Delhi District Court
Baljeet Singh vs Smt. Krishna Devi on 28 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEII
(CENTRAL):TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 317/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02401C0539002007
Baljeet Singh
S/o Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O Burari,
Delhi84
.......... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Smt. Krishna Devi
W/o Shiv Pujan
R/o Plot No.7
Khasra No. 43/19,
CBlock, Indraprasth Colony,
Burari, Delhi84
.........Defendant
Date of Insitution: 24.5.2007
Orders reserved on: 24.4.2015
Judgment pronounced on: 28.4.2015
JUDGMENT (Oral):
(1) This suit for Possession with consequential Relief of Injunction and for Damages has been filed by the plaintiff Baljeet Singh against the defendant Smt. Krishna Devi.
Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.1 to 41 Case of the plaintiff:
(2) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the property bearing plot no. 7 out of Khasra no. 43/19 I.P. Colony, Burari, Delhi 110084.
It is pleaded that in the month of March the defendant approached for sell of her plot bearing plot no.7 out of Khasra no. 43/19 I.P Colony, Burari, Delhi110084, to one Sh. Hardev who is also the resident of I.P. Colony and residing there. It if further pleaded that the Hardev approached the plaintiff for purchase of the said plot and there was a meeting between the plaintiff and the defendant at the residence of Hardev and the deal for the sale was finalized in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lacs) and it was also decided both the parties that the documents would be executed by the defendant on 16th of March 2007. It is also pleaded that the total sale consideration which was settled was Rs.6,00,000/ and same was received by the defendant in cash in the presence of witnesses and the defendant insisted that earlier when she purchased the property, it was purchased for Rs.60,000/ and hence she requested that in documents only Rs.80,000/ be mentioned and she also agreed that she is ready to execute a separate receipt of Rs.6,00,000/.
(3) According to the plaintiff, on 16th of March 2007 the defendant after receiving Rs.6,00,000/ in cash in the presence of two witnesses namely Sh. Hardev S/o Sh. Banwari, R/o House No. 17, I.P. Colony C Block, Gali No.6, Vill. Burari and the second witness was one Sh. Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.2 to 41 Dharampal Singh, S/o Sh. Ratan Singh, R/o 1321, West Sant Nagar, the suit property i.e plot no. 7 ad measuring 100 sq. yards out of Khasra no. 43/19 consisting of One Room, one kaccha bathroom and D.P.C upto 4 ft. situated in the Abadi known as I.P colony CBlock, burari, Delhi, was transferred by the document in favour of the plaintiff are GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit receipt, and Will duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that since the GPA was not registered in those days hence, all the documents were duly attested by the Notary Public on the same day i.e on 16.03.2007 and all original documents of previous ownership was also handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the defendant also executed a possession letter on the same day but she requested that due to the illness of her husband she is not able to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and after considering the request of the defendant, the plaintiff gave her ten days time to handover the possession but again on 27th of March 2007 the defendant further requested to give her fifteen days time which was allowed by the plaintiff. (4) It is alleged that even after expiry of another twenty days the plaintiff approached to the defendant for handing over the vacant possession of the suit property but at that time the defendant became adamant and straight away refused to hand over the possession and also threatened the plaintiff saying "I shall not hand over the possession of the property and you cannot do anything against me, I being the lady can implicate you in a false case". It is pleaded that the plaintiff was shocked and surprised when he Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.3 to 41 saw the behaviour of the defendant and for his safety the plaintiff lodged a complaint at Police Post Sant Nagar, Burari, on 19.04.2007 after which the police officials called the plaintiff as well as the defendant and lodged a counter attack on the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff appeared several times before the Police Officials of Police Post Burari but there were no fruitful results and thereafter on 14.05.2007 the plaintiff sent a legal notice for possession, but no reply has been received by the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that on 19.05.2007 the plaintiff sent a complaint to the various police authorities as well as the higher authorities as there was no action on his earlier complaint by the authorities. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had also threatened the plaintiff in Police Post Burari that she is going to sell the abovesaid property and the possession of the same will be transferred to other person and that he cannot do anything against her. It is further pleaded that since 16.03.2007 the defendant is unauthorizedly and illegally occupying the suit property and enjoying the same without any right title or interest and if the same is let out, the plaintiff definitely would get Rs.2,500/ per month as rent of the same.
(5) According to the plaintiff, the cause of action firstly arose in the first week of March when the defendant approached the mediator Sh. Hardev for the sale of her plot; it again arose when the defendant executed the documents of transfer in favour of the plaintiff on 16.03.2007; it again arose when the defendant refused to handover the peaceful vacant Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.4 to 41 possession of the suit property on 19.05.2007 which cause of action is still subsisting.
Case of the defendant:
(6) Pursuant to the filing of the suit, the defendant was duly served after which she filed a detail written statement wherein she raised a preliminary objection that the present suit is a misuse of process of law and has been filed just to harass the defendant. It is further alleged that the present suit is without any merits and has been filed with malafide intentions to grab the property of the defendant. According to the defendant, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, as the defendant never sold her property to the plaintiff nor even entered into any agreement for the sale of her property to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendant, as the defendant agreed to sell her property to one Sh. Dharampal Singh for a total sum of Rs. 6 lakh, out of which he has only paid of Rs.2 Lakh as advance money and rest of the money was to be paid by him at the time of execution of sale documents in his favour by the defendant. According to the defendant, after paying the advance money Dharampal never came forward to complete the transaction and later on he played a game with the defendant in collusion with one Hardev Singh and both of them with the help of their musclemen forced the defendant to sign on some blank stamp papers, which was later on forged by them to create the ownership rights of the property in their favour or in the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.5 to 41 name of their associate. It is also pleaded that at the same time the above persons under compulsion and threat, compelled the defendant to handover the original ownership documents in her name to them and the defendant was so scared at that time that she had no other option except to abide by the directions of the said persons.
(7) The defendant has further pleaded that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and his suit is based upon the false contentions and forged documents. It is pleaded that the alleged documents i.e agreement, power of attorney and affidavit etc. as relied upon by the plaintiff are forged documents and the said Dharam Pal and Hardev Singh, had obtained the signature of the defendant on the blank documents, while putting her and her family members under the instant threat of their killing.
