Delhi District Court
Surender Kumar vs Pooran Chand on 19 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKBAR SIDDIQUE,
DISTRICT JUDGE-04,
NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS No. 226/2021 CNR NO. DLNT01-002789-2021
SURENDER KUMAR
S/o Sh. Pooran Chand
R/o House No. I-7/81, Ist floor,
Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi - 110089 ................ Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. SH. POORAN CHAND,
S/o Late Sh. Kundan Lal
R/o I-7/81, Ist floor,
Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi - 110089
2. SMT. PUSHPA VIVEK,
W/o Sh R.C Vivek
R/o H-I/135-136, Top Floor,
Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi - 110089
3. SMT KUSUM LATA,
W/o Sh. Laxmi Chand
R/o B-9/333-335, Sector 5,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085
4. SHRI SATISH KUMAR,
S/o Sh. Pooran Chand
R/o G-7/157, First Floor,
Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi - 110089
5. SHRI SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM,
S/o Sh. Pooran Chand
R/o H. No. 167M SFS Shakti Apartment,
Near Swami Narayan Mandir
Ashok Vihar, Phase 3, Delhi.
........ Defendants
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 1 / 62
Date of Institution 05.04.2021
Date of Final Arguments Heard 14.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement of 19.03.2026
Judgment
Final Outcome SUIT DISMISSED
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the present Suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking Declaration, Cancellation and Permanent Injunction in respect of Property bearing No. I-7/81, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi. (hereinafter referred to as suit property). The Plaintiff has filed the present suit praying the following reliefs:
a. Pass a decree of Declaration, that the Relinquishment Deed dated 07.08.2017, which is registered vide Document No. 6916, Book No.1, Volume No. 7453 at pages 116 to 120 at Sub-Registrar VI, North West-1, New Delhi on dated 08.08.2017, as null and void/Cancelled qua the Plaintiff as the signature of the Plaintiff on said documents had been obtained by playing Fraud, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation and Deception on the Plaintiff.
b. Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction restraining Defendant No.1, their legal heirs, assignee, etc. from creating any third party interest with respect to the said property bearing House No. 1-7/81, First Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi till the pendency of the present suit.
c. Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 2 / 62 Defendants, their legal heirs, assignee etc. from interfering in the peaceful and lawful possession of the said property by the Plaintiff.
d. Send copy of decree to the Sub-Registrar, Ambedkar Bhawan, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi for amending the Book regarding the cancellation of said Relinquishment Deed in question qua the Plaintiff. e. Direction to the DDA to not to mutate the said property bearing House No. I-7/81, First Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi in the sole name of the Defendant No. 1, f. Costs of the suit may also kindly be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants.
2. CASE OF PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT 2.1. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the present suit for Declaration for Cancellation and Permanent Injunction is with respect to the Registered Relinquishment Deed registered vide Registration No. 6916 Book No.1, Volume No. 7453 at pages 116 to 120 at Sub-Registrar VI, North West-1, New Delhi on dated 08.08.2017, in which the signature of the Plaintiff has been fraudulently obtained by playing Fraud, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation etc. with respect to Relinquishment Deed in the property bearing House No. 1-7/81, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi in favour of Defendant No.1. The property bearing House No. I-7/81, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi is herein after referred to as the "Suit Property".
2.2. It is further averred that the Plaintiff is a peace loving CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 3 / 62 and law abiding citizen of India and residing at the first floor of the said suit property i.e. the House no. I-7/81, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi for more than last 24 years. It is further averred that the Defendant no.1 is the father of Plaintiff and residing at the ground floor of the said property, Defendant No. 2 & 3 are the elder sisters of Plaintiff and already married and residing separately along with their respective families. It is further averred that Defendant No. 4 & 5 are the younger brothers of the Plaintiff and also residing separately at the aforementioned addresses as mentioned in the memo of parties.
2.3. It is further averred that the said Suit Property bearing No. 1-7/81, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi admeasuring 90.00 sq. meter was allotted in the joint name of Defendant No.1(Father of the Plaintiff) and Smt. Sumitra Devi i.e. wife of Defendant no.1 and mother of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 to 5 vide Lease Deed Register on 14.11.1991 in the office of Sub-Registrar Delhi being Sr. No. 8993 in Book No. 1, Volume no. 6841 at pages 86 to 91 and later on vide Conveyance Deed dated 22.05.2000 duly register as Document No. 5745 in additional Book No.1, Volume No. 1043 at pages 186 to 187 register in the office of sub-registrar VI, New Delhi on dated 24.05.2000.
2.4. It is further averred in the plaint that the aforesaid property consists of ground floor and first floor and after the marriages, Defendant No.2 to 5 started living separately with their respective families and Plaintiff with his family continue to live with the Defendant No. CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 4 / 62 1 and his wife i.e. mother of plaintiff at the aforesaid property. It is further averred that all the needs of the Defendant No.1 and his wife i.e. the mother of the Plaintiff was being taken care of by the Plaintiff and his family.
2.5. It is further averred that the mother of the Plaintiff, Mrs. Sumitra Devi died intestate on 07.11.2012 leaving behind the Plaintiff in the possession of first floor of the above said property bearing No.I-7/81, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi. It is further averred that after the death of the mother of the Plaintiff, all the day to day need of the Defendant No.1 timely breakfast, Lunch and dinner and other needs health related issues of the Defendant No.1 were sincerely and regularly been taken care of by the Plaintiff and his family member being residing together in the said property. It is further averred that it was the Plaintiff and his family members who even always stayed and taken care of the Defendant No.1 and his wife i.e. mother of the Plaintiff as and when they got admitted in hospital. It is further averred that that there is only one water connection in the said property on the ground floor and there is no water connection on the first floor.
2.6. It is further averred that in the meanwhile one of the daughters of Defendant No. 2 who was a practicing advocate started visiting the said property regularly and started giving legal advice to Defendant No.1 in legal matters as the Defendant No.1 after the death of his wife started doing property dealing with some property dealers of the locality and since there was no reason for CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 5 / 62 the Plaintiff to even remotely think regarding the illegal advice being given to the Defendant No. 1 by her. It is further averred that all the family members used to assemble at the said property on the occasion of festivals and use to spend quality family time together. It is further averred that all family members generally came together on the occasion of 'Raksha Bandhan'. It is further averred that in the year 2017, the Raksha Bandhan had fallen on 7th of August and all the family members except Defendant No.5 gathered at the suit property to celebrate Raksha Bandhan. Suddenly the Defendant No.1 started discussing issues relating to reconstruction of the building up to 4th floor with basement/parking as permissible by the municipal authority and promised to give possession on the same floor of the said property on which plaintiff is already residing at First floor and also promised that other floors will let out on rent and also share the rental amount 50-50 with the plaintiff.
2.7. It is further averred that daughter of Defendant No.2 was also present and insisting and advising Defendant No.1 and since only the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were residing at the said property and the Plaintiff had no other alternative place to stay during the reconstruction of the building and having liability to look after his children and marriage of two daughter, raised concerned, however, he had no idea of their nefarious design. It is further averred that the Defendant No.1 on the insistence of the daughter of Defendant No.2 and other defendants started tantrum and said that CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 6 / 62 during the re-construction of the building the builder will pay the monthly rent, that no one has any problem in that and only he i.e. the Plaintiff has the problem, that he i.e. the Plaintiff only want to enjoy whole of the property and do not want to reconstruct the property. It is further averred that on asking by the Plaintiff as to what they wanted from the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 as instigated by the daughter of the Defendant No.2 said that the Plaintiff has to sign a paper along with others so that there will be no problem in reconstruction of the said property in the name of Defendant No.1 after the death of the mother of the Plaintiff, that it will become easier to enter into an agreement with the builder as demanded by the builder and will be easy in obtaining approval of the building sanction plan from the concerned authority. 2.8. It is further averred that the daughter of the Defendant No.2, immediately took out a duly typed paper written in English along with Stamp Paper which was dated 07.08.2017 having some signatures on it and when Plaintiff asked about the contents of documents and asked to read over the same to him, then both of them along with Defendant No.1 to 4 angrily told the Plaintiff repeatedly that it will help in getting reconstruction and became easy in obtaining building sanctioned plan from the authority and entering into building construction plan with the builder. It is further averred that Defendant No.1 literally directed the Plaintiff to sign on the same and Defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 also stated to the Plaintiff in Hindi language that "are hamne sign kar CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 7 / 62 diya hain tu bhi kar, tujhe kis batt ka dar hain". They further told to the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.5 is directly reaching to sub-registrar office Rohini, Delhi for signing of the same and the Plaintiff has to come along with them.
