Delhi District Court
Shamim Zafar vs Dilawar Hussain Malik on 20 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR,
DISTRICT JUDGE- 05, SOUTH EAST DELHI, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
EX/9939/2016
CIS No. DLSE010094432016
&
M. No. 24/24
CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024
1.Shamim Zafar S/o Mr. Zahoor Mohammad, R/o F-12/1A, Nooh Masjid Lane, Joga Bai Extn., Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi -110025
2. Daulat Ali S/o Mr. Bakir Hussain, R/o F-14/10, Third Floor, Joga Bagi Extn., Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi -110025 ............... Decree Holders VERSUS
1. Mr. Dilawar Hussain Malik, S/o Sh. Haji Dilber Hussain Malik
2. Mrs. Nazma Malik W/o Sh. Dilawar Hussain Malik Both presently R/o H.No. A-37, (Old No. 332/3) Gali No. 8, Backside of Jama Masjid, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi -25 Also at:
332/3, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi -110025 ...........Judgement Debtors Ms. Vateena Begum, W/o Mohd. Irshad, R/o S-18/18, Joga Bai Extension, Near Mumtaz Masjid, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025 ............Objector EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 1/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:43:17 +0530 Date of institution of the execution : 04.04.2014 Date of institution of objections : 07.06.2018 Date of conclusion of final arguments on : 11.12.2024 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.12.2024 JUDGMENT UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 101 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC
1. Vide this common judgment, the misc. applications as well as the objections of objector Ms. Vateena Begum for following reliefs have been disposed off i.e.
a) Setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2013 in CS No. 207/12 titled as Shamim Zafar & Anr. Vs. Dilawar Hussain Malik & Anr.
b) Declaring the sale deed in respect of suit property as null and void.
2. The brief facts are that on 01.09.2012 DHs filed suit for specific performance and permanent injunction and vide judgment dated 11.11.2013 the suit was decreed as under:
"14. A decree for specific performance is accordingly, passed in favour of DHss against the JDss with the directions to JDss to execute the sale deed of property no. S-18/18, Ground Floor with terrace right (front side portion), comprising One Room, Two Toilets, One Bathroom. One Kitchen, area measuring 28 sq. yards, situated near Mumtaz Masjid, part of Khasra No. 427/260, situated at Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla; New Delhi-25, shown in red in the site plan Ex.PW1/B in favour of DHss on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs by EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 2/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:43:25 +0530 DHss within 2 months from today and to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the DHs failing which DHss will be entitled to get sale deed executed and obtain possession through Court".
3. The averments of DHs in the suit were that:- on 02.07.2012, JDs entered into agreement to sell and purchase qua suit property with the DHs for total consideration of Rs. 06 lakhs. On 02.07.2012 a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was paid in cash and Rs. 45,000/- was paid vide cheque with the agreement that balance sale consideration will be paid at the time of execution of sale documents on or before 03.08.2012. Thereafter, JDs through mediator Mohd. Javed expressed urgent need of money and accordingly, DHs made payment of Rs. 80,000/- by way of 'cash' and Rs. 45,000/- vide 'Cheque' drawn in favour of 'Mohd. Javed' on 03.07.2012. DHs made payment of Rs. 60,000/- by way of 'cash' on 12.07.2012 and Rs. 10,000/-vide 'Cheque in favour of 'Mrs. Nazma Malik. DHs paid Rs. 5,000/- vide 'Cheque dated 24.07.2012. As such, DHs paid total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. DHs arranged balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and met JDs on 28.07.2012 and requested them for execution of sale documents in their favour. However, JDs avoided to receive the balance amount. DHs issued notice dated 30.07.2012 asking JDs to accept balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and execute sale documents. DHs visited the office of Sub-Registrar, Mehrauli, New Delhi on 03.08.2012 but JDs did not turn up. Finally, JDs refused to execute sale documents on 15.08.2012 and threatened to sell the suit property to third person. Therefore, DHs filed the suit.
EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 3/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:43:29 +0530 The Court issued summons to JDs. However, they could not be served through ordinary process. JDs were served vide publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' on 21.01.2013. JDs neither appeared nor contested the suit and eventually, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.02.2013. DHs appeared in evidence and also examined Mr. Moha. Javed as PW-2. The Court, vide judgement dated 11.11.2013, decreed the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.
4. Thereafter, DHs filed present execution petition and during execution proceedings registered sale deed dated 10.08.2017 was executed in favour of DHs upon Court order through Court Commissioner. Thereafter, warrants of possession were issued and same were received back unexecuted.