It is also pleaded that the defendant has lodged a complaint in this regard to the local police, as well as to the higher authorities and an enquiry on the basis of the said complaint is pending against the Hardev and Dharam Pal. According to the defendant, the plaintiff in this case also seems to be one of the associate of the above persons, in whose name those blank documents have been converted by the above stated persons. It is also pleaded that the present suit is liable to be dismissed at the first instance being barred by provision of Specific Performance Act, as also under the provisions of order VII Rule 2 of CPC. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought by him as his claim is not sustainable under the provisions applicable thereto. It is further pleaded that the present suit has Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.6 to 41 been filed by the plaintiff just to create nuisance for the defendant and to grab her property. It is further alleged that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are not sufficient to create any exclusive right in favour of the plaintiff as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, Indian Registration Act & Indian Stamp Act and the said documents are required to be impounded for the deficiency of Stamp Duty.
(8) It is also pleaded that the malafide of the plaintiff is very well clear from his own intentions since at the one hand he is saying that the sale transaction was for a sum of Rs.80,000/ whereas on the other hand he is saying that the transaction was for a sum of Rs.60,000/. It is further pleaded that the nature of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff itself speaks as to how the signatures of the defendant were obtained on the same. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has relied upon two receipts about the making of the payment to the defendant, out of which one is for Rs.80,000/ and the second is for Rs. 6 lakh. It is also pleaded that in all the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, same Hardev and Dharampal are the witnesses, which gives support to the contentions of the defendant that all the three are working in collusion with each other. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has not provided the backside photocopies of the documents relied upon by him knowing well about the forged character of the documents. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff has also relied upon one 'possession letter', the contents of which speaks that the defendant has handed over the actual vacant physical and peaceful vacant possession of the said property to the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.7 to 41 plaintiff. It is further pleaded that in all the alleged documents the dates etc. have been filled up in a different writing and manner, which clearly shows that the documents, as relied by the plaintiff, have been procured and prepared by the plaintiff while forging and fabricating the same. According to the defendant, instead of seeking specific performance, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession on the basis of forged documents and false contentions, because of which the plaintiff has rendered himself liable to face the criminal proceedings under Section 420/467/468/471/506 IPC, etc. (9) On merits, the defendant has denied all the allegations made against her by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that it was Hardev who approached the defendant for the sale of her plot and introduced him as property dealer and now the defendant has come to know that the said Hardev in collusion with his associates, used to grab the properties of the innocent persons and the same he has tried to do with the defendant. It is pleaded that the defendant never met the plaintiff at any point of time nor she entered into any sale transaction with the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the defendant had entered into sale transaction with Dharampal Singh for a total sum of Rs. 6 lakhs, out of which he paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as advance and the remaining amount of Rs.4 lakh was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale documents by the defendant but after paying Rs.2 lakh, Dharampal never turned back because of which advance money paid by the said Dharampal was forfeited by the defendant. According to the defendant, the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.8 to 41 present plaintiff is one of the associates of the said Dharampal and Hardev, who under the instant threat of killing of the defendant and her family members, forced her to sign on some blank papers and blank stamp papers. She has denied having received any such amount of Rs. 6 lakh in cash on 16.03.2007 or on any other date from the plaintiff, or that after receiving money from the plaintiff, the defendant executed GPA, agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt and Will in favour of the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the alleged documents were never got attested by Notary Public, in the presence of the defendant nor the defendant ever handed over the previous ownership documents in her name to the plaintiff voluntarily. It is also pleaded that the original documents in favour of the defendant were forcibly taken by Dharampal and Hardev, with the help of their associates at the same time when the defendant was threatened and forced to put her signatures on the blank documents.
(10) According to the defendant, the plaintiff with the help of Dharampal and Hardev are working as Land Grabber's in the area and they have got good connections with the muscles men and the local police. It is further pleaded that the defendant has already lodged a complaint before the higher authorities and an enquiry has been directed from the office of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi against the culprits and similar type of enquiry is also been pending with Dy. Commissioner of Police (Vigilance) Delhi. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff and his associates are misusing of their resources and muscle power and wants to grab the property of the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.9 to 41 innocent defendant, who has no other alternate accommodation for herself and for her family members.
ISSUES FRAMED:
(11) The plaintiff has filed a replication to the Written Statement of the defendant, wherein he has reaffirmed what he has earlier stated in the main plaint. Thereafter, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed the following issues on 7.1.2008:
1. Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties?
(OPD)
2. Whether the transaction of transfer alleged by the plaintiff is false, forged and fabricated? (OPD)
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession as claimed? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as claimed?
(OPP)
5. Whether the plaintiff also entitled to damages, if so, at what rate? (OPP)
6. Relief.
EVIDENCE:
(12) In order to discharge the onus upon him the plaintiff Baljeet Singh has examined himself as PW1 and also examined one Dharam Pal as PW2 whereas the defendant Smt. Krishna Devi has examined herself as DW1, one Ashok as DW2 and ASI Krishan as DW3.
Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.10 to 41 Plaintiff's Evidence:
(13) The plaintiff Baljeet Singh has examined himself as PW1 and in his examination in chief by way of affidavit he has corroborated what he has earlier stated in the main plaint. He has placed his reliance on the site plan of the property in question which is Ex.PW1/1; Receipt for a sum of Rs.
6,00,000/ which is Ex.PW1/2; Copy of transfer documents which are Ex.PW1/3 & Ex.PW1/4. He has also placed his reliance on the copy of complaint dated 19.4.2007 which is Mark Y, copy of legal notice which is Mark X and copy of complaint dated 19.05.2007 which is Mark Z. (14) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, the witness has deposed that he is working as Typist with Mr. Dharam Pal at Kashmiri Gate, Registrar Office since last 1415 years. He has explained that Sh. Dharam Pal is not an Advocate, but is having his chamber at Kashmiri Gate, Registrar Office. According to the witness, he is not working on salary basis and is having his own source of income and used to earn approximately Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/ per month. He has testified that he is not having any bank account in his name and had FDRs earlier but at no point of time he was having any saving bank account. The witness has further deposed that apart from himself he has to look after his father, his wife and two children. According to him, he is not having any responsibility of any of the family member and has voluntarily explained that his father is bearing the responsibility of agriculture land of three acres at Haryana which is in the name of his father. He has further stated that the said land is Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.11 to 41 exclusively owned by his father and has voluntarily explained that his father is an Exservice man also and was not having any other land nor his father ever sold any land. He has testified that he used to handover his earnings to his father who used to keep the same with him. He is not aware if his father is having any saving bank account and states that he has never seen any passbook or any other document related to any bank account in his father's name. According to the witness, earlier he was staying at his native village and later on shifted to Delhi.
