Delhi District Court
Sh Inder Mohan Jha vs Sh Ram Vishesh Jha Since Deceased ... on 30 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN,
DISTRICT JUDGE-2, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 15/2023
CNR No. DLNE01-001667-2023
Inder Mohan Jha
S/o Sh. Sri Chand Jha
R/o B-14, Gali No. 4,
Pradhan Wali Gali, Dagarpur Mohalla,
Johripur, Shahdara, Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased)
Through his legal representatives
1. Ranju Devi
W/o Late Ram Vishesh Jha
2. Hare Ram Jha
S/o Late Ram Vishesh Jha
3. Meenu Kumari
D/o Late Ram Vishesh Jha
4. Puja Kumari
D/o Late Ram Vishesh Jha
5. Manisha
D/o Late Ram Vishesh Jha
6. Nandni
D/o Late Ram Vishesh Jha
All residents of C-77, Anand Vihar,
Delhi.
RCA No. 15/2023
Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 1 of 28
Also at:-
H. No. B-15, Gali No. 4,
Pradhan Wali Gali, Dagarpur Mohalla,
Johripur, Shahdara, Delhi.
..... Respondents
Date of filing of the present appeal : 07.06.2023 Date of completion of Final Arguments : 28.04.2025 Date of Judgment : 30.04.2025 Final Decision : Dismissed JUDGMENT-in-APPEAL
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant (plaintiff, before the Learned Trial Court) against the impugned order and judgment, both dated 06.05.2023, titled as Inder Mohan Jha vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased, through his legal representatives) in Civil Suit number 105479/2015. The suit of the appellant was dismissed by the Court of the then Learned Senior Civil Judge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be denoted as they were before Learned Trial Court. Appellant, herein Sh. Inder Mohan Jha as plaintiff and respondent (s) that is Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased, through his legal representatives that are (i) Smt. Ranju Devi, (ii) Sh. Hare Ram Jha, (iii) Ms. Meenu Kumari, (iv) Ms. Puja Kumari, (v) Ms. Manisha and (vi) Ms. Nandni.
Plaint
3. Brief facts, as stated in the plaint, are that the defendant Late Ram RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 2 of 28 Vishesh Jha is the elder brother of plaintiff. It is stated that the property bearing H. No. B-15, Gali number 4, Pradhan Wali Gali, Dagarpur Mohalla, Johripur, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) was purchased jointly by plaintiff and defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in the year 1996 vide General Power of Attorney, sale deed and Will, all dated 17.04.1996. It is stated that all the aforesaid documents were duly executed at Delhi by it's previous owner, namely, Sh. Ved Prakash in favour of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha. It is further stated that though all these documents were executed in favour of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha, however, the consideration amount for the purchase of suit property was paid equally by both the parties. Therefore, plaintiff had the same rights over the suit property as the defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha. It is further stated that the plaintiff was in possession of complete property consisting of three rooms, one toilet, one kitchen and other open space on the ground floor and open terrace having one bathroom on the first floor since the inception of ownership of suit property in the year 1996. It is further stated that the plaintiff was using one room in the suit property for the purposes of his business and got installed the set up for his cable Television business over there. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha alongwith his family was staying at C-90, Anand Vihar, Delhi and moved into the suit property only in the month of June 2012. At that time, plaintiff had to vacate some part of suit property to make sufficient accommodation for defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha. It is further stated that the plaintiff kept two rooms in his possession and carried on his business from there only.