5. Thereafter, objector filed objections on the ground that on 28.05.2018 objector learnt from her neighbour namely Arman that some persons visited at the house of the objector and enquired about the objector and told that a case titled, "Shamim Zafar Vs. Dilawar Hussain Malik & Anr." is pending in court No. 614 at Saket Courts, New Delhi and is listed on 29.05.2018. Thereafter immediately the objector engaged the counsel who appeared before this Hon'ble Court on 29.05.2018 and apprised the facts that the objector is the landlady/owner of the suit premises. The objector is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the premises in question and the objector has purchased the property bearing No.S-18/18, Joga Bai Extension, Near Mumtaz Masjid, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025 from its erstwhile owner namely Dilwar Hussain Malik (JD No.1) S/o Late Dilbar Hussain Malik on 21.06.2012 vide GPA, EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 4/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:43:33 +0530 Agreement to sell and Purchase, WILL, Affidavit, Possession Letter and Receipt all dated 21.06.2012. After purchasing the same, the objector/applicant got installed the electricity meter in her name and also having Aadhar Card, Passport and Election Identity of the family members and also constructed two rooms on the first floor and the property in question consists of ground floor and first floor. Since the day of its purchase till 28.05.2018, nobody claimed his/her right over the property of the objector is the objector is enjoying the peaceful possession of her own house. So called DHs never visited the suit premises since the day of its purchase nor claimed his ownership over the suit premises. On 20.02.2015, one person namely Sabina Begum through her husband namely Abdul Hai has filed a suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the husband of the objector titled as Abdul Hai (SPA) Vs. Mohd. Irshad" vide Civil Suit No. 72/15 in respect of stairs and the said suit dismissed by the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Shiriya Aggarwal, Ld. Civil Judge, South East, New Delhi vide order dated 30.05.2018. The DHs intentionally and deliberately has not impleaded the objector as necessary party in the array of the JDs as such the objector is residing in the built up suit premises since the day of its purchase, because the DHs do not want that the summons be served upon the objector. The JDs never appeared before this Court at any stage intentionally and deliberately and the DHs obtained the ex-parte dated 11-11-2013. Even during the execution proceedings, the JDs did not appear before this Court. It seems that the JDs and the DHs are in collusion and in connivance with each other and they want to evict the objector EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 5/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:43:39 +0530 from the suit premises. The DHs intentionally and deliberately did not mentioned the address of the premises in question in the suit for specific performance filed against the JDs and the DHs very cleverly and cunningly wants to evict the objector from her own property which she purchased from her hard earned money. The objector has purchased the built up suit property which was consisted on ground floor on 21.06.2012 whereas the alleged Advance Receipt Cum Agreement to sell and purchase filed by the DHs shows that the agreement is of dated 02.07.2012. It is a question that how the DHs has entered into agreement to sell with the JDs without inspecting and knowing about the suit property although the objector/applicant was already in possession of the suit premises since the day of its purchase. The DHs in his specific performance suit has mentioned that the suit premise is measuring 30 sq. yds. and having two toilets, the fact is that the suit premises on the ground floor is consisting of one toilet and is measuring 28 sq.yds. The bailiff in his report stated that he has visited the suit property for execution of warrant of possession on 04.5.2018 along with Decree Holder, but in the report of the bailiff nowhere it has been mentioned that the suit property is consisting of ground floor and first floor. In fact, the bailiff never visited the suit property of the objector and the report of the bailiff is self generated and unbelievable. The suit premises is situated in non regularized colony and no sale deed can be executed of any property situated in the area i.e. Joga Bai Extension, therefore the executed sale deed is not valid and sustainable in the eyes of law and the Same is liable to be cancelled and the execution as per sale deed is not maintainable EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 6/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:43:43 +0530 under the provisions of law. The Court Commissioner has filed the report dated 09.08.2017 (received by the court on 22.08.2017) which is totally wrong and denied. The Court Commissioner has not visited the suit property and without knowing the fact that the suit property is situated in non regularized colony, has concealed this fact from the Court. The Court commissioner has not mentioned the correct description of the premises in question. The fact is that the property is consisting on ground floor and first floor and situated in non regularized colony, therefore sale deed cannot be executed. The Honble High Court of Delhi in the matter cited as Bina Tones Computers Put. Ltd. Versus Setech Electronics Ltd. Reported 162 (2009) DIT 537 and Asha M. Jain Versus Canara bank the execution proceedings cannot be issued against the person having his independent right in the property in question. The Decree Holder cannot claim for execution of warrants of possession against the immovable property of the objector / applicant in view of the judgment of Asha M. Jain and also otherwise.