(15) The witness has further deposed that he is staying with Mr. Dharam Pal at his residence whereas his father is staying at his native village. According to him, the suit property is situated in an authorized colony and before purchase he enquired the status of the suit property in the patwari's record through Sh. Dharam Pal Singh but he has no copy or proof in regard to availing the copy from the patwari. He has testified that he is aware that the suit property is an agriculture land but he is not aware if the Delhi Land Reform Act is applicable to the suit land. The witness has also deposed that he did not give any application for effecting mutation of the land in his name and has voluntarily explained that the land was purchased on the basis of Power of Attorney therefore the land could not be mutated in his name, nor did he apply for entry in the Girdawari of the suit land as the name could not be mutated in his name. He is not aware of the total area of the land in Khasra no.43/19 and has voluntarily explained that he is not aware if there was any demarcation for the suit land. According to the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.12 to 41 witness, he did not apply for any electricity, water or house tax or any other documents in his name on the basis of the record related to suit property and has voluntarily explained that ever since the day of purchasing the flat the defendant is litigating. He has also deposed that after about twenty days of the purchase of the plot a complaint was lodged with the police by the defendant against him. He has further deposed that the suit was prepared on his instructions and had told his Advocate about all the details of the suit property. He has testified that the suit land was under Block C and he had told about this to his counsel. He has denied the suggestion that he has not disclosed all the details of the suit property to his counsel and has voluntarily explained that the suit land is identifiable in khasra no. and not in block no. He has also denied that in Khasra no. 43/19 there are other block numbers. According to him, the deal in respect of the suit land has been entered into 2015 days before the documents in respect of the suit property. The witness has also denied that he did not pay earnest money in respect of the suit land at the time of entering into the deal and has voluntarily explained the money was paid by Mr. Dharam Pal and he must be knowing about it. He is not aware if any document was prepared. He is also not aware of any terms and conditions of the deal at the time of giving earnest money by Sh. Dharam Pal. He has testified that the receipt in regard to the payment of Rs.80,000/ was paid earlier time than the receipt of Rs. 6 lacs as consideration of the suit land, which receipt of Rs. 80,000/ was prepared in the court premises. According to him, the payment of Rs. 80,000/ was made by Sh. Dharam Pal Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.13 to 41 and the payment of Rs. 6 lacs was made both by him and Sh. Dharam Pal. He has denied the suggestion that both the receipts of Rs.80,000/ and Rs.6 lacs are of the same date. He has further denied the suggestion that he had tampered with the document Ex.PW1/3 by inserting he date on the later date.
(16) PW1 Baljeet Singh has further explained that the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4 were typed by Dharampal Singh. He has admiitted that on Ex.PW1/3 i.e GPA there is a correction which is encircled at portion A which has not been acknowledged by any of the signatory of the said document. He has also admitted that Ex.PW1/3 i.e. GPA is computer typed document and that the name and the details of the witnesses at Ex.PW1/3 GPA is written by manual typewriter and are not computer typed. He has also admitted that on agreement to sell Ex.PW1/3 the date encircled portion A is handwritten and has also admitted that in the agreement to sell, receipt of Rs.80,000/ receipt of Rs. 6 lacs, possession letter and Will, the names and details of the witnesses are written by a manual typewriter and are not computer typed. He has also admitted that rest of the body of all these documents are computer typed and that on affidavit of defendant, receipt of Rs. 80,000/, receipt of Rs. 6 lacs and possession letter, the date encircled portion A in the respective documents is handwritten and are not typed. The witness has admitted that in the receipt of Rs.6 lacs, the date encircled portion A is typed by Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.14 to 41 manual typewriter and not by computer and also admitted that the date written by manual typewriter on the receipt of Rs.6 lacs is of different ink than the name and other particulars of the witnesses which is also typed by a manual typewriter. He has further admitted that in the Will of the defendant, no date has been mentioned.
(17) According to the witness, the suit was drafted by his counsel on his instructions and he has gone through his plaint before signing the same. He has explained about the block number of the suit property at the time of drafting of the plaint. He has also deposed that in his plaint the reference in regard to the block number was mentioned in the prayer clause of his plaint. However, when confronted with portion A to A of the prayer clause of the plaint Ex.PW1/D1 it is not so recorded. He has further deposed that he is not aware of the fact that the notary public used to maintain a register wherein the entry was to be made with regard to the documents attested by him. He is also aware that every entry contains a serial number in the register of the notary public and has stated that the entry number might have been mentioned in the document attested by the notary public. The witness has also deposed that he has no knowledge if the mentioning of the serial number on the document attested by notary public is essential. The witness has denied the suggestion that he is intentionally giving a vague reply in regard to the mandatory need of the mentioning of the serial number in the document attested by notary public. After seeing the documents Ex.PW1/2 Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.15 to 41 & Ex.PW1/3, the witness has stated that the entry number of the notary public is not mentioned on the above documents. He has also deposed that the documents Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 were signed by the relevant parties in the Court premises. He has testified that first of all Krishna Devi signed those documents, then witnesses and then he himself signed the same. He has explained that the computer typing as well as manual typing on Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 was typed by the same person. According to the witness, he had joined the inquiry before the police authorities pertaining to the dispute of the suit property and his statement was recorded in those proceedings before the Vigilance wherein he had stated about the payment of Rs.2 lacs as advance money. The witness has further deposed that he had never stated in his statement before the Vigilance that the documents Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 were signed by the defendant at the house of Hardev.
