Delhi District Court
Jage Ram vs Naresh Kumar on 4 September, 2025
-1-
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02 WEST DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS)
SUIT NO.607478/2016
CNR NO. DLWT03-000032-2002
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: -
Sh. Jage Ram (through LRs)
a). Sh. Amit Gaur
S/o Sh. Jage Ram
R/o H.No.92, Village Bhalaswa,
Delhi-110033.
..........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Sh. Naresh Kumar (through LRs)
a) Smt. Asha Sharma (wife)
b) Sh. Sagar Sharma (son)
c) Sh. Sahil Sharma (son)
All R/o H.No. 92, Village Bhalaswa,
near Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.
.....................DEFENDANT
Suit filed on :- 30.04.2002
Judgment Reserved on :- 11.08.2025
Digitally
signed by
Lalit
Date of decision :- 04.09.2025
Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04
17:10:34
+0530
Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-1/36
-2-
SUIT FOR DECLARATION
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant seeking a decree of declaration. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is vital to first state the pleadings in the present suit concisely, which are as follows:
Pleadings of the Plaintiffs: -
1. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration declaring the Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992 as null and void with consequential relief of restraining the defendant from using it.
2. The facts in brief, relevant for the judgment and as stated in the plaint, are that the plaintiff was owner of land bearing Khasra No. 1311, 1375, 1379, 1440 and 1451 of his 1/3rd share along with the co-sharer Sh. Raja Ram and Ram Chander, all sons of late Sh. Deeg Ram, situated in Village Bhalswa, Near Jahangirpuri, Delhi and the same was acquired by the Award No. 33/78-79, dated 29.02.1978 total measuring (14-16).
3. It has been further averred that under the scheme of Large-
Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land Delhi Digitally 1961, an Alternative plot was allotted by Delhi Development signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:10:40 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-2/36 -3- Authority ("DDA" in short) through the Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration.
4. That the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, DDA, Delhi Administration and Union of India. In this other suit, the defendant filed a relinquishment deed of several persons including the plaintiff; that the plaintiff came to know about the said relinquishment deed when the defendant filed the written statement before the Court; and plaintiff obtained a copy of said relinquish deed from those proceedings.
5. It has been further averred that the plaintiff never relinquished his share in favor of the defendant. That the plaintiff only appointed the defendant as his power of attorney for the purpose of attending the office of competent authority to deal with the matter of alternative plot. That the defendant obtained the signature of plaintiff on the plain stamp paper in good faith on the pretext of filing the document in the office of DDA for the purpose of allotment of the plot in the name of plaintiff, as per his share.
6. It has been further averred that the plaintiff is the father of his 5 children who are the legal successors of the plaintiff. That there arose no question to relinquish his share in the name of the defendant. That the signature of the plaintiff was obtained by way of fraud on the said relinquishment deed. Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.09.04 17:10:52 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-3/36 -4-
7. It has been further averred that the plaintiff cancelled the said relinquishment deed through notice dated 13.03.2002 and the defendant replied to the same vide a reply dated 20.03.2002.
8. That the defendant repeatedly mentioned in his written statement filed in the other suit (case bearing no. 96/2003 titled Jage Ram Vs. DDA & Ors.) that the defendant paid the consideration to the plaintiff and only thereafter the plaintiff executed the relinquishment deed in favor of the defendant. It has been further averred by the plaintiff that when someone is relinquishing his share in favor of someone else, then the question of receiving the consideration does not arise; that if someone is receiving the consideration then it means that it is a sale-purchase between the parties, then the question of relinquishment does not arise; that the said relinquishment deed after receiving the consideration is against the law and illegal and automatically becomes null and void and is illegal in the eyes of law since no stamp duty was paid by either party on the said consideration paid by the defendant.
9. It has been further averred that the plaintiff never relinquished his right of the land bearing Khasra No.13 (20), 11/10/79 situated in the revenue estate of Bhalswa, Delhi in favour of the defendant by executing the relinquishment deed dated 24.09.1992. That, in case bearing no. 96/2003 titled Jage Ram Vs. DDA & Ors., the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi also Digitally granted a status- quo in regard of said relinquishment deed on signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:10:59 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-4/36 -5- the application U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff till final decision of that suit.
10. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 30.04.2002, challenging the relinquishment deed dated 24.09.1992.
Pleadings of the Defendant: -
11. A written statement was filed by the defendant denying the allegations contained in the plaint and it was submitted that the suit of plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of the parties since all the legal heirs of two brothers of the plaintiff, i.e., Late Sh.
Raja Ram and Sh. Ram Chander were necessary parties to the suit and they were not added by the plaintiff; that Sh. Deeg Ram (father of plaintiff) also left two daughters namely Surati Devi and Shanti Devi, who are also necessary parties and they have also not been added as parties in the present suit. It was averred that the plaintiff intentionally and deliberately did not implead all the LRs of Sh. Ram Chander, Raja Ram and Sh. Deeg Ram since all of them relinquished their shares in favour of the defendant on 24.09.1992.