3.1. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha with an ulterior motive and malafide intention tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the aforesaid premises forcefully and illegally. It is further stated that the RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 3 of 28 plaintiff being aggrieved and frightened by the acts of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha, tried to mediate and resolve the dispute by way of family settlement. It is further stated that the plaintiff in the month of June 2012, approached the elders and other members of the family and sought their interference to resolve the dispute. It is further stated that a meeting was held, on 17.06.2012, and with the help and presence of elders and relatives in the family, both the parties arrived at a mutual settlement and a settlement was recorded in writing and the same was signed by plaintiff as well as by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha, whereby defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha was given the western portion of plot and the plaintiff was given the eastern portion of the suit property. It is further stated that consequent upon the aforesaid settlement, dated 17.06.2012, defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha and plaintiff had also executed a mutual agreement, on 03.07.2012 which was also duly signed by both the parties to the agreement and was duly notarized. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had clearly stated in clause 1 of the mutual agreement that the plaintiff and defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha were co-owners of the suit property being owners of 25.5 square yards each. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had also mentioned that he had given the rights of 8.64 square yards of suit property to the plaintiff through General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, et cetera and would purchase the plaintiff's remaining part of suit property having an area of 16.86 square yards for a total consideration of rupees 5,48,793/-. 3.2. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had executed a registered General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, Will, possession letter, undertaking and receipts, all dated 03.07.2012 in favour of plaintiff regarding an area of 8.64 square yards (part of suit property). It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had also paid an RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 4 of 28 amount of rupees 1,08,793/- (rupees 90,000/- by way of cheque bearing number 250999, dated 03.07.2012, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch and rupees 18,793/- in cash) to the plaintiff as earnest money for the purchase of plaintiff's part having an area of 16.86 square yards of the suit property out of total consideration of rupees 5,48,793/-. It is further stated that the remaining consideration amount was to be paid by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha , on 18.09.2012, which he failed to pay to the plaintiff. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha with malafide intention not only tried to grab the plaintiff's property, but, also tried to implicate in false and vexatious litigations to harass and torture the plaintiff. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha to achieve the said goal had filed a vexatious suit bearing number CS 196/2012 titled as Ram Vishesh Jha v. Inder Mohan Jha for permanent injunction. It is further stated that the plaintiff/appellant also sent a legal notice to defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha thereby seeking the mutation of 25.5 square yards of the suit property in his favour within 15 days of receipt of notice as per the mutual agreement, dated 03.07.2012 entered into between both the parties. It is further stated that Counsel for plaintiff received a reply to the legal notice, dated 15.10.2012, sent by Counsel for defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha, on 17.10.2012, and the same was duly received. It is further stated that on 24.09.2012, some people visited the suit property, while, plaintiff was present and on enquiry, it was revealed that those people were potential buyers, who were interested in buying the suit property. It is further stated that plaintiff then made enquiries with the local dealers and it was revealed that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha was trying to dispose of the suit property illegally. It is further stated that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of his 25.5 square yards of the suit property and is having legitimate apprehension of being dispossessed RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 5 of 28 illegally and defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha may grab his valuable property. It is therefore, requested in the plaint, that a decree of permanent injunction alongwith decree of declaration be passed.
Written statement
4. Defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had contested the suit by filing his written statement in which apart from denying contentions raised by the plaintiff in his plaint, it is stated that the site plan filed by the plaintiff does not mention/show the correct position of the property under the occupation of plaintiff hence, is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is further stated that the plaintiff had filed the present suit in order to achieve the ownership right over the property is not under his possession and the documents itself show that the abovesaid property was purchased by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha and the plaintiff has no any legal right to get the ownership right over the property which is in the name of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha. It is further stated that the documents filed by the plaintiff such as mutual agreement upon which the plaintiff claims to be the owner of half of the portion of the suit property itself speaks of it's fictitiousness and the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had purchased the property in question from his own funds and resources, who later on, as per his requirement, raised the construction thereon with his own earned funds. It is further stated that all the abovementioned documents are in favour of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha and the plaintiff had not paid any amount in purchasing the abovesaid property hence, the plaintiff could not claim his share over the property in question. It is further stated that the title documents and the consideration receipt are in favour of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha since the entire sale consideration amount and the RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 6 of 28 amount spent on the construction was also borne by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha. It is further stated that the plaintiff was allowed to run his cable business in a room constructed on 8.64 square yards of the abovesaid property, but, later on was transferred by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha to the plaintiff which defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had admitted. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had executed the documents only in respect of 8.64 square yards portion in favour of plaintiff. It is further stated that the amount given by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha to the plaintiff as a financial assistance for the business purpose of plaintiff with the assurance that the same would be returnable. It is therefore requested that the suit of plaintiff be dismissed.
Replication
5. Replication to the written statement of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha was filed by plaintiff which is essentially a reiteration of the averments in the plaint and denial of contentions in the written statement.
Issues
6. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.02.2014 framed the following issues to dispose of the suit of plaintiff:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
(iii) Relief Evidence of plaintiffs/appellants
7. Thereafter, plaintiff has led his piece of evidence. Plaintiff Sh. Inder RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 7 of 28 Mohan Jha has got examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the facts as are mentioned by him in his plaint. Thereafter, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.P1 and relied upon the following documents that are site plan as Ex.PW1/1, copy of letter obtained from the department of post in the year 2003, 2007 and 2011 as Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (OSR), copy of telephone bill as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR), copy of cooking gas bill as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR), copy of ration card of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR), copy of voter ID card of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR), copy of family settlement, dated 17.06.2012 as Ex.PW1/7 (OSR), copy of mutual agreement, dated 03.07.2012 as Ex.PW1/8 (OSR), copy of registered General Power of Attorney as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR), copy of agreement to sell as Ex.PW1/10 (OSR), copy of possession letter as Ex.PW1/11 (OSR), receipt for an amount of rupees 2,75,000/- as Ex.PW1/12 (OSR), Will as Ex.PW1/13 (OSR), undertaking given by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha as Ex.PW1/14 (OSR), copy of cheque bearing number 250999, dated 03.07.2012, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar Branch as Ex.PW1/15, inspection receipt, dated 18.09.2012 as Ex.PW1/16 (OSR), copy of suit filed by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha bearing CS number 196/2012 as Ex.PW1/17, copy of order, dated 28.09.2012 as Ex.PW1/18, copy of legal notice, dated 24.09.2012 as Ex.PW1/19, postal receipt as Ex.PW1/20, reply, dated 15.10.2012 as Ex.PW1/21 and copy of status report filed by the Investigating Officer Surender Pal Singh as Ex.PW1/22. PW1 was extensively cross examined by Learned Counsel for defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha.