(18) The certified copy of the statement of the plaintiff received under RTI has been shown to the witness, the same is Ex.PW1/D2 and the portion A to A at page 3 has been read over to the witness wherein it has been stated that "Daskhat Hardev Ke Ghar Pe Hardev Ki Majudgi Par Karwaye They", which the witness has denied of having said so. He has testified that with respect to the suit premises Vigilance Inquiry was conducted wherein his statement alongwith the statement of Dharampal was recorded. He has also deposed that the statement of Dharampal was not recorded in his presence. He is not aware about what Dharampal had stated Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.16 to 41 in his statement. He does not remember if he had affixed any document with regard to the suit property at the time of filing of the documents. He is not aware of the name of the stamp vendor from whom the stamp papers were procured since it was purchased by the typist.
(19) The witness has testified that he is 12th class pass and is not well versed with English language. According to him, he had narrated the contents of the documents to the typist and thereafter he typed the same under his instructions. He has denied the suggestion that no sale transaction ever materialized between him and the defendant or that no consideration was made by him to the defendant. He has also denied that the documents Ex.PW1/3 (colly) are forged and fabricated documents. He has admitted that the Will Ex.PW1/3 (colly) does not bear the stamp of Notary as in the year January to June 2007, the registration of the documents was stopped as a matter of policy. He has further denied the suggestion that there was no hurdle with regard to the registration of the Will during Jan 2007 and has voluntarily explained that the Will in question could have been notarized by the Notary Public alongwith the other documents however in the anticipation that the registration of the concerned Will would reopen, the same was not notarized. He has also denied that neither Krishna Devi executed the Will nor she was available for the registration/attestation of the same nor she ever consented to execute the Will, hence the same could not be attested. He has further denied the suggestion that all the relevant documents with regard to the ownership of the suit property in the name of the defendant were forcibly Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.17 to 41 removed from her custody by him and his associates. The witness has also deposed that he has gone through the contents of the plaint before signing the same. He does not remember whether in the prayer clause of his plaint, he has mentioned about the Mandir/ temple. He has also denied the suggestion that no money was paid by him to the defendant as sale consideration.
(20) PW2 Dharam Pal is the attesting witness of the alleged documents executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. He has in his examination in chief by way of affidavit has stated that he is the Mediator of the deal along with one Hardev and the whole transaction was completed in his presence. According to the witness, he was also called by the police officials from Police Station Timarpur and in Vigilance Department and the same facts were verified by the police officials. He has stated that he (witness) had also paid Rs. Six Lacs on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant vide receipt which is Ex.PW1/2 and the defendant assured that she shall handover the possession of the property after ten or fifteen days because her husband and son were ill.
(21) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant, the witness has deposed that he is working as Typist at Kashmere Gate, Old Court and since he is only a typist, there was no need to have licence for the same. According to the witness, he is working at his own and apart from the typing job, he is not doing any other work. He has denied that he is also working as a Property Dealer. He has testified that his evidence by way of Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.18 to 41 affidavit was prepared at his instance and he is well conversant with the details of the same affidavit. He has deposed that he knew the meaning of the work "Mediator" which is Bicholiya and never deems to be property dealer from his point of view. According to him, Smt. Krishna Devi (Defendant) was not known to him nor was he aware about her residence before entering into the deal and it was Hardev who introduced Smt. Krishna Devi to him and the first meeting with Smt. Krishna Devi was held at the residence of Hardev. He has testified that at their first meeting they had talks about the sale of the plot of the defendant but no documents were seen by him at that time. He has further deposed that at the time of Bayana, the photocopies of the documents were shown by the defendant Smt. Krishna Devi and has voluntarily explained that it was informed to them that the original of the same were lying somewhere and the photocopies of those documents were not retained by them. He has further testified that at the first instance, Rs.2 lacs were given as Bayana to the defendant on 22.02.2007 at the house of Hardev and at that time, apart from Hardev and the defendant, son of the defendant whose name he is not aware, her brother in law namely Harkesh and Baljeet were present there. He has testified that all the currency note were of the denomination of Rs.500/ which were handed over to the defendant as Bayana which money was brought by the plaintiff. He has further deposed that the same was arranged by the plaintiff from the sale of his plot and the Bayana transaction was reduced into writing on a Rs.10/ stamp paper in his handwriting. According to him, contents of Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.19 to 41 the same were written in Hindi language by him which were that the total sale consideration is agreed to Rs.6 lacs, out of which Rs.2 lacs has been handed over as Bayana and rest of Rs. 4 lacs was to be given to the defendant within a span of one month from the date of the execution of Bayana receipt. He has also deposed that the said Bayana receipt was prepared in two set and both the said Bayana receipts were signed by him, plaintiff, defendant, Hardev and Harkesh and one set of Bayana receipt was handed over to the plaintiff and the second to the defendant. (22) He has further deposed that he is not having the complete knowledge about the present case and has voluntarily explained that he is having knowledge only to the extent of the transaction arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant. He has also deposed that he is having the complete knowledge about the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in the present case. According to the witness, Bayana Receipt has not been placed by the plaintiff in the record and has voluntarily explained after the completion of the transaction, the Bayana receipt becomes infructuous. He has also deposed that the documents related to the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant were prepared at Kashmere Gate Court and were prepared by him. The witness has also deposed that the stamp paper upon which the documents were executed was purchased by him from S.K. Khanna, Stamp Vendor and the documents were signed by the parties at Kashmere Gate Court. He has testified that the balance sale consideration was also paid at Kashmere Gate Court by the plaintiff to the defendant. Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.20 to 41 According to the witness, he had appeared before the police during the course of inquiry which was held on the basis of the complaint of the defendant. He has further testified that he made the statement there that the sale transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, out of which Rs. 2 lacs was paid as Bayana and Rs.6 lacs was paid thereon and again clarified that balance of Rs. 4 lacs was paid. The witness has testified that he had informed the police that the balance amount of Rs. 4 lacs was paid to the defendant at Kashmere Gate Court. He does not remember when his statement was recorded by the police and has explained that his statement was recorded only after May 2007 when he also lodged a complaint. The witness has gone through the certified copy of his statement, recorded before the police, which is Ex.PW2/DA wherein it has been mentioned that the documents of plot/ house were handed over by the defendant to Hardev on 16.03.2007 at the house of Hardev and at that relevant time, the remaining amount of Rs. 4 lacs was also taken by the defendant.