2.9. It is further averred that after hearing the aforesaid words from elder sisters i.e. Defendant no.2, 3 on the occasion of Rakhi and from younger brother i.e. Defendant no. 4, the Plaintiff decision making ability for signing the documents got severally affected and he put his signature on the said document without going through the contents of the same, on which other Defendant no. 2 to 4 has already stated to affix their signatures. Thus, the signature on the said documents which later came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff as a Relinquishment Deed, has been obtained by playing fraud upon the Plaintiff and by exercising undue influence and misrepresentation of facts. It is further averred that there was neither free will nor the Plaintiff had intended to relinquish his share in the said property in favour of Defendant No.1.
2.10. It is further averred that the fraud played upon the Plaintiff is further evident from the fact that the Plaintiff was immediately on the same day of Raksha Bandhan i.e. 07.08.2017 taken to Sub-Registrar Office by the Defendant No.1 to 4 for registration of NOC for the construction of the property in favour of Plaintiff where Defendant No.5 also reached and put his signature and thus there left no occasion to doubt. Further, mere perusal of para 2 of the Relinquishment Deed in CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 8 / 62 question would further reveal the fraud played upon the Plaintiff in as much as in the said para it is stated that the actual vacant physical possession of the suit property has already been with the Releasee, however, the fact remain was that the Plaintiff never handed over the possession to the Defendant No.1 and was still in peaceful possession of the First Floor of the said property.
2.11. It is further averred that the pre planning and common intention to defraud the Plaintiff is further evident from the fact that the two witnesses mentioned in relinquishment deed in question were arranged by Ms. Dimple Vivek, Advocate i.e. the daughter of Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 at the Sub-Registrar office. It is further averred that after taking the signature of the Plaintiff fraudulently on the said Relinquishment Deed the behaviour of the Defendant No.1 started changing colours. It is further averred that his pragmatic mind has totally been controlled by the daughter of Defendant No.2, Defendant No.2 & 3 and he is in total control of them and their ill legal advice. The Defendant No. 2 with the intention to anyhow oust the Plaintiff from the said property started obstructing the Plaintiff and his family members from taking water from the ground floor, refused to take food provided by the wife and daughter of Plaintiff, refused taking any help from the Plaintiff and his family members. Further, on the instigation of daughter of Defendant No.2, Defendant No.1 on 23.05.2019 with the intention to falsely implicate the Plaintiff in false criminal case, filed a CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 9 / 62 police complained and also pressurized the police officials to register a case against the Plaintiff by threatening them in the name of Defendant No.5 who is ASJ in Delhi Courts.
2.12. It is further averred that since the said complaint was false and frivolous, no action was taken by the police officials. It is humbly submitted that the Defendant no. 1 had filed the said false criminal complaint on 23.05.2019 at the instance of Ms. Dimple Vivek, Advocate to make a ground of cruelty with senior citizen who is the owner of the property. As Ms. Dimple Vivek being practicing Advocate was well aware about the trending law that for filing complaint for eviction at "Maintenance & Welfare Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal" the grounds of ownership of property and cruelty with senior citizen are mandatory conditions and thus giving illegal advice to the Defendant No.1. It is further averred that as per their nefarious design, the Defendant no.1 in-fact gone to the extent of filing a complaint on 11.06.2019 at the District Magistrate, Alipur, Delhi i.e. Maintenance & Welfare Parents and Senior Citizen Tribunal for eviction of plaintiff from House No. I-7/81, First Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi. It is further averred that along with the said complaint the Defendant No.1 also filed the said certificate of Relinquishment Deed thereby claiming sole and absolute ownership of the said property on the basis of the said Relinquishment Deed and only then the Plaintiff came to know the nature of the said Deed as Relinquishment Deed which has been executed CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 10 / 62 fraudulently qua the Plaintiff with respect to his share in the property.
2.13. It is further averred that the consent and free will of the Plaintiff on the said Relinquishment Deed relinquishing all his right in the property has not been exercised freely and voluntarily by the Plaintiff and only signature was obtained without explaining the contents of the said deed in question to the Plaintiff by exercising fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation of the fact etc. as enumerated in the preceding paras. Further, it was never the intention of the Plaintiff to make any relinquishment deed regarding the said property as the question of relinquishment in the said property did not arise at all in view of the fact that the he did not have any other place to live except the said property. It is further stated that the basic requirement of deed of relinquishment is that the person relinquishing his interest without any consideration must have some interest in the first place, which is absent in the present case. Thus the said Relinquishment Deed in question is liable to be declared as null and void/cancelled qua the Plaintiff. 2.14. It is further averred that the Plaintiff is a bona fide litigant having reasonable apprehension that Relinquishment Deed in question, if left open would cause serious injury to the Plaintiff and his family as they will come to road and homeless because Plaintiff does not have any other place to live. It is further averred that even Plaintiff small shop is suffering from huge losses after demonetization, implementation of GST regime, low market growth and lockdown due to CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 11 / 62 Covid - 19 pandemic. Further, after the marriage of elder daughter 'Yukti' on 22.02.2019, the Plaintiff has already burden with huge debts. Plaintiff is also suffering from high blood pressure, hernia diseases and he is a known heart patient. As per Hindu religious obligations, Plaintiff will have obligations to perform marriages of his elder son and younger daughter who has just come to the age of marriage.
2.15. It is further averred that the Defendant No.1 has already claimed absolute ownership of the said property in exclusion of Plaintiff on the basis of said fraudulent Relinquishment Deed before the District Magistrate, Alipur, Delhi. That the Plaintiff is further apprehending a mischief at the hands of the Defendants. The plaintiff apprehends that the since the Defendant No.1 is presently not possessing free mind, he along with other Defendants may enter into any agreement with any third party / fictitious person in regard to the aforesaid immovable property in question and may jeopardize the share cum possession of the plaintiff hereto qua the said properties in question on the basis of said fraudulent Relinquishment Deed.
3. CASE OF DEFENDANT NO'S 1, 2 AND 3 AS PER THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENT.
3.1. In their written statement, the Defendants have raised various preliminary objections. The Defendants asserts that the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands as he had suppressed true and material CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 12 / 62 the facts of the case. The Defendants further contend that the averments made in the plaint are false, incorrect and concocted and the answering Defendants submit that the present suit is frivolous and vexatious and has been mischievously filed in order to harass them into agreeing to the illegal, unfounded demands of Plaintiff. The Defendants further contend that the suit is liable to be dismissed at threshold with exemplary costs for the reasons stated hereinabove.
3.2. It is further contended by the Defendants that the Plaintiff does not have any cause of action to seek the cancelation of Relinquishment Deed and the present Suit is a counter blast to the proceedings instituted against the plaintiff by the Defendant No.1 for his eviction from the suit premises by way of compliant under the provision of Senior Citizens Act. It is further contended by the defendants that it is the matter of fact that the Defendant No.1 aged about 85 years was assaulted, ill treatment and being aggrieved from the illegal acts, he had filed the police complaint and since there was no action by the police the Defendant No.1 was constrained to file the complaint under section 22 (3)(1) (i) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Amendment Rules 2016 for eviction of the Plaintiff from the subject premises wherein he is nothing but a permissible user. It is further contended by the Defendants that though the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the eviction sought is a matter pertains to jurisdiction of Civil Courts but the appeal before the Divisional CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 13 / 62 Commissioner Shamnath Marg is pending adjudication. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the Plaintiff was well aware of the proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner as he had already been served with the Notice. However the Plaintiff deliberately concealed this material fact from this Hon'ble Court in order to engage in multiplicity of the legal proceedings. It is further contended by the Defendants that answering Defendants submit that the son of the Plaintiff is Additional Public Prosecutor in the Delhi District Courts and well aware of the tactics to delay the legal proceedings by resorting to multiplicity of the cases on the same cause of action.
3.3. It is further contended by the Defendants that the plaint as well as the documents accompanying the plaint evidently show that the present plaint is an afterthought as prior to the complaint to the SHO P.S. K.N. Katju Marg dated 23.5.2019 by the Defendant No.1 regarding assault and attempt to throw the Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiff from the house/ suit property, the Plaintiff has not filed any complaint or representation or suit for cancellation of the said Relinquishment Deed. The said Complaint was filed only to create a semblance of cause of action where exists none.
3.4. It is further contended by the Defendants that the Plaintiff was very well aware in regard to execution of Relinquishment Deed, on which he, after going through the contents of the Relinquishment Deed carefully, appended his signatures voluntarily before the Sub- Registrar. It is further contended by the Defendants that CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 14 / 62 the Sub Registrar had specifically asked all the signatories as to whether the signatures were put by them voluntarily or not, to which the Plaintiff has acceded.
