Delhi District Court
Sh. Deepak Kumar vs Sh. Ranbir Singh on 21 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH: ADJ03 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No.14/16
New CS No. 618599/2016
In the matter of:
1. Sh. Deepak Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Brij Lal
2. Sh. Ashish,
S/o Late Sh. Brij Lal
3. Smt. Shashi Gupta,
W/o Late Sh. Brij Lal,
Plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 residents of:
G10, Vishnu Garden, Delhi.
4. Smt. Seema Garg,
W/o Sh. Sandeep Garg,
R/o H. No. 3444, B/250,
Hansa Puri, Tri Nagar, Delhi.
5. Smt. Sangita Singhal,
W/o Sh. Ajay Singhal,
R/o H13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.
6. Smt. Neetu Goyal,
W/o Sh. Anil Goyal,
R/o C180, Ist Floor,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi. ... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Sh. Ranbir Singh
S/o Late Sh. Raj Singh,
R/o H. No. A87, Bindapur Village, Delhi59.
2. Sh. Shiv Dutt Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Parmal Sharma
CS No. 14/16 Page 1 of 37
3. Smt. Premwati
S/o Late Sh. Megh Ram
4. Sh. Jagat Singh,
S/o Sh. Raj Singh
All defendants residents of:
C1/28, Sanjay Enclave,
Part of Khasra No.310
Revenue estate of Village Bindapur,
Delhi ....Defendants
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DECLARATION, DAMAGES AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Suit instituted on 17.10.2007
Arguments heard on - 27.01.2018
Date of decision 21.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff no.3 is the widow of late Brij Lal and the other five plaintiffs are his children. Plaintiffs no.2 to 6 executed a Special Power of Attorney (for short the 'SPA') dt. 16.10.2007 (Ex. PW1/2) thereby authorizing plaintiff no.1 Deepak to sign, verify and institute the plaint and to do all other necessary acts and deeds on their behalf.
2. Plaintiffs claim that late Brij Lal was the owner of property bearing no. C1/28, part of khasra no. 310, Sanjay Enclave in revenue estate of Village Bindapur, Delhi59 measuring 643 sq. yards (for short the 'suit property'). Late Brij Lal had purchased the suit property from the previous owners, CS No. 14/16 Page 2 of 37 namely, Sh. Karan Singh, Sh. Raj Singh and Sh. Gyan Singh all sons of Kali Ram for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/. In this regard, a registered sale deed (Ex. PW1/3) had been executed in his favour. Late Brij Lal got the suit property mutated in his name. As per the plaintiffs, late Brij Lal had also raised construction over the suit property and handed over its possession to defendant no.1 Ranbir Singh for 'looking after/taking care' as he (late Brij Lal) used to reside with his family members in village Samalaka, District Sonepat, Haryana. This was also for the reason that all his children (i.e. plaintiffs no. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6) were minors at the time of its purchase and there was none to look after the same.
3. Late Brij Lal, it is averred, used to visit the suit property from time to time whenever he visited Delhi for his business purposes and to look after the suit property. Plaintiff no.3 Smt. Shashi Gupta was aware of the purchase of the suit property, but being a housewife she was unaware as to where it was situate and when it was purchased. The other plaintiffs, being minors, were unaware of the suit property.
4. Late Brij Lal passed away on 06.09.1996. Prior to his demise, he had informed his wife Smt. Shashi Gupta (plaintiff no.3) that defendant no. 1 Ranbir was 'taking care' of the suit property in Delhi.
5. Plaintiffs aver that in the first week of May 2007, while CS No. 14/16 Page 3 of 37 plaintiff no.1 Deepak was sorting out the papers, he found copy of the sale deed (Ex. PW1/3) of the suit property. From their mother (plaintiff no.3), the other plaintiffs then made enquiries. They also made enquiries from SubRegistrar's office. They obtained certified copy of the sale deed (Ex. PW1/3) and also of the khasra khatoni (Ex. PW1/4), which clearly showed late Brij Lal's title over the suit property. Plaintiff no.1 Deepak thereafter visited the suit property in the first week of July 2007 and it came to his knowledge that defendant no.2 (Shiv Dutt Sharma) was in possession of the suit property, being a tenant of defendant no. 1 Ranbir, for residential purpose. Plaintiff no.1 Deepak also came to know that defendant no.1 Ranbir had parted with possession of the suit property illegally and unauthorizedly to defendants no.3 & 4.
6. From 20.07.2007 till the last week of August 2007 plaintiffs tried to meet defendant no.1 Ranbir, but he avoided. However, on 30.08.2007 plaintiffs did manage to meet him. Plaintiffs then informed defendant no.1 Ranbir about late Brij Lal's demise and demanded possession of the suit property. Defendant no.1 Ranbir, however, claimed himself to be owner of the suit property and started to extend threats to plaintiffs. Finding no option, plaintiffs lodged a complaint (Ex. PW1/5) with SHO, PS Uttam Nagar. Plaintiffs' legal notice dt. 03.09.2007 (Ex. PW1/6) to defendants no.1 and 2 asking them to CS No. 14/16 Page 4 of 37 hand over possession of the suit property and to pay damages of Rs. 3,000/ per day was of no avail. Plaintiffs apprehend that defendants may create third party interest in the suit property by manipulating and forging documents. On these averments, plaintiffs seek the following reliefs:
a) A decree of possession in plaintiffs' favour and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants, their agents, attornies, servants, family members, associates, etc. to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property i.e. builtup property bearing no. C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, part of Khasra No. 310, revenue estate of Village Bindapur, Delhi59 admeasuring 643 sq. yards, as shown in green, red and yellow colours in the site plan,
b) A decree of declaration in plaintiffs' favour and against the defendants thereby declaring the plaintiffs to be legal and lawful owners of suit property being legal heirs of late Brij Lal,
c) A decree of damages in plaintiffs' favour and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to pay damages @ Rs. 3,000/ per day from 11.09.2007 till actual handing over of possession of the suit property to plaintiffs,
d) A decree of permanent injunction in plaintiffs' CS No. 14/16 Page 5 of 37 favour and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, attorneys, etc. from disposing of or creating any third party right, title and interest in the suit property i.e. builtup property bearing No. C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, part of khasra no. 310, revenue estate of Village Bindapur, Delhi59 admeasuring 643 sq. yards, as shown in green, red and yellow colours in the Site Plan,
e) Award costs of the suit in plaintiffs' favour and against the defendants, and
f) Pass any other and further orders as Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in plaintiffs' favour and against the defendants.