12. It was further averred that the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action since the plaintiff has no right, interest and claim after execution of relinquishment deed dated 24.09.1992 in favor of the defendant.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.09.04 17:11:08 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-5/36 -6-
13. That the plaintiff had not appeared before the Court with clean hands, has suppressed the material facts and filed this suit on the basis of false and fabricated facts.
14. It was also averred that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation since that the present suit was filed on 29.04.2002 while the plaintiff himself executed the relinquishment deed in favor of the defendant on 24.09.1992.
15. Lastly, several grounds pertaining to technical defects were also pleaded by the defendant. These are - the verification of plaint is defective; that the proper and requisite Court fees has not been affixed by the plaintiff; that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and try the present suit as the value of the property is more than Rs.25 Lakh; that the suit relates to agricultural land and falls within the purview of provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act which clearly bars the jurisdiction of this Court; that the present suit and suit no.96/2000 cannot proceed simultaneously and present suit is liable to be stayed U/s 10 of CPC till disposal of suit no.96/2000.
16. On merits, it was submitted by the defendant that all the legal heirs of Sh. Deeg Ram were entitled to equal shares of his property; that Sh. Deeg Ram (father of Plaintiff) in his lifetime settled the matter and advised the plaintiff and his another son, Ram Chander and his two daughters to relinquish their share in favor of Sh. Raja Ram, father of the defendant. That Sh. Deeg Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:11:16 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-6/36 -7- Ram also fixed the price of the land in dispute and advised Sh. Raja Ram to pay market price to his two daughters, plaintiff and Ram Chander. That consequently, the price was paid and all the four persons relinquished their share in favour of Sh. Naresh Kumar. That a deed of relinquishment was executed on 24.09.1992 by 12 persons/Legal heirs of Sh. Deeg Ram, i.e., -
(i) Smt. Maya Devi W/o Late Sh. Ram Chander, (ii) Om Prakash and (iii) Mahender, both sons of Sh. Ram Chander,
(iv) Roshni and (v) Kaushalya, daughters of Ram Chander (vi) Smt. Shanti Devi and (vii) Smt. Sarto Devi, daughters of Sh. Deeg Ram and (viii) Sh. Jage Ram S/o Late Sh. Deeg Ram,
(ix) Smt. Basanti d/o Late Sh. Raja Ram, (x) Mani Ram S/o Late Sh. Raja Ram, (xi) Omwati and (xii) Bala, both d/o Late Sh. Raja Ram. These 12 persons relinquished their share in plot/agricultural land in favor of the defendant, Naresh Kumar.
17. It is further averred that the plaintiff has not mentioned the Khasra number of the agricultural land in dispute and deliberately concealed this material fact from the Court. It is also averred that plaint is devoid of necessary particulars of the allotted plot, i.e., size of the plot, to whom it has been allotted, revenue state in which it was allotted and at what price the plot was allotted. That the defendant had spent lakhs of rupees in the process of acquisition, measurement of land, where plot in lieu of land should be awarded to the defendant.
18. It is also averred that the plaintiff relinquished his share Digitally signed by Lalit along with other legal heirs of Sh. Deeg Ram, of his own Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:11:22 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-7/36 -8- discretion without any fraud or coercion. After execution of Relinquishment deed, the plaintiff has no right in the plot and the defendant is the sole legal owner of the plot. That copy of Relinquishment Deed was in possession of plaintiff since it was executed on 24.09.1992; that the plaintiff is a well educated government employee and he executed the Relinquishment Deed with his discretion. That the plaintiff has put his signature on every page of the said deed and also put his thumb impression before the independent witnesses; that all the executants affixed their photo on relinquishment deed and they appeared before the Sub-Registrar where the relinquishment deed was registered. That except plaintiff, no other executant has raised any objection for execution of relinquishment deed.
19. It was denied by the defendant that the plaintiff only appointed him as his Power of attorney for the purpose of attending the office of DDA and concerned authorities; it was also denied that the defendant obtained the signature of plaintiff on plain stamp paper by way of fraud.
20. It has been further submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff has not impleaded DDA and Delhi Administration as necessary parties to this suit.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:11:29 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-8/36 -9- Replication: -
21. Replication was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant wherein the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed.
Issues: -
22. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 20.05.2005: -
(1) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts? OPD (4) Whether the relinquishment deed dated 24.09.92 was got signed by the defendant from plaintiff by fraud, if so, its effect? OPP (5) Whether there is any validly executed relinquishment deed dated 24.09.1992, in favour of the defendant, if so, its effect? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed? OPP (7). Relief.
