Delhi District Court
Shri Balbir Singh Bhola vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02:
NORTH ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-001740-2016
CS(COMM.) 147/2020
(Old CS No. 25/16)
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SHRI BALBIR SINGH BHOLA
S/O LATE SHRI MANGAL SINGH
R/O C-56, MAHENDROO ENCLAVE,
GT KARNAL ROAD, GALI NO. 3,
DELHI-110009 ........Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VIKAS SADAN, In.N.A. MARKET,
NEW DELHI.
2. SHRI MAHENDER SINGH,
S/O SHRI MANGAL SINGH,
R/O C-78A, BLOCK C,
MAHENDROO ENCLAVE,
DELHI-110009
3. SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,
S/O SHRI MANGAL SINGH,
R/O C-78A, BLOCK C,
MAHENDROO ENCLAVE,
DELHI-110009
4. SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,
R/O HOUSE NO. 2247,
GALI NO. 171, GANESHPURA,
TRI NAGAR, DELHI-110035
5. SMT. JASPAL KAUR,
W/O SHRI PRITPAL SINGH
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 1 of 37
DAUGHTER OF LATE S. MANGAL SINGH,
R/O 3297, GALI DORE WALI,
RAM BAZAR, MORI GATE,
DELHI-110006.
6. SHRI NAND KISHORE TANEJA,
S/O SHRI J.D. TANEJA
R/O BW 32, SHALIMAR BAGH,
DELHI-110088.
7. SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA,
S/O SHRI G GUPTA
R/O BW 32, SHALIMAR BAGH,
DELHI-110088.
8. MRS. BALA DEVI
W/O SHRI R.K. GARG,
3744/1, KANHIYA NAGAR, TRI NAGAR,
DELHI-110035.
9. SMT. REKHA GUPTA
W/O SHRI ASHOK GUPTA,
10.SMT. LAXMI GUPTA
W/O SHRI BHUPINDER GUPTA
11.SMT. RITA GUPTA,
W/O SHRI HARISH CHAND GUPTA
ALL 9 TO 11 ARE RESIDENT OF BN 81, WEST SHALIMAR
BAGH, DELHI.
12.SMT. MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,
W/O SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,
GALI NO. 171, GANESHPURA,
TRI NAGAR, DELHI-110035 .....Defendants
Date of institution : 14.01.2016
Date of Conclusion of Argument : 03.03.2023
Date of Order/Judgment : 19.04.2023
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION, CANCELLATION OF DOCUMENTS,
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 2 of 37
PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS AND
DAMAGES/ MESNE PROFITS.
JUDGMENT
1 The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit for Declaration, Partition, Possession, Cancellation of the documents, Permanent & Mandatory Injunctions filed by the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint, are that Sh. Mangal Singh, father of the plaintiff was the owner of the shop bearing no. D-1219, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 which was in the name of M/s Gujjar Singh Mangal Singh or M/s Mangal Singh Gujjar Singh. It has been further stated that Sh. Mangal Singh, father of the plaintiff expired in the year 1972 leaving behind Sh. Mahender Singh(defendant no. 2, son), Sh. Balbir Singh(Plaintiff, son) and Smt. Jaspal Kaur(defendant no. 5, daughter) as his legal heirs. It has been further stated that as per the policy of the Government, the persons who were having their shops in New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi were also entitled to the allotment of the residential houses. It has been further stated that one residential plot bearing no. BP-119, measuring 100 Sq. yards in Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, Delhi was allotted by the defendant no. 1 DDA vide File No. F.16(227)75-LSB(R) dated 05.01.1982 through the Dy. Director of the DDA. It has been further stated that the said plot was alloted on account of the fact that Shop bearing no. D-1219, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 3 of 37 Delhi-110033 was being run in the name of M/s Gujjar Singh Mangal Singh and Sh. Mangal Singh was considered entitled to the allotment of the plot by the DDA which was alloted vide File No. F.16(227)75-LSB(R) dated 05.01.1982. It has been further stated that the right to get the said plot alloted was a right and the property was heritable. It has been further stated that the said plot was to be alloted to all the legal heirs of Sh. Mangal Singh and not exclusively in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3.
2 The plaintiff, in the plaint, has alleged that the defendant no. 2 and 3 fraudulently got the said plot alloted in their names from he DDA vide perpetual lease deed dated 19.01.2009. It has been further stated that the right of the plaintiff to have a share in the said plot stands fructified from the admissions made by the DDA. It has been further stated that the DDA has admitted that M/s Mangal Singh Gujjar Singh were also one of the persons who were carrying on business in the Old Subzi Mandi area and under the scheme of Rehabilitation, the said firm was required to shift its business from Old Subzi Mandi to New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi.
3 It has been further stated that the defendant no. 2 filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 without the knowledge of the plaintiff and without impleading the plaintiff as one of the petitioners. It has been further stated that in the counter affidavit filed by the DDA in the above said writ petition, DDA has CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 4 of 37 admitted that the evictees of Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi were offered shop and plots in the New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. It has been further stated that the DDA vide orders dated 06.10.1978 had directed the defendant no. 2 to produce the proof of being a partner but the defendant no. 2 instead of filing requisite proof wrote letter dated 29.01.1979 stating therein that the defendant no. 2 had already applied for mutation of the shop. It has been further stated that the plaintiff sent several representations dated 14.10.1980, 10.11.1980, 21.01.1981, 26.02.1981, 26.03.1981, 04.05.1981, 08.07.1981, 18.12.1995, etc. informing the DDA that there were three legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Mangal Singh and therefore, the lease deed was to be executed in the name of the three legal heirs of Sh. Mangal Singh including the plaintiff. It has been further stated that however, neither DDA nor the defendant no. 2 informed the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi of the above said facts in the writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005. The plaintiff has alleged that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was complete kept in dark and the orders dated 27.11.2008 which were passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the above said writ petition, were obtained by the defendant no. 2 by concealing th material facts. It has been further alleged that the DDA in connivance with the defendant no. 2 finally alloted the above said plot in favour of defendant no. 2 only.