7. Defendants no. 1 and 4 filed their written statement. As per them, defendant no.1 Ranbir in fact owns the suit property and that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in respect thereto. They accuse the plaintiffs of having filed the present lis with gambling spirit. They submit: "Land comprised in khasra no. 310 measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Binda Pur, Delhi was jointly owned by Sh. Raj Singh, Gian Chand and Sh. Karan Singh having 1/3rd share each. The aforesaid Sh. Raj Singh, Gian Chand and Sh. Karan Singh sold a piece of land measuring 643 Sq. Yds. (13 biswas) to one Sh. Brij Lal, alleged to be father of CS No. 14/16 Page 6 of 37 plaintiffs No. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and husband of plaintiff No. 3 in the year 1981 and remaining land measuring 4 bighas 3 biswas remained with the said Sh. Raj Singh, Gian Chand and Sh. Karan Singh. The said Sh. Brij Lal carved out plots of the aforesaid land which bear No. 30, 31 and
32. He sold the said land measuring 643 Sq. Yds. after sub dividing the same into three plots as stated above to Smt. Kanta Devi wife of Sh. Lachhmi Narain resident of 1574/112, Tri Nagar, Delhi110 035 on 3rd June 1987 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/. The documents of transfer favouring Smt. Kanta Devi are annexed herewith. It is pertinent to point out that the said Smt. Kanta Devi sold the aforesaid land after carving out small plots to number of persons who have built houses thereupon. The allegations of the plaintiffs that they were not aware about the land in suit for the past 26 years smack their malafide intention. The suit filed with preposterous intention is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further submitted that the aforesaid Sh. Raj Singh, Gian Chand and Sh. Karan Singh carved plots in their land falling in Khasra No.
310. They sold plots No. 27, 28 and 29 measuring 582 Sq. Yds. out of said Khasra No. 310 situated at Sanjay Enclave, Block C1, Uttam Nagar, area of Village Binda Pur, Delhi to the defendant No. 1 on 14.6.1982. The documents of transfer favouring defendant no. 1 are annexed herewith. The plaintiffs want to lay claim on the plots of the defendant No. 1 by making fictitious and concocted allegations. The suit deserves dismissal on this score."
8. Defendants no.1 and 4 deny that late Brij Lal was the owner of the suit property bearing no. C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, part of khasra no. 310 in revenue estate of village Bindapur, Delhi measuring 643 square yards. They further deny that late Brij Lal, after purchasing the land in question, had raised CS No. 14/16 Page 7 of 37 constructions thereon and had handed over the same to defendant no.1 Ranbir to look after it. They state that late Brij Lal, after purchasing the property, without raising any construction, had sold away the same to Smt. Kanta Devi. They aver that defendant no.1 was never employed as servant of late Brij Lal. They state that they are unaware about the date of death of Brij Lal and also about his legal heirs. They state that plaintiffs' averments that in first week of May 2007 they came to know of the sale deed (Ex. PW1/3) demonstrates that they were unaware about the same prior thereto. They point out that plaintiff no.1 Deepak had moved an application under Order I Rule 10, CPC before the court of Sh. Naresh Kumar Laka, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi in the civil suit titled as 'Ranbir vs. Shiv Dutt Sharma' wherein he had alleged that his father was owner of the suit property under the tenancy of Shiv Dutt Sharma and which application was withdrawn by him being devoid of any substance. They state that no boundaries of the land purchased by Sh. Brij Lal were given in the sale deed dt. 03.11.1981 (Ex. PW1/3). They state that plaintiffs have no concern qua the property owned by defendant no. 1 which bears no. C27, C28 and C29. It is denied that the plaintiffs met the defendant no. 1 on 30.08.2007 and extended threats as alleged.
9. Besides the aforesaid, defendants no.1 and 4 take the following legal objections: that plaintiffs have not approached CS No. 14/16 Page 8 of 37 the Court with clean hands and have concealed relevant and material facts; that defendants no.1 and 4 neither invaded nor extended threat to invade any legal rights of the plaintiffs; that plaintiffs' suit is false, frivolous and vexatious; that plaintiffs filed the instant suit in collusion with defendant no.2 and that the instant suit is an attempt to frustrate the claims of defendant no.1 against defendant no.2; that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit as the value of the subject matter of the suit is more than Rs. 60 lacs and that plaintiffs have deliberately undervalued the suit; that the suit has not been valued properly for court fees and jurisdiction; that no cause of action exists to bring the present suit and it is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11, CPC; that the suit is not maintainable as it is hit by Order VII Rule 3, CPC; that the suit is barred by limitation as the defendant no.1 has been in possession of the suit property in his own right since 14.06.1982; that the suit has not been filed, signed and verified by a duly authorized person; that the suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants no. 2 to 4. Denying all other averments of the plaintiffs as set out in their plaint, defendants no. 1 & 4 seek dismissal of the suit.
10. Defendant no.2 filed his written statement. He states that he is residing in the suit property as a tenant of defendant no.1 Ranbir and that he used to pays rent to him regularly. He CS No. 14/16 Page 9 of 37 submits that defendant no.1 Ranbir has filed a suit for possession, rental arrears, mesne profits and damages that is sub judice before the Court of Sh. Naresh Kumar Laka, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. He points out that defendant no.1 Ranbir in the suit against him before the Court of Sh. Naresh Kumar Laka, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi does not claim himself to be the owner of the said property. He goes on to state that he (defendant no.2) too filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against defendant no.1, which already stands decided by the court of Sh. V.K. Sharma, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. He accuses the plaintiffs of having concealed material facts. He states that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit against him; that plaintiffs filed no site plan with the present suit and that plaintiffs want to dispossess him through illegal means; that plaintiffs brought the instant action in collusion with defendant no.1 only to harass him and in order to dispossess him from the suit property; that plaintiffs set up a false and baseless story in the present suit. He denies all other averments of the plaintiffs as being wrong and false or for want of knowledge. He seeks dismissal of the present suit.