Consolidation of Two Suits of Plaintiff
23. By order dated 18.01.2007, the present suit was consolidated with another suit filed by the plaintiff which bore the suit no. Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:11:38 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-9/36 -10- 1292/06, titled Jage Ram v. DDA & Ors., since both the suits were related to the same suit property, matter in issue was also the same and the same witnesses were required to be examined in both the suits. Suit no. 1292/06, titled Jage Ram v. DDA & Ors. was designated as the main suit and evidence was also ordered to be led in the main suit. The defendant/Naresh Kumar is Defendant no. 2 in that suit.
24. The common and fundamental question which arose in both the suits was regarding the validity of Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992. In both the cases, the plaintiff assailed the execution of said Relinquishment deed as fraudulent, whereas the defendant asserted its validity. Therefore, the facts and pleadings in both the cases shall be read conjointly. The question of validity of said Relinquishment deed shall be decided in the present suit in this judgment and the findings thereupon shall be adopted for the purpose of separate judgment in the main suit bearing number 1292/06, titled Jage Ram v. DDA & Ors. (hereinafter referred to in short as "main suit" or "other suit").
Plaintiff Evidence: -
25. The plaintiff expired during the pendency of the suit, before the stage of Plaintiff Evidence. Upon his death, his Legal Representatives ("LRs" in short) were substituted, who Lalit by Digitally signed Lalit Kumar contested the case. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:11:44 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-10/36 -11- side examined three witnesses i.e. Sh. Mahender Singh as PW-1, Sh. Om Prakash as PW-2 and Sh. Amit Gaur as PW-3.
i) PW-1/Mahender Singh led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/1, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint in main suit. No documents were tendered by this witness. He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendant.
ii) PW-2/Om Prakash led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-2/A, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint in main suit. No documents were tendered by this witness either. He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendant.
iii) PW-3/Amit Gaur, who is the adopted son of the deceased Plaintiff, led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-3/A, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint in main suit. No documents were tendered by this witness either. He was also cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendant.
Defendant's Evidence: -
26. In defense evidence, the defendant examined himself as DW-2 (in the main suit) and tendered his evidence by way of Digitally Lalit signed by Lalit Kumar Date:
affidavit, which was Ex. DW-2/A, and reiterated the contents Kumar 2025.09.04 17:11:52 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-11/36 -12- of his written statement. DW-2 also relied upon certain documents which are as under: -
Identification Description
Mark
Ex.PW1/D1 Certified Copy of Relinquishment Deed
dated 24.09.1992 (already exhibited during cross-examination of PW1).
Ex.DW-2/1 Copy of allotment recommendation of alternative plot under the scheme of Large scale acquisition dated 30.04.1993 DW-2 was cross-examined by the counsel of the plaintiff at length.
27. DW-3 was Sh. Layak Ram, UDC in the office of Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. This witness brought the original Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992 executed by Smt. Maya Devi and 11 other persons in favor of Sh. Naresh Kumar/defendant. A copy of the Relinquishment Deed was tallied, stated to be correct and exhibited as Ex.DW-3/1 (OSR).
Analysis and Findings: -
28. This Court has heard the arguments from both parties and has carefully perused the record. The parties' respective pleadings and evidences tendered have been considered and the same are not being reproduced here in their entirety, for the sake of brevity. Before turning to the issue-wise findings, this court Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.09.04 17:11:58 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-12/36 -13- deems it necessary to address the issue of maintainability of present suit, as per S. 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("SRA" in short).
i. It is the case of the plaintiff (as stated in paragraph no.2 of the plaint) that before the filing of the present suit, an alternative plot was already allotted by the DDA in favour of the defendant. However, the plaintiff did not mention any details, such as, when the plot was allotted, what was the property/khasra number, location, description or site plan related to the allotted plot, in his plaint.
ii. In a gist, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is a co-sharer in this alternative plot and the defendant got the allotment of this alternative plot based solely on the Relinquishment Deed, which was executed by the plaintiff after a fraud was played on him by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has challenged the Relinquishment deed in the present suit and sought it to be declared null and void.
iii. The declaration of Relinquishment Deed as null & void will directly vitiate the allotment of the alternative plot in favor of Defendant and the alternative plot will have to be allotted afresh after consideration of the rights of all the legal heirs of the Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit original 3 co-sharers (i.e., 3 sons of the original Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:04 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-13/36 -14- owner/common ancestor Sh. Deeg Ram - 1. the Plaintiff, 2. Raja Ram and 3. Ram Chander). The matter will have to be reconsidered by the Land and Building Department and a fresh recommendation will have to be made in favour of new beneficiaries/Legal heirs. Therefore, this becomes the first consequential relief to the relief of declaration. Either in the present suit or in the main suit, the plaintiff has not sought the relief of reconsideration of matter by the Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, after cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed. Thus, present suit is hit by the bar of Proviso to S.34, SRA 1 since the plaintiff, despite being able to seek further relief, has not sought this relief and has merely sought a declaration of Relinquishment Deed as null and void.
iv. Further, since the alternative plot has been allotted to the defendant by the DDA and the defendant has spent money on the development of this plot (admitted by PW-1 in his cross examination dated 26.02.2008, conducted on behalf of Defendant), it is clear that the constructive and physical possession of entire alternative plot is with the defendant. Further, it Digitally signed by is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff is not Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:10 +0530 claiming any right or title on the entire suit property 1 "Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so."
Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-14/36 -15- in the main suit; he has only filed the main suit to establish his rights/title on his rightful share in the suit property. Thus, seeking a partition of alternative plot and possession of plaintiff's share become second and third consequential reliefs to the relief of declaration. However, the plaintiff has omitted to seek these consequential reliefs of partition and possession, despite being able to do so, and has filed the present suit merely seeking declaration of the Relinquishment Deed as null & void. Therefore, plaintiff's case is again hit by the bar of proviso to S. 34, SRA.
v. In view of above, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable under S.34, SRA.
29. Now, this court shall proceed to give its findings on the issues framed in the present case.
30. Issue No. 1 is - "Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? OPD". The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. The defendant has pleaded that all the legal heirs of Late Shri Raja Ram and Ram Chander (co-sharers with plaintiff in the land before acquisition) along with the two daughters of Sh. Deeg Ram (original owner/ancestor and father of Plaintiff) namely Surati Devi and Shanti Devi are also necessary parties to the present suit. This plea has been simply denied by the plaintiff in his replication, without Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:18 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-15/36 -16- further justifying not adding his two sisters and other legal heirs of his brothers, Late Shri Raja Ram and Ram Chander.
i. A bare perusal of the impugned Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992 shows that the same has been executed by 12 persons/releasors, including the plaintiff. It is a matter of record that the plaintiff did not implead other 11 executors/releasors either in this case or in the main suit. The 11 executors/releasors, apart from the plaintiff are:
a. Smt. Maya Devi w/o Late Ram Chander. b. Om Parkash and Mahender Singh - both sons of Late Ram Chander.
c. Roshni and Kaushyala - both daughters of late Ram Chander d. Shanti Devi and Sarto Devi - both daughters of late Shri Deeg Ram.
e. Basanti, w/o. Late Sh. Raja Ram.
f. Mani Ram, s/o Late Sh. Raja Ram.
g. Om Vati and Bala - both daughters of Late Sh. Raja Ram ii. The Relinquishment deed dated 24.09.1992 was executed by total 12 executors/releasors. The relinquishment deed affects the rights, title and interests of these 12 persons, apart from the defendant (in whose favour the said deed was executed).
Digitally Therefore, it was necessary for the plaintiff to implead signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:23 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-16/36 -17- other 11 executors/releasors either as plaintiffs or as defendants. The plaintiff cannot solely and unilaterally seek a declaration of Relinquishment Deed as null and void, when 11 other persons had also executed the same in favour of the defendant.
iii. The Law on the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties is well settled. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed".2 iv. As discussed above, it is a matter of record that Relinquishment deed has been executed by a total 12 executors/releasors, including the plaintiff. A specific objection was taken by the defendant in his written statement with regard to non-joinder of other legal heirs/executors of the Relinquishment Deed as necessary parties. Since 11 other executors/releasors executed the Relinquishment Deed, an effective decree declaring Relinquishment Deed as null & void cannot Digitally be passed without impleading them, since such a signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:29 +0530 2 Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 417. Reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Moreshar s/o Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) through LRs. and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 5755-5756 OF 2011.
Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-17/36 -18- decree would affect the rights of these 11 other executors/releasors. Even in spite of the defendant's objection, the plaintiff has chosen not to implead these 11 other executors/releasors either as plaintiffs or as defendants.
v. Accordingly, no effective decree of declaration can be passed in favour of the plaintiff in this case. The defendant has discharged his onus of proving this issue. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties, as well.
vi. Therefore, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
31. The issue no. 2 is - "Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD". The onus to prove this issue was also on the defendant. The defendant has taken the plea that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation since it was filed on 29.04.2002 whereas the plaintiff himself executed the relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant on 24.09.1992. It was argued that the period of limitation of 3 years' started from the date of execution of relinquishment deed on 24.09.1992 and therefore, the suit is time barred; it was also argued that the plaintiff has neither sought condonation of delay nor explained the delay caused in filing of present suit. This plea of defendant was also only simply denied by the plaintiff in his replication, without Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:34 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-18/36 -19- making any further submission to show how his suit was filed within limitation. The paragraph pertaining to the aspect of limitation is missing from the plaint. Thus, neither the plaint nor the replication explains how the plaintiff has counted the period of limitation for filing of present suit.
