Delhi District Court
Sher Singh Yadav vs . Harsh Kapoor & Ors. on 31 March, 2022
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. NIKHIL CHOPRA, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
SAKET COURTS, SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
CS No.7851/2016
Sher Singh Yadav (since deceased)
Through his L. R.s:
1. Mr. Sanjay Yadav (since deceased)
Represented through his L. R.s
1a. Smt. Seema Yadav
W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Yadav
1b. Ms. Shamhavi Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Yadav
2. Raman Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
3. Deepak Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
4. Mrs. Meena Marwah
D/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
5. Ajeet Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
All:
R/o B21, Preet Vihar,
Delhi
................Plaintiffs
CS No.7851/2016
CS No.7348/2016 Page 1 of 40
CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Versus
1. Harsh Kapoor
S/o Late Om Prakash Kapoor
R/o F4, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi110 014
2. Dolly Kapoor
W/o Late Om Prakash Kapoor
R/o F4, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi110 014
3. Satish Kapoor
S/o Sh. B. R. Kapoor
R/o BE25, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
4. The Sub Registrar
New Delhi
5. Subhash Arora
S/o Late J. R. Arora
R/o C28, Ground Floor,
Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi
.............Defendants
Date of Institution : 16.09.2011
Date of reserving the judgment : 31.03.2022
Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2022
Decision : DISMISSED
CS No.7851/2016
CS No.7348/2016 Page 2 of 40
CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & POSSESSION OF PROPERTY BEARING
NO.F4, JANGPURA EXTN, NEW DELHI
AND
In the matter of
CS No.7348/2016
Sher Singh Yadav (since deceased)
Through his L. R.s:
1. Mr. Sanjay Yadav (since deceased)
Represented through his L. R.s
1a. Smt. Seema Yadav
W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Yadav
1b. Ms. Shamhavi Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Yadav
2. Raman Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
3. Deepak Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
4. Mrs. Meena Marwah
D/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
5. Ajeet Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
All:
CS No.7851/2016
CS No.7348/2016 Page 3 of 40
CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
R/o B21, Preet Vihar,
Delhi
................Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Harsh Kapoor
S/o Late Om Prakash Kapoor
R/o F4, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi110 014
2. Dolly Kapoor
W/o Late Om Prakash Kapoor
R/o F4, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi110 014
3. Satish Kapoor
S/o Sh. B. R. Kapoor
R/o BE25, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
4. The Sub Registrar
New Delhi
5. Subhash Arora
S/o Late J. R. Arora
R/o C28, Ground Floor,
Panchsheel Enclave,
New Delhi
.............Defendants
Date of Institution : 16.09.2011
Date of reserving the judgment : 31.03.2022
Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2022
Decision : DISMISSED
CS No.7851/2016
CS No.7348/2016 Page 4 of 40
CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & POSSESSION
AND
In the matter of
CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav (since deceased)
Through his L. R.s:
1. Mr. Sanjay Yadav (since deceased)
Represented through his L. R.s
1a. Smt. Seema Yadav
W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Yadav
1b. Ms. Shamhavi Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Sanjay Yadav
2. Raman Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
3. Deepak Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
4. Mrs. Meena Marwah
D/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
5. Ajeet Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Yadav
All:
R/o B21, Preet Vihar,
Delhi
CS No.7851/2016
CS No.7348/2016 Page 5 of 40
CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
................Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Om Prakash Kapoor (since deceased)
Represented through his legal heirs:
1a. Smt. Dolly Kapoor
W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Kapoor
1b. Harsh Kapoor
S/o Late Om Prakash Kapoor
1c. Smt. Nandini Kapoor
D/o Late Sh Om Praksh Kapoor
2. Harsh Kapoor
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Kapoor
3. Dolly Kapoor
W/o Late Om Prakash Kapoor
All:
R/o F4, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi110 014
4. Satish Kapoor
S/o Sh. B. R. Kapoor
R/o BE25, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi
5. The Sub Registrar
New Delhi
.............Defendants
CS No.7851/2016
CS No.7348/2016 Page 6 of 40
CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Date of Institution : 28.08.2010
Date of reserving the judgment : 31.03.2022
Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2022
Decision : DISMISSED
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & POSSESSION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, three suits seeking decree of declaration and possession in respect of property bearing No. F4, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, are being disposed off.
2. The plaintiff has sought declaration to the effect that the Sale Deeds dated 21.09.1999, 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002) & 16/20.04.2010 be declared null & void as well as possession, in the aforesaid suits separately.
3. The facts common to all the three cases are broadly outlined as under:
(i) Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property bearing No. F4, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, and defendants are legal heirs of one Sh. Om Prakash Kapoor. Plaintiff has entered into three agreements to sell viz 02.07.1993, 05.07.1993 & 22.07.1993 for sale of 1/3rd of the share, each out of the said property in favour of Sh. Om Prakash Kapoor and other CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 7 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
defendants. The property was mortgaged with a bank under the loan agreement, and it was agreed that the necessary documents of sale would be executed between the parties after making the payments to bank. The original title deeds were pledged with the bank and were to be obtained by making payments of all dues, within 45 days. It was also agreed that in case of default the plaintiff would be entitled to make payment to the bank and get the property redeemed.