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 5 of 37 4 The plaintiff, in the plaint, has further stated that he himself and his brother Sh. Mahender Singh i.e. defendant no. 2 herein were living jointly in the joint family and the payment of Rs. 3,000/- paid on 16.08.1975 and the payment of Rs. 3,011/- paid on 15.10.1975 were made towards the allotment of the above said plot by the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 in equal shares/ proportions. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 2 had gone for applying for the said plot by stating that the same shall be applied in the name of the firm and the allotment of the said plot was to be done in favour of all the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Mangal Singh. It has been further stated that believing upon the defendant no. 2, the plaintiff allowed the defendant no. 2 to approach the DDA for allotment. It has been further stated that the defendant had even got the signatures of the plaintiff on some documents to the effect that the plot was being applied in the joint names of all the legal heirs. It has been alleged that now it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 2 has misused the above said documents. The plaintiff has alleged that the orders dated 27.11.2008 were obtained from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by playing fraud and as such, the said orders deserves to be declared as null and void. It has been further alleged that neither DDA nor the defendant no. 2 apprise the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that besides the defendant no. 2, there were other legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Mangal Singh, CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 6 of 37 otherwise, the orders dated 27.11.2008 could not have been passed.
5 It has been further stated that the plaintiff has recently come to know from some property dealer that the DDA executed a perpetual lease deed dated 19.01.2009 in respect of the said plot in favour of defendant no. 2 as well as in favour of the defendant no. 3 who happens to be the wife of defendant no. 2.
6 The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant no. 2 and 3 sold the above said plot to defendant no. 6 and 7 and defendant no. 6 and 7 sold the above said plot to defendant no. 4 and 12. It has been further state that defendants no. 4 and 12, then, sold the plot to defendant no. 8 and defendant no. 8, then, sold the plot to defendant no. 9 to 11. It has been alleged that the defendant no. 2 and 3 have misappropriated the entire sale consideration of the sale of the said plot. It has been further stated that all the defendants have been acting in collusion with each other and the property kept on changing the hands knowing fully well that the title of defendant no. 2 and 3 was not valid and perfect. 7 The plaintiff has further stated that he has 1/3rd undivided share in the suit property and on the basis of which he is seeking partition of the said property. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 5 has also 1/3rd share in the said property. It has been further stated that the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 22.02.2010 to the CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 7 of 37 defendant no. 1 to 4 requiring defendants to cancel the lease deed in respect of the said plot but of no use and hence, the present suit. 8 On the basis of the above said allegations as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the judgment and orders dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 in the case titled as S. Mahender Singh Vs. DDA be declared as null and void being fraudulently obtained. In the alternate, the plaintiff has prayed that it be declared that in place of petitioner in the said case, the plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and 5 were the petitioners in the said writ petition.
9 It has been further prayed that the plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and 5 be declared as the real owners of the plot bearing no. BP-119, measuring 100 Sq. yards in Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, Delhi. The plaintiff has further prayed that a decree for cancellation of the documents executed by the DDA in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 and all further transactions and documents executed by defendant no. 2 and 3 in favour of the subsequent purchasers who are the defendant no. 4 to 11 be declared as null and void. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction direction defendant no. 1 i.e. DDA to cancel the perpetual lease deed dated 19.01.2019. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of partition thereby dividing the said property in three equal parts holding therein that the plaintiff, defendant no.
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 8 of 37 2 and 5 are entitled to 1/3rd share each. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of possession in respect of the above said suit property. The plaintiff has also sought for the reliefs of Permanent and Mandatory Injunctions besides the relief of damages/ mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation @ Rs. 20,000/- per month. The plaintiff has also prayed for the costs of the suit. 10 In the written statement filed on record by the defendant no. 1 i.e. the DDA, it has been stated that defendant no. 2, after the death of his father Sh. Mangal Singh, applied for allotment of the plot filed application no. 943 dated 18.08.1975 along with other evictees of Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi. It has been further stated that defendant no. 2 was considered for allotment of the plot in Shalimar Bagh bearing no. BP-119, measuring 100 Sq. yards in Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, Delhi and after the allotment, a demand letter was issued to him on 30.09.1975. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 2 deposited the amount in time. It has been further stated that before handing over of the possession, he was asked to submit the partnership deed for M/s Mangal Singh & Gujjar Singh, if any. It has been further stated that defendant no. 2 replied there was no partnership deed and he was doing the business with his father. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 1 DDA advised to get the shop mutated in his name from Dy. Director(Commercial Land) DDA vide letter dated 20.06.1979. It has been further stated that subsequently the CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 9 of 37 defendant no. 2 requested the DDA to handover the possession of the plot but the possession could not be handed over as the main file of the property was not traceable. It has been further stated that feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 2 filed the writ petition bearing no. 5859/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide orders dated 27.11.2008, the said writ petition was allowed. It has been further stated in compliance of the orders dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the possession of the plot was handed over to defendant no. 2 on 26.12.2008 and subsequently the lease deed of the plot was executed in favour of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3(wife of defendant no. 2) on 19.01.2009.