11. Defendant no. 3 suffered the proceedings ex parte vide order dt. 07.11.2007. She did not file her written statement.
12. Issues, framed on 13.02.2008, are as follows:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without cause of CS No. 14/16 Page 10 of 37 action? OPD
2. Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD
3. Whether suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
4. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
5. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD
6. Whether suit has been signed and filed by duly authorized person? OPP
7. Whether plaintiff is owner of the suit property? OPP
8. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as claimed? OPP
9. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as claimed for? OPP
10.Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as claimed? OPP
11.Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages as claimed? OPP
12. Relief.
13. In plaintiffs' evidence, three witnesses were examined. They are as follows: PW1 Deepak Kumar. He is the plaintiff no.1.
PW2 Prabhu Nath Singh, patwari from SDM Office, Nazafgargh, Delhi. He deposed that as per the record of khatoni (Ex.PW1/4) for the year 200102, for khasra no. 310 min. rakba 013 biswa defendant Brij Lal is the recorded owner.
PW3 Raj Kumar, record keeper from the office of Sub CS No. 14/16 Page 11 of 37 RegistrarII, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. He appeared with the sale deed dt. 03.11.1981 (Ex.PW1/3) executed by Sh. Karan Singh, Sh. Raj Singh and Sh. Gian Chand, sons of Sh. Kali Ram resident of Village Bindapur, Delhi in favour of Brij Lal in respect of property measuring 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) in khasra no. 310, Village Bindapur, Delhi. The sale deed was registered as document no. 7168, book no. 1, Volume no. 3901 on pages 22 to 24 dt. 03.11.1981.
14. In defendants' evidence, defendant no. 1 Ranbir Singh (DW1) was the sole witness.
15. Arguments heard. Record perused.
16. Issuewise findings are as follows:
17. Issue no. 5 - The issue is whether this suit is bad for mis joinder of parties; onus being on defendants to prove it. Defendants no.1 and 4 had take an objection in their written statement that the present suit is bad for misjoinder of defendants no.2 to 4. Defendant no.2 in his written statement takes the stand that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit against him. Under Order I Rule 9, CPC a suit can never be defeated for misjoinder of a party. It is only in case of non joinder of a necessary party that a suit can be defeated or held to be bad. The very fact that a party may have been misjoined will not be a ground to hold that the suit is not maintainable. In view CS No. 14/16 Page 12 of 37 of this legal position, this issue is answered in plaintiffs' favour and against the defendants.
18. Issue no. 6 - The issue is whether the suit has been signed and filed by a duly authorized person; onus being on plaintiffs to prove it. Defendants no.1 and 4, in their written statement, had taken the stand that the other plaintiffs, except plaintiff no.1 Deepak Kumar, did not sign and verify the plaint. This stand is perfunctory at best. The fact of the matter, as per the plaint, is that late Brij Lal initially owned the suit property. Plaintiff no. 3 is the widow of late Brij Lal. Rest of the plaintiffs are the children of late Brij Lal. Plaintiff no.1 Deepak was duly authorized by other plaintiffs to do the needful in terms of SPA dt. 16.10.2007 (Ex. PW1/2). This is so averred in paragraph no.2 of the plaint. Plaintiff no.1 Deepak (PW1) in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1 again made a similar averment in paragraph no.3 thereof. The reason for executing the SPA dt. 16.10.2007 (Ex.PW1/2) in favour of plaintiff no.1 Deepak was that they were busy in business and family affairs and it was thus not possible for them to appear and attend the Court hearings. This act of the plaintiffs no.2 to 6 executing SPA dt. 16.10.2007 (Ex. PW1/2) thereby authorizing plaintiff no.1 Deepak to sign and verify the plaint is very much covered within the ambit of proviso to Order VI Rule 14, CPC. In view of this, the suit cannot be held to be bad. This issue is thus decided in CS No. 14/16 Page 13 of 37 plaintiffs' favour and against the defendants.
19. Issue no. 7 - The issue is whether plaintiffs are owners of the suit property, onus being on plaintiffs to prove it. It is an admitted case of both the sides that late Brij Lal had purchased land measuring 13 biswa (643 square yards) in khasra no. 310 in the area of village Bindapur, Delhi vide registered sale deed (Ex. PW1/3) dt. 03.11.1981 for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/ from Sh. Karan Singh, Sh. Raj Singh and Sh. Gian Chand, sons of Kali Ram. Defendant no.1 Ranbir happens to be the son of one of the three vendors, namely, Raj Singh, who sold the aforesaid land measuring 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) to late Brij Lal. It is important to note that area of land transferred to late Brij Lal vide the registered sale deed dt. 03.11.1981 (Ex. PW1/3) was 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) only and not more.
20. Plaintiffs claim that the suit property, which is C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, was/is part and parcel of the very land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) that late Brij Lal had purchased out of khasra no. 310 in revenue estate of village Bindapur, Delhi. Plaintiffs can be held to be owners of suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave only if they prove in the very first place that the suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave formed part and parcel of the very land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) that late Brij Lal had purchased out of khasra no. 310 in revenue estate of village Bindapur, Delhi. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove this.
CS No. 14/16 Page 14 of 37They have furnished no document whatsoever in support of this plea of theirs. To put it simply, they furnished no evidence whatsoever to establish that the suit property, which is C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, was/is part and parcel of the very land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) that late Brij Lal had purchased out of khasra no. 310 in revenue estate of village Bindapur, Delhi. Plaintiffs' bare selfserving ipse dixit in his regard sans any proof would not suffice. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to discharge the onus of proving this issue.