(23) According to the witness, he is working as typist in the Sub Registrar Office for the last 1617 years and he is aware of the fact that the record of agriculture land is always lying with the Patwari/ Tehsildar. He has testified that he had made inquiries at the Patwari Office with regard to the land where the suit property is situated but no fee was deposited and has explained that the inquiries were made by him in an unofficial manner. He has also deposed that the Khasra number 43/19 was having a total land of 4 Bigha 16 Bishwa and as per the record of patwari, the Khasra number 43/19 Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.21 to 41 was showing as Abadi and the same was lying under the provision of Section 81 of the Delhi Land Reform Act. He is not aware if any certificate or record pertaining to the official record of the above Khasra at the office of Patwari was obtained or placed in this case. According to him, all the inquiries at the Patwari office was made by him and not by Baljeet and in the official record of Patwari, the land in Khasra number 43/19 was standing in the name of Puran Chand but no inquiry was made from said Puran Chand before purchase of suit land. He has also deposed that Baljeet Singh is like his brother and is working with him for the last 13/14 years. He has explained that the approximate income of Baljeet Singh in the year 2007 was Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/ per month. The witness has further deposed that he was well aware of the family members of the Baljeet Singh and apart from the income while working with him, Baljeet Singh was another source of income by farming but he is unable to tell how much he earns from the farming. He has also deposed that at the time of parting Bayana Money of Rs.2 Lacs, he himself, Baljeet, Harkesh, Hardev, Krishna (defendant) and her son was present at the Gher of Hardev. The witness has further deposed that all the stamp papers which are Ex.PW1/3 were purchased by Baljeet Singh but he is unable to tell as to whether Baljeet signed on the register of the stamp under from whom the same were purchased. According to the witness, the documents were typed by computer. He has denied the suggestion that all the documents are forged. He is unable to tell as to whether Baljeet signed on the register of the stamp under from whom the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.22 to 41 same were purchased. He is unable to tell who made the correction at point A on GPA which is being typed on a stamp paper of Rs.50/ and is Ex.PW1/3 collectively. He has admitted that the portion B to B on GPA, agreement to sell, receipt, another receipt, possession letter and deed of Will, is typed by a manual typewriter. He has however denied the suggestion that since the documents referred above were neither prepared nor signed by the witness and the name of the witness was inserted later on, hence, the portion B to B on all these documents is being typed by a manual typewriter. He has further denied the suggestion that the name of the witnesses was inserted at a later stage, hence, their names and details could not got printed by the same computer by which the rest of the body of the documents were got typed. (24) He has testified that the name of the Notary Public from whom the GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit to sell, affidavit, two receipts and possession letter were got attested was Sh. V.S Malik. He admitted that whenever a document is being attested by the notary, the same is to be entered by the Notary Public in his Notary register. He has further admitted that every entry in the notary register contains a specific number. He has explained that since it is the discretion of the person who approached the Notary Public to get the documents attested to mention about that specific entry number on the documents, hence, it is not always necessary to have the said number on the documents which are being attested by Notary Public. The witness has also denied the suggestion that it is mandatory at the part of the Notary to enter the details of the documents and the details of the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.23 to 41 relevant parties in his register with a specific entry number and further the said entry number is necessarily to be put on the documents so executed. He has admitted that the deed of will of the defendant is not being attested by the Notary public. He has deposed that as also there is no mention of the name of second witness and has voluntarily explained that the said Will was to be got registered later on as they reached late at the SubRegistrar office on 16.03.07 and by the time the working of SubRegistrar office with regard to the registration was closed. According to him, the date at the portion A was left blank as the documents were got typed earlier and as per the procedure the date is to be filled at the time of attestation of the document. He has admitted that the date specifically mentioned as 16th on agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt of Rs.80,000/ is written by hand, however, the date 16th on the receipt for Rs. 6 Lacs is written by manual typewriter. He has also admitted that no specific date except month and year has been mentioned on the deed of Will. The witness has denied the suggestion that all these flaws in the Ex.PW1/3 collectively are because neither the defendant was present at SubRegistrar office nor she signed the same over there nor she received the sale consideration from the plaintiff. He has testified that only one Bayana receipt on the stamp paper of Rs.10/ was executed at the time of payment of the Bayana and the same was later on destroyed after completion of the transaction. He is unable to tell the number of plot in Khasra number 43/19. However, the witness has admitted that there are various blocks in the manner of A, B, C and D in the locality. Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.24 to 41 According to him, before entering into the sale agreement and handing over the earnest money, he had visited the suit property and at that time, the suit property had a boundary wall, one built room, one temporary kitchen and bathroom but there was no main gate or electricity at that time. The witness has denied the suggestion that the transaction never materialized and he is deposing falsely in support of plaintiff just to support his case. He has further denied that in order to grab the property of the defendant two separate receipt were prepared, one for a sum of Rs.80,000/ and second is of Rs.6 lacs. According to the witness, he knows Hardev personally and with his intervention he and Baljeet approached the defendant. He has also denied that since Hardev is also part of their conspiracy to grab the property of defendant, hence, the name of no independent witness from the side of defendant find mention in the document Ex.PW1/3 collectively. Defendant's Evidence:
(25) The defendant Krishna Devi has examined herself as DW1 and in her examination in chief by way of affidavit she has corroborated what she has earlier stated in the Written Statement. She has placed her reliance on the photocopies of complaints made to Higher Authorities which are Mark A. (26) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff the witness has deposed that she knew Master Ajeet Singh since she was working with him for the last about two to three years. She is not aware Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.25 to 41 whether he is a Leader of Shiv Sena. She has admitted that Mark A (page 1 to 19) does not bear her signatures. She has further admitted that she cannot read the contents of complaint, but whatever she had spoken was written in the complaint. She does not remember the dates on which these complaints were sent. The witness has admitted that she had visited at SR office Kashmere Gate and has voluntarily explained that she had visited only at the Seat of Dharampal and then returned. According to her, she had visited at SR Office on date of 29, but she does not remember the month and year. The witness has further deposed that Hardev is residing in the same vicinity and he had told two three ladies that she is willing to sell her house or to mortgage her house so that she may arrange the money. She has also deposed that Hardev came to her personally and told her that she may sell the plot and thereafter the arrangement of money can be made. According to the witness, Hardev introduced her with Dharampal who was interested to purchase her property. She has further deposed that on 22nd of February but unable to tell the year, she had taken Rs.2 lacs in cash from Hardev and Dharampal. According to the witness, the copy of the Bayana receipt was also given to him at the time of Bayana and the said receipt was demanded by Dharampal, Hardev and some other persons on 22nd of March but she does not remember the year. She has denied the suggestion that he had visited at SR office on 16.03.2007 and has clarified that the documents were handed over on 28th March. She has admitted that signatures on Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) are her signatures. She does not remember whether the thumb Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.26 to 41 impression on Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) belongs to her or not. She has admitted that Ex.PW1/2 bear her signatures and thumb impressions. According to the witness, her husband is a mason by profession and at that time was working at Gurgoan. He has also deposed that on the day when the Bayana was taken, her husband was also present there. She has denied the suggestion that her husband was ill at the time of transaction of property or that her husband had ever fell ill. She has further deposed that on 28 th March, when her thumb impression and signatures were obtained on blank papers, she and her four children were also present at that time. According to the witness, Hardev Singh and Dharampal came to her house and asked about the genuineness about the documents and she gave all the documents to them. She has further deposed that they again asked about the previous chain of documents and she handed over the chain of previous documents after which Dharampal had taken all the documents in a polythene.