i. The only paragraph in plaintiff's pleading related to the aspect of limitation is paragraph no. 5, wherein, the plaintiff pleaded that "the plaintiff only come [sic] to know about the said relinquish [sic] deed when the defendant filed the written statement before the court of Smt. Madhu Jain Civil Judge Delhi." However, this paragraph is contradicted by the pleadings filed by the plaintiff in the main suit. In the main suit, filed in 2002, in paragraph no. 11, the plaintiff has pleaded that "The Deft. No. 2, obtained the signature of plaintiff on the plan [sic] stamp paper in good faith in the pretex [sic] to files [sic] the document in office of Deft. No. 1 for the purpose of allotment of the plot in the name of plaintiff of his share. The Deft. may have used these papers on behalf of the plaintiff for some other purpose. If any such document filed by the Deft. No.2, in the office of Deft. No.I, on behalf of plaintiff in regard of relinquish his share , that is Digitally totaly [sic] false and febricated [sic]..." (emphasis signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:40 +0530 supplied). Clearly, paragraph no. 11 of the plaint in Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-19/36 -20- the main suit shows that the plaintiff had prior knowledge about the existence of a document filed by the Defendant to show that the plaintiff had relinquished his share, 2 years before the filing of the present suit (since the main suit was filed in the year 2000 and present suit was filed in the year 2002). Thus, the plea of plaintiff alleging that he came to know about the existence of the Relinquishment Deed when the defendant filed his written statement in the main suit, is rejected as baseless, untrue and an afterthought.
ii. It is a matter of record that the Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992 is a registered document. It has been duly proved by the defendant by summoning the record from the office of Land and Building Department, Vikas Bhawan. DW3/Sh. Layak Ram, UDC brought the original Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992 and tallied the same with the copy placed on record and stated that the copy is correct. The copy of Relinquishment Deed was exhibited as Ex. DW-3/1 (OSR).
iii. The law is well settled that there is a presumption in law that a registered document has been validly executed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Digitally signed Lalit by Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:45 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-20/36 -21- has held in Prem Singh & Ors vs. Birbal & Ors.3 that "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."
iv. The relinquishment deed was executed and registered in the year 1992. There is a presumption the same was validly executed. The Relinquishment Deed bears the signature and thumb impressions of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff had knowledge about the said relinquishment deed from the date of its execution, i.e., 24.09.1992. The present suit was filed in the year 2002, i.e., after a lapse of almost 10 years. The period of limitation prescribed by Articles 56 & 58, Limitation Act, 1963 is that of three years. There is a delay of more than 6 years in filing the present suit. This substantial delay has not been explained by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the present suit is liable to be dismissed under S. 3, Limitation Act, 1963.
v. Therefore, the issue no. 2 is also decided in Digitally signed by favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.09.04 17:12:50 +0530 3 AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3608.
Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-21/36 -22-
32. Issue no. 3 is - "Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts? OPD". Onus to prove was on the defendant. The only pleadings made by the defendant in support of this issue are that firstly, the plaintiff concealed the fact that he had already filed civil suit no. 96/2000 on 06.03.2000 for permanent injunction against the defendant and DDA; and secondly, that the suit related to agricultural land; and falls within the purview of the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, which clearly bar the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.
i. However, a complete reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has in fact mentioned in paragraph 3 of his plaint about the fact of filing and pendency of the main suit.
ii. The submission regarding suit being related to agricultural land, applicability of Delhi Land Reforms, Act and bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, appears to be non-serious and without merit. Present suit is not pertaining to any land or immovable property, it is a suit seeking declaration of Relinquishment Deed as null and void. Further, no detailed submissions were made by the defendant side to show applicability of Delhi Land Reforms Act; and how the present suit falls under Schedule I of the said act to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Prima facie, the Delhi Land Reforms Act is not Digitally signed by applicable to the facts of the present case. Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.09.04 17:12:56 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-22/36 -23- iii. Thus, issue no. 3 is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
33. The next two issues i.e., issue no. 4 and issue no. 5 are the main crux of the present suit. These two issues shall be discussed together since they are pertaining to the relinquishment deed and are connected to each other in the way that a decision on one issue will automatically decide the other issue. Issue no. 4 is "Whether the relinquishment deed dated 24.09.92 was got signed [sic] by the defendant from plaintiff by fraud, if so, its effect? OPP". Issue no. 5 is "Whether there is any validly executed relinquishment deed dated 24.09.1992, in favour of the defendant, if so, its effect? OPD". The onus of proof for issue no. 4 is on the plaintiff and that for issue no. 5 is on the defendant. Thus, it was for the plaintiff to prove that fraud was played by the defendant in getting signatures of the plaintiff on the Relinquishment Deed; and it was for the defendant to prove that the Relinquishment Deed was validly executed.
i. On these issues, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant obtained the signature of plaintiff on the plain stamp paper by fraud, on the pretext to file the same in the office of DDA for the purpose of allotment of the plot in the name of the plaintiff of his share. The plaintiff does not deny either his signature or thumb impression present on Digitally signed by the relinquishment deed. The plaintiff has taken this Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:13:01 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-23/36 -24- ground of signing "plain stamp papers" in the main suit as well as the present suit.
ii. However, the plaintiff himself contradicts his stance in the replications filed by him in the main suit as well as in the present suit. In the replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of Defendant no.2/Naresh Kumar (defendant in the present case) in the main suit, the plaintiff has averred in paragraph no.3 of "reply on merits"
that the "answering defendant received the signature of [sic] Relinquishment Deed from the plaintiff on the pretext that he will persue [sic] the matter of the plot on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never came to the know that the defendant received the signature on relinquishment deed."