11 The DDA has stated that defendant no. 2 had not disclosed the other legal heirs of Late Sh. Mangal Singh. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 2 filed the writ petition individually and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ordered to handover the possession to him, mutate the plot and execute the conveyance deed in his favour. It has been further stated that as per the copy of the allotment letter furnished by defendant no. 2, the plot was allotted in his individual name but as per the legal notice, now, the defendant No.2 has sold the plot to the defendant No.4. It has been further stated that the legal notice dated 22.02.2010 was received in Land Sales Branch on 05.03.2010 and on receipt of the legal notice, a show cause notice has been issued to the defendants CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 10 of 37 No.2 & 3 on 16.04.2010 but no reply has been received from the side of the defendants No.2 & 3. It has been further stated that the final show cause notice has been issued on 30.09.2010. It has been further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment / lease deed, the lessee shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise, part with the possession of the whole or any part of the residential plot except with the previous consent in writing of the lesser. It has been further stated that on the receipt of the reply from the defendants No.2 & 3, the matter will be examined further.
12 The written statement has been filed on record by the defendants No.2 & 3 stating therein that this court is not the proper forum against the Judgment and orders dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.5859/2005. It has been denied that father of the plaintiff was the owner of the shop bearing No. D-1219, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033. It has been further stated that the said shop did not even exist during the life time of the father of the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the said shop was alloted on lease basis in lieu of the shop being run as a partnership firm in the name of M/s Gujjar Singh Mangal Singh by the father of the plaintiff and Sh. Gujjar Singh at Phad No.69, Old Sabzi Mandi, Delhi under the scheme of 1962 - 63 brought by the DDA for rehabilitation of refugees. It has been denied that the father of the plaintiff died in the year CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 11 of 37 1972. It has been stated that the father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 died in the year 1968 and the shop was allotted in the year 1975.
13 It has been further stated that the defendant No.2 used to work with his father in the shop and after his demise, he entered into a fresh partnership with the surviving partner of his father. It has been further stated that the shop in New Subzi Mandi was alloted in 1975 and simultaneously, it was informed that the allottees were entitled to a plot in Shalimar Bagh. It has been further stated that as per the understanding between the existing partner S. Gujjar Singh and the defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 applied for the allotment of the plot in his name after taking of 'No Objection' from the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the defendant No.5, sister of the defendant No.2 also executed relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant No.2. It has been further stated that the defendant No.2 only had the personal resources to meet out the expenses / demands towards the future allotment of the said residential house. It has been further stated that the plot was not alloted in default and rather it could be allotted to anyone who would apply for the same and the only rider was that the person applying for allotment of plot should have some interest in the plot in Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi. It has been denied that the defendants No.2 & 3 have fraudulently got the said plot allotted in their names from the DDA vide Perpetual CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 12 of 37 Lease Deed dated 19.01.2009. It has been further stated that the defendant No.2 had informed the plaintiff about the Petition bearing W.P. (C) No.5859/2005 and the plaintiff was well aware about the pendency of the said petition. It has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with the costs. 14 Written statement has been filed on record by the defendant No.5 stating therein that she is also one of the owners of the suit property having 1/3rd share therein. It has been further stated that she was not aware of the fraud perpetuated by the defendants No.2 & 3. It has been further stated that the defendant No.5 was not the party to the Writ Petition bearing No. W.P. (C) No.5859/2005. It has been prayed that a Judgement and decree should be passed in favour of the defendant No.5 being the owner of the 1/3rd share in the suit property.
15 The defendants No.4 to 11 are the successive purchasers of the suit property. The defendants No2 & 3 sold the suit property to the defendants No.6 & 7, who in-turn, sold the suit property to the defendants No.4 and 12. The defendants No.4 and 12 sold the plot to the defendant no.8 and the defendant No.8 sold the plot to the defendants No. 9 to 11. The ordersheet dated 17.02.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi when the present suit was pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reveals that the application for impleadment of the successive purchasers of the suit property was allowed.
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 13 of 37 16 Separate written statements have been filed on record by defendants no. 4 and 12, by defendant no. 8 and also by defendant no. 9 to 11 but the stand of the defendants in their respective written statements is almost the same. The defendants, who are the the successive purchasers of the suit property, have taken the stand that they are bonafide purchasers for value and they had purchased the suit property after payment of valid sale consideration on execution of registered sale deeds.
17 Separate replications have been filed on record by the plaintiff to the separate written statements of the defendants reiterating and reaffirming the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint and denying the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants.
18 Vide orders dated 10.11.2014, the following issues were framed out of the pleadings of the present suit by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:-
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable for the reasons as stated in para no. 1 of the preliminary objection of the written statement?OPD2 &3.
2. Whether the plaintiff and Defendant no. 5 being legal heir of Late Shri Mangal Singh are entitled to the benefit of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5859/2010?OPP.
3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rescission of the documents executed by Defendants no. 2 and 3 purported to CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 14 of 37 be selling and disposing of the suit property in favour of Defendants no. 4 and 12 or in favour of any of the other Defendants or in favour of Defendants inter se?OPP.
