Delhi District Court
Bhoora Mohd vs Smt. Khakasha Bano on 18 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL:
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRC (EAST):
KKD COURTS:DELHI
Suit No. 1343/06
Unique Case Identification No: 02402C 0285012006
Bhoora Mohd
S/o Sh. Mohd. Hasan,
R/o H. No. O9,
Sunder Nagri, Delhi .........Plaintiff
Versus
1.Smt. Khakasha Bano
W/o Sh. Jamaluddin
2. Jamaluddin
S/o Sh. Mohd. Hasan
3. Rakhan Jamal
S/o Sh. Not known
All Resident of : 348,NBlock,
Sunder Nagri, Nand Nagri,
Delhi ...........Defendants
Date of Institution : 29/05/2006
Reserved for order : 08/11/2010
Date of Decision : 18/11/2010
Final Order : Suit Partly decreed.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal
SCJCumRC:East, Delhi
Suit No. 1343/06 Page 1/22
J U D G E M E N T
1. Plaintiff has filed this suit with a prayer for a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 thereby declaring the documents i.e. GPA dated 05/10/1999, agreement to sell, Will, Receipt dated 04/10/1999 in respect of half portion (i.e.12½ sq yards) of property bearing no. O9, Sunder Nagari, Delhi alleged to be executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 as null and void. Further plaintiff has prayed for a decree of possession in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 & 2 thereby directing them to hand over the peaceful and vacant physical possession of the suit property a shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/A to the plaintiff.
2. In brief case of plaintiff is that defendant no.1 is wife of defendant no.2 who is younger brother of plaintiff and defendant no. 3 is father of defendant no. 1 and father in law of defendant no.2. As alleged, plaintiff is absolute and actual owner and in possession of property bearing no. O9, Sunder Nagari, Delhi by virtue of General Power of Attorney, Agreement for sale, affidavit and Receipt executed by Sh. Abu Bakkar S/o Mohd. Hussain in favour of plaintiff. As per plaintiff, defendant no.1 & 2 are permissive user of the suit Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 2/22 property.
Further case of plaintiff is that plaintiff had good relation with defendant no. 3 much before the marriage of defendant no.1 & 2 and since the plaintiff is an illiterate person, plaintiff took a loan of Rs.10,000/ from defendant no. 3 in October 1999 and defendant no. 3 on the pretext of reimbursement of the loan money took the signature and thumb impression of plaintiff and his sister Smt. Noorjahan on the blank papers. As alleged, at that time defendant no. 3 also emphasized the plaintiff to accompany him to the Court to acknowledge the receipt of loan amount of Rs.10,000/ and to give undertaking before the Court that plaintiff would return the loan amount within time. Also, as alleged, defendant no. 3 also took the signature and thumb impression on the stamp papers to file them before the court. As per plaintiff, defendant no.1 & 2 got married on 27/03/2003 and after the marriage when plaintiff returned the loan amount to defendant no.3 and demanded the documents of acknowledgment of loan amount, the defendant no. 3 pretended that defendant no. 3 has lost the documents somewhere in the house and assured the plaintiff that defendant no. 3 would torn them when the documents are found.
As per plaintiff, on 11/05/2006 during proceedings of CAW Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 3/22 Cell instituted by defendant no. 1 in collusion with defendant no. 2 & 3 against the plaintiff and his relatives, defendant no.1 supplied photocopies of General Power of Attorney dated 05/10/1999, agreement to sell, Receipt and deed of Will dated 04/10/1999 to the plaintiff which were alleged to be executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the portion (i.e. 12½ sq yards) of plaintiff's property and claimed herself to be owner of the same. Further, as alleged, defendant no.1 threatened the plaintiff that she is going to sell her alleged share and in case the plaintiff would create any hindrance in the transaction; the defendant no.1 would falsely implicate the plaintiff and his other relatives in criminal cases. As alleged, all the defendants in collusion with each other have prepared false and fabricated General Power of Attorney, Agreement to sell, Deed of Will and Receipt in respect of half of the portion (i.e. 12 ½ sq yards) of the plaintiff's property bearing no. O9, Sunder Nagari, Delhi just to grab and usurp the same. Hence this suit.