21. On the contrary, the evidence and the material placed on record by defendants no.1 and 4 would very strongly suggest that the suit property, which is C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, did not in fact form part and parcel of the very land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) that late Brij Lal had purchased out of khasra no. 310 in revenue estate of village Bindapur, Delhi. Not only this, the evidence and the material placed on record by defendants no.1 and 4 would also very strongly suggest that late Brij Lal had already transferred to one Smt. Kanta Devi on 03.06.1987 in terms of GPA sale documents the entire land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) that he had purchased out of khasra no. 310 in revenue estate of village Bindapur, Delhi vide sale deed dt. 03.11.1981 (Ex. PW1/3). And lastly, the evidence and the material placed on record by defendants no.1 and 4 would also very strongly suggest that the suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave rather belongs to CS No. 14/16 Page 15 of 37 defendant no.1 Ranbir Singh and plaintiffs are making a false and dishonest claim to it.
22. Defendants no.1 and 4 in their written statement take the stand that late Brij Lal had transferred this entire area of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) to Smt. Kanta Devi vide GPA sale documents dt. 03.06.1987. The General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA') executed by late Brij Lal in Smt. Kanta Devi's favour is MarkA; Deed of Agreement executed between late Brij Lal and Smt. Kanta Devi is MarkB; late Brij Lal's affidavit is MarkC; and a registered receipt under late Brij Lal's signatures showing receipt of payment of Rs. 45,000/ from Smt. Kanta Devi is Ex. DW1/1 : Mark PW1/A. The GPA MarkA in Smt. Kanta Devi's favour executed by late Brij Lal, inter alia, notes as follows: "Whereas the said executant [Brij Lal] is the actual rightful owner and in possession of Plot No. 30, 31, 32 land measuring 643 Sq. yds. out of Khasra no. 310 situated at Vill. Bindapur, Delhi State abadi known as Sanjay Enclave Block C 1, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59 and bounded as under: East:
other plot (plot no. 33). West: Road 20 ft. South: Gali. North:
Gali. Having purchased the said property from Sh. Karan Singh etc. vide sale deed regd as No. 7168 regd on dt. 3.11.1981 in the office of the S.R.Delhi." Late Brij Lal's affidavit MarkC too notes that the deal was qua plots no. 30, 31 and 32 land measuring 643 sq. yds. out of khasra no. 310 in village Bindapur, Delhi CS No. 14/16 Page 16 of 37 abadi known as Sanjay Enclave, Block C1, Uttam Nagar. The Deed of Agreement MarkB is to the same effect as the GPA MarkA. This Deed of Agreement MarkB again notes that Brij Lal is the actual rightful owner and in possession of plots no. 30, 31, 32 land measuring 643 sq. yds out of khasra No. 310 situated at Vill. Bindapur Delhi State abadi known as Sanjay Enclave Block C1 Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59 and bounded as under: East: other plot (plot no. 33). West: Road 20 ft. South: Gali.
North: Gali. Not only this, Deed of Agreement MarkB clearly notes that late Brij Lal 'has agreed to sell the abovesaid property and Smt. Kanta Devi agreed to purchase the abovesaid property for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/ paid by Smt. Kanta Devi to late Brij Lal and that the entire consideration amount had been received in cash in advance by means of a separate receipt'. Receipt (Ex.DW1/1 : Mark PW1/A) is a registered document and it shows transfer of cash of Rs. 45,000/ from Smt. Kanta Devi to late Brij Lal. It is pertinent to mention that the stand taken by defendants no.1 and 4 visavis sale of the entire land measuring 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) purchased by late Brij Lal was not controverted in any manner by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed no replication controverting this. Neither did plaintiff no.1 Deepak (PW1) in his evidence by way of affidavit make an assertion that his father had not sold out the entire land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.), which he had purchased vide sale deed (Ex. PW1/3), subsequently to Smt. Kanta Devi on 03.06.1987.
CS No. 14/16 Page 17 of 3723. Defendant no.1 Ranbir (DW1) in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. DW1/A) clearly deposed that late Brij Lal had transferred the land measuring 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) in khasra no. 310 village Bindapur, Delhi, which he had purchased vide sale deed Ex.PW1/3, to Smt. Kanta Devi in terms of the aforesaid GPA sale documents dt. 03.06.1987. There is hardly any crossexamination of DW1 Ranbir on this point. All that was suggested to DW1 Ranbir in his crossexamination was that all the documents being relied upon by him were forged and fabricated and further that receipt of Rs. 45,000/ (Ex.DW1/1 :
