Delhi District Court
Judge17: Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi vs Mahender Singh Tyagi on 6 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR: ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE17: TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03)
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0534192003
Sh. Longa Ram S/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh (Deceased)
Through his Legal Heirs :
1 Sh. Om Prakash,
S/o Sh. Longa Ram,
R/o V.P.O. Village Auchandi, Delhi - 39
2 Sh. Jagdish Chander,
S/o Sh. Longa Ram,
R/o V.P.O. Village Auchandi, Delhi - 39
3 Sh. Satbir Singh,
S/o Sh. Longa Ram,
R/o V.P.O. Village Auchandi, Delhi - 39
4 Sh. Ratan Singh
S/o Sh. Longa Ram,
R/o V.P.O. Village Auchandi, Delhi - 39
5 Sh. Bhupinder
S/o Sh. Longa Ram,
R/o V.P.O. Village Auchandi, Delhi - 39
Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 1/57
6 Sh. Shyam Lal
S/o Sh. Longa Ram,
R/o V.P.O. Village Auchandi, Delhi - 39
7 Smt. Prem
D/o Sh. Longa Ram & W/o Sh. Rambir Sharma
R/o Behind Main Stand, Indira Colony,
V.P.O. Bahalgarh, District Sonipat,
Haryana
8 Smt. Seela Wati
D/o Sh. Longa Ram & W/o Sh. Raj Kapoor
Village Rampur, P.O. Sunpera,
District Sonipat, Haryana
9 Smt. Rajo Devi,
D/o Sh. Longa Ram & W/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar.
R/o Bhagat Colony, BBlock, Kalupur,
Tehsil & Distt. Sonipat, Haryana
10 Smt. Raj Bala,
D/o Sh. Longa Ram & W/o Sh. Jagdish Singh,
R/o Mohala Bazari, V.P.O. Beri,
District Jahjjahar, Haryana ........... Plaintiffs.
VERSUS
1. Mahender Singh Tyagi
S/o Sh. Pullu Ram,
R/o V.P.O. Holambi Kalan,
Delhi110036.
Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 2/57
2. Sh. Kishori Lal S/o Sh. Chander Bhan,
R/o T415, Shivaji Nagar,
Narela, Delhi110040 ......... Defendants.
Date of institution of the suit : 11.08.2003
Date on which order was reserved : 26.05.2014
Date of decision : 06.06.2014
SUIT FOR DECLARATON, PERMANENT & MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
The facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of the present suit filed by the plaintiff as disclosed in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the coowner and Bhumidar of agricultural land under Khata No. 239 and Khasra no. 31/11 (34), 20/2 (28), 37/21 (416), 22 (416), 23 (611), 49/1 (416), 2 (416), 3 (414), 9/1/2 (15), 10 (416) and 110/120 (06), total admeasuring 42 Bigha 8 Biswa in the Revenue Estate of Village Auchandi, Delhi39. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has inherited the said property from his father Sh. Ranjeet Singh (now deceased). The plaintiff has given his family tree as under : RAM KALA Ranjeet Singh Todar Mal
1. Longa Ram 1. Chandro Devi (Deceased) Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 3/57
2. Kanwar Lal 2. Om Wati
3. Balraj (Daughter)
2. It has been further stated that the plaintiff and his brothers namely Sh Kanwar Lal, Sh. Pooran Mal and Sh. Balraj, all sons of late Sh. Ranjeet Singh are coowners and bhumidars to the extent of half share. It has been further stated that Smt. Jamna Devi D/o late Sh. Ranjeet Singh (sister of the plaintiff) was also coowner to the extent of 1/12th share of the said agricultural land, but the said Smt. Jamna Devi already relinquished her share in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers. It has been further stated that the mutation has already been sanctioned vide orders dated 28.03.2003 in accordance with the relinquishment deed dated 23.03.2003. It has been further stated that the said agricultural land measuring 42 Bigha 8 Biswa was the undivided joint holding of Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Todar Mal. It has been further stated that Sh. Ranjeet Singh expired in the year 196768 and the sons of Sh. Ranjeet Singh came into physical and cultivatory possession of the total land measuring 42 Bigha 8 Biswa. It has been further stated that Sh. Todar Mal was a private employee in the city Bayar (Rajasthan) and then at Delhi Cloth Mills at Delhi. It has been further stated that Sh. Todar Mal used to live away from his native place on account of his employment. It has been further stated that Sh. Todar Mal was having cohesive, amicable relations with his brothers Sh. Ranjeet Singh and he was the head of the Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 4/57 family after the death of Sh. Ranjeet Singh. It has been further stated that Sh. Todar Mal, on 17.07.1977 executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers in the presence of the elders and respectable persons of the society bequeathing his own share of the agricultural land to the extent of half share in the said agricultural land admeasuring 42 Bigha and 8 Biswa. It has been further stated that Sh. Todar Mal expired on 27.12.1977 leaving behind Smt. Chandro Devi as his widow and a married daughter namely Smt. Omwati. It has been further stated that on the basis of the said Will dated 17.07.1977, Sh. Longa Ram filed an application for mutation. It has been further stated that on the other hand, Smt. Omwati, the married daughter of the deceased Sh. Todar Mal also filed another application for mutation in her favour of the property left behind by Sh. Todar Mal on the basis of the alleged Will dated 25.08.1975. It has been further stated that the mutation proceedings under the title Smt. Omwati and Sh. Longa Ram ensued and the said case is still pending adjudication before the Court of SDM. It has been further stated that on 27.02.1978, Smt. Chandro Devi made a statement before the Court of the SDM that Sh. Todar Mal had executed a Will in favour of her daughter Smt. Omwati and the land may please be mutated in the name of her daughter Smt. Omwati. It has been further stated that on 07.05.1993 Smt. Chandro Devi filed a civil suit bearing no. 113/1993 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and his brothers and the sister Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 5/57 namely Smt. Jamna Devi before the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge, Delhi under the titled Smt. Chandro Devi Vs. Sh. Longa Ram & Ors. It has been further stated that on 20.02.1998, the Hon'ble Court of Dr. Shahbuddin, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi was pleased to dismiss the said suit for nonprosecution. It has been further stated that Smt. Chandro Devi in collusion with the defendants and the Revenue Authorities filed an application before the Tehsildar for mutation of the property in her name. It has been further stated that the said application for mutation is accompanied by an affidavit dated 21.12.1998 of Smt. Chandro Devi, wherein, it has been stated that no case was pending in any Court to her knowledge. It has been further stated that Smt. Chandro Devi filed another affidavit dated 09.04.1999 stating therein that Sh. Todar Mal had not executed any Will upto his death. It has been further stated that again on 12.04.1993, Smt Chandro Devi made a statement before the Tehsildar to the effect that her husband had died issueless and he did not execute any Will during his lifetime. It has been further stated that thus, Smt. Chandro Devi not only made contradictory statements, but also made different statements before various Authorities so as to suit her from time to time. It has been further stated that Tehsildar in collusion with the defendants passed a mutation order in favour of Smt. Chandro Devi on 12.04.1999. It has been further stated that the plaintiff preferred an appeal U/s 64 of the DLR Act for setting aside the orders dated 12.04.1999 Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 6/57 which is still pending adjudication. It has been further stated that on 25.06.1999, Smt. Chandro Devi executed an alleged registered GPA in favour of the defendant no. 1 for the property in question. It has been further stated that the said GPA is completely silent about the reasons and circumstances for its execution. It has been further stated that on the basis of the said alleged GPA, the defendant no. 1 executed an alleged registered sale deed dated 29.09.1999 in favour of the defendant no. 2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 4 Lacs. It has been further stated that consideration amount shown in the said sale deed is much below the market value. It has been further stated that on the basis of the abovesaid sale deed, the defendant no. 2 filed an application for mutation. It has been further stated that on 11.11.2000, the plaintiff obtained a certified copy of the Khatoni from the Halka Patwari and then he came to know about the said alleged sale deed followed by the mutation in favour of the defendant no.2. It has been further stated that the plaintiff filed another appeal U/s 64 of D.L.R. Act for cancellation of the mutation order dated 15.10.1999 and the said appeal is pending disposal. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has the apprehension that he may be dispossessed from the physical possession of the suit land without following the due process of law. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 2 is adament and denying the legal character of the plaintiff qua the property in question. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 2 is further Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 7/57 planning to sell off the property in question to some third party. It has been further stated that the transaction of sale is in contravention of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been further stated that the possession of the land has always been with the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the defendants no. 1 and 2 made a false statement before the Sub Registrar, Pitampura, Delhi to the effect that they were in actual, physical and vacant possession of the agricultural land. It has been further stated that none of the defendants has ever been in possession of the suit property as the plaintiff is having the records of Canal Tax paid towards the irrigation of the land in question. It has been further stated that there is no delay in filing the present suit and the delay, if any, be condoned. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 2 has allegedly executed a sale deed on 08.02.2000 in favour of the third party for a sale consideration of Rs. 4.95 Lacs. It has been further stated that the matter pertaining to the said sale deed is under adjudication and pending before the Court of Sh. Vikas Dhull, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi.
