Delhi District Court
Sh.Virender Kumar vs Sh. Kamal Talwar on 19 October, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. NITISH KUMAR SHARMA
CIVIL JUDGE-01 ( WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 609987/16
Date of institution of suit :18.04.2013
Date of reservation of judgment :17.10.2020
Date of passing of judgment :19.10.2020
Sh.Virender Kumar
S/o Sh. Kapileshwar
C/o Kallu, Cross the Nangal Railway Line
R/o Jhuggi No. N/13
Mayapuri, Delhi
........Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Sh. Kamal Talwar
S/o Sh. Madan
R/o H.No. 311, Block-A, Pandev Nagar
Rajender Nagar Constitutional Area, Delhi
2. Smt. Maina
W/o Sh. Ismail
R/o RZ-G-1/97, Sita Puri, Dabri More
New Delhi.
3. Smt. Bimla
W/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass
R/o H.No. 305 B, Shiv Vihar Colony
J.J. Colony, Hastsal, New Delhi.
..................Defendants
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 1/21
JUDGMENT
1. Initially the suit was filed against defendant no.1 alone by the plaintiff seeking possession of the suit property as well as cancellation of documents in favour of defendant no.1 qua the suit property. However, upon filing of written statement by defendant no.1, it was revealed that the property had changed hands and at present defendant no.3 is in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, an application for impleadment of defendant no.1 & 2 was moved which was allowed and the suit proceeded for trial.
2. The brief facts as per plaint are -
(a) That the plaintiff was shifted by the government from Ashok Vihar Juggi to J.J. Colony, Hastshal and he was allotted H.No. 305 B, measuring 18 Sq. Yards situated in Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Hastsal, P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as 'suit property').
(b) That the plaintiff fulfilled all the legal formalities and deposited the requisite amount of Rs 7,000/- in Oriental Bank of Commerce on 01.7.2002 to the DDA and the concerned department has handed over the possession of the said house to plaintiff and the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession of the same since the time of its allotment to him.
(c) That plaintiff had taken a loan of Rs. 54,000/- from defendant no.1 sometime in the year 2004 and original papers of the suit property were given by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 as a security but defendant did not return the original papers of the said house to plaintiff despite the C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 2/21 repayment of loan amount by the plaintiff.
(d) That plaintiff came to know in the year 2013 that the defendant no.1 had misused the blank documents which were obtained by defendant no.1 in blank signed form at the time of providing of abovesaid loan.
(e) That plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 had further sold the suit property to defendant no.2 on 07.3.2006 vide documents I.e GPA, Agreement to Sell, receipt etc and hence the same are liable to be declared as null and void as the defendant no.1 himself or defendant no.2 is in possession of the suit property and defendant no.2 had further solde out the suit property to Smt. Bimla Devi by way of vide GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, Will etc. all dated 03.12.2012 and now defendant no.3 is in possession f the suit property.
(f) That the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since the time of its allotment but the defendants have recently had broken the locks of the suit property and had taken the illegal and unlawful possession of suit property.
(g) That the plaintiff also immediately approached the defendant no.1 but he even did not entertain the plaintiff and threatened him to do whatsoever he may like and threatened him to sale and hand over the possession of the suit property to some other person.
(h) That the defendant no.1 has created the false, frivolous, manipulated, forged and vexatious sale documents dated 30.10.2004 in his favour and had broken the locks of the suit property alongwith his C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 3/21 associates and had taken the illegal and unlawful possession of the suit property of plaintiff without following the due process of law.
Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. By way of present suit the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs :
(a) Decree of possession in favour of plaintiff and against defendants thereby directing defendants, their agents, tenants, servants etc. to hand over the possession of the suit property I.e H.No.305 B, measuring 18 Sq. Yards situated in Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Hastshal, P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi to the plaintiff.
(b) Decree of declaration as follows
(i) in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1 thereby declaring all the notarized sale documents viz GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, receipt, affidavit etc. all dated 30.10.2004 or any other document of sale created by defendant no.1 in his favour or created in favour of any of his agents, tenants, servants, relatives, attorney holders, friends etc.so executed/prepared fraudulently by them, as null and void documents.
(ii) in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.2 thereby declaring all the notarized sale documents viz-GPA, Agreement to sell, will, receipt, affidavit, possession letter etc. all dated 07.03.2005.