Mark PW1/A) made no mention of plots no. 30, 31 and 32. The suggestion that documents being relied upon by defendants no.1 and 4 are forged and fabricated is noted only to be rejected. Plaintiffs do not point out as to how and in what manner are the GPA sale documents dt. 03.06.1987 executed by late Brij Lal in Smt. Kanta Devi's favour forged and fabricated. The bare suggestion put to defendant no.1 Ranbir (DW1) that such documents are forged and fabricated without furnishing any particulars thereof would not suffice. It is pertinent to mention here that Order VI Rule 4, CPC mandates that particulars of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence must be stated. It is also pertinent to mention here that a person from SubRegistrar's office had appeared before this Court on 16.01.2014 with the registered receipt (Ex. DW1/1 : Mark PW1/A) executed by late Brij Lal in Smt. Kanta CS No. 14/16 Page 18 of 37 Devi's favour. It is further pertinent to mention that a certified copy of this receipt is on record. Plaintiff no.1 Deepak (PW1), in his crossexamination, when shown his father's signatures thereon, denied the same. This bare denial of plaintiff no.1 Deepak (PW1) will surely count as nothing in the absence of any other material to corroborate his bare denial of his father's signatures on the receipt (Ex. DW1/1 : Mark PW1/A). This receipt of Rs. 45,000/ executed by late Brij Lal in Smt. Kanta Devi's favour is a registered document. Section 34, Registration Act, inter alia, contemplates the Registering Authority being satisfied with the identity of the executant and whether or not such document was in fact executed by the executant before he can order registration of the document presented for registration. Necessary endorsements in compliance with section 58, Registration Act were made by the SubRegistrar on the receipt (Ex. DW1/1 : Mark PW1/A). It is also important to note that as per SubRegistrar's endorsement on receipt (Ex. DW1/1 :
Mark PW1/A), contents thereof were explained to the parties who had admitted the same to be correct. Further, as per the endorsements, the parties had put their thumb impressions/signatures thereon in SubRegistrar's presence. Further, section 60 (2) of Registration Act, 1908 mandates that once the SubRegistrar after compliance with the formalities for registration as required by law endorses a certificate containing the word 'registered' together with the number and page of the CS No. 14/16 Page 19 of 37 book in which the document has been copied then such certificate shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been registered in the manner provided under the Act. Section 114, Evidence Act mandates that all official act are presumed to have been performed regularly. Now, all these statutory endorsements and the presumptions under the law cannot be set at naught sans any proof to the contrary. Thus, the bare denial of plaintiff no.1 Deepak (DW1) in his cross examination that the registered receipt of Rs. 45,000/ (Ex. DW1/1 : Mark PW1/A) in Smt. Kanta Devi's favour did not contain his father is of no consequence in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
24. Plaintiffs' counsel pointed out that receipt (Ex. DW1/1 :
Mark PW1/A) is the only registered document out of the GPA sale documents. He vehemently urged that the same, in any case, made no mention whatsoever of any transfer of land. This argument is absolutely meritless. As noted above, the Deed of Agreement (MarkB) clearly makes a mention of payment of entire consideration of Rs. 45,000/ vide a separate receipt in connection with transfer of plots no. 30, 31 and 32 which is land measuring 643 sq. yds out of khasra no. 310, Village Bindapur, known as Sanjay Enclave, Block C1, Uttam Delhi in the abadi Nagar, Delhi. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this registered receipt dt. 03.06.1987 of Rs. 45,000/ (Ex. DW1/1 :CS No. 14/16 Page 20 of 37
Mark PW1/A) has to be taken to be clearly relatable to the Deed of Agreement (Mark B) dt. 03.06.1987 and consequently to the GPA dt. 03.06.1987 (Mark A) as also the affidavit dt. 03.06.1987 (Mark C). Secondly, if this registered receipt dt. 03.06.1987 (Ex. DW1/1 : Mark PW1/A) of Rs. 45,000/ did not relate to the transaction qua transfer of plots no. 30, 31 and 32 which is land measuring 643 sq. yds in khasra no. 310, Village Bindapur, of Sanjay Enclave, Block C1, Uttam Nagar, Delhi in the abadi Delhi, then to which other transaction did it actually relate to? Did late Brij Lal have any other transaction of Rs. 45,000/ with Smt. Kanta Devi on or about 03.06.1987? And if he had, it was for the plaintiffs to prove the same. All the GPA sale documents, including the registered receipt of Rs. 45,000/ are of 03.06.1987. The Deed of Agreement (MarkB) clearly makes a mention of a separate receipt of Rs. 45,000/. Thus, common sense, logic and preponderance of probabilities strongly point to the fact that the registered receipt of Rs. 45,000/ was executed by late Brij Lal in Smt. Kanta Devi's favour for transfer of plots no. 30, 31 and 32 which is land measuring 643 sq. yds in khasra no. 310, Village of Sanjay Enclave, Block C1, Bindapur, Delhi in the abadi Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Common sense, logic and preponderance of probabilities also strongly point to the fact that this registered receipt of Rs. 45,000/ (Ex. DW1/1 : Mark PW1/A) is clearly relatable to the Deed of Agreement (Mark B) dt. 03.06.1987, GPA dt. 03.06.1987 (Mark A) and the affidavit dt. 03.06.1987 CS No. 14/16 Page 21 of 37 (Mark C).
25. Thus, this Court is of the view, on preponderance of probabilities, that defendants no.1 and 4 have successfully discharged the onus of proving that late Brij Lal had transferred his entire land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.), which he had purchased in the terms of the sale deed dt. 03.11.1981 (Ex. PW1/3), to Smt. Kanta Devi vide GPA sale documents dt. 03.06.1987. Defendants no. 1 and 4 have successfully established this. Plaintiffs led no evidence to show to the contrary.
26. The sum and substance of this is that when late Brij Lal had transferred the entire land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) to Smt. Kanta Devi vide GPA sale documents dt. 03.06.1987, he was not left with even an inch of land over there. Consequently, it would be a sheer dishonesty on the part of the plaintiffs to aver that late Brij Lal continued to have right, title and interest in the land that he had purchased.
