of the property, condition of the property, construction of the property, comparable rent rates per square feet or any unit area method etc would not amount to plaintiff having proved the entitlement to claim damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per day from the defendants.
118. This court accordingly holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages @ Rs. 2000/- per day or any other amount from the defendants.
119. Hence, issue No. 10 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
RELIEF
120. In view of my findings qua Issue Nos. 1 to 10, the plaintiff is entitled for following relief(s);
(a) Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for cancellation of GPA dated 09.09.1997 registered vide registration CS DJ No. 613294/16 67 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025 No. 23836 in Additional Book No IV, Volume No. 4493, Page No. 199-200 (Ex.PW4/1)
(b) Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for cancellation of GPA presented on 09.09.1997 and registered on 26.09.1998 vide registration No. 15054 in Additional Book No IV, Volume No. 4843, Page No. 10-11 (Ex.PW4/2)
(c) Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for declaration that the transactions entered into between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 3, and the defendant No. 3 and the defendants No. 4 to 7 are void and non est.
(d) Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for possession of the respect of 200 sq. yards out of khasra No. 1, situated in revenue estate of Village Ziauddinpur, popularly known as Mustafabad, Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi as shown in site plan Ex.PW1/3, to be handed over to the plaintiff within 90 days of passing of this judgment.
(e) Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for permanent injunction thereby the defendants are restrained from selling, alienating, part with possession of the suit property, or from re-inducting any other person in the suit property as shown in site plan Ex.PW1/3.
(f) Costs of the suit are awarded to the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 613294/16 68 of 69 Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors. Judgment dated 17.10.2025
121. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
122. A copy of decree alongwith copy of GPA dated 09.09.1997 registered vide registration No. 23836 in Additional Book No IV, Volume No. 4493, Page No. 199-200 (Ex.PW4/1) and copy of GPA presented on 09.09.1997 and registered on 26.09.1998 vide registration No. 15054 in Additional Book No. IV, Volume No. 4843, Page No. 10-11 (Ex.PW4/2) be sent to the Office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi for compliance in terms of Section 31 (2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Announced in the open court on this 17th day of October, 2025.
This Judgment consists of 69 of signed pages. Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2025.10.17
(Abhishek Srivastava)
17:30:52 +0530
District Judge-05,
Central, THC, Delhi
CS DJ No. 613294/16 69 of 69
Ishraquddin Vs. Riyazuddin & Ors.
Judgment dated 17.10.2025