During the course of his cross examination, PW1 submitted that he is having the passbook of bank account which would prove that money was withdrawn by him to be paid to the defendant, but, despite opportunities given, the same was never produced. PW1 has also admitted RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 8 of 28 that the family settlement, dated 17.06.2012 which is Ex.PW1/7 did not bear the signatures of his mother as well as the legal heirs of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha. PW1 also submitted that nowhere in Ex.PW1/7, it is mentioned that it is a family settlement.
7.1. Sh. Daya Nand Thakur @ Daya Nand Jha was examined as PW2. PW2 in his examination in chief deposed that he knew the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent for last more than 20 years. PW2 further stated that the plaintiff and defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had purchased the suit property in the year 1996 vide General Power of Attorney, sale deed and Will, all dated 17.04.1996 from it's previous owner, Sh. Ved Prakash in favour of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha due to some family settlement. PW2 further deposed that he had signed those documents as witness. PW2 further deposed that on 17.06.2012, a family meeting was held to resolve the dispute between the parties and a mutual settlement was arrived at. PW2 further deposed that he signed that settlement dated 17.06.2012 and 03.07.2012 as witness at point B respectively. Thereafter, PW2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/A and relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/10, Ex.PW1/12, Ex.PW1/13 in the testimony of PW1. PW2 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for defendant. During the course of his cross examination, PW2 showed his ignorance with respect to any settlement reduced in writing qua the purchase of the suit property. PW2 further submitted that the consideration amount of the suit property was not given in his presence. 7.2. Sh. Rajender Singh was examined as PW3. PW3 during the course of his examination in chief deposed that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha alongwith his family was staying at C-90, Anand Vihar, Delhi and moved in the suit property in the month of June 2012. PW3 further deposed that RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 9 of 28 he signed the settlement, dated 03.07.2012 at point B as a witness. PW3 thereafter tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/A and relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/9, Ex.PW1/10 Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/12, Ex.PW1/13 in the testimony of PW1. PW3 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for defendant. PW3 during the course of his cross examination submitted that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that defendant had given the consideration amount in respect of the property for which General Power of Attorney Ex.CW1/9 was prepared.
7.3. Sh. Gopal Dutt, Record Keeper, Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Delhi was examined as PW4. PW4 produced the summoned record that is registered General Power of Attorney, dated 03.07.2012 executed by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in favour of plaintiff Sh. Inder Mohan Jha which was registered, on 05.07.2012 vide registration number 968, book- IV, volume number 10847, running in pages bearing number 172 to 175. The copy of same is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR). 7.4. Sh. Praveen Kumar was examined as PW5. PW5 in his examination in chief deposed that he knew the plaintiff Sh. Inder Mohan Jha for last more than 10 years as he was staying in the suit property. PW5 further deposed that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha alongwith his family was not staying in the suit property instead they were staying at C-90, Anand Vihar, Delhi and moved in the suit property in the month of June 2012. PW5 further deposed that a dispute with respect to the suit property arose between the plaintiff Sh. Inder Mohan Jha and defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha. PW5 further deposed that on 17.06.2012, a family meeting was held to resolve the dispute between plaintiff Sh. Inder Mohan Jha and defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha with respect to the suit property and with the help of elders and relatives in the family, both plaintiff and defendant RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 10 of 28 Late Ram Vishesh Jha had arrived at a mutual settlement. PW5 further deposed that the settlement was recorded in writing and the same was signed by both the parties in presence of PW5 and PW5 had also signed the abovesaid mutual agreement as witness. PW5 further deposed that the document that is family settlement, dated 17.06.2012 Ex.PW1/7 bearing the signature of PW5 at point C. Thereafter, PW5 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW5/A and relied upon the document already exhibited as Ex.PW1/7 in the testimony of PW1. PW5 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for defendant. During the course of his cross examination, PW5 submitted that he did not remember in whose handwriting the said document Ex. PW1/7 was executed/prepared. 7.5. Retired Sub Inspector Surender Pal Singh was examined as PW6. PW6 produced the summoned record that is copy of status report, dated 14.02.2013 which was filed by PW6 before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit bearing number 47159/2015 titled as Inder Mohan Jha vs. Ram Vishesh Jha and the same is Mark A (colly, two pages). PW6 further deposed that when the aforesaid status report was filed, he was posted at Police Station Gokulpuri as Assistant Sub Inspector, North East.