27. There is yet another reason to hold against the plaintiffs on this issue. Plaintiffs in their plaint have given the suit property number as C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, part of khasra no. 310 in revenue estate of village Bindapur, Delhi. GPA sale documents dt. 03.06.1987 in Kanta Devi's favour executed by late Brij Lal clearly show that the entire land of 643 sq. yds. which he had purchased had been carved out in three different plots bearing nos. 30, 31 and 32 in the colony of Sanjay Enclave, CS No. 14/16 Page 22 of 37 Block C1. These GPA sale documents executed by late Brij Lal in Smt. Kanta Devi's favour would also show that the adjoining plot was no. 33. On preponderance of probabilities, it does appear that these plots (30, 31 and 32) were given numbers as C 1/30, C1/31 and C1/32. These were the three plots (C1/30, C 1/31 and C1/32) part of Block C1 of Sanjay Enclave which late Brij Lal had transferred to Smt. Kanta Devi on 03.06.1987 vide GPA sale documents for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/. Suit property being claimed by plaintiffs is C1/28, Sanjay Enclave. Common sense, logic and preponderance of probabilities too indicate that suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave was initially plot no. 28 in Block C1, Sanjay Enclave and to begin with it never belonged to late Brij Lal. This conclusion is also borne out by the following circumstance. Defendant no.1 Ranbir happens to be the son of Sh. Raj Singh. Sh. Raj Singh was one of the vendors, who had sold the land measuring 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) to late Brij Lal vide sale deed Ex. PW1/3. Sale deed Ex. PW1/3, inter alia, states, 'whereas the said land with other land is the ancestral property of the Vendors, inherited the same, before 1954'. What is, therefore, clear is that apart from the land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) sold to late Brij Lal, the father and paternal uncles of defendant no.1 Ranbir also had other land that was ancestral in nature. There are GPA sale documents (Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4) exhibited on record by defendant no.1 Ranbir (DW1). These documents do show that CS No. 14/16 Page 23 of 37 on 14.06.1982 Sh. Raj Singh, Sh. Karan Singh and Sh. Gian Chand had transferred for a consideration of Rs.5,000/ to defendant no.1 Ranbir plots no. 27, 28 and 29 measuring 582 sq. yds. in khasra no. 310 situated in Block C1 at Sanjay Enclave, Uttam Nagar in the area of village Bindapur, Delhi. Interestingly, these GPA sale documents (Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4) would show that on the west side of plots no. 27, 28 and 29 is plot no. 30, which plot no. 30 had been sold out by late Brij Lal to Smt. Kanta Devi. This circumstance, further reinforces the view that the suit property C1/28 at Sanjay Enclave was initially plot no. 28 in Block C1, Sanjay Enclave and that it never belonged to late Brij Lal. The material on record (GPA sale documents dt. 03.06.1987 in Kanta Devi's favour together with documents (Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4) clearly indicates that the suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave could not have been anything other than plot no. 28 in Block C1, Sanjay Enclave and it belonged to defendant no.1 Ranbir. Even de hors these documents (Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4) defendant no.1 Ranbir, himself being the legal heir of the vendors, would have succeeded to the plots no. 27, 28 and 29. Further, plaintiff no.1 Deepak (PW1) himself seems to be unsure as to whether the suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave falls in the area of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.) of khsara no. 310 that his father had purchased. In his crossexamination he had stated, "Vol. I simply know that my father had purchased CS No. 14/16 Page 24 of 37 the property measuring 643 sq. yards. I simply know that the property is shown to be part of Khasra no.310, Sanjay Enclave. I do not remember the revenue estate of the village or the exact number of the plot." The plaintiffs are being completely dishonest on this count in trying to claim somebody else's property as theirs.
28. Plaintiffs' counsel placed very heavy reliance upon khatoni (Ex. PW1/4) of year 20012002 in favour of late Brij Lal. For the multiple reasons to follow this argument is of no assistance to the plaintiffs. The revenue record Ex. PW1/4 of year 200102 merely states that qua the land of 13 biswa, Sh. Brij Lal was the recorded bhumidar since year 198384. However, this document does not in any manner establish that the suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, Delhi was a part and parcel of this land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.). On the contrary, as stated hereinabove, the material brought on record clearly shows that the suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, Delhi did not form part and parcel of the 13 biswa land (643 sq. yds.) which late Brij Lal had purchased vide sale deed Ex. PW1/3. That apart, there are several decisions to show that revenue records are not proof of title and that such revenue records are merely for fiscal purposes. That apart, the khatoni (Ex. PW1/4) of year 20012002 would at the most raise a rebuttable presumption of possession of the land in question. But, going by plaintiffs' own case, they were never in possession CS No. 14/16 Page 25 of 37 of the land in question in year 200102. In the police complaint dt. 31.08.2007 (Ex. PW1/5) plaintiff no.1 Deepak himself states that his father possessed the property of 643 sq. yds. only till the time of his demise i.e. till 06.09.1996. Not only this, such presumption of possession would be only qua the land of 643 sq. yds., which late Brij Lal had purchased. It shall not be qua the suit property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave, which late Brij Lal, to begin with, never owned. It has already been established hereinabove that the suit property C1/28 did not form part and parcel of the land of 13 biswa (643 sq. yds.), which late Brij Lal had purchased.
29. It may be argued on the strength of the decision in Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) that what was purported to be transferred to Smt. Kanta Devi by late Brij Lal on 03.06.1987 through GPA sale documents was no 'sale' in the eyes of law.
After the decision in Suraj Lamps (supra), Delhi High Court in Shri Ramesh Chand Vs. Shri Suresh Chand & Anr., 188 (2012) DLT 538 has held that where power of attorney sale documents are coupled with consideration, then stricto sensu complete ownership is not conferred, but the said documents do create rights to the extent provided under section 202 of Contract Act, section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and ownership on account of devolution in terms of the Will after CS No. 14/16 Page 26 of 37 demise of the testator. Delhi High Court in this regard relied on an observation in Suraj Lamps (supra) to the effect that power of attorney is not revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. It may also be pointed out that under section 202 of Contract Act if a power of attorney is given for a consideration, then it cannot be terminated in the absence of an express contract to the prejudice of such interest. In the case at hand, the GPA in favour of the Smt. Kanta Devi was coupled with a consideration of Rs. 45,000/. And though Smt. Kanta Devi may not be have become 'owner' of the property sold to her in the classical sense as would an 'owner' be under a duly registered sale deed, but surely she would have got rights under section 202, Contract Act which are not terminable or revocable.