6. The DHs have opposed the objections by filing detailed reply and reiterated the facts stated by them in the civil suit (also mentioned in para no. 3 of the present judgment/order and same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity). It is also averred by DHs that in the judgment dated 11.11.2013 it has been clearly held that a decree of specific performance is accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiffs/DHs. against the defendants with the direction to defendants to execute the sale deed of property in question in favour of the plaintiff on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs by plaintiffs within 2 months from EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 7/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:43:52 +0530 the date of judgment and to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to plaintiffs failing which plaintiffs, will be entitled to get sale deed executed and obtain possession through court. After the execution of the sale deed, warrants of possession were issued and baliff was appointed, however the warrants of possession were returned unexecuted as on 4.5.2018 when the D.H. with the baliff reached at the spot for taking the possession of the suit property, one person by the name of Irshad, his wife and son & daughter were found in occupation of the premises and they orally stated that the property belong to them and they shall not vacate the property at any cost. Thereafter the objector file her false and frivolous objections dated 5.6.2018, claiming herself as the bonafide purchaser of the suit property, having purchased from J.D. No. 1 Dilwar Hussain on 21.06.2012 on the basis of GPA, Agreement to sell and purchase, Will, Affidavit, possession letter and receipt all dated 21.06.2012 duly attested by the notary pubic and claims that since the day of its purchase, she is residing therein with her family.
7. Vide order dated 13.08.2020, the objections filed by the objector were dismissed. The objector preferred an appeal against the same and vide order and judgment dated 17.12.2020, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has remanded the matter back with directions to this Court to decide the objections after framing issues and recording evidence and directions were passed to adjudicate the objections within six months. Thereafter, JDs preferred an appeal against the said order before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and vide order dated 27.02.2024, EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 8/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 Digitally signed SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:43:58 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal filed by DHs and matter was to be disposed within six months from 27.02.2024. The Presiding Officer was on medical leave from 02.01.2024 till 03.04.2024(due to medical surgery pursuant to multiple fractures in right leg on 26.12.2023). Thereafter, upon receipt of orders, notice was issued to DHs and JDs vide order dated 06.04.2024.
Thereafter, vide order dated 14.11.2024, three months more time was granted to dispose off the execution petition.
8. Upon completion of pleadings, vide order dated 26.04.2024 following issues were framed:
1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2023 whose execution is sought in the present petition is liable to be set aside on the ground that DH was never entitled for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.07.2012 on facts and in law?OPO Sub issue if issue no. 1 is decided in favour of objector, whether the sale deed executed in favour of DH by Ld. Local Commissioner on 09.08.2017 is liable to be declared as null and void?OPO
2. Whether objector is lawful owner of the property no.
S-18/18, Joga Bai Extension, Near Mumtaz Mazid Jamia Nagar, Okhla in view of documents executed by Dilawar Hussain on 21.06.2012, specifically in view of Will dated 21.06.2012 executed by previous owner Dilawar Hussain?OPO Sub issue "whether erstwhile owner SH. Dilawar Hussain had died and if yes whether he had died without executing any other Will?OPO
3. Whether objector is in possession of the property in pursuant to documents executed by previous owner Sh. Dilawar Hussain on 21.06.2012 and if so what is the exact date when objector came into possession of the property?OPO.
4. Whether objector is bonafide purchaser of the property?OPO
5. Whether JDs had rights/title /interest to execute EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 9/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:44:03 +0530 agreement to sell dated 02.07.2012 in favour of DH? OPDH
6. Whether the original suit filed by DH was bad for non-joinder /misjoinder of necessary party?OPO
7. Whether Mohd. Javed who received payment on behalf of Jds from DH was legally entitled to receive payment on behalf of JD?OPDH
8. Whether the DH had obtained the decree by playing fraud in-collusion with Jds?OPO
9. Whether objector is entitled to any compensation, if so at what rate?OPO
9. Objector's evidence 9.1 In order to prove his case, objector examined Mohd. Aslam Aliv as OW-1 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-1/A. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.2 The objector has also examined Sh. Irfan Khan as OW-2 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-2/A. OW-2 relied upon the documents already marked Ex. OW1/1 to Ex. OW1/6. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.3 The objector has examined Mohd. Irshad as OW-3 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-3/A. OW-3 relied upon the documents Ex. OW3/1 to 13(colly), Ex. OW-3/2 (Colly) and Marked C (colly). This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.4 The objector has also examined Mohd. Razi as OW-4 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-4/A. EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 10/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:44:08 +0530 OW-4 relied upon the documents Ex. OW4/1. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2. 9.5 The objector has also examined Sh. Zareef Ahmad as OW-5 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-5/A. OW-5 relied upon the documents Ex. OW5/1(OSR). This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.6 The objector has also examined Sh. Mustaq as OW-6 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-6/A. OW-2 relied upon the document i.e. his Aadhar Card Ex. PW6/1. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.7 The objector has also examined herself as OW-7 and she has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-7/A. OW-7 relied upon the document already Ex. OW-1/1 to Ex. OW-1/6. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.8 The objector has also examined Sh. Habib Ahmad as OW-8 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-8/A. OW-8 relied upon the document i.e. his Aadhar Card Ex. PW8/1. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.9 The objector has also examined Sh. Madan Lal as OW-9 EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 11/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:44:14 +0530 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.OW-9/A. OW-9 relied upon the document i.e. his Aadhar Card Ex. PW9/1. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.10 The objector has also examined Sh. Bhawani Prasad from the office of Divisional Commissioner, B-Block, Room No. 204-205, Stamp and Registration Branch as OW-10. OW-10 relied upon the document Ex. OW-10/1, Ex. OW-10/A and Ex. OW-10/B. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.11 The objector has also examined Sh. Shiv Kumar, Sr. Head Messanger, SBI Branch at NFC, Ishwar Nagar, ND as OW-11. OW-11 relied upon the document Ex. OW-11/A and Ex. OW-11/B. This witness was cross-examined at length by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
9.12 The objector has also examined Sh. Shabib Ul Hasan, AR of the Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd. as OW-12. OW-12 relied upon the document Ex. OW-12/A to Ex. OW12/C. This witness was not cross-examined by Sh. S.P. Jha, Ld. counsel for the DH no. 1 and Sh. S.S. Haider, Ld. Counsel for DH no. 2.
10. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for decree holder's evidence.
10.1 In evidence, DH no. 1 has examined himself as PW-1 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A wherein he has reiterated the averments made in reply to the EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 12/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:44:18 +0530 objections. This witness was cross-examined at length by Md. Azam Ansari, Ld. counsel for the objector. 10.2 DHs have further examined Smt. Nazma Malik/JD no. 2 as PW-2 and she has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A wherein she has deposed about the transactions between DHs and JDs. This witness was cross-examined at length by Md. Azam Ansari, Ld. counsel for the objector. 10.3 DHs examined Sh. Atul Kumar as PW-3 who proved certified copy of RTI application of February, 2020 Ex. PW-3/A and reply dated 25.02.2020 Ex. PW-3/B(OSR). This witness was cross-examined at length by Md. Azam Ansari, Ld. counsel for the objector.
11. Thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments. DHs as well as objector have filed written arguments which duly record the arguments addressed to the Court. The written arguments are part of record and therefore, the same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
12. I have heard both the parties and meticulously gone through the record as well as written arguments filed on behalf of both parties.
13. Admittedly, suit property originally belongs to one Sh. Hazi Dilbar Hussain Malik who is father of JD no. 1 and father in law of JD no. 2. Sh. Hazi Dilbar Hussain Malik had already passed away and during pendency of the execution petition, JD no. 1 has also passed away. JD no. 2 is wife of JD no. 1. Admittedly, both the parties are relying on unregistered documents and none of the parties is having registered documents in its favour. No party has filed the previous chain of EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 13/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:44:23 +0530 documents nor any title document in favour of Sh. Hazi Dilbar Hussain Malik has been filed on record.
14. Issue-wise findings.
Issue no. II: Whether objector is lawful owner of the property no. S-18/18, Joga Bai Extension, Near Mumtaz Mazid Jamia Nagar, Okhla in view of documents executed by Dilawar Hussain on 21.06.2012, specifically in view of Will dated 21.06.2012 executed by previous owner Dilawar Hussain?OPO Sub issue "whether erstwhile owner SH. Dilawar Hussain had died and if yes whether he had died without executing any other Will?OPO Issue No. III: Whether objector is in possession of the property in pursuant to documents executed by previous owner Sh. Dilawar Hussain on 21.06.2012 and if so what is the exact date when objector came into possession of the property?OPO.
Issue No. IV: Whether objector is bonafide purchaser of the property?OPO Issue no. vi: Whether the original suit filed by DH was bad for non-joinder /misjoinder of necessary party?OPO Issue no. IX: Whether objector is entitled to any compensation, if so at what rate?OPO All these issues have been taken together being interlinked and interconnected. The onus to prove all these issues was upon the objector.