3. Defendants have contested the suit of plaintiff. Defendant no.1 & 3 have filed common/joint written statement of defence. Defendant no. 2 has filed his separate written statement of defence. As per defendant no.1 & 3, plaintiff is an anti social person and is involved in many criminal activities and plaintiff with Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 4/22 malafide intention has mentioned false address of defendant no.2 who is brother of plaintiff and is not resident of the address as given in plaint. As per defendant no.1 & 3, plaintiff has sold half share of the suit property area measuring 12.5 sq yards to defendant no.1 and remaining portion of the suit property was sold to defendant no. 2 and hence plaintiff is neither the rightful owner nor has any right upon the suit property. The story of plaintiff regarding plaintiff taking a loan of Rs.10,000/ from defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 3 taking the signatures of plaintiff and Smt. Noor Zahan on blank documents has been denied by defendant no. 1 and 3 and thus no question of return of loan or plaintiff demanding back the documents of loan arises. As alleged, plaintiff has sold the suit property to defendant no.1 after receiving the full and final consideration amount of the half share of the suit property and has executed all the necessary sale documents in her favour before Sub Registrar, Delhi and therefore the question does not arise that defendant no.3 took the signature and thumb impression of plaintiff and his sister on blank papers. Similarly defendant no. 1 & 3 has denied the story of plaintiff regarding plaintiff and his sister being taken to court to acknowledge the receipt of loan and defendant no. 3 taking his signature and that of his sister Smt. Noor Jahan on stamp papers. As per defendant no.1 & 3, they are bonafide Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 5/22 purchaser of the suit property and had paid the consideration amount of the suit property to the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale documents and since then the defendant no.1 is the rightful owner and in possession of the suit property. As alleged, plaintiff in collusion with other family members has filed this malicious suit on the concocted story in order to grab the suit property from defendant no.1. With this stand, defendant no.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of suit with heavy costs in the interest of justice.
4. Defendant no. 2 Mr. Jamaluddin has filed his separate written statement of defence. As per defendant no.2, plaintiff is not owner of suit property since he had sold it to defendant no.2 and defendant no.1. As alleged, plaintiff had taken Rs. 80,000/ from defendant no.2 on 08/01/1999 as loan and plaintiff assured the defendant no. 2 that plaintiff would get registered the sale document in respect of half portion of the suit property bearing no. O9, Sunder Nagari, Delhi in favour of defendant no. 2 if he fails to return the above amount to defendant no. 2 till 08/07/1999. Further, as alleged, when the plaintiff failed to return the said amount to defendant no.2, then plaintiff got registered the GPA, Deed of Will and Agreement for Gift dated 09/07/1999 in favour of defendant no. 2 in respect of half portion of suit property and since then, the defendant no. 2 has Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 6/22 became rightful owner of the half portion of suit property and is in physical possession of suit property in question. In all other aspect, defendant no. 2 has taken the same stand as taken by defendant no .1 & 3.
5. Plaintiff has filed separate rejoinder to WS of defendant no. 1 & 3 and that to WS of defendant no. 2 wherein averments made defendants in their WS have been denied and those made in plaint have been reaffirmed.
6. Vide order dated 11/04/2007, ld. predecessor of this Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the defendant no. 3 on the pretext of reimbursement of loan money took signature and thumb impression of the plaintiff and his sister on some blank papers and forged those documents to create General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will Deed and receipt?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff had sold 12.5 sq yards i.e. half portion of the suit property to defendant no. 1?OPD1
3. Whether the plaintiff had sold remaining portion of the suit property to the defendant no. 2?OPD2
4. Relief.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 7/22
7. To substantiate his case on judicial file, plaintiff has himself appeared in witness box as PW1 Mr. Bhoora Mohd. Also plaintiff has examined his sister as PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan. Plaintiff evidence was closed on 08/04/2009 by Sh. Pramod Kashyap, Advocate for plaintiff by making a separate statement to that effect. On the other hand, defendant no.1 has appeared in witness box as DW1 Smt. Khakasha Bano. Defendant no. 2 appeared in witness box as DW2 Mr. Jamaluddin and defendant no. 3 appeared in witness box as DW3 Mr. Rakkhan Jamal. DE was closed on 18/05/2010 by Usman Khan, Advocate for defendants by making a separate statement to that effect.