(iii) In favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.3 thereby declaring all the notarized sale documents viz GPA, Agreement to sell, Will, Receipt, affidavit, Possession letter etc. all dated
03.12.2012 or any other document of sale created by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.3 or further created by defendant no.3 in favour C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 4/21 of any other person or created in favour of any of his agents, tenants, servants, relatives etc. so executed/prepared fraudulently by them as null and void documents.
(c) Decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing defendant no.3 to return the original document of title of the suit property to the plaintiff which are still in custody and possession of defendant no.2 and
(d) Decree of permanent injunction thereby directing both defendants, their agents, tenants attorney holders etc. not to further transfer the title or possession of the suit property to any other person till the pendency of present suit.
(e) Any other relief.
DEFENDANT'S VERSION
3. Litigation by its very nature has two side to a story. To give his version, written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1 wherein it is stated-
(a) That no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff.
(b) That the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands.
(c) That no injunction can be granted in favour of plaintiff or against the defendant as per laws contained U/s 41 of Specific Relief Act.
4. In reply to the merits it is stated that the the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt and Will were executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 and at that time two witnesses were also present and they made signatures on the said documents and consideration amount of Rs. 70,000/- was C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 5/21 also paid before them and the possession was handed over to defendant by the plaintiff at the time of execution of necessary documents dated 30.10.2004.
Prayer is made for dismissal of suit.
5. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no.2 wherein it is stated :
(a) That the plaintiff sold the suit property to the defendant no.1 on 30.10.2004.
(b) That defendant no.2 was a bona fide purchaser of the suit property. She had purchased the suit property from defendant no.1 on 07.03.2006.
(c) That the defendant no.2 had already sold the suit property to defendant no.3 who is presently enjoying the peaceful possession of the suit property.
6. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had sold the suit property to defendant no.1 for a consideration but now he is claiming that he had mortgaged the suit property in favour of defendant no.1.
7. In reply to the merits it is submitted that the plaintiff had sold the suit property to defendant no.1 on 30.10.2004, and also handed over the possession of the suit property to defendant no.1 and since then he was not in possession of the suit property.
8. It is denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since 30.10.2004. It is submitted that it is the plaintiff who first transferred the C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 6/21 suit property for a consideration to the defendant no.1 in violation of the terms and conditions of DDA.
9. It is submitted that the plaintiff already sold the suit property to defendant no.1 on 30.10.2014 who further sold the suit property to defendant no.2 and again the suit property was sold by defendant no.2 to defendant no.3 and defendant no.3 is presently in possession of suit property.
10. Prayer is made for dismissal of suit.
11. Written statement was also filed on behalf of defendant no.3 wherein it is stated that the defendant is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same from defendant no.2 after paying valid consideration amount by virtue of GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt , possession letter, will all dated 03.12.2012 and is in peaceful possession of the suit property since the date of its purchase.
12. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had sold the suit property to defendant no. 1 by virtue of GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt , possession letter, Will all dated 30.10.2004 and further defendant no.1 sold the suit property to defendant no.2 by virtue of GPA, Agreement to Sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter Will , all dated 07.03.2006 and subsequently the defendant purchased the suit property from defendant no.2 by virtue of GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, possession letter, will dated 03.12.2012. It is submitted that the defendant had purchased the suit property from defendant C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 7/21 no.2 after paying sale consideration amount by virtue of aforesaid documents.
13. Prayer is made for dismissal of suit.
14. Replication has been filed on behalf of plaintiff wherein the averments made in the W.S were denied and the averments made in the plaint are reiterated.
15. On 31.05.2016, from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession as prayed for in para (a) of prayer clause ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for in para (b) of prayer clause ? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for in para ( c) of prayer clause ? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for in para (d ) of prayer clause ? OPP
6. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ? OPD-3
7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD-3
8. Whether the suit is barred U/s 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act ? OPD-1
9. Relief C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 8/21 PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
16. In order to prove his case plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 who has tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit. Same is Ex. PW 1/A and has relied upon the following documents :
1.Copy of allotment deposit slip dated 01.07.2002 Ex. PW 1/1 ( OSR)
2. Copy of complaint dated 15.01.2013 written to ACP, Vikaspuri Ex.PW 1/ 2 (OSR)
3. Copy of complaint dated 15.1.2013 written Ex. PW 1/ 3 ( OSR) to Commissioner of police
4. Another copy of complaint Ex. PW 1/ 4
5. original notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex. PW 1/6 ( colly) There was no document filed as Ex. PW 1/ 5.