(ii) Sh. Om Prakash Kapoor insisted on early execution of Special Power of Attorney / General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendants, and that the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Satish Kapoor, with a view that defendant side would negotiate with the bank and get the loan cleared.
(iii) The plaintiff clearly instructed the defendant side not to execute any Sale Deed but defendant No.3 was not interested in clearing dues of the bank and as such, the plaintiff had to cancel the said GPA by means of intimation/ notice cum letter, with copy of revocation on 21.09.1994, duly acknowledged by defendant No.3. No response was sent by the defendant side and GPA stood cancelled. However, the power of attorney went ahead with revoked/ cancelled Power of Attorney and executed Sale Deeds in favour of the defendants without any authority.
(iv) The defendant Sh. Om Prakash Kapoor and other defendants has also filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment in the Civil Suit titled "State Bank of Saurashtra vs. Shakti Udhyog & Ors", however, the Court dismissed the application, and observed that the Sale Deed dated 21.09.1999 is not valid and no valid transfer has taken place.
(v) Plaintiff has filed the suit immediately after the knowledge of execution of Sale Deed, as the plaintiff had never CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 8 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
sold the property to the said defendants and the GPA stood revoked. The sale deed, having been executed after the revocation of GPA, is a void document.
(vi) Defendant No.3 has acted illegally as neither the GPA was in existence nor even any balance sale consideration was paid, defendants in connivance with each other, have played a fraud and an FIR No.54 of 10.03.2011 has been registered.
(vii) The possession of defendants is unauthorized and illegal and the defendants are liable to be evicted.
(viii) Besides, the sale is also void as no balance sale consideration was transferred to the plaintiff and that the stamp papers used were also invalid.
(ix) Defendant No.3 Sh. Satish Kapoor had only obtained GPA for the purpose of clearance of mortgage from State Bank of Swarashtra & the property could not have been transferred.
(x) The defendants were never ready or willing to perform their obligations. The Sale Deed is even otherwise void on account of deficient stamp duty.
(xi) While claiming cause of action to have accrued on different dates, the plaintiff had claimed the relief of declaration to the fact that the Sale Deeds dated 21.09.1999, 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002) & 16/20.04.2010 are declared null & void and as for possession of the suit property bearing No.F 4, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi.
4. The defendants opposed the suits on the ground that the same are barred by limitation in view of the fact that defendants have been in possession of the suit property since 1993. The suits are CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 9 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
further opposed on the ground that the same are hit by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Objections as to the undervaluation of the suit property and suppression of facts have also been raised by the defendants in their written statement.
5. On merits, it has been submitted that the defendants have made the payment to clear the liability of bank and that the bank was not left with any claim. The defendants have further claimed that the plaintiff have executed GPA/SPA as he had received major/ substantial amount and it is also stated that the attorney was executed for the purpose of execution of Sale Deed. It is averred that attempts were made to clear the balance but were opposed by the plaintiff. It is submitted that an application was also moved but the bank did not accept. However, the payment has been ultimately made by them and nothing was left as due to the bank.
6. The defendants have denied that the GPA was cancelled or that any intimation / letter was sent to them under registered post AD on 21.09.1994, or even that the same was acknowledged by the defendant side. It is stated that GPA was never cancelled in the manner required under the law. The defendants made the payment to clear the liability towards the bank. It is also denied that Sh. Satish Kapoor was only appointed to get the loan cleared and take back the title deeds. It is submitted that no such condition was CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 10 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
recorded in Power of Attorney.
7. The defendants have further stated that the plaintiff has falsely claimed misconduct on the part of the power of attorney, and that the payments of bank were to be made by the plaintiff but the plaintiff acted with mala fide intentions, and that every attempt made to pay the balance amount, was opposed by the plaintiff.
8. The defendants have denied that GPA was cancelled and stated that the intimation is a fabricated document or that it was sent under AD on 21.09.1994. It is also averred that the plaintiff was aware of the execution of the Sale Deed & that the defendant No.3 / Power of Attorney had proceeded as per the job assigned under the attorney. Averments of the plaint as to the illegality or fraud upon the plaintiff, have also been denied. The defendants have, accordingly, sought dismissal of the suit.
9. The power of attorney holder Sh. Satish Kapoor has also filed his written statement separately, though, on same lines.
10. Following issues were framed separately in aforementioned suits on 21.04.2018:
In CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 11 of 40 CS No.7349/2016Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
1. Whether the sale deed dated 16/20.04.2010 is valid having been executed by a person who was not authorized to do so on behalf of the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 16/20.04.2010?
OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek possession of the suit property? OPP
4. Whether defendant No.5 i.e. concerned Sub Registrar should be directed to cancel the registration of sale deed dated 16/20.04.2010? OPP
5. Whether the prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 16/20.04.2010 is barred by law of limitation? OPD 1 & 3
6. Whether the possession of defendant nos.1 & 3 is protected under the provisions of Section 53A of the TPA? OPD 1 & 3
7. Relief In CS No.7349/2016
1. Whether the sale deed dated 21.09.1999 is valid having been executed by a person who was not authorized to do so on behalf of the plaintiff? OPP CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 12 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 21.09.1999? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek possession of the suit property? OPP
4. Whether defendant No.5 i.e. concerned Sub Registrar should be directed to cancel the registration of sale deed dated 21.09.1999? OPP
5. Whether the prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 21.09.1999 is barred by law of limitation? OPD 1 & 3
6. Whether the possession of defendant nos.1 & 3 is protected under the provisions of Section 53A of the TPA? OPD 1 & 3
7. Relief In CS No.7348/2016
1. Whether the sale deed dated 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002) is valid having been executed by a person who was not authorized to do so on behalf of the plaintiff? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek decree of cancellation of sale deed dated 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002)? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek possession of the suit property? OPP CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 13 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
4. Whether defendant No.5 i.e. concerned Sub Registrar should be directed to cancel the registration of sale deed dated 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002)? OPP
5. Whether the prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002) is barred by law of limitation? OPD 1 & 3
6. Whether the possession of defendant nos.1 & 3 is protected under the provisions of Section 53A of the TPA? OPD 1 & 3
7. Relief
11. Before proceeding further, reference to certain proceedings appears to be desirable. It transpires that an application was filed by a private limited company claiming that it has purchased the said property for a sum of Rs.2,25,00,000/ under an agreement to sell dated 06.07.2010. Substantial amount was stated to have been made to the plaintiff and a suit for specific performance was also stated to have been filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The said application was dismissed by Learned Predecessor on 13.08.2014. Subsequently, another application by one Sh. Subhash Arora for impleadment was filed, however, the said application was not pressed. The suit, as appears from the record, was dismissed in default on 21.05.2015, and was restored on 24.07.2017.
CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 14 of 40 CS No.7349/2016Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
12. Insofar as the evidence of plaintiff is concerned, it has transpired that despite number of opportunities availed, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence. A local commissioner was also appointed on application of the plaintiff vide order dated 20.09.2018 by Learned Predecessor but it transpires that no efforts were made by plaintiff for examining any witness before the Learned Local Commissioner. Vide order dated 10.12.2018, the Learned Predecessor extended the time, subject to payment of cost, however, an application was made subsequently for dispensing with evidence before the Learned Local Commissioner as well as for the waiver of the cost. The said application was disposed with certain directions including payment of further costs and to file the affidavits within two weeks. Since no affidavits in evidence were filed, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 10.04.2019.
13. An application for review of said order was filed but the same was dismissed by detailed order on 23.09.2019.
14. Thereafter, an application for substitution of the Legal Heirs of the plaintiff was moved, which was allowed vide order dated 08.11.2021.
15. The defendants did not lead any evidence claiming that since CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 15 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
the plaintiff has not led any evidence, there is no real necessity for the defendants to examine any witness.
16. I have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant records and the written submissions filed by the parties.
17. Main contentions on behalf of Learned counsel for the plaintiff are :
(i) The nonexamination of witnesses is inconsequential as all the issues can be decided on the basis of interpretation of documents placed;
(ii) The agreement to sell and the power of attorney etc are not disputed, and on the contrary have been acted upon by the defendants and thus, their not being formally proved on record, would not make any difference.
(iii) The defendants have wrongfully proceeded to rely on agreement to sell dated 02.07.1993, 27.07.1993 and GPA dated 26.07.1993;
(iv) As per the agreement to sell itself the property was duly disclosed to be under lien of State Bank of Saurashtra, Nehru Place, and the charge of said bank was to be redeemed and cleared in 45 days and it was also agreed that in the event of seller's failure to make the payment to the bank, the purchaser would be entitled to deposit the amount.
However, there was no provision that the time would be extended, and as such, the subsequent deposit of the amount with the bank would not be of any consequence;
CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 16 of 40 CS No.7349/2016Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
(v) As per the agreement itself, the time limit of registration of Sale Deed was 90 days from the date of execution and at best the defendants could have sought refund of their money as there was no extension of time period of completion of sale transaction, either asked for or agreed upon by the plaintiff;
(vi) The defendants have not filed any suit for specific performance deliberately, as they were never really willing to perform their obligations;
(vii) The Agreement to Sell specifically mentions about the limited purpose of special power of attorney i.e. payment of loan amount with interest and to redeem the property as well as to get the original title documents back, however, the same would not have been treated as power to sell the property. The GPA categorically states that the power is only for the limited purposes of managing, controlling & supervising the suit property and nothing beyond, which is also clear from the intention of the party as is recorded in opening lines/preamble of the GPA.