3. On the basis of the abovesaid allegations as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed that a decree of declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring the alleged GPA dated 25.06.1999 and the alleged sale deed dated 29.09.1999 as null and void. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of permanent and mandatory injunctions restraining the defendants, their agents etc. Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 8/57 from selling, transferring, mortgaging, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property till the final disposal of the present suit.
4. Perusal of the order sheet dated 02.12.2003 reveals that the defendant no. 1 was proceeded exparte by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. No written statement has been filed on record on behalf of the defendant no. 1.
5. In the amended written statement filed on record by the defendant no. 2, it has been stated that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has failed to show any title with respect to the land in question and as such, the plaintiff cannot challenge the rights of the defendants. It has been further stated that admittedly, the plaintiff is not having any title with respect to the land in question, because the land originally belonged to Sh. Todar Mal from whom, it was inherited by Smt. Chandro Devi (widow of Sh. Todar Mal). It has been further stated that Smt. Chandro Devi being the rightful owner of the said land transferred the same to the defendant no. 1 by virtue of the registered attorney. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 1 transferred the land in question to the defendant no. 2 by virtue of the registered sale deed. It has been further stated that the plaintiff is claiming his rights on the basis of the alleged Will, which cannot be treated as a Will at all. It has been further stated that the said Will is merely a piece of paper, which has been manipulated by the Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 9/57 plaintiff in order to harass and grab the property of the rightful owners. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has not obtained any probate of the Will till date. It has been further stated that the present suit is without any cause of action. It has been further stated that the doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable in the present case. It has been further stated that the present suit does not attract the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has been further stated that the present suit is hopelessly barred by time because the documents dated 25.06.1999 and 29.09.1999 were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the plaintiff herein also filed the appeal against the orders of mutation, which were passed on the basis of the sale deed dated 29.09.1999. It has been further stated that the said appeal was presented on 27.01.2000, but the present suit has been filed after the expiry of three years from the date of the knowledge of the plaintiff. It has been further stated that the present suit has also not been valued properly for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction. It has been further stated that in fact, the plaintiff is seeking the cancellation of sale deed and GPA which are the registered documents under the garb of declaration. It has been further stated that this Court has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has failed to seek the relief of cancellation of documents and as such, the present suit is not maintainable. It has been further stated that Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 10/57 the defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question and as such, he cannot be subjected to any infirmity in the title of the vendor. It has been further stated that the defendant no. 2 has paid the consideration amount and received the possession without any knowledge of any other dispute with regard to the land in question.
6. On merits as well, the defendant no. 2 has reiterated the abovesaid stand as taken by the defendant no. 2 in the preliminary objections of the written statement. The defendant no. 2 has admitted the family tree of the plaintiff, but it has been denied that the plaintiff is the coowner and bhumidar of the land in question. It has been denied that Sh. Todar Mal used to live away from his native village due to his employment. It has been denied that the plaintiff or his brothers came into physical and cultivatory possession of the entire land. The execution of the Will dated 17.07.1977 in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers has been denied. The filing of any application for mutation by Sh. Longa Ram has also been denied. The defendant no. 2 has taken the stand that Sh. Chandro Devi being the widow of Sh. Todar Mal inherited the property and as such, the mutation was sanctioned in her name by the Tehsildar. It has been denied that the mutation orders dated 12.04.1999 suffers from any illegality. It has been further stated that the registered GPA dated 25.06.1999 and the consequent sale deed dated 29.09.1999 were duly executed. It has been further stated that the mutation was duly Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 11/57 sanctioned in favour of the defendant no. 2. The defendant no. 2 has not denied the pendency of the appeal before the Court of Ld. Deputy Commissioner. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
7. Replication has been filed on record by the plaintiff reiterating and reaffirming the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint and denying the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant no. 2.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide orders dated 03.03.2004 :
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration as prayed, against the defendant?OPP.
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant as prayed?OPP.
3) Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant to file the present suit and the plaintiff is not having any locus standi to file the present suit?OPD.
4) Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?OPD.
5) Whether the plaintiff has not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD.
6) Whether this Cort does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 12/57 try and entertain the present suit?OPD.
7) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD.
8) Relief.
EVIDENCE :
9. The plaintiff has examined his son and SPA as PW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by the plaintiff in the plaint. He has filed on record his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, SPA dated 22.11.2007 as Ex. PW1/1, certified copy of the statement of Smt. Chandro Devi before the Court of the Ld. SDM as Ex. PW1/2, the certified copy of the plaint in the suit bearing no. 113/1993 titled as Smt. Chandro Devi Vs. Sh. Longa Ram & Ors. as Ex. PW1/3, certified copy of the orders dated 20.02.1998 passed in that suit showing the dismissal of the said suit for non prosecution as Ex. PW1/4, certified copy of the application of Smt. Chandro Devi to the Tehsildar as Ex. PW1/5, certified copy of the affidavit of Smt. Chandro Devi as Ex. PW1/6, certified copy of one more affidavit dated 02.04.1999 of Smt. Chandro Devi as Ex PW1/7, the certified copy of the statement of Smt. Chandro Devi dated 12.04.1999 as Ex. PW1/8, the certified copy of the mutation orders dated 12.04.1999 as Ex. PW1/9, the certified copy of the notice to Smt. Chandro Devi issued Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 13/57 by the Tehsildar as Ex. PW1/10, certified of the notice as Ex. PW1/11, the certified copy of the application dated 30.07.1998 of Sh. Longa Ram stating therein that No Objection certificate be not issued to Smt. Omwati as Ex. PW1/12, certified copy of the GPA dated 25.06.1999 _on 29.10.2002 as Ex. PW1/13, certified copy of the sale deed dated 29.09.1999 as Ex. PW1/14, certified copy of the application for mutation by the defendant no. 2 as Ex. PW1/15, certified copies of the statements of the defendants no. 1 and 2 as Ex. PW1/16, certified copy of the notice to Sh. Kishan, Smt. Chandro and to the public at large as Ex. PW1/17 to Ex. PW1/19, certified copy of the order sheet of Tehsildar as Ex. PW1/20, certified copy of the orders dated 15.11.1999 passed by the Tehsildar as Ex. PW1/21, certified copy of the Khatoni as Ex. PW1/22, death certificate of Smt. Chandro Devi as Ex. PW1/23, certified copies of the records of Canal from the year 199697 to the year 200203 as Ex. PW1/24 to Ex. PW1/29, certified copy of the receipt dated 18.06.2003 showing the deposit of the tax in the name of the deceased plaintiff as Ex PW1/30, certified copy of the receipts showing the deposit of the charges on 21.09.1995, 20.03.2005, 28.11.1994, 08.01.1989, 06.05.1987, 04.08.1984, 27.12.1982, 28.07.1991, 10.06.1980, 05.07.1979, 26.07.1978, 02.06.1977, 09.01.1977, 09.07.1976, 03.11.1975, 08.07.1974, 06.02.1974, 08.03.1977, 19.06.1973, 29.03.1953, 27.07.1963, 02.06.1962, 28.01.1964, 07.08.1966, 21.07.1978, 21.03.1967, 16.02.1971 as Ex. PW1/31 to Ex. Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 14/57 PW1/58 respectively, certified copy of the statement of Sh. Ramphal s/o Sh. Bharat Singh as Ex. PW1/59, certified copy of the status report dated 29.09.2003 as Ex. PW1/60.