8. I have heard Sh. Pradeep Narula Adv. For plaintiff and Sh. Usman Khan Advocate for defendants. Also I have perused the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendants. Further I have gone through the case laws (i) Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam AIR 2003 SC 761 and (ii) Bharwada Bhogin bhai Hirji bhai Vs. State of Gujrat AIR 1983 SC 753 relied upon by ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
9. I have gone through the material available on judicial file very carefully keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case as they arise on the basis of material available on judicial file.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 8/22
10. My issue wise findings are as under : Issue No.1 Whether the defendant No.3 on the pretext of reimbursement of loan money took signatures and thumb impression of the plaintiff and his sister on some blank papers and forged those documents to create General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will Deed and receipt ? OPP Issue No.2 Whether the plaintiff had sold 12.5 sq. yards i.e. half portion of the suit property to defendant no.1? OPD1.
I shall be deciding both the above issues under a common discussion in as much as both the issues are interconnected.
As per plaintiff, plaintiff took a loan of Rs.10,000/ from the defendant no.3 in October 1999 and defendant No.3 on the pretext of reimbursement of the loan money took the signatures and thumb impression of plaintiff and his sister Smt. Noorjahan on blank papers. Further, as per plaintiff, at that time the defendant no.3 also emphasized the plaintiff to accompany him to the Court to acknowledge the receipt of loan amount and to give the undertaking before the Court that plaintiff would return the loan amount within time and thus defendant no.3 also took the signature and thumb Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 9/22 impression of the plaintiff and his sister Smt. Noorjahan on the stamp papers to file them before the Court. Plaintiff has also alleged that defendant no. 1 and 2 got married on 27/03/2003 and after the marriage when plaintiff returned the loan amount to defendant no.3 and demanded back the documents of acknowledgment of loan amount, defendant no.3 pretended that he had lost the documents samewhere in the house and assured the plaintiff that he (defendant no.3) would torn them when he (defendant no.3) would found the same.
The documents to which plaintiff is referring are registered GPA dated 5/10/1999, Agreement for Sale, Receipt and Deed of will dated 4/10/1999 marked as PW1/1 to PW1/4 and Exhibited as Ex. DW1/2 to 5 (Collectively).
At the outset it is pertinent to note that as per averments made in plaint, loan was taken by plaintiff in Oct. 1999 and plaintiff repaid the loan after the marriage of defendant no.1 and 2 which had taken place on 27/03/2003. Further, as alleged, plaintiff thereafter demanded back the documents. But in contradiction with the averments made in the plaint plaintiff while appearing as PW Mr. Bhoora Mohd. In his cross examination has deposed as under: "....... I returned the loan of Rs.10,000/ taken Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 10/22 from the defendant no.3 within 1520 days. I did not take any receipt regarding the repayment. Vol. However the defendant no.3 tore up some papers in my presence which were executed in lieu of the loan ........."
Further it plaintiff wish that this court should believe the version of plaintiff as stated in plaint there is no explanation from the plaintiff as to why plaintiff did not insist on taking a written receipt from the defendant no.3 after returning the loan amount to defendant no.3 which plaintiff should have done in as much as he had taken loan, as alleged, after completing formalities in writing even before SubRegistrar and those paper, as per plaintiff, were not traceable at the time of returning of loan by plaintiff to defendant no.3. When the defendant no.3 was not believing the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.10,000/ in as much as, as per plaintiff, loan transaction was reduced in writing even before subregistrar, there was no reason for the plaintiff to make payment to defendant no.3 without taking written receipt & further there was no reason for the plaintiff to believe that, as alleged in plaint, the defendant no.3 that defendant no.3 has misplaced the documents and would tore them as and when traced.