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction against the Defendant no. 1 directing it to cancel the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 19.01.2009 executed by Defendant no. 1 in favour of Defendants no. 2 and 3?OPP.
5. If issue no. 4 is decided in affirmative, is the Plaintiff entitled to execution of Perpetual Lease Deed in favour of the Plaintiff and Defendants no. 2 and 5?OPP.
6. If issue no. 4 is decided in affirmative is the Plaintiff entitled to partition of the suit property?OPP.
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendants restraining them from transferring the suit property or creating any third party interest in the suit property or parting with the possession of the suit property?OPP.
8. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim any damages/ mesne profits @ Rs. 20,000/- per month or at any other rate?OPP.
9. Whether Defendants no. 9 to 11 are the bonafide purchasers of the aforesaid residential plot against a valid consideration without notice of pendency of any litigation? If so, its effect? OPD-9 &11.
10. Relief.
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 15 of 37
19 Now coming to the evidence, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A on record, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. He has filed on record the Letter dated 15.02.1982 written by plaintiff to the Dy. Director(R) DDA relating to decision taken on allotment of plot no. BP-119 in Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme; Letter dated 08.07.1981 written by plaintiff to the Dy. Director(R) DDA; Letter dated 04.05.1981 written by plaintiff to the Dy. Director(R) DDA; Letter dated 10.11.1980 written by plaintiff to the Dy. Director(R) DDA; Letter dated 27.06.1982 written by plaintiff to the Dy. Director(R) DDA; Letter dated 18.12.1995 written by plaintiff and defendant no. 5 to the Dy. Director(R) DDA; Letter dated 26.03.1981 written by plaintiff to the Dy. Director(R) DDA; Letter dated 22.09.1981 written by plaintiff to the Dy. Director(CE) DDA; Letter dated 08.07.1981 written by plaintiff to the Dy. Director(R) DDA; Letter dated 08.01.1982 written by Dy. Director(R) DDA to Shri Mohinder Singh Defendant no. 2 with a copy to Balbir Singh; Letter Dated 08.07.1981 written by Plaintiff to the Dy. Director(R) DDA; Letter dated 09.11.2009 written by plaintiff to SHO, Shalimar Bagh; Legal Notice dated 22.02.2010 u/s 53B of DDA sent by the plaintiff to DDA and Respondents 2 to 4; Letter dated 20.07.1996 of Mutation of undivided half share in shop no. 1219, D-block, New Subzi Mandi in favour of Mohinder Singh and CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 16 of 37 Balbir Singh; Letter dated 08.06.1981 written by Dy. Director(R) to defendant no. 2 with copy to plaintiff; letter dated 18.11.1999 from Balbir Singh; Letter dated 23.04.1981 by DDA to Mohinder Singh and a copy to the plaintiff; Letter dated 16.09.1982 written by Asstt. Director(CE) to defendant no. 2; the perpetual lease deed dated 19.01.2009; reply dated 16.04.2010 to the notice of the plaintiff; the order dated 27.11.2008; the counter affidavit of the DDA; certified copy of the written statement of defendant no. 1; order dated 12.05.2010 framing an issue on maintainability on account of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-27. PW1 has also filed on record the letter dated 27.06.1982 as Ex. PW1/1, PW1/3 and PW1/6 but the said letter is already there n record as Ex. P5. PW1 has also placed on record the letter dated 15.02.1982 as Ex PW1/2 but the said letter is already there on record as Ex. P1. PW1 has also placed on record the letter dated 21.01.1981 as Mark A. The letter dated 10.11.1980 which has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/5 is already exhibited as Ex. P4. PW1 has also placed on record the letter dated 26.06.1980 as Mark B; the letter dated 14.10.1980 as Mark C. The letter dated 23.04.1981 which has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/10 has already been exhibited as Ex. P17. PW1 has also placed on record the four photographs as Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/11; copy of the writ petition no. 5859/2005 as Mark D; copy of the notice u/o XII Rule 8 of the CPC as Mark E and the courier receipts as Ex. PW1/12.
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 17 of 37 20 The plaintiff has further examined HC Bhola Nath from PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as PW2 and this witness has brought in the court the true copy of Rojnamcha relating to DD no. 18B dated 10.11.2009 PS Shalimar Bagh which was exhibited as Ex. PW2/1. This witness has stated that the letter dated 10.11.2009 which was received by SHO PS Shalimar Bagh was not available as the same being an old record, was ordered to be destroyed by the then DCP(NW) vide circular dated 21.08.2017, the copy of which was exhibited as Ex. PW2/2.
21 The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Ashok Tyagi, Public Relation Inspector(PRI), Department of Post, Govt. of India, Civil Lines, Delhi as PW3. This witness has produced the summoned record i.e. receipt no. RLAD 8791 to 8794 dated 24.02.2010 from District Court Post Office, Tis Hazari. This witness has further stated that the entire summoned record has already been weeded out. This witness has placed on record the letter issued by Post Master, District Court, in this respect as Ex. PW3/1. 22 The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Umesh Verma, Judicial Asstt., RKD Branch from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. This witness has produced the summoned record i.e. the digitized record of Writ Petition(Civil) bearing no. 5859/05 titled as Mohinder Singh Vs. DDA. The original CD brought by the said witness was exhibited as Ex. PW4/1. This witness has further stated that the original file was destroyed as per Delhi High Court CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 18 of 37 Rules after getting it scanned and digitized on the Delhi High Court Server. This witness has also filed on record a certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence as Ex. PW4/2.