(viii) The defendant Sh. Satish Kapoor could not have arrogated to himself any power or authority to sell the property given the limits specified in the power of attorney itself;
(ix) Even otherwise, the GPA was revoked in the year 1994 and the intimation was duly sent, thus, execution of Sale Deeds on the basis of revoked GPA has no legal sanctity. The sale deeds in question, thus, are void ab initio and do not convey any right unto the defendants;
(x) In respect of one of the Sale Deeds, the stamp papers were purchased on 16.05.1994 but the Sale Deed was CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 17 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
executed and registered on 21.09.1999 which shows that the registration was kept pending for 5 years & 4 months;
(xi) Defendants did not make any effort to settle the outstanding account of the bank as per clause 5 of the Agreement to Sell and the defendants cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrongs. In the Sale Deeds, it has been stated that there is no lien, mortgage, or encumbrance, which statement is incorrect/ misleading, and thus, invalids the sale deeds;
(xii) The balance sale consideration was not paid by the defendants and in order to over reach the law, the defendant side concocted & manufactured the account of interest to set off the balance sale consideration, which was totally one sided and patently illegal. The suit is within limitation considering the date of knowledge of sale deeds to the plaintiffs.
18. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1097.
19. Main contentions of Learned counsel for the defendants are:
(i) The plaintiff has sought possession without payment of court fee for the purpose of relief of possession and thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this account alone. The original plaintiff Sh. Sher Singh Yadav had executed three agreements viz a viz agreement dated 02.07.1993 in favour of Sh. Om Prakash Kapoor (registered); agreement dated 05.07.1993 in favour of Master Harsh Kapoor (registered) and agreement dated 22.07.1993 in favour of Smt. Dolly Kapoor (unregistered) and handed over the possession in the year 1993 itself. The original plaintiff also executed a Will CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 18 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
dated 22.07.1993 & irrevocable GPA dated 26.07.1993, both registered on 26.07.1993.
(ii) The GPA was executed in favour of Sh. Satish Kapoor who was duly authorized to sell the property through Sale Deed or by executing such other necessary papers as may be required in favour of purchaser as well as to do other acts necessary for the discharge of contractual obligations. The said GPA was irrevocable and duly registered and the reference to clause No.3 to 6 & 22 of the said GPA would make it abundantly clear that GPA was irrevocable and the attorney had competence & authority to sell the property and execute such documents as may be necessary;
(iii) The plaintiff has never informed about any revocation, nor could have revoked the GPA, and that despite claiming that the power of attorney was revoked on 15.09.1994, he has never proved the revocation, intimation or any notice. The said documents are forged and fabricated in the first place, and that it is for the said reason that the plaintiff could not prove the said documents despite number of opportunities. He did not even claim/ disclose any such revocation till the filing of the suit;
(iv) The plaintiff, even otherwise, could not have revoked the irrevocable power of attorney as the plaintiff had already received the substantial part of the sale consideration under the said Agreement to Sell and had handed over the possession in the year 1993;
(v) The plaintiff, out of dishonest intentions, and despite having received the substantial amount against the property, did not clear his loan account or perform his other obligations arising out of the agreement and thus, cannot be CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 19 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
heard to say that it is the defendant side, which has taken a wrongful advantage. It was, primarily and substantially, the plaintiff's obligation to clear the dues of the bank and the plaintiff's attempt to shift the responsibility over the defendants by means of supposition that the defendants did not make any efforts to clear the loan, as a ground for revocation of the GPA is outrightly misplaced & dishonest;
(vi) Defendants are in possession, which is associated with payment of substantial amount, execution of registered Agreement to Sell as well as power of attorney, and thus, the plaintiff cannot claim that defendants are unauthorised occupants;
(vii) Defendants had been ready and willing to preform and they have also preformed their part of obligations. There was no just or legitimate reason with the plaintiff to have revoked the GPA, nor is any such revocation ever proved on record. In the absence of any such proof, the plaintiff cannot be heard to say that the attorney did not have any authority to execute the Sale Deeds;
(viii) The plaintiff never filed a suit challenging or seeking revocation of GPA and thus, revocation cannot be deemed to have been done, as the power of attorney cannot be revoked without filing a civil suit in accordance with the law. The plaintiff cannot be heard to say that the Sale Deed is void as he had never challenged the agreement to sell, or sought revocation of the GPA through the settled procedure of law, and has failed to prove any revocation at all;
(ix) Even otherwise, the defendants have acquired all rights in the form of the Will which had also been executed by Sh. Sher Singh Yadav, but had never been revoked or even sought to be challenged. The execution of Will has not been CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 20 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
disputed by the plaintiff himself, while he filed the suit & thus, the same has become final upon his demise & his LR's cannot be claim any right;
(x) The plaintiff has not proved, or discharged his onus in respect of the issues specifically placed upon him, and his deliberate omission to lead evidence or step into the witness box is clear from the records as he did not comply with any of the orders despite having local commission appointed and thereafter, opportunities for leading evidence before the court, which lead to the closing of evidence.