10. In the crossexamination, PW1 admits it to be correct that he has not produced on record any document to show that his father is not having good health and is hard of hearing. PW1 admits it to be correct that there was no Power of Attorney in his favour in the present suit prior to 22.11.2007. PW1 admits it to be correct that all the proceedings in the present suit have been signed by his father upto that date. PW1 admits it to be correct that including his father, there are four brothers and the total land is 42 Bighas and 8 Biswas. PW1 further states that no relinquishment deed dated 25.03.2003 of Smt. Jamna Devi has been placed on record. PW1 admits it to be correct that no copy of the orders dated 28.03.2003 by which the mutation was effected in the name of the plaintiff and his brothers of the share of Smt. Jamna Devi has been placed on record. PW1 admits it to be correct that in the entire land, the share of Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Todar Mal was half and half. PW1 admits it to be correct that no partition of the land ever took place in between Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Todar Mal. PW1 admits it to be correct that after the death of Sh. Ranjeet Singh, his half share descended upon his own legal heirs. PW1 denies the suggestion that before the death of Sh. Ranjeet Singh, the entire land was being culativated jointly by Sh. Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 15/57 Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Todar Mal. By way of volunteer, PW1 states that only Sh. Ranjeet Singh was cultivating the land and Sh. Todar Mal was in employment and he was not participating in the culativation of the land. PW1 further states that Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Todar Mal were living jointly. PW1 further states that Sh. Todar Mal was having a wife and a daughter Smt. Omwati. PW1 further states that all the proceeds of cultivation and from the employment of Sh. Todar Mal were being used jointly for the families of both the brothers. PW1 admits it to be correct that before the death of Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Smt. Chandro and Smt. Omwati were also participating in the cultivation of the land along with Sh. Ranjeet Singh. PW1 further states that he has not filed any document to show that Sh. Todar Mal was employed in Rajasthan in a cloth mill. PW1 admits it to be correct that after the death of Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Sh. Todar Mal was looking after his family.
11. In the further crossexamination done on 30.08.2010, PW1 denies the suggestion that after the death of Sh. Ranjeet Singh in 196667, Sh. Todar Mal was cultivating his share in the agricultural land. PW1 further states that Sh. Todar Mal had not executed the Will dated 17.07.1977 in his presence. PW1 admits it to be correct that his father had applied for mutation of the properties of the land falling in the share of Sh. Todar Mal, wherein, he had filed an affidavit specifying that there was no Will of late Sh. Todar Mal. By way of volunteer, PW1 states that Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 16/57 till that time, he had not discovered the Will. PW1 further states that he does not know as to when the said Will was discovered. PW1 admits it to be correct that Probate of the Will has not been obtained. PW1 denies the suggestion that the Will has been fabricated by he himself in collusion with the witnesses as shown in the said Will. PW1 admits it to be correct that the land of Sh. Todar Mal has been mutated in the name of his wife Smt. Chandro Devi. By way of volunteer, PW1 states that after 23 years. PW1 admits it to be correct that the land was mutated in the name of the defendant no. 2 on 15.08.1999. PW1 admits it to be correct that the defendant no. 2 had sold the land to Sh. Narayan Singh and his brothers by executing the sale deed. PW1 admits it to be correct that the name of his father and his brothers were never mutated in the revenue record in respect of the land of the share of Sh. Todar Mal.
12. PW1 denies the suggestion that the Canal Girdawari was executed by the department on the basis of the deposit of charges. PW1 denies the suggestion that Ex. PW1/24 to Ex. PW1/29 were not issued on the basis of spot inspection by the officials of Irrigation Department. PW1 denies the suggestion that the document Ex PW1/30 to Ex. PW1/58 do not pertain to the land of Sh. Todar Mal. PW1 denies the suggestion that the said documents have been wrongly procured to lay the claim over the land of Sh. Todar Mal. PW1 admits it to be correct that Ex. PW1/59 is the examination in chief of Sh. Ramphal in the proceedings before the Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 17/57 Revenue Assistant. PW1 admits it to be correct that copy of his cross examination has not been placed on record in the present suit. PW1 denies the suggestion that the status report dated 25.09.2003 was not approved by Tehsildar by putting his signatures. PW1 denies the suggestion that they were never in physical possession of the land of Sh. Todar Mal.
13. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Ram Phal as PW2 and this witness is an attesting witness to the Will dated 17.07.1977. In his evidence by way of affidavit, this witness has stated that the Will dated 17.07.1977 was written by him and at that time, Sh. Kehar Singh, Sh. Dharam Singh, Sh. Ramehar, Sh. Hazari (Numberdar), Sh Karan Singh and he himself were present. This witness has further stated that the Will was written as per the desire of late Sh. Todar Mal and after writing, the said Will was handed over to late Sh. Todar Mal. This witness has further stated that the said Will bears his signatures at point A and the thumb impression of the executant at point B. The said witness further states that the said Will was also signed by the said persons in his presence. He has exhibited the said Will as Ex. PW2/1.
14. In the crossexamination, PW2 states that he does not remember day of preparation of Ex. PW2/1. PW2 further states that the Will was prepared at 78 pm. PW2 further states that at that time, besides himself, Sh. Hazari Mal (Numberdar), Sh. Kehari, Sh. Ramehar, Sh. Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 18/57 Dharme and Sh. Karne were present in the house of the plaintiff. PW2 further states that he used to visit generally Sh. Todar Mal and he used to discuss about farming. PW2 further states that during discussions on one day, about his view of disposal of his property, Sh. Todar Mal himself had expressed willingness to bequeath his property in favour of the plaintiff as he had been looking after him and cultivating the land althrough. PW2 further states that Sh Todar Mal himself had initiated discussions in his regard. PW2 further states that the document Ex. PW2/1 was prepared and executed then and there. PW2 further states that neither on the previous day, nor at the time of starting of our assembly, Sh. Todar Mal had told us about his intention to execute the Will of his properties.
15. PW2 further states that after Sh. Todar Mal, he had put his signatures on Ex. PW2/1. PW2 denies the suggestion that they had taken all the signatures / thumb impressions on the paper on which Ex. PW2/1 is prepared. PW2 denies the suggestion that the writing part was subsequently entered on the above portion so as to fit in the blank space. PW2 further states that he does not know whether Sh. Longa Ram had not made a mention of the Will in his mutation application moved before the Revenue Authority in respect of the land of Sh. Todar Mal. PW2 further states that out of the signatories to the Will Ex. PW2/1, Sh. Hazari and Sh. Karne are no more. PW2 denies the suggestion that Ex. PW2/1 has been prepared after the demise of Sh. Todar Mal in collusion and at Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 19/57 the instance of the plaintiff. PW2 further states that Sh. Todar Mal had retained this document after it was complete. PW2 denies the suggestion that Sh. Todar Mal had not asked him to prepare any such document. PW2 further states that Sh. Todar Mal expired after about 67 months after the execution of the Will.
16. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Shiv Prakash, Assessment Clerk from the Irrigation Department as PW3 and this witness filed on record the photocopies of Khasra Girdawari (Canal record) for Khata No. 239 as Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/7 (OSR).
17. In the crossexamination, PW3 states that Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/7 were neither prepared in his presence, nor the field was ever inspected by the Patwari in his presence. PW3 further states that he does not have any personal knowledge about the documents Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/7.
18. The plaintiff has further examined Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Patwari from the Office of Tehsil Narela as PW4 and this witness exhibited the photocopy of the Khatoni consolidation record of Khewat, Khata no. 239/221, Village Auchandi, Delhi as Ex. PW4/1. This witness has also placed on record the status report dated 22.07.2003 as Ex. PW4/2.