3.5. It is further contended by the Defendants that the Relinquishment Deed cannot be cancelled in parts as claimed by the Plaintiff. It is further contended by the defendants that further no reasonable grounds are raised by the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of the same. It is further contended by the Defendants that Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief whatsoever as prayed in the suit. 3.6. It is further contended by the Defendants that in the entire plaint the Plaintiff has failed to show any documentary as well as circumstantial evidence to establish a prima-facie case of the fraud undue influence, deception as alleged in the suit. It is crystal clear from the perusal of the submissions of the suit that the averments of the fraud and mis-representation are vague in nature and devoid of any substance. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
3.7. It is further contended by the Defendants that the Plaintiff in the instant suit has not denied the signing or endorsing his signatures on the Relinquishment Deed on 08.08.2017 and therefore the contention of the Plaintiff who is well versed in Hindi as well as English that he could not understand the contents of the impugned Relinquishment Deed is not only unbelievable but also untrustworthy. The Plaintiff being well educated and business man from last 40 years CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 15 / 62 could not be the person who could be managed or pressurized in any manner. Besides the Plaintiff has signed the Relinquishment Deed after reading and thoroughly going through its contents and understanding by himself as well as by Nishant Kumar the son of the Plaintiff who is Additional Public Prosecutor in the Delhi District Courts. Further, the Relinquishment Deed is signed by a Judicial Officer (Defendant No.5) as well as a retired PGT Teacher (Defendant No.3) besides others who had not even whisper a single complaint till date regarding the pressurization or mis representation by the Defendant No.1 or any other person.
3.8. It is further contended by the Defendants that it is pertinent to mention herein that the Plaintiff has not disputed his presence before the Sub Registrar nor the other details mentioned thereon i.e. his signatures, Aadhar Card Number, Thumb Impressions etc. upon the Relinquishment Deed. The authenticity and correctness of the Registered Document in the present case "Relinquishment Deed" cannot be doubted as the same is a Registered Document, executed in the presence of a Government Officer. Further even at the time of registration of the document at the office of the Sub Registrar, the Sub Registrar had told the contents of the Relinquishment Deed as well as made the meaning of the same understood by the parties before registering the same. It was also asked from the signatory parties whether the signatures as obtained on the Relinquishment Deed are theirs and that the same are CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 16 / 62 endorsed by them willingly after understanding the contents to which the Plaintiff as well as other Defendants acceded. There is a presumption of correctness and genuineness of the registered Relinquishment Deed as per the Registration Act & Indian Evidence Act.
4. CASE OF DEFENDANT NO 5 AS PER HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT.
4.1. It is the case of Defendant no 5 that the plaint is nothing but a bundle of lies and gross abuse of the process of the law inasmuch as plaintiff has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court rather suppressed material facts from this Hon'ble Court. 4.2. It is the case of Defendant no 5 that the Plaintiff had not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and is the guilty of Supressio Varie and Suggestio Falsie. 4.3. It is the case of Defendant no 5 that the suit of the Plaintiff qua seeking cancellation of Relinquishment Deed is hopelessly barred by limitation. On this ground alone, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 4.4. It is the case of Defendant no 5 that the that the plaint is also liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as it discloses no cause of action against the Defendants.
4.5. It is the case of Defendant no 5 that the that the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form inasmuch as no consequential relief of partition and declaration of his ownership to what extent has been CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 17 / 62 sought. Hence, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed straightaway.
4.6. It is the case of Defendant no 5 that the that as per the relinquishment deed, earlier the Plaintiff was owner of only 1/12' undivided share of the suit property out of the ½ undivided share left by the mother who died intestate on 07.11.2012. As of now, the Plaintiff is in illegal occupation of much more share of the suit property as he is occupying complete first floor of the suit property measuring 90 Sq. Ft. and in order to grab the same, the present suit has been filed with oblique motives without having any right/title/interest in the suit property. The suit property comprises of ground floor and first floor with roof.
5. REPLICATION 5.1. Plaintiff filed the replication to the written statement of the defendants and I don't find it necessary to refer the contents of replication, which is the reiteration, reassertion and re-narration of the contents of the plaint and specifically denied the averments of the defendants made in the written statement.
6. ISSUES IN THE PRESENT LIS 6.1. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were settled for trial on 17.04.2023:-
a. Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Declaration thereby declaring the Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017(Inadvertently wrongly CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 18 / 62 mentioned, in the Order dated 17.04.2023, as
07.08.2017), which is registered vide Document no. 6919, Book NO. 1 Volume No. 7453, pages 116-120 at Sub-Registrar VI , North West-I, New Delhi on dt 08.08.2017, as null & Void and as same was obtained by means of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, as prayed for ? OPP b. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Permanent Injunction thereby restraining the Defendant no.1, his legal heirs, assignees, etc from creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. house no. 1-7/81, First Floor, Sector 16, Rohini Delhi as well as restraining them from interfering in the peaceful and lawful possession of the suit property till pendency of the suit, as prayed for ? OPP c. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree directing the Sub-Registrar Ambedkar Bhawan for amending the book regarding cancellation of the said Relinquishment deed, as prayed for ? OPP d. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree directing the DDA not to mutate the aforesaid property in the sole name of Defendant no.1, as prayed for ? OPP e. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the Defendants as there is no cause of action and is liable to be dismissed ? OPDs f. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the Defendants as the present suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties as well as bad for misappropriate court CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 19 / 62 fees and same is liable to be dismissed? OPDs g. Whether the suit is not maintainable against the Defendants as the relief claimed for cancellation of aforesaid Relinquishment Deed is beyond the limitation period and same is liable to be dismissed? OPDs h. Relief?
7. PLAINTIFFS EVIDENCE 7.1. The Plaintiff entered the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating the contents of the plaint. PW-1 further relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex. PWI/l is the site plan.
ii. Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) is the copy of Relinquishment Deed dt. 08.08.2017. iii. Ex.PW1/3 (colly) (OSR) are the documents (Ration card is marked as Mark A). iv. Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) is the copy of Conveyance Deed dt. 22.05.2000.
v. Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) (colly) are the Complaints dt. 11.06.2019 and 23.05.2019.
vi. Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) (Colly) is the copy of notice/bailable warrant dt. 25.09.2019 along with reply/report.
vii. Ex. PW1/7 (OSR) (colly) are the copy of medical documents.
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 20 / 62
viii. Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) (colly) are copy of the
valuation report along with order
dt.30.03.2021 passed by the c/o Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. ACJ/CCJ/ARC.
ix. Ex.PW1/9 (OSR) is the Complaint
dt.23.05.2019 (already exhibited as
Ex.PW1/5).
x. Ex.PW1/9A (OSR) is the PCR 100 number
form.
xi. Ex.PW1/10 (OSR) is the Police Complaint
dt.27.05.2019.12. Ex.PW1/11 (colly) is now de-exhibited and now marked as Mark B which is affidavit.
xii. Ex.PW1/12 (OSR) is the Copy of order dt.
19.11.2020 xiii. Ex.PW1/13 (colly) are the medical documents which are already Ex.PW1/7.
xiv. Ex.PW1/14 (OSR) (colly) are the copy of payment receipts of electricity and gas bills. xv. Ex.PW1/15 (OSR) is the copy of Complaint dt.08.11.2021 in PS KNK Marg, Delhi.
xvi. Ex.PW1/16 (colly) (OSR) are the copy of order sheets in case title "Pradeep Sharma Vs. Imtiyaz Mohd. & Anr".
xvii. Ex.PW1/17 is the visiting card of Sh. Naveen Garg, Builder.
7.2. The Plaintiff underwent extensive cross-examination which will be dealt with in an effective manner in the later part of this Judgment.
7.3. Mrs. Maheshwati, wife of Defendant no 1, was CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 21 / 62 examined as PW2 and has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is exhibit EX.PW2/A. The cross examination of was almost on similar line as deposed by the Defendant no 1.
7.4. During Cross-Examination PW2 admitted that on 07.08.2017 as mentioned in para no.2, she did not go along with Surender Kumar (Plaintiff) to the Sub Registrar office. PW2 further deposed that she is 12th class pass. PW2 further deposed that she understand only Hindi language. PW2 further deposed that on 07.08.2017, her husband Surender Kumar had signed some documents without going through its contents. 7.5. Ques: Is it correct that Relinquishment Deed has been signed by the two daughters as well as two other sons of Sh. Pooran Chand who are well educated and were government officials as well?
7.6. Ans: It is correct. I do not know that none of the above children of my father in law has not made any complaint regarding their signatures on the Relinquishment deed.
7.7. Ques: Are you aware why this case is being filed by Surender Kumar?
Ans: The signatures of Surender Kumar were taken fraudulently, therefore, this case has been filed by him. 7.8. PW2 admitted that she has been told by Surender Kumar (my husband) that his signatures were being taken fraudulently after getting the copy from the DM. It is correct that we have filed the present case only after knowing that a case has been filed before DM. It is correct that before the filing of case filed by Sh. Pooran CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 22 / 62 Chand, the family members used to visit 1-7/81, Sector 16, Rohini Delhi and used to celebrate all festivals. I have filed a complaint against Dimple Vivek on 23.05.2019 which is already Ex.PW1/5 and after seeing the court file, this is same complaint which is being written by me. It is correct that in Ex.PW1/5, it is not mentioned that signatures of my husband were taken by the defendants fraudulently on the documents. 7.9. I am not aware whether any complaint was being made by Surender Kumar after coming back from the office of Sub Registrar.