(xi) The onus of issues No.1 to 4 was upon the plaintiff which was never discharged. The plaintiff, thus, does not have any right to rely upon any document whatsoever, and his case miserably fails on account of the fact that it has not risen above from being mere pleadings or allegations. Besides, adverse inference is also to be drawn as the plaintiff had not been turned up in the witness box despite several opportunities;
(xii) The plaintiff cannot be heard to say that the Sale Deeds could not have been executed, in view of the bank loan/ the property being under bank's lien as he is estoppeed from raising such pleas, having himself entered into an agreement to sell in the first place and as well as by his subsequent conduct as he failed to clear the dues despite receiving the substantial amount. The plaintiff side, thus, cannot be heard to say that the property being under lien could not have been sold;
(xiii) The bank has already received its dues, and having regard to the fact that Sh. Satish Kapoor was never informed about alleged revocation of the GPA, the power of attorney had all the rights to execute the Sale Deed;
CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 21 of 40 CS No.7349/2016Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
(xiv) There is no stipulation in the GPA to the effect that the Sale Deed cannot be executed unless the property is cleared from mortgage & as the bank's dues were cleared and since power of attorney was never cancelled, the Sale Deeds were rightly executed on the basis of said power of attorney, and are binding upon the plaintiff/ his LRs.
(xv) The adjustments made by the defendants are in terms of the agreement and cannot be faulted with. Even otherwise, the Sale Deeds being a registered document carry presumption of correctness, and there is no evidence on record so as to suggest that there is any illegality in the execution of the Sale Deed.
(xvi) The possession was handed over to the defendants in the year 1993 and the Sale Deeds were executed in the year 1999, 2002 & 2010, respectively but the suits were only filed in the year 2010 & 2011 and as such, the suits are barred by limitation.
(xvii) Defendants are entitled to protect their possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and as such, the plaintiff cannot seek possession.
20. Learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon following judgments:
1. Ratan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill & Ors Manu/SC/0860/2020;
2. Samsung Electronics vs. Gyan Jee Chaudhary & Anr. 2016 SCC Online Del 58;
3. Vidya Dhar vs. Manika Rao AIR 1999 SC 1441;CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 22 of 40 CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
4. Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366;
5. Bilboo & Ors vs. Dhanraj Ji & Ors 2000 (7) SCC 702;
and
6. Rajiv Sareen vs. Divyanshu Enterprises CS (OS no. 83 of 21) decided on 2nd February 2002.
21. Time now to deal with the issues. All the issues framed in the aforementioned suits are common except the difference in the dates of Sale Deeds.
22. Having regard to the fact that a common judgment is being passed in 3 separate suits involving separate agreements and sale deeds, the details of the documents with the dates of execution are reproduced in a tabulated form, for the purpose of convenience and brevity, the same are as under: Sr. No. Suit No. Title Date of Date of Whether Date of Sale institution Agreement registered or Deed to Sell unregistered
1. 7851/2016 Sher Singh Yadav 16.09.2011 02.07.1993 Registered 16/20.04.201 vs. Harsh Kapoor & 0 Ors.
2. 7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav 28.08.2010 22.07.1993 Unregistered 21.09.1999 vs. Om Prakash Kapoor & Ors.
3. 7348/2016 Sher Singh Yadav 28.08.2010 05.07.1993 Registered 16.04.2002 vs. Harsh Kapoor & (registered on Ors. 21.05.2002) CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 23 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
23. While the narrative of the plaintiff side is that the sale deeds/transactions are vitiated by the lack of authority/competence of power of attorney to execute any sale transaction in view of the revocation of the GPA, and that the sale deeds are also vitiated by the non payment of balance sale consideration, and further that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property and cancellation of the sale deeds as he has approached the court without any delay after having to know about the execution of sale deed, the Defendant's objections range from the suit being miserably barred by limitation, undervaluation, failure to pay the requisite court fee in respect of the relief of possession, and the suit being not maintainable in view of the Section 53A of the Transfer of the Property Act. The defendants have also denied any revocation of the General Power of Attorney dated 26.07.1993, and claim that the said sale deeds have been lawfully executed by the power of attorney, in favour of Defendant's against valid consideration.
24. It is a notable peculiarity that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence despite all the accommodation afforded to the plaintiff, including several opportunities, and option to record the evidence through Local Commissioner.