According to her, he (Dharampal) also presented the documents before her for signatures but she refused to sign on the documents and then they put the knife on her neck. She has denied the suggestion that this is a concocted story just to delay the handing over of the property after receiving the sale consideration and execution of proper documents. She has again clarified that when she refused for signatures, her son Ashok was also put under threat of knife. The witness has deposed that she did not raise the alarm under the fear. She is unable to tell the exact time when it happened but stated it was cold. According to her, she did not call the PCR nor she raised Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.27 to 41 any alarm about the said incident. She has denied that no such incident had taken place and because of this, she did not call the police and inform the neighbors. She has also denied that she requested for fifteen days time for handing over the vacant possession of the suit property as her husband was ill at that time. She has further denied that Baljeet was present at the time of execution of Bayana receipt. According to her, she did not visit to any doctor for any medical treatment on 28th March after the said incident. She is unable to tell any date, when she lodged any complaint with her husband. She has admitted that the document Mark A from page 1 to 19 does not bear her signatures. She has admitted that she has visited on 30.03.2007 at SR Office Kashmere Gate where Hardev stated they were making the payment at Registrar Office but she returned back alongwith her brother in law (Dewar) Harkesh. The witness has also admitted that she had executed a receipt of Rs.6 lacs in favour of the plaintiff which is Ex.PW1/2 and has voluntarily explained however, she has not received any money and the receipt has been got executed from her by force. She has further deposed that she did not make any complaint to the police, in respect to the forcible execution of the receipt having being got done by the plaintiff, on the alleged date of incident. She has denied the suggestion that she did not handover the possession of the suit property because Master Ajeet Singh who is Leader of Shiv Sena assured her that even after execution of document, she shall not allow the handing over of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. She has admitted that the document Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) were Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.28 to 41 executed by her consciously but she has denied that she had executed the said documents in the office of SR at Kashmere Gate and has voluntarily explained that his signatures were obtained on the said documents by force by the plaintiff. She has also denied the suggestion that she had received the total payment of Rs. 6 lacs, in the presence of her son Ashok Kumar and brother in law and has voluntarily explained that only the earnest money of Rs.2 lac was received by her and the plaintiff did not make the balance payment of Rs. 4 lacs. She has further denied the suggestion that the agreement Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) was executed between her and plaintiff in the presence of attesting witness Dharampal and Hardev or that the plaintiff had come to his house and asked her to handover the possession of the suit property but she had refused to do so but rather quarreled with her. She has admitted that Baljeet had made a complaint against him to the police. She has clarified that she is not aware whether Baljeet had made any complaint against her or not. She has also admitted that she had received a notice dated 14.05.2007 Mark PW1/X issued on behalf of Baljeet by her counsel, for handing over the possession of the suit property. She has further denied that she had voluntarily handed over the chain of documents of the suit property to the plaintiff or that she is retaining the suit property illegally after having sold the property to the plaintiff and having received the entire sale consideration.
(27) The defendant has examined her son Ashok as DW2 who in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A has corroborated the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.29 to 41 testimony of his mother.
(28) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, he has deposed that he came to know about the Agreement to Sell for selling the suit property having been executed by his mother, after she had received the earnest money of Rs. 2 lacs. He has further deposed that his mother had received the earnest money from Hardev and Dharampal and on the day when his mother received the earnest money, he was not present there. He has admitted that he does not have any personal knowledge about what dealing had taken place between his mother Krishna Devi and Hardev. According to the witness, he also does not have personal knowledge about the persons who were present at the time of execution of agreement to sell and earnest money, besides his mother, Harkesh and Hardev. He is unable to admit or deny the suggestion that the plaintiff Baljeet Singh was also present at the time of receipt of earnest money. He has admitted that at the relevant time, his father was working as mason, but the witness has denied that he was not keeping good health. The witness has also deposed that he did not accompany his mother to the office of SR Kashmere Gate but he has the knowledge that his mother had gone to the office of SR Kashmere Gate for signing some document alongwith his Chacha Harkesh and this was disclosed to him by him mother. According to him, Hardev and Dharampal had come to their house on 27.03.2007, on which date his father was also present at home due to Ram Navami. He has testified that he does not have any knowledge whether his mother had already sold the suit property on Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.30 to 41 16.03.2007. He is not aware if there have never been any complaints of any illegal activities against Hardev, Dharampal and Baljeet. He has admitted that his mother never received any money from Hardev, Dharampal and Baljeet in his presence. According to the witness, he has the knowledge that the total consideration amount which was to be paid to his mother was Rs. 6 lacs. He has testified that Hardev and Dharampal came to their house for threefour times. According to him, on 28.03.2007 Hardev and Dharampal came at their house and asked about the documents of property. He has testified that these documents were handed over by his mother. He has denied that the averments made in para no.4 of his affidavit are incorrect and that Dharampal had never threatened him and his mother on the point of a knife. He is unable to tell whether the papers which had been brought by Dharampal were in respect to the sale/ purchase of suit property and has voluntarily explained that he had never seen the papers. The witness has has deposed that at the time of said incident, he was studying in 9th standard. According to him, they did not make any complaint to the police in respect to the said incident nor did they ever disclose this incident to any neighborers either on that date or ever thereafter. He is not aware whether Baljeet made any complaint against his mother at Police Station Burari or whether his mother had been called by the police in the Police Station in respect to the said complaint. He has denied the suggestion that he has filed a false affidavit at the instance of his mother so that his may retain the possession of the suit property illegally. He has also denied that the suit Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.31 to 41 property has been sold to Baljeet Singh or that his mother had taken the balance payment of Rs. 4 lacs from Baljeet Singh.