7.6. Sh. Narender Singh, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Johripur Branch, Shiv Vihar, Delhi was examined as PW7. PW7 produced the summoned record that is attested copy of cheque pertaining to account number 3980000100002256 and bearing number 250999, dated 03.07.2015 in the sum of rupees 90,000/-, drawn upon Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092 issued by Ram Vishesh in favour of Inder Mohan. The same is Ex.PW7/A. The aforesaid cheque was credited in the name of Inder Mohan's account bearing number 3980000100002122.
RCA No. 15/2023Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 11 of 28 7.7. Sh. Santosh Kumar, Ahlmad posted in the Court of Sh. Nitesh Kumar Sharma, the then Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi was examined as PW8. PW8 produced the summoned record that is judicial file/record of the matter titled as Inder Mohan Jha v. Ram Vishesh Jha, Complaint Case number 47159/2015 containing the original status report, dated 14.02.2016 which was filed by Investigating Officer Assistant Sub Inspector Surender Pal Singh before Learned Predecessor Court of Sh. Jitendra Singh, the then Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The said report is Ex.PW8/1 (OSR).
Defendants'/respondents' evidence
8. After completion of plaintiff's evidence, defendants/respondents had led their piece of evidence. Defendant/appellant number 1 Ms. Ranju Devi herself stepped into the witness box as DW1. In her evidence, DW1 reiterated the same facts as are mentioned by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in his written statement which are not repeated herein. Thereafter, she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the following documents that are Special Power of Attorney dated 17.11.2021 as Ex.DW1/1, General Power of Attorney dated 17.04.1996 as Ex.DW1/2 (OSR), agreement to sell dated 17.04.1996 as Ex.DW1/3 (OSR), receipt dated 17.04.1996 as Ex.DW1/4 (OSR), Will dated 17.04.1996 as Ex.DW1/5 (OSR), electricity bill dated 21.08.2012 as Ex.DW1/6, site plan as Ex.DW1/7, suit titled as Ram Vishesh Jha Vs. Inder Mohan Jha as Ex.DW1//8, police complaint dated 01.09.2012 as Ex.DW1/9, proof of service as Ex.DW1/10, copy of cheque, dated 21.08.2012 as Mark A, electricity bill dated 05.11.2021 as Ex.DW1/12 (OSR), death certificate of Ram Vishesh Jha as Ex.DW1/13 (OSR), RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 12 of 28 passbook of LR Ugan Kumar Jha as Ex.DW1/14 (OSR), MCD Tax receipt as Ex.DW1/15 (OSR), book of Aakash Gas Service as Ex.DW1/16 (OSR), election Identity Card of LR Ugan Kumar Jha as Ex.DW1/17 (OSR), election Identity Card of LR Abha as Ex.DW1/18 (OSR), ration card of LR Ranju Devi as Ex.DW1/20 (OSR), adhaar card of LR Abha as Ex.DW1/21 (OSR), election Identity Card of LR Ranju Devi as Ex.DW1/22 (OSR), adhaar card of LR Ugan kumar Jha as Ex.DW1/23 (OSR), birth certificate of LR Raghav Kumar Ray as Ex.DW1/24 (OSR) and adhaar card of LR Naina Jha as Ex.DW1/25 (OSR).
DW1 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for plaintiff/appellant. During the course of her cross examination, DW1 denied the suggestion that the plaintiff had contributed towards the purchase of suit property or that of construction.
8.1. Sh. Vidhya Nand Jha was examined as DW2. DW2 during the course of his examination in chief deposed that the defendant was the owner of the suit property and had purchased it from his own earnings from Sh. Ved Prakash. DW2 stated that no family settlement ever took place between plaintiff and deceased defendant. Thereafter, DW2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW2/A and relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex.DW1/2 to Ex.DW1/5 in the testimony of DW1. DW1 was cross examined at length by Learned Counsel for plaintiff/appellant.
Finding of Learned Trial Court
9. After, hearing the final arguments, Learned Trial Court, while, relying upon wide array of the judgments which are Jaydayal Poddar & Anr. v Mst. Bibi Hazra & Ors. reported as AIR 1974 SC 171, Valliammal (D) by LRs. v Subramaniam & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4187 observed that there RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 13 of 28 is a presumption in law that the person who purchases the property is the owner of the same. Learned Trial Court had further observed that the heavy burden lies on the person who pleads that recorded owner is a benami holder which in the overall circumstances of the case that is in the light of the testimonies of the witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant has not been proved by the plaintiff/appellant. Learned Trial Court had further observed that even the conduct of the parties does not indicate about the benami character/transaction. Learned Trial Court also observed that the alleged family settlement that is Ex.PW1/7 as well as the mutual agreement which is Ex.PW1/8 have not been proved as in accordance with law and therefore, cannot be acted upon. Accordingly, the plaintiff/appellant was not entitled for any relief prayed in the suit and the suit of the plaintiff/appellant dismissed.