23 The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Dharamvir Singh, SSA from DDA Vikas Sadan, Delhi. This witness has brought the summoned record i.e. the original record of the documents pertaining to the file maintained by the DDA in respect of the property in question and the photocopies of the entire record brought by the said witness has been exhibited as Ex. P2. 24 The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Vicky Rathi, JJA, Record Room(North West), Rohini Court, Delhi. This witness has produced in the court the original judicial record pertaining to suit no. 185/10 titled as Balbir Singh Bhalla Vs. DDA & Ors disposed off by the then Ld. CCJ-cum-ARC(North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi. The photocopy of the record brought by this witness was exhibited as Ex. P1(colly.).
25 The defendant no. 1 i.e. the DDA has examined Sh. Prashant Kumar Prasad, Dy. Director, LAB (Residential), DDA as DW1 and this witness in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the defendant no. 1 in the written statement.
26 The defendant no. 2 Sh. Mohinder Singh Bhalla has examined himself as DW2 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/1 on record, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 19 of 37 taken by him in his written statement. He has filed on record copy of death certificate of Sh. Mangal Singh as Ex. DW2/A; copy of the receipt dated 16.08.1975 as Ex. DW2/B; copy of the acknowledgment dated 16.08.1975 as Ex. DW2/C; copy of the allotment letter dated 30.09.1975 as Ex. DW2/D; copy of the receipt dated 15.10.1975 as Ex. DW2/E; copy of the letter dated 23.04.1981 as Ex. DW2/H; copy of the letter dated 08.06.1981 as Ex. DW2/I; Relinquishment deed dated 30.04.1990 as Ex. DW2/K; copy of the letter dated 20.06.1996 as Ex. DW2/L; copy of the letter dated 22.07.1996 as Ex. DW2/M; written statement dated 07.05.2010 as Ex. DW2/O(which has already been exhibited as Ex. P6); copy of the letter dated 25.06.1976 as Ex. DW2/F; copy of the letter dated 25.6.1976 as Ex. DW2/G; copy of the letter dated 16.09.1982 as Mark D2/2; Copy of order dated 27.11.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Mark D2/1; copy of order dated 24.09.2012 and 01.10.2013 in Appeal no. 633/13 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Mark D2/3 and Mark D2/4 respectively and lease deed dated 19.01.2009 as Mark D2/5. In the further examination done on 24.09.2022 this witness has relied upon certified copy of his request letter dated 20.01.1981 regarding declaration of names of all legal heirs on stamp paper of Rs. 2/- as Ex. DW2/G and the copy of letter dated 26.06.1976 from DDA allotting him plot no. P-119, Block B measuring 100 CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 20 of 37 Sq. yards in Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme for allottees of Shop/ plot in New Subzi Mandi, Delhi as Mark A. 27 The defendant no. 3 Smt. Rajinder Kaur has examined herself as DW3 and in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW3/1 on record, she has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by her in her written statement. She has relied upon the documents which have been exhibited by her husband who is the defendant no. 2 in the present suit, in his evidence.
28 Defendants no. 9 to 11 have examined Sh. Harish Chand Gupta(husband of defendant no. 11 and the power of attorney holder of defendant no. 9 to 11) as DW9 and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW9/A, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by defendants no. 9 to 11 in their written statement. He has filed on record The power of attorney by defendant no. 9 to 11 in his favour as Ex. DW9/1; copy of the challan dated 16.08.1975 in relation to deposit of Rs. 3,000/- by defendant no. 2 as Ex. DW9/2; copy of the acknowledgment dated 18.08.1975 in relation to application form for allotment of residential plot at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi submitted by defendant no. 2 to defendant no. 1 as Ex. DW9/3; copy of the demand letter dated 30.09.0975 issued by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 as Ex. DW9/4; certified copy of the letter dated 20.07.1996 in respect of Shop no. 1219, D block, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi in the joint names of plaintiff, defendant no. 2 and Sardar Gujjar Singh CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 21 of 37 as Ex. D1; certified copy of writ petition bearing W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as Ex.DW9/5; certified copy of the orders dated 27.11.2008 as Ex. DW9/6; possession letter dated 23.12.2008 in relation to residential plot at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as Ex. DW9/7; copy of the possession slip dated 23.12.2008 in relation to delivery of possession of residential plot at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2 on 26.12.2008 as Ex. DW9/8; copy of the perpetual lease deed dated 19.01.2009 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 in relation to residential plot at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as Ex. DW9/9; copy of the registered Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney as Ex. DW 9/10 and Ex. DW9/11; copy of the registered Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney as Ex. DW9/12 and Ex. DW9/13; registered Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney as Ex. DW9/14 and Ex. DW9/15; registered Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney as Ex. DW9/16 and Ex. DW9/17; letter whereby the building plan was sanctioned dated 19.05.2010 issued by MCD and sanctioned drawing/ plan as Ex. DW9/18 and Ex. DW9/19; photographs taken on 15.05.2012 as Ex. DW9/20. 29 The detailed cross-examination of these witnesses shall be discussed during the later part of this judgment. 30 I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record including the written final arguments filed on record by the CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 22 of 37 parties. I have also heard the final arguments addressed at bar by the parties.