7.10. The alleged incident dated 07.08.2017 at the Sub Registrar Office in regard of execution of Relinquishment Deed was told to me by my husband. I do not know the meaning of Relinquishment Deed. The signatures of my husband have been taken on the documents fraudulently, has been told to me by my advocate.
7.11. Plaintiff further examined Ms Vandana Yadav, Asst Ahlmad in the court of Ms Payal Singal, Ld Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tis Hazari Court (Center), Delhi as PW3, who has brought the summoned record i.e. Complete file of case bearing CC no. 13417/2019 titled as 'Pradeep Sharma vs Imtiyaz Mohd and Anr'. The order sheets dated 01.02.2020, 15.04.2021 are already Ex.PW1/16 and one Vakalatnama bearing the name and signature of Ms Dimple Vivek are now being exhibited as Ex.PW3/1(OSR) (colly).
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 23 / 62
8. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE The defendants did not lead any evidence.
9. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 9.1. I have heard Ld. Counsel Sh. Parikshit Mahipal, Sh. Raj Kumar Chandiwal & Ms. Dimple Vivek appearing on behalf of parties.
9.2. It is submitted by Sh. Parikshit Mahipal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiff that the present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking cancellation of Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel that though the execution of the Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017 is admitted but the plaintiff did not have the intention to execute the said document at all and the decision making of the plaintiff was badly affected and the said document was executed by Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation.
9.3. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the originally parents of the plaintiff were the joint owner of the suit property by virtue of Lease Deed and Conveyance Deed executed in their favour. It is further argued that the registered Relinquishment Deed is admitted but it was got executed under the garb of getting the suit property reconstructed and the plaintiff never had the intention to get the document executed. The signature and process of registration of document is admitted by the plaintiff as he went to Sub-Registrar office to get the document executed.
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 24 / 62 9.4. It is the case of Plaintiff that out of love and affection of brothers, sisters and his father he put his signature on the document and that is the reason he didn't go through the contents of said Relinquishment Deed. Further, it is submitted that it was informed to the plaintiff that the said document is got signed from him to get the plan sanctioned from competent authority which was required for reconstruction of the suit property. 9.5. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the plaintiff came to know about the said Relinquishment Deed only after the defendant no 1, father of the plaintiff, filed a complaint under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 . Admittedly, thereafter the present suit was filed by the Plaintiff.
9.6. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that the said complaint Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and its Appeal before the Commissioner has been dismissed. The dismissal of Complaint clearly signifies that the entire story is concocted by the Defendant no 1 at the behest of other Defendants.
9.7. It is further the case of Plaintiff that Sh. Naveen Garg, who is the builder who was supposed to be engaged as builder to construct the suit property was the witness to the said Relinquishment Deed clearly signifies that the there was a conspiracy to snatch the property from the possession of Plaintiff. Eventually, the Relinquishment Deed was got signed and executed through Misrepresentation and Fraud.
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 25 / 62 9.8. Ultimately, the Ld. Counsel submits that the inducement to sign the said Relinquishment Deed was at the behest of lady advocate who being the member of family was phenomenal in getting the said document executed by fraud and misrepresentation. 9.9. Per Contra, Sh. Raj Kumar Chandiwal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant no 1, 3 & 4 submits that the Plaintiff version that his signatures were obtained without explaining the contents of the Relinquishment Deed are completely unacceptable and holds no water as Plaintiff is graduate and educated. Further, the family members of the Plaintiff are also educated, one brother is retired Judicial Officer. Son of the Plaintiff is also a Prosecutor. Thus, the Plaintiff was very well aware about the contents of Relinquishment Deed and no fraud, Coercion was played in the execution of such Relinquishment Deed. 9.10. The Ld. Counsel further argues that the Plaintiff is 'Dominus Litis' and onus is on the plaintiff to prove through pleadings as to how the Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation was carried out by the Defendants on the Plaintiff at the time of execution of Relinquishment Deed. The plaintiff has to prove it through his pleadings and evidence and in the absence of such pleadings and evidence the presumption would arise as to the genuiness of the said document.
9.11. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel that the Plaintiff has failed to discharge such onus as there is nothing on record either by pleading or evidence, to show that the CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 26 / 62 Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation was done in the execution of Relinquishment Deed. The Ld. Counsel further argues that no independent witness has been examined and Sh. Naveen Garg was also not examined by the Plaintiff and one of the most important aspect is the admission of execution of the Relinquishment Deed by the Plaintiff. 9.12. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel that there are multiple complaints filed by both the parties and in none of the complaint the Plaintiff has mentioned the fact that the signature on the Relinquishment Deed was obtained through Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation. The Ld. Counsel further relies on Raja Ram Vs Jai Prakash Singh & Ors, (2019) 8 SCC 701 to buttress his argument.
9.13. Ms. Dimple Vivek, Ld. Counsel for Defendant no 5, argues that the allegation of Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation has been levelled against her in personal capacity. Further, it is argued that the Ld. Counsel in no manner beneficiary to the Relinquishment Deed, thus the entire line of argument is false and incorrect.
9.14. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel that the Plaintiff has miserably failed to plead or prove any case with respect to Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation.
9.15. The Ld. Counsel further argues that the present suit is nothing but an attempt to grab the property of Defendant no 1 as he is only entitle to his share as per law but the Plaintiff by way of present suit is trying to CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 27 / 62 usurp more than his share.
10.ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION 10.1. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by preponderance of probabilities. The belief regarding the existence of a fact thus can be founded on a balance of probabilities. In the process of appreciation of evidence, the 'slight' evidence may 'tilt the balance' in Civil cases on applying the principle of 'preponderance.' Therefore, it is said that the evidence is to be weighed. In Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Sec. 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 28 / 62 the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies."
10.2. In light of the aforesaid, my issue wise finding is as under:-
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ISSUE NO 1:Whether Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Declaration thereby declaring the Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017, which is registered vide Document no. 6919, Book NO. 1 Volume No. 7453, pages 116-120 at Sub-Registrar VI , North West-I, New Delhi on dt 08.08.2017, as null & Void and as same was obtained by means of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, as prayed for ?
10.3. The cynosure of the present dispute is the Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017, which is admittedly a registered document by the Plaintiff but he has challenged it on the ground that the signatures on the said document was obtained by Defendants through Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion & Misrepresentation.
The document in question i.e. Relinquishment Deed dated 07.08.2017, is a registered document, thus, the onus to prove that the signatures were obtained by Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion & Misrepresentation on said document is on the Plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention herein is that once the document is registered then there is a strong presumption that the document is genuine unless otherwise rebutted by cogent pleadings CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 29 / 62 and evidence.
10.4. In P. Anjanappa (D) By Lrs vs A.P. Nanjundappa on 6 November, 2025, 2025 INSC 1286, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
7.3. As regards Ex.D-15 (09.11.1956), it is a registered deed by which plaintiff no. 2 unequivocally released his right and interest in the joint family and in the estate of his father in consideration of a cash payment. It recites, in clear terms, a complete severance of all claims save the bond of blood. The deed was produced and exhibited without objection; there was no cross-examination of defendant no. 5 on its execution or contents;
and plaintiff no. 2 did not present himself for cross-examination to dislodge the document. In these circumstances, the statutory presumption that attaches to a registered instrument operates, and, in the case of Ex.D-15 which was more than thirty years old when tendered, the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 89 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is also attracted. The burden to rebut the deed's genuineness and effect lay squarely on those who impeached it. No credible rebuttal was led. This principle has been reiterated by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal in the following terms: (2006) 5 SCC 353, "27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
10.5. In the present case, the Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017, is admitted by the Plaintiff and no further objections are raised. The document is registered document then the presumption under Section 90 of CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 30 / 62 Indian Evidence Act is attracted. The said document being admitted, then initial onus to prove Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation is on the plaintiff and no credible objection has been led by the Plaintiff.
10.6. In Hemalatha (D) By Lrs. v. Tukaram (D) By Lrs. & Ors. is reported as 2026 INSC 82, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
31. It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a "sham". Adopting the principles enunciated in Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353 1 , Jamila Begum (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead) Through Lrs. and Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 727 2 , and Rattan Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 300 3 , this Court reiterates that the burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the challenger. Such a challenge can only be sustained if the party provides material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the Deed was never intended to operate as a bona fide transfer of title.
32. The grounds typically accepted to challenge a registered Deed at the instance of the vendee/executant are fraud or want of capacity in any party or mistake of fact or fundamental illegality like where the Deed was executed under deceit or sold by a fraudster who did not own the land or where the Deed was executed without CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 31 / 62 consideration, namely, if no money or value was actually exchanged despite recitals in the Deeds or where there was coercion or intimidation like where the seller was forced to sign without free consent.