(emphasis supplied). Further, again, in paragraph number 11, the plaintiff has averred that "the plaintiff cannot read & write in English and was not aware that the defendant getting his signature on Relinquishment Deed by fraud"
(emphasis supplied). In both these paragraphs, the plaintiff does not allege that his signatures were taken on "plain stamp papers". Further, averments made in paragraph 11 clearly show that when the plaintiff signed the document, it was a complete document; otherwise the justification of not being able to read and write in English would not have arisen.
Digitally signed by iii. Again, in his replication filed to the written statement Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar of Defendant no. 3 & 4 in the main suit, the plaintiff avers Kumar 2025.09.04 17:13:13 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-24/36 -25- in paragraph no. 3 of 'reply to the preliminary objections' that "the signature on the Relinquishment Deed as mentioned were received by fraud by the defendant no.2 on the pretext of Power of Attorney" (emphasis supplied). Further, in his replication filed in the present suit, in paragraph no.1 of 'Reply on Merits', the plaintiff has averred that "the relinquishment deed was obtained by the defendant by their fraud, on the pretext of power of attorney, on behalf of plaintiff, to attend the office of L & B in regard of alternative plot" (emphasis supplied). Here, the plaintiff has not alleged that his signatures were taken on "plain stamp papers". Here, the plaintiff is taking the plea that he was under the impression that he is signing a 'Power of Attorney'. In either case, the plaintiff does not deny his signatures and further corroborates that when he signed the document, it was a complete document and not "plain stamp papers".
iv. From the discussion in three preceding paragraphs, it is clear that the plaintiff's justification that he signed the "plain stamp papers" is unreliable and unsubstantiated. It is further evident that he had in fact signed a complete document.
v. It is again pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff expired during the pendency of the suit, before the stage of Digitally signed by Plaintiff Evidence. The witnesses produced by the LRs of Lalit Lalit Kumar plaintiff do not support the case of the plaintiff to prove Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:13:20 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-25/36 -26- that the plaintiff had signed on blank/plain stamp papers. PW-1 was Mahender Singh, s/o Ram Chander, who was also one of the 12 executors/releasors who had executed the Relinquishment Deed. In his cross examination, he identified his own signatures and photograph on the Ex.PW1/D1 (which is the Relinquishment Deed); he testified that he had signed on the documents to authorise defendant no.2 to deal with the matter regarding alternative allotment; he testified that all the persons (including the plaintiff) mentioned in the Ex.PW1/D1 had signed on it and all the signatories (including the plaintiff) had appeared before the sub-registrar (for registration of the document). Apart from this, he simply denied that the LRs including the plaintiff had relinquished their shares in favour of the defendant vide registered relinquishment deed. PW-1 did not depose that either he or any of the other signatories signed on the "plain stamp papers". Thus, the testimony of PW-1 defeats the plaintiff's ground of signing "plain stamp papers"; proves that all the signatories, including the plaintiff, had signed on a complete document; and further proves valid execution and registration of the Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992.
vi. PW-2 was Om Prakash, s/o Ram Chander, was also one of the 12 executors/releasors who had executed the Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Kumar Date:
2025.09.04 Relinquishment Deed. In his cross examination, he 17:13:26 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-26/36 -27- deposed that he had not seen the signatures of the plaintiff, Jage Ram, in any document; denied executing any document in favour of the defendant; denied executing any power of attorney in favour of defendant; admitted that he did not know all the contents of his evidence affidavit; denied accompanying the defendant to the Registrar office with his family; denied knowledge of any document on whose basis the DDA had allotted the alternative plot to the defendant; admitted not lodging any complaint in the office of Sub-Registrar after getting knowledge of the relinquishment deed. The testimony of PW-2 does not help the plaintiff in establishing any fact in his favour. The testimony of PW-2 mostly consists of simple denial or lack of knowledge about the facts put to him in his cross- examination.
vii. PW-3 was Amit Gaur, who was the adopted son of the plaintiff. In his cross examination, PW-3 admitted that no relinquishment deed was executed in his presence; that his father (plaintiff) had told him that his signatures were obtained fraudulently on the power of attorney on the pretext to sell the property; that he did not know how many family members signed the relinquishment deed; he did not know the place where the signature of plaintiff were obtained on the relinquishment deed. A perusal of the testimony of PW-3 shows that he did not have any direct, first-hand knowledge about the facts pertaining to either Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:13:33 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-27/36 -28- the main suit or the present case; he deposed on the basis of hearsay; and pleaded ignorance on several questions asked during his cross-examination. Thus, the testimony of PW-3 does not support the case of the plaintiff, in any manner.