15. As per objector, objector is bonafide purchaser who purchased the property from erstwhile owner Sh. Dilawar Hussain Malik who executed documents in favour of objector on 21.06.2012 and also executed Will dated 21.06.2012 in favour of objector and objector is in possession of the suit property since then i.e. since 21.06.2012 and DHs have intentionally not impleaded the objector as a party to the main suit. To prove his contention, objector has examined Mohd. Aslam Alvi as OW-1 EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 14/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:44:27 +0530 who proved the documents executed by JD no. 1 in favour of objector i.e. GPA, Agreement of sale, affidavit, Will, Possession Letter, Receipt i.e. Ex. OW-1/1 to Ex. OW-1/6. He deposed that on 21.06.2012, JD no. 1 sold the suit property to objector vide above mentioned documents after receiving the sale consideration of Rs. 09 lakhs in cash and the possession was handed over to objector immediately on the same day and he (OW-1) signed the documents as a witness. Similarly, OW-2 Mohd. Irfan Khan also deposed on the same lines. Mohd. Irshad i.e. husband of objector entered into witness box as OW-3 and he also deposed on the same lines. He admitted that JD no. 1 has not handed over the previous chain of the documents to the objector. He has also filed copies of Aadhar Card, ID card and Passport belonging to him, his wife and nine children. Further, objector examined Mohd. Razi as OW-4, Sh. Zareef Ahmad as OW-5 and both deposed that objector has been residing at the suit property since 21.06.2012 when she purchased the property and both admitted that they have not seen the documents dated 21.06.2012, executed in favour of objector. Admittedly, both OW
-4 and OW-5 are neither signatories to the documents executed by JD no. 1 in favour of objector nor they are witnessed to the transactions dated 21.06.2012. Further, objector had examined Sh. Mustaq as OW-7 who deposed that JD no. 1 had sold the suit property to objector on 21.06.2012 alongwith his last Will dated 21.06.2012 in favour of objector and this is the last Will of JD no. 1 and he has not left any other Will thereafter. He admitted during cross examination that he is not aware about the date of death of JD no. 1 and he admitted that he is neither signatory to EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 15/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:44:31 +0530 the documents dated 21.06.2012 nor the same were executed in his presence. He had shown the ignorance to the suggestions that documents alleged to have been executed on 21.06.2012 were prepared in December 2013 and date was mentioned as 21.06.2012. Further, objector herself entered into witness box as OW-7 and she deposed on the lines of the averments made in the objections and she has relied upon the Aadhar Card, Passport of herself, her children and her husband. Further, objector has examined Sh. Habib Ahmad as OW-8 who deposed that husband of objector sold his property and by way of testimony of OW-8, objector proved the fact, how the funds for payment of sale consideration were collected. Further, objector examined Sh. Madan Lal as OW-9 to prove the loss /damage which objector suffered due to present litigation.
From the testimonies of all the witnesses, it is clear that all the witnesses have categorically deposed that JD no. 1 has sold the property to objector on 21.06.2012 after receiving the consideration and the transaction was documented on the same day vide documents Ex. OW-1/1 to Ex. OW-1/6 and Will was also executed on the same day.
16. Now DHs have filed the RTI application whereby they have sought the information from Department of Revenue, NCT of Delhi, Treasury Branch, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the issuance date when the stamp paper on which the transaction dated 21.06.2012 was documented were issued. The RTI application and its reply dated 25.02.2020 are Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B respectively. The witness from Delhi Treasury Office of Divisional Commissioner has proved the reply. As per EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 16/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed PRABHDEEP by PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:44:36 +0530 reply, the stamp papers on which the documents Ex. OW-1/1 to Ex. OW-1/3 have been executed, were issued by the treasury for the public sale in July and August 2012 respectively. The RTI reply Ex. PW-3/B is as follows:
"आपके आर टी आई आवेदन संख्या 21780, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के अन्तर्गत, आई डी सं० 21780/आर टी आई (राजस्व) / मु०/2020/592-93 दिनांक 14/02/2020 नोडल अधिकारी (आर टी आई) / उप- दण्डाधिकारी -5 (मु०) के माध्यम से प्राप्त हुई है। जिसकी कमानुसार सूचना निम्न है:-
Sl. स्टैम्प पेपर मुद्रक जरी करने स्टैम्प विक्रे ता का विवरण No. का नम्बर (RS.) की तारीख किसे जारी लाईसेन्स विक्रय स्थान संबधित क्षेत्र (Date) किया गया संख्या SDM/DC | (Sh./Smt. /Ms.) 1 to AB 749139 50/- 10/7/201 JP Rao 510 मेहरौली SDM 2 to 749140 2 Mehrauli 3 51AA 10/- 27/8/201 Ms. 634 करकरडू मा SDM 980282 2 Bhawna कोर्ट Shahdara यह सूचित किया जाता है कि स्टैम्प भेण्डर के व्यक्तिगत फाईल व विकय रजिस्टर जिसमें स्टैम्प पेपर किस व्यक्ति को विक्रय किया गया का जिक्र होता है, सम्बधित जिले के उप दण्डाधिकारी के कार्यालय में उपल्बध होगें, जिस क्षेत्र में स्टैम्प विक्रे ता कार्य करता था।
Thus, serious clouds are raised on the veracity of title documents dated 21.06.2012 allegedly executed by JD no. 1 in favour of objector because as per RTI reply the stamp papers were issued by treasury in July and August 2012 and thus, the transaction dated 21.06.2012 cannot be documented on these stamp papers and the documents seem to be antedated. The RTI reply has been duly proved and therefore, it creates a prima facie case of irregularity in the documentation of the transaction. Since the objector is relying upon the transaction dated 21.06.2012, EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 17/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:44:41 +0530 therefore, in view of Section 101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the responsibility of the objector to prove that the stamp papers were issued on or before 21.06.2012 and that the documentation is proper and valid. Despite the RTI reply suggesting otherwise, the objector has failed to summon the primary records i.e. the treasury records of the stamp paper issuance, to refute the RTI reply and this failure raises doubt over the genuineness of the transaction. It is settled principle that documentary evidence supersede oral testimony and therefore, even if witnesses support the claim of objector, the documentary evidence having greater probative value has to be believed. While the testimonies of so many OWs are substantial, however, their credibility is under serious question, being contradictory to the documentary evidence. Accordingly, the GPA Ex. OW-1/1, Agreement to sell and purchase Ex. OW-1/2, affidavit Ex. OW-1/3 cannot be relied upon to consider the title of the objector over the suit property.