19. In the crossexamination, PW4 states that he has no knowledge as to whether the status report Ex. PW4/2 was approved by Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 20/57 the Tehsildar or not. PW4 further states that he cannot identify the signatures of the Patwari who prepared the documents Ex. PW4/1 and Ex. PW4/2. PW4 further states that he cannot tell as to whether the document Ex. PW4/2 is based on actual spot inspection or not.
20. The defendant no. 1 was already proceeded exparte and no evidence has been led by the defendant no.1.
21. The defendant no. 2 has examined Sh. Hari Dutt, Kanoongo as DW1. In his examination in chief, this witness has placed on record the Khasra Girdawari for the years 199192 to 199293 as Ex DW1/1 (Colly).
22. In the crossexamination, DW1 states that he has no personal knowledge about the document Ex. DW1/1.
23. The defendant no. 2 has examined himself as DW1 (wrongly numbered as DW1) and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/1 on record, he has reiterated and reaffirmed the stand as taken by him in the written statement. Defendant no. 2 in his evidence by way of affidavit has relied upon the GPA dated 25.06.1999 as Ex. PW1/13 and the sale deed dated 29.09.1999 as Ex. PW1/14. This witness has relied upon the certified copies of the Khasra Girdawari for the year 199192 to 199697 and from the year 2005 to 2012 which have been collectively exhibited as Ex. DW1/1.
24. In the crossexamination, DW1 states that after voluntary retirement in the year 1991, he has been occasionally dealing in Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 21/57 agricultural land. DW1 further states that he does not remember whether he had dealt with Sh. M.S. Tyagi in respect of the suit land directly or through a property dealer. DW1 further states that he does not remember having dealt with the defendant no. 1 in respect of any other agricultural land within 12 months before or after the deal in respect of the suit land. DW1 further states that the full name of the defendant no. 1 is Sh. Mahender Singh Tyagi and he may have been a Patwari by profession. DW1 further states that he does not know as to whether the defendant no. 1 was working as a Patwari in the Revenue Estate of Village Auchandi and had retired prior to the deal in question.
25. DW1 further states that he does not know the Khasra number of the suit land of which he was delivered the physical possession by the defendant no.1. By way of volunteer, DW1 states that the actual possession of 21 Bighas 4 Biswas of the land, however, was given to him. DW1 further states that he had cultivated the land after taking possession through farmers. DW1 further states that he does not remember the month/ period which was tilled and the details of the crops. By way of volunteer, DW1 states that it may have been mentioned in Khasra Girdawari. DW1 further states that he had given the land to Sh. Ram Singh of Village Bhorgarh, Narela, BATAI. DW1 admits it to be correct that the distance between Auchandi and Village Bhorgarh may not be less than 15 Kilometers. DW1 further states that he cannot tell the parentage Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 22/57 of Sh. Ram Singh. DW1 denies the suggestion that he has never taken crops from the suit land either by cultivating himself or through Sh. Ram Singh. DW1 admits it to be correct that the Khewat of entire land measuring 42 Bighas 8 Biswas is one. DW1 further states that since he did not feel any necessity on receiving possession of 21 Bighas 4 Biswas of the land at site, he did not apply the Tehsildar for separation of his Khewat. DW1 admits it to be correct that he had not given any notice to the other joint holders of entire land after purchasing half from the defendant no.1.
26. DW1 further states that he is not aware about the mutation cases which were pending in between Sh .Longa Ram and other claimants of the property. DW1 admits it to be correct that he was not related in any manner with the family of late Sh. Todar Mal. By way of volunteer, DW1 states that the defendant no.1 had introduced him with Smt. Chandro Devi, the widow of Sh. Todar Mal and her daughter Smt. Omwati before purchasing of the suit land. DW1 further states that Smt. Chandro Devi and Smt. Omwati did not inform him about any pending case over the suit land. DW1 further states that apart from the sale deed, the recording of the mutation of the suit property in his name reflects that the possession was delivered to him. DW1 further states that the defendant no. 1 had got the possession delivered to him through Smt. Chandro Devi. DW1 further states that no document of delivery of Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 23/57 possession was prepared and therefore, there was no question of obtaining the signatures/ thumb impression of Smt. Chandro Devi or even the defendant no.1. DW1 denies the suggestion that the actual possession of the suit land has never been delivered to him. DW1 further states that it may be correct that he had purchased agricultural land jointly with the defendant no. 1 in Village Katewara around the same time. DW1 admits it to be correct that he had no occasion to see Sh. Todar Mal signing or putting his thumb impression on any documents. DW1 denies the suggestion that Sh. Todar Mal had executed a Will dated 17.07.1977 Ex. PW1/1 in respect of his agricultural land. DW1 further states that he has not shown the suit land in his income tax and wealth tax returns.
27. The defendant no. 2 has further examined Sh. Swarn Kumar, Patwari as DW2. This witness in his examinationinchief states that he had brought the summoned record of Khatoni consolidation and Khasra Girdawari for the year 200708 to 201213 which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/22. This witness placed on record the Khasra Girdawari for the year 200708 to 201112 as Ex. DW2/1 to Ex. DW2/5.
28. In the crossexamination, DW2 states that he has no personal knowledge of Ex. DW2/1 to Ex. DW2/5. DW2 admits it to be correct that the names of the Bhumidars as mentioned in Column no. 4 as Ex. DW2/1 to Ex DW2/5 have been mentioned as per the records of the Khatoni. DW2 further admits it to be correct that the names of the deceased Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 24/57 Bhumidars continued to remain on record until mutation is applied and sanctioned.
29. The defendant no. 2 has further examined Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Patwari from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kanjhawala as DW3. This witness has placed on record the Khasra Girdawaries for the year 199394 to the year 199697 as Ex. DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/4 and the Khasra Girdawari for the year 200506 as Ex. DW3/5.
30. In the crossexamination, DW3 states that he has just brought the record from the Record Room and therefore, he does not know about the name of the farmer who was cultivating the name in the Khasra Girdawaries. DW3 further states that he has no personal knowledge about the actual possession over the land mentioned in the abovesaid Khasras.
31. The next and the last witness examined by the defendant no. 2 is Sh. Trilok Chand, Reader to the SDM, Model Town, who has been examined as DW4 and this witness brought the case file bearing no. 462/SO(C)/N/97, old case no. 224/RA/79. This witness has placed on record the order sheets from 29.06.1978 to 16.08.1978 collectively exhibited as Ex. DW4/1 and order sheets dated 03.09.1984 to 16.05.1985 as Ex. DW4/2. This witness also placed on record the certified copy of the application dated 04.05.1978 as Ex. DW4/3, certified copy of the application dated 15.02.1979 as Ex. DW4/4, affidavit of Sh Longa Ram Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 25/57 dated 16.06.1978 as Ex. DW4/5, certified copy of the statement of Sh. Longa Ram dated 27.02.1979 as Ex. DW4/6, certified copy of the orders dated 16.03.1979 as Ex. DW4/7, statement of Sh. Longa Ram dated 14.12.1978 as Ex. DW4/8.
32. In the crossexamination, DW4 admits it to be correct that there is difference in typing at portion A to A1 in the original affidavit of Sh. Longa Ram Ex. DW4/5. DW4 admits it to be correct that there is also space difference in portion A to A1 of the same document. DW4 further states that he cannot say as to whether this portion has been typed later on. DW4 further states that the copy of the Will exhibited as Ex. PW2/1 is also on record of the file bearing case no. 224/RA/79(New No. 462/SO(C)/N/97. DW4 admits it to be correct that the said case was decided on 15.10.2010 and the same was pending for mutation since 04.05.1978.
33. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record and heard the rival submissions of Ld. counsels for both the parties. The plaintiff and the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 as well have filed on record written final arguments. I have meticulously perused the written final arguments filed on record by the parties.