Also, as per plaintiff, plaintiff was taken to court, inter alia, to Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 11/22 given the undertaking before the Court that plaintiff would return the loan amount within time but neither in the plaint nor in the document (i.e. registered General Power of Attorney) executed before the sub registrar there is any stipulation as to when plaintiff was supposed to return the alleged loan. Even in Agreement to Sale written on Stamp Paper there is no stipulation as to the time schedule for repayment of loan.
Plaintiff while appearing as PW1 Mr. Bhoora Mohd. in his crossexamination has deposed as under: "I had put my thumb impression and signature on 78 document at the office of subregistrar. It is correct that I had appeared personally alongwith my sister before the subregistrar. I am not able to identify the figures in money if shown to me like Rs.2,000/, Rs.5,000/ etc. the defendant no.3 handed over Rs.10,000/ to me at the office of the subregistrar in the presence of the Advocate engaged by defendant no.3."
Also PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan in his crossexamination has admitted that on the concerned dated in 1999 she had visited the office of the SubRegistrar, in the company of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 &3. Further PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan in her cross examination had admitted that registered Power of Attorney dated Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 12/22 5/10/1999 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 bears her thumb impression at point A on page no.2. Also she has admitted that prior to her putting thumb impression on the abovesaid GPA (Ex. DW1/2 to 5 (coll), the said GPA stood already typed/written (Note: in the evidence of PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan the said GPA has been wrongly mentioned as PW1/A.) The abovestand of plaintiff is in consonance with the stand of plaintiff as taken in plaint. GPA Ex. DW1/2 to 5 is a registered document.
Rule 33 to 35 of the Delhi Registration Rules 1976 reads as under : "33. Enquiry as to execution, identity, etc. The Registering Officer shall then, with as little delay as possible, enquire whether the document was executed by the alleged executant, and satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him to admit execution. In cases of alienation, he shall satisfy himself of the identity not only of the alienor; but also of the alienee, if the latter is present. If the presentor is the executant, or his representative, assign or agent is present, the registering officer shall make the necessary enquiry at once. He should also require the presentor if an agent, to produce a power of attorney authenticated in the manner prescribed Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 13/22 in section 33 of the Act if a representative or assign to produce evidence of his status.
34. Documents to be scrutinised and explained to executants. Every deed shall be subject to a thorough scrutiny with a view to ascertain whether it correctly represents the intention of the parties and the Registering Officer shall make sure that the person incurring liability knows the extent to which his rights are affected. Documents executed by persons who are unable to read shall be read out and if necessary explained to them and the Registering Officer shall ascertain that they clearly understand their purport. Documents written in language which the executants do not understand shall in like manner be interpreted and explained.
35. Recording of endorsement under section 58. If execution by the alleged executant is admitted, and the Registering Officer is satisfied on the point of identity he shall record on the instrument the endorsement required by section 58 of the Act and such endorsement shall be signed by the Registering Officer, the executant and all the witnesses examined; but no such endorsement is necessary on a copy of a decree or order or of a certificate sent under section 89 of the Act." There is no dispute as to identity/appearance of plaintiff, PW2 Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 14/22 Smt. Noor Jahan and Defendant no.3 before the SubRegistrar. There is no dispute as regards thumb impression and signature of plaintiff and thumb impression of PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan on GPA Ex. DW1/2 to 5. Plaint has been drafted by ld. counsel for plaintiff, but there is allegation that subregistrar/Registering Officer did not fulfilled his obligations/duties, under rule 34 which has been reproduced herein above. Presumption is that contents of GPA were duly were readout to the plaintiff he was made to understand the purport of contents of GPA.