25. The Defendant side as well did not lead any evidence on the ground claiming since there is no evidence led by the plaintiff nor CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 24 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
even a single document proved, there is no real necessity for the Defendants to lead any evidence.
26. It is the vehement contention of Learned counsel for the plaintiff that regardless nonexamination of any witness, the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff can still rely on the documents which are not being disputed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff's contentions merit consideration. It is on this premise that the records placed are being considered for the purpose of issues, regardless the absence of any formal proof, though the consideration is limited to the extent of the documents, execution whereof has not been disputed by the Defendant.
ISSUE NO.1, 2 & 427. Issue No. 1, 2 and 4 are taken up first as the same are interconnected.
28. Considering the narratives in conflict, certain questions are foregrounded for the purpose of determination. The same are (i) Whether the Plaintiff has revoked the power of attorney dated 26.07.1993; (ii) Whether the power of attorney has been rightfully revoked in accordance with law; (iii) Whether the power of attorney had the notice of such revocation and its effect; and (iv) Whether CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 25 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
the sale deeds are vitiated by lack of consideration and liable to be cancelled.
29. Taking up the question no. 1 & 2 first. It transpires that Defendant's have been denying the very factum of revocation of the power of attorney in favour of Sh. Satish Kapoor. The Defendant's have further contended that even otherwise and irrevocable power of attorney cannot be revoked in such a manner, and that Sh. Satish Kapoor, thus, had all the authority and competence, while he executed the 3 sale deeds in question.
30. The document has not been either admitted, nor is proved in accordance with law. Even the original documents have not been placed on record. What makes it even further unreliable is the fact that it is an unregistered document, though it seeks to deal with an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney duly registered.
31. In Smt. Usha Kiran v. Sh. G.S. Lamba and Anr., CN(M) no.
842 of 2014, decided on 12 th September 2014 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ruled that a contractual document of transferring title in the property cannot be cancelled by a notice. The court observed as under: "10. ..........................However, the only basis which is laid out CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 26 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
in the objections is that the general power of attorney dated 29.8.1988 was cancelled by a notice of the year 1999 and which is said to create an independent title by restoring title to the petitioner which was transferred to the respondent no.1 by means of the documents dated 29.8.1988. This contention is however ex facie misconceived because a contractual document of transferring title in the property by receiving valuable consideration cannot simply be cancelled by a legal notice. A suit is required to be filed and plaintiff has to succeed in decreeing the suit for cancellation of documents transferring rights in an immovable property. If a contractual document could be cancelled unilaterally, then surely a sale deed could be cancelled by means of unilateral notices, but that is not the legal position. Once the very basis of claiming an independent title being of cancellation of the general power of attorney by the notice of the year 1999 fails, there cannot be any independent title claimed to the premises as claimed by the petitioner. The claim for an independent title on the basis of the cancellation of the general power of attorney is misconceived because if finality had to be given to cancellation of the documents dated 29.8.1988 being the agreement to sell, general power of attorney etc, then such a suit as per Articles 56 and 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had to be filed within a period of three years when the right to sue is accrued, but admittedly, no suit has been filed till date from 1999 to cancel or set aside the documentations dated 29.8.1988, and consequently the documents dated 29.8.1988 have become final as against the petitioner/objector. As already stated above, the courts below have noted that no suit has been filed till date to enforce the legal notice of cancellation of the documents which was issued in the year 1999."
Even if it is to be assumed that the deed of revocation was CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 27 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
executed and intimation thereof was sent, the same would not have the effect of 'cancellation' of the power of attorney as the plaintiff could not have revoked the GPA, merely by a unilateral declaration of intent, and ought have filed a suit for cancellation.
32. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff has contended that the power of attorney did not confer any power to sell. He has referred to the preamble to the power of attorney dated 26.02.1993, which records that the same is for the purpose of managing, controlling and for supervision of the said property. However, the contention of the ld. counsel for the Plaintiff seems to be misplaced in as much as the clauses no. 4 to 7 , 10 to 14 clearly indicate that the purpose of power of attorney was not confined to managing, controlling supervising the property. Further, clause 22 of the said power of attorney records it to be an irrevocable one.
33. In relation with question no. 3 above, the court finds that although copy of postal receipt and UPC have been placed by the Plaintiff, the same have not been proved. The Defendants, all along the axis, have rigidly maintained that the same are forged and fabricated document and thus, the plaintiff was under even a greater burden to prove the documents in accordance with law. The Plaintiff's failure to step into the witness box appears to the characterised by the deliberations, rather than any disability, CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 28 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
considering the number of opportunities availed, and the proceedings which stands recorded during the trial. The main plank of the Plaintiff's case, thus, is found to be missing.