34. My issuewise finding on the abovesaid issues is as under:
Issues No. 1 & 2 :
Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 26/57
35. Both these issues are taken up together as the same are connected interse, overlap each other and relate to the prayer of the present suit.
36. The factual controversy involved in the present suit is within a narrow compass. It is not in dispute that Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Todar Mal were the sons of Sh. Ram Kala. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff Sh. Longa Ram and his brothers are the sons of late Sh. Ranjeet Singh. It is not in dispute that Sh. Todar Mal expired on 27.12.1977 leaving behind Smt. Chandro Devi as his widow and Smt. Om Wati as his married daughter. It is not in dispute that Smt. Chandro Devi allegedly executed a registered GPA on 25.06.1999 in favour of the defendant no.1 herein and the defendant no.1 in turn executed the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1999 in favour of the defendant no.2. It is not in dispute that the property was jointly owned by Sh. Ranjeet Singh and Sh. Todar Mal in equal shares. The plaintiff Sh. Longa Ram has claimed that his deceased brother Sh. Todar Mal had executed a Will dated 17.07.1977 in his favour. As such, the plaintiff has claimed that the GPA dated 25.06.1999 and the sale deed dated 29.09.1999 are the sham transactions. The plaintiff has assailed the authenticity and validity of the abovesaid two documents. On the other hand, the defendant no.2 has stated that no such Will dated 17.07.1977 was executed by late Sh. Todar Mal in favour of Sh. Longa Ram and his brothers. The defendant no.2 has stated that Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 27/57 the said Will is forged and fabricated.
37. As such, the vital question to be considered by this Court is as to whether the plaintiff has been able to prove that the GPA dated 25.06.1999 and the sale deed dated 29.09.1999 have been executed as sham transactions and the deceased Smt. Chandro Devi, the widow of Sh. Todar Mal had no capacity to execute the GPA dated 25.06.1999 in favour of the defendant no.1 herein because her husband Sh. Todar Mal had already executed a Will dated 17.07.1977 in favour of the plaintiff Sh. Longa Ram and his brothers.
38. In the written final arguments filed on record by the plaintiff, it has been argued that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case through cogent and reliable testimony of PW1 and PW2. PW1, Sh. Bhupinder is the son and SPA of the plaintiff Sh. Longa Ram. PW2 is one of the attesting witnesses to the Will Ex.PW2/1 on record. It has been further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been able to prove that he himself and his brothers have always been in physical and cultivatory possession of the suit land and this fact has been fortified by the testimonies of PW 3 and PW4. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, in the written final arguments has relied upon the cross examination of the DWs and particularly, the crossexamination of DW1 and has argued that the defendants have utterly failed to prove the physical possession of the defendants over the suit land. It has been Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 28/57 further argued that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case in its entirety.
39. Whereas on the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 in the written final arguments has argued that a close scrutiny of the document Ex.PW2/1 reveals that the same is a dictation and desire of a specific group of the people which do not indicate the desire of Sh. Todar Mal. It has been further argued that there is tampering in the second line and interpolation. It has been further argued that the text of the Will has been squeezed to fit in the available space. It has been further argued that the settled law is that the person who propounds the Will has to prove the same. It has been further argued that the propounder of the Will is required to prove that the testator was in sound states of mind, physically fit and was having the capacity to execute the Will. It has been further argued that even the name of the wife and daughter of Sh. Todar Mal has not been mentioned in the said Will. It has been further argued that the Will was not notarized or registered. It has been further argued that the application dated 05.02.1979 Ex. DW4/4 on record and the affidavit dated 13.06.1978 Ex.DW4/5 on record state that Sh. Todar Mal did not execute any Will during his life time. It has been further argued that there are statements dated 27.02.1979 Ex.DW4/6 on record and Ex.DW4/8 on record which go to show that no Will was executed by Sh. Todar Mal. It has been argued that there exist suspicious circumstances and the same Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 29/57 have not been removed by the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has relied upon the authorities cited as 2010 V AD SC Page 561 titled as Balathandayutham & Anr. Vs. Ezhilarasan, 2007 VII AD SC 238 titled as Apoline D'Souza Vs. John D'Souza, 2010 (119) DRJ 138 titled as Desh Raj Gupta Vs. State & Ors., 2006 VII AD Delhi 536 titled as Rita Ramesh Vs. State., III (2011) CLT 212 titled as Dattatray Narayan Vs. Bhaskar Narayan. Relying upon the ratio of the abovestated authorities, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has argued that requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act have not been complied with.
40. It has been further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 that no relief qua the possession has been sought for by the plaintiff despite the fact that the plaintiff is not in possession. It has been further argued that Section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present suit.
41. First of all, let me point out here that the defendant no.1 has through out remained exparte. As such, the testimony of PWs and the entire case of the plaintiff remains uncontroverted and unchallenged so far as the defendant no.1 is concerned. It is the defendant no.2, who is the only contesting defendant.
42. In the written statement, the defendant no. 2 has taken the stand that the present suit for declaration is not maintainable because the Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 30/57 relief for the cancellation of the documents dated 25.06.1999 and 29.09.1999, Ex.PW1/13 and Ex.PW1/14 on record has not been sought for by the plaintiff.
43. It has to be seen that the plaintiff herein is not a executant of the said documents. In the authority cited as AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2807 titled as Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Ors., it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : "Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a nonexecutant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid or nonest, 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' 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, has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and nonest/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as nonbinding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If 'A', the executant of the deed, seeks Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 31/57 cancellation of the deed, he has to pay advalorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If 'B', who is a nonexecutant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee or Rs.19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if 'B', a nonexecutant, 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 Courtfees Act. 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."
44. In the light of the ratio of the above stated authority of Hon'ble Apex Court of the land, I have no hesitation to hold that the Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 32/57 present suit for Declaration alongwith the relief of the Permanent and Mandatory Injunctions is maintainable because the plaintiff is not the executant of the said documents Ex.PW1/13 and Ex.PW1/14.
45. In the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically asserted that Smt. Chandro Devi used to file applications, to submit affidavits and used to give her statements before the Revenue Authorities which suited her case from time to time thereby changing her stand frequently. It has to be seen that Ex.PW1/2 which is the certified copy of the statement late Smt. Chandro Devi recorded before the Court of the SDM is there on record. In the said statement, Late Smt. Chandro Devi specifically states that her husband Sh. Todar Mal has expired leaving behind her as her widow and one daughter Smt. Om Wati. It has been further stated in the said statement that Sh. Todar Mal was not having any son. It has been further stated that prior to his death, Sh. Todar Mal had executed a Will of his property in favour of his daughter Smt. Om Wati and she wanted mutation of the said property left behind by late Sh. Todar Mal in favour of Smt. Om Wati. Thereafter, perusal of Ex.PW1/5 reveals that Smt. Chandro Devi filed an application before the Tehsildar stating therein that she is the only legal heir of Late Sh. Todar Mal and he was not having any son. Furthermore, it has to be seen that Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 are there on record, which are the affidavits dated 21.12.1998 and 09.04.1999 of Late Smt. Chandro Devi. The said affidavits clearly reveal that late Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 33/57 Smt. Chandro Devi stated that the said application Ex. PW1/5 was filed by her and mutation of the properties left behind by her husband be done in her favour. Further, it has to be seen that late Smt. Chandro Devi got recorded her statement before Ld. SDM on 12.04.1999 and in the said statement, she categorically asserted that late Sh. Todar Mal expired without executing any Will. In the said statement, Smt. Chandro Devi further stated that Sh. Todar Mal i.e her husband expired without leaving any progeny. As such, from the said documents, it is apparently clear that late Smt. Chandro Devi took diametrically opposite stands at different points of time before the Revenue Authorities. I am of the opinion that it has been rightly pointed out by the plaintiff that Smt. Chandro Devi not only took contrary stands but also filed various documents in the form of applications and affidavits etc. before the Revenue Authorities so as to suit her purpose.