33. While the aforementioned grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive, this Court must caution against the growing tendency to challenge registered instruments 'at the drop of a hat'. If the sanctity of registered documents is diluted, it would erode public confidence in property transactions and jeopardize the security of titles. In a society governed by the Rule of Law, registered documents must inspire certainty; they cannot be rendered precarious by frivolous litigation.
10.7. In view of the mandate of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the sanctity and validity is attached with the registered document and it shall not be challenged as a matter of routine. Further, the onus is on the challenger of registered document and it cannot be rebutted in a casual manner.
10.8. It is a trite law that the person alleging that a registered Deed is a sham must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars in his pleadings and evidence. Further, the test akin to a test under Order VI Rule 4 CPC is applicable to such a pleading and clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action would not be permitted and a clear right to sue would have to be shown in the plaint. 10.9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am of the view that Relinquishment Deed in question is registered and it is CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 32 / 62 admitted by the Plaintiff, thus there is a very strong presumption about the validity and genuineness of the documents in question. It is the Plaintiff who has to rebut the onus through pleadings and cogent evidences. 10.10.In I.T.C. Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 70, the ritual of repeating a word like 'fraud' or creation of an illusion in the plaint can certainly be unravelled and exposed by the Court at the nascent stage of litigation without waiting for a full trial. Mere suspicion or nebulous averments without material particulars would not be sufficient to dislodge the presumption under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even if the suit is allowed to proceed to trial, like in the present case, the level of proof required to be produced by the Plaintiff would have to be extremely strong. 10.11. The law stands settled with regard to the plea of fraud and misrepresentation. In the case of Ranganayakamma v. K.S. Prakash (2008) 15 SCC 673, the Supreme Court observed that the party pleading fraud or misrepresentation is required to plead specific particulars in the pleadings. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as follows:
"39. Another aspect of the matter cannot also be lost sight of. Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:
"4. Particulars to be given where necessary.-- In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 33 / 62 and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
40. When a fraud is alleged, the particulars thereof are required to be pleaded. No particular of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation has been disclosed.
41. We have been taken through the averments made in the plaint. The plea of fraud is general in nature. It is vague. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that signatures were obtained on several papers on one pretext or the other and they had signed in good faith believing the representations made by the respondents, which according to them appeared to be fraudulent representations. When such representations were made, what was the nature of representation, who made the representations and what type of representations were made, have not been stated. Allegedly, on some occasions, Respondents 1 and 2 used to secure the signatures of one or more of the plaintiffs and Defendants 3 to 8 on several papers but the details therein had not been disclosed. ***
43. We are, however, not oblivious of the decisions of this Court and other High Courts that illegality of a contract need not be pleaded. But, when a contract is said to be voidable by reason of any coercion, misrepresentation or fraud, the particulars thereof are required to be pleaded. In Maharashtra SEB v. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare [(2005) 10 SCC 465 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 765] the law is stated in the following terms: (SCC p. 468, para 5) "5. ... The Industrial Court after perusing the pleadings and the notice issued to the respondent came to the conclusion that the alleged misrepresentation which is now said to be a fraud was not specifically pleaded or proved. In the show-cause notice, no basis was laid to show what is the nature of fraud that was being attributed to the appellant. No particulars of the alleged fraud were given and the said pleadings did not even contain any allegation as to how the appellant was responsible for sending the so-called CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 34 / 62 fraudulent proposal or what role he had to play in such proposal being sent."
44. In Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta [(2006) 5 SCC 638] this Court emphasised the necessity of making requisite plea of Order 6 Rule 4 stating: (SCC p. 654, para 22) "22. Undoubtedly, Order 6 Rule 4 CPC requires that complete particulars of fraud shall be stated in the pleadings. The particulars of alleged fraud, which are required to be stated in the plaint, will depend upon the facts of each particular case and no abstract principle can be laid down in this regard."
45. In Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad [(2005) 11 SCC 314] this Court held: (SCC p. 379, paras 207-208) "207. We may now consider the submissions of Mr Desai that Appellant 1 herein is guilty of commission of fraud. Application filed by Respondent 1 before the Gujarat High Court does not contain the requisite pleadings in this behalf, the requirements wherefor can neither be denied nor disputed.
208. It is not in dispute that having regard to Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable in a proceeding under the Companies Act. In terms of Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is bound to give particulars of the cases where he relies on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, etc."
10.12.The pleadings in the plaint are not convincing and I am of the view that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus by pleading his case in an consistent manner. It is averred by the plaintiff that each family member (Plaintiff and Defendants) were having cordial relations and used to meet on festivals. It is further averred that Daughter of Defendant no 2 advised the Defendant no 1 to construct the suit property. Thereafter, the family members exercised undue influence on him which led CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 35 / 62 to signing of Relinquishment Deed. The relevant pleadings are as follows:
It is further averred that daughter of Defendant No.2 was also present and insisting and advising Defendant No.1 and since only the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were residing at the said property and the Plaintiff had no other alternative place to stay during the reconstruction of the building and having liability to look after his children and marriage of two daughter, raised concerned, however, he had no idea of their nefarious design. It is further averred that the Defendant No.1 on the insistence of the daughter of Defendant No.2 and other defendants started tantrum and said that during the re- construction of the building the builder will pay the monthly rent, that no one has any problem in that and only he i.e. the Plaintiff has the problem, that he i.e. the Plaintiff only want to enjoy whole of the property and do not want to reconstruct the property. It is further averred that on asking by the Plaintiff as to what they wanted from the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 as instigated by the daughter of the Defendant No.2 said that the Plaintiff has to sign a paper along with others so that there will be no problem in reconstruction of the said property in the name of Defendant No.1 after the death of the mother of the Plaintiff, that it will become easier to enter into an agreement with the builder as demanded by the builder and will be easy in obtaining approval of the building sanction plan from the concerned authority.
It is further averred that the daughter of the Defendant No.2 immediately took out a duly typed paper written in English along with Stamp Paper which was dated 07.08.2017 having some signatures on it CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 36 / 62 and when Plaintiff asked about the contents of documents and asked to read over the same to him, then both of them along with Defendant No.1 to 4 angrily told the Plaintiff repeatedly that it will help in getting reconstruction and became easy in obtaining building sanctioned plan from the authority and entering into building construction plan with the builder. It is further averred that Defendant No.1 literally directed the Plaintiff to sign on the same and Defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 also stated to the Plaintiff in Hindi language that "are hamne sign kar diya hain tu bhi kar, tujhe kis batt ka dar hain". They further told to the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.5 is directly reaching to sub-registrar office Rohini, Delhi for signing of the same and the Plaintiff has to come along with them.
It is further averred that after hearing the aforesaid words from elder sisters i.e. Defendant no.2, 3 on the occasion of Rakhi and from younger brother i.e. Defendant no. 4, the Plaintiff decision making ability for signing the documents got severally affected and he put his signature on the said document without going through the contents of the same, on which other Defendant no. 2 to 4 has already stated to affix their signatures. Thus, the signature on the said documents which later came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff as a Relinquishment Deed, has been obtained by playing fraud upon the Plaintiff and by exercising undue influence and misrepresentation of facts. It is further averred that there was neither free will nor the Plaintiff had intended to relinquish his share in the said property in favour of Defendant No.1.
It is further averred that the consent and free will of the Plaintiff on the said Relinquishment Deed relinquishing all his CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 37 / 62 right in the property has not been exercised freely and voluntarily by the Plaintiff and only signature was obtained without explaining the contents of the said deed in question to the Plaintiff by exercising fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation of the fact etc. as enumerated in the preceding paras.
Further, it was never the intention of the Plaintiff to make any relinquishment deed regarding the said property as the question of relinquishment in the said property did not arise at all in view of the fact that the he did not have any other place to live except the said property. It is further stated that the basic requirement of deed of relinquishment is that the person relinquishing his interest without any consideration must have some interest in the first place, which is absent in the present case. Thus the said Relinquishment Deed in question is liable to be declared as null and void/cancelled qua the Plaintiff.
10.13.After examination of above pleadings it is clear that the plaintiff pleaded that the papers were given to him for putting his signatures as it was specifically told to him that the signature will help in the reconstruction of suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiff was not allowed to read the papers and his brothers and sisters forced him to put his signatures. After that he was taken to Sub- Registrar office and he signed the papers and got his photograph clicked. It is surprising in the entire sequence of event the Plaintiff was not even aware about the nature of the document. The conduct of the Plaintiff is improbable and not unacceptable. Further, the perusal of the pleading reveals that from the signing of the document till registration of document before the CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 38 / 62 Sub-Registrar the Plaintiff was not aware about the nature of document. It has come in the evidence of the Plaintiff that he had also told the police officials sitting outside at SDM, office that he was being forcibly brought by Dimple Vivek to SDM court. Though this is not pleaded in the plaint and on the one hand Plaintiff argues that he only came to know about the RD only after filing of the Case under Senior Citizens Act by the Defendant no 1 and thereafter the present suit was filed. On the other hand he told this fact to the police that he was forcibly taken there by Dimple Vivek to execute the document against his will.