34. Coming now to Question no. 4 i.e. whether the sale deeds dated 21.09.1999, 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002) & 16/20.04.2010 are vitiated by lack of nonpayment of balance consideration. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff has vehemently contended that the Defendant's have, in a most objectionable manner, proceeded to unilaterally adjust the balance sale consideration towards the payment of interest, which according to them had become due over and above the payments initially made to the plaintiff. According to ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, the so called adjustment of interest could not have been done in as much as such interest could only have been claimed to be due, in the event of the purchaser opting for refund of the amount. This, according to the Plaintiff side, is a clear case of non payment of balance sale consideration, rendering the sale as void. He has also relied upon Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1097 in support of his contentions.
35. On the contrary, the Defendants while relying upon Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao & Ors C.A. No.1534 if 1999 decided on 17.03.1999 & Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 29 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
(Gajra) (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366 have contended that the Plaintiff at best could have sued for recovery of money against the power of attorney or the purchaser's and that too within limitation period, and in view of the fact that the Plaintiff have never opted for recovery of the balance sale consideration, if at all any assumed to be existing/payable, the Plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of any of the sale deeds on this count. The judgment being relied upon by the Plaintiff is also stated to be distinguishable on facts.
36. True, that there is nothing on record to suggest that balance sale consideration was paid to the Plaintiff, and the very adjustment of the interest by the Defendant appears to be questionable as well as difficult to reconcile with, more riveting is the question that whether the sale deed can be cancelled on that ground or not.
37. The adjustment is unilateral and not justifiable. However, the contention of the Learned counsel that the Sale Deeds are likely to be cancelled, seems to be confronted with two limitations, first hedged by law of limitation, and second hedged by the case law.
38. Insofar as the Sale Deeds dated 21.09.1999 & 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002) are concerned, the challenge has been CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 30 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
filed much after the expiry of the limitation period. In this respect it cannot be assumed that the plaintiff was not aware of the execution of the said Sale Deeds as the same were registered documents and even otherwise having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has not turned up into the witness box and face cross examination, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Insofar as the suit challenging the Sale Deed dated 16.04.2010 is concerned, although the challenge is within limitation, the same does not seem to cross the threshold of the law governing the relief of cancellation on such grounds.
39. In Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr. LRs & Ors. (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366, while relying upon an earlier judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"In Vidyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr. this Court held that the words "price paid or promised or part paid and part promised" indicates that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The nonpayment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 31 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
order to constitute a "sale"
The parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record."
40. The said judgment has also been followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajiv Sareen v. Divyanshu Enterprises & Ors. CS (OS no. 83 of 21) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:
"15. Even if the entire sale consideration had not been paid to the plaintiff that would not affect the validity of the Sale Deed. The remedy of the plaintiff would only be to recover the same from the defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the said Sale Deed on account of not receiving the entire sale consideration."
41. Having regard to the fact that the Plaintiff had also handed over the possession to the Defendant at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, it can be offered that the execution of the registered agreement dated 21.09.1999 & 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002) completed with the execution of a registered power of attorney, the plaintiff right stood restricted to recovery of the balance sale consideration. These are the circumstances which CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 32 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
render the factual calculus distinguishable from the facts involved in Kewal Kishan case.
42. Thus, it can be said that the plaintiff's right stood restricted to recovery of balance money. If at all, the adjustment so unilaterally made by the Defendants, and the non payment of any balance were to be objected, the plaintiff could have sued for recovery. The plaintiff, it transpires from the record, did not opt for claiming the relief of recovery of balance amount in either of the matters neither even proved as an alternate relief.
43. The plaintiff's reliance upon Kewal Krishan vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors's case is also misplaced as the facts involved in the said case are totally different, and have no semblance with the facts involved in these cases.
44. In view of the above, the aforesaid questions are answered accordingly. The Issue no. 1, 2 & 4 are accordingly decided against the Plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.5
45. Coming to issue no. 5, it transpires that the suit no. 7349, challenging the sale deed dated 21.09.1999 has been filed in August CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 33 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
2010. The suit no. 7348, challenging the sale deed dated 16.04.2002 (registered on 21.05.2002) has been filed on 28.08.2010 and the suit no. 7851 challenging the sale deed dated 16/20.04.2010 has only been filed in September, 2011. No evidence in respect of this issue has been led by the parties. Although, the onus was placed on Defendant's, it cannot be overlooked that it is squarely and substantially the Plaintiff to establish that his suit is with limitation, unless and until the circumstances of any particular case warrant shifting of onus to prove to the contrary. The Plaintiff did not enter the witness box. In so far as the suit no. 7348 of 2016 titled as Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors, challenging the sale deed dated 16.04.2002 (21.05.2002), the suit no. 7349 dated 28.08.2010 challenging the sale deed dated 21.09.1999 are patently barred by limitation as the same have been filed way beyond 3 years from date of execution of sale deed. However, in so far as the suit no. 7851, challenging the sale deed dated 16/20.04.2010 is concerned, the same is within the limitation in so far as the relief of cancellation of the sale deed is concerned.