Only by reason of his (plaintiff) being illiterate, plaintiff cannot claim ignorance about the contents Ex. DW1/2 to 5 particularly in view of the provisions of rule 34 of the Delhi Registration Rules 1976. Thus stand of the plaintiff that he signed/put thumb impression on Ex. DW1/2 to 5 as an undertaking to return the loan amount within time is not at all convincing. A careful perusal of documents Ex. DW1/2 to 5 suggest that all those documents were got typed on 4th day of October 1999. On GPA Ex. DW1/2 to 5, the date of 4th October 1999 has been changed to 5th day of October 1999. GPA was executed on 5/10/1999 & at the time of its execution it was all typed/written and there is no reason to believe that documents Ex. DW1/3 to 5, Ex. DW1/4 to 5 and Ex. DW1/5 were not typed at the Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 15/22 time of their execution by plaintiff and PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan putting her thumb impression at attesting witness. DW1 Smt. Kaih Kasha Bano in her crossexamination has been made to depose as under : "The documents Ex. DW1/2 to 5 had already been typed when we went to office of subregistrar vol. The plaintiff had got the documents typed a day before our visit to the office of SubRegistrar." The above depositions find support from the documents Ex. DW2/2 to 5.
In the documents Ex. DW1/2 to 5 defendant no.1 Smt. Kaih Kash Bano has been described as Smt. Kaih Kash Bano w/o Sh. Jamaluddin D/o Sh. Rakkhan Jamal. As per submissions made by ld. counsel for plaintiff, marriage of defendant no.1 and 2 was solemnised on 27/03/2003 & thus on the date of execution of documents on 5/10/1999, defendant no.2 could not have been described as above, as wife of defendant no.2. As submitted, the above description indicates that documents have been manipulated/ forged after 27/03/03. There is no reason to believe that GPA Ex. DW1/2 to 5 is a forged/fabricated document. It is a registered document; registered and executed on 5/10/1999. Even in this document GPA, defendant no.1 has been described as Smt. Kaih Kash Bano W/o Sh. Jamaluddin D/o Sh. Rak Khan Jamal. She has been Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 16/22 described in other documents Ex. DW1/3 to 3; Ex. DW1/4 to 5 and Ex. DW1/5 in the like manner. Thus if GPA was executed on 5/10/1999, quite possibly other documents also could have been executed on 5/10/1999 itself irrespective of date of marriage of defendant no.1 and 2 being 27/03/2003 describing defendant no.1 as wife of defendant no.2. Also it is pertinent to note that Defendant no.1 Smt. Kaih Kash Bano has appeared in the witness box as DW1 Smt. Kaih Kasha Bano but no explanation has been sought from her in her crossexamination specifically as to why & under what circumstances she has been described as wife of defendant no.2 on documents executed on 5/10/1999 although her marriage with defendant no.1 had taken place on 27/03/2003. In the absence of such an explanation having been sought, now plaintiff cannot take any benefit from the manner of description of defendant no.1 in the documents in question. The factum that DW2 Mr. Jamaluddin in his crossexamination has deposed that he got engaged to defendant no.1, 56 months before marriage in the facts and circumstances of this case is to no consequence. GPA Ex. DW1/2 to 5 is bearing thumb impression of PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan. PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan in her affidavit Ex. P2 has deposed that defendant no.3 took her thumb impression as well as of her brother Mr. Bhoora Mohd. (the Plaintiff) Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 17/22 on some blank papers. Also she (PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan) has deposed that Defendant no.3 also took the signature and thumb impression of plaintiff and of herself (PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan) on the stamp papers to file them before the Court. PW1 Mr. Bhoora Mohd. and PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan has no where deposed that the thumb impression existing on Ex. DW1/3 to 5, Ex. DW1/4 to 5 and Ex. DW1/5 as witness is not the thumb impression PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan. PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan in her crossexamination has deposed as under: "It is correct that I had affixed my thumb impression on certain documents as a witness in 1999. Vol. The documents in question related to loan of Rs.10,000/ taken by the plaintiff and defendant no.2 from defendant no.3."
Further PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan in her crossexamination has deposed that "I cannot sign and I only put my thumb impression on the document".
In above factual back ground, in my opinion, it is immaterial that thumb impression of PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan does not find mention her details. Further it is immaterial that DWs have deposed that PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan had signed the documents but in fact PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan had put her thumb impression only. What the DWs meant to depose was that PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan stood as a witness in Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 18/22 the documents which PW2 Smt. Noor Jahan admittedly stood and also to my mind, putting a thumb impression is a substitute of signatures for the persons who does not know how to sign.