10.14.The averment in the plaint are vague and not specific.
The plaintiff have simply averred in the plaint that the consent and free will of the Plaintiff on the said Relinquishment Deed relinquishing all his right in the property has not been exercised freely and voluntarily by the Plaintiff and only signature was obtained without explaining the contents of the said deed in question to the Plaintiff by exercising fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation of the fact etc. as enumerated in the preceding paras. Further, it was never the intention of the Plaintiff to make any relinquishment deed. 10.15.Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the Plaintiff was not able to discharge the onus by pleading as to how the Fraud, Misrepresentation and coercion was played upon by the Defendants. Further, in the light of presumption of genuiness of registered document, the pleading does not come to the aid of the Plaintiff. On perusal of Relinquishment Deed 08.08.2017, ExPW1/2, the clear CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 39 / 62 intent is to relinquish the share, thus any other interpretation cannot be attributed in the absence of any pleading and evidence. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the Plaintiff is graduate from Delhi University and he is not an illiterate person who is completely oblivious about the consequence of his actions.
10.16.Another plank of argument raised by Plaintiff is that the Defendants being family members undue influenced the decision making capacity of the Plaintiff. In this regard, I have the profit of referring the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Raja Ram v. Jai Prakash Singh, (2019) 8 SCC 701, wherein it was held as follows:
11. The deceased on account of his advanced age may have been old and infirm with a deteriorating eyesight, and unable to move freely. There is no credible evidence that he was bedridden.
Hardness of hearing by old age cannot be equated with deafness. The plaintiff, despite being the son of the deceased, except for bald statement in the plaint, has not led any evidence in support of his averments. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased appeared before the Sub-
Registrar for registration. It demolishes the entire case of the plaintiff that the deceased was bedridden. He had put his thumb impression in presence of the Sub- Registrar after the sale deed had been read over and explained to him. The deceased had acknowledged receipt of the entire consideration in presence of the Sub- Registrar only after which the deed was executed and registered. The wife of the deceased had accompanied him to the office of the Sub-Registrar. The sale deed being a registered instrument, there shall CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 40 / 62 be a presumption in favour of the defendants. The onus for rebuttal lay on the plaintiff which he failed to discharge. Notwithstanding the finding of enmity between PW 2 and PW 3 with original Defendant 2, the first appellate court erred in relying upon these two witnesses by holding that they were independent witnesses and convincing. DW 1, though related was a witness to the sale deed. His evidence in support of the events before the Sub-Registrar therefore has to be accepted. The plaintiff could have led evidence in rebuttal of the Sub-Registrar but he did not do so.
12. That leads us to the question of undue influence. The pleadings in the plaint are completely bereft of any details or circumstances with regard to the nature, manner or kind of undue influence exercised by the original defendants over the deceased. A mere bald statement has been made attributed to the infirmity of the deceased. We have already held that the deceased was not completely physically and mentally incapacitated. There can be no doubt that the original defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with the deceased. Their conduct in looking after the deceased and his wife in old age may have influenced the thinking of the deceased. But that per se cannot lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the original defendants were therefore in a position to dominate the will of the deceased or that the sale deed executed was unconscionable. The onus would shift upon the original defendants under Section 16 of the Contract Act read with Section 111 of the Evidence Act, as held in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh [Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558] , only after the plaintiff would have established a prima facie case. The wife of CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 41 / 62 the deceased was living with him and had accompanied him to the office of the Sub- Registrar. The plaintiff has not pleaded or led any evidence that the wife of the deceased was also completely dominated by the original defendants.
13. In every caste, creed, religion and civilised society, looking after the elders of the family is considered a sacred and pious duty. Nonetheless, today it has become a matter of serious concern.
Parliament taking note of the same enacted the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. We are of the considered opinion, in the changing times and social mores, that to straightway infer undue influence merely because a sibling was looking after the family elder, is an extreme proposition which cannot be countenanced in absence of sufficient and adequate evidence. Any other interpretation by inferring a reverse burden of proof straightway, on those who were taking care of the elders, as having exercised undue influence can lead to very undesirable consequences. It may not necessarily lead to neglect, but can certainly create doubts and apprehensions leading to lack of full and proper care under the fear of allegations with regard to exercise of undue influence. Law and life run together. If certain members of the family are looking after the elderly and others by choice or by compulsion of vocation are unable to do so, there is bound to be more affinity between the elder members of the family with those who are looking after them day to day.
10.17.Consequently, it is clear that merely making averment that the document was executed by Fraud, Coercion, Misrepresentation and Undue Influence will not help the Plaintiff in shifting the onus on the Defendants. It CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 42 / 62 has to be proved with cogent and coherent evidences. 10.18. Now coming to the evidence led by the Plaintiff to prove his case. The Plaintiff has led two witnesses in the present case. First is the Plaintiff himself and Second is his wife. The important part of evidence of Plaintiff/PW1 is as follows:
During his cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that affidavit Ex.PW1/A is the same affidavit which is being filed by him through his counsel. PW1 further admitted that as per para no.2 of Ex.PW1/A, he has not mentioned the name of person in para no.2 who had played fraud with him and put him under undue influence, misrepresentation etc. qua the signing of Relinquishment Deed. PW1 further admitted that he is mature responsible and sensible person who takes care of his family in every possible manner (objected to by Id. Counsel for plaintiff as question is irrelevant to the issue in the matter). PW1 further deposed that he was graduate from Delhi University from BA pass course. PW1 further deposed that his brothers and sisters are educated but he cannot tell how much and where they have studied. (objected to by Id. Counsel for plaintiff as question is irrelevant to the pending issue in the matter). PW1 admitted that all his other siblings are well educated having good family background. PW1 further deposed that he cannot tell whether his brothers and sisters had made any complaint regarding the force or coercion with respect to signing of relinquishment deed. PW1 denied the suggestion that his brothers and sisters had not made any complaint because no such fraud was being played upon while signing of relinquishment deed.
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 43 / 62 Q. Is it correct that this property is allotted in the name of Sh. Pooran Chand your father?
A. It was allotted in the name of both my father and mother. I do not remember in which year the said allotment was made.
PW1 further deposed that the relinquishment deed was signed on 07.08.2017 on the day of Raksha Bandhan. PW1 further deposed that he was taken over to the SDM office, Ambedkar Bhawan by Dimple Vivek. PW1 further deposed that he do not remember by what mean or mode he was taken to SDM office.
PW1 further deposed that he cannot tell whether it was scooter, rickshaw, auto, car or cab right from the entry till inside. Again said, police officials are just sitting outside. He had also told the police officials sitting outside at SDM, office that he was being forcibly brought by Dimple Vivek to SDM court.
Q. Have you made any complaint to the police official sitting outside SDM Court that you have been forcibly brought to SDM court by Dimple Vivek?
A. I have not made any complaint regarding the same. Vol. As Dimple Vivek is my niece.
PW1 further deposed that he had not made any complaint to SDM/Sub-Registrar regarding the statements that he was being forcibly brought by Dimple Vivek to the court of Sub-Registrar. PW1 further deposed that he cannot tell for how long he is using mobile phone. PW1 further deposed that he is using this mobile phone around 8-10 years.
PW1 admitted that public person were present in the sub-registrar office on the day when he had visited. PW1 further admitted that he had not approached public person asking to help him for CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 44 / 62 calling at 100 no. with respect to him being forcibly brought by Dimple Vivek to the court of Sub-Registrar. PW1 further deposed that he do not remember whether he had handed over voter card/Aadhar card or any other document at the time of appearance before Sub-Registrar. PW1 voluntarily stated that Sub-Registrar asked his name and he told him so accordingly. Q. Whether you have informed the sub- registrar that me being forcibly brought by Dimple Vivek to the court of Sub Registrar office at the time of identification.
A. I have not told Sub-Registrar that I was being forcibly brought by Dimple Vivek to the court of Sub-Registrar.
PW1 further deposed that he came back to the house i.e. 1-7/81, Sec-16, Rohini along with Dimple Vivek. PW1 further deposed that he cannot tell whether he came back in auto, rickshaw, car, cab. PW1 further deposed that When he came back along with his brother and sisters from Sub- Registrar office, he met his wife who was present at ground floor and his children including two daughters and his son Nishant Kumar were at 1s floor. PW1 further deposed that he never told that Dimple Vivek had forcible taken him to Sub-Registrar office either to his son Nishant Kumar or to his wife and two other daughters. PW1 further deposed that even after coming back from Sub-
Registrar Office, he had not made any call at 100 no. during the entire day or any day thereafter. (objected to by ld. Counsel for plaintiff as question is irrelevant to the pending issue in the present matter). Objection over ruled, question is relevant. PW1 further deposed that he do not have any knowledge whether his other siblings were been given any amount for the purpose of signing the relinquishment CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 45 / 62 deed by Sh. Pooran Chand relinquishing their share. PW1 further deposed that he was told by Sh. Pooran Chand that the property needs to be reconstructed and for that no objection is required and he would be given one floor in the property after construction up to 4 floors. PW1 further deposed that he had not handed any amount to Sh. Pooran Chand for the purpose of construction of this property. At this stage, witness is shown a document of 100 no. PCR call dt.