17. PW-1, plaintiff was cross-examined and discharged. Vide order dated 04.7.2017, PE was closed and the matter was listed for DE.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
18. Defendant no.1 has examined himself as DW-1 and has tendered his duly sworn in affidavit as DW-1/A and has relied upon the document I.e Photocopy of GPA, Agreement to Sell Mark D1/1 (colly.) Affidavit, Receipt and Will
19. Defendant no.3 has examined herself as DW-3 and has tendered her duly sworn in affidavit as DW-3/A and has relied upon the following documents :
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 9/21
1. Copy of electricity bill dated 20.5.2013, Ex. DW 3/1 18.01.2014, 16.06.2014, 17.10.2014 (colly) and 19.01.2015 (OSR)
2. GPA, Agreement to Sell, affidavit Ex. DW 3/2 Receipt, Will dated 30.10.2004 (colly) ( OSR)
3. Copy of pay order dated 01.09.2002, Mark A (colly) Copy of election ID card, copy of affidavit of plaintiff, copy of another affidavit of plaintiff, photo copy of receipt deposition of isolation charges, copy of ration card
4. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, receipt Ex. DW 3/3 Will dated 07.03.2006 by defendant no.1 in (colly) ( OSR) favour of defendant no.2.
5. Copy of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit Ex. DW 3/4 receipt, possession letter, Will all dated to Ex. DW 3/9 03.12.2012 (OSR)
20. Besides herself defendant no.3 has examined another witness namely Sh. Suresh as D3W1 who has tendered his duly sworn in affidavit as D3W1/A and has relied upon the document I.e Aadhar Card as Ex. D3W1/1 ( OSR).
21. No DE was led on behalf of defendant no.2 and her statement was recorded on 23.08.2017 in this regard.
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 10/21
22. Vide statement made on behalf of defendant no.3, DE was closed on 07.12.2017. Thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.
23. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of all the parties and have perused the record carefully.
My issue wise findings are as under :
24. ISSUE NO. 1Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?
25. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted to him by the government through concerned department/ DDA in lieu of his jhuggi at Ashok Vihar under Slum Rehabilitation policy. It is noteworthy that the plaintiff in his para 9 of the plaint has stated that the suit property was allotted by the Government and the same is non-transferable.
26. It is common knowledge that allottee under the Slum Rehabilitation policy has the possession of the property as a licensee. It is also noteworthy that during the cross-examination of PW-1/plaintiff by defendant no.2, a letter Ex PW-1/D2/1 was put to the plaintiff. The said letter is the copy of the demand letter dated 01.07.2002 issued by DDA in the name of plaintiff. The perusal of the said letter reveals that the suit property was given by DDA to the plaintiff on license basis.
27. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the plaintiff is not the owner of C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 11/21 the suit property but a mere licensee of DDA.
28. The issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.29. ISSUE NO. 6
Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction ?
30. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no.3. It is stated by the defendant no.3 in her written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is undervalued and sufficient court fees has not been filed by the plaintiff. It is stated that the market value of the suit property is more than Rs. 12,00,000/ and the plaintiff has valued the suit for the relief of possession at Rs 8,000/ only.
31. Interestingly, apart from the averment in the written statement, defendant no.3 has not led any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the said assertion. No question with respect to the valuation of the suit and deficient court fees were even put to the plaintiff/PW-1 in cross-examination. No valuation report has been filed on behalf of defendant no.3. The suit property has an area of 18 sq yards only which was allotted to the plaintiff for a license amount of Rs. 7000/. Admittedly, the suit property is a government property being used in rehabilitation of slum dwellers and as such the said property can not be said to be open to be assessed in the market. In the absence of any evidence being led on behalf of defendant no.3, it has to be held that the defendant no.3 has failed to discharge her onus.