(29) DW3 ASI Krishan has brought the summoned record pertaining to the enquiry conducted in the Vigilance Branch on the basis of the complaint filed by Smt. Krishna Devi. According to the witness, during the enquiry statement of Sh. Dharampal Singh and Sh. Baljeet Singh was recorded in his office which statements are Ex.PW2/DA and Ex.PW1/D2 respectively.
(30) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the witness has deposed that he does not have the record who all were summoned in the present enquiry and has stated that statement of Smt. Krishna Devi was also recorded. According to the witness, the conclusion of the said enquiry report was that the matter was of civil nature, copy of which conclusion report is Ex.DW3/P1. He has testified that he is not the Investigating Officer in the said enquiry and the statements were also not recorded in his presence. He has further deposed that the said enquiry was based on the complaint of Smt. Krishna Devi. He has admitted that Baljeet Singh had also made a complaint against Smt. Krishna Devi. According to the witness, he has no knowledge other than the record perused. He has denied the suggestion that the matter was disposed off as there was a breach of contract on the part of Smt. Krishna Devi. The witness has also deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the said complaint and enquiry report. He has placed on record the photocopy of statement of Smt. Krishna Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.32 to 41 Devi which is Ex.DW3/P2.
FINDINGS:
(31) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have considered the written memorandum of arguments filed by both the parties. I have also gone through the testimonies of the various witnesses and the record of the case. My findings on the various issues are as under:
Issue No.1 Whether there is no privity of contract between the parties? Issue No.2 Whether the transaction of transfer alleged by the plaintiff is false, forged and fabricated?
(32) Both the issues no.1 and 2 are clubbed together for the sake of convenience being interlinked and involving common discussion. Onus of proving both the issues was upon the defendant. (33) The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit property after purchasing the same from the defendant and had allowed the defendant to resident in the same on her request but later she refused to handover the possession of the property in question due to which reason he had filed the present suit. On the other hand the case of the defendant is that she had never entered into any agreement as alleged with the plaintiff and has in this regard examined herself as DW1, her son Ashok as DW2 and ASI Krishan as DW3 who has proved the record relating to the inquiry conducted Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.33 to 41 in the Vigilance Branch on the complaint filed by Smt. Krishna Devi and has proved the statements of Dharampal and Balbir Singh recorded in their office which statements are Ex.PW2/DA and Ex.PW1/D2 respectively. ASI Krishan (DW3) has in his crossexamination deposed that the police did not take any action as they found that the matter in question was of a civil nature and has denied that the matter had been disposed off since there was a breach of contract on the part of the defendant Krishna Devi. He has also placed on record the copy of the statement of Smt. Krishna Devi which is Ex.DW3/P2. According to Krishna Devi and Ashok Kumar they had agreed to sell the property in question to one Dharampal Singh for a total sum of Rs.
Six Lacs out of which only Rs. Two Lacs were paid as advance money/ Bayana and rest of the amount was to be paid by him at the time of execution of the sale documents before the Sub Registrar but thereafter Dharampal never came forward to pay the remaining amount and later in collusion Dharampal in collusion with the other land grabbers of the area forced her to sign on some blank documents which was later on forged by him to create the ownership in the name of his associate Baljeet Singh. According to the defendant, the alleged documents i.e. Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Receipt and Will are forged documents. She has alleged that Dharampal and Hardev had obtained her signatures on blank documents/ blank stamp papers by putting her and her son in the instant fear of death, in respect of which she had lodged a complaint. She has denied having visited the office of the Sub Registrar. Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.34 to 41 (34) Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has vehemently argued that after entering into an agreement with the plaintiff, the defendant has become dishonest and there was a total breach of contract on her part and now she cannot wriggle out to her commitments.
(35) I have considered the rival contentions and also the evidence which has come on record. At the very Outset I may observe that all the documents on which the plaintiff is placing his reliance in order to show his right and ownership over the property in question, are unregistered documents. The General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt are all documents which have not been executed in the office of the Sub Registrar but have been notarized by one U.S. Malik Notary Public. Any document which purports to create a right over the property requires a compulsory registration under the Registration Act and hence under the given circumstances the said documents cannot be read into evidence as such.
(36) Secondly I may observe that perusal of the General Power of Attorney which is Ex.PW1/3 (collectively) on which the plaintiff is placing his reliance would show that the contents of the same are of different print/ ink whereas the names of the witnesses i.e. Hari Dev (whom the plaintiff referred to as Hardev) and Dharampal Singh have been inserted later on and apparently being typed by the manual typewriter bearing the different ink, which fact was duly put to the plaintiff who admits the same. Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.35 to 41 (37) Thirdly coming next to Agreement to Sell and Purchase which is Ex.PW1/3 (Collectively), the same is also an unregistered document. A perusal of the same shows that the date of 16 is mentioned by hand at Point A and as per the contents of the said agreement the said sale of the property is for a total sum of Rs.80,000/ (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) and as per para (1) of the agreement the actual, physical, peaceful and vacant possession of the property is alleged to have been delivered by the first party i.e. defendant before this Court to the second party i.e. plaintiff before this Court. A careful perusal of this document shows that the name of Hari Dev (whom the plaintiff referred to as Hardev) and Dharampal Singh have been inserted later on with a manual Typewriter in a different ink whereas the contents of the said Agreement to Sell and Purchase are computer typed and printed in a different ink.