Grounds of appeal
10. Later on, the plaintiff/appellant aggrieved by the aforementioned decision preferred this appeal in which once again, he has reiterated the contents of plaint, written statement and evidence. Alongwith this, it is stated that the impugned order and judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court are bad in law as well as in facts. It is stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that though all the documents in respect of the property were executed in favour of defendant/respondent only, but, the consideration amount for the suit property was paid equally by both the parties. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the Family Settlement, dated 17.06.2012, Ex.PW1/7 was genuinely executed by both the parties for settling their disputes though the same was denied by the defendant before the Learned Trial Court as it was duly acted upon by execution of mutual agreement thereafter, on RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 14 of 28 03.07.2012 which was also signed by both the parties and was duly registered before the Notary Public. Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the wife of deceased defendant/respondent admitted defendant's/respondent's signatures on mutual agreement, dated 03.07.2012, Ex.PW1/8 in which it was clearly mentioned that the said property purchased by both the parties equally though the second party (plaintiff/appellant herein) did not involve in the registration, but, second party was the owner of 25.5 square yards that is half of the suit property. Learned Trial Court further failed to appreciate that the mutual agreement, dated 03.07.2012 was duly acted upon by execution of the General Power of Attorney, dated 03.07.2012 Ex.PW1/9 by defendant Late Ram Visheh Jha in favour of plaintiff/appellant with respect to 8.64 square yards in the suit property which was also signed by both the parties and was duly registered before the Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur, apart from other set of documents like agreement to sale Ex.PW1/10, possession letter Ex.PW1/11, receipt Ex.PW1/12, Will Ex.PW1/13 and undertaking Ex.PW1/14, all dated 03.07.2012 by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in favour of plaintiff/appellant.
10.1. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the mutual agreement, dated 03.07.2012 was duly acted upon by issuance of cheque, dated 03.07.2012 for an amount of rupees 90,000/- by the defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha which was duly credited into the account of plaintiff/appellant. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had wrongly held that the mutual agreement required registration within the meaning of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 or since it was not registered, it could be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that besides electricity connection in RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 15 of 28 the name of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha, there was no other evidence/proof to establish the possession with the defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha qua the suit property. However, the plaintiff/appellant was in possession of the aforesaid property and the same can be verified from the telephone bills, cooking gas bills, ration card, voter identity card, which were exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/6. All these documents in the name of plaintiff/appellant contained the address of the subject property as the residential address of plaintiff/appellant. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that PW2 Sh. Daya Nand Thakur and PW3 Sh. Rajender Singh, both had admitted their signatures on the mutual agreement, dated 03.07.2012. It is further stated that the signatures of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha on most of the documents were admitted by DW1 in her cross examination which prove that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha had not approached the Learned Trial Court with clean hands and their story could not be relied upon. 10.2. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the Special Power of Attorney executed in favour of wife of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha by remaining legal heirs of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha was defective and not valid as the stamp paper for the same was purchased after the said Special Power of Attorney was signed and notarized. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha/respondents had not produced any document in his/their name prior to 2014 showing their possession over the suit property. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the second and also the last witness of defendant that is DW2 admitted the case of plaintiff/appellant in his cross examination. Learned Counsel for plaintiff/appellant has also relied upon the variety of judgments to substantiate his multiple claims which are as RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 16 of 28 follows:- Thulasidhara & Anr. v Narayanappa & Ors. (2019) 6 SCC 409, Subraya M.N. v Vittala M.N. & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 705 and Raghunath v Phulbasia & Ors. (2020) 1 CGLJ 1. All of them have been perused very carefully viz-a-vis facts of the case. These seem not apply to the peculiar facts of the present case. It is therefore requested that the impugned order and judgment, both dated 06.05.2023, titled as Inder Mohan Jha vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased, through his legal representatives) in Civil Suit number 105479/2015 then Learned Senior Civil Judge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi be set aside.
Reply to the appeal
11. Reply to the appeal has been filed on behalf of defendants/respondents in which apart from denying the allegations of plaintiff/appellant, it is stated that the suit property is in the name of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha, since 17.04.1996, by way of documents viz. General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell, receipt, all dated 17.04.1996. It is stated that the plea of plaintiff/appellant that he had contributed in the purchase of suit property as well as the relief sought in the suit appears to be barred by section 4 (a) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 are not valid. It is further stated that it was the defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha who had been in possession of suit property and was also having the custody of title documents. It is further stated that the ostensible title of suit property in a fiduciary capacity qua his younger brother, who had failed to show that he ever had made contribution towards the sale consideration paid for the acquisition of said property which as per the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment of Jai Dayal Poddar & Anr. v Mst. Bibi Hazra & Anr. is the most important test for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 17 of 28 reality for the benefit of another. It is further stated that the plaintiff/appellant had based his suit on the document Ex.PW1/7 as claimed was a family settlement, but, failed to prove the genuineness of the document. It is further stated that the plaintiff/appellant had also failed to prove that by whom the document was purported to be signed, by whom it was drafted and also failed to prove that the alleged document Ex.PW1/7 was signed by remaining family members of plaintiff/appellant. It is further stated that in the mutual agreement as well as further documents like General Power of Attorney et cetera upon which the plaintiff/appellant is claiming 8.64 square yards in the suit property, it is mentioned that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha was the actual owner and in possession of the entire suit property. It is further stated that had the plaintiff/appellant would be the co-owner then there was no need of purchasing the property from the deceased defendant, but, now on the contrary it is proved that he had never been the co-owner of suit property and only for the sake of running his cable business, some part of the land as 8.64 square yards, out of total property was allowed to be used by him by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha. It is therefore requested that the present appeal be dismissed.