31 My issuewise findings on the issues framed on 10.11.2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the present matter are as under:-
31.1 ISSUES NO. 1 TO 931.1.1 All these issues are being taken up together as the same are connected interse and overlap each other. Issue no. 1 pertains to the preliminary objection of the defendant no. 2 and 3 as contained in the written statement filed on record by defendant no. 2 and 3 and as such, the onus to prove issue no. 1 has been placed upon defendant no. 2 and 3.
Issues no. 2 to 8 pertain to the prayer clause of the present suit and as such, the onus to prove issues no. 2 to 8 has been placed upon the plaintiff. Issue no. 9 pertains to the plea of defendants no. 9 to 11 as contained in their written statement and as such, the onus to prove issue no. 9 has been placed upon defendant no. 9 to 11.
31.1.2 The factual controversy, involved in the present suit, is within a narrow compass. It is not in dispute that a shop was being run by Late Sh. Mangal Singh, father of the plaintiff and that of defendant no. 2 under the name and style of M/s Mangal Singh Gujjar Singh in Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi at Phad no. 69. A scheme in the year 1962-63 was brought by the DDA and Shop no. D-1219, New Subzi CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 23 of 37 Mandi, Delhi was alloted in lieu of Phad no. 69 Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi and the said shop was mutated in the joint names of plaintiff and that of defendant no. 2. It is also not in dispute that the defendant no. 2 applied for the allotment of the plot no. BP-119, measuring 100 Sq. yards at Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, Delhi and the said plot was allotted by the DDA in favour of defendant no. 2. It is not in dispute that possession of the said plot, however, was not handed over by the DDA to the defendant no. 2 and as such, the defendant no. 2 filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is not in dispute that vide orders dated 27.11.2008, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the DDA to handover the possession of the above said plot to defendant no. 2 and to execute a Conveyance Deed as well in the name of the defendant no. 2. It is not in dispute that vide orders dated 26.12.2008 passed by the DDA, the possession of the said plot was handed over by the DDA to defendant no. 2. It is also not in dispute that the lease deed was executed by the DDA in respect of the above said plot in favour of defendant no. 2 and the wife of defendant no. 2 who has been arrayed as the defendant no. 3 in the present suit on 19.01.2009.
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 24 of 37 31.1.3 The crux of the controversy involved in the present suit is as to whether the above said orders dated 27.11.2008 were obtained by the defendant no. 2 from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 by playing fraud and by concealment of the material facts as has been argued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant no. 2 failed to disclose to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and to the DDA as well that besides he himself, the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 were also the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Mangal Singh and as such, the allotment was to be done jointly in the name of all the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Mangal Singh. The plaintiff has further alleged that despite a number of communications by him to the DDA such as the communications dated 14.10.1980, 10.11.1980, 21.01.1981, 26.02.1981,26.03.1981,04.05.1981,08.07.1981, 18.12.1995, etc., the DDA failed to consider the request of the plaintiff and rather the DDA in collusion with the defendant no. 2 allotted the said plot in favour of defendant no. 2 exclusively.
31.1.4 Whereas, on the other hand, the defendant no. 2 has categorically stated that the plot in question was applied for by him as he was having an interest in the shop at New Subzi Mandi, Delhi in his individual capacity and that he himself was having the personal resources to meet out the CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 25 of 37 expenses and demands towards the future allotment of the residential house. It has been further stated by defendant no. 2 that the plot was not allotted in default and rather, it could have been alloted to anyone who could apply for the same and the only rider was that the person applying for allotment of the plot should have some interest in the shop in Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi in lieu whereof the shop in New Subzi Mandi, Delhi was allotted. The defendant no. 2 has further taken the stand that he paid the entire amount to the DDA towards the costs of the allotment and the plaintiff was not having any funds for allotment of the plot in question. The defendant no. 2 has further stated that No Objection Certificate was taken by him from the plaintiff and Relinquishment Deed was also executed by his sister who has been arrayed as defendant no. 5 in the present suit. 31.1.5 In the written final arguments, filed on record by the plaintiff, it has been argued that as per the evidence on record, it has been proved that Late Sh. Mangal Singh, the father of the plaintiff and that of defendant no. 2, was entitled to the shop at New Subzi Mandi, Delhi and to the plot at Shalimar Bagh. It has been further argued that the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 are the co-owners of the shop and plot. It has been further argued that by playing a fraud and by concealment of the material facts, the plot was got CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 26 of 37 alloted in the name of defendant no. 2 and 3. It has been further argued that fraud vitiates everything and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed. 31.1.6 In the written final arguments filed on record by defendant no. 1, it has been argued that the defendant no. 2, after the death of his father Sh. Mangal Singh, applied for allotment of the plot vide application no. 943 dated 18.08.1975 and the demand letter was issued to defendant no. 2 on 30.09.1975. It has been further argued that defendant no. 2 failed to furnish any partnership deed to the DDA and as such, the DDA advised the defendant no. 2 to get the shop mutated in his name from the Dy. Director(Commercial Land) vide letter dated 20.06.1979. It has been further argued that the defendant no. 2 filed W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 against the DDA for handing over the possession of the plot no. BP-119, measuring 100 Sq. yards in Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, Delhi and vide orders dated 27.11.2008, the said writ petition was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It has been further argued that in compliance of the orders dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the possession of the above said plot was handed over to defendant no. 2 on 26.12.2008 and lease deed of the plot in question was executed in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 on 19.01.2009. It has been CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 27 of 37 further argued that defendant no. 2 failed to disclose the other legal heirs of Late Sh. Mangal Singh to the DDA and the plaintiff was not a party in the said writ petition which was filed by the defendant no. 2.