Now as far as the Will Ex. OW-1/4, Possession letter Ex. OW-1/5 and receipt Ex. OW-1/6 are concerned, all the OWs have categorically deposed that these documents were executed on 21.06.2012 alongwith GPA etc. i.e. Ex. OW-1/1 to Ex. OW-1/3 and once the execution of GPA etc. i.e. Ex. OW-1/1 to Ex.
OW-1/3 is under clouds being antedated documents, the testimonies of the witnesses with respect to execution of documents Ex. OW-1/4 to Ex. OW-1/6 cannot be trustworthy because Court has to read the testimonies in whole and Court cannot read them in parts.
Further, as far as the question of Will is concerned, first the EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 18/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:44:47 +0530 execution of Will is doubtful for the above mentioned reason. Secondly, if JD no. 1 has entered into agreement to sell after execution of Will, it proves that he had impliedly revoked the Will and he had no intention to bequeath the property in terms of his Will.
17. Further, the objector has filed documents to show that objector is in possession of the property since 21.06.2012. Admittedly, the documents relied upon by objector to substantiate the physical possession over the suit property are Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Passport of objector and her family members. Perusal of these documents i.e. Ex. OW-7/1 to Ex. OW-7/9 reveal that the documents have been issued in the year 2018 and therefore, these documents cannot prove the possession of the objector over the suit property prior to the year 2018.
18. Further, objector has filed certified copy of litigation, filed by one Mr. Abdul Hai against the husband of objector i.e. Mohd. Irshad/OW-3 and it has been argued that the objector is in possession of the suit property since 21.06.2012 and at the instance of DHs, Sh. Abdul Hai, who is friend of DH no. 1, had filed false FIR against the husband of objector and the address of husband of objector has been duly mentioned in the FIR as of the suit property.
As far as this plea is concerned, the FIR mentioned the incident dated 11.09.2012 while as per objector, she is in possession of the suit property since 21.06.2012 and thus, it does not prove that objector is in possession of the suit property since 21.06.2012 as alleged. Accordingly, it is clear that the objector EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 19/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:44:53 +0530 has been able to show that the objector is in possession of the property since 11.09.2012 but objector has failed to prove that objector is in possession of the property since 21.06.2012.
Moreover, even if objector is in possession of the property since 21.06.2012, then in absence of title, the nine points of possession vanish and objector does not hold any right to continue with the possession.
19. Further, interestingly, the certified copy of case filed by Sh. Abdul Hai against the husband of objector Mohd. Irshad (OW-3) [CS No. 50355/16 titled as Mohd. Abdul Hai Vs. Mohd. Irshad & Ors reveals that the husband of objector has mentioned his address of husband of objector as "Mohd. Irshad, H.No. S-18/18B, Batla House, Joga Bai Extension, Near Mumtaz Masjid Complex, Jamia Nagar, Okhla" while the address of suit property is S-18/18, Ground Floor with Terrace right (front side portion) measuring 28 sq. yard, situated near Mumtaz Masjid, Part of Khasra No. 427/260, Situated at Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Delhi. Thus, it seems that the said litigation is not going to help the objector.
As objector has failed to prove that she was in possession of the property when DHs have entered into agreement to sell on 02.07.2012, objector cannot be stated to be a necessary party to the main suit. Consequently, objector is not entitled to any compensation as claimed.
Accordingly, issue nos. ii, iii, iv, vi and ix are decided in favour of DHs against the objector.
20. Issue no. i: Whether the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2023 whose execution is sought in the present petition is EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 20/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:44:59 +0530 liable to be set aside on the ground that DH was never entitled for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.07.2012 on facts and in law?OPO Sub issue if issue no. 1 is decided in favour of objector, whether the sale deed executed in favour of DH by Ld. Local Commissioner on 09.08.2017 is liable to be declared as null and void?OPO Issue no. v: Whether JDs had rights/title /interest to execute agreement to sell dated 02.07.2012 in favour of DH?OPDH Issue no. vii: Whether Mohd. Javed who received payment on behalf of Jds from DH was legally entitled to receive payment on behalf of JD?OPDH Issue no. viii: Whether the DH had obtained the decree by playing fraud in-collusion with Jds?OPO All these issues have been taken together being interlinked and interconnected.
The DHs have examined DH no. 1 and JD no. 2 Nazma Malik as PWs and both have deposed that JDs entered into agreement to sell with DHs and received part payment with assurance to receive the balance amount at the time of execution of documents and handing over the possession to DHs. Prima facie, it has been established that DHs and JDs have entered into the transaction dated 02.07.2012.