Arguments
12. I have heard the arguments from both sides on the grounds of appeals in detail and perused the impugned order and judgment as well as evidence adduced by both parties including the written submissions.
Written submissions on behalf of plaintiff/appellant 12.1. In the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff/appellant, he has reiterated the contents of plaint, written statement and evidence. Apart from this, it is stated by plaintiff/appellant that the family settlement, dated 17.06.2012 was genuinely executed by both the parties to the suit for RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 18 of 28 settling their disputes and it was duly acted upon by execution of mutual agreement thereafter, on 03.07.2012, which was also signed by both the parties and was duly registered before the Notary Public. It is further stated that the family settlements are not required to be compulsorily registered and stamp duty is not required to be paid in respect of the same. It is further stated that the wife of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in her cross examination admitted the deceased defendant's signatures on mutual agreement, dated 03.07.2012, in which it was clearly mentioned that the said property was purchased by both the parties equally though the second party (plaintiff/appellant herein) did not involve in the registration, but, second party is the owner of 25.5 square yards that is half of the suit property. It is further stated that the mutual agreement, dated 03.07.2012, was duly acted upon can be seen from the fact of execution of General Power of Attorney, dated 03.07.2012 by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in favour of plaintiff/appellant with respect to 8.64 square yards of suit property which was also signed by both the parties and was duly registered before the Sub Registrar-IV Seelampur; apart from other set of documents like agreement to sale, possession letter, receipt, Will and undertaking, all dated 03.07.2012 by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in favour of plaintiff/appellant. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had wrongly held that the mutual agreement required registration within the meaning of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 or since it was not registered it cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Though, all the title documents in respect of the suit property were executed in favour of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jah only, but, the consideration amount for the suit property was paid equally by both the parties. It is further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence and cross examination of the witnesses. It is RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 19 of 28 further stated that the Learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the Special Power of Attorney executed in favour of wife of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha by the remaining legal heirs of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha is defective. It is further stated that DW2 was an interested witness. It is further stated that defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in his written statement filed before the Learned Trial Court had denied all the documents filed by the plaintiff/appellant bearing signatures of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha just to harass the plaintiff/appellant. Learned Counsel for plaintiff/appellant has relied upon the judgments titled as Himani Wali v Hemant Walia & Ors. 2022 SCC Online Del 893 and Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh (2013) 11 SCC
531. All these judgments have been perused very carefully. These judgments do not apply to the present facts and circumstances.
Written submissions on behalf of defendants/respondents 12.2. On the other hand, in the written submissions filed on behalf of defendants/respondents, apart from reiterating the reply to the appeal, it is stated that the document, that is, family settlement Ex.PW1/7, must have been signed by all the parties having interest in the said property other then the family members thus, it is proved that the family settlement was in reality not a family settlement. It is further stated that since the plaintiff/appellant could not produce any document in order to demonstrate the source of his income and of paying consideration amount in purchasing the suit property therefore, there was no hesitation to submit that at the time of purchasing the suit property, the plaintiff/appellant was not earning. On the contrary, defendants/respondents placed witness Sh. Vidyanand Jha as DW2 who had well confirmed that the suit property was purchased by defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha in the year 1996 from one Sh. Ved Prakash and the consideration price was paid by defendant Late RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 20 of 28 Ram Vishesh Jha only. It is further stated that it is well settled proposition of law that the family settlement could be acted upon if one has lawful right over the property. When, there is no lawful right of the parties over the property there was no occasion to file the suit on the basis of family settlement. It is further stated that the plaintiff/appellant for the reason best known to him had failed to examine any official to substantiate his claim that he had also paid contribution towards the purchase of suit property. It is further stated that in response to the possession of the parties and the relationship between the parties, it is stated that this is an admitted fact that the parties were real brothers, however, this relationship between the parties is not sufficient as all the defendants/respondents held the ostensible title of the suit property in a fiduciary capacity qua his younger brother who had failed to show that he ever had made contribution towards the sale consideration paid for the acquisition of the said property.