46. It has to be further seen that Smt. Chandro Devi also filed a suit bearing no. 113/93 titled Smt. Chandro Devi Vs. Sh. Longa Ram and others. The plaint of the said suit in the form of Ex.PW1/3 is there on record. In para no.3 of the plaint, the deceased Smt. Chandro Devi has stated that the property in question was partitioned verbally through the family settlement. It has to be seen that no such plea of partition has been taken by the defendants in the written statement herein. During the crossexamination of PW1, a suggestion has been given by the Ld. Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 34/57 Counsel for the defendant no. 2 to the effect that the suit property was not partitioned. As such, I am of the opinion that in the said suit as well, late Smt. Chandro Devi took entirely contradictory stand. The said suit was a suit for Permanent Injunction. The said suit was dismissed for non prosecution on 20.02.1998 by the orders of the Court as is apparently clear from Ex.PW1/4 on record. It is not in dispute that no application for restoration of the said suit was filed.
47. The GPA dated 25.06.1999 has been executed allegedly by Smt. Chandro Devi in favour of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 on the basis of the said GPA executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant no.2 on 29.09.1999. It is true that both the above said documents are registered. It is also true that there is presumption in favour of a registered document but it has to be seen that the execution of the said documents has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, to my mind. The sale deed in favour of the defendant no.2 was allegedly executed by the defendant no.1 on 29.09.1999. The defendant no.1 preferred to remain ex parte but it has to be seen that the defendant no.2 failed to examine the defendant no.1, who is the executant of the sale deed in favour of the defendant no.2. Even Smt. Om Wati, the daughter of the deceased Sh. Todar Mal has not been examined as a witness by the defendant no.2. No other witness has been examined by the defendant no.2 to identify the thumb impression of Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 35/57 the executant Smt. Chandro Devi on the GPA Ex.PW1/13 on record.
48. The most vital question is the question of the Will dated 17.07.1977 Ex.PW2/1 on record in the present suit. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 has vehemently argued that there are various suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and the propounder of the Will has not been able to remove those suspicious circumstances. In the written final arguments, it has been argued that the name of the daughter or wife of the deceased Sh. Todar Mal has not been mentioned in the said Will and it has also not been proved that the testator was of the sound disposing mind. It has been further argued that the Will has not been proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
49. Section 74 of the Indian Succession Act provides as under : "Wording of Will - It is not necessary that any technical words or terms of art be used in a Will, but only that the wording be such that the intentions of the testator can be known therefrom."
50. Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act also reads as under
: "Will" means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 36/57 desires to be carried into effect after his death."
51. Perusal of the abovesaid two provisions reveals that no specific form of the Will has been prescribed and the intention of the testator has to be gathered. It has been held in a catena of cases that if a intention of the testator is clear, then the Will has to be given effect to. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the authority cited as (2011) 176 DLT 199 titled as Hari Singh & Anr. Vs. The State & Anr. : "In probate cases, the Courts have to first determine whether the propounder of the Will has discharged the burden placed on him by law U/s 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The burden placed on the propounder would be discharged by proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signatures of the testator. The burden then shifts on the contesting party who disclosed prima facie existence of suspicious circumstances, after which the burden shift back to the propounder to dispel the suspicion by leading appropriate evidence."
52. A propounder of the Will has to prove the due and valid Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 37/57 execution of the Will and if there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the propounder must remove the said suspicion from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence.
53. In the aforesaid authority itself, it has been held that each and every circumstance is not a suspicious circumstance even if the propounder of the Will takes an active participation in the execution of the Will, that by itself is not sufficient to create any doubt either about the testamentary capacity or the genuineness of the Will.
54. In the case in hand, it has to be seen that the suspicious circumstances have not been mentioned at all by the defendant no. 2 in the written statement. Even during the crossexamination of PWs, no suggestion has been given to any of the PWs with regard to any of the suspicious circumstances. It is only in the written final arguments filed on record by the defendant no. 2, the suspicious circumstances have been mentioned, but I would like to deal with all the suspicious circumstances allegedly raised by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 on merits.
55. The first suspicion raised by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 is that the aforesaid document Ex. PW2/1 on record amounts to wish of certain group of people and not the wish of the testator. It has to be seen that Section 74 of the Indian Succession Act specifically states that the technical words or artful words are not Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 38/57 required. No specific form has been provided for drafting and executing the Will. Only the intention of the testator has to be gathered. If the said document Ex. PW2/1 is carefully gone through, it becomes evidently clear that the persons, who gathered in a group have categorically stated that it was the wish of the testator to bequeath his land in favour of his nephews. As such, I am of the opinion that the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 on this count is without any substance.
56. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act specifically provides that a Will has to be proved by one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. It has been held in a catena of the cases that a Will is required to be signed by two or more witnesses and the examination of one of the attesting witnesses is a must. The plaintiff has examined Sh. Ramphal as PW2, who is one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. Sh. Ramphal has categorically asserted in his evidence by way of affidavit that the Will was drafted by him and Sh. Kehar Singh, Sh. Dharam Singh, Sh. Ramehar, Sh. Hazari (Numberdar), Sh Karan Singh and the executant put their thumb impressions or the signatures on the said Will. PW2 has identified his signatures at point A and the thumb impressions of the executant at point B on the said document Ex. PW2/1. During the cross examination of PW2, no suggestion has been given to this witness that the said document does not bear the signatures of Sh. Kehar Singh, Sh. Dharam Singh, Sh. Hazari (Numberdar), Sh Karan Singh etc. No Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 39/57 suggestion has been given to PW2 that the said document does not bear the thumb impression of the executant. Rather, PW2 has been given a suggestion that the signatures/ thumb impressions of all the persons were taken on a paper on which Ex. PW2/1 was prepared. The giving of the said suggestion to PW2, to my mind, reveals that the signatures and the thumb impression of all the persons have been admitted by the defendant no. 2 on the said document. I am of the opinion that once the defendant no. 2 admits the thumb impression of the executant on the said document and the signatures of the attesting witnesses as well, the burden of proof is shifted upon the defendants to prove that the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. I am of the opinion that the defendants have failed to discharge the burden placed upon them.
57. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has further argued that in the said Will, even the names of the widow and the daughter of the deceased Sh. Todar Mal have not been mentioned. Perusal of the said document Ex. PW2/1 reveals that the name of Smt. Chandro Devi in the form of wife of the testator has been mentioned, but the name of Smt. Omwati, the daughter of the deceased Sh. Todar Mal has not been mentioned. It has to be seen that in the authority cited as (1995) 4 SCC 459 titled as Rabindra Nath Mukherjee & Anr. Vs. Panchanan Banerjeet (Dead) By LRs & Ors., it has been held as under : "Succession Act, 1925 - S. 61 - Registered Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 40/57 will made by 90years old lady - Deprivation of natural heirs by testatrix is not by itself a suspicious circumstance - Identification of testatrix before SubRegistrar by an Advocate who had acted as a lawyer of one of the executors in some cases also not a suspicious circumstance, when a wrong person had not been identified as testatrix - When contents of the will explained by SubRegistrar to the testatrix, the fact that witnesses to the documents were interested and active part was played by a close relation of one of the executors, described as 'ubiquitous', in getting execution of the will also not a suspicious circumstance - Having regard to the facts and some other circumstances showing voluntary character of the document, held, genuineness and voluntariness of the present will could be doubted."
58. In the light of the abovesaid authority, I am of the opinion that the abovesaid submission of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 is not tenable at all.
59. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has further argued that the propounder of the Will has not been able to prove that the testator was of the sound disposing mind. It has to be seen that this is not the case of Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 41/57 the defendant no. 2 as contained in the written statement that the testator was not of the sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the said Will. No suggestion has been given to PWs on this aspect of the matter during their entire crossexamination. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 on this count are of no help.