31.1.7 In the written final arguments filed on record by defendant no. 9 to 11, the chronology of the various dates has been given by the defendant no. 9 to 11. Defendant no. 9 to 11 have argued that the cross-examination of the plaintiff himself is sufficient in itself to demolish the entire stand of the plaintiff. It has been further argued that the plaintiff has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that defendant no. 9 to 11 are the bonafide purchasers and they were not aware of the pendency of the present suit or any other dispute regarding the suit property.
31.1.8 Ld. counsel for the defendant no. 2 and 3 during the course of arguments has argued that the defendant no. 2 applied for the plot in question in his individual capacity as he was having an interest in the shop at Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi and subsequently, in the shop at New Subzi Mandi, Delhi and as such, the plot in question was allotted to defendant no. 2. It has been further argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant no. 2 played any fraud upon the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or that defendant no. 2 concealed the material facts from the DDA or from the Hon'ble High CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 28 of 37 Court of Delhi. It has been further argued that suit is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and the relief of partition cannot be granted as the plot in question was not allotted to Late Sh. Mangal Singh. It has been further argued that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 31.1.9 Going by the above said pleadings and the arguments submitted by the parties to the present suit, the vital question to be considered by this court is as to whether the plaintiff has been able to prove on record that the costs of allotment were paid jointly by the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 as is the stand of the plaintiff in the plaint. This court has to further see and consider as to whether the plaintiff has been successful in proving that the orders dated 27.11.2018 were obtained by playing fraud and by concealment of the material facts from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) no. 5859/2005.
31.1.10 Now, coming to the evidence led by the parties, the plaintiff i.e. PW1, in his cross-examination, done by defendant no. 2 and 3 has admitted it to be correct that he was not having any documentary proof regarding any payment/ contribution towards the consideration of the application money for plot no. BP-119, measuring 100 Sq. yards in Shalimar Bagh CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 29 of 37 Residential Scheme, Delhi, the subject matter of the present suit.
31.1.11 In the cross-examination of PW1 done by defendant no. 9 to 11, the plaintiff has categorically admitted it to be correct that the payment of Rs. 3,000/- was done by his brother to the concerned authority. PW1 further states that he has not placed on record any acknowledgment/ receipt showing that the amount of Rs. 3,000/- was given by him to his brother i.e. to the defendant no. 2.
31.1.12 The defendant no. 2 who has examined himself as DW2, in the cross-examination, has denied the suggestion that the sum of Rs. 6,000/- for the allotment of the said plot was jointly deposited by he himself and by the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2, by way of volunteer, states that he had deposited the said amount with defendant no. 1/ DDA in the year 1975.
31.1.13 The above said cross-examination of the plaintiff, to my mind, falsifies the stand of the plaintiff as contained in para no. 9 of the plaint to the effect that he himself and his brother i.e. defendant no. 2 were living in the joint family and that the payment of Rs. 3,000/- paid on 16.08.1975 and the payment of Rs. 3,011/- done on 15.10.1975 towards the purchase of the above said plot were done jointly by the plaintiff and defendant no. 2.
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 30 of 37 31.1.14 It has to be seen that the plaintiff, in the cross-examination, does not deny that the DDA made the allotment of the plot no. BP-119, measuring 100 Sq. yards in Shalimar Bagh Residential Scheme, Delhi to the defendant no. 2 as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) No. 5859/2005. Rather, the plaintiff states, in the cross-examination, that he does not know if the DDA made the allotment of the said plot to the defendant no. 2 as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
31.1.15 The plaintiff claims in so many words that he wrote various letters such as letters dated 14.10.1980, 10.11.1980, 21.01.1981, 26.02.1981, 26.03.1981, 04.05.1981, 08.07.1981, 18.12.1995, etc. to the DDA for allotment of the plot in the name of all the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Mangal Singh. It is also true that the plaintiff has placed on record the letters dated 08.07.1981, 04.05.1981 and 10.11.1980 as Ex. PW2, Ex. P3 and Ex. P4 on record. The plaintiff has also placed on record the letter dated 18.12.1995 as Ex. P6 and the letter dated 26.03.1981 as Ex. P7 on record but it has to be seen that PW1, in his cross- examination, has time and again admitted that he never applied for the allotment of the plot in his name. In the cross-examination done on 12.07.2017, PW1 admits that he CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 31 of 37 has not applied for the allotment. In the cross-examination done on 02.04.2018, PW1 again admits it to be correct that he never applied for allotment of the said property to the concerned authority. PW1 admits it to be correct that his father expired on 03.07.1968. PW1 again admits it to be correct that his father had not applied for the allotment of the said property under the scheme of the DDA. PW1 admits it to be correct that he was aware of the DDA Scheme regarding the allotment of the suit property since inception.