(38) Fourthly in so far as the Affidavit Ex.PW1/3 (Collectively) of Smt. Krisha Devi is concerned, again it is an unregistered document and a perusal of the same shows that the date of 16 mentioned on the verification at Point A has been inserted with a black pen and was never typed in the original. In para 4 of this Affidavit it has been confirmed that the actual vacant physical possession of the said property has been handed over to the purchaser which is the plaintiff before this Court whereas it is the case of the plaintiff himself that the said possession was never delivered. Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.36 to 41 (39) Fifthly coming now the receipt for a sum of Rs.80,000/ (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) which is Ex.PW1/3 (Collectively), this receipt is in respect of a plot no.7 with Malba, measuring 100 square yards out of Khasra No. 43/19, situated in the area of village Burari, abadi known as Inder Prastha Colony, CBlock. Again it is an unregistered document and the details of the witnesses Hari Dev (whom the plaintiff referred to as Hardev) and Dharampal Singh have been inserted with a manual Typewriter whereas the contents of the same are Computer Printout. Further, as admitted by the plaintiff the date of 16 in the last para of receipt at Point A has been inserted with a black pen by hand.
(40) Sixthly in so far as another Receipt Ex.PW1/2 for a sum of Rs.6 Lacs (Rupees Six Lacs only) is concerned, again it is an unregistered document and is only notarized. The entire contents of the said receipt is a Computer Printout whereas the details of the witnesses Hari Dev (whom the plaintiff referred to as Hardev) and Dharampal Singh have been inserted with a manual Typewriter. Further, there is a cutting and insertion not only on the amount but also on the date with a manual Typewriter after putting a fluid on the original. On the third line of this document initially (Rs. Eighty Thousand) were written which were later on converted into (Rupees Six Lakh) by putting a fluid on the same which is clearly visible to naked eye when the paper is held against light. Also, on the last line of this receipt, initially the date of 21.9.2005 was put, which date was later on changed to Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.37 to 41 16.3.2007 after putting a fluid on the same and this again is visible to naked eye on holding this paper/ document against against light. (41) Seventhly coming now to the Possession Letter which is Ex.PW1/3 (collectively) is concerned, again it is an unregistered document and is only notarized. The entire contents of the said document is a Computer Printout whereas the details of the witnesses Hari Dev and Dharampal Singh have been inserted with a manual Typewriter. Further, there is a cutting and insertion on the date in the second lat line where date of 16 at Point A has been inserted with a black pen by hand. (42) Lastly in so far as the Deed of Will at page no.23 which is Ex.PW1/3 (collectively) is concerned, again it is an unregistered documents and only Notarized. The entire contents of the said document is a Computer Printout whereas the details of the witness Hari Dev been inserted with a manual Typewriter. A perusal of this document shows that it does not bear any date at Point A which has been left blank with only and month and year i.e. ___.3.2007.
(43) The various cuttings and additions made in these documents as highlighted herein above, have not been explained or justified and create a doubt in the mind of the court with regard to its authenticity. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has also raised other issues as regards the site plan filed by the plaintiff not tallying with the actual position of the suit property, the land in question being agricultural land and the suit being barred under the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.38 to 41 provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act and further on the aspect that the plaintiff had admitted in his crossexamination that the suit land was identified in Khasra number and not in Block number whereas he further admitted that in Khasra No. 43 there were other blocks as well and hence there is no privity of contract between the parties, the plaintiff not being aware of the identity of the suit land. It is also not clear if the physical vacant possession of the property had been taken by the plaintiff from the defendant, then why the possession continued to remain with the defendant. In so far as the witness of the documents particularly Dharampal (PW2) is concerned, there appears to be an apparent collusion between the plaintiff and Dharampal. In fact, Dharampal (PW2) has in his crossexamination has contradicted the case of the plaintiff on many issues. On the one hand Dharampal has stated in his crossexamination that a sum of Rs. Two Lacs has been given to the defendant as advance on 22.2.2007 but on the other hand the plaintiff Baljeet Singh (PW1) has stated that the talks of sale started from the side of defendant in the month of March 2007. Further, on the one hand Dharampal (PW2) has made a reference to the Bayana receipt of Rs. Two Lacs whereas on the other hand the plaintiff Baljeet Singh (PW1) has neither made any reference to the same nor he has placed the said receipt on record. It also cannot be ignored that Dharampal (PW1) is working as Typist at Kashmere Gate, Old Court (Sub Registrar) for a long time and has admitted that the documents have not been notarized as per the Notary Public Act and there is a clear admission on his part with regard to the Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.39 to 41 improper preparation of these documents and insertions made in the same. Hence, the documents on which the plaintiff is placing his reliance does not inspire confidence of this Court and the possibility of the documents being fabricated cannot be ruled out.
(44) Therefore, under the given circumstances, I hereby hold that the plaintiff has not been able to rebut and controvert the claim of the defendant about there being no privity of contract between the parties and the documents so relied upon by the plaintiff does not confer any ownership rights upon the plaintiff.
(45) Both the issues are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue No.3.: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession as claimed?
Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as claimed? Issue No.5: Whether the plaintiff also entitled to damages, if so, at what rate?
(46) All the above issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience being interlinked and involving common discussion. Onus of proving all the issues was upon the plaintiff. However, in view of my findings with regard to the issues no. 1 and 2, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of possession, injunction and damages as asked for in Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.40 to 41 the plaint. Issues are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Relief:
(47) In view of my above discussion, I hereby hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of possession, injunction and damages as asked for in the plaint.
CONCLUSIONS:
(48) In view of my findings on the various issues, I hereby hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of possession, injunction and damages as asked for in the plaint.
(49) Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
(50) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 28.4.2015 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ DELHI Baljeet Singh Vs Krishna Devi, CS No. 317/13 Page No.41 to 41