23.05.2019 at 03:24::29 stating that "caller keh reha hai meri wife ghar par akeli hai, use koi lady vakeel pareshan kar rahi hai, need police help". The witness identified and accepts that the same is being done by him and the same is already Ex.PW1/9A now Mark PW1/DB.
PW1 admitted that in the PCR call, he has not mentioned the name of lady advocate being Dimple Vivek. Again said, he has taken the name of lady advocate as Dimple Vivek, however, the same is not being mentioned in 100 no. call. PW1 admitted that that the said PCR call does not described as to how lady advocate is disturbing his wife. PW1 admitted that Sh. Pooran Chand has gone to Police Station to file complaint against him. PW1 admitted that he has got a complaint dt. 23.05.2019 filed through his wife vide DD no.45B and the same is either in his handwriting or in the hand writing of his wife. PW1 further deposed that he accompanied his wife while going to the police station. However, he cannot tell he was present when the said complaint was handed over to the police official. Ex. PW1/5 is being shown to the witness and he admits the same. PW1 further deposed that he knew how to doctor for the treatment of my wife Maheswati after filing of complaint.
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 46 / 62 PW1 admitted that his complaint dated. 27.05.2019 was filed after Sh. Pooran Chand has filed complaint against him on 23.05.2019. PW1 further admitted that Sh. Pooran Chand used to take care of daily needs including medicines, bank account maintenance, household work etc. on his own. PW1 voluntarily stated that before 23.05.2019, they used to take care of the same. PW1 further deposed that he cannot tell how many accounts Sh. Pooran Chand is maintaining and in which bank. PW1 further deposed that he do not have the details of the said account nor he is aware about the passbooks. PW1 further deposed that he cannot even tell that Sh. Pooran Chand is maintaining a housemaid to prepare meals and take care of the house. PW1 further deposed that he cannot tell from where Sh. Pooran Chand is getting medically treated from which hospital and from which dispensary. PW1 voluntarily stated that Sh. Pooran Chand used to visit CGHS dispensary, however, he cannot tell where. PW1 further deposed that he has never eaten any food brought by Pushpa Vivek or Dimple Vivek for Sh. Pooran Chand.
PW1 voluntarily stated that he has not mentioned the aforesaid contentions in the complaint dt. 23.05.2019, however, Ms. Dimple Vivek had forcibly and under pressure taken his signature on relinquishment deed. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any complaint regarding forcible taken me to Sub-Registrar office or creating undue pressure for signing of relinquishment deed by Ms. Dimple Vivek either myself or by my family members. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any complaint before 27.05.2019 vide DD no.61B either against Sh. Pooran Chand, Dimple Vivek or any other family members already Ex.PW1/10. PW1 CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 47 / 62 admitted that it is a typed complaint. PW1 further deposed that he cannot tell where he has got this complaint typed. PW1 further deposed that he has thoroughly gone through the contents of complaint before signing and filing before the police station.
Q. I put it to you that even in this complaint, you have not mentioned that Dimple Vivek has forcibly taken you to the Sub-Registrar office and had got the relinquishment deed signed under undue influence and pressure?
A. At this stage, witness is shown Ex.PW1/10 and even after seen the document, witness is unable to show that Dimple Vivek has forcibly taken me to the Sub-Registrar office and had got the relinquishment deed signed under undue influence and pressure. I cannot tell whether the police official had conducted any MLC of my wife Maheswati on that day. I do not remember whether I had visited hospital or any private brought by Pushpa Vivek and Dimple Vivek before complaint dated 27.05.2019. I have only one sixth share in the first floor of the property bearing no. I-7/181, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi. It is correct that the remaining 5/6" share of the first floor of the property belongs to my other brother and sisters and father. Vol. I have 1/6th share in the entire property.
At this stage, witness is shown copy of petition and was asked to show the complaint/annexure depicting he being undue influenced or coerced to sign the relinquishment deed after perusing the file, he failed to show the copy of any complaint on record. Again said, I am unaware of English language, hence, I could not make out which complaint was filed. It is correct that I can identify my signatures. It is correct that after perusing CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 48 / 62 the file, I could not identify any such complaint which bears my signature. It is correct that as per my petition I have only one sixth share in the first floor of the property bearing no. I-7/181, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi. It is correct that the remaining 5/6th share of the first floor of the property belongs to my other brother and sisters and father. Vol. I have 1/6th share in the entire property. It is wrong to suggest that I am illegally occupying the other 5/6th share of my brother, sister and father in the above first floor of the property.
It is correct that after the incident of 2019 after I had filed complaint against defendant no.1, all my brothers and sisters have stopped talking. It is correct that all my brothers and sisters are well educated and prudent enough to take decisions.
Q. Is it correct that none of your siblings has filed any complaint against defendant no.1 or in favour of you stating that their signatures were being forcibly taken on the relinquishment deed ?
Ans. I am only concerned with respect to me. So far as my knowledge there is no complaint.
Q. I put to you that whether the relinquishment deed dated 08.08.2017 Ex. PW1/2 is the same relinquishment deed on which you had signed before the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi ?
Ans. It is correct that my signature is bearing at point A to E on each page. It is correct that the passport size photo pasted on Ex. PW1/2 is mine. It is correct that the Ex. PW1/2 bears my finger impression at point X. Vol. my signature on Ex.
PW1/2 is taken by fraud and forcibly under the impression of construction of the suit property.
It is incorrect to suggest that no signature were taken by playing fraud or CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 49 / 62 misrepresenting the Plaintiff. It is correct that the passport size photo of mine which was pasted at point A of Ex. PW1/2 is given by me to my father. Vol. The passport size photo of mine was given by me to my father at the suit property. I was remained 15 to 20 minutes in the office of Sub Registrar at the time of registration of Relinquishment Deed. It is correct that photograph of my brothers and sisters along with me was taken at the office of Sub Registrar is the same photo in Ex.
PW1/2 at point Y. I cannot tell that similar photographs was also taken of my father and witness at point Z and Z1. At the time of registration of Relinquishment Deed, my wife and my children were not present. It is wrong to suggest that at the time of registration of relinquishment deed my son namely Nishant Kumar was present and after gone through as well as detailed reading of Ex. PW1/2 before signature of mine.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have signed the RD in question consciously before concerned Sub Registrar after going through its contents in entirety. It is incorrect to suggest that I have filed present case in order to remain in possession. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
10.19.Considering the above mandate of law propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and after assaying the evidence brought in by the Plaintiff, I am of the view that the Plaintiff failed miserably to discharge the onus and there is no material evidence on record. Further, the evidence of Plaintiff is full of material contradictions which goes to the root of the case. The plaintiff categorically admits the execution of the CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 50 / 62 Relinquishment Deed. In the absence of cogent evidences, it is thus apparent from the record that the relinquishment deed has been executed by the plaintiff, voluntarily and out of his own free will. The plaintiff has admitted the due execution of the relinquishment deed and even before the concerned Sub-Registrar while presenting the said relinquishment deed for registration.
10.20.The assertion that the plaintiff did not peruse the contents of the relinquishment deed before signing and/or failed to notice that it also pertains to relinquishment his rights in the suit property, fails to persuade this Court. Every executant of a document is obliged to read such document before signing it and is bound by the terms and conditions of the said document. This obligation is to be discharged by the executant more diligently when such document is being registered and has the effect of transferring right, title and interest of the executant in favour of the other party. The challenge to the registered document by the Plaintiff on abysmal grounds without any cogent materials is not tenable at all.
10.21.The Plaintiff has argued that the Complaint under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is dismissed. Further, the Appeal before the Commissioner is also dismissed. I am of the view, the dismissal of Complaint under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 will not come to aid of the Plaintiff as the evidence and materials brought in by the Plaintiff is not helping his CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 51 / 62 cause in the present Lis.
10.22.Accordingly, in totality of facts and circumstances of the case and after meticulously going through the pleadings and evidence brought on record, I arrive at the irresistible conclusion which support the mandate of law that the Plaintiff has failed to bring on record cogent evidence to support his case. Therefore, in view of aforesaid deliberation the Issue no 1. is decided against the Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants.