21. Now the objector has failed to prove her title over the suit property and she had even failed to prove that on 02.07.2012 i.e. when DHs and JDs have entered into agreement to sell, the objector was in possession of the property, therefore, objector has lost the locus standi to object to the title of JDs to dispose off the EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 21/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:45:06 +0530 property or to object the authenticity of transaction dated 02.07.2012 and she is also estopped from questioning the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2013.
22. Further, despite thorough cross examination of DH no. 1 and JD no. 2, objector has failed to fetch anything in her favour which can prove that there was any collusion between DHs and JDs.
23. Further, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of objector that vide public notice Ex. OW-10/A and Ex. OW-10/B, the physical stamp papers of Rs. 500/- and below were banned except Rs. 10/- being of high demand and therefore, the stamp paper of document Ex. PW-1/3 being physical stamp paper is invalid and cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for DHs have argued that the physical stamp papers were not banned but rather e-stamp was made an additional mode to issue the stamp papers in NCT of Delhi.
As far as this plea is concerned, it is matter of public notice that initially in April 2008, e-stamping was introduced for non-judicial stamp papers of denomination of Rs. 500/- and above. Subsequently, on 30.06.2012 the Delhi Govt. launched an electronic - stamping facility to completely eliminate stamp papers of all denominations, including those below Rs. 500/-. However, during the transaction, both electronic and manual systems operated concurrently until July 31, 2012 after which physically stamp papers fully discontinued. The documents of DHs are dated 02.07.2012 and during that time period both electronic and manual systems for issuance of stamp papers were running concurrently.
EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 22/28
M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024
SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed
by PRABHDEEP
PRABHDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date:
2024.12.20
17:45:11 +0530
24. Moreover, the validity and authenticity of transaction dated 02.07.2012 has already been decided vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2023 and once objector has failed to establish her title over the property, she cannot question the authenticity of the documents dated 02.07.2012, being stranger to the dispute and it is not open to the objector to object to the transaction dated 02.07.2012 and only JDs could have questioned the transaction dated 02.07.2012 in the given circumstances.
25. Further, the objector has taken the objection that the suit property is situated in non-regularized area and therefore, DHs cannot seek agreement to sell and consequent registration of sale deed is illegal.
As far as this plea is concerned, SDM concerned has executed the registered sale deed during pendency of the execution petition and no report has come on record from the SDM concerned that registered sale deed cannot be executed in the said area, it being non-regularized colony or area. Nor objector has summoned any record or brought on record any notification or official circular to prove that it is a non- regularized colony where registered sale deed cannot be executed. Accordingly, this argument of objector is not tenable.
I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the objector, however, same are not applicable to the facts in hand.
In view of above discussion, issue nos. i, v, vii and viii are decided in favour of DHs against the objector. Relief
26. As all issues have been decided in favour of DHs against the objector, the objections filed by the objector Ms. Vateena EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 23/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:45:17 +0530 Begum are dismissed being devoid of merits.
27. Before parting with the order, it is pertinent to mention that the certified copy of litigation i.e. CS No. 50355/2016 titled as Mohd. Abdul Hai Vs. Mohd. Irshad and Ors. mentioned the address of husband of objector as "Mohd. Irshad, H.No. S-18/18B, Batla House, Joga Bai Extension, Near Mumtaz Masjid Complex, Jamia Nagar, Okhla" while the address of suit property is S-18/18, Ground Floor with Terrace right (front side portion) measuring 28 sq. yard, situated near Mumtaz Masjid, Part of Khasra No. 427/260, Situated at Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Delhi. Interestingly, in the said matter the DHs Mohd. Abdul Hai has mentioned the suit property as property no. S-18/18, Batla House, Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, measuring 25 sq. yard and thus, it seems that objector is not in possession of suit property and the warrants of possession might have been executed at the wrong property number. Moreover, it has also come on record that the suit property is part of Khasra No. 427/260 and JD no. 1 and his father have sold small pieces out of this khasra number, therefore, DHs are directed to file the demarcation report issued from the concerned SDM concerned to prove the identity of the suit property for effective execution of warrants of possession.
Accordingly, objections stand disposed off.
28. Further, DH no. 1 has moved application for initiating proceedings u/S 340 Cr. PC for the offences committed by the objector Smt. Vateena Begum u/s 195 of Cr. PC.