viii. The defendant's witness, i.e., DW-2/Naresh Kumar (defendant) was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff. During his cross examination, DW-2 denied the suggestion that Jage Ram never executed any relinquishment deed in his favour; he further denied the suggestion that he got signatures of Late Sh. Jage Ram (plaintiff) on the pretext of allotment of subject property from DDA in favour of all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Dig Ram and misused the same. He further denied the suggestion that the question of executing RD by the plaintiff does not arise at all as he had children and did not get any consideration; he also denied the suggestion that he had fabricated the relinquishment deed fraudulently in his favour by duping the plaintiff. Nothing substantial comes out from the cross-examination of DW-2, to support the case of the plaintiff. Mere suggestions were put to the witness, which he simply denied. Therefore, the cross- examination of DW-2 also does not help the plaintiff in any manner.
34. The Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992 is a registered Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.09.04 17:13:38 +0530 document. The law is well settled that there is a presumption Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-28/36 -29- in law that a registered document has been validly executed and such a document cannot be discarded or disregarded lightly by the Court on cursory pleas of the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Prem Singh & Ors vs. Birbal & Ors.4 that "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."
35. Further, it is also well settled that to prove the fraud, "the required standard of proof is extremely high and is equivalent to evidence required to prove a criminal case, i.e. proved beyond reasonable doubt. Order VI Rule 4, CPC provides that fraud has to be pleaded by giving particulars of the fraud. The fraud cannot be assumed by the Court only on the basis of inferences. The fraud cannot be inferred by the Courts merely on the basis of suspicion. A document registered in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908 has presumption of correctness. A higher degree of presumption is available to a registered document. The Courts cannot infer/assume fraud howsoever strong the suspicion may be, in absence of concrete and cogent evidence in support thereof".5
36. In the present case, the plaintiff has neither led any concrete or cogent evidence to prove fraud, nor produced any oral or Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:13:46 4 AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3608.
5 Jaipal v. Vidhya Devi and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1972.
+0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-29/36 -30- documentary evidence to rebut the presumption regarding the validity of the registered Relinquishment Deed. Thus, the plaintiff has not been able to establish that the execution of the Relinquishment Deed was fraudulent. Consequently, it appears that his plea was merely an afterthought, devised solely to avoid the Relinquishment Deed.
37. The pleas of the plaintiff that he signed on the Relinquishment Deed on the pretext of being a 'Power of Attorney'; or that he could not read & write English and did not know that the defendant was getting his signatures on the relinquishment deed are also untenable in law. It is a settled position that 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 Courts are cautious while entertaining challenges to registered documents at the behest of the executant as the impact of the registered documents affects third parties, who transact relying upon the same. The Court would be unwilling to permit an executant to resile from the binding nature of a Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
registered document on tenuous pleas.6 Kumar 2025.09.04 17:13:54 +0530 6 Amena Bal vs Aminder Singh Bal, Judgment dated 30th December, 2024 in CS(OS) 488/2022, delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-30/36 -31-
38. As per S.114, illustration (e), Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Since the Relinquishment Deed is a registered document, there is a presumption that at the time of registration, Sections 32 & 34 of the Indian Registration Act, were complied with. Thus, there is a presumption that at the time of the execution of the Relinquishment Deed, the plaintiff (and all the other executants) appeared in person before the Registrar, affirmed before the Registrar that they had signed the documents and only after complying with such statutory requirements, the Relinquishment Deed was registered. There is no explanation from the Plaintiff side about how the Relinquishment Deed came to be registered. Further, there is no evidence to rebut this presumption, either. Therefore, this further bolsters the presumption in favour of validity of the Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992 (Ex. PW-3/1).
39. In view of the above discussion, the issue no. 4 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant. Consequently, the issue no. 5 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
40. The final issue, i.e., the issue no. 6 is "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed? OPP" . The onus of proving this issue was on the plaintiff. In view of the discussion above and decisions on the issues no. 1 to 5, the Digitally plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge the burden cast upon signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.09.04 17:14:00 +0530 him to prove his case. The issues pertaining to the Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-31/36 -32- maintainability of the present suit as well as the issues on merits - have been decided against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of declaration against the Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992, as prayed by the plaintiff. Therefore, issue no. 6 is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Relief: -