ISSUE NO 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Permanent Injunction thereby restraining the Defendant no.1, his legal heirs, assignees, etc from creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. house no. 1-7/81, First Floor, Sector 16, Rohini Delhi as well as restraining them from interfering in the peaceful and lawful possession of the suit property till pendency of the suit, as prayed for ? OPP 10.23.The Issue no 1 is decided against the Plaintiff and the document Relinquishment Deed is admitted. Further the Plaintiff failed to bring on record any material or document to impeach the Relinquishment Deed on the ground of Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation. It is pertinent to hold herein that through the execution of Relinquishment Deed the Plaintiff has been left with no rights title or claim of any nature with the suit property and Defendant no 1 will avail all benefits of the suit property as exclusive owner in any manner.
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 52 / 62 10.24.In view of the above, where Plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest in the Suit property, I am of the view that no benefit of permanent injunction can be granted in favour of the Plaintiff as all the right, title and interest vest in the Defendant no 1. 10.25.In Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.s Versus Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Ors, 2022 SCCONLINE SC 258, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the suit filed by the original plaintiff was for cancellation of the registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 and for a declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 is bogus and not binding to the plaintiff. While praying for the substantive relief of declaration that the aforesaid sale deed is not binding on her, the plaintiff also prayed for return of the land admeasuring 1-0 guntha, which even according to the plaintiff was in possession of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction with respect to the entire agricultural land admeasuring 6 acres and 15 gunthas, though even according to the plaintiff also the defendant No.1 was handed over the possession of 1-0 guntha of land out of 6 acres and 15 gunthas of land.
6.1 On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial court refused to pass the decree for cancellation of the registered sale deed and refused to grant a declaration as prayed. Therefore, so far as on the aspect of title of the land in question is concerned, the plaintiff lost.
On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held that the husband of the plaintiff executed the registered sale deed in favour CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 53 / 62 of the defendant No.1 for a value consideration. The judgment and order passed by the trial court refusing to grant the decree of cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration has attained finality. This is because no appeal was filed by the plaintiff.
8.3 Therefore, once the suit is held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief and when the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which was a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation. It is true that under normal circumstances, the relief of permanent injunction sought is a substantive relief and the period of limitation would commence from the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed so long as the interference in possession continuous. However, in the case of a consequential relief, when the substantive relief of declaration is held to be barred by limitation, the said principle shall not be applicable.
9. Even otherwise on merits also, the Courts below have erred in passing the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from disturbing the alleged possession of the plaintiff. Assuming for the sake of argument that the plaintiff is found to be in possession, in that case also, once the plaintiff has lost so far as the relief of declaration and title is concerned and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true and absolute owner of the property in question, pursuant to the execution of the sale deed dated 17.06.1975 in his favour, the true owner cannot be restrained by way of an injunction against him. In a given case, the plaintiff may succeed in getting the injunction even by filing a simple suit for permanent injunction in a case where CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 54 / 62 there is a cloud on the title. However, once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. In such a situation, it will not be open for the plaintiff to contend that though he/she has lost the case so far as the title dispute is concerned, the defendant - the true owner still be restrained from disturbing his/her possession and his/her possession be protected. In the present case, as observed hereinabove and it is not in dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the registered sale deed and declaration has been dismissed and the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 has been believed and thereby defendant No.1 is held to be the true and absolute owner of the suit land in question. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in so far as refusing to grant the relief for cancellation of the registered sale deed and declaration has attained finality. Despite the fact that the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned, still the Courts below have granted relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 - the absolute owner of the land in question, which is unsustainable, both, on law as well as on facts. An injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder and in favour of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession.
10.26.In view of above deliberation, once this court has arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiff is not able to prove his case, on the basis of cogent evidence and materials, seeking declaration and cancellation of Relinquishment Deed then the relief of permanent CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 55 / 62 injunction cannot be granted to the Plaintiff. Thus, in view of aforesaid finding the Issue no 2 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants.
ISSUE NO 3:Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree directing the Sub-Registrar Ambedkar Bhawan for amending the book regarding cancellation of the said Relinquishment deed, as prayed for ? OPP ISSUE NO 4:Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree directing the DDA not to mutate the aforesaid property in the sole name of Defendant no.1, as prayed for ? OPP 10.27.In view of findings returned herein above, the Issue no 1 & 2 have been decided in favour of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff, the Issue no 3 & 4 is also decided in Favor of Defendants and against the Plaintiff. Once the Relinquishment Deed is not been able to impeached by the Plaintiff on the ground of Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation, then the directions to DDA and Sub- Registrar does not arise.
ISSUE NO 5:Whether the suit is not maintainable against the Defendants as there is no cause of action and is liable to be dismissed ? OPDs 10.28.The objection of the defendants that the suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action is with substance. It is well settled that cause of action is a bundle of essential facts which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed. The plaintiff in his CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 56 / 62 plaint have not been able to specifically plead as to how the signature on the Relinquishment Deed was obtained by Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation. Further, the execution of Relinquishment Deed is admitted, the signature on the document is admitted. Further, the Plaintiff was not able to plead specifically with respect to Fraud, Coercion, Undue Influence and Misrepresentation and neither no cogent and coherent evidence was brought on record by the Plaintiff.
10.29.The plaintiff admitted the registered document Relinquishment Deed which led to raising of presumption of genuiness of the said document. The onus was on the Plaintiff to rebut with cogent evidences which the Plaintiff failed to do so.
10.30.Thus, the plaint, read as a whole, does not discloses sufficient cause of action. The plea of the defendants that the suit is without cause of action is upheld. Accordingly, this Issue no 5 is decided against the plaintiff and in Favor of the defendants.
ISSUE NO 6:Whether the suit is not maintainable against the Defendants as the present suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties as well as bad for misappropriate court fees and same is liable to be dismissed? OPDs 10.31.The suit was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking Declaration and Cancellation of Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017. The Defendants are party and signatory to the CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 57 / 62 Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017, thus, the right to sue accrue against all the Defendants. According, the present case is not the case of misjoinder of parties. 10.32.In the present case the Plaintiff is admittedly a signatory to the document and though the Plaintiff is seeking to avoid the Relinquishment Deed on certain grounds, which was not proved during the trial, then the Plaintiff is required to pay Ad-Volerem court fees.
10.33. In Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
7. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to A and B, two brothers. A executes a sale deed in favour of C. Subsequently A wants to avoid the sale. A has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if B, who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by A is invalid/void and non est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding.
But the form is different and court fee is also different. If A, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If B, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 58 / 62 null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act. But if B, a non-executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.
8. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.
9. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "coparcenary" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds.
Therefore, the court fee was computable under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were therefore not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that therefore court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds.
10.34.Upon perusal of record it is revealed that the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is ₹64,20,600/-. The value of the suit for the purpose of relief of cancellation is ₹5,35,050/-. The requisite court fee of ₹7615 is paid by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff has CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 59 / 62 paid Ad-Volerem Court fee on the Cancellation of Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017. Thus, the Issue no 6 is decided in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants as requisite court fee is paid by the Plaintiff.
ISSUE NO 7:Whether the suit is not maintainable against the Defendants as the relief claimed for cancellation of aforesaid Relinquishment Deed is beyond the limitation period and same is liable to be dismissed? OPDs 10.35.It is the case of the Plaintiff that in the year 2019 when the Defendant no 1 file complaint under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, then the Plaintiff came to know about the existence of Relinquishment Deed Dated 08.08.2017. The Plaintiff filed the present suit on 21.04.2021.
10.36.According to Article 59 of Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963, to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the recission of a contract, the period of limitation is 3 year. The time begins to run from when the facts entitling the Plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him. Thus, the time begins to run from the date of knowledge of existence of instrument. If taking the pleadings on demurrer the Plaintiff came to know about the Relinquishment Deed in the year 2019, when the complaint under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was filed by Defendant no 1 and thereafter, present suit was filed in CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 60 / 62 2021. Thus the suit is with the period of limitation.
10.37. In DALIBEN VALJIBHAI v. PRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI 2024 INSC 1049, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
11. This Court had to deal with a similar situation in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy1. A suit instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2002 for cancellation of sale deed of year 1979 on the ground that the knowledge of fraud was acquired only in 1999, was objected to by the defendant in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. This Court held: "5. Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial. 6. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said pleadings ex CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 61 / 62 facie disclose that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any other provision of law. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant."
10.38.The plaintiff case was that he was not aware about the existence of the Relinquishment Deed dated 08.08.2017 and only after the Defendant no 1 filed Complaint under Senior Citizens Act, then Plaintiff came to know abot the said document. The averment in the plaint need to be taken as demurred and correct. Thus, in view of aforesaid the Issue no 7 is decided in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
11.Relief In view of the findings returned herein above on the issues, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Suit is dismissed.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally
No order as to costs. AKBAR
signed by
AKBAR
SIDDIQUE
SIDDIQUE Date:
2026.03.19
04:21:25
+0530
Announced in open (Akbar Siddique)
Court on 19.03.2026 DJ-04, North, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/19.03.2026
CS DJ No. 226/2021 Surender Kumar Vs. Pooran Chand 62 / 62