Documents Ex. DW1/2 to 5, Ex. DW1/3 to 5; Ex. DW1/4 to 5 and Ex. DW1/5 when read together and further keeping in view the fact that defendants no.1 and 2 are in possession of suit property, goes to suggest that plaintiff sold 12.5 sq. yards (i.e. half portion) of the suit property to defendant no.1.
In view of above detailed discussion, to my mind plaintiff has failed to prove that documents GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will Deed and Receipt executed in favour of defendant no.1 are forged. A natural consequence of this finding is the conclusion that plaintiff had sold 12.5 sq. yards (half portion) of suit property to defendant no.1. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and issue no.2 is decided in favour of defendant no.1.
Issue No.3 Whether the plaintiff had sold remaining portion of the suit property to the defendant no.2 ? OPD2 Stand of defendant no.2 is that plaintiff had taken Rs.80,000/ from defendant no.2 on 8/01/1999 as loan and plaintiff assured the defendant no.2 that plaintiff would get registered the sale documents Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 19/22 in respect of half portion of the suit property bearing no.O9, Sunder Nagari, Delhi in favour of defendant no.2 if he fails to return above amount to defendant no.2 till 8/07/1999 and as plaintiff failed to return the said amount to defendant no.2 then plaintiff got registered the GPA, Deed of Will and Agreement for Gift dated 9/07/1999 in favour of defendant no.2 in respect of half portion of suit property. In this regard defendant no.2 is relying upon the GPA Ex. DW2/2 and Agreement to Gift Ex. DW2/3. GPA Ex. DW2/2 is a registered document but Agreement for Gift Ex. DW2/3 is a notary attested document.
Relevant extracts from Agreement for Gift Ex. DW2/3 reads as under: "And whereas the first party is the real brother of the second party, therefore, for a consideration of love and affection and without receiving any thing from the second party the first party hereby gifted the second party has also accepted the same from the first party."
The above contents are not consistent with the stand taken by the defendant no.2. As per section 17 of the Registration Act 1908 instruments of gift of immovable property require compulsory registration irrespective of value of the immovable property involved.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 20/22 The documents titled as Agreement for Gift is intented to be operated as Gift Deed as per its contents but it has not been registered under the provisions of S.17 of Registration Act 1908. Thus Ex. DW2/3 cannot be read in evidence for conferring any right/title/interest in favour of defendant no.2. Also GPA Ex. DW2/2 also by its own does not confer any right/title/interest in favour of defendant no.2 qua the half portion of suit property bearing no. O9, Sunder Nagri, Delhi. Documents Ex. DW2/2 and Ex. DW2/3 taken together does not confer any right/title/interest in favour of defendant no.2 qua the suit property in as much as Ex. DW2/3 is not admissible in evidence for want of registration and not having been prepared on stamp papers of appropriate value.
Thus this issue is decided against the defendant no.2 & it is held that it cannot be said that by virtue of documents Ex. DW2/2 (GPA) and Ex. DW2/3 (Agreement for Gift) plaintiff has sold the remaining half portion of property no.O9, Sunder Nagri, Delhi. Relief?
In view of my findings on issue no.1 and 2, declaration as prayed for with regard to GPA dated 5/10/1999, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt dated 4/10/1999 in respect of half portion (i.e. 12 ½ sq. yards) of property bearing no.O9, Sunder Nagri Delhi is declined.
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal SCJCumRC:East, Delhi Suit No. 1343/06 Page 21/22 But in view of my finding on issue no.3, Plaintiff is entitled to possession of half portion (i.e. 12 ½ sq. yards) of property no.O9, Sunder Nagari, Delhi regarding which plaintiff had executed documents Ex. DW2/2 (GPA) and Ex. DW2/3 (Agreement for Gift). The complete suit property has been shown in site plan Ex. DW1/A in red colour. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to RR.
Pronounced in the open court on (Anand Swaroop Aggarwal)
18/11/2010 SCJCumRC/East Delhi
Anand Swaroop Aggarwal
SCJCumRC:East, Delhi
Suit No. 1343/06 Page 22/22