41. Five out of Six issues have been decided against the plaintiff.
The decision on issue no. 3 in favour of the plaintiff is inconsequential for the purpose of the present suit. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Cost: -
42. It is evident that the present suit, instituted by the plaintiff, was devoid of any cause of action from its very inception. Despite this, the plaintiff side has pursued this litigation for more than 23 years. The original plaintiff had expired in 2003 and his LRs were substituted thereafter. The LRs have also pursued this case for over two decades. The record demonstrates that the plaintiff had approached this Court after a lapse of more than 10 years from the date on which his alleged cause of action had arisen. The suit was thus hopelessly barred by limitation since the day it was filed. This substantial delay further shows that the claim of fraud in the execution of the Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.1992 was a Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:14:07 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-32/36 -33- mere afterthought and lacked credibility since inception. Despite this fatal defect, the plaintiff side persisted in prosecuting the matter for over twenty-three years without placing a single piece of cogent evidence on record to substantiate their claim. This Court cannot ignore the fact that for more than two decades, the judicial time and resources have remained engaged in this matter, unnecessarily. The pendency of plaintiff's meritless, frivolous and uncalled-for case not only burdened the Court for over two decades but also resulted in prolonged hardship to the defendant, who was forced to contest a suit that ought not to have been entertained in the first place. Such conduct of the plaintiff side amounts to an abuse of the process of law and a wastage of previous judicial time & resources.
43. Civil Courts cannot be permitted to be reduced to mere forums for speculative claims, enabling unscrupulous litigants to take a chance and misuse the process of law and escape accountability when their suits fail. Frivolous litigation, such as the present, has the effect of choking the Courts, delaying justice to bona fide litigants, and undermining public confidence in the efficacy of the judicial process. It is therefore necessary for this Court to take a stern view in order to deter similar meritless, frivolous and uncalled-for litigation in the future.
44. In this regard, this Court is emboldened by the Digitally signed by pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.09.04 17:14:14 +0530 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-33/36 -34- well as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein the Hon'ble Superior Courts have consistently held that frivolous litigation must be visited with imposition of heavy costs and, in appropriate cases, even prosecution, so as to preserve the purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. Briefly stating, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India7, underscored the necessity of imposing realistic costs to curb frivolous litigation. Similarly, in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi8, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that imposition of actual and punitive costs is essential to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the judicial system. Further, in Vinod Seth v. Devender Bajaj & Anr.9, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that the costs "should act as a deterrent to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations or defences. The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such, as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious, frivolous or speculative claim or defence...Costs should provide adequate indemnity to the successful litigant for the expenditure incurred by him for the litigation. This necessitates the award of actual costs of litigation as contrasted from nominal or fixed or unrealistic costs." (emphasis supplied) Further, a full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr. Lrs.& Ors.10 approved the observations made Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 7 (2005) 6 SCC 344.
8 (2011) 8 SCC 249.
17:14:18 +0530 9 (2010) 8 SCC 1.
10 2012 (5) SCC 370.
Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-34/36 -35- in the Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (supra) judgement qua imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs after observing that false claims and defences in real estate litigation are rampant due to escalating property values and delays in adjudication; unscrupulous litigants often prolong such cases to pressure the other side into costly settlements; and adopting a pragmatic approach can help curb this problem significantly.
Lastly, this Court is also guided by the observations in paragraph no.19(ii) of order dated 08.01.2018 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Praveen Saini v. Reetu Kapur & Anr.11, wherein the Hon'ble Court has differentiated between the compensatory costs awarded U/Ss. 35 and 35A, CPC and the costs imposed on a litigant for filing a false litigation, abusing the process of law and wasting judicial time. The Hon'ble Court has observed that -
"the power to impose costs in terms of Section 35 CPC is on account of costs incurred by a party, but there is no provision in CPC for imposition of costs on a person for initiating a completely false litigation and claim, abusing the process of law and causing gross wastage of judicial time. With respect to the abuse of judicial process and with respect to filing of false claims since the issue is not covered by Section 35 CPC, the same would Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar therefore be covered by Section 151 CPC under Date:
Kumar 2025.09.04 17:14:23 +0530
11 Order dated 8th January, 2018 in RFA No. 21/2018.
Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-35/36 -36- the inherent powers of this Court." (emphasis supplied)
45. In view of above mentioned circumstances and legal pronouncements, this Court is of the considered view that imposition of exemplary costs is justified. Accordingly, in exercise of discretion under S.35 and 35A, CPC as well as the inherent power vested in this court under S.151, CPC, the plaintiff side is burdened with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), to be paid to the defendant side. The Legal Representatives of the plaintiff/Sh. Jage Ram shall be liable to pay this cost to the Legal Representatives of the defendant/Sh. Naresh Kumar, within 1 month from the date of this judgement. This cost is not only compensatory in nature but is also intended to deter future frivolous, vexatious and time- barred litigations that waste the judicial time and abuse the process of law.
46. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
47. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally signedLalit by Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 17:14:31 2025.09.04 +0530 (This judgment contains 36 pages and each page (LALIT KUMAR) has been signed by the undersigned) Civil Judge-02, West, Announced in the open Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 04.09.2025 Suit No.607478/2016 Jage Ram Vs. Naresh Kumar Page-36/36