60. PW2 Sh. Ramphal had also appeared before the Court of SDM and his examinationinchief as was recorded by the Court of Ld. SDM is there on record in the form of Ex. PW1/59. During the cross examination of PW1, a suggestion has been given that the cross examination of the said witness as was recorded has not been placed on record. It is true that the crossexamination of the said witness has not been placed on record, but the defendant no. 2 during his evidence has also not placed on record the crossexamination of the said witness. Furthermore, it has to be seen that PW2, who has been crossexamined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 in the present suit has stuck to his stand even in his crossexamination. The testimony of PW2 is not at all shaken even in his cross, to my mind.
61. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has argued that the Probate of the said Will has not been sought for. It is true that Probate of the said Will has not been obtained, but it is settled law that Probate of a Will is not required in Delhi.
Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 42/57
62. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the abovesaid document Ex. PW2/1 on record is a Will and the same has been duly proved by PW2.
63. The next vital question to be considered by this Court is the controversy with regard to the physical and cultivatory possession over the suit land. The plaintiff has categorically asserted that Sh. Ranjeet Singh expired in the year 196768 and the sons of Sh. Ranjeet Singh came into physical and cultivatory possession of the total land i.e. 42 Bighas 8 Biswas as Sh. Todar Mal was a private employee in the city Bayar (Rajasthan) and then at Delhi Cloth Mill at Delhi. The defendant no. 2, on the other hand, has categorically asserted that the plaintiff has not been in physical possession of the suit property and the defendant no. 2 had taken the possession from the defendant no. 1 through deceased Smt. Chandro Devi. As such, the vital question to be considered by this Court is as to whether the plaintiff has been able to prove the physical and cultivatory possession of the suit land. This Court has to further consider as to whether the defendant no. 2 has been able to prove that the defendant no. 2 had taken over the physical and cultivatory possession of the suit land from the defendant no. 1 through deceased Smt. Chandro Devi.
64. So far as the physical possession is concerned, it has to be seen that the testimony of PW1, even in the crossexamination has been Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 43/57 streamlined and the consistent throughout. The defendant no. 2 has examined himself as DW1 and a perusal of the crossexamination of DW1 (reproduced herein above) reveals that the defendant no. 2 has not been able to prove that the physical and cultivatory possession of the suit land was taken over by him. DW1, in the crossexamination, has stated that he had cultivated the land after taking the possession through the medium of the farmers. In the crossexamination, he has named one Sh. Ram Singh, through whom the said land was cultivated. Sh. Ram Singh has not been produced as a witness by DW1. No other farmer has been produced by DW1 to prove that the suit land was cultivated by DW1 through his medium. The entire crossexamination of DW1 reproduced herein above, to my mind, is sufficient in itself to prove that the defendant no. 2 has never been in the physical possession of the property in question.
65. The plaintiff has relied upon the Canal record i.e. the Khasra Girdawaries of Kewat No. 239 Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/7, Khatoni consolidation record Ex PW4/1 and the status report dated 22.07.2003 Ex. PW4/2 on record. The status report dated 22.07.2003 and the Revenue Record Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/7 fortifies the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been in physical possession of the suit land.
66. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2, on the other hand, has relied upon the Revenue Record i.e. Khasra Girdawaries of the years Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 44/57 200708 to 201213 and the Khasra Girdawaries for the years 199394 to the year 199697 in the form of Ex. DW2/1 to Ex. DW2/6, DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/5 to show that the defendant no. 2 has been in physical possession of the land in question. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has further relied upon the testimony of DW4.
67. It has to be seen that in the crossexamination, DW4 admits that there is a difference in typing at portion A to A1 in the original affidavit of Sh. Longa Ram Ex. DW4/2. DW4 further states that there is also a space difference in the portion A to A1 of the same document. DW4 further states that he cannot tell as to whether the said portion has been typed later on. DW4 further states that the copy of the Will Ex. PW2/1 is on record of the said file. DW4, in the crossexamination, admits it to be correct that the said case was decided on 15.10.2010 and the same was pending for mutation since 04.05.1978. As such, I am of the opinion that the testimony of DW4 does not inspire confidence in the light of his crossexamination. Similarly, it has to be seen that DW3 in the crossexamination states that he has no personal knowledge about the actual possession over the land mentioned in the above said Khasras. DW2 also admits in the crossexamination that at times, the name of the deceased Bhumidar continued to remain on record until mutation was applied and sanctioned.
68. Furthermore, it is not dispute that the land in question was Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 45/57 mutated in favour of Smt. Chandro Devi on 12.04.1999 and thereafter, the land in question was mutated in favour of the defendant no. 2. PW1 in the crossexamination has admitted that the mutation was recorded in the name of Smt. Chandro Devi. It is not in dispute that the said mutation was recorded after a gap of 23 years. The orders dated 12.04.1999 Ex. Pw1/9 whereby the mutation was recorded in favour of Smt. Chandro Devi are there on record. The said orders does not mention anywhere the contradictory statements and the affidavits submitted by Smt. Chandro Devi before the Revenue Authorities.
69. The settled law is that the entries in the revenue records does not confer any ownership. I am of the opinion that the crossexamination of defendant no. 2, who has been examined as DW1 is sufficient in itself to show that the defendant no. 2 has never been in physical possession of the suit land, even if, the testimonies of the witnesses from the Revenue Department examined by both the parties is not taken into consideration.
70. The categorical stand of the plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 was a Patwari and the mutation orders were got done in favour of late Smt. Chandro Devi after a long gap of approximately 23 years in collusion with the Revenue Authorities. The plaintiff has further stated that the GPA dated 25.06.1999 and consequent sale deed dated 29.09.1999 are sham transactions.
71. If the crossexamination of DW1 i.e. the defendant no. 2 is Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 46/57 carefully gone through, it becomes evidently clear that the defendant no. 2 has not denied that the defendant no. 1 retired as a Patwari. Perusal of the mutation orders in favour of Smt. Chandro Devi reveals that her previously recorded contradictory statements were not taken into consideration while passing the mutation orders. As such, I am of the opinion that on this count as well, the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff carries weight and cannot be brushed aside.
72. Last but not the least, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has argued that the plaintiff has failed to appear in the witness box and the testimony of PW1 is the testimony of SPA of the plaintiff which cannot be relied upon. It is true that PW1 is the SPA of the plaintiff, but it has to be seen that PW1 is not only the SPA of the plaintiff, but he is also the son of the plaintiff. In the plaint and in the affidavit of PW1 as well, it has been stated that the son of the plaintiff used to obtain the certified copies of the documents from the Revenue Department. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff. In the crossexamination, a suggestion has been given to PW1 that prior to 22.11.2007, he was not the Power of Attorney and all the proceedings in the present suit were carried out by the plaintiff till that day. As such, I am of the opinion that PW1 has the personal knowledge of the matters in the present suit and he can depose on behalf of his father i.e. the plaintiff in the present suit.
73. If weighed on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 47/57 which is litmus test in the civil cases, the testimonies of PWs appears to me to be more reliable and trustworthy as compared to the testimonies of DWs.
74. In the light of the abovesaid discussions, I have no hesitation to hold that the GPA dated 25.06.1999 and the sale deed dated 29.09.1999 have not been proved by the defendant no. 2 in accordance with the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. I am also of the opinion that the deceased Smt. Chandro Devi did not have any capacity to execute the GPA dated 25.06.1999 in favour of the defendant no. 1 after the execution of the Will dated 17.07.1977 by her late husband Sh. Todar Mal. As such, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has been able to prove the abovesaid issues in his favour.
Issue No. 3 :
75. The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the defendants. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 in the written final arguments has argued that the plaintiff can challenge the title documents executed in favour of the defendant no. 2 only when he establishes his title to the property through Will. It has been further argued that the Will has not been proved in accordance with the law and therefore, there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit. It has been further argued that the plaintiff also does not have the locus standi Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 48/57 to file the present suit.