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 12/21
32. Accordingly, the issue stands decided against defendant no.3.
33. ISSUE NO. 7Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
34. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 has taken a plea that plaintiff was having knowledge of transfer of the suit property in favour of defendant no.1 even in the year 2004 as the documents were executed by him only. This fact is denied by the plaintiff specifically. At this point it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff has stated in para 9 of his plaint:
"9. That the suit property was allotted by the Government and the same is non-transferable but despite that the defendants are bent upon to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff"
And the defendant no.1 in para-wise reply in the written statement stated as under:
"9. That the contents of para 9 are matter of record and need no reply"
The concomitant of the aforesaid is that the defendant no.1 knew that the suit property was allotted by Government and is non-transferable i.e. the plaintiff could not have executed any transfer documents with respect to the said property. The stand taken by the plaintiff that loan was taken from the defendant no.1 seems plausible since both i.e. plaintiff and defendant no.1 knew that property is non-transferable and thus whatsoever documents C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 13/21 executed in favour of defendant no.1 could not create any title in favour of him. Nothing has been brought on record to show that plaintiff was having any knowledge of documents since 2004. The suit as filed is within limitation even from the date of documents executed in favour of defendant no.1.
35. In view of the aforesaid, the issue is decided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of plaintiff.
36. ISSUE NO.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for in para
(b) of prayer clause ?
37. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff is seeking declaration to the effect of declaring all the notarized sale documents viz GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, receipt, affidavit etc. all dated 30.10.2004 or any other document of sale created by defendant no.1 and declaring all the notarized sale documents viz-GPA, Agreement to sell, will, receipt, affidavit, possession letter etc. all dated 07.03.2005 executed in favour of defendant no.2 as also declaring all the notarized sale documents viz GPA, Agreement to sell, Will, Receipt, affidavit, Possession letter etc. all dated 03.12.2012 or any other document of sale created by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.3.
38. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted to him by the Government and the same is non-transferable.The defendant no.1 in his written statement admitted that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff and C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 14/21 that the same is non-transferable. However, at the same time it is averred by defendant no.1 that the plaintiff had executed notarized GPA, agreement to sell, possession letter, affidavit and Will in his favour after receiving consideration amount of Rs. 70,000/.
39. The said plea of defendant no.1 is self contradictory for defendant no.1 himself admitted that the property was non-transferable. Thus, the plaintiff was not competent to execute any transfer documents in favour of defendant no.1 as the plaintiff was himself a licensee in the suit property.
40. Moreover, the documents in favour of defendant no.1 are unregistered GPA, Agreement to Sell etc..The transfer of immovable property through such type of documents is prohibited by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp &Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana 2011LawSuit(SC)1107.Thus, defendant no.1 cannot claim to have obtained title from plaintiff on the basis of the said invalid documents.
Furthermore, these documents are neither registered nor appropriate stamp duty is paid on it. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashwani Kumar vs.Sukh Devi 2014(4)Capital Law Judgment 90 (Delhi) held that where claim is raised regarding purchase of the suit property on basis of unregistered agreement to sell, then such agreement to sell cannot be relied upon to claim part performance and entitlement to possession unless the agreement to sell is registered and stamped at 90% of the value of the sale deed. Such agreement has to be treated as void and illegal.
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 15/21
41. The concomitant of the aforesaid is that the documents in favour of defendant no.1 i.e. Ex DW 3/2 (OSR) are of no value as the same are notarized as also the plaintiff having no title in himself to have got the suit property transferred in favour of defendant no.1. The possibility of manipulation of documents at the hand of defendants can not be ruled out more so because the defendant no.1 admits in his written statement that the property was non- transferable. The defendant no.1, thus, can not claim to have derived any title in the suit property.
42. The defendant no.3 claims to have derived the title from defendant no.2 who claims to have acquired it from defendant no.1. Now, when there was no title in defendant no.1, the defendant no.2 can not be said to have acquired any title in the suit property and so does the defendant no.3. The defendant no.2 & 3 also can not be said to be bonafide purchaser as defendant no.2 in her written statement in reply to para 9 stated as under:
"9. That the contents of para 9 of the plaint are a matter of record hence needs no reply. However, it is submitted that it is the plaintiff who first transferred the suit property for a consideration to the defendant no.1 in violation of the terms and conditions of DDA."
43. What flows from this is that the defendant no.2 also knew at the time of entering into transaction with defendant no.1 that the suit property is non-transferable being a government property. The transaction, therefore, between the defendant no.1 & 2 and the transaction between defendant no. 2 & 3 can not be termed as genuine.
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 16/21
44. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
45. ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession as prayed for in para
(a) of prayer clause?
46. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was allotted to him by DDA on license and that in the year 2013, when he came back from his native village, he came to know that defendant no.1 has broken open the locks of the suit property and has handed over the possession to defendant no.2 who further handed it over to defendant no.3 thereby dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property on the pretext that the suit property has been sold by defendant no.1 to defendant no.2 who in turn has sold it to defendant no.3.
47. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the defendant no.1 has admitted in his written statement that the suit property was allotted by government to the plaintiff and the said property is non-transferable. Thus, the defendant no.1 was aware since the very beginning that the plaintiff can not create any title in favour of anyone as he himself was a licensee. Despite that, the defendant no.1 states that the property was sold by the plaintiff to him through notarized documents for valuable consideration and he has further sold it to defendant no.2 who has sold it to defendant no.3.
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 17/21
48. In view of the findings on the previous issue, it has to be held that the defendant no.3 is in unauthorized occupation of the suit as she has no title in the said property as the transaction between her and defendant no.2 is a sham transaction for no title ever passed to defendant no. 2 or defendant no.1.
49. The necessary corollary is that the possession of the plaintiff has to be restored back to him as he has been dispossessed in a wrongful manner.
50. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
51. ISSUE NO. 5Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for in para (d ) of prayer clause ?
52. The plaintiff has sought permanent injunction against the defendants not to create any further third party interest in the suit property.
53. In view of finding on issue no. 2 & 3, the present issue has to be allowed in favour of the plaintiff. As defendant no. 1 to 3 do not have any title or interest in the suit property, they are restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
54. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 18/21 55. ISSUE NO. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for in para ( c) of prayer clause ?
56. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought mandatory injunction against defendant no.2 & 3 to return the documents of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had obtained a loan from defendant no.1 and in lieu of which documents of the property were handed over to the defendant no.1 and certain blank documents were executed. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he has repaid the loan and despite that the documents of the property were not returned.
57. Per contra, the defendant no.1 denied the fact that any loan was taken by the plaintiff. Rather it is the case of the defendant no.1 that the property was sold to him against valuable consideration of Rs. 70,000/ . The defendant no.1 however admitted in the written statement that the property allotted to the plaintiff was non-transferable. Thus, the plaintiff could not have sold it to defendant no.1. Hence, the stand of the plaintiff that a loan was taken appears plausible. However, the plaintiff could not prove on record that the original documents of the property are with defendant no.2 or 3 or that they were under any obligation to return the same to the plaintiff.
58. The plaintiff has, thus, failed to establish his assertion that the documents are in possession of defendant no.2 or 3. Even otherwise, the plaintiff is only a licensee in the suit property and no title vests in him.
59. The issue is decided against the plaintiff.
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 19/21
60. ISSUE No.8 Whether the suit is barred U/s 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act ?
61. The onus to prove this issue was upon defendant no.1, however no evidence whatsoever were led by the defendant no.1 regarding this.
62. The issue is accordingly decided against defendant no.1
63. RELIEF
64. In view of the findings on issue no.2,3 and 5, the suit of the plaintiff stands partly decreed in the following terms:
(a) All the notarized sale documents viz GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, receipt, affidavit etc. all dated 30.10.2004 or any other document of sale created by defendant no.1 in his favour (Ex PW 3/2) and all the notarized sale documents viz-GPA, Agreement to sell, will, receipt, affidavit, possession letter etc. all dated 07.03.2005 in favour of defendant no.2 and all the notarized sale documents viz GPA, Agreement to sell, Will, Receipt, affidavit, Possession letter etc. all dated 03.12.2012 in favour of defendant no.3 with respect to H.No. 305 B, measuring 18 Sq. Yards situated in Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Hastsal, P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi are hereby declared null and void.
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 20/21
(b) The plaintiff is held entitled to the possession of the suit property. Defendant no.3 is directed to vacate the suit property and hand over its possession to plaintiff.
(c) The defendants are restrained from creating any further third party interest in the suit property i.e. H.No. 305 B, measuring 18 Sq. Yards situated in Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Hastsal, P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(d) In case the defendants feel that they have been cheated by respective parties by selling the government property in which they had no title, then they have a separate remedy for recovery of payment made by them.
(e) Parties to bear their own costs.
(f) It is clarified that this judgment and decree will not cause
any prejudice to the rights of concerned department of DDA to take action against the plaintiff for any violation of the terms and conditions of the license.
65. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
66. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
NITISH Digitally signed
by NITISH
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2020.10.19
SHARMA 16:43:35 +0530
Pronounced in the open court (Nitish Kumar Sharma)
Today i.e on 19.10.2020 Civil Judge.-01(WEST)/DELHI
C.S No. 609987/16 Virender Kumar v Kamal Talwar& Ors 21/21