30. Plaintiffs in their plaint had averred that late Brij Lal had handed over the suit property to defendant no.1 Ranbir 'for looking after / taking care' as late Brij Lal used to reside with his family at village Samalaka, Panipat, Haryana. This assertion of the plaintiffs' is 'not proved'. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to establish that late Brij Lal had deputed defendant no.1 Ranbir to 'look after / take care' the suit property. On this score, plaintiff no.1 Deepak (PW1) is giving hearsay evidence. In his crossexamination he states that his father had told him about delivery of property to defendant no.1 CS No. 14/16 Page 27 of 37 Ranbir for taking care in year 1982 and that the same was not handed over in his (PW1 Deepak) presence. Not only this, there is no documentary evidence to support such a plea. Further, there appears to be no reason as to why defendant no.1 Ranbir would have agreed to 'look after / take care' the suit property without any reason. Defendant no.1 Ranbir was himself owner of a big chunk of adjoining land. Not only this, the assertion that late Brij Lal used to reside at village Samlaka and for this reason he had deputed defendant no.1 Ranbir to 'look after / take care' the suit property is also highly doubtful. This is doubtful because GPA sale documents dt. 03.06.1987 in favour of Smt. Kanta Devi bears the residential address of late Brij Lal as G10 Vishnu Garden, Delhi. Not only this, the plaintiffs' averments that late Brij Lal had raised construction in the suit property is also 'not proved'. Except for the bare self serving ipse dixit of Deepak (PW1) there is no evidence whatsoever on record to support such a plea.
31. Plaintiffs had averred in the plaint that plaintiff no. 3 Ms. Shashi Gupta, widow of late Brij Lal was not aware about the location of the suit property and that the other plaintiffs being minors were not aware of the suit property. They had further averred that in the first week of May 2007, plaintiff no. 1 Deepak came to know of the suit property when he came across the sale deed Ex.PW1/3 while sorting out the papers. These CS No. 14/16 Page 28 of 37 averments of the plaintiffs are absolutely false. These are false from the own crossexamination of plaintiff no. 1 Deepak (PW1). He in his crossexamination stated that he was born in the year 1972. He, therefore, would have turned major in 1990; and it was after a gap of six years in 1996 that his father passed away. Therefore, to say that the other plaintiffs were not aware of the suit property for the reason that they were minors would be incorrect. That apart, plaintiff no. 1 Deepak in his cross examination himself states that he visited the suit property several times and his last visit was in year 1995 with his father. This too falsifies the averments of the plaintiffs. Not only this, plaintiff no. 1 Deepak (PW1) also states in his cross examination that his mother too had visited the suit property and that she might have visited the same about 100 times. These statements coming in the crossexamination of plaintiff no. 1 Deepak (PW1) show that the averments in the plaint about the plaintiffs not being aware of the suit property or of its location are absolutely false.
32. Now to the site plan Ex. PW1/1. Plaintiffs have created whole lot of confusion on this count. In the plaint (paragraph 1) plaintiffs had claimed that the suit property is more specifically shown in red, green and yellow colours in the site plan. In his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1, plaintiff no.1 Deepak (PW1) made an exactly similar averment, i.e., that the suit CS No. 14/16 Page 29 of 37 property is more specifically shown in red, green and yellow colours in the site plan. It bears repetition to state that the suit property, according to plaintiffs is C1/28, Sanjay Enclave. However, the written text on the site plan Ex. PW1/1 reflects that it pertains to property no. C1/27, 28 & 29, Sanjay Enclave. Further, plaintiff no.1 Deepak (PW1) in his crossexamination was not clear as to where exactly was the suit property depicted in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. He deposed that he did not know as to in which colour the suit property had been shown in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. However, in the same breath he went on to add that suit property had been shown in green colour. Quite contrary, in an earlier part of his crossexamination he had deposed that there were no separate numbers given to the different colours in the site plan and that the entire site plan pertained to the suit property.
33. The judicial record would indicate that the plaintiffs are merely trying to fish in troubled waters. The record would show that defendant no.1 Ranbir had let out C1/28, Sanjay Enclave to the tenant (defendant no.2 Shiv Dutt Sharma). The record would further show that defendant no.1 had filed a civil suit for ejectment of the tenant (defendant no.2 Shiv Dutt Sharma) from the property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave (which is the suit property). Evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A of defendant no.1 Ranbir (DW1) would show that his suit against the tenant CS No. 14/16 Page 30 of 37 (defendant no.2 Shiv Dutt Sharma) already stands decreed and that he has already got possession of the property C1/28, Sanjay Enclave (which is the suit property). This litigation between defendant no.1 Ranbir and his tenant (defendant no.2 Shiv Dutt Sharma) was sub judice at the time when the present action was brought. Given this circumstance, possibility of the plaintiffs trying to fish in troubled waters, given the backdrop of litigations between defendant no.1 Ranbir and his tenant (defendant no. 2 Shiv Dutt Sharma), can certainly not be ruled out.
34. For the aforesaid multiple reasons, it is held that plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property. This issue is thus answered against the plaintiffs.
35. Issue no. 8 - The issue is whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of possession as claimed, onus being on plaintiffs to prove it. Decision on issue no. 7 holding that plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property entails that they are not entitled to the relief of possession. This issue is thus answered against the plaintiffs.
36. Issue no. 9 - The issue is whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration as claimed, onus being on plaintiffs to prove it. Decision on issue no. 7 holding that plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property entails that they are not entitled CS No. 14/16 Page 31 of 37 to the relief of declaration of ownership of the suit property. This issue is thus answered against the plaintiffs.
37. Issue no. 10 - The issue is whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed, onus being on plaintiffs to prove it. Decision on issue no. 7 holding that plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property entails that they are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. This issue is thus answered against the plaintiffs.
38. Issue no. 11 - The issue is whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages as claimed, onus being on plaintiffs to prove it. Decision on issue no. 7 holding that plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property entails that they are not entitled to the relief of damages as claimed. This issue is thus answered against the plaintiffs.
39. Issue no. 1 - The issue is whether plaintiffs' suit is without cause of action, onus being on defendants to prove it. On preponderance of probabilities, it has been proved hereinabove that plaintiffs were/are not the owners of the suit property. It also stands established that late Brij Lal had sold out to Smt. Kanta Devi on 03.06.1987 the entire land that he had purchased in khasra no. 310, village Bindapur, Delhi and that pursuant thereto he was left with not even an inch of land there. Thus, on conclusion of trial, on preponderance of probabilities, it stands CS No. 14/16 Page 32 of 37 proved that the present suit of the plaintiff is sans cause of action. This issue is thus answered against the plaintiffs.