46. The Issue no. 5 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3 & 647. Time now to deal with issue no. 3 & 6. The said issues are CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 34 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
taken up together as they are connected and related to possession.
48. It is the Plaintiff's case that he had revoked the general power of attorney dated 26.07.1993 by means of execution of a revocation deed and a registered letter to the Defendant. Going by the Plaintiff's own stand, the starting point of limitation for the possession to be recovered is neither hard to seek nor even difficult to contemplate.
49. Plaintiff having consolidated his position as to revocation of the general power of attorney in the year 1994, it can easily be ascertained that the cause of action for Plaintiff to recover possession accrued for the Plaintiff to sue for possession on the said date itself. The Plaintiff had filed the suit for possession in the year 2010 and 2011, that is much beyond the expiry of limitation period. Although, the ld. counsel for the Plaintiff has contended that the said limitation would start to running from the date of Plaintiff's knowledge of the sale deed, but there appears to be no corollary between the two, in as much as the Plaintiff having revoked the power of attorney in the year 1994, as per his own saying, cannot be heard to say that his right to seek possession did not accrue or fructify on the date of revocation, or even be heard to say that the right to seek possession was dependent upon the execution of sale deed. The subsequent execution of the sale deed, at best would CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 35 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
have given a separate cause of action to seek cancellation, but cannot be assumed to have either refreshed the cause of action, or even extended the limitation for the purpose of possession.
50. Coming to the other limb of arguments. The Defendants have categorically and vehemently pressed that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It is impressed upon the court that the Plaintiff had handed over the possession in the year 1993 in line with and pursuance of registered agreement to sell, and upon receipt of substantial amount that the Defendants thus, have the right to protect their possession. It is also impressed that the possession was handed over to the Defendants in the year 1993, much prior to amendment of year 2001 in Transfer of Property Act, and the Registration Act and as such the non registration of one of the agreements would not make any difference.
51. Having record to the fact that the possession was handed over to the defendants under 3 different agreements whereunder the plaintiff has received substantial amount, the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be disputed. Although, it is correct that one of the agreement is not registered, having regard to the fact that the possession was handed over to the defendants prior to the amendment in the year 2001, the cover of CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 36 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be denied to the defendants. Besides, there is nothing on record which runs contrary to the scheme of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or carves out an exception to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants, thus, are will entitled to protect their possession and thus, the plaintiff remains divested of any rights to claim possession.
52. The issues are, accordingly, decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
53. Summing up, the court finds as under:
1. The plaintiff has failed to prove the factum of revocation of GPA dated 26.07.1993 or its intimation to the Sh. Satish Kapoor, the power of attorney so appointed under GPA dated 26.07.1993;
2. The reasons for such revocation by itself did not inspire any confidence and even otherwise, the plaintiff could not have revoked the power of attorney on the basis of unilateral declaration. The plaintiff did not file any suit challenging the power of attorney or other documents so executed by him and these facts are decidedly stacked against the plaintiff.CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 37 of 40 CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
3. Insofar as the possession is concerned, the defendants are entitled to protection under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff's claim for possession is miserably barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the cause of action to claim possession even otherwise for the first time accrued to the plaintiff on the date of revocation, which according to the plaintiff, pertains to the year 1994.
4. The plaintiff has not led any evidence so as to show that there are any grounds for cancellation of the Sale Deeds. Even if the balance consideration has not been paid, or has been wrongfully adjusted, the plaintiff's right stood restricted to recovery of money and not the cancellation of Sale Deeds, in view of the law of land.
5. Two of the suits bearing No.7348/2016 & 7349/2016 instituted in the year 2010, challenging the Sale Deeds dated 16.04.2002 & 21.09.1999 are miserably barred by limitation. Although, the suit bearing No.7851/2016 challenging the Sale Deed dated 16/20.04.2010 is within limitation, no case on merits had been made out for cancellation of the same.
54. Resultantly, having regard to the failure of the plaintiff to prove the issues placed on him, and considering the findings above, CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 38 of 40 CS No.7349/2016 Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
all the three suits are dismissed. No orders as to costs.
55. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NIKHIL CHOPRA)
COURT ON 31.03.2022 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CS No.7851/2016
CS No.7348/2016 Page 39 of 40
CS No.7349/2016
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Harsh Kapoor & Ors.
Sher Singh Yadav vs. Om Prakash & Ors.
CS No.7851/2016; 7348/2016; & 7349/2016
31.03.2022
Present: None.
Vide separate common judgment of even date, all three suits filed by the plaintiff are dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
File be consigned to record room.
(NIKHIL CHOPRA) ADJ02/SOUTH/SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI/31.03.2022 CS No.7851/2016 CS No.7348/2016 Page 40 of 40 CS No.7349/2016