Analysis and Findings
13. To start with, the following points of determination were framed:-(i) Whether the impugned order and judgment, both dated 06.05.2023, passed by the then Learned Senior Civil Judge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi is not in accordance with law? and (ii) or in particular, whether, the suit of the plaintiff/appellant is not maintainable in light of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988? Both these issues have been taken up together for disposal being overlapping in nature. First of all it is to be noted that it is the plaintiff who has to establish his/her case and he/she will not automatically succeed merely because of the failure of the defendant to establish his/her defence. In Halsbury, volume 17, page 11, it is observed that there are at least two distinct senses in which burden of proof is used, and clarity over which sense is relevant at any given time is RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 21 of 28 essential. Further, in phipson on Evidence, 13th Edn, p 44, para 4-03, it is observed that the phrase burden of proof has three meanings, (1) the persuasive burden, the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading the burden of establishing a case, whether by preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) The evidential burden, the burden of proof in the sense of adducing evidence and (3) the burden of establishing the admissibility of evidence. The legal burden is the burden of proof which remains constant throughout a trial. The incidence of this burden is usually clear from the pleadings, it usually being incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove what he contends. Thus, burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff and it is he/she who has to prove the fact and it never shifts, while the onus shifts. A party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his/her submissions made in the plaint. There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. Also, whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of "proved", "disproved" and "not proved", as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the evaluation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule, which makes the difference. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. In such a suit, plaintiff has to create a high degree of probability so as shift the onus on the defendants. Thereafter, the result of the suit depends upon the evaluation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule. Reliance is placed upon A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr, (2003) 8 SCC 752.
RCA No. 15/2023Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 22 of 28 13.1. Coming forward, with respect to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the relevant provisions are section 2(a), 3(2)(a) & 4 which are reproduced herein for the convenience of the reference:-
Definitions.-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- "2(a) "Benami transaction" means any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person;
"(3) Prohibition of benami transactions- (2) Nothing in Sub-section (I) shall apply to-
(a) the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter;
"4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami.-
(3)(b) Where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held for the benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity."
4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami- (1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.
(2) Xxxxxxxxxxx (3) Nothing in this section shall apply,-- (a) where the person in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family; or (b) where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity, and the property is held for the benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity.
13.2. Hon'ble, Supreme Court, way back in the year 1989, held/observed in Mithilesh Kumari v. Prem Behari Khare AIR 1989 SC 1247, which was re-affirmed, in Prabodh Chandra Ghosh v. Urmila Dassi AIR 2000 SC 2534, that in the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988, any suit with RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 23 of 28 the claim of right inheriting in the real owner in respect of any property held benami would not be enforceable after the enactment of the Act, 1988 even if such transaction had been entered into prior to the date of the enactment of the Act. Thus, any suit to enforce the right in the property held benami, if, pending prior to the Act, but, in case any suit brought after the enactment of the Act will not be entertainable on account of the fact that law has come into been prohibiting the enforcement of the right in the benami property. The intention of the passing of the Benami Act can be gathered from section 7 of the Act which repealed the provisions of sections 81, 82 and 94 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. The latter provisions of the Trust Act once gave statutory recognition and protection to the benami transactions by calling such transaction protected by a relationship of trust. In J.M. Kohli vs. Madan Mohan Sahni & Anr, RFA No. 207/2012, decided on 07.05.2012, it was specifically mentioned that the expression fiduciary relationship and the relation of the trust now cannot be so interpreted so as to infact negate the Benami Act, itself, because all the benami transactions actually are in the nature of trust and created a fiduciary relationship. Section 7 of the Benami Act specifically repeals these certain provisions hence, the relationship of trust comprise in such provisions necessarily would be excluded from the sweep of the expression trust/fiduciary relationship found in section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Act because what is excluded by section 7 of the Benami Act cannot be included in section 4 (3)(b) of the Benami Act. Also, it is clear in the Act that no defence based on any right in respect of the property held benami whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall be allowed in any suit claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of the such property. Reliance is placed upon Dr. Om Prakash Rawal v. Mr. Justice Amrit Lal RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 24 of 28 Bahri, AIR 1994 HP, Smt. Nirmala Devi v. Shri Karam Chand, Civil Revision No. 45/1992, decided on 01.05.1992, Manoj Gupta v. Mrs. Manju Rani & Ors, RSA No. 53/2011, decided on 22.03.2011, Anil Bhasin v. Vijay Kumar Bhasin & Ors., 2003 (67) DRJ 174, decided on 20.08.2002, Dr. Manjeet Singh Anand etc. v. Sh. Sarabjit Singh Anand & Ors., CM Appl. No. 2518/2008, decided on 16.07.2009.