31.1.16 As such, to my mind, from the cross-examination of PW1, it is apparently and evidently clear that PW1 i.e. the plaintiff was aware about the scheme of allotment of the plot by the DDA right from the inception but despite having the knowledge of the said scheme, the plaintiff failed to apply for the allotment of the plot in his name. As per the own admission of PW1, deceased Sh. Mangal Singh never applied for allotment of the plot in his name. There is no explanation as to why the plaintiff did not apply for the allotment of the plot in his name to the DDA and as to why he kept on merely writing the above said letters to the DDA. 31.1.17 I am of the opinion that the above said cross-examination of PW1 reinforces the stand of defendant no. 2 and 3 that the plaintiff was aware about the scheme of the allotment of the CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 32 of 37 plot but deliberately, he refrained from applying for the same.
31.1.18 PW1, in the cross-examination, states that he never applied with the DDA in his name for any property in Delhi but in the very next line, in the very same cross-examination done on 30.08.2017, he admits it to be correct that he was alloted a plot by the DDA at Mayur Vihar, Delhi. By way of volunteer, the plaintiff states that the said plot was allotted by the DDA at Mayur Vihar, Delhi in the year 1982 under a scheme announced by the DDA in the year 1979 and that he sold the said plot during the riots in the year 1984. As such, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to apply for allotment of the plot in his name for the reasons best known to him.
31.1.19 The defendant no. 2, in the cross-examination, admits it to be correct that the shop no. D-1219, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 was allotted in lieu of Phad no. 69, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi. DW2 admits it to be correct that the above said shop was jointly mutated in favour of the plaintiff, he himself and Sh. Gujjar Singh. DW1 admits it to be correct that the name of the plaintiff was also included in the mutation done by the DDA regarding shop no. D-1219, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 as it was a pre- condition that unless the names of legal heirs of deceased CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 33 of 37 Sh. Mangal Singh were not included in the said shop, the alternate plot in question could not be allotted. The defendant no. 2 admits that the plaintiff never executed any No Objection Certificate in his favour for allotment of the plot in question. The defendant no. 2 again admits that he did not apprise the plaintiff of the fact that he had individually approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for allotment of the said plot in question.
31.1.20 The defendant no. 2 admits it to be correct that the plaintiff and he himself are carrying on the business from the same shop i.e. D-1219, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi- 110033. The defendant no. 2 admits it to be correct that he had received the letter from the DDA requiring him to inform/ disclose the names of the legal heirs of the deceased Late Sh. Mangal Singh but the defendant no. 2 in the entire cross-examination time and again has reiterated that since the plaintiff did not apply for allotment and since he only applied for allotment, he became entitled for the allotment of the plot in question, in his name. To my mind, since, the factum of the scheme of allotment of the plot was in the knowledge of the plaintiff since inception as per his own admission as contained in his cross-examination, and since the plaintiff admittedly failed to apply for the allotment of the plot in his name, the plaintiff cannot claim any share in CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 34 of 37 the above said plot after the allotment of the same by the DDA in favour of the defendant no. 2. Furthermore, it has to be seen that as per the stand of the DDA/ defendant no. 1 in th written statement as well as in the written final arguments, the DDA advised the defendant no. 2 to get the mutation of the shop bearing no. D-1219, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 in his name from the Dy. Director(Commercial Land) vide letter dated 20.06.1979 and subsequently, the shop was mutated in his name and thereafter, the defendant no. 2 requested the office of DDA to handover the possession of the plot in reference to him. It is not in dispute that when the possession of the said plot was not handed over by the DDA to the defendant no. 2 on the ground that the file was not traceable, the defendant no. 2 filed W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and ultimately the orders dated 27.11.2008 came to be passed in favour of defendant no. 2.
31.1.21 In the light of the above said discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove on record that the orders dated 27.11.2008 in W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 were obtained by playing fraud upon the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or by concealment of the material facts. I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff never applied for allotment of the plot in question in his name and the plaintiff CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 35 of 37 did not pay even a single penny to the DDA for allotment of the plot in question. As such, to my mind, the plaitniff has utterly failed to prove on record that the plot in question was alloted by DDA in collusion with defendant no. 2. To my mind, it has been sufficiently brought on record that the plot in question was allotted to defendant no. 2 by the DDA in compliance of the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005. As such, the plaintiff has failed to prove issues no. 2 to 8 in his favour and accordingly, issues no. 2 to 8 are decided against the plaintiff.
31.1.22 I am of the opinion that it has been rightly pointed out by ld.
counsel for the defendant no. 2 and 3 that the orders dated 27.11.2008 were passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) no. 5859/2005 under its extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction and as such, this court is not the proper forum for redressal of any grievance allegedly suffered by the plaintiff on account of the orders dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above said writ petition. Accordingly, issues no. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3. 31.1.23 Now coming to issue no. 9, the plaintiff in clear and unequivocal terms in cross-examination has admitted that the defendants no. 9 to 11 are the bonafide purchasers of the CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 36 of 37 suit property and as such, I am of the opinion that the defendants no. 9 to 11 have been able to prove issue no. 9 in their favour. Accordingly, issue no. 9 is decided in favour of defendants no. 9 to 11 and against the plaintiff.
31.2 RELIEF In the light of my findings upon the foregoing issues, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No orders as to the costs.
32 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, by the Reader of the court.
33 File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary Digitally signed compliance. RAJ by RAJ KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2023.04.19 16:35:43 +0530 (Raj Kumar) Addl. District Judge-02, North Announced in the open Court. Rohini Court Complex, Rohini (Judgment contains 37 pages) Delhi/19.04.2023
CS(COMM.)147/2020 Shri Balbir Singh Bhola Vs. DDA & Ors. Page No. 37 of 37