76. The plaintiff in the plaint has categorically asserted that the defendants have procured the property in question with late Smt. Chandro Devi. Smt. Chandro Devi in suit bearing no. 113/1993, the plaint of which is on record in the form of Ex. PW1/3, has admitted in para no. 2 thereof, that the defendants in that suit were the cobhumidars of the agricultural land. It has also been discussed herein above that the said suit was dismissed for nonprosecution. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff herein filed an application before the concerned Revenue Authorities, wherein, he prayed that his name be mutated in the revenue records. I have already held that the plaintiff has been able to prove that the Will Ex. PW2/1 on record has been validly executed. The plaintiff claims himself to be in possession of the suit property. Under issues no. 1 and 2, it has already been held that the plaintiff is in physical and cultivatory possession of the property in question. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has the locus standi to file the present suit and the plaintiff has also the cause of action in his favour to file the present suit. Issue No. 4 :
77. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2, in the written final arguments, has argued that the plaintiff got the knowledge of the sale deed on 11.01.2000. It has been further argued that the plaintiff has Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 49/57 sought the declaration with respect to the documents dated 25.06.1999 and 29.09.1999. It has been further argued that the suit was filed in August 2003 and as such, the present suit is barred by law of limitation. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has further argued that the present suit was filed in a Court, which had no jurisdiction and the suit was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge in March 2007. As such, the suit must be actually deemed to have instituted in March 2007.
78. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has relied upon the authorities titled as Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. cited as 182 (2011) DLT 597, Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla Vs. Hargovind Jasraj & Anr. cited as 2013 (II) (SC) 394, ITPO Vs. V. Meera Ors. cited as 2009 VI AD (Delhi) 785, Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Birbal and Ors. cited as (2006) 5 SCC 353, Smt. Shamim Afroz & Ors. Vs. MehfoozulHasan & Ors. cited as AIR 2007 Madya Pradesh 19, Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors. cited as 129 (2006) DLT 382 (DB), Mahabir Singh Vs. Subhash and Ors. cited as (2008) 1 SCC 358 and State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Balkaran Singh cited as (2006) 12 SCC 709.
79. Whereas, on the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation. Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 50/57
80. PW1 in para no. 10 of his evidence by way of affidavit has stated that he obtained the certified copy of the GPA dated 25.06.1999 and 29.10.2002. No cross examination has been done on this aspect of the matter by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2. It has to be further seen that in para no.10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that on 11.11.2000, the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the Khatoni from the Halka Patwari and then he came to know about the alleged sale followed by the mutation in favour of the defendant no.2. As such, in the written final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 has wrongly stated that the plaintiff has mentioned the date of the knowledge in the plaint as 11.01.2000. In fact, the date which has been mentioned in para no. 10 of the plaintiff is 11.11.2000 and not 11.01.2000. As such, I am of the opinion that the present suit which has been filed in October, 2003 is within the period of the limitation.
81. It has to be further seen that in para 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically stated that the defendants were never in possession of the said property and the defendants never approached the plaintiff for the possession of the land in dispute. It has been further stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that the defendants are selling property in question merely in the air, on papers only.
82. In the written arguments filed on record by the plaintiff previously on 30.04.2005, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 51/57 Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act specifies that any person who is interested to deny or may deny the legal character to any right or property (in the present case property in question) entitles the person, who apprehends such denial to seek declaration.
83. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in the written arguments filed on record by the plaintiff has further argued that article 58 (c) of the Limitation Act distinguishes the accrual of right to sue and accrual of first right to sue, wherein it provides for right to declaration when the right to sue first accrues and accordingly the right to sue first accrues or cause of action arises when the denial accrues or when the Plaintiff apprehends that the defendants may actually deny. The denial may be in the form of formal or an oral denial made to a third person or a denial made in the writing. However, if such denial is not communicated to the plaintiff, there will be no cause of action until the plaintiff apprehends.
84. It has to be seen that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the authority cited as AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1114 titled as Mohan Balaku Patil and ors. Vs. Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre (dead) has held that :
"Karnataka Land Reforms Act (10 of 1962) Ss. 133, 45 - Revenue entries - Correctness of - Presumption as to possession cannot be raised merely on the basis of entries in record of rights - Appellants found to have constructed a Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 52/57 building on the land in dispute and to have paid electricity bills - Thus finding of tribunal that land was in possession of appellants is proper - Presumption in favour of respondents arising under S. 133 was displaced - Respondents thus cannot be given occupancy rights merely on basis of record of rights."
85. In the abovesaid authority, it has been held that the presumption as to possession cannot be raised merely on the basis of entries in record of rights. It has to be further seen that in AIR 1960 SC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that there can be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right, by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted.
86. In the authority cited as 67 (1997) DLT 576, it has been held that :
"Limitation Act, 1963 Article 58 - Suit barred by limitation - Threat - Gives rise to a compulsive cause of action - Depends on - That the threat effectively invades or jeopardises the right - Cause of action first time arises - When he is compelled to come to Court - Suit cannot be dismissed."
Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 53/57
87. In the light of the ratio of the abovesaid authorities, I have no hesitation to hold that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is within the period of limitation.
88. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has relied upon the judgment dated 24.05.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in IA No. 1335/2012 in CS(OS) 1874/2011 titled as Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. Dapinder Pal Singh & Ors.
89. Relying upon the ratio of the abovesaid authority, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has argued that the present suit was transferred to the Court of the Ld. ADJ in the month of March 2007 and the same was filed in wrong court and as such, the suit is barred by the law of limitation.
90. There cannot be any deviation from the proposition of law as laid down in the abovestated authority of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, but it has to be seen that in the abovesaid authority, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi refused to exercise the jurisdiction U/s 14 of the Limitation Act because the appellant failed to satisfy the Court that he was prosecuting the case with due diligence and in good faith. I am of the opinion that in the case in hand, it cannot be said that the the plaintiff deliberately filed the suit before the court of the Ld. Civil Judge. Perusal of the order sheet dated 10.01.2007 reveals that the issue no. 5 was disposed off by the Ld. Civil Judge and thereafter, the matter was Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 54/57 transferred to the court of Ld. ADJ because it exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the Ld. Civil Judge. I am of the opinion that the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 on this count is not tenable.
Issues no. 5 & 6 :
91. Both these issues are taken up together as the same are connected interse and overlap of each other. The onus to prove these issues has been placed upon the defendants. However, it has to be seen that the vide orders dated 15.01.2007, the said issues were decided. The plaintiff paid the court fees of Rs. 6,256/ as is reflected from the order sheet dated 15.03.2007 and the suit was transferred to the court of Ld. ADJ. As such, I am of the opinion that the abovesaid issues no. 5 and 6 do not survive any more.
Issue no. 7 :
92. The onus to prove this issue has been again placed upon the defendants.
93. In the written final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has argued that the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the suit property. It has been further argued that no relief of possession has been sought for by the plaintiff. It has been further argued that the possession Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 55/57 of one cosharer is the possession of another cosharer unless ouster is proved as has been held in the authority cited as 1980 (4) SCC Page 396 titled as Karbalai Begum Vs. Moh. Sayyed.
94. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 has further relied upon another authority cited as 2007 (5) AD Delhi 694 titled as Ram Prakash Kathuria Vs. Prakash Kathura, wherein it has been held that, "simplicitor declaration without seeking consequential relief is not maintainable and suit is liable to be dismissed."
95. There cannot be any deviation from the proposition of law as laid down in the authorities relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2, but under issues no. 1 and 2, it has already been held by me that the plaintiff has been able to show that the defendants are not in possession of the property in question and rather, the plaintiff is in possession of the property in question. As such, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 to the effect that the plaintiff has not sought for the relief of possession is untenable. Under issues no. 1 and 2, it has already been discussed that the present suit for declaration coupled with the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions is maintainable. As such, I am of the opinion that the defendant no. 2 has failed to prove this issue. Accordingly, issue no. 7 is decided against the defendants and Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 56/57 in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief :
96. In the light of my findings on the foregoing issues, I hereby pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the GPA dated 25.06.1999 and the sale deed dated 29.09.1999 as null and void. I hereby also pass a decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, mortgaging, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property illegally and forcibly without following the due process of law. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly by the Reader. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (RAJ KUMAR)
on this 06th day of June 2014. ADJ17 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit No. 221/14 (Old Suit No. 160/03) Page No. 57/57