13.3. Further, section 4 (3) (b), of the Benami Act, protected the rights of the real owner where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in the fiduciary capacity. Corpus Juris secundum mentions the term fiduciary as something which is the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity of the party trusted, rather then his credit or ability, and has been held to apply to all the persons to occupy a position peculiar confidence towards others, and to include those informal relations which exits whenever one party trusts and relies on another, as well as technical fiduciary relations. Section 4 (3)(b), therefore, be interpreted in the sense that a person or trustee who is holding a property in fiduciary capacity has either committed a fraud or got the property in his name or is in furtherence of law holding the property in his name, however, in the capacity of trustee or in fiduciary capacity although the real owner is somebody else. Thus, in certain cases where there is oblivious breach of trust in purchasing of property in the name of a person, whereas it ought to have been purchased in the name of the principal or the real owner. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such actions are covered under section 4 (3)(b) of the Benami Transaction Act. Reliance is placed upon C. Gangacharan v. C. Narayanan, 2000 (U) SCC 459, P.V. Sankara Kurup v. Leelavathy Mambiar, 1994 (6) SCC 68 and CBSE v. Adiya Bandopadhyay, 2 (2011) 8 SCC 497. Adverting, to the facts of the present RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 25 of 28 case, plaintiff/appellant has though pleaded in the plaint and later on, deposed in his affidavit of evidence, that he had also contributed in purchase the suit property in the name of his brother that is defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha, but, miserably failed to file any relevant document qua the alleged movement of consideration in that regard to rely upon. Analysis of Learned Trial Court to that extent needs no intervention. 13.4. Moving further, it needs to be emphasized here that the relevant provisions qua the Transfer of Property Act/Stamp Act/Registration Act viz. Section 53A and Section 54 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 27 of the Stamp Act, 1899, Section 17 and Section 49 of The Registration Act, 1908 have not been followed and no documents in confirmation of these sections have been produced. Admittedly, no sale deed either in favour of plaintiff/appellant or say defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha or even in favour of, admitted erstwhile owner, is in existence/placed on record. It is not out of place here to specify that Hon'ble Superior Courts time and again reiterated that the Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsorily registration under the Act would not confer any legally enforceable right and as such no right would be transferred with respect to the immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered or even say registered agreement to sell, Power of Attorney et cetera. In other words, it can be said that no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be conferred without the registered documents. Embargo, put on the registration of the documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer the title on the basis of unregistered documents. Reference may be made on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr, 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC), Ameer Minhaj vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar & Ors., (2018) 7 SCC 639, Balram Singh vs. Kela Devi, Civil Appeal No. RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 26 of 28 6733/2022 and M/s. Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr., SLP (C ) No. 15774/2022 and Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, Civil Appeal No. 1598/2023, decided on 01.11.2023. At the same time, it is also settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he/she himself/herself possesses, the principle is that no one can confer a better title than what he/she himself/herself has. Reliance is placed upon Union of India & Ors. v Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 269 and P. Kishore Kumar vs Vittal K. Patkar, Civil Appeal No. 7210/2011 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 20.11.2023. Thus, when the title of defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha or say any of erstwhile, owners of the property in view of above discussion is not proved as according to the prevailing law then in those circumstances how can either the defendant Late Ram Vishesh Jha or even the present plaintiff/appellant is entitled to enter into any family settlement/mutual agreement qua the suit property. Alongwith that documents especially, family settlement as well as mutual agreement in the present case cannot be said to contain such compromise which does not embody any terms of agreement, but, merely conveying information to the Court that family arrangement had already been arrived at between parties and thus, did not require registration. In the overall circumstances such unregistered family settlement/mutual agreement may be used for some collateral purpose, but, cannot be used to establish right, title, interest over the suit property. Reliance is placed upon Shri Rajesh Chandra Sood v Umesh Chandra Sood, decided on 20.03.2002 by the Hon'ble Delhi Court and Kale & Ors. v Deputy Director Of Consolidation & Ors. 1976 AIR 807, Awadh Narain Singh & Ors. v Narain Mishra & Ors. AIR 1962 PAT 400 and Roshan Singh & Ors. v Zile Singh & Ors, (1988) 2 SCR Page 1106. Therefore, in the totality of RCA No. 15/2023 Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 27 of 28 circumstances and in view of above discussion, it can be safely said that in the absence of relevant documents plaintiff/appellant has not been able to discharge the burden of proof lying upon him. The appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Court suffer from no infirmity or illegality for which the same should be set aside. Hence, the impugned order and judgment, both dated 06.05.2023, are hereby upheld.
14. TCR be sent back with the copy of this judgment.
15. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
MANU Digitally signed by MANU
VEDWAN
VEDWAN Date: 2025.04.30 15:59:02
+0530
(Manu Vedwan)
District Judge-02 (North East District)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 30th April, 2025
RCA No. 15/2023
Inder Mohan Jha Vs. Ram Vishesh Jha (since deceased) through his legal representatives Page No. 28 of 28