40. Issue no. 4 - The issue is whether plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation, onus being on defendants to prove it. This issue is answered against the plaintiffs for the following reasons. The suit property is C1/28, Sanjay Enclave. It has been observed hereinabove that the suit property never belonged to the plaintiffs or to their predecessorininterest late Brij Lal. It has also been observed hereinabove that it is the defendant no.1 Ranbir, or his predecessorininterest, who owned and possessed the suit property for the last several decades. The evidence of defendant no.1 Ranbir (DW1) that he is in possession of the suit property since 1982 in his individual capacity in terms of the GPA sale documents (Ex. DW1/2, Ex. DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4) stands not impeached in any manner. There is virtually no crossexamination to this assertion of defendant no.1 Ranbir (DW1). Not only this, defendant no. 1 Ranbir (DW1) over the course of last 23 decades, inducted tenant (defendant no. 2 Shiv Dutt Sharma), realized rent from him, litigated against him and then in execution proceedings got back the suit property from him. Therefore, for the suit property that was always in possession of defendant no.1 Ranbir since year 1982 in his individual capacity and prior thereto in possession of his predecessorsininterest, the plaintiffs filed the suit in year 2007.
CS No. 14/16 Page 33 of 37It clearly time barred. Counted from the year 1982, this suit has been filed after 25 years. This issue is thus answered against the plaintiff holding that this suit is time barred.
41. Issue no. 2 - The issue is whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit; onus being on defendants to prove it. Plaintiffs valued the suit for the relief of possession at Rs. 5 lacs. Defendants no.1 and 4 in their written statement took the plea the suit property was worth more than Rs. 60 lacs. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. DW1/A) defendant no.1 Ranbir (DW1) took the plea that the suit property is of value Rs. 1.50 crores as per the circle rates. In the application under section 9, Court Fees Act, filed on 07.08.2012, defendants no.1 and 4 took the plea that as per the circle rates of July, 2007 the suit property was valued Rs. 88,09,100/, excluding the cost of construction. Aside from the relief of possession, the plaintiffs' claim to presuit damages turns out to be to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/ (for 36 days at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ per day). The reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction are valued at Rs. 200/ and Rs. 130/ respectively to which there is no objection whatsoever by the opposite side. Therefore, whether the market value of the suit property is taken to be Rs. 60 lacs, or Rs. 1.50 crores, or Rs. 88,09,100/ coupled with the value of presuit damages (Rs. 1.08 lacs) and the value of reliefs of declarations and injunction (Rs. 200/ and Rs. 130 respectively), the total CS No. 14/16 Page 34 of 37 value of all the reliefs would not cross Rs. 2 crores. It is pertinent to mention here that pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court is Rs. 2 crores. This issue is answered in plaintiffs' favour by holding that this Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to try this matter.
42. Issue no. 3 - The issue is whether suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction; onus being on defendants to prove it. Defendants no. 1 and 4 assert that the valuation of Rs. 5,00,000/ for the relief of possession is undervalued and proper court fee has not been affixed thereon. Defendants no. 1 and 4, as already noted hereinabove, have taken pleas which are not consistent on the point of valuation of the relief of possession. The stand of defendants no. 1 and 4 that the relief of possession of the suit property has to be as per the market value cannot be disputed. As already noted in the written statement they took a plea that it is valued more than Rs.60,00,000/. In his evidence by way of affidavit, defendant no. 1 Ranbir (DW1) deposed that the suit property was valued Rs. 1.50 crores as per the circle rates. Further, defendants no. 1 and 4 in their application had stated that the suit property was valued Rs. 88,09,100/ as per the circle rates, excluding the cost of construction. The defendants no. 1 and 4 are thus taking pleas on this point which are not consistent. That apart, defendants no. 1 and 4 seek to value the CS No. 14/16 Page 35 of 37 relief of possession of the suit property as per the circle rates. However, the circle rates were not furnished to the court. No witness from the concerned government department entered the witness box or produced the said circle rates. It is also not clear as to on what basis defendants no. 1 and 4 have made their calculations regarding the value of the suit property from circle rates. There is no clear evidence led by the defendants to show that the market value of the suit property is Rs.1.5 crores, or more than Rs.60 lacs or in the alternative Rs. 88,09,100/. No sale documents of any similarly situated property of the locality was shown as proof of the market value of the suit property. The pleas of defendants no. 1 and 4 on this issue can therefore not be accepted for this additional reason.
43. In view of the above, the valuation of the suit property for the purpose of possession at Rs. 5,00,000/ has to be taken to be correct and consequently, the ad valorem court fees paid thereon is also taken to be correct. The valuation of the presuit damages which turns out to be Rs.1.08 lacs and court fees of Rs. 800 furnished thereon has also to be taken to be correct. The valuation of the reliefs of declaration and injunction at Rs. 200 and Rs. 130 respectively and the court fees of Rs. 20 and Rs. 13 thereon is not disputed by defendants no. 1 and 4 and the valuation on that count has also therefore to be taken to be correct. This issue is thus answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
CS No. 14/16 Page 36 of 3744. Relief - Plaintiffs' suit must meet its waterloo. It stands dismissed. In terms of the decision in Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors., (2011)8 SCC 249 it is fit and apposite that plaintiffs be burdened with actual costs for initiating the present frivolous litigation which smacks of brazen dishonesty and was a wastage of precious time, energy and resources. Plaintiffs' attitude cannot be appreciated. This suit has been pending for the last more than 125 months. Plaintiffs shall bear a cost of Rs. 1,25,000/ (One Lac and Twenty Five Thousand Rupees only) to be paid to defendant no.1 Ranbir Singh. Decree sheet be drawn up. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedMURARI by MURARI PRASAD SINGH PRASAD Date: ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SINGH 2018.03.21 14:43:19 +0530 COURT ON 21.03.2018 (M. P. SINGH) ADJ03 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI CS No. 14/16 Page 37 of 37