Objector has claimed that she purchased the property in question from the Judgment debtor No.1, vide G.P.A., Agreement EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 24/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:45:22 +0530 to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit etc. all dated 21.06.2012, duly notarized by the Notary Public on 21.06.2012. The alleged GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase and Affidavit are on Non Judicial Stamp Papers worth Rs. 50/, 50/- and Rs. 10/-, bearing No. AB 749139 and AB 749140 of Rs. 50/- each and No. 51AA 980282. Since all the above documents have been shown as executed and notarized on 21.06.2012, as such either the same were purchased on the same day or prior to 21.06.2012. The Decree Holder No. 1, had approached the Treasury, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide his application under R.T.I. Act, which has been replied by the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate- VI/Revenue Officer, Tis Hzari, Delhi-110054, vide reply dated 25.02.2020 and in the reply it has been informed that the said Non Judicial Stamp Papers were issued by the Treasury on 10.7.2012 and 27.08.2012. Therefore, their sale on the alleged date of execution of documents i.e. G.P.A., Agreement to Sell and Affidavit i.e. 21.06.2012 was not possible, since till 21.06.2012 the said stamp papers were even not released by the Treasury for their sales. From the above it is crystal clear that the Objector/Non-applicant has committed forgery of the documents and all the documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc. filed by the Objector/Non-applicant are forged and fabricated documents and the same have been filed in the Court, as evidence, for the purpose of claiming the ownership of property in question. It is prayed to initiate proceedings/enquiry and prosecute the non-applicant/Objector Vateena Begum U/S 340 Cr. P.C. On the other hand, objector has opposed the same.
EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 25/28
M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024
Digitally signed
SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK by PRABHDEEP
PRABHDEEP KAUR
KAUR Date:
2024.12.20
17:45:27 +0530
Arguments heard. Record perused.
As observed above, DH has been able to prove that the documents relied upon by the objector might be antedated. However, considering the fact that objector has established that she is in possession of the property at least since 11.09.2012 and considering the overall facts and circumstance, it does not seem to be "expedient in the interests of justice" to initiate any proceedings against the objector and accordingly, the application of DH no. 1 stands dismissed.
29. Further, objector has moved an application u/S 195/340 Cr. PC for initiating appropriate criminal action against the JD no. 2 Ms. Nazma Malik for making false averments on affidavits and filing false affidavits and giving false evidence and also for misleading and playing fraud upon this Court. By way of this application, objector seeks to initiate appropriate criminal action against PW-2 Ms. Nazma Malik for making false averments on affidavits / filing false affidavits and giving false evidence and also for misleading and playing fraud upon this Court and for placing false and fabricated documents on record as evidence before this Court few of them are pointed herein below:-
It has been argued that PW-2 Ms. Nazma Malik deliberately and malafidely gave false evidence that Mark O-14 does not bear her signatures as well as her thumb impressions being witness no.1 in the said Mark 0-14. It has been argued that PW-2 Ms. Nazma Malik filed a false evidentiary affidavit being Ex-PW2/A making various false averments that she is residing at H.No.525, Gali No.6A, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi and also affirmed in cross examination dated 08.10.2024 that she has been residing at above EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 26/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:45:31 +0530 address since November 2012 whereas in cross examination dated 26.10.2024 without disclosing the address, she deposed "I have been residing in my rendted accommodation since January 2019 . My rented accommodation is a separate house from house no.525, Gali No.6A, Zakir Nagar, New Delhi. It has been argued that PW-2 Ms. Nazma Malik has deliberately and malafidely gave false evidence that she received Rs.10000/- from Shamim Zafar whereas the alleged cheque of Rs. 10000/- was given to her by Daulat Ali and that both JD nos. 1&2 i.e. Dilawar Hussain Malik and Nazma were owners of suit property. By making false statements on oath, filing false affidavits and producing false documents etc. as evidence in this court and also playing fraud upon this Hon'ble Court as well as misleading the court and trying to induce this Hon'ble Court by way of false averments and false documents, Ms. Nazma has prima facie has committed criminal affences punishable u/s 191/193/200 of the IPC in accordance with sections 195/340 of the Cr.P.C. It is prayed to initiate criminal action u/s 195 / 340 Cr.P.C. for the commissions of offences under sections 191/193/200 of the IPC and under any other and more relevant provisions of the law against JD No.2 and PW-2 Ms. Nazma Malik for making false averments on oath, filing false affidavits and making/ producing false documents as evidence etc. JD no. 2 has not comeforward to file reply to the application.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Considering the fact that objector has failed to prove her title qua the suit property and nothing has come on record to EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 27/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK Digitally signed by PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2024.12.20 17:45:37 +0530 prove the collusion between DH and JD, it does not seem to be "expedient in the interests of justice" to initiate any proceedings against the objector and accordingly, the application of objector Digitally signed by stands dismissed. PRABHDEEP PRABHDEEP KAUR KAUR Date: 2024.12.20 17:45:43 +0530 Typed to the direct dictation and (Prabh Deep Kaur) announced in the open court DJ-05, South East Saket Courts, on this 20th December, 2024 New Delhi EX/9939/2016 CIS No. DLSE010094432016 Page no. 28/28 M. No. 24/24CIS No. DLSE01-012115-2024 Dated 20.12.2024 SHAMIM ZAFAR Vs. DILAWAR HUSSAIN MALIK